Speaking of lies…

In a recent post, I was decrying this recurring ‘talking point’ of the open-borders crowd: the claim that sending illegals home is “breaking up families” and ”tearing children from their parents” and other such manipulative nonsense.

Now here we have John Kasich of Ohio, in his bid to become president, spouting just this very lie:

[Kasich]  flatly rejected the idea of the mass deportations Donald Trump has called for.

 “You don’t actually think, folks, that we’re going to drive around in Canton Ohio and yank people out of their homes and ship them to Mexico, leaving their kids on the front porch. You really think that’s going to happen.”

The crowd, overwhelmingly, answered “no.”

Is Kasich ignorant, or merely dishonest? He is the governor of his state; can someone attain governorship of one of these United States despite being so out-of-touch with reality? Really, Mr. Kasich, where has this ever happened in this country when someone is deported? When have children been left alone on a porch or in a house (as per other statements by Kasich which I’ve read), unattended? This would just not happen. Ever.

I defy anyone who makes such idiotic claims to back up their claims with facts: name places, dates, names of those deported and the names of irresponsible authorities who would supposedly leave unattended children to fend for themselves.

And why does nobody ever challenge these kinds of statements? Is there not one honest ”journalist” in this country who would ask such pertinent questions? I know the answer: the ”narrative” matters much more than truth to these mind-conditioned leftist journos and the ‘diversity’ hires who of course have their own ethnic agenda.

And why is there seemingly not one ”conservative” politician who will speak up when Kasich or some other open borders shill spouts this propaganda?

And why does it seem that few to no bloggers ever question that particular bit of propaganda?

There are no children being ”torn” from their doting parents’ bosoms when these few token ‘deportations’ (more like free vacations back home, if the truth be told) happen.There is no way that Mexico or other Latin American countries would refuse to admit the whole family back into their home countries. The United States government is not going to hold ”anchor babies” here against their parents’ will just because they are supposedly ‘citizens’ of this country — which is by no means certain anyway.

The parents can take their large families back home (yes, HOME, to their place of origin and rightful place of residence) when they go. Nobody will stop them from keeping their families intact.

As for Kasich’s support for a so-called ‘path to citizenship’ for illegals, which is amnesty, whether he will call it that or not, some express surprise. But why should anyone be surprised? He has recent immigrant ancestry — either parent(s) or grandparents, depending upon which source you accept. Having recent immigrant origins almost always translates into support for mass immigration and lenient attitudes toward illegal immigration.

So now we have two Cubans, one an immigrant the other the son of immigrants, and an Eastern-European immigrant descendant running for president. Clearly the party bosses want immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants, non-WASPs, as our only possible Republican choices. The globalist element of the GOP is definitely in charge.

 

Conservatism: is it dead?

There seems to be a growing consensus that ”conservatism” or at least the so-called conservative movement, is dead — or that it deserves to be.

This piece from The Right Stuff, called Divorcing the Conservative Movement, describes the ways in which the so-called Movement has failed to show any fight. The “right” has been too concerned about maintaining their genteel image and sticking to ideological principles (the ”free market”, etc.) and has neglected to display any kind of opposition to the left as they push their ‘progressive’ agenda ruthlessly.

Over at Free Republic there was a thread discussing the thuggery displayed by the left at the Trump rally, and many of the ”conservatives” were saying that they would never descend to the level of the left by using force, or by copying tactics like infiltrating their rallies to disrupt them.  Using force against leftists, even in self-defense, was considered ‘beneath us.’  One FReeper said ”we are better than that.” This is not what being a ”gentleman” means. This present generation may be ignorant of history but in the past, a true gentleman had to know how to defend himself, how to fight, how to use force when it was called for. It is only in the decadent 21st century that those who style themselves ‘gentlemen’ or just ‘nice guys’ think that they must not dirty their hands by defending themselves or their prized principles.

Much as I appreciate what good work Jared Taylor has done, I remember the video of a public appearance, where leftist college students mobbed him on stage and harassed him up close. As I recall, he simply let them stop his speech, probably wishing to appear stoic and ‘gentlemanly.’ Yet in the end, the thugs prevailed, and he was silenced.  I remember his body language as the leftist rabble surrounded him; he sort of shrank and drew in on himself. I wonder if even a defiant, strong posture would have deterred them somewhat. Mr. Taylor is, no doubt, a nice guy, but we’ve heard that nice guys ”finish last.” Nice does not work against the riff-raff.

Turning the other cheek was prescribed for personal disputes, not for cases of violence by mobs intent on intimidating or harming innocent people.

