An inside job

Posted on by | 1 Comment

No doubt I’ve grown more suspicious and cynical about politics over the last couple of decades (especially in the post-Clinton years) but this media-created Trump scandal smacks of an inside job, probably planned by the GOPe/Never Trumpers. Ted Cruz is now ‘considering’ withdrawing his half-endorsement of Trump; I think he only did it knowing full well this ‘bombshell’ was coming in October, then he could affect a stance of moral outrage and withdraw his support. Likewise, Ryan.

And it’s possible, at least according to this, that the whole thing may have been co-ordinated with Hillary’s people, who may have given a ‘heads-up’ to the GOPe.

This is all just more evidence that both parties are hopelessly corrupt and that they are in fact a ‘uniparty’ who merely put on a ‘pro-wrestling’ type of show of being antagonists, each claiming to represent the people. To them, we are just dupes and fools, apparently. A plague on both their houses.

Trump should really run as an independent although I am sure that would prove to be more difficult than it sounds.

Glass houses, again

Posted on by | 7 Comments

The fake outrage being directed by Hillary et al in the wake of the Trump ‘scandal’ is absurd. Not only Hillary but all the Clintons’ blind followers are guilty of defending the worst sort of lewd and immoral behavior, going back to the 1980s and 1990s, at a time when the country still had some vestiges of Christian sexual morality.

I can remember when Hillary as well as the rest of the Clinton media mouthpieces brazenly said, on national TV, that adultery was no big deal; everybody did it, and not only that, everybody lied about it afterward. ‘Of course you’d lie! Who wouldn’t lie? Why would you confess to it if you weren’t caught in the act? Lying is reasonable and understandable human behavior!’ That was the anti-moral party line coming from the Clintons and all their lackeys back then.

Bill Clinton denied, in the most bald-faced way, all the many allegations of rape or sexual assault against him; his accusers were many. But there was little attempt to deny that he did have at least one adulterous affair, that with Gennifer Flowers. Hillary, by all accounts, knew of this and was willing to stay with him in spite of it, so her morality was not so puritanical as her present feigned ‘horror’ about Trump’s comments would indicate.

The left, in general, is the most libertine, sexually loose and immoral segment of society, though unfortunately their libertinism is now shared across the political spectrum. People who hold to the old Biblical morality of chastity and sex within marriage are few and far-between, but it is primarily the left that loudly champions ”anything goes” sexuality and public sexual displays — media, advertising, public nudity, etc. So just how they think they can credibly have it both ways in pretending that Trump’s ”locker room” talk is ”horrific” is beyond me. And nobody should let them get away with it.

Obviously I’m part of two of the groups (women and Christians) who are supposed to be turned away from Trump by this ‘scandal’ but then I never held any illusions that Donald Trump or any other politician (except, possibly one or two real Christians who may exist in politics) shared my traditional moral standards. It’s pretty much a given to me that politics is not the place to expect to find people with Christian sexual morality.  And from all I have read Hillary is no paragon of traditional morality in her own, shall we say, irregular personal choices, quite apart from her condoning and being complicit in her ”husband’s” sexual predations.

The list of ‘dumb phrases’

Posted on by | 7 Comments

James Madison University gave its incoming freshmen a list of 35 ‘dumb things well-intended people say“. The list was based on a book by a Dr. Maura Cullen,  which describes such phrases as things that ‘widen the diversity gap’, and which work against the all-important goal of creating a ‘safe and inclusive environment.’

Some of the ‘dumb things’ which allegedly might make certain protected groups feel ‘threatened’, (as in ‘unsafe’) include phrases like:

“I don’t see color,” “I’m colorblind” and “I don’t see difference. We’re all part of the same race, the human race” were all advised against. “If you are going to live in this country, learn to speak the language” also made the list.”

More of the potentially offending or threatening to feelings of ‘safety’ or included-ness were phrases like the following: ‘Some of my best friends are…’, or ‘What do your people think?’ and ‘You speak the language very well.’

I agree with the stupidity of many of these statements on the list — but for different reasons than those given by the Social Justice Warrior makers of the list.

For years the ‘some of my best friends are... [fill in the blank with some ‘special’ group] phrase has been ridiculed as an example of White, straight liberal hypocrisy — but is it always? Some people actually do have good friends (or at least people they believe to be good friends) from among some ‘protected’ group or other. It’s likely the people who use this phrase are naive or foolish but they are not necessarily being hypocritical or condescending; in many cases they honestly consider such people from various races, ethnicities, or religions their ‘good friends’, and genuinely harbor amicable feelings towards these people. However I would never use that phrasing or make any such attempt to ward off accusations of bigotry or ‘racism’ or whatever-phobia — not because it might offend some delicate feelings but because I know it’s wasted effort to try to appease or protest against the label they are trying to pin on you.  The appeasers should save their breath. Nobody should feel a need to apologize for not having a ‘diverse and inclusive’ list of ”friends”; we are still, in theory, free to associate with people of our choice, without regard to whether they represent some fantasy cross-section of every ethnicity, religion, race, ‘gender’ and sexual predilection known to man.

