Notes #9 From Frost to NPR

 

Today on the radio I had the urge to listen to NPR.  I don’t know what inspired me to do so, but I’m glad I did.  I caught an interview segment and a very topical one at that.  The NPR journalist was interviewing Cubans in Florida.  Cubans in Florida are a perennial fascination for the media complex because of their abnormal political leanings, at least they are abnormal for Mestizos.  Typically Cubans vote majority Republican.  As was noted by NPR in recent years they have shifted left, to the point they vote 50-50.

NPR briefly mentioned children and recent immigrants and I would suspect that we are seeing the same sort of trends from Cuba as we see from the rest of the Mestizo immigrants.  The children of Cubans generation by generation are more and more connected with our culture OR should I say the Brahmin or Dalit culture and therefore become progressive or thuggish.  Recent immigrants, probably, are less likely to come from the upper and middle classes, and therefore are not fleeing communist tyranny but seeking a richer master.  That is my best guess on the reasons behind this shift.

The interview was with a seemingly Republican Cuban. Here is the transcript but I’ve selected the most interesting bits.  Apologies for the presentist content, I swear I will eschew it where possible.

GREENE: May I ask you about some of the allegations that have come out about sexual misconduct? A lot of women have come forward and said that they feel that they were sexually harassed by Donald Trump. He has denied this very strongly. But has any of that led you to doubt him?

RUIZ: Well, what I do find doubtful is at this point in his life, after 70 years and not a hint of any allegations from any of those women, it takes about four weeks before a presidential election for that to come out. It doesn’t make sense that there’s never been an allegation against him until he decided to run for president.

GREENE: So the news organizations who have brought these out have, you know, say that they’ve done lots of fact checking to confirm that they’re true. But you seem to be saying that there’s something orchestrated happening in your mind potentially?

RUIZ: That’s what it feels like from, you know, just a regular person’s point of view. Nobody knows, I guess, until that gets a real investigation. I’m not talking about the media, you understand? To me, the media is not – it’s not a reliable source anymore. It’s not credible. So if there was a criminal investigation, that I would trust.

GREENE: Donald Trump has gone so far as to use the term rigged when talking about this election. What do you make of that word?

RUIZ: I do believe there’s a lot of voter fraud. I don’t know, you know, who’s doing it. I don’t know how much of it and I don’t know if it’s enough to influence the election. Certainly, there have been issues of voter fraud in the past, whether it’s illegal immigrants voting. I know a lot of people – illegal immigrants they just found out that were given citizenship that shouldn’t have been and they could vote in the election. So things like that happen. And that’s, you know, a scary thought that that can go on.

GREENE: I guess I just want to make it – it’s such a – it’s a sensitive issue to bring up the idea of illegal immigrants voting when they shouldn’t be allowed to. You know, I guess I wonder if that is actually happening, if it’s just a very isolated case and not something that would sway an election.

RUIZ: And I don’t know. The only thing I can tell you is there should definitely be some sort of an investigation into it. It’s not OK. And, you know, I mean, you see third-world countries where elections are rigged. But this is the United States of America. That should not be happening.

GREENE: Are you worried that if that charge is made – and Donald Trump sort of suggested what you’re saying at the first debate – that if he does indeed lose that people will look around and try to seek out people they see as illegal immigrants and try to blame them or, you know, lash out at them for…

RUIZ: No.

GREENE: …The results.

RUIZ: No, I think – you know, I think the media looks at Republicans and paints them as these crazy people. And I think it’s quite frankly the opposite. I think a lot of what’s been happening during this election, a lot of the Republicans and conservatives that support Trump are being targeted. I think the whole election is so contentious right now and the country’s so divided and it’s so ugly. But, yeah, I don’t have a fear of anyone from the right – from conservatives targeting illegal immigrants that way. No, that’s not something that I’m worried about. –Annie Ruiz interview NPR

What is striking about this conversation is not the issues at hand.  Moldbug does address the issue of voter fraud here.  Here is a more recent take, which in my opinion is important just for outlining the functions of the Cathedral or more specifically Moldbug’s River of Meat.  The issue at hand is the conversation surrounding these phrases. The phrases “Voter fraud”, and “illegal immigrants” seem to have an effect on the poor NPR reporter.  Why?

