Home » diversity

Category Archives: diversity

Secession for some, not others

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I see that some Oregonians are talking of their state seceding after the Trump victory. Typical childish tantrum-throwing, sulking and ‘threats’ from the overgrown infants called ‘progressives.’

I thought it was bad enough during the G.W. Bush years, but the left has grown ‘progressively’ more unhinged with each passing year.

Why not let Oregon and California, likewise, go if they no longer want to be part of these United States? If a majority of Oregonians want to secede I believe (as did my ancestors) that they have a right to do so. After all, in a purportedly free country, how can we keep people in the Union by coercion or force?

However it appears that most of Oregon, comprising the rural areas mainly, voted Republican in this election; this Christian Trejbal quoted in the piece is evidently not typical of Oregon residents, though he may delude himself that he is. After all he probably associates only with other ‘progressives’ and lives in a bubble in one of the liberal enclaves: a big city or an academic town.

As for California, as it is now well on the way to becoming a majority Mexican state, maybe there is a case for that state to secede, based on majority sentiment. Some people have been saying for years that we should throw California to the Mexican government and in return they might stop sending their rejects and criminals across our border. I doubt California would be enough to satisfy them; if they could conquer it demographically, by stealth over the years, they can do the same with other states. Why facilitate the takeover? And if the border with Mexico was moved north, why on earth would Mexicans or other Latin Americans respect that border any more than they have respected the current border?

If California became part of Mexico, we would have to get serious about enforcing the immigration laws, and stop leaving the doors wide open for anyone and everyone to come sauntering in. But the thing that exasperates me most about this secession talk is that the media treats the Oregon and California threats as reasonable, while any talk from the South of secession meets with scorn. Even among conservatives online, many Northerners want to re-fight the War Between the States, throwing around words like ‘treason’ when any Southern state or state mentions seceding.

Why the double standard? Many Northerners want to play the role of a control-freak spouse, saying ‘if you leave, I’ll hunt you down and kill you. You can never leave..’ Half a million people died in the War Between the States because, dammit, the South had no right to break up the Holy Sacred Union. They had to be crushed, subdued, and humbled — even to this day, with the destruction of our monuments, the banning of our flag, and even the exhuming of our heroes. So let the northern states who want their ‘progressive multicult utopias leave, and let them live with the consequences of their actions. No sneaking back into our country, no restoration of citizenship. Or maybe if they begged to re-enter the Union they would have to undergo Reconstruction as their ancestors inflicted on the South. It would be fitting.

No predictions, but…

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?

 

On cultural appropriation

Posted on by | 2 Comments

Here’s an interesting piece giving some perspective on our Hallowe’en traditions:
The rise and fall of Halloween trick-or-treating

It looks like Halloween traditions are being transformed, and in the wake of  mass immigration from entirely unrelated cultures, we will probably see the observance of it vanish eventually — possibly overshadowed by the Hispanic ‘El Dia de los Muertos‘, the ‘Day of the Dead.’

Cultural appropriation, so-called, is increasingly being denounced as some kind of crime against minority victim groups. Most recently there was a bizarre story about canoes:

“According to Misao Dean, Professor of English at the University of Victoria, the canoe can be a symbol of colonialism, imperialism and genocide due to history. She also accused the canoers of cultural appropriation because they are primarily white men and have a privileged place in society.”

This is how strange things are becoming. However some online commenters pointed out how the design of the canoe resembles the Viking boats and ships, and visually, this seems evident. It could be argued that the Vikings, who apparently arrived in North America many centuries ago and founded short-lived settlements, may have inspired the American Indian tribes to try to replicate their boats. Seems plausible to me. So then the Amerindians were the ones ‘stealing.’

Back to Halloween: that festival, under the influence of an increasingly dark popular culture (Hollywood movies, sensationalistic horror fiction, etc.) has become more sinister and creepy than it once was in less corrupt times. Despite that, though, the Hispanic ‘Dia de los Muertos’ is even less wholesome. If you do an internet search, you will find lots of articles about the Hispanic observance, and they are overwhelmingly positive. Food Network has recipes for ‘Day of the Dead’ foods, and Hallmark even has a line of merchandise which celebrates Day of the Dead. Many of the articles you find insist that it’s all about ‘celebrating life’. But then it is associated with the ‘deity’ known as Santa Muerte, or Saint Death.

