Home » intolerance

Category Archives: intolerance

On the generational warfare front…

Posted on by | 1 Comment

If the following was written about most groups, it would be considered some kind of incitement. Which it is.

Anonymous” —- said…

Old people are committing White genocide. Baby boomers are DESTROYING the next generation of Whites. Generation identitaire are correct.

The older generation are RAPING the young, forcing them to fund their retirements with rent.

A backlash will occur. Old whites are going to hell. When Tim Wise’s clock stops ticking, immigrants will vote to not pay them.

Old retired whites ARE destroying the white race, and none of them seem to care. “But I paid into my retirement account my whole life.” Maybe they did, but ALL that money is gone. The younger generations actually owe them nothing. The western social welfare ponzi scheme is white genocide.”

Wonder which generation the writer is part of, and how he would justify his generation’s existence? What have he and his age cohort done to reverse things? Let some of these daddy-haters explain themselves and their (lack of) action other than reviling their parents and/or grandparents and cheering for their demise.

Until proven otherwise, these people are plants/operatives paid to sow division or to exacerbate division that already exists. Or they are self-haters, because you cannot, can not love your folk while hating your progenitors.

Hate is a natural human emotion. It is part of our makeup. It is not condemned in the Bible as a sin. We are to hate what is evil — but that’s not enough. We are to love that which is good, and cleave to it.

Hating our own folk is not consistent with being pro-White or an ethnopatriot. Anyone who preaches this kind of elder-loathing venom should be called out on it. And no one is doing so. Apparently it’s OK with most, judging by the loud silence.

 

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.

An illustration

Posted on by | 3 Comments

This discussion on Steve Sailer’s blog features many comments by someone with the creative screen name ‘Anonymous’, who seems to be an example of the paid operatives who are assigned to Internet blogs and forums (fora, if you want to be pedantic) to issue the Official Party Line, and to derail/influence/steer discussion in an appropriate (read: government-sanctioned) way.

This kind of thing has been brought out in the open for several years now, but it’s amazing how it’s still thought of as being more ‘conspiracy theorizing.’ But note how the principals named in that blog piece I link above explicitly discuss how to discredit ‘conspiracy theories’ in general, by Internet manipulation of discussion.

“Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government.”

Some will say that this ‘Anonymous’ person is just your garden-variety Leftie troll or ideologue. He may well be; there are many such people. This person, however, like many such commenters of that type, seems to have endless hours to devote to hanging on one discussion thread and writing detailed responses to those who disagree. They often seem to be one-man armies of discourse manipulation, and often disinformation.

Not all of them will be focusing on ‘conspiracy theories’ as such but just spreading the usual multicult, anti-White propaganda; trying to demoralize and spread fatalism among people on the right oftentimes is their focus.

Granted, there are many obsessive leftist/multicultis who seem to do nothing but post on multiple blogs and forums and comment sections, often cut-and-paste jobs, the same comments everywhere. They may be the stereotypical slackers living in Mom’s basement, spending days and nights online fighting their ideological enemies but chances are those who spend this much time dispensing so much propaganda online are part of Sunstein’s army or something similar.

Putting paid to ‘birtherism’

Posted on by | 4 Comments

As I often do I am going to take a contrarian position on this whole story, which is being discussed here, on Steve Sailer’s blog, among other places.

Does it all end with a whimper, after, what, 8 years of controversy? And all because one man steps before a microphone, saying it isn’t true?

I am sure that ‘resolution’ makes certain people in high places very happy; now the issue can be declared dead and laid to rest. And even more to the point, the whole issue of the ‘natural-born’ requirement for presidential candidates is now declared irrelevant, according to those who were always opposed to the so-called ‘birthers.’

The consensus on the ”right” seems to be that the whole controversy originated with Hillary Clinton, or her campaign in the person of the sleazy Sid Blumenthal. Therefore, goes this line of ‘reasoning’: Hillary started it, and therefore it was bogus and it was a lie, hence it’s delegitimized by being associated with her or her lackeys.

Now what’s the name of that logical fallacy again? Whatever it’s called, it is dishonest and just not valid to say that because person X makes a statement or raises a question that the claim is automatically discredited, or obviously a lie. The fact is, too, that nobody offers proof of the statement that Hillary (or Blumenthal) started the controversy, or that they were the first to ask the obvious questions about the birth of a presidential candidate.

