And they is us — it seems

Chris Wray’s recent remarks, confuse the reader. For example his saying that Anti-fa were not a ‘group’ but they were a ‘movement’ — can a ‘movement’ mean an un-organized group? He says it is not a ‘group.’ He says it IS an ideology. So much hair-splitting.

It is obviously a coordinated group, as seen in the current arson (no, NOT climate-change) spree in the West. There have been tweets and communications between these supposed Lone Wolf ”activists” indicating that they are working systematically. These have been made public, and no denial from ‘official sources’ will convince me otherwise.

The alleged ‘authorities’ who deny and who sit on their hands, refusing to act against the obvious violence, should stop worrying about some phantom ‘systemic racism. Instead they ought to look at where the real danger is: it’s in these corporate-funded, government-protected ‘activists’ who so far have been insulated from any consequences, other than being booked and released in quick succession.

The slippery answers from the officials about Antifa were purposely obfuscated; the following, however, was plain enough — though not credible.

“The FBI director said racially motivated violent extremists, such as white supremacists, have been responsible for the most lethal attacks in the U.S. in recent years.”

apnews, 18 September, 2020

Who? Where? How? Names? How many lives were taken by these ‘supremacists’?

Proof? Facts? Statistics? Corroboration? Evidence? Witnesses?

Sadly a certain number of people will hear or read this and accept it uncritically.

It’s depressing that the Charlottesville event has been painted as ‘murder’ when we all know that had the people involved had been different it would all have played out in a different way.

Yet other than that incident, what actual reality can the accusers point to to establish their claims? If they can’t then it constitutes something like a blood libel. But then right and wrong, honest or dishonest, true or false, no longer hold meaning in post-American America.

However those of us who’ve read about earlier, real-life events, or those old enough to remember, can cite Randy Weaver and his family and LaVoy Finicum. What did they do to earn their fate? If I took time to do a little research I could mention other such cases in which people with ‘wrong’ political/religious views plus ‘wrong’ skin color were made targets by TPTB.

Fabricating in order to defame leads to justifying unethical action against them.

The ramshackle edifice of lies will fall of its own weight eventually.

The cover-up

You know; the cover-up into which everybody is pressured to participate.

The blog Human Stupidity asks whether it’s wrong, or a sin, to omit the truth about certain things, such as crime. The idea is to avoid ‘prejudice’; if people are not aware of the statistics, showing the widespread nature of certain crimes, then they can’t form ‘prejudices.’

But this kind of concealment not only treats the public like children, as if we must be kept from knowing certain things, it’s actually insulting to us. It also means that the public are deliberately left vulnerable because facts are hidden from us; many people who don’t stay in touch with what’s going on in their world are left ignorant, so as not to ‘offend’ someone or some group of people.

Who puts the pressure on us to go along with this cover-up of facts? On one side we have these people in public office who are ideologues, or bureaucrats who conform and follow orders blindly. On the other side we have very ethnocentric ‘communities’ who raise a fuss about ‘prejudice’ and false accusations motivated by ‘racism’, etc.

I remember some years ago when ‘they’ (law enforcement higher-ups? Media people?) stopped issuing physical descriptions of wanted criminals or fugitives. Nothing would be announced in media reports as to what the wanted man (or woman) looked like, except for vague descriptions involving clothing, or else useless descriptions like ‘dark hair, medium complexion‘. Increasingly names and pictures are withheld.

I wonder how many lives have been lost because the authorities would not provide a description of a suspect or fugitive wanted criminal ? The safety and lives of the general public are obviously not top priority with the people who decide these things. And we, the public, do little to try to fix this.

It appears that antiracism is the entire ‘ mission’ of this country, and in fact of all Western countries now. It’s a religion for some, or a cult.

There is no higher goal for most people who hold authority, apparently, than the antiracist mission.

So in the name of this ‘mission’ we are expected to go along, by word and deed, with this pretense that everybody is equal, and equally prone to crime and violence. No — wait; we are not equally prone to wrongdoing; we are even more so because only we can be guilty of this crime-of-all-crimes — racism. We are Public Enemy #1.