By Christian lights, the ‘deity’ is a false idol and the holiday is pagan. However, it appears to be on the way to becoming part of our culture, or what was once ‘our’ culture. An acquaintance and I were noticing how much merchandise is now in stores at Halloween time, featuring the multicolored skulls and other ‘Day of the Dead’-related imagery. Christians, if you think Halloween isn’t fit for Christian children, then Day of the Dead is not something we should welcome — though because of Political Correctness, to object to it will be called ‘racism.’

So, liberal ‘whites’ and Hispanics should be raising a fuss about our ‘culturally appropriating’ the Day of the Dead. But they’re not.

Liberals and their allies/mascots should also be objecting to Whites ‘twerking’ and listening to hip-hop, urban, rap, and other forms of music created by (and for) blacks. Why not object to that? I oppose our ‘culturally appropriating’ music and entertainment for blacks. That belongs to them, is best fitted to their tastes and predilections; it shouldn’t be for White consumption.

And what about the trend towards foreign foods? I realize most White Americans now have been conditioned and encouraged to eat exotic ethnic foods, and many White Americans are addicted. How else to explain the sudden craze for consumption of highly-spiced, hot foods, like Sriracha sauce/Sriracha-flavored everything, to ‘ghost peppers‘? Call me old-fashioned and stodgy, but I don’t think European, or at least Northern European digestion is designed for these types of foods.Given what we know about HBD and very real physiological/anatomical differences, it seems that maybe we are not all meant to eat the same diet.

It does seem that the excessively-spiced foods are a staple in very hot climates, and they seem to serve a purpose of inducing perspiration, which is good in that kind of environment. It isn’t needed in temperate and cold climes.

An old saying has it that ‘You are what you eat.’ Maybe food does help to make us who we are in ways we don’t quite understand. The French used to call the English ‘rosbifs‘, from their fondness for roast beef. Now it seems the English are just as fond of the exotic foods — kebabs, curry, Thai food, and all the rest — that the traditional English diet is less popular.

And what about the global pop culture that has swamped our own traditions? Everywhere you go on this planet, it seems you see all ages of people in jeans and athletic shoes (sneakers, trainers, whatever you call them). Then there is the ubiquitous ugly graffiti (no, it is not art) and ‘gang signs’. That’s cultural appropriation from blacks, again. Give it back to them; it’s theirs, not ours.

Our slang, too, is increasingly based in ghetto jargon, and even pro-Whites’ vocabularies are saturated with it, often oblivious to its origin.

On the opposite side, nonwhites, while howling about Whites ‘appropriating’ their dubious ‘culture’, affect White physical features. See ‘black’ celebrities like Rihanna, Beyonce, et al, with fake blonde hair, whether it’s weaves or straightened and dyed natural hair, and lightened skin. Some, of course, is photoshop  effects in their pictures, but obviously they bleach or use skin-lightening cosmetics. Yet they claim pride in their race, and express anti-White sentiments. They shouldn’t try to mimic a White appearance, then. It isn’t convincing in any way, and we could say it is the equivalent of Whites using blackface — which nonwhites complain bitterly of.

Even East Asians are now attempting to whiten their appearance. For decades East Asian women have been able to have eye surgery to remove their natural epicanthic fold and widen their eyes, to approximate the rounder eye of White people. Now it seems that lightening the hair to an auburn or reddish color, or even a pale blonde color (approximately) is the in-thing. Even the young males are doing this. I notice on some of the Korean and Japanese ‘dramas’ that most of the cast, of both sexes, have European-colored hair, rather than their natural jet-black or very dark brown hair.

Hindu women, too, seem to like to use cosmetics or bleaches to make their skin lighter.

