An interesting (and important?) speech

Some of you may have come across this speech, but I’ve only just read it. Because of the fact that it is a translation and that some might be skeptical; some may dismiss it, but I like to keep an open mind, while exercising discernment. But I offer the link for those who might find it interesting and informative — if a little troubling.

Here’s a related link.

It’s happening

The principal of a public school in New York City’s East Village has sent home materials with pupils, spelling out how students of European descent must ultimately work their way through the ‘8 Degrees of Whiteness’, the ultimate degree of which is to become a ‘White Abolitionist’.

The school in question, FWIW, is one of those which boasts of its ‘vibrant and diverse‘ student body. As do they all, these days. If only they could boast about teaching their students all sides of an issue, and promote free exchange of ideas and viewpoints — and facts, as our First amendment was intended to do.

I know of a young lady, from outside the U.S. who scoffs at the suggestion that there is a movement towards abolishing ‘Whiteness’. She says there is not, and never has been, anything like discrimination against people of European descent. This kind of denial is mainly due to the mendacious media and their mostly successful effort to keep the truth suppressed, Young students today live in a bubble in which only politically correct left-wing lies and obfuscations are allowed to be heard, hence the ignorance. I suppose eventually reading will be forbidden so as to shield the young from reality. In the meantime the public schools in particular spread their toxic ideology. So young people like my acquaintance will never know the truth nor will they listen to anyone who tries to spread truth, but they will continue to attack, verbally if not by physical means, anyone who intrudes into their bubble of falsehood.

Tolkien on government

“The true equation is “democracy” equals government by world financiers. The main mark of modern governments is that we do not know who governs, de facto any more than de jure. We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer, or what is most important of all, the banker of the backer. Enthroned above all, in a manner without parallel in all past, is the veiled prophet of finance, swaying all men living by a sort of magic, and delivering oracles in a language not understood of the people.”

— J.R.R. Tolkien, Candour Magazine, 13 July 1956

Choosing a side

Lately it’s been hard to remain upbeat and to focus on anything hopeful or ‘positive’, so I’m afraid I don’t have any sunshiny platitudes to offer. And it’s hard not to notice a lot of anger and vitriol on most ‘right-wing’ blogs, in addition to the usual nastiness and hostility from the loathsome left.

So while I am loath to post a ‘rant’, here it comes. This is not personal towards any of you because I don’t know most of you. And if what follows does not pertain to you, just pay it no mind; if the shoe does not fit then no need to wear it.

It is sad that even after years of the self-hating tropes that go around the right-wing internet, the ”Boomer-hate” enterprise is still thriving and refuses to go away. When I describe that bitterness as ‘self-hating’, what else is it when it is one’s own parents/grandparents/aunts/uncles, etc.? They are ”bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh’ even when we declare them ”fat” and ”stupid” and ”greedy” and as one (right-wing) commenter said, ”wicked”.

Hello?
There is a truism that as we age, we tend to resemble our parents, physically and in other ways. It happens.

Those older are not always sainted and loveable all the time but I find it hard, in the extreme, to believe that one becomes evil with aging, and one has no redeeming virtues when one is no longer young. According to the Boomer-phobics, or the gerontophobes, older people have no justification to go on living. Yet the young folk who despise their elders will soon enough lose their youth and attractiveness. And people tend to reap what they sow.

And the people who are typing out their rage toward their ”fat, stupid, wicked, greedy” parents and grandparents don’t even know who exactly to hate; some young folk believe that people in their fifties (yes, 50s) are ”boomers” while some include even people in their 80s and 90s. But the following is the generations by date of birth:

The ‘Generations’ by date of birth:

Greatest — 1901-1924
Silent — 1925-1945
Baby Boomer — 1946-1964
X — 1965-1984
Millennial — 1985-2000

