Home » 2016 » January

Monthly Archives: January 2016

Family disputes

Posted on by | 1 Comment

At the Vox Popoli blog, where the anti-boomer feeling erupts frequently in the various threads touching on just about any subject, there was this comment, from ‘dfordoom‘ which I thought deserving of reposting in entirety:

“The generation thing is irrelevant. It wasn’t a particular generation that ruined things. It was a small minority and that minority has been busily doing its work of social destruction for a couple of hundred years. The small minority is the intellectuals. The self-elected cultural elite. They’ve been burrowing into the universities, the media, the bureaucracy, the entertainment industry, the art establishment. Anywhere they can influence the culture.

They were a very small minority in the 19th century but they started to multiply in the 20th century with the (exceedingly foolish) expansion of academia. Universities started to churn out thousands of utterly useless arts graduates. Such people knew they were useless. They have always known they are useless. That’s what fuels their hate. They were completely unqualified for gainful employment but they wanted to run the world. And they got themselves into positions where they could influence the culture to such a extent that they could run the world. This kind of entryism has been happening on a large scale since the 1920s.

These parasites are represented in every generation. They started to gain real power in the 70s, which led to the (entirely false) assumption that this had something to do with the Baby Boom. The only connection was that the Boomers grew up in an era when way too many people were going to university and imbibing the cultural poison of the cultural elites. The generations that grew up in the postwar era therefore had a higher percentage of these parasites. But they were still a minority. They still are. That doesn’t matter. A tiny disciplined highly motivated minority can exert enormous power. The Bolsheviks conquered Russia in 1917 despite the fact that they never numbered more than a relative handful of adherents.

Inter-generational squabbling serves the purposes of the elites very well indeed. It distracts attention from what really happened and what is still happening.”

Ï think the above comment is a very good summation of how the ‘generational divide’ was, if not created, at least heightened and exaggerated by certain influential groups in Western society.

The blog entry and comment thread were in response to another piece on the Hawaiian Libertarian blog, in which Keoni Galt gives his own explanation of how the Baby Boom generation was the object of a great deal of manipulation by the newly-ubiquitous mass media: television, the music industry, and the rest of the media, as well as academia.

This of course had the clout of the government behind it implicitly, even during the days of the so-called ‘Witch hunt’ by Joe McCarthy et al. While the government was outwardly ”anti-Communist” during the childhood of the Boomers, other forces within government were already pushing many of the left’s agenda items, openly or covertly, and the Boomers were being fed a diet of cultural Marxist ideas while they were still malleable young people. They were in fact being used as guinea pigs in a sense, as some of the propaganda techniques were untested, but they quickly learned how to use them to good effect with the help of popular media as well as schools.

The boomer generation, as it is now called, was the first to be so thoroughly influenced by means of new psychological techniques, including those of the Tavistock Institute.

The elites by the post-WWII era had in mind the weakening and ultimate destruction of the family unit, and to effect this it would be necessary to heighten generational tensions (which are, after all, somewhat natural) by exaggerating the ‘distinct’ character of the new generations, to distance them from their ‘boring, stodgy’ parents, and, in the case of the Boomers, to give them a sort of Messianic sense of themselves: they would be tasked with the job of Saving The World. From whom? From their stupid, misguided, fascist parents. Parents were declared the enemy. Look at the lyrics of many rock songs of the late sixties, for example ‘The End’ by the Doors.

Boomers were told that it was up to them to Stop War, establish a peaceful one world, as per John Lennon’s ”Imagine” and other such utopian drivel.

There have been allegations that the whole drug culture of the sixties and seventies, which resulted in more than a few ‘drug casualties’ among Boomers and later generations, was engineered and ‘allowed’ to happen, as authorities turned a blind eye to open trafficking of drugs, notably LSD, in some cities. People like Augustus Owsley Stanley (known as “Owsley” to the young counterculturists) liberally handed out drugs openly in San Francisco.

