‘What’s the opposite of ethnic cleansing?’

Asks Renaud Camus in an article at Boulevard Voltaire. I link to it rather than excerpt from it, as my translation skills are not the best; it is in French.

The title of the piece is ‘France: victim of a forced marriage’, and the message is that ‘metissage’ or the mixing that Sarkozy spoke of as an imperative a few years ago, amounts to “eugenics.” Well, it definitely is an attempt to alter the actual genetics of the people of France, whether they agree or not. Take a look at the article.

Regarding the Truth

I’m sure most of us have heard the saying, something like this: ”a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” I don’t know the origin of that, by the way, but it’s commonly repeated in some form or other on the Internet. And the gist of the saying is true. It does seem that lies or half-truths have some kind of built-in advantage, because lies do seem to spread quickly,  and they have a stubborn longevity. By contrast it seems that the truth (small ‘t’ or capital ‘T’) is often rejected or resisted, disregarded, or just drowned out by the lies and the liars who perpetuate them, knowingly or not.

The Internet itself, with its worldwide reach and its rapidity of transmitting messages has helped the propagation of lies more than truth, I would think, though I can’t prove that. Occasionally somebody says on one of the ‘realist’ blogs or forums that the Internet will be the defeat of the propaganda machine of the Powers That Be. I wish that would be true; I wish that more truth would be disseminated by the Internet, but it seems that even among ‘those who can see’ there is often a lack of discernment or a widespread disregard for the truth.

Are we all postmodernists now, who no longer believe in an objective truth, and a truth that matters? Can we just make up a ‘narrative’ that suits us personally and stick with that, regardless of reality? It seems a lot of people think so, and that’s what is being taught, explicitly or implicitly, by today’s schools and media.

One small example that I happened across today was yet another instance of someone quoting an apparently non-existent speech, attributed to Vladimir Putin. This supposed statement has been picked up by many on the right, and though I have tried to draw attention to the apocryphal nature of the speech, it lives on.  It seems that it’s important to many on ‘our side’ to have a hero, and Putin fits the bill for many, so they latch onto these remarks he supposedly made about immigration as the kind of thing they wish Western leaders would say, and they really don’t care if he in fact never said those words at all; the point is that they would like their hero to express such sentiments, and so they run with this quote, which refuses to die.

For contrast, here’s a piece from Russia Today, not my favorite news source, but it illustrates the nature of Putin’s actual thoughts on immigration, multiculturalism and nationalism. Hardly consistent with the speech which is so often quoted.

Russia is a state with hundreds of ethnicities, living on their land together and near Russians, he explained.

Putin went on to quote the philosopher and writer, Ivan Ilyin, in a passage that is meant to underscore Russia’s historical respect for all creeds and colors: “Not to eliminate, not to suppress, not to enslave other people’s blood, not to stifle the life of different tribes and religions – but to give everyone breath and the great Russia…to honor all, to reconcile all, to allow everyone to pray in their own way, to work in their own way, and to engage the best in public and cultural development.”

And the money quote:

Putin goes on to warn that “various instigators and our opponents will make every effort to tear out of Russia – with false assertions about the Russians’ right to self-determination, ‘racial purity,’ and the need to ‘finish the job of 1991 and complete the destruction of the empire, sitting on the necks of the Russian people’ – in order to ultimately force people to destroy their Motherland with their own hands.”
­Putin performs a delicate balancing act in his article by celebrating Russia’s “cultural dominance” on the one hand, while warning against the “bacilli of nationalism” on the other.

And nevertheless I expect I will one day click onto someone’s blog which quotes the apocryphal speech yet again — why? Because people don’t discern, often don’t seek to verify the source, and because they just plain like to believe certain things about those they admire, and will disbelieve anything which conflicts with their admiration for some public figure.

And there are other apocryphal quotes that float around the Internet. One other example which some of you have probably found in your e-mail inbox would be the fake George Carlin quotes, most likely the one called ‘I am a bad American.’ These Carlin misquotes live on. Many people like the sentiments expressed and they probably liked Carlin so they feel good attributing something they agree with to someone they admire.
Some of the false quotes, the more sentimental ones, are very unlike the libertarian atheist that was true Carlin, but still some believed them. Why?