Another phrase which is condemned: ‘I don’t see race; I’m color blind.’ I also condemn that phrase — but because it is just plain stupid and worse, it panders to the liberal/lefty race denialists. It concedes the left the prerogative to control the terms of the discussion.

Anybody who seriously believes that race does not exist or that it is a ‘social construct’ is in need of help; they are deficient in normal human powers of observation as well as so weak-minded as to believe all the shallow, self-contradictory propaganda out there.  But no matter how  many times the White leftists and their minority mascots sneer at the protestations of the ‘color-blind’ Whites, the Whites never get the message, and can only flail around in response, saying ”the Liberals are the real racists! It’s not fair!”

Another condemned statement:  ‘I never owned slaves.’ What’s wrong with that sentence? It is absolutely true for every White person living today, as well as our parents and grandparents and so on for generations back. Why then can’t we say the plain truth? Well, though it’s factually true, I object to people saying it because again, it is playing their game by their rules. It does not matter to them that you or I are not guilty of owning slaves personally, and even less does it matter to the lefty ideologues that no black American today was ever a slave, nor that their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on were not slaves. It.Does.Not.Matter. The idea is to emphasize generational guilt, racial guilt, racial ‘karma’ — because most lefties are New Agers who subscribe to the Hindu/Buddhist idea of karma; you inherit bad karma from your forebears. It is a burden you are born with. You carry racial guilt and karma in your DNA and your skin color is the signifier of your bad karma, your guilt, your ‘karmic debt’ as they put it. There is no escape for you, Whitey; no amount of ‘colorblindness’ and adopting children Of Color or going on missions to Africa can wash you clean of your genetic/karmic guilt. So don’t bother protesting weakly about how you never owned slaves, and that your ancestors were poor people who never owned slaves (unlike those rich Cavalier plantation-owners — collect reparations from their descendants! Not me!) or that your ancestors fought to free the slaves in the Civil War or that your forebears were poor Irishmen who arrived long after the Civil War. It won’t absolve you. We’re all in this together, kinsmen, and we have to learn solidarity.

One more ‘dumb phrase’ is the frequently-used ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin.‘ Many Christians are fond of this one; it sounds virtuous, at least in the liberal sense. After all, what’s more virtuous than being ‘non-judgmental’ towards transgressive people?  Being non-judgmental brands one as more-virtuous-than-thou. And there are still Christians who actually believe this statement is from Christ himself, or that it is in the Bible somewhere. But it is not in the Bible, nor was it said by Jesus Christ, or any of the Apostles.

Why, then, is it used as if it were Scripture? Because Christians/Churchians have absorbed the spirit of the Age, and they don’t know their Bibles as they should. I confess that I said it myself in the past until someone gently reproved me and told me that it wasn’t a Biblical command, and it’s not in the Bible. Further investigation showed that it apparently came from Mohandas Gandhi.

So yes, I object to that phrase being used, as it usually is, to avoid a charge of ‘homophobia’ or some ‘phobia’ or other.  The subject deserves a blog post of its own, but suffice it to say I would like to see that quote avoided by Christians or ‘conservatives’. But the SJWs want it to be stopped because, I am guessing, they think it implies that, say, homosexuality and abortion are sins. They believe those acts to be the ‘right’ of everyone, and they don’t want any moral judgment applied to those people who practice those things. In fact they seem to think such things are positive goods, and that homosexuality is proof of ‘courage‘ on the part of the practitioner. Homosexuals ‘coming out’ in churches — in churches, mind you — have been greeted with applause and standing ovations! Such bravery! So perish the thought that such behaviors are sins, or the doers, sinners. No; they are brave and courageous.

Maybe this wrong-headed list of ‘dumb phrases’ can be turned to some good after all, if the ‘conservatives’ and churchians who are guilty of using those phrases realize that these efforts to appease and to dodge condemnation are just backfiring on them. And maybe they might stop and consider that appeasing never works. They might try honesty and integrity for a change, standing by their convictions rather than trying to protest their innocence of these invented ‘crimes.’

Internet outages?

