Home » Uncategorized

Category Archives: Uncategorized

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?

 

Absolutely true

Posted on by | 6 Comments

from-fb-2016-11-03_043823

This was posted on Facebook.  I found it on Morgoth’s blog, on a thread which is featuring memes which could be used in trying to engage Hillary voters and the brainwashed left. Could it be useful? I like it because it is absolutely true. The kind of thinking that is denounced as ‘extremist’, ‘hateful’, and ‘bigoted’ was common to most normal people back then; even Democrats had views that are considered reprehensible today.  Yet right and wrong don’t change with time. Truth is not based on shifting, fickle public opinion. What was good and right in 1965 still is.

First we have the election ahead of us. I hope to persuade some of my lefty relatives to stay home and not vote; that may be the best possibility of preventing the disaster that the election might bring.

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.

Relabeling the South

Posted on by | 2 Comments

There’s a blog piece here on the idea of relabeling the people of the Southern States, or at least those of the old Confederacy as ‘Dixians.’ I believe in holding to the old ways, as those who read here know. And the idea of the new flag of the South (the black ‘X’ on a white field) is not one I can be enthusiastic about. I’ve written about this before, and I know that amongst the younger generation, the idea is popular, but that still doesn’t sell it to me.

I do know that the ‘x’ on the flag is not the letter ‘x’ but represents St. Andrew’s Cross, as it appears on both the Scottish flag and the Union Jack, where it is layered with the St. George’s Cross of the English.

Traditionally — and I suspect the younger, secular folk don’t know this, the St. Andrew’s Cross symbolized the Biblical patriarch Jacob, with his crossed-arms blessing on his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh. As many of the young are agnostic/atheist/pagan or just a-religious people from once-Christian families it’s likely this symbolism is unknown to them and that it lacks meaning for them even when explained. Likewise, their black X on a white field is devoid of meaning for me — and I suspect it would have no real resonance for most Southrons. I agree with the following comment from the blog, regarding both new names and new flags:

relabeling_2016-10-25_054930

Yes, definitely — something like a flag, or a name, can’t be just coined out of thin air and imposed on people. It has to come from the folk, and from the heart more than the head.

And the idea of changing the name of the people of the South is very reminiscent of how blacks re-label themselves every so often (or are re-named by the PC commissars who decreed that ‘colored’ had to be replaced by ‘negro’ which had to be changed to ‘black’ which gave way to ‘African-American.’) Obviously it was thought that the negative image was associated with the name, and changing the name would eliminate the “stigma”. Admittedly those who invented the new flag thought that a new name would remove the stigma attached to the South and its symbols.

But will it? Are the left that easily fooled? If the new flag catches on, will that prevent the $PLC from denouncing it as a ‘symbol of hate’? Really? Likewise, with a name change for the people of the South. The people  of the South, however educated, polite, urbane, and ‘respectable’ will forever be depicted as rednecks, bigots, hillbillies, and the rest of the insults. I (and my then-readers) had those slurs hurled at us on the old blog. Nobody is exempt, if they support the South and its history and heritage.

And then there’s the fact that to renounce the old flag, the flag under which our ancestors fought, is essentially conceding defeat to the Left and the anti-Whites. I hope to meet my ancestors in eternity one day, (not just yet, though) and I want to meet them knowing that I kept faith with them, and did not disgrace them in renouncing them and the cause they fought for — the Southern land and people and Christian heritage.

‘Touch not the ancient landmark’. That flag and the statues, they fall under that category, as I understand it.

Look, I know it’s hip and cool to follow after European ‘isms’ like ‘Identitarianism’ but we do not need to look to European intellectuals to interpret the world for us; we are not second-rate European descendants who have to rely on them to impart the truth. Good luck to them; I wish our European cousins well. But their ways of thinking are not those of this country and its heritage. Truth never becomes passe; fashion and popular opinion are passing, trifling things.

Ethnonationalism or ethnopatriotism are things of the heart, not the intellect, when it comes down to it. When we swell with pride hearing a national anthem or see our flag raised in battle — these things have inspired many songs, poems, and stories — that comes from within the heart, and cannot be artificially created.

‘Germany is going down’

Posted on by | 4 Comments

From a German citizen, (via Irish Savant and commenter Flanders) read how the ‘refugee’ situation is worse than many people realize. Most of us know of the dire situation in Europe, especially Germany, but I believe many may still be unaware of the seriousness of the situation. And while this blog is obscure and the piece won’t likely get many views from this posting, someone just may re-post where it will garner more attention.

Please read it and re-post where possible.