But to be asked to lie, in word, attitude, and action, in order to take part in this big cover-up of reality, is wrong. It’s morally wrong, in answer the question posed by the blogger.

As a Christian, I’m not supposed to lie. None of us are to lie, and we’re not given special permission to lie in order to avoid angering or offending someone or some group. It seems especially wrong to compound it by concealing things people need to know. If the concealed facts affect someone’s personal safety or that of their families, it’s especially wrong to hide facts or lie.

I’ve wondered often how Christians or anybody who is honest can lie just for the sake of not being called a name, or to spare someone else from being offended or ”hurt” or angered. There is no special permission to lie for such reasons. But it seems to be an unspoken assumption on the part of many people that some kinds of lying are good, or at least neutral.

The conditioning has done its job all too well

In some of the material I’ve been reading online, both blog pieces and comments, (not to mention the ‘news reports), I find myself exasperated at the evidence that so many Americans cannot think sensibly about this mess we are in.

There is no way to maintain our current obsession with ‘antiracism’ or equality or ”fairness” and still be able to extricate ourselves from this rapidly deteriorating situation.

Even now, a lot of us think that if we only do certain things, we can have a harmonious society. Yet all recent history seems to indicate that things are deteriorating, and common sense tells us that we can’t hope to ‘win’ by doing what we’ve done all along: trying to appease and placate and accommodate. Or, more specifically, we certainly get nowhere by accepting the category of ”racism”, because it is useless to plead ‘guilty’ as we’ve seemingly done from the beginning, and hope to get clemency by saying, “yes, we (or our ancestors) did horrible wrongs to you and your ancestors, so let us make it up to you, and we can then coexist.” It’s like consenting to be blackmailed and then finding more demands await us — imagine our surprise!

I was just skimming through an ‘American Thinker’ piece about this issue, (yes, I know; American Thinker is politically correct even when they imagine they are being edgy or ‘bold’) and the writer seemed, as most of the commenters there, to think that hurling back accusations of racism was a good plan.But we should all have seen how weak and ineffectual that is.

I think the key is not to accept the other side’s definitions and ideas, and when people think ‘DR3’ is a sure-fire tactic, you know we’re in trouble. Everyone but clueless Whites knows that those ‘real racist’ accusations fall on deaf ears, or are laughed off by the recipient. The official definition of racism (according to the accusers) is ‘prejudice plus power’, and of course in that world, only Whites have any power. Absurd, but as long as we let them, they will keep using this line of nonsense.

I will ask again, how did it come to be that the very worst of the worst of moral flaws or sins is to prefer one’s own folk, people like oneself? And how is it a moral transgression to like certain people and dislike others? Everyone likes or dislikes other people for varying reasons. Everyone.dislikes.someone. Anyone who says otherwise lies. Even God himself says he hates the wicked, and that he hated some people and loved others. God gave us both emotions. We are to ‘abhor’ that which is bad and ‘cleave to’ the good. In other words, to choose.

What’s another word for “choose?”

Everybody ”discriminates” by being friends with some and not others.

The foolishness that says we must ‘love everybody’ is not reality; nobody can love everybody. If we love everybody, we don’t love anybody, because love is by definition an exclusive thing. We prefer somebody, or certain people, very strongly. Love excludes. But it does not mean that we ”hate” those we do not prefer. Yet we allow people to make these false statements all the time.

People blame Christianity for this soft-headedness, because some people say Christianity is ‘universalist.’ That word does not mean what its users often think; in a Christian context it means only a doctrine that all people will be saved, whether good or bad, because God does not exclude anyone; that would be cruel, so he is only bluffing, I guess, about damnation. Everyone wins the prize in the end, just like in our nanny-state egalitarian schools where all kids win a trophy or a prize, and nobody gets a bad grade.

Universalism does not mean that Christians are required to love everyone and love them equally, as the critics of Christianity say.

Love is not forced or ordered by law. One can only coerce grudging acceptance, but it comes with resentment oftentimes.

And do Christians teach that everyone is our brother? Some Christians teach that, but some of the more discerning teachers say that we are not born children of God, but must receive that right.