Posted on by | 4 Comments

Earlier I was typing a blog post and we suddenly had an Internet outage, which meant that my draft did not save, and was lost. I was wondering if others out there have had Internet outages or problems, as we’ve had several in the last couple of weeks, sometimes lasting hours at a time. In the past it’s happened rarely.

I have been reading of others having outages also, and there is this post about the subject. I don’t think it’s to do with the Wikileaks press conference (which was a big nothing, anyway) especially considering that there have been several lately.

Does anybody out there have similar problems? I’d like to hear.

 

Another hate crime

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Yet another attack on a White young man in the South, apparently for his race and for challenging the BLM propaganda.

I read about this here, originally, and now I see that Hunter Wallace has written about on Occidental Dissent. As this happened in Alabama I expected Hunter to cover it.

Brian Ogle, 17, is in critical condition with a fractured skull and trauma to his brain, WBMA reported.

His mother, Brandi Allen, says her son was targeted for his views, and she is calling the beating a “hate crime.”

The photo of the injured young man is distressing. It puts me in mind of the Carter Strange incident back in 2011, which happened in South Carolina. That story was not given enough coverage when it occurred, and that’s unsurprising because attacks like the one on Carter Strange as well as on Brian Ogle do not fit the media’s lying narrative about how blacks are always victims and never victimizers. The concept of “hate crimes”, as a new category of crime, was meant to be used against White people, the idea being that only Whites are capable of committing ‘hate crimes’ and only blacks and other ‘minorities’ can be victims of such crimes. However it has not worked out quite as the lying media intended, as so many alleged ”hate crimes” against the protected groups prove to be hoaxes and lies.

See also Michelle Malkin’s list of hate crime hoaxes here.

I hope Brian Ogle recovers from his injuries, as it appears Carter Strange has. It’s good to see that Carter has seemingly healed but it’s sad, to my way of thinking, that he seems to have been imbued with the idea that his attacker can be ‘rehabilitated’ during his prison term, which was 15 years. It seems most of the younger generations, yes, even in the ‘deep South’ have assimilated the ideas of the ‘therapeutic society’ rather than the old moral codes of right and wrong, and of justice as paramount, not automatic forgiveness and ‘understanding.’ Somebody in society needs to be mindful of justice, not just for those who are individual victims of these attacks, though their injuries are grievous enough, but for the rest of us, who are also, in an indirect way, victims of these attackers. Because make no mistake, we are all targets of this genuine hatred; certain individuals have the misfortune to be the ones physically attacked, but all of us are attacked vicariously in these incidents. And there are few voices speaking up for us, or attempting to address these very real — not hoaxed — hate crimes.

In the meantime, let’s not forget Brian Ogle and other such targets of hate. Prayers for them and their families are in order — and for the rest of us, because we are of the same flesh and blood, all of us.

‘Come and take it’

Posted on by | Leave a comment

The following is a reworking of a post I made about 9 years ago on the old blog:

This time ever year, the ‘Come and Take It!’ festival, in Gonzales, Texas, is held. Gonzales County is where six generations of my kin have lived and died.

Gonzales, as it happens,  was the site of the first shot fired in the Texas Revolution, on October 2, 1835. For this reason, Gonzales has been called the ‘Lexington of Texas,’ and ‘the Birthplace of Texas Independence.’

The ‘Come and Take It’ festivities include a battle re-enactment at Pioneer Village, races, a historical presentation, parades, food booths, and music.

From Wikipedia:

“Gonzales is one of the earliest Anglo-American settlements in Texas, the first west of the Colorado River. It was established by Empresario Green DeWitt as the capital of his colony in August 1825. DeWitt named the community for Rafael Gonzáles, governor of Coahuila y Tejas.

[…]Gonzales is referred to as the “Lexington of Texas” because it was the site of the first skirmish of the Texas Revolution. In 1831, the Mexican government had granted Green DeWitt’s request for a small cannon for protection against Indian attacks. At the outbreak of disputes between the Anglo settlers and the Mexican authorities in 1835, a contingent of more than 100 Mexican soldiers was sent from San Antonio to retrieve the cannon.

When the soldiers arrived, there were only 18 men in Gonzales, but they refused to return the cannon, and soon men from the surrounding area joined them. Texians under the command of John H. Moore confronted them. Sarah DeWitt and her daughter sewed a flag bearing the likeness of the cannon and the words “Come and Take It,” which was flown when the first shots of Texan independence were fired on October 2, 1835. The Texians successfully resisted the Mexican troops in what became known as the Battle of Gonzales.”

After this opening shot in the Texas revolution was fired, a number of dramatic events led the way to the independence of Texas. Along the way were decisive events, such as the Alamo, and the terrible massacre at Goliad, and the victory at San Jacinto.