“By conservative estimates, Bear Research Group made more than 1.25 million doses of LSD between 1965 and 1967, essentially seeding the entire modern psychedelic movement.”

And the government was powerless to stop this? The authorities then, remember, were not as politically corrected then as now. Why did they allow it?

It’s been known for some years, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, that the powers-that-be in more than one Western country used LSD on unsuspecting subjects, including psychiatric patients and military men, for the purpose of exploring possible use for mind control through that drug.

Is it not possible, as some suggest, that the biggest group of guinea pigs were the gullible young people on the streets of the Haight, or elsewhere?

All of the above will not change the minds of those who loathe Baby Boomers or blame them for everything that is wrong. But with all the stereotypes of the postwar Baby Boom generation, the fact remains that today they vote more conservatively (opposing mass immigration, for example) than any of the younger cohorts. Each successive generation is more liberal than the previous. That much can be checked out factually.

And to me it’s also evident that most of the people who despise Boomers have followed in the worst of the Boomers’ footsteps. Take recreational drugs? Check. The Gen X and Y-ers are at least as likely as their elders to do drugs, and to support legalization. The younger generations (who are now not so young, like the Gen X-ers) also admire and emulate the worst of the boomers with tolerance of foul language, pornography, and promiscuity. On these issues they are indistinguishable from the far Left for the most part. Maybe they vote for lower taxes or Second Amendment rights but otherwise they live, act, and talk like lefties.

One of the crimes with which Boomers are charged is that they hated their parents, and had no respect for elders. This can be said of every succeeding generation. In this they are just as guilty as the Boomers. In fact the Gen X-ers who are the shrillest voices against Boomers are probably children of Boomers who haven’t got past the Daddy Issues. If one still has Daddy Issues in middle age, that’s a problem. Teenagers go through a phase of thinking themselves wiser, better, more enlightened or ‘evolved’ than their anachronistic, troglodyte parents. As people mature, they get over this, and realize that youth is not as wise as it thinks itself.

If the Boomer critics really abhor the counterculture sixties lifestyle, why do they emulate it and defend it? Why not renounce it and go in the opposite direction? They should really thank the Boomers because the latter pioneered this lifestyle they cling to, and made it mainstream and acceptable. That is their worst crime, but the later generations evidently admire it.

Imitation, it’s said, is the sincerest form of flattery.

The Millennials? They vote the most left-wing of all the generations. Check out the voting statistics. And this group is the most avidly ‘anti-fa’, anti-White, anti-Christian. Exceptions? Sure, there are some; there are exceptions to every rule, but they are just that, exceptions. Isolated cases. Anecdotes don’t counter the overall picture. To argue that they do is to ‘argue’ like a liberal. Lefties always bring up exceptions in order to deny patterns.

My point? The generational hatred, like all the other divisions in our society, is counterproductive. It further splits us, makes us all distrustful of each other, and ultimately weakens us.  The comment by ‘dfordoom’ which I quoted above sums it all up; these internecine squabbles and grudges are manipulated by the powers-that-be, and these things suit their purposes wonderfully. We shouldn’t help them by letting ourselves be used.

Another consequence of immigration

Posted on by | Leave a comment

In St. Paul, Minnesota, school officials are ‘pulling the plug’ on Valentine’s Day, and other ‘dominant holidays’ as they are oddly calling them.

Dominant: that seems to be a very poor word choice here. Educators should surely know how to use the English language more precisely than that. Let’s look at the online Oxford Dictionary definition of the word ‘dominant’ and see if it fits:

Definition of dominant in English: adjective

Having power and influence over others: they are now in an even more dominant position in the market

If our cultural heritage (and what I mean by ‘we’, White Man, is Anglo-Americans), were dominant we would not feel compelled — or be compelled by people like Mr Masini or the St. Paul School Board or whoever — to give up our traditions for fear of ‘offending’ the perpetually offended.