Whatever the truth may be it is wrong to coerce ‘love’ or ‘brotherhood.’ People frown on shotgun marriages but that’s a good analogy.

And yet there are so many Americans who reflexively side with the other side, for various less-than-honorable reasons.

I don’t have a ready answer but it has to start with people rejecting the very notions that have such a grip on us as a folk. And we’ve got to refuse to use the terminology and the words and the ‘arguments’ of anyone who does not have our interests at heart.

Slovenian Magazine Interviews Ricardo Duchesne — Council of European Canadians

by The Editors This is an interview Ricardo Duchesne did with the popular Slovenian magazine, Demokracija, in February 2020. This magazine is very concerned with the way Slovenia is falling prey to the notion that the principles of equal rights and democratic rule entail “support for the integration of foreigners” into Slovenia. It was from this perspective that Demokracija…

Slovenian Magazine Interviews Ricardo Duchesne — Council of European Canadians

Not a popular subject, but…

I have been reflecting on the recent incident in California in which two police officers were shot in the head while sitting in their car. The incident happened, according to all accounts, without provocation. The provocation was just being police officers, as far as we know at this point.

As if this cowardly attack were not outrage enough, the “people” bipeds who shot the officers reportedly tried to block the medics or whoever from getting the wounded officers into the hospital for treatment. The miscreants were chanting “We hope you die”, and similar callous taunts.

Is this what we’ve come to as a society?

But in the wake of this, I’ve been reading comments here and there, and it’s depressing to see that so many people are just fine with the kind of sentiments expressed by the shooters — because there is such a widespread hatred of police as a group. Now, I know that there are and have always been people who dislike, resent, and possibly fear police. But it seems that now there are far more people with a pretty intense hatred of police, so that they think these wounded officers deserve what they got.

When these insurrectionists and the far-left radical governors and mayors started the demand for ”de-funding the police” or even abolishing police, I was taken aback, to put it mildly, when so many people thought that was a great idea, and now there are quite a few people clamoring for abolishing the police, even people on the right.

So it almost seems from where I sit that some on the “right” (many libertarians, and a lot of people who just hate cops) are almost in harmony with the left on this issue. I’ve just been reading many online articles addressing the question ‘Why do we hate the police so much’?

In this time of so much disorder and chaos, is it really wise to want to remove police departments from the equation? How will the rampaging left react to a sudden absence of law enforcement?

Then I’ve wondered just how and why this anti-police movement seems to be gaining momentum, and just why there is such widespread feeling of loathing towards LEOs now when previously it was not this intense.

It’s a given that there are bad people in every group; this world is imperfect, and will always be so. There are ‘bad’ cops, cops who are corrupt, or brutal. Because — guess what? — we’re all sinners. We are all imperfect or flawed to some degree: some only to a small degree, others thoroughly so.

Only the idiotic left expects that a Utopia can be created out of flawed people and institutions. There is room for improvement; police departments need to be ‘cleaned up’, and I don’t mean more social engineering (more female cops and leadership, more draconian politically correct rules, no, not that.) But things could be improved without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So why is cop-hatred apparently at an all-time high?

For disclosure’s sake I do have a relative in law enforcement, and that person does not fit the stereotype of the corrupt or bullying or otherwise ‘bad’ cop.

I know that many people whose work involves contact with criminals or suspects become understandably hardened, just by the stress and danger involved, and because they have to deal with aggressive, sometimes violent, often abusive and troublesome suspects or perpetrators. This will harden all but the most patient and saintly.

The majority of the stories I’ve heard from people who had some kind of interaction with police (pulled over or arrested, etc.) swear that they did nothing wrong, and that the police treated them roughly or rudely. I’ve heard all varieties of the stories from people who saw themselves as victims of the police, who are supposed to be on ‘our side.’

I think more people see police as The Enemy, in part because more people are probably violating laws these days because of generally libertine ideas about ‘rights’, and so on. A lot more people are using recreational drugs, thus seeing police as their enemy who wants to deprive them of their ‘rights’, which they interpret a lot more broadly than used to be the case. People probably violate traffic laws more frequently as well. People just aren’t as scrupulous at obeying laws as they were a couple of generations ago, and there is also a general lack of respect for anybody in authority.