Let us start with the most obvious explanation: these are phrases that are just not said.  They smack of Amerikaner thede.  They are the icky mean words of the uneducated.  A Brahmin would never speak of voter fraud, except if it was about Bush, and they would prefer the phrase undocumented immigrants.  But the NPR reporter isn’t talking to an icky Amerikaner, they are talking to a Helot who has adopted aspects of the Amerikaner worldview.  The reporter can’t outright attack her on radio, he has to gently make a suggestion: perhaps this sort of language might lead to violence (against the wrong sort of people of course).

Here’s the first hint something comes through in the language.  On any normal occasion a member of the Cathedral would sit uncontested on their pulpit and state that there is “no evidence of voter fraud and that the phrase illegal immigrants and that we are a nation of immigrants…etc”.  This poor NPR reporter isn’t uncontested though, he has to seem neutral, and he can’t easily set the frame.

Something about the way the interview with struck me.  David Greene (from NPR) seems to be used to call and response or at the very least being able to bend people’s will.  It should not be surprising to anyone that political language is very canned.  Thedeish language has a richer repertoire, but certainly one can infer a person’s thede from their political language.  David Greene wanted Annie Ruiz to speak out against accusations of rigging the election.  That was the intent of his call, his question. Greene presumed that despite whatever political leanings she had she would understand the implicit attack on her thede.  Greene expected something reflexive or perhaps canned like this “Why Trump’s ‘rigged election’ claims are wrong and dangerous” where PBS sees fit to grab another Cuban (Al Cardenas) this time to “debunk” Trump’s claims.  Obviously some random voter isn’t going to memorize the entire script, however they are expected to retain some key phrases and attitudes.  “Dangerous” and “wrong” to pick some examples.

Nobody watches PBS though at best they read the headlines or watch John Oliver.  These are not politically sophisticated people.

“John Oliver on How Trump’s Claim of a ‘Rigged’ Election Is ‘Legitimately Dangerous’”

Here again one can just read a headline or watch a comedian to a skit and get THE message.  In less than 140 characters or 5 minutes of watch time we have established the narrative.  To claim the elections are rigged is to be a morally corrupt person and to invite danger.  David Greene knows this that is why he cannot leave Annie Ruiz’s answer as is.  Annie Ruiz has said something dangerous.

For some reason there is a fundamental assumption that there is a hidden violence in the American public.  This is nothing particularly new or unprecedented.  There is a threat here but we don’t have to accept the framing.

I’d say a fair definition of an Orwellian government is one whose principle of public legitimacy (Mosca‘s political formula, if you care) is contradicted by an accurate perception of reality. In other words, the government is existentially dependent on systematic public deception. If it fails in its mission to keep the lie alive, it at least stands some chance of falling.  –Moldbug

So there is an open question is Anne Ruiz’s fear legitimate?  Is her fear have some truth to it? Who is accurately perceiving reality  David Greene or Annie Ruiz?

GREENE: I guess I just want to make it – it’s such a – it’s a sensitive issue to bring up the idea of illegal immigrants voting when they shouldn’t be allowed to. You know, I guess I wonder if that is actually happening, if it’s just a very isolated case and not something that would sway an election. –Annie Ruiz interview NPR

Is it actually happening?  The legitimacy of American democracy is dependent on there being the perception of fair and unmolested election process.  As indicated both in Moldbug’s Adore the River of Meat and even more plainly in this undercover video: voter fraud is very real.  If it is real why would the suggestion be dangerous John Oliver?  Why would the truth be dangerous?  Wouldn’t we want to asses the possibility that this truth could change the results of an election (what if the Republicans are doing it too)?  I’ll let Moldbug answer this question as this passage could have easily been addressed to Annie Ruiz as anyone else:

Still, look on the bright side.  Your poor guy didn’t get elected.  You would have felt like a big winner, but putting a Republican in the White House is like electing a Protestant pope.  An even bigger joke.  A joke of such stupendous magnitude that perhaps it’s not even funny at all.