Do these generational dividing lines, which are, granted, arbitrary, really make us who we are, or determine our character? If so, it’s like astrology, which is a pseudo-science. Some people believe numbers determine our character and our fate. I believe most people with a brain will not give credence to things like horoscopes or numerology or Chinese astrology. “Our fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
True, the circumstances in which we grow up and come of age, the ideals of the time and place in which we are born, the people around us, all of it has some effect. But the time or ‘generation’ into which we are born is not an absolute determinant of how good or bad we are as people. It’s neither intelligent nor convincing to make it an absolute that ”Boomers”, whoever people think they are, are congenitally ”stupid” or ”greedy” or ‘evil’. And then how can one make a blanket condemnation of people who were simply born in the same time period? This attitude nullifies individual variation and differences based on the region one grew up in (South vs North, for example, or religious and ethnic differences) — this generation theory implies that one’s ‘generation’ is the biggest influence. Life experience says otherwise.

Are older people “evil, greedy, and wicked?” as so many young people insist? We can measure things like that; are they more criminally prone or antisocial? Doubtful; most crimes are by younger cohorts. That’s a matter of statistics. Real-life experience tends to belie those fanciful allegations anyway. And are older age groups ”stupid”, as compared to the younger age groups? Test scores say no. Even when academic tests were dumbed down to make it easier for the young, there was and is a disparity in academic testing. Generation by generation there is a gap in favor of the older age groups. I acknowledge that my elders were better educated, some with only a high-school education, than my age group. It does not hurt me in the least to say that. They had better schools and teachers, higher standards, a better environment. I don’t resent that at all. And I see no sense in blaming others for the disparity. And it does seem that the older generations were more intelligent and above all, they had more common sense than their descendants.

So the ugly caricature of the old is based on some kind of weird resentment that many of the young bear against their elders, and it appears to be subjective, based on what the bitter younger generation members feel is ‘unfair’ to them. ”They stole my inheritance!” “It isn’t fair that they had it easier than I do.” Hello? Are we Communists? I don’t believe that life gives everyone an equal chance; circumstances vary; the world changes. There is no mechanism that guarantees anyone exactly the same ‘deal’ that their elders got, or that their neighbors are now getting. The cry of ”it isn’t fair!!” is one we hear all the time from leftists. It’s always what they resort to; ”it isn’t fair that The Rich live easier lives!” or that ”White privilege” keeps others from getting a fair shake” and so on, ad infinitum.

The older generations may or may not have had it easier. Poverty, as it existed 50 years or more ago was of a much more stark kind; nowadays the supposed ‘poor’ have far more conveniences and comforts than the poor in the Depression years, or even the poor of the supposedly prosperous 1950s.

As the old saying goes, life is not ‘fair’. What do the bitter and envious ”they stole my inheritance” crowd propose to do about it? Redistribute wealth? Bring back the ‘workhouse’ or the ‘poorhouse’ for the old folk so the young can inherit their possessions and be shut of their elders? It seems this is where we’re going if we see the generations as mutual enemies and competitors for money and property. And it seems as if the main complaint of the grudge-bearing young is the financial issue: the $$$.

This is all part of the plan by the left — to sow division, resentment, envy, and to break up the family structure, which is the basis for our society. They are succeeding by appealing to selfish and atomistic attitudes: every man for himself. In troubled times family ties should become stronger, not weaker. No man is an island, as John Donne wrote, though it appears this is no longer true; we are becoming isolated.

I truly do feel sad about those who don’t know any love for their elders, especially family members. Those who really do have ”stupid, evil, greedy, wicked” elders or teachers must be very unfortunate, lost people; sometimes it seems as if they simply wish for a world in which only their age group exists; they want to know only others who are more or less on the same wavelength. If there were not older people in the world it would be a very narrow sort of society, with no perspective on the past — “What’s past is prologue.”

Mature people, realistic people, don’t look for scapegoats; we cannot ‘fix’ other people, and maybe, just maybe, the fault lies in ourselves now and then; it can’t always be everyone else’s fault — even those evil, villainous old folk.