These events are part of my family history, as they are for many old-stock Texas families; they are real events to me, not just dry dates and facts in a history textbook. There are family names on those memorials, citing the names of my kin who died there. The Goliad massacre is especially heart-wrenching:

“Boys, they are going to kill us—die with your faces to them, like men!”……two other young men, flourishing their caps over their heads, shouted at the top of their voices: ‘Hurra for Texas!’

Can Texas cease to cherish the memory of those, whose dying words gave a pledge of their devotion to her cause? — Capt. Jack Shackelford, Survivor of the Massacre”

It’s surprising how few people outside Texas are aware that Texas actually won its independence from Mexico. There is a kind of tragic irony to the fact that at this time, there is talk of a merger between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I have to wonder what my Texan colonist ancestors would think had they known that only a few generations after their heroic efforts to win Texas’ independence, that Mexico would seemingly be taking Texas by stealth colonization and by demographic conquest. I can only believe my steadfast forefathers would be astounded at the actions of our present-day leaders and their kowtowing to a failed third-world country to our south, and at our submissive posture.

My ancestors, along with other DeWitt colonists, were there by invitation of the Mexican government. Those colonists were productive, industrious, can-do people; they created Texas in what was an untamed wilderness. There was no Mexican settlement there of any note; the Mexicans could not establish flourishing colonies therem because they were not able to subdue the fractious Indian tribes. So they brought in Americans to do that.

The colonists were not needy, not coming hat in hand, to ask for employment or help from Mexico. They were self-reliant, unlike the colonists who are coming north now into the United States. Despite their recently-coined reputation for ‘hard work’, today’s Mexican colonizers are in no way comparable to those Americans who came and built Texas.

Now the situation is reversed, with Mexicans colonizing Texas, largely by stealth, although most of our politicians are giving the Mexican colonists tacit approval and a covert invitation. Inviting them, it appears,  to come and to take Texas, which it seems they are enthusiastically doing.

gonzls

Our Texas forefathers, when they flew the ‘Come and Take It’ flag, used that phrase in defiance of the Mexican authorities, in refusing to surrender their cannon. When they used these words, they were knowingly echoing the defiant taunt ‘Molon Labe‘ – or ‘come and take them’  by Spartan King Leonidas, directed at the Persian King Xerxes at Thermopylae . Xerxes offered to spare Leonidas and his men if they gave up their weapons and surrendered. Xerxes refused, knowing they were vastly outnumbered. ‘Molon labe’ — ‘come and take them’, was the defiant answer of the Spartans, despite the fact that they  numbered only three hundred. Still, they held off the much larger force of 600,000 Persians for seven days. They fought to the last man. Although they were crushed by the Persians, their brave example inspired the Greeks to resist the Persians and later defeat them at Salamis, which was a momentous and decisive victory, affecting the whole course of Western history.

Interestingly, many liken Thermopylae to the Alamo:

“There are times when a defeat can become a triumph. Just as the heroic death of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae gave courage to the rest of Greece; so the last stand of a handful of brave Texians in a fortified Mission became a rallying cry for Texas’ independence: Remember the Alamo!”

Like the roll call of the defenders of the Alamo, the name of every individual Spartan who died at Thermopylae was remembered for as long as ancient Sparta endured. They were engraved on a stone tablet in Sparta that could still be read over seven centuries later. Will the Alamo still stand in 700 years? Would it matter? It is what the Alamo represents that is immortal, not the tangible remains of the buildings. Heroism, once achieved and honored, is never forgotten entirely.”

In paying tribute to those massacred at Goliad, Gen. Thomas Rusk, in his poignant speech at the site, said

“FELLOW SOLDIERS: In the order of Providence we are this day called upon to pay the last sad offices of respect to the remains of the noble and heroic band, who, battling for our sacred rights, have fallen beneath the ruthless hand of a tyrant. Their chivalrous conduct entitles them to the heartfelt gratitude of the people of Texas. Without any further interest in the country than that which all noble hearts feel at the bare mention of liberty, they rallied to our standard. Relinquishing the ease, peace, and comforts of their homes, leaving behind them all they held dear, their mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives, they subjected themselves to fatigue and privation, and nobly threw themselves between the people of Texas and the legions of Santa Anna.