What’s neat about this system is that in a sense, it is actually more logical than the old Norman Rockwell America that Republicans want to take us back to – you know, the republican Republic, in which elections are decided by philosophical debates among stalwart pillars of the community.  As though we lived in ancient Rome, or 17th-century Massachusetts, or something.  Do we?  Come on, Republicans – do we?  Is this really the reality-based community?

No, in the reality-based community, elections are decided by Middle Eastern Hispanics.  Or more exactly, whoever can bus more Middle Eastern Hispanics to the booth.  Or more exactly, elections are decided by who has power.  Does it really matter whether all these Vietnamese Hondurans actually exist?  They are not stalwart philosophers – they are numbers in a computer.  If they exist, they exist to make the number bigger.  If they don’t exist, their purpose and meaning is the same. –Moldbug

Somewhere between Tammany Hall and the present we started to pretend that democracy was a game of ideas and not numbers.  Maybe there have been elections between the last gasps of Tammany and the present which were actually decided by real voters who showed up themselves or weren’t bribed or otherwise “helped”.  Yet in the post-1965 world especially, our betters have decided that it is much easier to import voters than to convince them.  if-only-____-voted

If we had left it to the natives (especially the males) we’d have far too many “Protestant popes”.  It is obvious that extending the franchise via amendments or importation of meat puppets is going to dilute the votes of the tax paying class.  This is the most obvious reason a reporter from NPR does not wish to address the problem of voter fraud.  There is however a deeper issue one which appears if we refer back to David Greene.  Let’s look at his response to Annie Ruiz again:

GREENE: Are you worried that if that charge is made – and Donald Trump sort of suggested what you’re saying at the first debate – that if he does indeed lose that people will look around and try to seek out people they see as illegal immigrants and try to blame them or, you know, lash out at them for… –Annie Ruiz interview NPR

Violence?  David Greene is suggesting that if reality is accurately perceived by the wrong people that there will be violence.  Annie Ruiz is not worried about this, she perceives accurately that Amerikaners are have not been prone to political violence in recent times.  That may or may not change but she’s on point.  So why does David Greene believe there will be violence?  Is it simply that he is mistaken, is it projection?  Let’s look an older case and examine this charge of kulak political violence.

47 years ago Sir David Frost interviewed Enoch Powell.  Enoch had just led a rally and had already given his infamous “Rivers of Blood Speech.”  The quotes here (from the Frost interview with Enoch) should be considered paraphrases. Note that quotes shown together are not necessarily adjacent but chosen individually in chronological order to address the issues at hand.   I tried to stay as true as possible the the original interview but I’m afraid I’m not as patient as most transcribers.  To begin Frost is playing a game with Enoch and Enoch isn’t playing along.

“What about things we’ve done that we [Enoch Powell] shouldn’t have done?” -Frost

“…an episode you’d like to rewrite, phrase you’d like to retract?” -Frost

“what about the two inevitably in my mind will come to some of the phrases you used in the two speeches on immigration?  Is there anything in either of those you’d like to rephrase or withdraw?” -Frost

Frost asks three questions again meant to lead Enoch to his desired response.  He wants Enoch to apologize for his Rivers of Blood speech or some portion thereof.  Why?

“but basically in the last resort you were exaggerating the problem not saying there isn’t one,you were exaggerating and I think in the long run making it worse…” -Frost

“I’m not saying your weren’t talking about real feelings, maybe unformulated, maybe formulated in what I regard as some unfortunate way..” -Frost

“…you were dealing here with an area which is terribly difficult because when an area of ignorance and an area of fear and so on…you were dealing with dynamite” -Frost

Since Frost can’t get him to apologize on the language he wants Enoch to apologize for implying that these situation were typical (in other words “exaggerating”).  Frost takes the word out of context to imply Enoch meant that it was common everywhere for immigrants to abuse natives.  What Enoch meant was that in his constituency, a place where natives are being displaced by immigrants, it was common.  Frost’s charge, like David’s is that this sort of language is dangerous (like a match to dynamite).  Frost is claiming, like David, that the kulak class could be incited to racial violence by these words.  He further gaslights the natives in these areas by implying that the very people living with these immigrants are ignorant and fearful and that their feelings are invalid.  Why did Enoch refer to incidents of conflict and strife in these areas?