 We are anything but dominant. We are weak. At least our officials and ‘leaders’ are submissive and beaten. Every time someone feigns offense at one of our time-honored symbols, words, historical facts, or customs, we — or at least the PC apparatchiks who are ‘in charge’ scurry to appease, and eliminate that which is alleged to be ‘offensive’ to whomever. The majority has no say in this process.
And what of this fact: many of our newly ‘diverse and inclusive’ schools and communities now have people from literally hundreds of different language groups and almost as many different cultures, most of them being very disparate and incompatible with our own ways and practices. And does it make sense that we must  kowtow to accommodate and appease every possible objection to our ways? Does it make sense, is it even practical or doable, to try to please many, many different groups of people? Why? How?
Once upon a time, Mister Educator, immigrants to America were expected to learn our language, first of all, and to learn about our ways and to acclimate themselves to our culture and our traditions. They were taught to see the good and the positive in what was the established American culture, grounded in Western Europe and specifically in Northwestern Europe, and mostly in English culture and folkways.
Does it not make more sense that everyone alike conform to the host culture? Why should the country and the people who have generously welcomed the immigrant have to change to please the immigrant? And again, is it practicable for the host people give up their ways and try to appease and conform to numerous others, strangers in our land? And P.S.: the ”nation of immigrants” trope is not an answer to that question. It, too, is a half-truth at best.
Where does all this end? We already have to accommodate to Cinco de Mayo (which has nothing to do with us or our past) and Eidh, Ramadan, Diwali and the invented holiday ‘Kwanzaa’ and what next? What will we have to have imposed on us, while we are made to give up our traditions? How is this a good bargain for us? And is it right in a ‘democracy’ that the few dictate to the many?
We labor under a coerced ‘tolerance’ for others, while they exhibit complete intolerance of us and our ways. And yet if we and our ways offend them, why immigrate here? Most are not here against their will; they choose to come. They choose to stay. They should learn to tolerate different cultures; or is it one rule for us and another for them?
Valentine’s Day (once St. Valentine’s Day, for the record — maybe that’s why it has to go) is a minor holiday in the larger scheme of things, but for a long time, our most-celebrated holiday, Christmas, has been in the crosshairs, with it being deliberately dumbed-down and de-Christianized. Columbus Day has become a politically correct inquisition of a holiday, and it will soon be replaced by ‘Indigenous People’s Day’ or ‘Genocide Remembrance Day’ or some such thing, thanks to the demands of a minuscule number of cultural Marxist ‘victims’ and their White enablers/stooges.
Dominant holidays? I would say that the strangers are the ‘dominant’ groups in this society now.  Imagine being a newcomer or a guest and demanding that your host obey you. That’s dominance.
Those whose ancestors of the colonist stock created the country we now live in are reduced to irrelevance and submission.  We are not ‘dominant’ anymore in that we have practically no power or influence. And that’s the idea, isn’t it.

British? Irish?

Posted on by | Leave a comment

A story from IrishCentral.com illustrates one of the tricks played by the media, a practice which is helping to destroy the very concept of nationality, and the meaning of the words we use to describe ethnicity.

The headline warns that ‘British extremists may try to radicalize Irish Muslims.’ On first seeing the headline, the term ‘British extremists’ said something very different to me, and I couldn’t imagine why ‘British extremists’ would have any dealings with Irish moslems, especially to radicalize them. Usually the term ‘extremist’ is applied in the controlled media to right-wing or nationalistic groups. Granted, it’s a dishonest use of the term ‘extremist’ but we’ve come to expect it to be applied to anybody in the West not cheering for the destruction of his people and country.

But then the term ‘British’ cued me that the extremists in question were probably not ethnic English or any kind of indigenous British Isles folk. The term ‘British’ is now used for anybody inhabiting the territories of the United Kingdom, regardless of their ancestry or race or religion. Just as it’s been said for years that ”anybody can be an American”, now it’s said that anybody can be British.