There, unaided by re-inforcements and far from help and hope, they battled bravely with the minions of a tyrant, ten to one. Surrounded in the open prairie by this fearful odds, cut off from provisions and even water, they were induced, under the sacred promise of receiving the treatment usual to prisoners of war, to surrender. They were marched back, and for a week treated with the utmost inhumanity and barbarity. They were marched out of yonder fort under the pretense of getting provisions, and it was not until the firing of musketry did the shrieks of the dying, that they were satisfied of their approaching fate. Some endeavored to make their escape, but they were pursued by the ruthless cavalry and most of them cut down with their swords. A small number of them stand by the grave – a bare remnant of that noble band. Our tribute of respect is due to them; it is due to the mothers, sisters, and wives who weep their untimely end, that we should mingle our tears with theirs. In that mass of remains and fragments of bones, many a mother might see her son…
[…]while liberty has a habitation and a name, their chivalrous deeds will be handed down upon the bright pages of history.”

And will their chivalrous deeds be remembered, when Texas is de facto Mexican territory, a Spanish-speaking province, which will no doubt see this history very differently than we, the posterity of those massacred there? Are we honoring their memory by meekly giving back what they bought with their blood?

These are questions I ponder when I think of those fateful events in Texas. Will the Alamo still stand in 700 years, the Alamo Journal writer cited earlier asks. Given current trends, will the Alamo still stand in 70 years, much less 700? Will the Lone Star flag still fly over it then, or the Stars and Stripes? Or will the Mexican flag with its bird of prey be flying there? If anyone remembers the Alamo, will they remember that small group of valiant defenders, or will they be honoring Santa Anna?

I hope the writer is right; that the heroism of those Texas patriots at the Alamo and at Goliad and all the rest,  will be remembered and honored; I hope that what they fought and died for will not be overturned by our supine tolerance of the slow-motion invasion which threatens now to undo all that our forefathers shed their blood to establish.

An oldie

Posted on by | Leave a comment

An oldie but a goodie which was posted on my old blog: an excerpt from a magazine piece dating from a 1954 magazine. This is a change from my usual postings on current events and controversial stuff, just some old Americana, from the vanished America of yore.

What Happened to Common Sense?
by Mary Ellen Chase, from Coronet Magazine, May, 1954

“Whenever I return to the isolated Maine village where I spend every summer, I am pleasantly surprised by the way in which my neighbors there hold on to certain old terms.

One of these is grit, with its companion, gumption; another is get up and get, which in Maine means to depend on oneself; yet another is common sense. These words describe the human qualities which my neighbors, fishermen and  their wives, extoll above all others. For fishing is a hard calling. It demands gumption, or in more polite terms, self-reliance, the power of decision and the determination not to be downed by adverse circumstances.

My neighbors are frankly suspicious of anyone who lacks these old American virtues. They voiced their common judgment of a man who had lost his lobster traps in a northeast gale and had been bewailing his fate with too little reserve.

“Why don’t he shut his mouth and pick up his feet?” they said, “You can’t set sail straight by takin’ time to bawl about bad luck.”

They and I stem from the same rural background. In the country school of my childhood, precepts were written on the blackboard, each Monday morning by our “old-fashioned” teachers who knew it to be their duty to instill iron in our souls as well as common fractions in our minds. Through the years those precepts have proved salutary to me in moments of indecision and anxiety. Usually they were in terse prose:

“It takes a live fish to swim upstream, but any old log can float down.”
Don’t expect others to bear your troubles; they have their own.
Life isn’t all you want, but it’s all you have; so have it.”

Occasionally a rhyme enlivened us. One I recall as a favorite.

The mind of man has no defense
To equal plain, old common sense.
This homely virtue don’t despise,
If you would be happy as well as wise.

Parents, too, 50 years ago dealt out such robust aphorisms liberally, sometimes even sternly, in the upbringing of children. I was taught early by both precept and example that a job once undertaken has to be completed whatever the cost, and that no one but the maker of them ought to be expected to pay for mistakes.

[….]During my life as a teacher I have often questioned whether we have discovered any worthy substitutes for those precepts and teachings which, outmoded as they seem, are rooted deeply in our history and our ways of life.

In place of the old sayings we use today new words and terms to describe our states of mind and our meetings of those difficulties and questions which will always beset us. We are now insecure, or ill-adjusted, or frustrated, or made ineffective by a sense of inferiority. These new words lack the optimism of the old. Implicit in them is the notion that we are surrounded by foes difficult to defeat.

The new vocabulary comes into use early. We hesitate to look upon our children as simply ill-mannered or spoiled. We fear that they are problem children who need expert care lest they become neurotics or uncontributive members of society.

In high school and college they are surrounded by advisers on what they would best study, what work in life they are best fitted for. They are too seldom encouraged to face problems by themselves, to make their own decisions and to pay the consequences of their own mistakes.

