The ‘right’ enemies

Somebody named Charles C.W. Cooke posted a diatribe at National Review directed at Donald Trump and his supporters. I haven’t considered NR to be in any real sense ‘conservative’ or right-wing for some years now, especially after their purges of the politically incorrect writers in their employ. Lately they have been making a sporadic effort (or is it a pretense?) at appearing somewhat conservative, even flirting with political incorrectness on issues like immigration.

But by featuring pieces like this one, they are not helping themselves if they are hoping to lure some right-wing readers. I think their main concern is respectability, and it’s clear from this article that many Republicans like Cooke look down on Trump and his followers. This kind of attitude is more often seen from the left, but the respectable Republicans seem to be closer in spirit to the liberals these days.

Cooke questions whether Trump is in fact a ‘conservative.’ I will just say this: anybody who is not conservative on the issue of immigration, that is, anyone who does not favor restrictions on immigration (legal and illegal) is not ‘conservative’ in any meaningful sense of the word. The NR crowd and their ilk in the Republican Party should invent some new label for themselves, if they are not concerned with preserving the people of this country, and by ”the people”, I mean those of us who make up the core population of the country, those of us who are not recent arrivals. Some use the term ”generational Americans”, but the pre-1965 population of this country are the core population. Conserving the people of this country and the culture they created should be first on the list of things to ‘conserve.’

The Republican ‘respectables’ seem to believe, along with the hardcore liberals, that the people of this country are fungible, interchangeable, and they seem to accept this recent idea that you can overturn the population of a country and still pretend it’s the same country. Well, I have a news flash for those people: change the people and you change the country. Replace the core American population with Third Worlders, whether they are here “legally” or not, and you have another Third World, polyglot country, not the America that existed up until 1965.

Of course many of today’s adults were not born until well after 1965, but even people who are younger still have a dim memory of the America that was, before the immigrants began to flood into every corner, every nook and cranny of this country. Gradually we were left with this changeling America, as I call it, and our ”leaders” and politicians gaslight us and try to convince us that America has always been as it is today; nothing has really changed except we have so much ”diversity” and that, they say, is our ”strength.” 

No. Our strength, when we still had it, was based on our commonalities, and on our relative homogeneity — the fact that most core population Americans were of similar stock, kindred.

So Trump’s great appeal for many people is that he is the only one of the candidates who is addressing the immigration crisis, and in blunt, politically incorrect terms. How long has it been since we saw a candidate from either party who was willing to do that? The rest speak in hollow platitudes (“nation of immigrants”, “a better life”, etc.) or make mealy-mouthed, equivocal pronouncements that are not convincing.
Trump is an exception, too, in that he refuses to apologize when the usual suspects feign offense or outrage, and demand he retract his words. What other politician or public figure has stood up to the lefty ‘crybullies’?

Donald Trump certainly has the ‘right enemies’: the mainstream media apparently loathe him, and are showing symptoms of full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome. The mad-dog liberals are frothing over Trump. And the NR crowd apparently share the left’s feelings. So the fact that the ‘right’ people hate Trump makes me respect him more.

And the issue of whether Moslems publicly celebrated on 9/11 seems to have Mr. Cooke all up in arms; he doubts it. I can only offer anecdotal evidence from trusted sources. I have friends in New Jersey (where I once lived) who commuted every day by train to Wall Street. One such good friend told me that she witnessed a number of Moslems in Hoboken high-fiving each other after the Twin Towers went down. They were cheering and laughing. Of course this is anecdotal and not absolute proof, but my friend is not a liar, and she was not the only one witnessing this in a very public place. When there are so many testimonies to the same kind of incidents, that should constitute very good evidence that it happened. How many witnesses do you need to establish it as fact? There are plenty. I believe it because I heard it from trustworthy sources. I don’t know why Cooke and the other Trump critics are trying to discredit many of the witnesses. The critics on the ”right” seem to be just echoing what the left says. Are they afraid of forfeiting their ‘respectability’ by being associated with Trump? They want to distance themselves lest they be tainted. Let them. We are seeing who is who, and it isn’t pretty.

It seems to me that the people at NR are caught in their own ”feedback loop”, not  Trump and his supporters.

Of bad girls and bad societies

RamZPaul discusses whether or not feminism has anything to do with the ‘bad girl’ epidemic of today, and how, if at all, it affects the ”AltRight.” I offer my thoughts here rather than in his comment box because for some reason I cannot always get a comment to post on Blogger. The issue requires more than a couple of sentences in response, anyway.