Paradoxical, isn’t it, that though they resent and often hate us, they try their best to look like Whites, and in the case of the women, to get White spouses? Or maybe it isn’t paradoxical. I think that their animosity and resentment of Whites is a product of envy, pure and simple. Envy, wishing that we had the possessions and qualities of others, often produces hatred or resentment of those who have what we want, and imagine we deserve.

We often ask why they come to our countries yet undermine us, or express hatred and ‘fear’ of us. The answer again is envy. Envy is no minor thing; it was traditionally one of the ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ in Christian teaching. Envy, pride, and covetousness, all wrong, morally. Those who make excuses for those who envy and hate us, who attempt to gin up sympathy for them, are excusing those very obvious sins of envy and covetousness.

But on our side, why do we ‘culturally appropriate’ aspects of nonwhite cultures? Do we actually envy them, or covet what they possess? Liberals and xenophiles think their ways are more ‘colorful and vibrant’ and more ‘authentic’ than our bland and ‘plastic’ culture.

We need not envy them or imagine them superior in any way. Their desire to live amongst us shows that they see our culture as preferable. When will we see that for ourselves, and stop living in their shadow?

Old nations, new countries

Posted on by | 4 Comments

Germans and Swedes were recently told via advertising and other propaganda that their countries are essentially gone, and that they must integrate into a ‘new country,’ apparently multicultural and multiracial.

Despite the fact that we’ve all been watching this unfold, and we’ve all heard that the endgame is submersion of the indigenous peoples of Europe in a Third World tidal wave, it’s still shocking to hear it said so blatantly.

In Sweden, a tax-funded TV ad created by a government-backed “charity” called “Individuell Manniskohjalp” (Individual Relief), or IM, informs Swedes that their old country is never coming back. Translated to English, the slogan for the campaign is #TheNewNation. “There is no way back,” the ad begins. “Sweden will never be like it was. Europe is changing and Sweden is needed as a safe space for people who seek refuge. Now we must look forward and find a way to live side by side.”

As African and Middle Eastern faces intermixed with Swedish faces cycle through on the screen, the ad informs viewers that Sweden is in for some dramatic changes. “It’s time to realize the new Swedes will claim their space, and will take up room with cultures, languages and customs,” the narrators say in Swedish, alternating between male and female voices. “It’s time we see this as a positive force. The new country is about shaping a new future.”

The closest “our” country has come to spelling it out has been in the incident in Minnesota, in which Governor Mark Dayton told his constituents, the taxpaying citizens of that state, that if they don’t like mass Somali (and presumably, other) immigration, they must get out of the state, and find new homes.

The increasingly explicit message, in Germany, Sweden, and in Minnesota is: you citizens and native-born people no longer have any rights in your birthplace. You are not citizens but subjects in a totalitarian state, one in which you have no say, and no rights, except the right to shut up or get out. But if some wish to get out, per Mark Dayton’s advice, where do they go? The globalist regime is implementing the same twisted and tyrannical plan everywhere in the West.

We can see the handwriting on the wall as the situation in France worsens, with France on the brink of some kind of armed conflict. The recent attack on four policemen in Viry-Châtillon, where the officers were set on fire, has escalated things. Tiberge at Gallia Watch tells us that France is preparing for an ethnic civil war.

This is the entirely foreseeable and inevitable result of forcing mass immigration, mainly from Mohammedan countries, on France. Because anyone with an ounce of good sense could predict the outcome of decades of coerced ‘diversity’, it is inexcusable that those in authority continue to push more and more immigration and ‘tolerance.’ It beggars belief to blame this on just malfeasance or blundering; it’s deliberate. I concluded long ago that the explanation had to be either extreme stupidity and incompetence, or deliberate malice. And I don’t believe that the Oligarchs are that stupid and clueless.

Interestingly, Tiberge’s piece at Gallia Watch contains this passage:

Philippe de Villiers revealed the existence of secret, discreet agreements of submission, beyond the pale of legality, with the complicity of the French State, to surrender quietly portions of French territory to Islamic sharia law. The collaborating State is already negotiating with the invader.”