Nor are adults free from waves of anxiety. Too many of us are looking about for some panacea which will ease the burdens of our past and present errors in judgment and lighten our fears of the future. Something, we feel, is wrong somewhere, and without making any stout attempts on our own to discover what it is, we turn to professional advice which guarantees to show us how to understand ourselves.

Even a cursory reading of such books reveals nothing but what we used to call plain old common sense. They urge upon us a calm and objective weighing of ourselves; a frank and even merciless recognition of our weaknesses and failures, a determination to oust at any cost oversensitiveness, which is but a form of self-indulgence; a sense of personal responsibility for the well-being of our families and communities; a fresh start; in short, reliance on our own powers of self-discipline.

No one in his senses would suggest that such books are not often helpful to the anxious mind. But the assumption that most of us have somehow acquired emotional conflicts which we cannot cope with by ourselves surely has its dangers.

We Americans have since our beginnings been known for our self-reliance, for our gumption and common sense. We are, or at least we were, adventurers and our history is the story of a game played against tremendous odds and gloriously won. Why not recall the tough moral fiber which made the winning possible? Isn’t it about time that we return as individuals to those values and practices which we have not forgotten so much as neglected?

[…]Life may not be all we want, but it’s all we have, as my old school precept said, and it’s high time that we have it. We shall not find its secrets or its possible riches in the advice of others, however wise, unless we complete that counsel with our own grit, gumption, and common sense.”

In praise of narrowness

Posted on by | Leave a comment

On another dissident-right blog, a commenter is taken to task by several others; the charge is that he (or she?) is ‘too negative‘, especially towards other White ethnic groups or nationalities. I know that this attitude, this idea that one must not speak critically of other White ethnicities, is often de rigueur among WNs, because their belief system  holds that our White skin is our identity, not our specific ethnic group or tribe. By this particular tenet (which seems to place me outside the WN camp) ethnicity is too narrow an identification; survival necessitates that we identify with all people of European descent or else perish, because we cannot allow the petty divisiveness of ethnic identities; doing so is inviting our obliteration as a race.

However there are some quibbles here; some WNs define the White race more narrowly, excluding Mediterraneans, broadly speaking. The writer H.P. Lovecraft would probably have fallen into this camp, although I believe no one used the term ‘White Nationalist’ in his day, to my knowledge. I believe he called himself an Anglo-Saxonist, identifying most with his particular ethnic group, though he acknowledged he didn’t fit the stereotype of the blond, Viking-looking Northman which is important to some Nordicists, who believe very much in going by phenotypes. (And yes, phenotypes are useful).

However, though Lovecraft was Anglo-Saxonist by his own description, he embraced Northwestern/Northern Europeans generally as being his kinsmen. This is expressed in his personal writings. He did not think that all Europeans were his kinsmen in the same way that Northern Europeans were, and especially Englishmen.

Lovecraft, then, is often criticized by those who think that Lovecraft was excluding them or their ancestors from his kin group; they see his opinions as being bigoted or lacking in solidarity with all Europeans, which is now becoming the correct position amongst many on the pro-White or WN or Alt-Right side.

To be accused of being too narrow in one’s loyalties or identifications carries with it the implicit, or sometimes explicit, charge of jeopardizing White survival by refusing to embrace a pan-European identity in preference to narrow loyalty to one’s nearer kin. The rhetoric goes that only by uniting as one White race, irrespective of any genetic, linguistic, religious, or cultural distinctions, can Whites/European-descended people survive. Unite, by putting aside your petty ethnic loyalty, or die, your race forever extinct.

But is this the only choice? Is this the one option for Whites or European peoples?

History shows us many examples of genetically similar peoples, closely akin, who were frequently at war with each other. To the outsider, the differences between such clashing peoples is often not detectable. Ukrainians and Russians appear similar to most casual outside observers, and they are at odds. Also, many people cannot see why the Protestant Northern Irish (Ulstermen) and the Catholic Irish of the North have a long history of bloodshed between them. No, it is not just about religion, but about ethnicity and different cultures as well. Granted, though, the ethnic differences are not all that great, as DNA shows. Likewise with the Irish and the English; all the British Isles peoples are fairly close genetically, but to each people, especially those identifying as ‘Celtic’, the differences are all-important.

If these closely-related peoples cannot get along, how can we expect peoples as dissimilar as Greeks and Scandinavians, or Finns and Portuguese, or Icelandic people and Corsicans, to think of one another as equally brothers, except in the most abstract sense?