First, I will agree with RamZPaul that ‘bad girls’ have always existed, because human nature has always contained the potential for bad behaviors. However, I disagree that things were ‘no better in the old days.’ This is an often-heard sentiment these days, though it’s most often to be heard from liberals, who believe the old days to be worthy only of condemnation. After all, the ‘old days’ is where all the sexists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, bigots, prudes, and hypocrites resided, and therefore the old days have to be spat on at every turn. Popular culture constantly depicts the old days in a sneering fashion, or didactic tones. One example: the movie ‘Pleasantville’, which was apparently a critical success but was nonetheless a blatant piece of propaganda, meant to deride sexual restraint and morality as ‘repression’, something that robbed life of color and fulfillment. The answer was for everybody to learn to break the rules with gusto, and really live. The past of Pleasantville was a heavy-handed caricature of what real 1950s America was, but then when most movie viewers of today have no first-hand knowledge of life before cultural Marxism destroyed everything, few question this negative view of the past.

Feminism is, in fact, in large part responsible for much of the sluttishness which is prevalent among women today. It isn’t just the younger women; it’s across age groups. Even ‘Christian’ girls and women of my acquaintance are almost as casual about sex and as lacking in modesty as are the non-believing ones. The Church (by which I mean all organized Christianity) has failed to teach young people about sexual restraint or modesty — but then, even if they tried, the siren call of the media and of course the wide-open public square ‘educate’ young people about hedonism and so-called ‘sexual freedom’ at a very young age. Children in grade school are more sexually savvy than most high-school students were in the 1950s.

Does that mean that there was no bad behavior and no ‘bad girls’ back in that pre-feminist era? Of course not; I concede that. But as with any generalizations, it’s a question of percentages or proportions. The ‘bad girls’ in the 1930s, for example (RamZPaul uses an image of female outlaw Bonnie Parker as an illustration of the presence of bad girls in that era) were a smaller subset of girls then, and what is more important, there was a strong social stigma attached to the behavior of such girls and women. Bonnie Parker no doubt was already considered beyond the pale when she took up with her partner-in-crime Clyde Barrow. Women and girls knew then that when they adopted a certain kind of persona and lifestyle, they forfeited social respect. Nowadays, no stigma attaches to the worst behaviors among women and young girls. Look at the female celebrities who are most popular. Sluttish behavior is described as ”empowering”, and women who flaunt such attitudes are admired and rewarded. This is all the fruit of feminism, and feminists have made being a ‘slut’ a good thing.

The act of admiring and rewarding any behavior will reinforce it and produce more of it.
Young girls today don’t see anything demeaning about, say, becoming a stripper. A young ‘Christian’ woman I know said that she saw nothing wrong or immoral about stripping, and that it’s ”just another way of making a living, and it pays better than most jobs.” Even prostitution is now labeled euphemistically as ”the sex industry.” How is that for removing the element of morality from the equation?

Back in the old days (or the ‘not-so-good-old-days’, depending on your point of view) most people would have agreed with what I am writing here, where morality is concerned. Now, thanks to leftist social engineering and propaganda, of which feminism was a big part, views like those I’m expressing are judged as ‘prudish’ or ‘old-fashioned.’ Almost everybody now believes that it’s better to be without any restraints at all than to be ”repressed”, as they insist people of the past were.

Society is decidedly worse today by all objective measures, such as prevalence of STDs, infertility resulting directly from those STDs, marriage and divorce rates, low birth rates amongst our folk, teen pregnancy and abortion, and ‘mental illness’ rates. Just count the number of people you know who are on some kind of psychoactive drug. None of this reflects improvement in society over the decades; quite the opposite.

In the past, too, there was no such mass phenomenon as ‘self-hating’ Whites, wiggerized teens and young people, or out-of-control immigration, tolerated by a passive population. This doesn’t indicate a healthier society, in comparison with the past. With all the talk about ‘personal self-esteem’, why don’t we as a people think more of ourselves? What’s needed is not phony self-esteem, but self-respect, which is a different thing. Being worthy of respect leads to respecting oneself and one’s own. And women should be at the heart of raising children with the right attitudes to life and themselves. I wonder, too, if young people raised without any personal boundaries — for example, girls who are promiscuous, who let their private space be invaded so easily, grow up to be people who think there should be no boundaries in the wider world — that we should tolerate anything and anyone, in the name of ‘openness.’ Isn’t promiscuity just a personal and unhealthy kind of ‘openness’? It reflects our society.