Another misquote we read or hear frequently is the ‘love the sinner, but hate the sin’ quote, attributed vaguely to The Bible, or worse, to Jesus himself. For those of us who call ourselves Christian, it’s a serious thing to put words into our Lord’s mouth, to add to (or take away) from God’s word. But each day, numberless Christians quote ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’, usually in the service of some liberal cause — like the current news story in which the mother of a murder victim publicly ‘forgave’ her son’s killer, even as he expressed regret — for not killing more Whites.

And people believe that the Bible commands us to ‘love the sinner’ while hating the sin. Now, we might argue that there are other Scriptures which support the idea of ‘loving the sinner’ while ‘hating the sin’, but I can find counter-arguments made by better Bible scholars than myself.  And is it possible to hate the sin but love the one perpetrating it? But as we have to agree, at least, that the phrase does not appear in the Bible, who did say it? Apparently Mohandas Gandhi said it. Yet tomorrow countless more Christians will piously repeat that phrase, oblivious to the fact that it is not Biblical, not in the Bible.

Why such carelessness with the truth, even among Christians?

Mohandas Gandhi himself is apparently ‘credited’ with words he never said, or at least, which have never been traced to a credible source quoting him. One such quote is one I’ve heard: When someone asked Gandhi what he thought of Western Civilization, he supposedly answered ‘I think it would be a good idea.’

That’s a favorite among those who believe Western Civilization is evil, or not a civilization at all — in contrast to the utopian Indian civilization, I am sure, where suttee, infanticide, and countless other evils flourished until the ‘uncivilized’ British put a stop to them — temporarily anyway.

We live in the Age of Lies, and it seems the politically correct propaganda machine keeps piling lies upon lies, until the whole tottering edifice appears to be ready to fall of its own weight. Or so we can hope. But whether we can one day live in a PC-free world depends on whether we are willing to be truth-seekers or whether we are indifferent to truth, or worse, look to replace the present system of lies with another of our own devising — like the libertarian/libertine utopian ideology, or some man-made philosophy which seeks to bring about its own version of the ‘New Man.’

Truth matters.

Those Puritans: popular misconceptions and lies

From someone whose origins and sympathies would be (and are being) vilified in 2015.
The words are from an address given by George Cheever in 1842. The title of the address was The Elements of National Greatness. Since our national greatness is now apparently a thing of the past, it might be helpful to read some words on what led to our former greatness.

We all recognise and venerate the New England privilege of speaking one’s mind. Sentire quid velis, et quod sentials dicere, to think what you please, and to speak what you think, we hope will ever be an element in the civil, social, and religious atmosphere of that beloved native region of ours[…]

Suffer me to close with the memory of our Pilgrim Fathers, and with the grateful recognition of the truth, that as they did what never had been done in Europe, founded an Empire in self-denial, suffering, and the most unwavering trust in God, so we, more than any other nation in the world, two hundred years after the landing of the Pilgrims, are thrown entirely upon the Spirit of God for the success and stability of our institutions. A Despotism may stand by the very misery of its subjects; a free and happy Republic can stand only by the blessing and help of God.”

Were Mr. Cheever alive today (lucky man; he lived in better times) he would be shocked at how the name of our ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ is being taken in vain, vilified, cursed. He would be dumbfounded to see that there are people on right and left who lay the blame for our cesspool of a society at the feet of the Puritan and/or Pilgrim forefathers. This libertine, antinomian, standards-rejecting mess of a society is the way it is because of the rigid moralism and ‘legalism’ of those old prudes, the Puritans. There’s been a long tradition of slandering Puritans, one earlier example being H.L. Mencken, a bitter, misanthropic man who loathed Puritans. This type generally does. People of a libertine disposition resent anyone to adheres to standards of any kind.
As C.S. Lewis wrote somewhere that that each age tends to warn against the very sins which it is least in danger. For instance, callous and cruel ages warn against sentimentality; dissipated and libertine ages are full of people denouncing the dangers of ‘puritanism’. As if we are under imminent threat of hordes of moralists putting an end to prostitution or sleazy entertainment.

Obviously there are no Puritans nowadays, but several bloggers have taken up a mantra that today’s leftist fanatics (or ‘SJWs’, if you insist on using newly-coined acronyms for everything) ARE the Puritans of old. There is apparently something called ‘Cultural DNA’ and apparently those who inhabit New England now, though they are in most cases no kin at all to the English Puritan founders of New England, somehow have picked up the ‘Puritan cultural DNA’ of those old-time Puritans and that is what made them deranged with their egalitarian, universalist, feminist, anti-White ideas. What? As if the Puritans of old were feminists, universalists, and Jacobin-style egalitarians. They were none of the above. Far from being ‘universalists’ in a Christian sense (meaning that all are children of God, all are equally loved of God and destined for heaven) they were particularists. Strait is the gate, narrow the way, few there be that find it. Does that sound universal? Whoever says otherwise is denying the plain sense of those words.