And the bloggers and other self-invented internet ‘personalities’ who fostered the ”boomer” trope know who they are. I suppose it’s fun to spread a trope and see it catch on, and to stoke the flames of resentment via ghoulish and callous hints about ‘the day of the pillow’. Even having to read the constant barrage of what passes for “jokes” about the old folk is bothersome; it more than coarsens the discourse. It poisons the conversation. It leaves me with a distaste for the people who say these things — or tolerate them.

It is uncivilized.

It should not exist in a ‘Christian’ country. It seemingly thrives in a ‘Christian-in-name-only’ environment. That seems to be us, since we are no longer Christendom.

How and why in a (once) Christian country, is it OK to joke, or worse , to speak seriously about taking human lives? Is parricide considered an acceptable subject? Please justify it to me it’s possible, but as a Christian I can find no justification for it. No Christian should be going along with this, though surprisingly I have had ”Christians” (sic) argue with me about how it’s justified.

All I can say to that is that those self-described Christians need to get acquainted with their Bibles, or re-acquainted. The Bible has not changed in the thousands of years it’s existed and it contains no justification for hating elders. The old Christian code of Chivalry protected the weak, including the old. Attacking an old person was seen as low and cowardly. The important point is that most Christians will say they believe in the value of human life — yet some people proceed to wish for the demise of certain people.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, give some thought to this. Even if you don’t justify this attitude, you probably encounter it, and yet is nobody willing to speak out? Or are we all just followers of trends, sheep who stick with the herd?

A warning from a surprising source

Well, this is one for the books. Vladimir Putin has warned us about endangered ”democracy”, caused by rampant censorship. I realize that most Americans now think of Putin and Russia as our ‘friends’, probably as a result of the baseless allegations of Russia influencing our elections. However, contrarian that I am by nature, I retain some skepticism about Russia and the leadership there. But Putin’s warning increases my respect for him, at least in this instance.

Paul Craig Roberts’ piece, to which I link here, sums up the troubling situation in which American citizens who have been heretofore guilty of no crime, are being prosecuted for ‘wrong’ political affiliations and opinions, and even for memes. I wonder if this crackdown is meant to make examples of a few or does it presage a larger net being cast to send a message to those who are being designated as ‘terrorists’ and ‘extremists’?

And why are so many of us unwilling — or is it unable? — to break free from Social Media, despite their totalitarian actions against anyone who is not in agreement with their extremism and their heavy-handed silencing of those whose politics are not acceptable to the Media Oligarchs?

Another ‘hit piece’ on the Q movement

TAs far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the Q movement. Nobody seems willing, outside that group, to give them the benefit of the doubt. Another sneering hit piece here.

The last sentence of that piece, directed at the anons:

“…if you want to keep digging that hole, dig far away from the rest of us.”

What did I say in my previous piece? That the ‘conservatives’ were afraid of the Q movement ‘making them look bad’ by association? That’s always the refrain of the ‘safe’ conservatives, who are worried about looking bad — in whose eyes exactly? Why? The ‘respectable’ conservatives seem more concerned with image than substance or principles.

I get the impression, perhaps because of the author referring to Trump as a ‘little troll’, that the writer was a ‘never-Trumper’ Republican. Maybe the writer is not aware that the vast majority of American voters voted for Trump. He was not some obscure Presidential aspirant. He garnered something like 78 million votes. And yet the writer puts the term steal in scare quotes, as if the whole thing was a figment of some “QTard’s” imagination. No, 78 million Americans were deprived of their choice in this travesty of an election. To let something like that go unchallenged, to accept it meekly, is to make a mockery of our system and to wrong the vast majority of the American people. The results of an election having been stolen (yes, it was) include the fact that, given such vote-rigging technology exists, and has been defiantly used by the Left, as if to rub our noses in their crime, we cannot ever trust our electoral system or those who control it, ever again. Honest elections are not possible after this. Maybe the writer is fine with that; most of us are not.