I think the left has done a spectacular job of getting most Americans, especially those too young to remember, to believe the past was a dystopian place, not fit for today’s ”enlightened” people to live in. Above all, they don’t want anyone to respect the past or the people of past eras. Tearing down the past, comparing it unfavorably to today’s chaotic world, is part of their plan. If we have nothing left worth reviving from the past, much less preserving what remnants are left, then the social engineers can go on remaking the world in their ugly image.

If the AltRight considers it desirable to incorporate a lot of the left’s social attitudes in order to succeed amongst the younger generations, then they’ve already compromised themselves to the extent that they cannot provide a healthy alternative to this unacceptable mess we find ourselves in.

Useless non-‘reporting’ from Vancouver

This poor excuse for a ‘news’ story is from the Vancouver, B.C. Sun. It tells us that three people are dead  in ten separate ”random attacks” which are apparently now a trend in that city.

Who is responsible? Judging by the hint in the headline, ”booze and bravado” are responsible.
Otherwise the only hint that sentient beings are involved in attacking people is the reference to ”groups”. Groups of what, or whom? Escaped zoo animals? Giant blancmanges from outer space (Monty Python reference, for those unfamiliar)? Who?

Whatever happened to the principle of reporting ‘who, what, and where?’ It was one of the first of many casualties of political correctness.

I heard of this latest incident via radio news, and so I know that the latest victim died at home after having suffered a head injury in a one-punch attack on the streets of Vancouver. Otherwise I would have no clue, but the circumstances seem to indicate what is called ‘The Knockout Game’ here in the U.S.

Apparently political correctness is that much more stringent in Canada, preventing us from knowing more about the dangerous attackers who roam at large, unimpeded. Nobody dares profile, right? So we must all engage in a bizarre pretense in which nobody has a clue as to the attackers’ identity or general appearance.

Vancouver was once a safe, peaceful city, as big cities go. Now I hear that Vancouver is changed out of all recognition, compared to what it was when I last visited there.

A population conditioned to be passive and ‘politically correct’, and above all, committed to absolute, unqualified tolerance of everything, is a population set up to be helpless targets for the malicious and the lawless. Add to this a dishonest-to-the-core leftist media machine and a system that considers ‘profiling’ worse than murders of innocent people — voila. This is what you have.

It would be funny, if it weren’t tragic

A group of delicate ‘college students’ (read: adolescents with emotional ages of about six) required counseling — yes counseling, because they were exposed to an image of a Confederate battle flag on someone’s laptop. This happened in ultra-liberal, diverse Massachusetts. Massachusetts, in case you aren’t aware, is no longer dominated by descendants of English Puritans, but by ‘diversity’ going back back to the 19th century immigrant wave. Now of course it’s enriched by the more recent ‘diversity’ reinforcements.

“Observing that students on campus in general may have suffered a traumatic reaction from seeing an image of the Confederate flag, Huddleston continued, “We recognize that bias incidents are upsetting for the entire campus community, but especially for the target(s) and witness(es) of these incidents.”
“It is strongly suggested that anyone impacted by a bias incident find someone to speak with,” he wrote.”

These school officials actually believe this nonsense. They surely should know better, while the millennials who make up the majority of the student body might be prone to adolescent hysteria, plus the effects of having been sheltered from politically incorrect reality for their whole existence. In a sense they are like the ”boy in a bubble” we heard about in the 70s. He was kept in a sterile bubble-like enclosure because he had no immune system. He could not be exposed to the outside world lest his life be endangered by exposure to common pathogens. Today’s politically-corrected, mind-conditioned young seem not to be able to handle exposure to ideas that their ”education” has not permitted. Thus they seem to get hysterical at any thought or idea or word or even an image which threatens their fragile sense of ”safety” and well-being. Is this real, or is it just political theater, manipulation for political reasons, agitprop? Who can tell?

If it’s staged and feigned, then shame on the ”adults” who run the universities for taking part in this sham. They are reprehensible, whatever the case may be, for feeding and encouraging this behavior by catering to it, and humoring it. The campuses seem more and more to be infected by some kind of mental contagion, a collective madness. Does anyone else find it disturbing that these ridiculous cases seem to be happening almost daily, lately?