And they were not egalitarians. For some perspective, read some modern leftist textbook (is there any other kind?) on the subject of Anne Hutchinson, or read what the lefties at Wikipedia say about her.  She is now a feminist and leftist heroine because she stirred things up among the Puritans, preaching some sort of proto-New Age mysticism, thus defying the accepted teachings and promoting her proto-feminist ideas. She was exiled with her family and sympathizers, which of course outrages lefties because it shows how ‘misogynistic’ and intolerant the community fathers were. The Puritan fathers were not egalitarians, and we could argue about the rightness of their actions in expelling Hutchinson and other dissenters and pot-stirrers like here. I blogged about that some years ago, and I won’t rehash that here. The point is, if the people of New England had the ”cultural DNA” (whatever that is) of the Puritans, their part of the country would not be so far left.

This whole notion of cultural DNA being passed on from long-ago departed former inhabitants of a place sounds a bit like the popular superstition that ghosts of long-past eras hang around their former home and ”possess” the people who later inhabit their haunted territory. So if I understand it right, the WASPs and Puritans of old New England are now possessing the bodies of all the diversities who live in Boston and New Haven or Manchester, N.H., and  maybe even those Somalis that live in Lewiston, Maine. I suppose if that’s how it works, the Somalis in Minneapolis will be possessed by the spirits of all the left-wing Scandinavians who settled that place, or perhaps some will get the cultural DNA of all the German anarchists who lived in the Midwest and Great Plains. Now I get the hang of it: the people in Seattle are liberal because there were WASP descendants of Puritans who first pioneered in the Northwest. And Scandinavians too.

Honestly, though, if you honestly desire to explain the egalitarianism that ultimately led to the War Between the States and the racial strife that persists to this day, look across the ocean to the European continent, and the ‘Enlightenment’. Those few intellectual New Englanders like Emerson, Thoreau, Lowell, and their ilk were not harking back to their fairly recent Puritan ancestors, nor were they drawing on their own (by then liberal) Christian culture. No; as cosmopolitan-minded intellectuals they slighted their spartan Puritan roots and looked to sophisticated Europe for their inspiration. Europe, jaded Europe, had already seen the Jacobin revolution in Europe, and had lost faith in the veracity of the Bible. Man is the measure of all things, said the Enlightenment mantra, and they looked to agnostic and atheistic ‘philosophers’ in Europe as their guides. And that not satisfying their urge for new ideas, they began to look, by the 19th century, to the supposed ‘ancient wisdom of the Orient’, to Hindu ‘gurus’ and other Eastern religions, which promoted monism and animism, or the ‘god within’. This mish-mash of ideas, plus Quakerism, made up much  of the New England Transcendentalist movement, which was the most influential among the New England ‘intellectual elite.’ It was these people who spearheaded abolitionism, stirred mostly by one of their own, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and her fictional book about slavery, meant to stir gullible readers to a pitch of outrage.

It’s wrong to blame WASPs as such, or to blame Anglo-Saxon ‘altruism’ or Puritan ‘cultural DNA’ for the present political leanings of New England or of the North or of America in general.

So where did all this Puritan-blaming get started? From what I can ascertain, it’s mainly the work of a few influential bloggers who have been belaboring this subject for some time, and who have managed to convince much of the ethnonationalist right that WASPs, specifically ‘Puritans’ are to blame for most if not all of what is wrong with our world. I can think of a couple of Jewish writers who are part of the paleo-right intelligentsia who have also tried to deflect blame onto WASPs, saying that if there is undue Jewish influence, it is somehow the fault of the WASP elites for ‘letting this happen.’ So WASPs are to blame for being too yielding, and also for being xenophobic and unwelcoming. My observation is that Jews generally resent WASPs as those who kept them out of the exclusive country clubs and who were their main competition and rivals, quite honestly. So they saw WASPs, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, as the Enemy to be neutralized.