Not long ago I posted a link to piece quoting from a supposed ‘inside source’ in the UK who spoke of a plan in which at least some European leaders had a covert agreement with the Islamics to cede certain areas to them, or implicitly, to surrender the whole country provided they retained their positions as quisling puppets, presumably, within their respective countries. Nobody seems to be discussing that subject, though it is hinted at here and there. It seems more and more plausible to me that the deal is already done, and that the governments are now feeling bold enough to take off the masks and lay down the law, as the German and Swedish authorities (collaborators?) are doing.

Of course we’ve been aware for ages that there is a globalist agenda, and a plan to eradicate nations under some kind of One World system. But just because it hasn’t been officially announced in the Mainstream Media, some still insist that this is tinfoil-hat paranoia. But here it is, being put out in the open.

And when I speak of eradicating ‘nations’, I don’t just mean the geopolitical entities or the governmental apparatus, but ‘nations’ in the original, true sense: nations are peoples. They consist of flesh-and-blood human beings. The quote in my previous post, from Corneliu Codreanu, was dead-on; it’s about destroying nations.

Note: For an interesting piece on Philippe De Villiers, and the validation of some of his predictions about France, see this.

Illegal alien crimes

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Here’s a blog devoted to reporting crimes by illegal aliens (including some refugee crimes, apparently). While their efforts are worthwhile, seeing as how the lying media probably under-report and downplay such crimes, I can’t help reiterating that legal or illegal, the issue should be that the quality of the immigrants we now admit to our country means that more crime in our country is the result.

I don’t see why so many immigration restrictionists want to reduce the issue to one of ‘illegal vs. legal immigrants’, with legal=good and illegal, bad. It is not that cut and dried. Even apart from the serious crimes committed by immigrants of all kinds, we just do not need more immigrants, especially those from violent, unstable, high-crime countries.

A ‘Startpage’ web search yielded a slew of articles by a range of sources, from the Wall Street Journal (yes, they of ‘There Shall Be Open Borders’ fame) to PBS, the WaPo, some libertarian open-borders sources, and so on. Skewed much? In any case, reading those sources would have us believe that immigrants are much more law-abiding than natives of this country. Maybe — depending, of course, on which ‘natives’ you mean.

Even alternative search engines seem to give heavily biased results.

This article from American Thinker says that it appears illegal immigrants commit murder at a higher rate than the native-born population. Whether there is any data on the difference between immigrants here legally vs. those here illegally, it isn’t easy to determine.

Yet what logical basis could there be to believe that only those who enter the country illegally are even potentially lawbreakers? I suppose there is just the vague unsupported assumption that a criminally-prone person would not ”go by the rules” in coming to this country. But what of those who come here via chain migration, as relatives of legal immigrants or legal residents of foreign birth? Or refugees? Are they vetted thoroughly, and as has been asked often, how can we vet people from third-world countries, where good public records are not kept, or not available?

Donald Trump has taken a lot of flak for saying that Mexicans commit a lot of rape in this country. Some sources, even the normally immigration-skeptical CIS, have argued that data shows immigrants commit less crime, but as is pointed out here, it isn’t that simple. The methods used in collecting data (including self-reporting, in many cases, by offenders) and the unwillingness of government departments to collect and collate such data means that even the government really has no definitive answers.

It’s simple common sense to look at the countries from which most of our immigrants come; are those countries high-crime, high-violence countries, reflecting cultures of that type? In the vast majority of cases, the answer is yes. Why, then, should those immigrating here suddenly become law-abiding and peaceable, when their countries are violent and dysfunctional, and in many cases, downright lawless? It requires a great deal of credulity to believe that people from countries where violence and crime are a way of life would suddenly become model neighbors here in the United States.

We are being misled by the media and by the powers-that-be, as in so many things.

Just that easy

Posted on by | Leave a comment

When the ‘Milo’/Alt-right love affair started I was wary, because whenever any ‘protected group’ is incorporated into the ‘Big Tent’, chances are that group will begin to impose its agenda (which is counter to that of the majority, always) onto the majority. “We need their votes!” Or, in Milo’s case, “He fights! He wins! We need fighters.”

Doesn’t anyone think that it’s a sad commentary that an effeminate homosexual has to “fight” on behalf of straight men who should be able to champion their own interests?