“now in order to bring home to the vast majority of people who have no direct experience of what happens where the immigrant population extends it was necessary to reflect.  To reflect the mood the experiences the feelings of those people who do live in those areas.” -Enoch Powell

Enoch is making a point common to many of us today.  It is often the people who have the most experience with immigrants, minorities etc. that are most familiar with the negative externalities they create.  If the majority of natives are to understand the experience of being a minority in their own country they have to reflect on the experiences of others the good and bad.  In other words they need an accurate accounting of this experience.  Anecdotes, while not always scientific, give people the emotional connection to understand other’s experiences in the way that more scientific statistics do not.

“Do you really disbelieve that in the areas where the immigrant population is taking over.  And I use the word quite neutrally.  One street, one area after another. Do you doubt that over and over and over again experiences like these are suffered by women exactly like that person.  If you don’t then go and ask the Police…read the Milner Holland report of what…four or five years ago on housing in London.” -Enoch Powell

“I can only tell you that you simply have no knowledge of the realities of these areas.” -Enoch Powell

Enoch points out the obvious, Frost wishes to disbelieve these reports.  He hasn’t gone to these areas and he’s not going to.  He wishes to diminish these reports as a reflection of reality.  A reality that has become all too obvious in 2016 U.K.

“I’ve referred you to reports.” -Enoch Powell

Enoch was of course not merely referring to anecdotes as Frost implies but also to the Milner Holland reports on London which Frost never addresses.

“If you spread this sort of thing in this sort of incendiary atmosphere you know that you are throwing the match..” -Frost

“Now the gunpowder in this case is the pent up fear and anxiety for the future of the native population which sees the extending of the numbers and area of the immigrants.” -Enoch

Here is the crux of the issue.  Enoch is not telling the people of his constituency anything they do not already know.  He is putting it in context, and giving life to their words by allowing them to perceive the validity of their feelings.  Frost, of course, denying that these people have valid feelings which correspond to reality accused Enoch of inducing an unreality which will lead to violence.

“But when you’ve got a situation in this country where there is a vast reservoir of fear and ignorance justified because people don’t know they haven’t met and so on  and when they do meet there’s always a period of adjustment.  You can do two things with that fear.  You can exploit it as Hitler did against a minority, or you can attempt to educate…” -Frost

Again Frost is gas-lighting the natives.  Obviously people who live with immigrants have met them, and are aware of their negative externalities.

“You prefer to assume it…..alright it fits what people wish to believe but it doesn’t fit what I know about the attitude and outlook of those men.” -Enoch Powell

Enoch is right, both David Greene and Frost wish to believe that these issues are only figments of the native’s imaginations.

“We’ve got to go through this painful period of adjustment.” -Frost

This is a painful interview to watch but Enoch holds himself very well and indeed provides many many quotable moments.  I’ve left out many of these that aren’t relevant to the topic at hand but it is worth it if you can stand Frost’s sniveling smug face.

I’ll end my selection on this note.  Frost clearly has some stake in this.  That is to say if we must go through this period, then we must bring in the immigrants.  He tries to downplay their impact and numbers.  But again why expect the violence?  Frost presumes that if the natives accurately perceive reality there will be violence.  The natives already know what is happening to them though.  Given his language I believe Frost already knows how they FEEL.  What Frost and David Greene are worried about are the rest of the natives, who haven’t experience the wonders of diversity first hand figuring it out.  They spread that fear to their listeners by painting the natives as potentially violent.  If the natives are potentially violent their voices and emotions must be suppressed.  If you end up sounding like the natives you are also spreading violence.  Why wouldn’t Frost and David Greene wish for their audience to share their deepest fears?  For if there indeed a problem with immigration, then what of those that cheered it on?   Enoch knew what Annie Ruiz does: the natives were not particularly prone to political or racial violence.  What Frost and David Greene are worried about (whether they know it or not) is the natives accurately perceiving reality.