I wonder how much of Puritan-obsession is in fact the result of an effort to make Anglo-Saxon Americans the primary scapegoat; one can’t get into trouble for vilifying WASPs. It’s popular and it’s politically correct, and virtually no one will oppose you if you lambaste WASPs. No one wants to come to the defense of the Anglo-Saxon. So it takes no courage to go after WASPs; there is no price to be paid. Nobody will doxx you, or try to get you fired from your job, or call you a name if you profess to loathe WASPs. And as Puritans are all dead these many years, you can safely blame them for everything; they can’t answer you back or take a poke at you. Insulting and maligning Anglo-Saxons is a sport now, not a hate crime.

My longtime readers know that I have New England ancestry on one side, and Southron on the other. My identification and allegiance is with the South, where I have roots going back to the founding of Jamestown.
And though there are just as many misconceptions about the South, as compared to the North, I won’t address those here. Suffice it to say that the South, contrary to what some say, was not ‘secular’; the original colonists were mostly Christian and definitely not godless or libertine. So it is creating a false contrast to say that the South was easygoing where morality was concerned, unlike the prudish, uptight Puritanical North. Southern society didn’t hold with people who lived openly immoral lives (adultery, fornication, buggery). It was not like today’s anything-goes America, though it was not Puritanical in religious terms.

And yes, it is possible to be pro-South without having to drag the old Puritans out of their graves and hanging them in effigy over and over again — somewhat like the real-life fate of Oliver Cromwell after his enemies regained control.

And P.S.: the Yankee soldiers who killed my great-great-grandfather and other kin were not more likely to be New England men than they were to be Irish or German immigrants who filled out the ranks of the Union Army and who were glad to kill men with whom they had no real quarrel or dispute.  It’s those soldiers, essentially mercenaries, who get the least respect from me.

But I suppose since one can’t mention certain enemies of our folk, it’s better to go after people of our own blood, people who are the least likely to complain. Especially if we tell ourselves that North and South were not fellow Englishmen but ‘two different peoples.’  Rationalizing works pretty well if we don’t think too much about it.

Respectable Republican favorite favors more immigration

I could never buy into all the hype among Republicans about Ted Cruz. The same crowd of ‘respectables’ who were gaga over Cain or Allen West are now going on about Cruz being the savior of ‘conservatives’ and the GOP.

But maybe not.
His press office released this news:

“U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today presented an amendment to the Gang of Eight immigration bill that would improve our nation’s legal immigration system by increasing high-skilled temporary worker visas, called H-1B visas, by 500 percent. The measure would effectively address the needs of our nation’s high-skilled workforce by helping meet the growing demand for workers in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. It will also make block grants available to states to promote STEM education efforts and increase domestic STEM professionals. The committee voted against the amendment 4 to 14 with every Democrat voting against it on a party-line vote. “I strongly support legal immigration. Legal immigration is a fundamental pillar of our nation’s heritage, and I was pleased today to offer legislation that would have improved and expanded legal immigration by dramatically increasing the cap for high-tech temporary worker visas. This amendment would not only improve the current system, but would also encourage economic growth and create new jobs in America. There is currently a serious shortage of workers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math, yet every year we send thousands of high-tech graduate students back to their home countries to start businesses and create jobs. This makes no sense.”

No, what ‘makes no sense‘ is to add yet more immigrants to a country that has already been dramatically changed by the presence of tens of millions of immigrants, virtually all of whom come from Third World countries, and from cultures which could not be more incompatible with our own.

It’s a given that most of the H-1B visas would go to people from India or that region of the world, and we have far too many native-born, intelligent Americans who have lost jobs in the IT industry ever since this craze for importing help from the Subcontinent began. I know of several individuals who have had this happen — this replacement by Hindu workers, who, I am told, are not as good at their jobs as were the Americans they replaced. Yet it still goes on. And here is Sen. Cruz, having been set up as the only real ‘conservative’ candidate, proposing it.

If you are not conservative on immigration, then you’re not ‘conservative.’ Period. Full stop. End of.
What is there to ‘conserve’ once we’ve overturned the demographics of this country, and replaced the core population with people from a dramatically different origin and culture and religion?

Whoever programs the ‘average Republican‘ with their parroted talking points has done a good job. Now the average self-described ‘conservative’ rattles on  about ‘culture’ and ‘assimilation’, as if a few citizenship classes or a half-hearted stab at learning English in an ESL class can make an ‘American.’