Those who’ve read this blog know that while I didn’t write much on the ‘birther’ issue I expressed my disgust with the very vociferous ‘anti-birthers’ who acted as ”concern trolls” whenever people posted blog pieces or forum topics on the birth controversy. If those antis had had their way, nobody would have been allowed to discuss it, lest ”we look ridiculous to the left”. “You’ll make us a laughingstock; we’ll lose the election if you don’t shut up!” Such was the tenor of their ‘arguments.’ Sad. More than sad.

Does the Truth matter to more than a handful of people on this planet anymore?

I do remember that during the 2008 election the birth issue was raised by a number of bloggers, one being a blogger known as Dr. Kate. There were a number of others. A lot of scholarship and investigation went into the question on the part of some people, whose efforts are now being repudiated.

The only reason, as far as I can see, that the GOP establishment did not take up the hue and cry is political correctness. Then, as now, they were running scared from the ‘r-word’, just as I knew they would. They refused to touch the issue, while Hillary felt more free to exploit the obvious doubts, being more protected by the media and her constituency. That does not mean she invented ‘birtherism.’

It is by no means self-evident to me that Hillary started it all with a big lie as most are happy to accept. I need to have that proven to me, but then again there will be few people who will touch the subject now. Nobody likes being smeared as a ‘conspiracy kook’, a ‘birther’ (why should that be a slur, anyway) or a ‘Sperg.’  I really hate that last childish insult. It’s a low kind of ad hominem aimed, I guess, at people who are deemed too ‘nitpicky’, what the Freudian idelogues call ‘anal.’ So you see, standards and rules are important only to people with Aspergers, or autistic people, or ‘anal’ people. Thank you, social “sciences”, for creating new labels to discredit differing opinions and the personalities of those who hold unpopular opinions.

I know that the younger ‘rightists’ say that the Constitution has become an idol and that we need to get over our obsession with the Constitution — but that’s much like what C.S. Lewis warned about when he said that each age paradoxically argues against the very things that are all but defeated and extinct. For example, a libertine and licentious age rails against ‘puritanism’ and ‘prudery’, as is happening now, things which most know full well are on life support. The antis just want to make sure that the old standards are good and dead, and in no danger of resurrection. They are determined to put a stake in the heart of anything traditional lest it recover and spoil their party.

So to most ”rightists’ of whatever stripe, the Constitution is something best forgotten, including the requirement that our presidents be natural-born. They say they do not care. And during the primaries the Cruz supporters declared that the ‘birthers’ who objected to a Canadian-born, half Cuban immigrant candidate were crazy or out of bounds to even raise the question.

Anti-birthers, you won, and now the field is officially wide open for anyone from anywhere to be elected presidents. Thanks to the anti-birther concern trolls, who’ve won the day by shouting down the people with legitimate unanswered questions.

 

 

Less freedom for honesty

Posted on by | 7 Comments

Increasingly, there is no place left for free expression as in politically incorrect (read: honest) ideas, opinions, or images.

On Vox Day’s blog, a report of one Pinterest user having her board on Nationalism deleted as ‘hate speech.’ The fact that it was labeled ‘hate’ indicates, if there was any doubt, that the nationalism at issue was White people’s nationalism. I sincerely doubt that black nationalism or Jewish nationalism/Zionism would be designated as ‘hate’, and such a board would not be summarily deleted, and the owner warned of possible account suspension.

I requested that my Pinterest account be deleted, though it appears that accounts can’t be deleted at the user’s request, only ‘deactivated.’ You can enter but you can’t fully opt out of the Pinterest world. Just as with google, or, come to think of it, with the sacred American Union.

For some time I’ve thought of deleting my Pinterest boards and account, finding it to be time-consuming and rather pointless. Now, I never had a political board there, really, but I did have items related to controversial history and images of the Confederate Battle Flag, which is now being designated as a ‘hate’ symbol. As wrong as that is, the fact is, the enemies of the flag and of the South and her people are now winning, easily, with very little resistance or pushback from our side. Sad. But other than those images (which I expected would sooner or later be the occasion of complaint from some SJW or ‘aggrieved victim’) my boards were innocuous and non-controversial. Actually my reason for being there was for sheer escapism; the desire to divert my mind from all the disheartening news and the lack of an outlet through which to channel my frustration. I just enjoyed looking at, and pinning, examples of beauty in some form or other, something to counter all the ugliness of this upside-down world we inhabit.