The basic premise of UR is that all the competing 20th-century systems of government, including the Western democracies which came out on top and which rule us to this day, are best classified as Orwellian. They maintain their legitimacy by shaping public opinion. They shape public opinion by sculpting the information presented to the public. As part of that public, you peruse the world through a lens poured by your government. Ie: you are pwned. –Moldbug

Returning to our prophet Enoch Powell let us see what words so sparked Frost’s ire.

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. –Enoch Powell
Enoch has a strong start, indeed statesmanship requires judgement.  Judgement requires foresight.  Foresight requires a sense of the things that could be, even if they have yet to fully reveal themselves.  Perhaps Enoch is too soft on his critics for as Moldbug would state: they do not fear that if people say something it will happen, they doubt and fear the reality before them.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after. –Enoch Powell

This is the one of the most eloquent renderings of the phenomena of the “silent majority”.  The natives in the invaded areas can see the problem around them.  They, being more vulnerable, are the first to sense it.  On occasion a populist, simply someone who speaks what is common sense, puts into words what the people cannot articulate.  This is to say in an Orwellian state, a populist is someone who can articulate the realities (or some reasonable approximation) that the state wishes to hide and the population wishes to address.  They are hated because in an Orwellian state the power of the elite is dependent on lies.  Therefore it is high status to lie, and anyone who dares tell the truth is either a kulak or in Enoch’s case a traitor to his class.  Like any traitor Enoch inspired nothing but the wrath of his equals.

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.-Enoch Powell

The future is an uncertain thing.  History teaches us that there is no guarantee that tomorrow will indeed be better.  That is why judgement is required to navigate the possibilities of the state.  This Englishman was not wrong, perhaps his life improved but for millions of his countrymen it has indeed become a dark future.

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen. –Enoch Powell

Enoch Powell saw only the tip of the spear that would be “Asian” (most importantly Islamic) immigration to the U.K.  Certainly many a modern observer decry the insanity which has struck the British Isles.  For some reason this had to happen.

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. –Enoch Powell

For give me reordering this one passage, but I though it answered the natural question of why were they so mad.  The Whig revolution that once crossed the Atlantic came back to Britain again.  The American conception of a nation of immigrants, which itself didn’t become popular till 1960, became the western world’s conception of itself.  This made even less sense in Britain where than in the original fallacious American context.  The same language of inevitability that plagues America ushered forth from Frost’s mouth.

nation of immigrants.PNG

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. –Enoch Powell

This plays on an important theme that I will touch on later.  The purpose of education and voice.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.-Enoch Powell

Enoch is here (and in the above selection) talking about anti-discrimination legislation like the kind seen in the U.S. in the 60’s.  Naturally Britain wants to join the party and is even importing its own voting class to uplift with privileges.  It is one thing to import a violent and thedeish underclass, it is quite another to privilege them against the natives.  I’m quite sure that a large part of the anger in either country is caused by the accelerated and unnecessary dispossession of the natives.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. –Enoch Powell

Clearly the persecution of unfashionable opinions is nothing new.  Enoch Powell got the worst of it, however before he ever made his speech he was receiving anonymous letters.  It is not hard to compare anxiety leading to anonymous letters to the explosion of pseudonyms in the last decade.  Frost was not ahead of the curve, but riding the wave.  The persecution preceded Enoch, but more importantly the anger and fear preceded Enoch.  Far from the projections of the Whigs, conservative populists do not foment anger and resentment but formalize it.  The poor English living in those neighborhoods invaded by foreigners didn’t need to be told how to feel.  They felt their future threatened.  They felt the hatred and alienation and dispossession in THEIR neighborhoods.  The conservative populist only formalizes, formulates and polishes those sentiments.  Yet by the time Enoch had spoken against these issues the war was already lost.  The media had already made it’s decisions, the politicians would soon follow suit and somewhere deep within a university a professor was feeling a bit of exuberance before racing off to the next project.