We’ve seen how well that has worked out in America where we are all officially ‘one people’ and yet many ethnicities still have frictions between them despite long-time contact and the ‘unifying’ factor of Americanized culture. Yes, even people of differing European ethnicities have clashed and prefer to maintain their own cultures and enclaves.

How many Europeans and European-descended people on this planet are there? We are scattered widely from South America to Australia/New Zealand to Iceland and Greenland to North America, Southern Africa, and to Europe proper. How can we come to think of such a dispersed and disparate collection of peoples as equally our brethren, having an equal claim to our loyalty and support? I say it’s not practicable. Just as with the ‘One World’ mentality, our loyalties and attachments cannot be stretched that far without being so attenuated as to be nonexistent. We are built for concentric circles of loyalties, with those of our nearest genetic connections, our immediate families, being the strongest bonds, and as the circle of loyalties go outward, the bonds necessarily grow weaker. Those who are most distant not only geographically but genetically command the least claim on our obligations and affections.

It’s all but impossible for mere humans to love something distant and abstract. This is the weakness of the ‘One planet, one people’ nonsense, which is the globalist mantra. Brainwashed churchians and lefties notwithstanding, we just can’t love the distant and the unseen in the same way that we love those nearest to us and closest to us by blood bonds.

So if it’s sin in the pro-White world to prefer one’s own close kinsmen over far-distant relatives, then I plead guilty. No doubt I would be eighty-sixed from the blog I refer to in the opening paragraph of this post for being ”divisive” and “negative” towards my brothers from countries on the other side of the globe, and so be it. After all, in this increasingly New-Age, pop-psychology oriented world we live in, being “negative” is Sin Number One. Thou Shalt Not Be Negative, saith the feel-good law as expounded by people like Oprah and Dr. Phil and probably Joel Osteen. And especially shalt thou not be negative towards The Other, the Sacred Other. For most people, the Sacred Other about whom we must not be negative means specifically People of Color, or Immigrants of whatever color.But what if the truth is negative?

For the Pan-Europeanist, we must not be negative towards the Other European, even if they do in fact have bad cultural habits or at least, if you shrink from making ‘value judgments’  then let’s say some Others have traits that are just not compatible with our own ways of doing things.

For example, when I was in the New York City area, I quickly learned that having to ‘grease people’s palms’ was a necessary part of getting things done. You will be told that something can’t be done until you slip someone some money and suddenly it can be done. You’ve heard of the ‘baksheesh’ system; it’s not just in the Middle East. In Mexico it’s called ‘mordida.’ This kind of thing seems most common in Mediterranean countries or peoples, or those derived from that area. It isn’t generally an Anglo-Saxon thing.

So yes, in order for us to accommodate peoples from different cultures we end up absorbing some corrupt practices and habits. We compromised who we were, when we decided that we are all brothers under the skin.

Something has to give when disparate peoples are blended together. Most importantly of all, to be told that all Europeans are as brothers despite strong differences is just one step away from the multicult worldview that ‘we are all one race, the human race’, and that we all bleed red. We end by acquiescing in falsehoods, these denials of difference, and we live a lie. Christians cannot do this, not if they wish to live up to their faith.

Now we live under a tyranny of lies in which people are being punished, even prosecuted and jailed, for speaking ‘ill’ of some protected group, because noticing differences and speaking unpleasant truths offends. So we have let truth be suppressed in many instances. Are we not to note the drawbacks of having those unlike ourselves living amongst us? Shall we choose, if we ever get out from under the globalist tyranny, to live in multicultural societies made up of disparate Europeans? It would be preferable to the Coudenhove-Kalergi nightmare, but it would still be fraught with problems. A European mega-nation would also be polyglot, multicultural, and multilingual, unless we want to impose one language and one culture.

To want to preserve our own peoples, languages, cultures, and traditions does not mean ‘hating’ our fellow Europeans/Whites. To say that ethnoloyalty is hatred of outsiders is the kind of cheap rhetoric that the leftist/multi-cultist uses towards us now. It should be beneath WNs or any pro-Whites to use such manipulation.

We can surely make common cause, offer moral and other support to our counterparts in Europe and elsewhere without trying to invent some pro-White version of the EU, which itself is proto-globalist. We can be allies with our kinsmen without putting them on a par with our more immediate kin, or without giving them all free rein to enter our countries at will. To imply otherwise is dishonest or foolish.