And, as John Keats said, beauty is truth, and truth, beauty. Our current world, this present darkness, has banished both.

Am I caving to the politically correct commissars? You might look at it that way, but why just sit and dread the inevitable? I’d rather depart of my own free will and not wait to get my warning letter or notice of suspension. Better to leave by the front door than to be kicked out. Pinterest just isn’t that important to me.

One of my first exposures to Pinterest was when a pro-White woman spoke of it as a possible venue for sharing pro-White views, as she said she was doing. I now have my doubts as to the value of doing that; it seems the majority of users are either apolitical women (from all countries, by the way) and the rest, people with an obvious ‘social justice’ agenda, people who constantly post multicult ‘diversity’ propaganda. I had to unfollow a number of people who constantly pushed that kind of thing. Pinterest may not be as blatantly leftie/globalist/antiWhite as tumblr, but it is still not friendly to White ethnonationalists, as we are seeing.

I don’t think I will miss Pinterest, but the thing that troubles me is that it is becoming more obvious that by design there are fewer and fewer places online where people may speak freely and honestly. I am surprised that the major blogging platforms still allow free speech at all. Soon we may be reduced to speaking in whispers, in secret, as in the old Communist regimes. And with today’s high-tech surveillance, which spares no one, there really is no private communication between individuals anymore — at least if we are to believe the Snowden revelations.

One last thing: the question that occurred to me was: who owns Pinterest?

‘Dixie’ banned at Ole Miss

Posted on by | 1 Comment

‘Ole Miss’ has caved again.

The University of Mississippi’s marching band will no longer play any variation of the song “Dixie” – a tradition some seven decades old at football games and other sporting events.

The University’s Athletic Department confirmed to Mississippi Today on Friday that the song, which was the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, will no longer be played at athletic events.”

The Confederate Battle Flag gone, ‘Colonel Reb’, the school mascot/symbol gone, and now the song ‘Dixie.’ What next? What will be banned next? Because, I assure you, ‘they’, meaning the South-hating SJWs, and Southern-born ‘cucks’, plus Northern transplants who should have stayed in their home states where they needn’t be offended — plus the ever-aggrieved blacks, will not rest. They go from strength to strength because they are unopposed. Why are Mississippians, real Mississippians, so passive in letting this go unchallenged? Are there no people who simply want to defend freedom of expression as a principle, even if they don’t care about the South?

What will be next to fall?

The songs “Dixie,” “Dixie fanfare,” and a pregame arrangement containing themes of “Dixie” will no longer be played by the band, known as the The Pride of the South.”

The Pride of the South? How have they let that name stand all this time? The South is not supposed to have any pride, according to the heritage-destroyers and the rewriters of history. If there is any pride of the South, or pride in the South and what it represents, it must be PC-whipped out of the Southron people.  That seems to be the agenda. And it seems to be right on schedule.

The article notes that the Band Directors chose not to comment on this announcement. I don’t know who they are, but I would guess that they are probably not Southern-born or Southern-bred, just as with the Ole Miss Athletic Director, Ross Bjork. It seems that few Southron people are in positions of influence and authority so that outsiders now determine their future, people with little to no understanding of the Southron people and their unique history and heritage. And that is probably by design. The South is now occupied territory, since 1865.

My late uncle, a rather tough Marine, told of one time, back in the 1990s, when he was on the highway driving home and the song, “I Sang Dixie” by Dwight Yoakam played over his car radio. It was the first time he heard it, and he told of how he had to pull over until he could dry his eyes. The song is a tearjerker for those of us who understand what ‘Dixie’, the place and the song and the people, mean to us. I had the same reaction to the song when I first heard it, and it still affects me, even more so, considering that soon, singing “Dixie” will be ‘hate speech’. Probably even the name ‘Dixie’ will be forbidden, eventually.