And there are still, honest to gosh, Republicans who go on and on about how ”legal immigrants are good. I’m in favor of immigration as long as they do it the legal way, the right way. Illegal immigration is bad but legal is good; those people stand in line and work hard and want to become real Americans, just like our immigrant ancestors did”. Ad nausaeum. And if you read Cruz’s statement in the quote above, you will see he trots out this old smokescreen of ‘legal vs. illegal’ when it’s a mostly irrelevant distinction. It’s important only if you have hairsplitting legalistic concerns about ‘doing it the legal way.’ If I remember correctly, some if not all of the 9/11 hijackers were here legally. The Tsarnaev brothers were here legally, and according to this Business Insider article, fit the description of the kind of ‘skilled immigrants’ sought by the immigration-pimps in Silicon Valley.

And then, we mustn’t forget the American-born ‘Dr.’ Nidal Hasan, the perpetrator of the ‘workplace violence’ at Fort Hood, Texas. Apparently his parents’ were legal immigrants, and were welcomed with open arms. So whether immigrants have all their papers in order does not tell us much about their potential desirability.

And in a country of 320 million or so, and counting, with immigrants coming in their millions, why on earth does any politician need to be promoting and agitating for more immigration? Why?

It might be interesting to see who the big donors are to Cruz’ campaign. Or to look honestly at how having recent immigrant ancestors causes bias, conscious or not, in favor of immigrants and immigration. Jeb Bush and his Hispanic family obviously bias him (and the whole Bush clan) in favor of immigration, most especially Hispanic immigration. George W. Bush, too, made that amply clear during his time in office.

Our founding fathers and later generations of Americans, before the era of mass promiscuous immigration, made it explicit that a foreigner must not hold high office in this country, and I think it should be stated that anyone who is a first-generation immigrant at least might also be naturally biased toward immigrants and especially those of one’s own blood. Recent immigrant ancestry brings mixed allegiances.

This country has gone so far away from its founding ideas, and has gone so far off the deep end in embracing immigration — indiscriminately, if we look at the statistics — that we absolutely must see a swing of the pendulum back in the other direction.

But if the very people who are supposed to stand for preservation, ‘conserving’ and continuity in the nation are as indoctrinated as the ‘liberal’ portion of the country, then the future for this country looks bleak.  A ”nation of nations”, as some starry-eyed melting-pot enthusiasts like to call it, is no nation at all. It is a Tower of Babel, a ‘polyglot boarding house’ as Pat Buchanan, I think, said. And it’s ultimately a ‘house divided against itself’, which cannot stand.

Robert Edward Lee, b. January 19, 1807

 From Life and Letters of Robert E. Lee
Chapter I: Lineage and Boyhood

“We naturally desire to know about the ancestry of great men; for while it is far more important that men are something themselves than that their ancestors were great or good, yet it is true that “blood will tell,” and that the lives of men are greatly influenced by the characteristics of those from whom they are descended. Robert Edward Lee came of a long line of illustrious ancestors whose names were conspicuous both in England and America. Indeed, it may be justly claimed that he was the product of the highest type of our Anglo-Saxon manhood.”

More on his origins, from Robert E. Lee, The Christian Soldier (1873)

ROBERT EDWARD LEE, our Christian soldier and brave leader to many victories, “was born at Stratford, in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on the 19th of January, 1807.” This entry is found in the family Bible in his mother’s handwriting. His family, of Norman descent, is traced by himself, in his sketch of his father’s life, to Launcelot Lee of Loudon, in France, who accompanied William the Conqueror to England. After the battle of Hastings, he, with other followers, was rewarded by the Conqueror with lands wrested from the Saxons. All that we know is, that his estate was in Essex, England. From that time his name is found, ever and anon, in English annals, and always in honorable connection.

Thus, we next find Lionel Lee accompanying King Richard the Lion-hearted, in the year 1192, in his third Crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the followers of Mohammed. There, his career was marked by gallantry, and at the siege of Acre he received a solid proof of the approbation of his king. On his return to England, he was made first Earl of Litchfield, and was presented by the King with the estate of Ditchley, which name, centuries afterwards, his descendants gave to an estate in Northumberland County, Virginia.”

I include this because we live in an age in which English descent is disparaged, and many in the South deny their own Anglo-Saxon roots. (And for the record, I’m familiar with the Lee family descent, and there is also Anglo-Saxon ancestry, not just Norman).