In fact the term is a strictly ‘civic’ kind of identifier, or less than that: an address. You live in some part of Great Britain, even if you speak no English and have just slipped into the country via the Tunnel, and you are British.

This is why there is no longer any meaning in the term ‘British.’ One may be Scottish or Welsh or Manx or Cornish or Ulster-Irish, but ‘British’ tells us nothing about who you are. All the aforementioned ethnicities can and do claim their ancestral lineage but you will notice that the English are generally excluded. English identity is too exclusive, and so it’s discriminatory. Britain’s ‘huddled masses’ can never be English or Anglo-Saxon, and that’s racist. But all can claim to be British.

So we have ‘British extremists’ supposedly radicalizing ‘Irish‘ mohammedans, but the concealed fact is that both the aforementioned groups tend to have names like, oh, Mohammed.

The obvious intent with this obfuscation is to destroy the very notion of ethnicity being tied to a nation-state, or to stretch the meaning of terms like ‘British’ or ‘Irish’ or American until they are devoid of any information.

And the linked article tells us there are now 60,000 (count ’em) moslems in the “Irish Muslim Community. On such a small island. And I see that there are already firmly-entrenched moslem spokesmen practicing taqqiya, I mean, advocacy, lulling us into believing that there is no cause for concern. All is going according to plan, it seems.

As an outcome of the Paris attacks and the sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve, Dr. Al-Qadri believes there has been a rise in Islamophobia in Ireland, but that the Irish people’s own history makes them generally more tolerant.

“I think the Muslim community are feeling here what the Irish community was feeling in the UK 40 years ago when there were bomb attacks by the IRA. People are afraid,” he said.

“But I think Irish people, because of their own experience in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s, understand the position of Muslims and know you cannot brush them all with the same comb.”

The message is that moslems are just like the Irish. Right.

As far as the Irish being ‘fearful’ of the British when the IRA was doing its violence, I never saw any of that. Anyone who was ‘fearful’ of the fabled ”backlash” from the bigoted native populations could always hop on the boat-train back to Ireland, or onto a plane, to be safe from the violent British. The fact that they still emigrated in large numbers to England does not indicate fear.

But this trick of encouraging the Irish to identify with immigrants and ‘victims’ seems to have worked like a charm. It does seem that there was far more opposition to British rule than there is to the incursion of moslems into Ireland.

 

The discussion on ‘conservatism’

Posted on by | 1 Comment

In the wake of the National Review hit-piece on Donald Trump there has been a slew of postings on the ‘alt-right’ side of the blogosphere discussing ‘conservatism’, especially in relation to populism.

But by far the most comments online seem to be related to the term ‘cuckservatives’, which affronts the ‘establishment conservatives‘ so much. But if the shoe doesn’t fit, then don’t wear it. Don’t take offense if the label does not apply, is the response I would offer to the ‘respectable right’, (who, of course, preserve their “respectable” status by making occasional genuflections to the Politically Correct gods.)

Rich Lowry was right about one thing: Trump is not a ”conservative”, at least not by his definition. Trump is a populist, and yet why should that be a bad thing? It seems that over the decades populism has fallen out of favor with both major political parties. The left has forsaken the common middle-class American, if they ever in fact represented them, and has abandoned the working poor, or the lower middle-class wage earner, in favor of championing the underclass and the ‘huddled masses’ streaming into America. In other words, the majority of Americans, particularly White American citizens, have no one representing their interests.

Since my early days of blogging I’ve been open about having been a deluded liberal in my younger days, and when I finally cottoned onto the fact that the Democrats and their ilk (including the Bernie Sanders-style left) don’t care a whit about common folk, I still found the Republican alternative unappealing because to me they merely represented Big Business, corporatism, military adventurism, and the wrong kind of ‘elitism.’ However, for most Southrons, the Republicans were the only option because they at least pretended to support freedom of religion and traditional America. But this has in recent years proven to be a facade, so my initial misgivings about the Republicans were correct.