In past eras children were taught that police officers were their ‘friends’ and that if you were in any kind of trouble or need, you could seek out a police officer to help you. And children were taught to show respect not just to policemen but to adults in general. That’s mostly a thing of the past. Defiant and rebellious attitudes are not uncommon now. Of course the world is a different place today, in which adults
represent potential danger to children. There is less trust, and for a reason.

Still, I can’t help but conclude that the hatred of police is not a healthy thing, when you look at the larger picture. The cop-hatred seems as though it’s rooted ultimately in the adolescent resentment of all adult authority; as adolescents we don’t want anyone to interfere with our fun and the ‘right’ to express ourselves in any way we choose.

There have been a number of books by thoughtful social observers, discussing the fact that Americans or Westerners in general are slower to grow up, continuing in adolescent patterns well into adulthood. This is not an original idea with me, but it is noticeable.

But here’s one more wrinkle to the issue, and it pertains to Christians. In the book of Romans, Chapter 13, we’re told how we are to regard those in authority:

“For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

We all understand that if someone in authority orders us to do wrong, especially something against God’s law, we ‘obey God, not men.’ So exceptions obviously exist but in general those who act to administer justice or keep order are carrying out a duty that is ‘ordained of God.’

And what is the alternative to the present (imperfect) system? The corrupt mayors installing their own police forces? Private security forces? Or the UN?

I don’t know about anyone else but I would not choose those alternatives. And it seems clear that human beings are rarely able to have a peaceful and safe society without someone to carry out law enforcement functions.

Arson suspects arrested

Unfortunately they will probably be let loose quickly as usual, but authorities have made arrests in connection with the ‘wildfires’ in California, Oregon, and Washington. This should undermine the official story which exonerated, in advance, members of antifa or BLM.

I have a feeling that the officials will cling to their assertion that nobody in those groups could possibly have been involved, and they will reiterate the line about how such speculation on the part of ‘right-wing extremists’ must be stopped.

But back here in the world of reality, it looks like those who have pretended to care about the environment, nature, wildlife, and ecology, were just putting up a not-very-convincing front. How can anyone with a modicum of sense believe these people ever again? Once a liar, always a liar, and the left is one big edifice of lies, that should be collapsing under the weight of it all.

Unfortunately it seems as though the left has managed to capture all the institutions that matter, so they are propped up by all their duplicitious allies and enablers.

Fires in the West: ‘concidence’? Yes, say authorities

Wildfires in the Western states are not uncommon in the hotter, drier months of the year, even at this point in the weather cycle. But are the official, controlled media correct when they pronounce the fires to be not deliberately set?

Steve Sailer cites the New York Times’ opinion that the fires are not arson.

The fact that this is being called an “unprecedented fire season” says something; what natural cause could be to blame for all the fires? Some reports say 15 people dead so far.

Some people accept that this is due to “climate catastrophe” and thus that it’s part of “anthropogenic climate change”. In other words, we are causing it; we human beings (with the possible exception of the ‘protected groups’ who are never guilty of anything) .

Steve Sailer concludes that maybe the fires in the Portland area are the work of individual ‘firebugs’ who are driven to do that kind of thing. He ultimately says there’s not much evidence of Antifa being involved, or of any kind of organized plan to start fires on a grand scale.

The official story is that the Antifa are 100 per cent innocent of any of this; search the Internet and find dozens of stories from ‘officials’ denying the validity of the numerous accusations of Antifa activity. The official stories say all the reports are false. Full stop. End of story.

Snopes says the stories are false, and that’s supposed to be the final word, I suppose. Right. And I have heard that any such talk of Antifa being involved is being labeled ‘misinformation’ and ‘fake news’ and it will be censored in some cases as such.

It does stretch credulity just a little that all these raging fires are just coincidentally happening. In all my life, I’ve never seen this happen on this scale and with such ‘timing’.

Wrongthink will not be tolerated

Ron Unz has a long article about the immigration issue and about the political bankruptcy (his words) of “White Nationalism.” It’s over 3,000 words in all so I can hardly do it justice without thinking it through — but here are some thoughts.