Personally I have always enjoyed other cultures at an arm’s length, and I am not in the habit of being hostile to people because of their different ethnic origins or even racial origins. But I still maintain that good fences make good neighbors. We all have relatives that, though they are our kin, we would not welcome as permanent guests in our homes. Why, then, should we be expected to welcome distantly-related strangers into our countries? Remember our countries are also our homes. Just as in English tradition, every man’s home is his castle, so our countries are our homes, our castles. They are our birthright and our rightful inheritance. Though the pan-Europeanist thinks that I must share my country with any White person who stakes a claim here, would those people reciprocate and give me the right to enter their country, and bring my extended clan with me? To impose this ideal on us all is depriving us of our sovereignty and our birthright, our homes, regardless of who the usurpers are.

And I ask this: what normal person, given that our Western countries are all being flooded with immigrants, thinks that it should be wrong to criticize these uninvited guests? I would say there is something off about people who still think that it is some kind of sin to object to more foreign neighbors, given the way in which our countries are being overwhelmed by strangers.

Are honest, factual, criticisms of other European peoples now ‘hatefacts’ as with racial Other groups? Is that acceptable?

I honestly suspect the motives of anyone who would chastise a kinsman for his honest feelings, while rushing to the defense of the poor immigrant, whoever he is. Loyalty is still a virtue, and loyalty to kin and kind comes first.

And real loyalties and loves must necessarily be narrow. We cannot be loyal to all things and all peoples, else it is not loyalty but promiscuity. Love by nature is exclusive, reserved for the closest and deepest bonds, else it is not love.

Yet another incident

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Another incident involving a ‘refugee’, in news from El Cajon, California. A man, shot by the police while behaving ‘erratically’, has since died at a local hospital.

The inevitable unrest, protests, and agitprop from the media follow in the wake.

“A black man was shot in an encounter with El Cajon Police Tuesday, multiple witnesses said, while a woman wailed nearby, demanding to know why police shot her brother.

Hours later, police officers told NBC 7 San Diego the man, now identified as Alfred Olango, was acting erratically and failed to comply, although they did not release details on the specific threat he presented to officers.”

The man is said to be a refugee, ‘with mental problems’, from Uganda. The news stories I’ve seen don’t indicate whether he is one of the latest wave of ‘refugees’ from African coming across the Southern border, or whether he arrived earlier.

Somewhat amusingly, CNN’s news story referred to the Ugandan man as ‘African-American.’ If he is a refugee, obviously he’s not an ‘African-American’ nor any kind of American at all, simply Ugandan or African. But political correctness results in just such kinds of absurdities.

Speaking of incidents involving refugees, someone in the comments section at Refugee Resettlement watch asked the other day if Arcan Cetin, the Turkish shooter at the mall in Washington State was a refugee. That question immediately occurred to me when his identity was disclosed — not that it is ultimately relevant whether a homicidal foreign person arrived as a refugee or as an immigrant. The fact is such people need not be here, and should not be here, as our promiscuous ‘immigration’ and refugee policies are a disaster. And even less does it matter whether an immigrant was illegal or legal; both kinds have proven to be a problem in too many cases. Major Hasan, the notorious Fort Hood killer, was the child of parents who came here legally, as were the Tsarnaevs.

Legal or illegal, it’s irrelevant ultimately. Being legal does not make someone a good choice for American residence or citizenship.

But was Arcan Cetin a refugee or the son of refugees? Neither, it appears. I had read from a comment online, ostensibly from somebody who knew the family, that his mother had married an American who was in the miltary over in Turkey, and he brought mother and son to this country — legally, of course, and I’d bet that there are probably a number of other relatives who are now here via chain migration.

This story verifies some of those details.  It also mentions his blog postings in connection with his religion:

“One post on Cetin’s Tumblr page urged readers to repeat the phrase “Subhan Allah” (“Glory to God”) 10 times “and then reblog this, do not stop reblogging it.”

But of course according to the media, his motives are unknown.

The Cetin story has all but vanished from the media, and I expect we’ll hear little about it as it can’t easily be turned to good use by the media propagandists. But it is necessary, it seems to me, to mention these facts because there is still some talk on the Internet that he was just a disgruntled ‘beta male’ who was spurned by some girl, and that she was the intended target of his shooting spree. Not true, or at least that does not appear to be his main motivation.

It’s also assumed by quite a few that the supposed ex-girlfriend was one of those killed at the mall, and this is evidently incorrect; the victims were apparently unknown to him. He was just seething with resentments and went after random targets — probably White people, though one of his victims had a possibly Hispanic name.

Whether these problem ‘refugees/immigrants’ arrive by one means or another, or whether they are here legally or otherwise is not the main concern; it’s that our policy of admitting just anybody, especially people from hostile countries and cultures, is costing us many lives, as well as destroying our cultural fabric and our social cohesion. It is not in any way beneficial to us; it serves interests other than those of the people of this country. It’s in fact killing us, quickly or slowly.