I have long thought that if the ‘old right’ returned to its populist roots, to its nationalistic philosophy, so-called ‘isolationism’ or noninterventionism, it could reach many disaffected people, but the Republican party has been a determined opponent of populism and the old-style conservatism of Robert Taft, et al.

But there has to be a balance, shunning populism of the Jacobin/egalitarian kind and also the elitism which characterizes the ‘country club’ Republicans and the limousine liberals alike. The ‘common man’ is not more virtuous just because of his commonness, nor is the wealthy man more virtuous because his wealth indicates his superior ‘fitness’ to compete. Both views are inaccurate to some degree. But there has to be a balance struck. The ”right” as it exists now leans more towards the ‘let them eat cake’ social Darwinism, ignoring the fact that many people with good work ethics are now unemployed (and unemployable for various reasons — immigration being one such reason). The right and left alike ignore these casualties of the ‘devil take the hindmost’ approach, and both political parties scramble to position themselves as friends of the supposed hard-working immigrants and minority victims-du-jour.

Meanwhile the rest of us are forgotten or consigned to the human junk heap.

Much of the discussion of the failings of ‘conservatism’, or at least, ‘Conservatism, Inc.’, consists of denunciations of conservatism per se, with a great many comments stating that conservatives and conservatism are useless, and are in fact ”the enemy.”

But is that true? Is this throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Is there no need for conserving what is good, true, workable, useful, successful? No need for conserving and preserving our true history, our heritage, our accomplishments? No need for those who would try to preserve the good name of our ancestors and forebears? Or must we be like the Jacobins, who had no use for the past, for religion, for tradition, and who foolishly thought to set the calendar back to the year zero, and even ‘change the days and times’, naming the months and days anew? Must we reinvent the wheel, just because those who should have been conservators of the essentials were not faithful to the task?

I have always been wary of those ‘mainstream’ conservatives of the NR ilk who talk about ”conservative ideology.’ Never trust anyone who uses those two words together. They don’t belong in the same sentence. The phrase is oxymoronic. Conservatism does not consist of an ideology, which is a set of beliefs or doctrines. An ideology is a mental construct, a set of abstractions or free-floating ideals. Just as America being reduced to a set of propositions (such as freedom, liberty, equality, social justice, or what have you) rather than a concrete thing based on bloodlines and territory, has corrupted the very nature of this nation. Nation implies flesh-and-blood people, not bloodless mental constructs and utopian ideals or intellectual abstractions.

Beware ideologues of all stripes.

Ideologies are for ideologues. Ideologues are generally those hyper-intellectual people for whom everything is a mental game, not a concrete reality. Leftist are ideologues par excellence, and as one of their intellectual fathers, Hegel, was supposed to have said when someone told him his ideas didn’t line up with the facts, “so much the worse for the facts.” This is the cry of the ideologue, whether a liberal, a libertarian, or a ”conservative” of the ideological type. It is this latter which has destroyed the good name of ”conservatism.”

Conservatism refers to a certain habit of mind, a temperament, a disposition. ‘Conservative’ once referred to those who are dispositionally wary of rapid or wholesale change. Conservative means favoring the guarding of the worthwhile things of the past. Conservatives heed the Bible passage that warns us not to touch ”the ancient landmark.” The Bible teaches us conservatism when it tells us to ‘seek out the old paths, and walk therein‘.  However, when so many of the ancient landmarks are being razed, and when the ‘old paths’ are deliberately obliterated, by those on the ”right” as much as the left, then we have to become reactionaries or restorationists. But let’s not condemn the idea of conserving what is good, just because some have falsely worn the label of conservative and destroyed the good name thereof.

For now, we have to try to reclaim what is good and true and proven, and expose those who fraudulently represent themselves as ‘conserving’ anything except their bank accounts and profits. Let’s conserve our birthright and our people.

 

 

Pushback? Capitulation.