My observation of what happened during the 2016 election was that, though Trump was running on the immigration question to some extent, it was just token opposition to the ‘open borders’ crisis, not a sign of deep commitment to enforcing our laws or stopping the massive flood of immigrants. Remember the massive throngs heading for our Southern ”border” daily back during those days? It was a genuine crisis.

The ‘talk’ from the media and the politicians back then was that ‘White Nationalism’ was finished but still somehow a huge threat to our safety and ‘freedom’ because WNs were Nazis and extremists. Trump himself made at least one statement that was standard boilerplate on the subject; in it he sounded no different than some of the Democrats.

“Racism is evil,” Mr. Trump said at the White House after meeting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray. “Those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

His previous coy behavior in ‘tolerating’ those on the right (including the so-called ‘Alt-right’ which had been thoroughly demonized by the media by then) seemed calculated, and his efforts to court the black vote with the usual pandering and flattery (“wonderful, wonderful people“) and the Hispanic vote, offering the DACA plan for Hispanic young people (“wonderful, wonderful people“) diminished any favorable feelings I had.

It seemed to me that the ‘WN movement’, outsider movement though it was, was used by some politicians when expedient, but when it was decided that it had to be, in that tired phrase, ”thrown under the bus”, then it was dead politically. Unz’s article goes into the ‘reasons’ why the movement had to ‘die the death’ and be discarded and disowned by everybody who was anybody, but the ‘whys’ amounted to self-fulfilling prophecies, or ex post facto justifications for decisions that the political hacks and media pundits had ready-made.

Politicians have been known to sell their souls, metaphorically at least, for the sake of getting elected. The media, even the so-called ‘conservative’ media, are not on our side, and are prone to pursue ‘respectability.’ Who knows what the real views of these people may be; everyone in that world is cowardly or calculating, not frank and honest. They may not even know themselves, so artificial are they.

And if ‘the people’ have rejected the common-sense idea of immigration restriction, it is because they are too often soft-headed people who are taken in by their ‘hard-working’ Hispanic immigrant acquaintances, or their cool POC friends, like on TV. Many of our folk are people who have to like and be liked by everyone, and damn the costs to society. Maybe this present crisis will change that; maybe not.

So Unz and others are apparently saying that ‘the people have spoken’ by their action (or non-action), deciding that mass immigration and ethnic replacement are not so bad, in exchange for ‘Diversity’ and cultural enrichment, and after all, we’re all Americans as long as the replacements come here legally.

Over the years I wrote a few pieces about the flaws of White Nationalism — not the idea that it is ‘evil’ as Trump said; it is not. But those who wanted it to be pan-European, with ‘White’ replacing our specific ethnic identity and loyalty were mistaken, I thought. I don’t believe that European-descended people are interchangeable, or that any of us should have the right to move, say, to Eastern Europe because we think they have it better there. Maybe the Eastern Europeans might have something to say about that.

Apart from those objections, I don’t accept that WNism is ‘evil’, and I do not accept the word ‘racist’, which Trump used in describing people who believe in nationalism.

And I don’t accept weak-tea ‘Civic Nationalism’ which is the fashion of the day.

If the majority of White people hear and read nothing but race-baiting rhetoric such as that used by the controlled media and the ‘respectable’ politicians of all stripes, then of course it is no surprise that they reject all right-of-center ideas, even the sensible idea of controlling our borders. And given our present system of censorship of ideas, which is worsening, it’s unlikely that we can ever extricate ourselves from our present crisis, when those who hold power have such a tight grip on our freedom to think and discern for ourselves.

‘WNs’ were judged to be un-respectable and a liability to the pandering politicos and the ‘system’ so they were denounced and expelled into the outer darkness. Besides, being associated with people of European descent — it was just déclassé.

And yes, I know ‘Trump is the best we’re going to get‘, as people say. And that’s cold comfort.

Don’t be…

I happened to see part of this short Post-WWII Army training film. It was a ‘Q Drop’ today. I wondered what Q is trying to convey to followers here. The title is ‘Don’t Be a Sucker.’ It’s an anti-bigotry film, warning people against ranting demagogues on street corners and so on, who apparently were to be found in American cities trying to spread hate.