There was something that Frost knew that Enoch didn’t, and something that Enoch knew that Frost didn’t.  Frost knew that the witch hunt was on.  He knew that the power was on his side.  Enoch only knew what he had seen and heard, because at the end of the day Enoch had listened.  As to what I had alluded to up above there is a legitimate role for the voice of the people.  Vox pouli is not sovereign, like prices, it is merely data.  A sane sovereign will listen to the unformulated words of his subjects and dig out the good and the bad and LEARN.  Perhaps he will bring it upon himself to even educate the people.  Not in the Whig sense, telling they are stupid and wrong, but in the aristocratic sense telling them that their feelings are valid and here is why (or any other variation).

How would one know what it is like to live on a block invaded by foreigners?  One must observe, and ask and study.  Vox populi is not found in newspapers, on television nor even in books named “A People’s History.” If there is one thing that Enoch understood, it is that neither the rest of England nor the elite understood the experiences of the dispossessed.  That does not make their voice sovereign, nor wholly correct, but they were far from wrong.  If the last 50 years have taught us anything it was the picture painted by the natives of Enoch’s constituencies writ large, was much much worse.

Ignoring the vox populi does not, as in Whig history, foment rebellion but it does leave information on the table.  This information may indeed be a leading indicator of something bad.  Anyone who merely asked around could have predicted bad things from post-colonial immigration.  Once again that does not mean one takes vox populi at their literal word, but one must understand that they have also observed reality however distorted.  A sovereign who ignores the information that could be gleaned from simply talking to people is no better than one who declares the price of bread.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal. –Enoch Powell

Under rule by headcount, voice counts for little.  Enoch didn’t have the megaphone, nor the backing of the elite, nor an army behind him.  When the story is sovereign, there is little reason to listen to the unformed murmurings of the natives.  Eloquent and just as Enoch was, he did not live in system decided by philosophical debates.  Enoch Powell lived in a country ruled by a story.  This story served the elite to justify the importation of more pliable voters.  Those who are willing to pull the lever every few years for a few scraps of power and prestige.  In a world ruled by lies, an accurate perception of reality is worth less than nothing.  Enoch listened and understood.  Frost and the media complex he represented saw him as the existential threat he was.  They responded accordingly and Enoch’s words went unheeded and denounced.  Frost’s and indeed the international community’s vision was and is contradicted by reality.  Enoch Powell spoke the truth and lost none-the-less.  For what it is worth, Enoch Powell was right.

DP226145.jpg

And now the shrine’s hundred mighty lips have opened of themselves, and carry the seer’s answer through the air: ‘Oh, you who are done with all the perils of the sea, (yet greater await you on land) the Trojans will come to the realm of Lavinium (put that care from your heart): but will not enjoy their coming. War, fierce war, I see: and the Tiber foaming with much blood. You will not lack a Simois, a Xanthus, a Greek camp: even now another Achilles is born in Latium, he too the son of a goddess: nor will Juno, the Trojans’ bane, be ever far away, while you, humbled and destitute, what races and cities of Italy will you not beg in! Once again a foreign bride is the cause of all these Trojan ills, once more an alien marriage. Do not give way to misfortunes, meet them more bravely, as your destiny allows. The path of safety will open up for you from where you least imagine it, a Greek city.’  –The Aeneid Virgil TRANSLATED BY A. S. KLINE

Advertisements
Notes #9 From Frost to NPR

3 thoughts on “Notes #9 From Frost to NPR

  1. The phrase ‘sensitive issue’ in its common use at some point become a huge red flag for me that I was being sold disingenuousness, dishonesty, and barely concealed attempts to just get people to shut up. “Where I am strong, I shall be bold. Where I am weak, you must be sensitive.”

    Especially in the current setting, it seems like a choice of adjective that I’m amazed actually fools people. In the fiction whereby voting takes place by philosopher kings, if voting by illegal immigrants is not in fact happening with any regularity, it is an absurd non-issue, worthy of being debunked. If it is widespread, let alone if it might be determining election outcomes, it is an enormous and shocking scandal under the standard narrative of mainstream America (though not, of course, for Moldbug. Or, one suspects, professional political operatives on either side).

    In other words, under the mainstream narrative,the factual basis of the prevalence of voter fraud of it seems to be best described as an important issue, which determines which of the two outcomes above it falls into. But the term sensitive implies that the right response is less investigation, not more. Your point about it being a reaction to a potentially accurate perception of reality is exactly right.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s