The writer of that piece seems to agree with the Lying Left that Trump somehow incited violence at that Capitol rally. He did not. His words said nothing to that effect. In fact the so-called “insurrection” had already begun while Trump was speaking. Maybe the author agrees with the Left that his words were some secret “dog-whistle” code such as the Left always alleges when they don’t like what we say.

In fact, that “dog-whistle’ allegation which the Left always invokes when they have nothing else, is a type of a ”Conspiracy Theory”, in fact a ‘wacky’ conspiracy theory, such as the Left and the Faux Right accuse others of, while they themselves indulge in their own ‘conspiracy theories’. And somehow the very idea of a ‘conspiracy’ seems to have been twisted to mean ‘a lie‘ or a wild rumor with no substance to it. Now how did this distortion of language come about? It must have been an effort on the part of people to displace blame, to turn the conversation, a method of evasion of guilt, attempting to direct the blame towards some third party, who made up a ‘wacky conspiracy theory’. Just the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is enough to divert attention and ultimately, blame. Works like a charm most of the time.

Conspiracies are real. They happen. History books tell of many conspiracies. They were true. They happened. Those who found out about them took them seriously, and those who discovered the conspiracy in question must have been given credulity so that the plot could be thwarted. Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot was discovered because of an anonymous letter to authorities. By the 20th century the anonymous letter-writer might be labeled a ‘crazy conspiracy theorist’ and laughed at.

Some of us on the right have been told that our media put out ‘wacky conspiracy theories’ and the right are accused of spreading ‘fake news.’ Now part of the right is accusing other conservatives and rightists of that. Eating their ‘own’ or those who deviate from respectable ‘received opinion.’

So millions of votes were not stolen. What then? Were they lost? Human error, to the tune of tens of millions? That is a crazy non-conspiracy theory.

It seems to me that TDS is real, and it exists on both sides of the political aisle.

As for me? As I’ve said here before, I am not part of the Q movement. I want them to get a fair shake. They are, in my experience, mostly decent and well-intentioned people. They are also intelligent, not ignoramuses as the author’s ‘parody’ of their speech implies. They are also mostly Christian, and that does not mean members of a ‘wacky fundamentalist’ group or something, as those who stereotype them want to think.

Sure, it’s easy to make the Q people a target, a scapegoat. I hope that will not continue.

Q people are your neighbors, relatives, they are probably much like your Church family, and they are fellow Americans. Journalists: there is no call to make them your enemies. They are on your side even if you are not on theirs.

As for me, I will not likely vote for any ‘R’ candidate ever — not that voting has any further use as of now. And what if the Q followers turn out to be right? I suppose it never enters any of the cynics’ minds that they might be wrong, and wrong on a big scale. At least that scenario is more hopeful than the cynics’ outcome which would be what, exactly? Downfall complete? No hope? That seems to be what they wish for: more of the same. More corruption from both sides, endless decline.

What about ‘Operation Trust’?

Lately there has been a story making its rounds about the Q movement, claiming that something called Operation Trust, which is said to be a ‘Bolshevik Psy-Op’ was the prototype for the Q movement. Some of what I’ve read says that this Operation Trust was used by DS to dupe the Q movement, hence the ‘Trust the Plan’ trope. This idea seems a little too handy in my opinion; it sort of has a feel of desperation about it, as if those who started this story are trying to quickly discredit the Q movement.

Lest anyone say or think that I am shilling for Q, I’m not a member of that group, but neither am I hostile to the anons; they’re being wrongly slandered as extremists, and they should and must not be thrown to the wolves just because some anti-Q folk want to ‘distance themselves.’

I think it’s only fair and reasonable to hear both sides of a question. I came across this piece which discusses the ‘Operation Trust’ honeypot.

“Operation Trust” was a Bolshevik Counter-Intelligence honeypot trap to identify anti-communist patriots by having them wait for a secret military plan that didn’t exist.”