Posted on by | 5 Comments

Following on my previous post, I am sorry to report that the blogger in question, who seemed to be drawing support by standing up for herself, quickly seemed to have caved to the PC blackmailer.

Her blog is now festooned with lots of “diversity”, and just think, we still have all of ‘Black History Month’ to look forward to. I expect there will be pictures galore of Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, Malcolm Little, Michael King, and all the rest of the  pantheon. However I will not be following said blogger.

It’s sad how easily people back down based on what really is not much more than ‘peer pressure.’ Granted, it’s harder for some than for others to maintain integrity and not feel the need to conform to the trends of the day, to popular opinion, and to follow one’s own principles rather than trying to please everyone. Maybe only a few people these days are capable of doing that, and maybe that’s why there is this ‘bandwagon effect’ that has given so much impetus to the politically correct worldview.

But it may be that much of this conformity to political correctness is no deeper than any other ‘fashion trend’; it seems to many young people in particular that being PC, bowing down at the altar to ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ is simply a marker of how ‘cool’, hip, trendy one is. The ‘hipster’/boho trend is very strong among a fairly large segment of the young and the sixties ‘counterculture’ ethos is just part of that.

So much of what many people do is ascribable to nothing more than wanting to be accepted amongst a certain group of people perceived as being social arbiters. People will often go along in hopes of attaining some of that ascribed status. And as most young people’s morality is strictly limited to matters such as race/gender ‘equality’ and matters of food (the popularity of ‘veganism,’ etc.) they hew to its dictates that much more strongly. But will that continue to be the case?

For now, for what it’s worth, I am still unconvinced that the millennial age group is ‘realist’ or that they are casting off PC. I am waiting for proof of that often-made claim.

Some pushback?

Posted on by | 3 Comments

 

It seems that no corner of the Internet is safe from the PC vigilantes out there. There are those politically correct pharisees who are ever ready to take offense at something said, or something not said; to be insulted or outraged at images that are shown and by the lack of images. Example in real life: a reader insinuates that a Tumblr blogger is racist because she ‘only blogs [images of] White people.’ Lack of diversity equals proof of ”racism” in today’s hypercharged world of political correctness.

The blogger replies in a slightly defensive way about not blogging enough images of ‘diversity’, or perhaps about having too much Whiteness on the blog. As someone on the alt-right pointed out, diversity means ‘fewer White people.’

I was a little dismayed to see the young lady blogger going on the defensive, even if only a little. I’ve come to believe that it’s a losing tactic to explain, apologize, or to make any kind of concession to the accuser. Those responses are just read as weakness by the accusers. Ceding ground to them, even a little, is a mistake.

And besides, if we believe that we’ve done nothing wrong, violated no law and no moral precept, by not including ‘diversities’ gratuitously in everything we do, then why apologize or offer to appease?

It’s depressing that this society has produced so many lefty busybodies who make it their life’s work to take offense on behalf of other people, and that’s in addition to the ‘victim classes’ whose very identity is wholly invested in being victimized and oppressed.

But take heart: the young lady blogger in this instance has been receiving a lot of messages of support from those who think she should ignore the PC scolds and witch-hunters and go on doing just as she has been doing, blogging about things that interest her. We should not have to feel compelled to insert ”diversity” into everything we do and say and write about in order to escape being branded a ‘racist’ or ‘White supremacist’. The people who think we should artificially introduce nonwhites or other ‘out-groups’ into everything have been warped by a media which is chockfull of images of black people in highly unlikely if not impossible roles and situations. And this is seen too in the current artificial controversy about the Oscars being ”too White”. What a joke. The media present us with this alternate universe in which ”diversity” seems to be the whole reason-for-being.

That is not the real world; it’s a deranged vision from brains clouded by cultural Marxism, or perhaps from our globalist overlords for whom multiculturalism serves a Machiavellian purpose.