For another example, there is this story from left-wing Washington state academia: Western Washington University suspended classes because somebody panicked when seeing ”hate speech” and threats on an anonymous social media site. President Bruce Shepard made the decision to close classes. Note: Shepard is the administrator who recently declared in a speech that his school was ”too White.” (He himself appears to be White; perhaps he could help remedy the ”too White” character of the school by resigning in favor of some Person Of Color. Set an example, Mr. Shepard)

“Shepard…said he was alerted by employees at the Bellingham school who saw the threat first on the anonymous social-media phone application Yik Yak. His message on the school’s website detailed threats he said he viewed as crimes, and pledged to go after whoever made them.
He said that the target was students of color, and that he decided to suspend classes because he was concerned about the safety of all students.”

He was concerned about safety because of what? The recent rash of attacks by Whites on People of Color everywhere? But there’s been no such incidents. Or maybe the many attacks by Whites on People Of Color on campuses across the country? Oh, wait, that hasn’t happened either. Not just in recent times, but at any time. Ever. Not even in the bad old days.

So where is this fear coming from? Isn’t unfounded fear popularly described as ”paranoia” these days? Since the left calls even reasonable fear a ‘phobia’, isn’t this some kind of  mental disorder, in their therapeutic religion?

And if I were the parent of a student on one of these hysteria-prone campuses, I would object to having my son or daughter frightened for no good reason, with no basis in reality. Are there no sane parents to speak up against this needless ginning up of fear and hysterics? The weepy group-hugs and candlelight vigils, the pious rituals supporting ”diversity” and all the rest of the staged drama?

Parents, when is enough, enough?

And for some perspective, the highly educated people who run these campuses ought to know that such ‘threats’ all too often prove to be hoaxes, perpetrated by the supposed ‘victims’, as in this case:

SOMERS — A black female University of Wisconsin-Parkside student confessed to detectives Friday night to her part in a hoax involving a false death threat against black students on campus, according to Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department Sgt. Bill Beth.
Beth said the student, whose name was not released to the media, told detectives she devised the hoax to bring attention to an earlier incident in the same campus dormitory where she lived and had placed copies of the death threat Thursday night. It included a list naming herself and 12 other students of color, which many other students viewed as a racially motivated “hit list.”

And this is by no means an isolated hoax. See this list.
These people in the academic ‘bubble’ need to re-connect with reality, both past and present, and get some perspective. They live in some kind of crazy parallel universe.

I will not be at all surprised if this Western Washington University ‘threat’ scare is another such hoax. But if it proves to be a fake, meant to keep alive the fear of ”racism”, then it will scarcely be mentioned in the media. Instead, the reprehensible ‘journalists’ will go on with their relentless script of ”racist Whites” lurking everywhere.

This amounts to slander. If false charges were made against an individual on such a frequent basis, the individual could bring legal action for libel, defamation of character, or some such. When we as a people are falsely accused and made to be cartoon villains who are perpetual conspirators against People Of Color, we are supposed to accept it as our lot in life, and not complain. But again, when is enough, enough? When will some of our folk, enough of our folk, speak up and object to being blamed for things we haven’t done? When will the ‘victim’ groups be held accountable for their conspiring to make false accusations against us, and bearing constant false witness against us?

The terrible thing is that generations of our own young people have been convinced that White people are innately evil and born ”racist”, while minorities can do absolutely no wrong. Even when they are caught red-handed, it is our fault somehow. These generations of our young people may be irretrievably lost, in that they may not be able to be de-programmed from their multicult, White Guilt programming.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, as somebody said.
Or is it “a brain is a terrible thing to wash?

Heather MacDonald: Politically incorrect – up to a point

This piece by Heather MacDonald, pointing out some politically incorrect statistics on interracial crime and violence, appears on National Review. That’s surprising, considering that National Review has purged some very good people who pointed out ‘hatefacts’ in the past. I am thinking of Sam Francis, first and foremost, though there have since been other casualties, as NR tries to retain its ‘respectable Republican’ image and base.