[An aside: the gay ‘Daddy will save us” hashtag,  referring to Trump, is mentioned. Maybe some FReepers don’t realize that for gay men, the term ‘daddy’ has a specific meaning.]

Anyway, the title of this post is a description of how easily the ‘mainstream GOP’ types at Free Republic are all fine with the “gay community” getting on the Trump train. Just read the comments here. How many dissenters are there? Watch. Those people will soon be called ‘homophobic’ and told that they are hindering The Cause by their bigotry.

No victim group left behind.

Yes, by all means, we need two parties competing for the ‘gay vote’ and two parties (at least) competing for the African-American vote, the Hispanic vote, the Moslem vote, etc. etc.

What will happen to our interests in this scenario? Just asking. Rhetorically, of course.

Our system fails us, again

Posted on by | 1 Comment

I don’t like to write much about these kinds of horrifying stories; there are enough bloggers who shine the spotlight on such occurrences; that’s their specialty, so I don’t feel called to write about it. But this case just distresses me, not only because it is one more in a never-ending series of such avoidable outrages, but because so many people end up focusing on irrelevancies like this ”man’s” immigration status.

It doesn’t matter whether he was here legally or illegally; the point is he does not belong here, should not be here, should never have crossed the “border” into our country, and this poor child should never have encountered him, or anyone like him.
About this time the usual crowd — bleeding-heart Republicans or lefties, will say: ‘but we have native-born sex offenders, too.’

Unfortunately, yes, we do, and we are stuck with them, until or unless somebody catches on that these kinds of lowlifes cannot be ”cured” by therapy or good intentions or understanding or pills or ‘chemical castration.’ Some would doubtless argue that we cannot execute people like this — after all we hardly even execute killers, even mass killers, anymore. Failing execution we should find a way to send them off the planet somewhere, but that isn’t likely to happen soon, sadly. So yes, we are stuck with these miscreants who are born here, and who are of our folk. But it must be pointed out that certain cultures, the Hispanic/mestizo culture being one of them, are more prone to this kind of behavior. Some other cultures do not share our ideas about minimum ages for sexual activity, or about the need for consent on the part of both partners, providing both are of the age to give consent.

And there’s little evidence that it is only the illegal foreigners in our country who are guilty of this kind of thing; having papers or documents does not mean the possessor is of good character, especially when many Third World immigrants have no paper trails, and cannot be ‘vetted’; there is an element of wishful thinking in the idea that ‘if we just vet them thoroughly, they will be good bets.’ No. Immigrants, refugees, legal or illegal, we cannot vet most of them. We can only go by the overall picture of the cultures these people are coming from, and assess them accordingly. We cannot gamble any more lives on the long shot, on the notion that most of them are harmless people, just like us under the skin.

Legal or illegal, we don’t need more immigrants of any kind from these kinds of backward and degenerate cultures.

This latest case in Texas reminded me of another case, also in Texas, several years ago, in which a rancher caught a Latino immigrant (ironically named ‘Jesus‘) molesting his (the rancher’s) 5-year old daughter. He beat the man severely and the ‘man’ died as a result.

God bless the Texas legal system; they did not charge the father for beating the offender (who of course died, ultimately.) That poor child will likely never be the same, as with many children who suffer such a fate,  but at least she won’t have to relive the whole experience through the legal system for years. Her father acted on a natural and healthy impulse to save and protect his daughter, and in doing so, he may well have saved others from the same fate, by removing the offender, preventing further crimes and outrages.

Whereas this ‘man’ (with the ironic name ‘Alas‘) in Fort Worth will likely live to offend another day, and likely against other children, after they briefly institutionalize him and give him ‘therapy’, then release him. Will he then be deported? Maybe, but then the odds are that he will be back. Multiple times, like most such deportees.

Our immigration system and our legal system are failing us, and failing our children.

And most of the ‘conservatives’ can only harp on his being ‘illegal.’ The point, though, is that he should not be here, legally or illegally, nor should tens of millions of others whose contribution to our society is all negative.

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.’

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.

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.