So yes, the ‘conservative movement’ has shown itself unwilling to do anything but roll over, and to passively acquiesce to whatever agenda the left is pushing. The establishment ”right” as it now exists is just a shadow of the left, following wherever the left leads.

However, the ”conservatives” certainly show some fight when they go after people who are to their right. The gloves come off then.

Another good piece here, called The Hollow Man, describes how the conservative establishment hollows men out; principled men, among whom the author counted Ted Cruz. I disagree on that point; I don’t think Cruz was ‘gotten to’, but he believes that Cruz has somehow been compromised by the ‘movement conservatives’ or the GOPe, so that it appears that his once-solid conservative ‘principles’ are gone. Now he, Cruz, appears to be a participant in the anti-Trump jihad by the GOPe — and their soulmates on the left, for that matter. The two sides may appear to be in opposition but they are ‘two souls with but one thought’ at this point, and that one thought is to ‘stop Trump’, or perhaps, stop the White Trash from taking over the precious GOP.

As I mentioned in my last post, there is very much an anti-populist, anti-White undercurrent to much of the venom directed at Trump, and at his supporters, who may be the real objects of fear on the part of the ‘respectable right.’

John Derbyshire apparently called the NR crowd, after they fired him for his politically incorrect writings on race, the ‘White Gentry.’ I am not sure that’s fair; I come from that class of people yet I don’t share their supercilious mindset. And Kevin Williamson, the NR writer who wrote a piece saying that ‘White working class communities deserve to die” is not of the ‘White gentry’ but apparently from a ‘hardscrabble’ background in West Texas. There is nothing like a man who has gotten ‘above his raising’ as they say in the South; a jumped-up common man who thinks he is better than those he left behind in the dusty old hometown. I spent part of my growing-up years in a dusty West Texas town so I know what I am talking about. Many of the people who moved away and ‘made good’ in the big city evidently always thought themselves better than the ‘White trash’ among whom they grew up.

Many of those who grew up working-class or ‘poor folks’ have more pretensions and aspirations to acceptance and ”respectability” than those who grew up among the gentry, who can often be more down-to-earth. I suspect many of the ”respectables” are people who still have not, in their minds, attained full acceptance among the ‘better’ classes, and are trying too hard to distance themselves from their roots. Insecure people, many of them, trying to ensure that they are accepted by the ‘best people’.

Finally, in this piece, Luke Ford pronounces conservatism ‘dead’, and at least makes a good case that it deserves to die, if it is not in fact quite dead yet.  Ford takes Kevin Williamson to task in his piece, as he rightly should.

I’ve been saying for years that the GOP deserves to share the fate of the Whigs, the party it replaced. I hope this current turmoil makes it clear that the GOP and ”movement conservatism” hates people like most of us. There is no earthly reason why a party which clearly views most White Americans with contempt should continue to exist. There is already one anti-White party run by elitists; why do we need two?

Trump’s would-be attacker

It seems that the ‘SJW’ who rushed the stage at the Dayton, Ohio rally for Trump has quite a history as a leftist ”activist” (read:thug), and announced his intentions via social media. I was ready, after reading some of this person’s Tweets, to condemn Twitter for not banning his account, since they claim to disallow ‘hate speech.’. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and Twitter apparently has deleted the account of this Tommy Dimassimo, the Trump assailant.

DiMassimo has a history of highly theatrical Hate Whitey statements, threats, and gestures like dragging an American flag around as part of an anti-white protest. Here’s an archive of his tweets.

His mother Faye DiMassimo is an important executive in mayor Kasim Reed’s Atlanta city government.”

And way back in August of last year, we read at the Occidental Dissent blog about this same Dimassimo, then seen trampling on and burning a Confederate Battle Flag at a Stone Mountain, GA rally.

tommy-d

Clearly in the photo above he is deliberately trying to provoke a response from the people in the stands. That’s always what these types seek to do: ideally, to get the other side to attack you so you have the supposed moral high ground, and can feel vindicated in denouncing the other side (normal White people) as ”haters”, as violent bigots. Then you get to play the wronged victim, always the cherished role for the SJW types.

Dimassimo also said in his Tweets that ‘martyrdom’ was his goal.

I see that his Facebook page is not available now; no surprise, usually such a page is scrubbed quickly when the person behind it has suddenly attained notoriety. The disgusting thing is that Dimassimo was apparently released on bail. Would a ”right-wing” person charged with such a crime be released so easily? Of course not, and it probably doesn’t hurt that his mother is in Atlanta city government.