Let reality be what it is; enough of this ‘politically corrected’ false reality. Ignore, or else deride the accusers. Give them no satisfaction by apologies (for what?) or concessions or excuses. They have become used to bullying us all into submission but if they fail to achieve their aim of making us grovel and surrender, then they may not be so arrogant and demanding.

 

Balancing realism and hope

Posted on by | Leave a comment

I’m beginning to wonder if the left’s cynical attitude towards ourselves as a people and nation is infecting the rest of us, particularly the young. I see discussions on ‘alt-right’ blogs in which some other nation is being held up as the hope for the future, while our country and people are disparaged and written off.

I’ve  criticized the rather naive Russophilia that pervades the right, but it seems just about any country that shows some backbone automatically becomes idealized as the potential Light of the West. On one blog, Iceland is the hope for the future, while on another it’s Poland.

I can understand, as I said about Russia, the need to have some hope for the future of some Western (or in the case of Russia, quasi-Western) people and country. It’s not altogether a bad thing; it’s good to maintain hope despite dire outward circumstances. Hope is good. Seeing virtue or inspiration in another Western country is healthy. We should morally support those countries and feel encouraged at any success they have. We should show solidarity with them; they are cousins. They are in the same boat as we are.

However it should be possible to cheer these other peoples and their efforts without having to condemn our own country, our history, our Founding Fathers (they were human, after all), and our ways. But it seems that too often, praising other countries is paired with contempt or disdain for our own, and for our forefathers, ultimately. And I don’t see how there can be hope or progress in the struggle without our having some kind of healthy respect for our forebears, who, to be fair, could hardly have foreseen our current crisis. The prevailing attitude about the Founding Fathers seems to be that ‘‘they should have known our system was no good, and would fail.” Well, they did warn us that the system was ‘fit only for a moral and religious people’, and that it would be ‘inadequate for the governing of any other’ kind of people. And then we wonder why it isn’t working so well for us now? We rejected our religious roots, at least as a country and a people, yet we wonder why our Republic is foundering.

They warned that we had to be vigilant to protect against encroachments on our liberties. Time and time again, various of our early statesmen cautioned us that we must not be lax in protecting our freedoms; we must be on guard. Instead, complacency grew, and party politics did its damage, while we allowed personality cults to grow up. The objects of the political personality cults tended to be demagogues and manipulators rather than public servants. We elected bad leadership too often.

So we can’t blame our Founding Fathers or our forebears only; if they failed, so did we.

As for which country is to be the last redoubt of the West, or the great hope for the future? I don’t see any such shining light, though I will say it is encouraging that some of the Eastern Europeans have been resistant to this dread disease called ‘political correctness’ and cultural Marxism. Perhaps they were inoculated against leftism and Marxism in its varied forms and have some immunity to it. For whatever reason they seem able to see things clearly and speak more plainly, and I admire that.

As to Poland being the hope, it seems odd that while Poles are very nationalistic they also send so many of their young people abroad to work and send money home, just as Latin Americans send people here to send billions of dollars in remittances back to their countries. Poland must find a way to keep their young people at home; if they are true ethnopatriots they will want to do that. Sending their sons and daughters to Britain or Ireland is not a healthy thing, especially as they seem susceptible to the drug-and-promiscuity youth culture of Western Europe. And remember that promiscuity includes miscegeny, which by anecdotal accounts is not uncommon among Polish ‘migrants’. Nationalism does not fit with that. I’d say there is therefore some doubt about how ethnonationalistic Poland is.

Many Americans with Polish roots idealize the Poland of their ancestors, just as do the Irish, but what was true of Poles in an earlier day may not be so now.

As to Iceland, most of us have thought that because of its isolation (yet who is isolated in this postmodern ”small world”?) they would survive while the rest of the West goes up in flames, or is consumed in the multicult DNA blender. Yet immigration is growing, and 8 percent of the population is foreign-born now.
With Iceland’s small population, this is troubling, and considering their lack of experience with ”diversity”, it’s not encouraging. They don’t have time to learn ‘the hard way’, and chances are their openness will mean their destruction as a people.