Our forefathers are turning in their graves. That they fought so hard and so bravely, against such odds, only to have their heritage erased bit by bit and their descendants demoralized and alienated from them would be more than they could endure.

.

It hasn’t worked yet

Posted on by | 2 Comments

And chances are it never will. But still we keep on trying.

A group of police officers at a Pennsylvania restaurant performed one of those ‘random acts of kindness‘ toward some fellow diners.

”A group of policemen from Homestead and Whitaker, eating at a Waterfront restaurant, paid a couple’s bill after the couple made it obvious they didn’t want to sit by the officers on Saturday.

“A table goes to sit down and the guy looks over at one of the police officers and was like, ‘Nah I don’t want to sit here.’ So they got moved completely opposite, away from the police officers,” said Eat N’ Park server Jesse Meyers.”

The police officers even included a $10 tip.

‘The officers wrote, “Sir, your check was paid for by the police officers that you didn’t want to sit next to. Thank you for your support. I left a $10.00 tip too.”

“It just dawned on me, I should do this real quick just to show this guy look, I don’t know if you had bad experience with the police in the past — you may have you may have not — but I just want you to know I never had an experience with you and I’m not here to do anything to you. And neither will my partners,” Thomas said.”

Well, God bless these officers for their efforts. The Bible does say to give to those who are unable (or unlikely?) to repay you; to do good deeds without a thought of recompense. And the officers probably won’t win these people’s trust or goodwill.

The article pointedly omits mention of the race/ethnicity of the ‘fearful’ diners whose check the police paid. So I will assume they were ‘POC’, people “of color”, as the PC terminology calls them. Besides, though many White lefties (and libertarians) detest police, at least if they are White, they rarely fear them, or pretend to fear them.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t imagine the cop-phobic couple suddenly having a change of heart and repenting of their hostility toward the police. Trying to imagine such a scene only produces comic scenes in my imagination, so far-fetched is it.

But the whole effort of the police is so, well, typical of 21st century Whites; “maybe if we just try to understand them, reach out, reassure them, show we care, they will see just how wrong they are about us, how very, very, not racist we are…”

How long do we go on doing the same failed action and expecting a different result?

Dallas shootings

Posted on by | Leave a comment

By now everyone is aware of the situation in Dallas, Texas, with 11 police officers shot, 5 (as of now) killed.

Given that all the major media outlets are dishonest and fully compromised, there is no real reliable live source of news and commentary. This link is as good (or bad) as most.

I’ve been busy reading the reactions on many blogs and forums, including alt-right blogs as well as ‘mainstream’ conservative ones. There’s been a wide range of reactions. On the ‘conservative’ blogs, the usual colorblind faction is pleading for the rest not to make it a ‘racial thing’, after all, every group has some bad apples, and we mustn’t generalize or condemn the ‘good ones’ because a few are bad, and maybe it was White leftists doing the shooting, so we hope. The usual ‘virtue signaling’ cuck behavior. NABALT, as usual.

Then there are the hardened skeptics: “False flag. Crisis actors. Staged event.”

Some keep repeating that the protest at which the shootings happened, which was a protest by BLM, was a ‘peaceful, nonviolent protest‘, and that some kind of outside forces opportunistically happened along to start shooting law enforcement officers. I am not buying this. I think that whoever did the shooting (suspects in custody as of now,  a woman included, all unidentified) were part of the BLM contingent; maybe not everyone there was ‘in the know’ but the major actors knew. I think the protest was an occasion for gathering a lot of police officers in one place to pick them off.

Just my opinion, of course. Some say “it must have been carried out by White leftists because blacks aren’t organized enough.” Why assume that? There are always exceptions to every rule. Some claim blacks are generally not good sharpshooters and thus are unlikely to be snipers. Three words: John Allen Muhammad.

In any case we don’t know much about the whole picture as yet, but my point is that anything is possible, and sadly, a lot of White folk want to deny any racial aspect to this out of hand — because they fear the reality that there is a real racial conflict in this country that is escalating, fueled mostly by an anti-White power structure, aided by the compromised, inflammatory media. And they blame us, the law-abiding citizenry, for all of it, as they continue to act as provocateurs.

Prayers for the families of the murdered police officers, and for our folk, and for our broken country.