We also live in an radical egalitarian age which likes to pull down those of distinguished lineage and today’s generations like to deny that ancestry matters. But if we agree that genes matter on an ethnic scale, why not on a family or clan level? The Lee family distinguished themselves through the centuries;  Robert E. Lee was the son of admirable forefathers. And yes, “blood will tell.” He was a great man, and though we live in a day of cynicism about the past, and ‘we’ love to tear down our former heroes and claim they were not such great men after all, I think this is sour grapes. We no longer seem to produce men of the caliber of Lee or Stonewall Jackson. We might ask why. We might ask what made them such great men — and yes, they were great men, no matter what today’s nihilists say of them.

We have a dearth of great men as well as good men. Lee was both great and good, and was acknowledged as such by his contemporaries in the North as well as the South. Up until this present dark age of political correctness, schoolchildren in the whole country were taught of Lee and his accomplishments and character; he was respected. Now the very college which bears his name is torn by controversy regarding the Confederate battle flag, and the cause of the South is dismissed as unworthy of respect. Robert E. Lee would surely be appalled to see how today’s South is demoralized and PC-whipped, half-hearted about defending the ‘Lost Cause’ and the good name of our forefathers and our past heroes.

This is not the time to discard our heroes and our history. Every people must have a sense of collective experience and memory to bind them together. If our history is to be discarded as of no worth, then we will be consigned to oblivion.

“Great men hallow a whole people, and lift up all who live in their time.” – Sydney Smith

Flagging and its critics

There was a ‘flagging’ demonstration in Lexington, Kentucky, reported by Top Conservative News.
The people in the photograph there are displaying the besieged CSA battle flag, though as you can see, the ‘Stars and Stripes’ is being shown also.

Another story on that same blog reports on the critics of the battle flag are protesting it in Baltimore. It seems that the hyper-leftist Quakers are teaming up with the NAACP on that event.

As if it isn’t enough that people who are not Southron or White are attacking our historic symbols and heritage and our First Amendment right to display those symbols, our own kin find fault as well. There is a growing number, apparently, of Whites, even those from the South, who tell us that we should stop displaying the battle flag or that we should display an alternate flag that is not so easily recognized by those who are sworn to have our symbols banned. The flag I display on my sidebar is the first CSA flag. It bears some resemblance to earlier American flags, but I have clearly labeled it as the CSA flag. There is no attempt to camouflage it or to have it be mistaken for another flag.

Some critic says that we ought to fly the Bonnie Blue flag — for those who don’t know, it’s the White star on a dark blue field. As the song describes it ”the bonnie blue flag that bears a single star.” That flag is dear to many of us, but the CSA battle flag is the one that holds the most patriotic associations for us, or for those of us that haven’t jettisoned the past.

But if we fly a flag that is more obscure because we hope it will not be recognized by our antagonists, isn’t that a kind of cowardice? Why fly a flag whose associations are not clear? Isn’t a flag supposed to announce our allegiance to something or someone? It is to be flown openly. It shouldn’t be meant to conceal, but to make clear who we are, what we support, what we stand for.

And if we try to devise new symbols in hopes of drawing less criticism or opposition, then we are afraid to identify ourselves and our loyalties; we are knowingly giving ambiguous signals.

“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” 1 Corinthians 14:8

And whatever new symbol we may choose to display, (hoping to avoid the ‘baggage’ of the battle flag, or hoping not to alienate or drive away potential allies) will in its turn be attacked as a symbol of  “bigotry” and “hate”. That’s a certainty. And any potential allies or sympathizers who would have us compromise or try to pander to the critics would not be any help to our cause in any case. That’s certain too.

As for the one critic on that blog discussion who attacks the men carrying the flags for their ‘slovenly’ appearance or their ‘obesity’, the latter counts as an ad hominem attack. Can only slim, trim, fit young people participate? I think there would be far fewer people out there if only those who pass the appearance standards are allowed to turn out. And is style of dress the primary criterion of the ‘success’ or failure of a demonstration? If so, the most successful protesters would be Louis Farrakhan and his footsoldiers, with their clean-cut appearance and ties. Or perhaps the Mormon missionaries, with their well-groomed youthful look, their clean white shirts, and their politeness. But I still make a wide berth around the Mormon missionaries, because their belief system is not mine, and never the twain shall meet. Looks aren’t everything.
As long as someone is clean and presentable, what does it matter if they don’t look like they stepped out of the pages of GQ? 