The film seemed a little heavy-handed to me. Actually make that very heavy-handed.

It seems as though the Q movement is attempting to keep followers on the ‘reservation’ as it were, to inoculate them, keep them from straying into full-on nationalism, which apparently they conflate with hate, antisemitism, and bigotry generally. I have noticed that Q, in his sometimes enigmatic ‘drops’ stresses — sometimes more subtly — the over-familiar ideas of multiculturalism, tolerance, inclusion, and the whole menu of civic nationalism and antiracism. Could it be that this is the actual purpose of this movement, to keep the Q faithful within safe, politically correct territory when it comes to sensitive issues like race, ethnicity, and religion?

As Vulture of Critique mentions,

“Q team is obviously trying to maintain a “big-tent” coalition, big enough to accommodate several American subcultures: mainstream gays, various Jews, blacks. For the next two months, I expect Q to write that Democrats are much more racist than Republicans.”

– Vulture of Critique blog

This approach is hardly ‘far right’; obviously it’s really only a variation on the ‘Respectable Right’, who observe all the Politically Correct conventions when it comes to these subjects.

During the last election cycle, even though Trump seemed to be courting the ‘alt-right’, eventually he denounced Nationalism, at least the White variety. I found that tactic to be a little unsettling, making me wonder what motivated it. Was Trump just hoping to escape being tainted by association with actual nationalists or other undesirables? And is this ‘diversity and inclusion’ phase of the Q movement an attempt to weed out any actual nationalists, lest they be infected with political incorrectness?

And Q continues to dwell on the idea of ‘Unity’ vs. ‘division’ in some of his drops. Yes, unity is or should be a good thing, and divisiveness can be fatal to any movement — but what if the components of your ‘movement’ are naturally divided, and what if there is a history of conflict that can’t be wished away by Rainbow philosophies or by heavy-handed propaganda films?

“Don’t Be a Sucker” is actually good advice, in the sense of being aware that others may want to manipulate you. Q is fond of saying ‘people are basically good; trust humanity.”

Maybe I’ve become too cynical but not all people are to be trusted blindly.

This sounds familiar

Don’t be misled by the first paragraph or so, but does the following excerpt not describe a familiar mindset?

“Bolshevism, although a new word, stands for an old thing.
To our minds, it represents theft and confiscation, slaughter and cruelty, degradation of womanhood and perversion of children.

These disorders are but symptoms of a peculiar state of mind. The same mentality was found in the Revolt of the Mercenaries in Carthage, in the Revolt of the Roman slaves under the leadership of the Gallic Vindex. It was patent in the French Revolution of 1793. It appeared in the Indian War. It was evident in the Commune of Paris in 1871 and it cannot be ignored in the most recent outbreaks in Germany.

What brings about this social unrest and strife is not a passing misfortune, or a temporary abuse, — it is the individual inability of great numbers of people to obtain, in given conditions, the realization of their aspirations.

After they have tried to reach their rightful aims and have failed, they attribute their disappointment to existing conditions rather than due to their own incapacity. Therefore discontent and hate ferment against a supposedly wrong social order, or allegedly guilty people, envy grows against more favored fellow creatures, and the diseased mind of the abnormal becomes a public danger.

Through the influence of repeated propaganda, normal people become infected by doubt and suffer from imaginary wrongs. Led astray by this delusion, which harms them, they join the ranks of the rebels, where they are paraded as testimonies of the justness of the cause.

The acts of such mentally deficient people are individual violations of law and custom, but when social parasites find in these forces of misery and waywardness a tool strong enough to overthrow or modify the social order for their personal benefit, they claim rights for abnormality and set up insanity as the standard by which the rest of humanity should be modeled.”

Fernand J.J.Merckx, The Bolshevism of Sex, 1921

The ‘spirit of Bolshevism’ described in this near-100 year old book seems to be the dominant spirit of our age — sadly for us.

The book was primarily about feminism, hence the book’s title, but it fits other similarly-motivated movements.