The thought that came to my mind is that in a sense we are in greater danger of ignoring the problem, which is also present here: the influx of ‘refugees’ and others, about which we are given no say whatsoever, and the attempts to stifle and silence all dissent or criticism. How far are we from that scenario here? Europe is being subjected to a sudden shock with a great influx, in a smaller geographical area. That tends to get people’s attention. We, however, have been lulled into a sense of complacency; our country is so large, and we have become inured through long experience with immigration to having aliens introduced into our midst. Many Americans have been inoculated, you might say, against any sense of apprehension about it: after all, this was always a nation of immigrants, and we’ve always assimilated the newcomers. Give them time, and they’ll fit right in, and be as American as apple pie. We’ve heard others say that ‘oh, I have Moslem co-workers and they’re nice people’ or ‘My new Hindu neighbors are friendly’ or ‘Mexicans have lived here for centuries; they’re not as bad as people say’. We’re entirely too smug or too resigned, in some cases.

Maybe the sudden shock to Europe may produce a quicker reaction, as we here lull ourselves and each other to sleep. But let’s hope we also wake up.

Trusted media sources?

Posted on by | 2 Comments

The UK Daily Mail reports on the “first” refugee children arriving from Calais, into the UK. Are they really the first, as in the only ones to have arrived via Calais? How does the Daily Mail writer know this? Surely with all the immigrants sneaking in via the Calais route over the years, no one knows how many under-age young people have slipped into the UK with family members or on their own. We have a similar situation here, with many Latino children (at least, the media assures us they are children) coming across the border without parents or other older relatives.

But as in our country, questions are being raised by skeptics about whether some of these ‘child migrants’ are in fact adults lying about their ages. And as the authorities wish to have as many of these people entering our country as possible, they are determined to accept the word of the alleged children as to their actual age. There have been cases where the supposed child proved to be a mature man. This has happened in the UK also. The fact that the supposed children are often laughably obvious as adults shows how gullible or dishonest the authorities are. But the whole thing is far from laughable; serious consequences have resulted from this transparent deception.

The Daily Mail article contains the usual pro-immigrant sympathy, but the commenters, in many cases, are having none of it. At least some people are finally rejecting the media lies.

But earlier today, when checking in on the Russia Today channel, which we get via a streaming device, the ticker reported this story with something about ‘Child migrants being greeted with skepticism’ as they arrived in the UK. And this, with a tone of disapproval.

The RT news channel is so often recommended by people on the right as a source of real news, as opposed to our lying media. I’ve given RT a second chance because the American media is so obviously lacking credibility that I sometimes think any source is better, but what other sources, at least on streaming media, have any credibility at all? So I have given RT a second chance. Unfortunately my impression is as it was at first: RT does give a pro-Russian viewpoint, which is what it should be for, but it also presents an anti-Western, anti-American point of view, which it should not necessarily do. Yes, I realize ‘our’ government has been on an anti-Russian tear, baiting Putin and Russia shamefully. But is Russia necessarily on ‘our’ side, meaning pro-White? From viewing RT, you would not get that impression, if you view it with open eyes. I am probably considered, by my readers at least, to be anti-Russian, though I’m not. In my youth I was fascinated with Russia (the USSR generally), including the language, culture, films, and the people. I still have an affinity for the culture and I’ve known many Russians I liked or was fond of, though they still seem enigmatic to me. I simply warn people that we must not make Russia a Rohrschach inkblot in which we show what is in our own minds, rather than what is really there. We see in Putin or Russia that which we sorely need here: strong confidence and leadership; toughness in the form of ethnopatriotism.

All that aside, Russia Today seems most of all like a Russian version of Fox News. Many of the personalities (and I use that term purposely rather than journalists) on the English version of RT are native English-speakers, either British or American; some of them bear Jewish surnames and other intimations of their ancestry. Why this does not evoke skepticism from the Alt-Right  viewers who are very awake to the Jewish presence in our own media baffles me.

RT has its ‘news babes’, much as Fox News does, and RT is very much of the mindset that makes ‘diversity’ a mandatory feature.

But I do notice that a couple of Irish Savant’s commenters have noticed these things, and these responses followed after someone recommended RT as a reliable media source:

Yeah I have no sympathy for RT. They are playing both sides of the field and yes they do show another perspective but they are a propaganda entity or at least a counter-propaganda element and only show that other side to gain an effect.

I don’t blame the Russians for setting it up like that, but they will expand on the Leftist PC bullshit not because they believe in it but because it destabilises the West who of course has dug their own grave and asked for it by trying to destabilise Russia and her neighbours and allies.

Therefore I don’t care much for RT just as I feel fuck-all for the Western NWO controlled media houses. There are no completely “good guys” in this.”

and:

Anonymous eleos said…

Jay, RT does indeed provide an alternative to the usual anti-Russian Ziocon media. However it otherwise adheres totally to the PC multicultural, blacks-are-victims, mass immigration good agenda.”

The verdict, for my part, is that there is no broadcast or streaming news source that I know of that is on our side, and that is trustworthy.  If anyone out there knows of such a source, I’m open to hearing it.

And I’m glad to see that others are not taken in, in their desperation for some source they can trust.

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.

Glass houses, again

Posted on by | 7 Comments

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

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

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

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

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