Personally I wish everyone, men and women alike, would return to the age of elegance, with men being clean-cut and dapper, and women wearing dresses or feminine suits and accessories. If I were ruler I would outlaw athletic shoes except in a gym or on a playing field where they belong, and jeans would be fit only for working on a ranch or farm. But then I don’t make the rules, and I won’t condemn sincere people who dress casually, as long as they are well-groomed. After all, we live in an age in which people don’t even dress up to attend church, or even for funerals, in many cases — or to go to a concert or the opera.  We live in a slovenly age, and why single out those flaggers for condemnation? To the contrary, we owe those people in Lexington thanks, for standing up for our heritage and for being willing to publicly display a symbol which is being attacked and brought into disrepute, needlessly.  Let’s focus on the things that matter, and unite around those things.

Le Pen’s statements

Jean Le Pen has been quoted as saying in an interview that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were the work of an intelligence agency.

In an interview with a virulently anti-Western Russian newspaper, Mr Le Pen, 86, gave credence to conspiracy theories circulating on the internet suggesting that the attack was the work of American or Israeli agents seeking to foment a civil war between Islam and the West.”

I know that there are people ‘on our side’ who say this, and who usually say the same thing in every similar instance, such as the Boston Marathon bombings.

I can’t say they are wrong, but neither am I eager to accept this all-purpose explanation for every such occasion. Why? Occam’s razor,  mainly. The Islamic pattern over, oh say, the last millennium or so tells us that we need not look for obscure explanations for their violence, and it doesn’t require an outside agency to stir up conflict between the parties. And if we want to look back further than the 8th century A.D., consider what the Book of Genesis tells us about the man the Arabs claim as their ancestor.

“And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him…” Genesis 16:12

Why look for secret and arcane explanations if the obvious solution is under our noses? Not everything is what it seems, but not everything is a big super-secret plot involving hidden perpetrators using the poor hapless Moslem to take the fall.

Regardless, it seems that though the Independent article tells us that Jean Le Pen’s daughter, Marine, disapproves of her father’s tendency to make controversial statements, but does she disagree with him? I have read that she is pro-Putin, and Putin has a similar tendency to blame everything on the West. Again, some on our side have begun to jump to similar conclusions. In fact they are pretty much where the left have always been, with the West being the perpetual villains and Russia being the good guys. An old history professor of mine used to draw a diagram on the blackboard to illustrate how as both left and right go to the farthest point on the spectrum, they end up meeting as the ends of the straight line fold back and meet in a circle.

Western governments are evidently led by corrupt people, and all the leaders and ‘elites’ are globalists who seem to believe that their ends justify any means. But it’s too tempting, while believing this about Western ‘leadership’, to turn against one’s own people, and to start to loathe one’s fellow citizens. Certainly the left make themselves odious to everyone except their political bedfellows, but do our own countrymen in general deserve the disdain that is directed at them by many on the left and now on the right?

No, Putin is not correct to blame every wrong on ‘the West’; the former Soviet Union may have had a change of leadership and a few changes in names and terminology, but they are not our friends, and Putin is not someone we should lionize as many on the right are doing. I am not sure what the Le Pens, father and daughter, are intending, but it seems they are perhaps trying to make conciliation with Islam, the old ”the enemy of my enemy” strategy. But as I’ve said so many times, though it’s not popular these days, the enemy of my enemy is just as likely to be one more enemy — and all the more dangerous because we refuse to consider that possibility.

The ‘right side’?

Fox News’ Shep Smith gets in a little dig at the South when he mentions same-sex “marriage”:

“Not in every case, but in most cases, the same states which were fighting integration are fighting this as well,” Smith said. “Those states which always seem to be behind the curve for reasons which are explainable and understandable.’

 Notice he uses the term ‘behind the curve‘, that is, ‘backward; behind the times’, or ”on the wrong side of History” as Shep’s fellow-travelling lefties like to put it. And of course their side, always the radical, anti-traditional, anti-Christian side, is on the ”right side of history.” Shep mentions ‘inclusion’ and anti-discrimination as being the evolved and enlightened ‘right (read: left) side of history.’

The Supreme Court decision which ended the several states’ bans on interracial marriage, ‘Loving v. Virginia’ in 1967 paved the way, in fact, for the current crusade to end all state laws against same-sex “marriage.” Shep Smith’s viewpoint is that it is good and right that the states were no longer allowed to set their own laws on interracial marriage, based on the majority opinion of the citizens of those sovereign states. That this diminishes the power of the states (and ultimately of their citizenry) in favor of the power of a centralized federal machine is a good thing in the eyes of Shep and his leftist comrades.