Dimassimo, though typical of the leftist ‘foot soldier’ and professional agitator (he apparently is a small-time wannabe actor and a rather old ‘perpetual student’) is not the author of all this; obviously the organized left finds people like Dimassimo useful, and we’ve seen how groups like MoveOn.org and BLM and individuals like George Soros have claimed ‘credit’ for these recent events involving Trump. So Dimassimo is a bit player in this particular drama, though he may think he is a man of significance.

The troubling thing is that there are so many like him who are willing to use violence for political aims, and that there are monied, powerful interests willing to use such deluded political fanatics.

Even worse, though, is that it is not just the left that is party to all this, but the establishment, ‘respectable’ right. Witness Cruz’s statements regarding the rally violence:

“When you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discourse.”

So the establishment Republicans are essentially siding with the leftist/ethnic thugs who perpetrate the violence, placing most if not all the blame on Trump and those who support him.  Good. Now maybe people will see the true colors here. Enough of the masquerade.

But Cruz and the other establishment candidates are not the worst. Gateway Pundit here calls attention to the anti-Trump Republicans at Red State, resorting to what looks very much like incitement to violence against Trump. The following is a quote from Neil Stevens:

My advice for reporters and protestors visiting Donald Trump events is simple: You have a right to keep and bear arms. Use it. If Trump’s brownshirts know their targets are armed, they’ll get less handsy, fast.”

At the very least, this is irresponsibility. Is this how desperate the establishment GOP, namely, the Cruz backers, are to thwart Trump and his supporters? Because it is just as much about Trump supporters as it is about the man himself: these ‘respectables’ see Trump supporters as The Enemy, as much or more than the Left. To them, Trump’s supporters are White trash, rednecks — essentially the same laundry list of insults that the Left throws at ordinary White people. Maybe people are instinctively taking sides, sorting themselves out now. And that’s good; there has long been a group of very dissimilar people under the GOP ‘big tent’ and many normal White people are seeing in very stark terms how they are not welcomed, not wanted by the ‘Respectable’ Republicans, cuckservatives, or whatever name we choose to place on them. Leave the GOP to the multicult, the Cubans, Sikhs, Hindus, Hispanics, their preferred constituencies. White people are so yesterday.

Good. Let’s see who is who. This is a learning experience, if we can receive it.

Rioters shut down Trump rally

2016-03-11_224029.png

We are the danger,” the rioters boast via Twitter.  Yes, the left is the danger; as I said in yesterday’s post they are what another leftist, Orwell, warned of when he said that the future would be a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.

Various groups, including Soros-funded MoveOn.org, as well as BLM, Occupy Wall Street, and the Bernie Sanders organization were involved in the disorder, and claim credit for it. Just a coincidence that Sanders was alluding to ‘revolution’ at a rally for his supporters the other day?

If the left continues to prevail, Orwell will have been proven right.

Meanwhile, the darling of the ‘status quo’ conservatives, Cruz, says that Trump is responsible for the violence in Chicago.  I would expect nothing less of him. But the National Review has endorsed Cruz — so much for the idea on the part of his supporters that he is an ‘outsider’ or a threat to the establishment. The endorsement of NR is not exactly the highest recommendation.

Speaking of endorsements, I hear that Bruce ‘Caitlyn’ Jenner says s/he is Team Cruz, and wants to be his Trans-Ambassador.

Will he disavow Mz Jenner’s endorsement? Will his supposedly-many evangelical supporters ask him to, or will they all take the politically correct, “inclusive” tack? It’s hard to know these days.

Strange times we live in. Strange, and troubling.

A concerted plan

At Anonymous Conservative, there is a post about the deliberate plan by British politicians, notably under Tony Blair, to change the ethnic/demographic makeup of Britain.

“Tom Bower’s Broken Vows: Tony Blair – the Tragedy of Power, which is presently being serialised in the Daily Mail states Mr. Blair presided over a “silent conspiracy” to flood the United Kingdom with migrants, ordering his ministers to not discuss the subject in public. The biography claims that far from attempting to exercise any form of control whatsoever over migration, the British government worked to force the country to “see the benefit of a multicultural society”, and that to do so the country received “two million more immigrants” than it would otherwise have expected.”

The excerpt quoted above also  mentions the infamous phrase apparently used by the perpetrators, citing the intent to ”rub the right’s noses in diversity”. Sounds very petty, doesn’t it? The idea that these venal politicians would sell out their countries and their constituents for spite, for pure spite and malice.