Our situation, of course, is more complex. Our problems are more deep-rooted in some ways, and yet that’s no reason to write us off or to proclaim that we are doomed, our best days are past. Doomsaying and cynicism are counterproductive, and anyone who is of that habit of mind is helping our enemies, if they only realized it.

On the other hand, I’m not selling pollyanna-ism or foolish optimism — but if we give up and say all is lost, then that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We should avoid selling ourselve short. This country, contrary to the negative sentiments so popular now, was once and for some time a great country — and that is because of the people. The system is not on our side; we’ve let tyranny grow while we were asleep, but that does not mean that we as a people are worthless. We have to regain some sense of self-confidence and hope against hope. Over-idealizing others while disparaging our neighbors and kinsmen at home is something to shun.

Trading ”racists” for…

Posted on by | 1 Comment

The deluded young female in the photo at this link thinks that she prefers — wait for it — rapists to ”racists.” This should be filed under the heading ”don’t let this happen to your daughter”, and by ‘this’, I mean: at all costs, don’t let your daughter be infected with that particular plague called ‘ liberalism’ or ‘progressivism.’ Obviously, it’s only ‘progressive’ in the sense that some deadly disease is ‘progressive’, meaning it gets worse over time.

We might laugh this off as a bad parody, but the blogger who posted it says there’s no evidence suggesting it’s a joke or a send-up. Progressivism including ‘feminism’ has become a parody of itself in recent years, as there’s nothing to put limits on it, nobody who can call time on it.

So assuming this sentiment and the feminist mental case expressing it are in earnest, let’s think about what this means. It shouldn’t surprise us that someone in today’s upside-down world thinks that something called a ”racist” is morally worse than someone who forcibly violates another in the most personal and degrading way. We recently read of how German authorities believed that speaking ill of the rape-u-gees was worse than the acts of rape. Think of that. That’s how morally lost our official society has become. Once we are cut loose from our Christian morality we no longer have any sound basis for a moral and ethical system. I realize the secularists, especially atheists and agnostics, take issue with that statement but they don’t have any credible arguments on their side.

But when words, even mildly critical words are worse than rape or molestation, and when committing intimate violence is to be preferred over holding a negative or even skeptical opinion of another group of people, it’s obvious most people, particularly those on the left, have no moral discernment and are disqualified from any kind of moral ‘reasoning.’ They should never be allowed to sit on a jury, for example.

And maybe the fact that women are prone to this kind of moral deficiency is another argument in favor of removing the franchise from females.

But as far as this sentiment that a ”racist” is the worst possible sort of human being, lower even that rapist/molesters/deviants, I remember when James Edwards, I think, wrote about how Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious killer-cannibal/sex deviant, got up during his trial and pleaded with those in the courtroom not to label him as a ”racist”. Some of Dahmer’s victims were black, and so Dahmer was accused of ”racism” but he begged to be exonerated of that particular ”crime”, though he admitted he was a killer, a necrophiliac, and cannibal. But he was not a racist at least — so he pleaded. He had his self-respect and ‘good name’ to uphold, so he apparently thought. He knew how crazy our moral priorities are now; anything is forgivable except the dreaded ”r-word.”

The frightening thing about the smug, smirking young feminist in the photo is that she represents a sizable minority of deluded ‘progressives’ who believe as she does Worse, the people who hold high office obviously agree with her. That’s scary.

 

Remembering another great man

Posted on by | Leave a comment

In the South, January 19 is the day for celebrating the birthdays of both General Lee and General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson, the latter of whom was born on January 21.

So in the spirit of honoring our heritage and our heroes despite the fact that they and we are under siege in Reconstruction Part II, I remember Thomas Jackson on the day of his birth.

Stonewall Jackson and his boyhood homeStonewall_Jackson