One thing Shep (who is apparently Southern by birth and upbringing) should know is that even most citizens of Northern states once believed interracial marriage was wrong. It was not just the ‘backward’ Southrons who believed such things. Shep probably knows this, but he seems to be one of those Southrons by birth who are ashamed of traditional Southrons, embarrassed by them, and just like all anti-White Whites, he is ashamed of his roots. Many of the younger (although Shep isn’t that young) Southerners are like that; they not only shed their natural accents but choose to reject their heritage and the ways of the older generations of their families. Sad. This kind of  ‘White’ person tsk-tsks about ‘self-hating minorities’ who are not militantly proud of their heritage but they hate their own roots. Ironic.

I read of a recent TV documentary out of Europe which presents a real-life pedophile in a sympathetic manner — which should shock and outrage us, though I am afraid most of us have become shock-proof lately. But this documentary (which I have no desire to see) will probably, in ten years time, be hailed by the left as a ‘groundbreaking’ piece of art which advanced the cause of human rights. After all, nobody can help who he or she loves, right? There’s a gene or something that creates homosexuality, say homosexuals and their heterosexual fanboys and fangirls. ‘How can we judge them for something they can’t help? And if it’s true love, if it’s loving and consensual, how can we say it’s wrong?‘ Yes, that’s how Loving (!) v. Virginia was presented to the politically incorrect American citizenry, and now most people agree with that thin argument. So we now think that interracial marriage is OK, even good, even superior, even desirable, according to Nicolas Sarkozy and millions of other leftists, and now we think homosexuality is an act of ‘courage and bravery’ — as the congregation in Ireland who stood up and applauded their priest for announcing his homosexuality.  So what will be the next frontier? Polygamy? My money is on that one; we’ve got the Mormon precedent, plus Islam, which is feeling its oats, in favor of it, as well as many men who say that men are not meant to be monogamous. So it will be legal next. Then what? Marriage between close relatives. And then? I shudder to think.

But if we accepted Loving v. Virginia, then the current ‘gay marriage’ legalization, then we have left ourselves no grounds on which to oppose the next ‘frontier’ wherein the left pushes the envelope.  Slippery slopes are, well, slippery.

H/T : Countenance Blog

How many categories do you fit into?

The way this list of criteria for ‘extremism’ is designed, people like me fit into a number of the cherry-picked categories. I remember this list, or some variation thereof, was on the Internet a few years ago, and at that time I saw (to no surprise) that I was in several, or several dozen, of the ‘doubleplusungood’ classifications.

6 Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians” 

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

I notice that some of the items on the list are redundant, like numbers 10 and 14. I guess they want to be sure that everyone knows that approving of homosexuality is a must, and no dissent is to be brooked.

And what I see as being “pro”, such as loyalty to my own folk and heritage they choose to depict as being ”anti’‘, against certain groups of people, which is, as we know, ”hate”, no matter what one’s motivation for opposition to a group or to an agenda.

They certainly intend to keep dictating the agenda, controlling the language and framing the debate in ways that automatically disqualify any differing views — not only disqualify such views, but ultimately the intent is, I think to criminalize all opposition or dissension.

I notice that one of the items on the list involves believing in ‘conspiracy theories’ or discussing them. Interesting that the powers-that-be have discussed tactics for influencing people on the Internet away from such theories:

[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.

And then they wonder why people are wary of the possibility of paid operatives positioning themselves as random commenters in Internet discussions. Proposals to try to ‘influence’ people’s opinions covertly tend to make us all distrustful of those in power, those who are not content to let people speak freely, and to ”let all sides be heard” to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.

Lists like the ‘extremist’ criteria above are meant to try to marginalize a great number of people, and to create a climate which is inimical to opinions that are not politically correct — opinions which were, in fact, mainstream and perfectly sensible and acceptable to a great majority, throughout the history of this country. What the list does is re-define what is right and wrong, who is mainstream and who is ‘extreme’ or even dangerous. Illegal immigrants of unknown background and connections? Not extreme. Followers of Islam? Not extreme, even when known to be involved in militant groups. Christians who believe in the Bible? Extremists, and probably dangerous. This is turning reality and common sense on its head. And the worst of it is, most people are accepting this re-definition of reality.