Heather MacDonald, if I recall correctly, is a libertarian, so she will not share the same sensibilities as Sam Francis or any ethnonationalist/ethnopatriot. But she does, nevertheless, make some useful points about the reaction to the Charleston shootings, and about the actual rarity of white-on-black crimes like the Charleston incident, compared to the much higher incidence of violence towards Whites. And the media’s obvious decision to ignore or downplay any black-on-white violence while hyping the supposed menace of White racism, as in this quote MacDonald uses in her article:

Blacks live with the “daily threat of terror,” according to Patricia Williams Lessane, the director of the Avery Institute for Afro-American History and Culture at the College of Charleston. Such “terror,” Lessane wrote in the New York Times, “does not exist within a vacuum. It looms within the growing prison-industrial state, against the backdrop of school-reform debates, our slow movement toward gun reform and the political maneuvers by Republicans to make it increasingly more difficult for poor people and minorities to vote. The reality that our civil rights are under attack is just as heavy as our fear for our lives.”

[Emphasis above is mine.]
Based on the actual statistics, it’s obvious to all but the most blind (which includes leftists and the ‘professional victims’ they champion) that Whites have much more cause to fear for their lives, depending on the demographics of where they live, than blacks. Blacks, on the other hand, are more likely to be killed by other blacks. But somehow these facts remain obscured to most people.
It’s good that MacDonald has written this piece; maybe it will reach a few of those ‘respectables’ who are subscribers to NR. On the other hand, it may just as well help them to rationalize their concerns by blaming ‘social causes’ rather than genetic tendencies or IQ for the disparities in racial violence. If only blacks followed the examples of Dr. Ben Carson, or Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas, and adopted what the GOP call ‘the conservative ideology’, then they could all be high achievers: surgeons, economists, Supreme Court Justices. Just like in Hollywood and TV.
So MacDonald, perhaps not consciously, is following a safe line of reasoning, while explaining black-on-white crime: in a nutshell,  it’s the culture. This is the line frequently heard at Free Republic: it’s their culture. They need education and role models and Conservative Ideology. I believe many libertarians (of which MacDonald is one) follow that line of reasoning as well. The underlying assumption is that all are equal and that if everyone has the right environment, anyone can succeed.
It seems to me that continuing to try to side-step the issue of genetic heritage will only keep us caught in the loop that we are in as a people: the egalitarianism has to go, root and branch. We can’t keep hiding behind these rationalizations just to avoid being labeled and cast into the outer darkness — as was Sam Francis. He spoke the truth and paid a price, but avoiding the truth carries a much higher price tag.

For once, they are calling the attackers a hate group

Another Confederate Battle Flag incident, this time in Washington state.
[H/T Hunter Wallace]

This attack on an Air Force pilot happened in Washington State — another liberal stronghold, like Wisconsin, in yesterday’s flag ‘scare.’ .The local TV news report on the group of ‘anarchists’ does not discuss the attack on an the pilot, which even the Washington Post addresses.

The Air Force Times description of the incident is more specific in referring to the self-styled anarchist thugs as a hate group, though they put it in scare quotes.

“Police in Olympia, Washington, are looking for two men who assaulted an Air Force officer during a supposedly peaceful protest Sept. 5.

The officer, described as a pilot at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, was stopped in traffic due to the protest when he was singled out by a “local hate group,” which calls itself the “anarchists,” according to a police news release.”

The officer was beaten with a baseball bat by a group of men — typical cowardly attack. And these are the kinds of people who condemn “hate”. To them the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of ”hate”. Well, let’s ban the anarchist symbol, too, since anarchists are self-evidently haters.

Are these useful idiots getting their marching orders from on high somewhere? It seems as if they’ve been told to go out and hunt down Confederate symbols in particular and to go after those who dare to display them. The over-aged children in the universities have been so heavily mind-conditioned to have a knee-jerk response to Confederate and Southern symbols that they either react with tears and calls for help from the authorities, or else they are the Antifa-type thugs and enforcers who are prepared to use violence. How long before someone is killed in such an incident, and will the media even cover it when it does happen? No, they will be too busy covering stories about some offended minority, sexual, racial, or religious, feeling ‘intimidated’ and ‘afraid’ because of a word, a picture, or a flag. (Or even dog excrement — here).

Of crybullies and the perpetually offended

Some students put in distress calls to the administrator at a Wisconsin college. What were these callers, who seemingly were coordinated, complaining of? Well, they claim to have experienced ‘fear’ at the sight of a flag.

The article describes the flag which created ‘fear’ and ‘angst’ in the hearts of delicate college students, as a Confederate flag. What they presumably meant was what is more properly known as a Confederate battle flag, or a Confederate naval jack.