Read the entire piece. Whether or not you accept it is your call. I am not sure what I believe about it, but just accepting the (in many cases biased) assertions of the ‘conservative’ apologists online isn’t enough for me. The writer of the piece offers arguments against the stories that have made the rounds. There are also some links within the article that are worth looking at.

Confusion

The events of this last week have left many people puzzled; what is going on? Why the troops, and why in such great numbers? There has been so much speculation, but I won’t presume to offer an opinion or an explanation; I’ve considered the many possible explanations and discussed the subject with others, and I’m left with no satisfactory answers.

This story seems not to make sense: The Daily Mail reports that antifa mobs attacked Democrat Party Headquarters in Portland, rioted in Seattle and Denver — protesting Biden. The first thing that’s odd here is that they even report on leftist protests and riots, but this story asserts that the rioters are opposing their supposed allies. Is this just propaganda or did it really happen? Maybe the antifa are just looking for more notoriety; maybe they are bored with not being given enough to do, so they decided to burn and destroy a few things, just to keep their hand in? But on the face of it, it looks very strange.

Something that I see as a worrying trend: the media are ratcheting up their rhetoric, describing the Q followers as ‘dangerous’ and ‘potentially violent’ and other such terms. And they are consistently using the term ‘cult’ to describe the group. I’ve been familiarizing myself with the group because they have drawn so much attention, but I am not going to consult only biased and hostile ‘news’ sources when I can simply observe the group members and try to learn from sources with first-hand information.
From what I’ve observed they are not a ‘dangerous’ or violent group, but then we have to keep in mind that today words are defined differently, with anybody on the right deemed dangerous. And the label, once applied to somebody, can potentially carry a heavy social stigma. Social Credit System?

As Americans we should not be so ready to apply harsh labels to our own folk but that is what is happening. I see a lot of people calling Q followers ‘Q-tards‘ (what a juvenile label to put on people; are we all schoolchildren?) ‘crackpots’, ‘crazy’ and so on. Meanwhile any really crazy cult is tolerated.

Cults are something I’ve made a study of; they are morbidly fascinating. But for a real example of a cult, how about Jim Jones’ little group? They mingled with the high society crowd in the Bay Area, were friends with the politicians. They had connections while today, the Q people, who are for the most part very normal people, are made out to be lunatics. It’s a dangerous trend to ‘demonize’ them or anyone who does not hold the majority viewpoints. Any Americans who are even slightly right-wing and/or Christian will end up being targets.

However the Q people, absorbed in the strange spectacle that has transpired in D.C., seem to be stunned by what seems to be happening. There are Q followers who are having to consider the possibility that their leaders/heroes may not be what they purported to be. Some have become disillusioned while some have renewed their absolute faith in Trump and ‘Q’; there are those who are terribly confused by it all, and very emotional because of their doubts.

And the Q followers, for some reason, are besieged by haranguing ‘trolls’ on their streaming channels. The Q followers, having been de-platformed and ejected from some of their former streaming services, have gone from pillar to post — I suppose this is the result of the very negative propaganda being put out by those who control the media platforms.

I think the presence of the leftist ‘trolls’ in the chat rooms of Q channels is a kind of abuse; it has a bullying aspect to it, as these people taunt and ridicule and insult the Q followers. What is the purpose of that, other than just a sadistic desire to humiliate and harass innocent people? Even though the “election” is over and a new president inaugurated — the left persists with this particular campaign of gaslighting and bullying. It appears that they are ‘assigned’ to do this on a regular basis; some of these creatures say they are paid so much per hour to do this, and the Q Patriots too often meekly subject themselves to that treatment. If I were subjected to that kind of emotional and mental abuse I would not take kindly to it, nor tolerate it. But then I am not as pacifistic as the Q ‘family.’

What a strange time we live in.