Here we can see how Australia’s political classes were planning, decades ago, to make Australia more Asian, and in fact to encourage, Coudenhove-Kalergi style, the formation of a ‘new race’ in Australia:

“Australia is changing. We’re an anomaly as a European country in this part of the world. There’s already a large and growing Asian population in Australia and it is inevitable in my view that Australia will become a Eurasian country … I happen to think that’s desirable. That means we are becoming part of the mainstream of this region”.

[…]“[we] should welcome the process of gradually becoming a Eurasian-type society … we will not just become a multicultural society – which seems to me to be a soft sort of terminology anyway – we will become a Eurasian society and we will be the better for it”.

The above quotes were from Bill Hayden, ALP leader in the 1980s.

Then we have Peter Sutherland, UN spokesman on migration, saying openly:

We … ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others … . And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.”

And now of course every story about the ‘refugee’ train-wreck in Germany draws comments, at least on ethnopatriot blogs, about Merkel and her perfidy. The implication is usually that Merkel is acting on her own, that she is mad or malevolent (both, probably) and that the remedy is to remove her from office, along with her henchmen and their whole political machine.

But is that true? Are these individual leaders, the Blairs, the Sarzozys, the Merkels, the Camerons, the Sutherlands, the Bushes in our country, acting on their own? Are they carrying out some personal agenda? Is it just one massive coincidence that the West is plagued with ‘mad’ leaders out to destroy their countries and the people they supposedly represent? No. If only it were that simple: just a few traitorous leaders, perhaps ethnic outsiders with grudges against the countries that nurtured them, carrying out malevolent policies. But obviously there is an overarching agenda, and these people are just small-time players and apparatchiks, not the authors of it all by themselves.

But it’s not good to see it as an unstoppable force, this plan; they would like us to think it is, and they do their best to demoralize us, marginalize us, and prevent us from making ourselves heard. We should not help them by becoming passively resigned to this madness of theirs.

 

 

Progressives’ promises to leave

In one of the manifestations of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ on the part of the leftists, they are discussing their possible places of ‘refuge’, should their worst nightmares come to pass with Trump becoming President.

Trump-Flight: Where Will Liberals Flee To If Trump Wins?

According to the linked piece, they are considering Canada (popular as an escape since the Vietnam War days),  New Zealand (always a popular place for them to flee to, given its socialist multicult politics and its peacenik reputation), and even less likely places such as Singapore.

Why do I say Singapore is an unlikely place for self-styled progressives to seek safe haven from the big bad ‘right-wingers’? Well, it does have the reputation of being very multicultural but as is pointed out in the Morgoth’s Review piece, its ‘diversity’ is limited mostly to Asian diversity, though I have meet Whites (New Zealanders) who lived there for some years — and who liked it. But it does have the name of being a rather strict country where laws are concerned; no liberal justice system there as in most Western countries. Does anyone remember the big controversy in this country when some teenager from the states was sentenced to caning for committing vandalism in Singapore? To our shame, the U.S. government (Clinton’s administration) carried on as if it were a death sentence and tried to get him exonerated or the punishment lessened. And they succeeded. Anyway from what I have heard Singapore is not the libertarians’ or liberals’ idea of paradise.

I am surprised that France was not at the top of the list of preferred countries for the poor persecuted progressives. Every time they promise to exile themselves or renounce their citizenship for fear of the right-wing nazis, they say they are moving to France. Yet few of them actually go. Surprise: they are liars. They don’t keep their promises to clear out and find greener pastures amongst their own kind. And maybe even the lefties know that France is being destroyed from within.

It seems to me that in the last few election cycles Michael Moore promised to flee to France where he would be amongst more congenial company, and he’s still here — unfortunately for America. Who else has threatened, or promised I should say, to leave us? Jane Fonda, yet I think she’s still here. Johnny Depp has apparently come back from France because he didn’t want to pay taxes as a permanent resident, but then apparently he was not a ”political exile.”

With the progressives, this talk of ‘fleeing’ from fascist America or from their bogeyman, Trump, is just theatrics. Just drama-queen grandstanding. They won’t go anywhere, much to our vexation. They would much rather stay where they are comfortable and above all, where they can continue to be a thorn in the side of what is left of traditional America. They are just like children throwing tantrums to get attention. They would like to imagine themselves to be the principled, heroic ‘political dissidents’ standing up to the evil right-wingers, rebelling against ‘The Man.’ What they refuse to acknowledge is that they are ‘The Man’ now; they are The Establishment. They represent not the ‘freedom fighter’ but the prevailing and dominant political ideology. They are the foot on the neck of the right, not vice-versa, as they would have it. It is theirboot stamping on the human face’.