The actual flag of the CSA was not the flag that is carelelessly called ‘THE’ Confederate flag. You’d think people in an institution of ‘higher learning’ would know these things — the students as well as the administrators. But no one cares enough to get their facts and names straight and thus avoid betraying their ignorance.

But these kids — and even though they are probably over 21 in many cases — have been conditioned like Pavlov’s dogs to react with horror and faux shock when confronted with anything that challenges the politically correct dogmas with which they are being indoctrinated. They had best learn quickly that the real world, which awaits them outside the PC confines of the campus, has all kinds of people with all kinds of different viewpoints. Kiddies: you may not like the opinions and the views of some of those people out there, and since you have been raised to be such delicate little hothouse flowers, you will likely spend a lot of your life feeling ‘fear’ and ‘angst’ at things that challenge what you have been fed. Best get over it; you cannot make everything ‘go away’ that offends your delicate sensibilities. And another trivial little point here: there is such a thing as a right to freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. There is a document called the Constitution that guarantees such rights, and those rights are not just granted to those who parrot the accepted and safe opinions of your peers and you.

I’m offended greatly by much of what the politically correct hacks of the mass media offer us. I’m offended by leftists who disparage and insult Christians, traditional Americans of all sorts, especially White people, Anglo-Saxons, and Southrons. I am offended by the constant catering to the professional grievance-mongers, those who claim to be ‘victims’ at every turn.

But do I call authorities to silence or take action against those who offend me? No, only totalitarian ‘liberals’, the preachers of ‘tolerance’ do that. In Europe, Canada, or Australia, people are arrested and jailed for ‘offending’ certain protected groups. Is that what the complainers wish for?

Just for the record, the Confederate battle flag does not symbolize ‘hate’ or ‘slavery’. Such perceptions are subjective. Read a history book, preferably one written before the current reign of cultural Marxism/political correctness. Most history books written post-1960 have the odor of political correctness about them; even supposed ‘conservative’ or middle-of-the-road historians have kowtowed, thanks to the intolerance of the left. But some honest history books were written, once upon a time, by non-ideologues.

Why is it that only in recent times have people claimed to experience ‘fear’ and ‘intimidation’ at the mere sight of a piece of cloth, whose meaning they don’t even know? A one-off event in Charleston in recent months does not explain how suddenly a flag ‘frightens’ or traumatizes people. Even black people in past times did not faint away or call the police on simply seeing the Confederate battle flag. If there is any real fear or intimidation at the sight of it, it’s pretended; it’s all political theatre and agitprop, all meant to force the complete outlawing of the flag and to crush every last symbol of the South. It’s staged. It’s another ‘hate hoax’, of which there are many. Hate hoaxes and feigned outrage are power plays, pure and simple. It’s a way of putting perceived enemies in their place, silencing them and intimidating them. It’s crying ‘help, help!’ while assaulting your supposed tormentor. Crybullying.

The War Between the States (also known by many Southrons, correctly, as the War of Northern Aggression, or the invasion of the South) was about a number of things: among them, the very important issue of State’s Rights. The South held the historically correct interpretation of the relative power of the States vis-à-vis the central Government.

The war was also about economic issues. The South wanted to secede and the North knew that this would be an economic blow to them. But yes, slavery was an issue that was part of the conflict. The North, though there were still slaves in the North, self-righteously took up the cause of abolitionism, without any thought for the consequences of freeing masses of slaves, unprepared as they were to adjust to life as freedmen, fending for themselves. Many did not fare so well — but the John Browns and the Harriet Beecher Stowes of the North and their cult followers would have it no other way, so something like 600,000 to 850,000 people died as a result of the North’s obsession with freeing the slaves at all costs.

A number of my kinsmen, including direct ancestors, fought for the Confederacy. They were Christians, gentlemen; decent human beings, not monsters. I am truly offended that their memories and names are being slandered. That’s a genuine reason to feel affronted.

One of my great-great-grandfathers died in battle in Tennessee. Those soldiers were mostly fighting for home and hearth, for their states, for their families and neighbors. They fought bravely to try to prevent what eventually happened — the slaughter and depredations perpetrated by the Northern forces, most vividly illustrated by the infamous Sherman’s March to the Sea. Read a first-hand account.