It is interesting to see how some people — not just Q followers (or actual ‘cultists’) manage to hold onto their beliefs despite being disappointed when the promises turn out to be unfulfilled, and when their heroes’ prophecies don’t materialize. But studies of these things have shown that ‘true believers’ often find their beliefs reinforced when the hoped-for rewards don’t come. It’s odd, but it does seem to happen that way. I suppose that we all have a need to believe and to hope, even despite the odds being against the ideal outcome.

I generally maintain a cautious hope when it comes to trusting, especially when I am expected to take a great leap of faith with little evidence to justify it.

At this moment I can only say that to all appearances, Trump has let his devoted followers down, but I am open to being wrong. I would like to be wrong in this case. I think that a lot of Americans feel the same.

The reigning “-ism”

I ‘d like to call your attention to an important piece at Throne, Altar, Liberty. It’s titled ‘The Ism that Isn’t”.

When you read the piece, you will see how the title applies, but I am calling my piece ‘The Reigning ‘-ism‘ because it is something that, in my humble opinion, does exert a lot of control over our lives, compelling us to obey the PC rules as to what words we may use, how we are to behave, and it inhibits us when it comes to even broach certain subjects. For example, I have had it in mind to write a piece much along the same lines as the piece by Gerry T. Neal but in this atmosphere of censorship I suppose I felt that I would have to walk on eggshells and take care with my word choice. But in any case I think his piece is much more thorough than one I would have written.

I appreciate that the writer traces the history of the ‘R-word’ and its usage down the decades, showing how the left began to tamper with words and meanings so as to shape people’s ideas. The word ‘racism’ was apparently coined by them during the pre-WWII era. I have heard varied stories about that — such as the story that Trotsky himself invented the word; that is likely not correct. Then later the more neutral word ‘racialism‘ was used. I know that it was more commonly used in Britain as a less condemnatory label. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, the term ‘racialist‘ described someone who believed in the reality of race or in certain accepted tenets on the subject. A racist, on the other hand, was to be condemned as a bigot and scoundrel. I never hear anyone use the term ‘racialist’ anymore, but if the term were used, I believe it would carry the same stigma as the ‘r-word’.

The term ‘colour bar’ was often used in the context of South Africa’s apartheid policy and in the case of young people I knew, it often referenced any segregation or ‘discrimination’ in the UK. Young friends used to ask if we as Americans ‘agreed with the colour bar’; this was a test I suppose to see whether we were acceptably liberal.

But how did the ‘Ism’ become so all-powerful that even using a word could lead to loss of livelihood, social status, lawsuits, loss of friends? Now many churches, for the most part have become not Christian soldiers, but Social Justice Warriors, or perhaps witch-hunters, with their declarations that the r-word or ‘ism’ is a sin.

I was taught that we are not to add to or take from the Word of God, not to invent sins and add them to the already listed ones. It appears the churchian faction puts human opinions ahead of the Word. Another example of this is the feminist attempt to legitimize their liberal ideas as compatible with Christianity, but that’s another story, though the people and the ‘theology’ involved are similar.

It seems that Political Correctness, which essentially requires and mandates dishonesty and outright lying, has more power over most White people’s behavior than does the Law of the Land or the Ten Commandments. People are more afraid of unwittingly offending some person of the ‘protected groups’ as TPTB put it, yet more afraid still of losing social status by having the wrong opinions and being shunned by people whose acceptance is important to them. I see people adopting insincere and deceiving poses so as not to breach any rules of behavior or speech. I see people in public being treacly-sweet towards certain groups while in their presence, whereas that is not their normal self. I think PC has contributed to insincerity and to falsity. Ideally we would and could be civil and polite to all, but life doesn’t always work out that way. The Word tells us that, insofar as it’s possible we are to be at peace with all, but forcing people together or pretending a goodwill which is nonexistent is dishonest, and can’t be an acceptable way of life.

I personally think that the ‘Ism’ should be subtracted from our vocabulary, and that we stop all the falsehood and pretense and fear that is wrapped up in that one word.