But to the Northerners, any and all methods justified the end — to free the slaves and to subdue and subjugate the ‘traitors’ in the South. Scorched earth tactics were used for the first time by Americans against other Americans. Northern Whites slaughtered fellow Whites for the sake — in part — of blacks.

And thus we have today’s situation: the people complaining about that innocuous flag, the flag of my fathers, on behalf, primarily of blacks. Who might not even feel offended on their own; their White ‘protectors’ take offense for them. As if they don’t have minds of their own. White liberals are self-elected spokesmen and representatives of blacks, so they seem to think.

What is it about people who get offended on behalf of others? White Americans act as ‘White Knights’ who look for occasions to ‘rescue’ poor persecuted minorities who are supposedly besieged by White villains? This is something new under the sun.

Or maybe not. That was the story of the War Between the States: it could be seen as Americans’  first War Between the Whites, with the aggressors championing blacks. It was a war which was bloody and the aftermath continues to this day. So far, the currrent war is mostly a cold war between ”liberal”/leftist/”progressive” Whites and normal Whites. It’s now mostly a verbal war, with the left throwing most of the insults, taunts, and threats, along with passive-aggressive behaviors, such as snitching on people who transgress PC unwritten laws. But if it continues to escalate, and if the ”progressive” anti-White Whites continue to incite the minorities they think they are protecting, then it may well heat up again. Whatever happens, it can’t continue on its present trajectory much longer. It will end up in total suppression of freedom on the part of the totalitarian left and their minority clients, or the pendulum will make one big swing back in the opposite direction. The pendulum has gone about as far left as it can go.

Another Rotherham?

From South Dakota, via Daily Kenn: You see, Moslem immigrants  aren’t all terrorists; some just do a little sex-trafficking and exploiting troubled children. The victims were mostly White and American Indian.

The ringleader is now serving four life terms: why is he being allowed to stay?
Let’s hope the Rotherham pattern of protecting the perpetrators for politically correct reasons does not become the standard procedure here. Justice is supposed to be blind, and the law is in theory ‘no respecter of persons’, as the Bible says we are all to be. We mustn’t give people a pass because they are members of some protected group. Let’s not follow the UK’s justice system in that way, although we are on the same path. It’s just a matter of degree.

Meanwhile, on the Texas border…

Eight Syrians were caught trying to cross into Texas at Laredo. How  many got across without being caught? For decades we’ve let millions of unknown (and needless to say, unvetted) Latin Americans and others cross our erstwhile borders freely, at their whim. Our feckless lawmakers and ICE officials claimed they could not stop the border crossers. This advertised to the whole world that our nation’s doors and gates were wide open, and that anybody who wanted to could enter at will. This made us targets, vulnerable to, at worst, potential terrorism and violent drug cartel violence, as well as random crimes. But this seems not to matter to those who are supposedly in charge. I can only conclude that this is all by design, as there is admittedly a plan to demographically change all Western countries, culminating in the real-life ‘Camp of the Saints’ siege that we are witnessing now.

Then there is the tale of the five Syrians with fake passports caught in Honduras when en route to this country. Again, how many are there that were not intercepted?

And wait, there’s more: throngs of unaccompanied ‘children’ are now trying to surge across the southern border again. I guess the numbers were insufficient to accomplish the goals of the Powers-That-Be last time. So somebody organized another influx of ‘children’. I say ‘children’ sardonically, because the last group of ‘waifs’ who came across the border to be scattered hither and yon in this country were said to be, in some cases, 30+ years old. Who knows how old any of them are, as they come undocumented or with false IDs.

Let’s be realistic: most of the immigrants, legal or not, who come here are unvetted; most come from countries with poor record-keeping practices and many come with forged IDs or no IDs at all. So these unvetted ‘refugees’ are just the latest example of our promiscuous ‘come one, come all’ philosophy of ‘immigration.’

The  unaccompanied ‘children’ propaganda is a nice, if heavy-handed touch, blatant in its attempt to evoke sympathy and tears on the part of the sentimentalists among us. After all, how can civilized people turn away ‘children’, even if they look suspiciously ‘mature’ for their purported ages?

As I’ve said for years now, where does this all end, or does it? There are potentially billions in the Third World who aspire to come here, and all Western governments see their primary duty as being to assist any Third World immigrant, ”refugee”, asylee, fugitive whatever, to get here and get their share of our birthright. We? We’re just obstacles, no more and no less, to these plans.