If there is anybody who has the need to seek political safe haven somewhere else, it is the only real dissidents: those on the ‘right’, the people who represent traditional ideas and ideals, not just the political right, nationalists, but Christians as well. For the left to fantasize that they are the victims and the rest of us the victimizers shows how very dishonest, or delusional they are, how out of touch with reality. Or are they merely being manipulative?

Whichever the case may be, I fear that ‘the left, we have always with us.’

New ‘hub’ link

I’m adding a link to a new ‘hub’ which I’ve just learned of. I wonder is the name ‘Pro-White’ considered taboo now? Certainly the idea is considered beyond the pale by the PC commissars.

It’s good to see that there is more being done to network. Though I admit I am feeling like the ”red-headed stepchild” as my blog is not linked there. Nevertheless I wish them well. There are a lot of valuable blogs listed there.

Southern History resources

I’ve added a new link to the sidebar for the Society of Independent Southern Historians. I haven’t had a chance to explore it fully but it appears to be a very good source for learning about the history of the South, especially in those areas which are so neglected by modern educators.

I am embarrassed to say that I promised a regular reader that I would put together my own collection of links to old historical sources but I am just disorganized enough, and still so unfamiliar with WordPress that I haven’t managed to post the page yet. So I hope this link will prove useful to those who want more information.

Hat tip to Roland for the link.

‘Texas is Mexican-made’

This post is for those (and they are legion) who keep saying ‘the Hispanics who’ve been here for generations don’t like illegal immigration any more than we do. They are Americanized and assimilated.

A Hispanic-“American” anti-Trump protester gives us his two centavos about illegal immigration and warns that Trump, if elected, had better not start ”breaking up families” by sending illegals home.

After explaining that he isn’t an advocate for open borders, he argued that many of the illegal immigrants living in the U.S. “already got families and kids that are here” — and they wouldn’t allow a Trump administration to break up their families.

“It ain’t gonna happen,” Gonzales said. “You really want the Mexicans to really, really stir, really get mad? Y’all don’t understand — we aren’t the minority anymore. We own Texas. Texas is Mexican-made. I’m five generations deep right here.”

Well, after five generation here, you still identify as a Mexican and not as an American? That’s fine with me, and it is no surprise to me. Not only is it human nature to side with one’s own, (blood is, in fact, thicker than water), but it is not surprising because Hispanics, even those from differing Latin American countries, will side with one another over ‘Anglos’ because of their common language and similar cultures plus the commonality of their mestizo descent. Hence Cruz’s popularity in Texas.

For years various self-described conservatives have argued, sometimes obnoxiously, that Hispanics ‘assimilate’ because they are “Christian” and that they are at heart loyal to this country after a generation or so. I suspect many of those who make those unsupported arguments are either politically correct cuckservatives or those who have Hispanic connections via intermarriage, dating, or people who otherwise romanticize Latin Americans, having seen too many old movies and known too few actual Hispanic-‘Americans.’ Experience can be a wonderful teacher but we can see how many people fail to learn despite experience.

Now some will say that the truculent Senor Gonzales is just the exception; that he doesn’t represent the majority. From experience, I say they are wrong.

And this interview with Gonzales also illustrates my point from an earlier post about how Texas had changed demographically, possibly beyond restoration. Demography is destiny, and people like Gonzales will prefer even a half-Hispanic Canadian over  a gringo, even if the ‘gringo’ is another open-borders ideologue.

One more thing that vexes me to no end: the cliche/talking point that Gonzales uses about ‘breaking up families.’ Who was the author of that lie? I only ever remember hearing it about 10 or 12 years ago, when a few people were getting sent home to Mexico. The lying media framed the deportation stories as a case of ‘tearing families apart.’ The stories were tearjerkers about how the poor crying children were torn from Mama’s bosom as she was being hauled away. What inhumanity! What heartlessness! How can a civilized people even imagine doing such atrocities, ripping families apart? It’s just like the days of slavery. And on and on.

Does this country have laws forbidding deported illegals from taking their children with them? The media always wrote about the American citizen children being deprived of their mother or father, yet what kind of parents would leave their children behind, even with relatives? Don’t ask me to believe that Mexico would make the children stay in America while the parent returns; as far as I know, the children are considered Mexican though born here as ”anchor babies”,  because of their Mexican parentage and ancestry. So the people who use the ‘ripping families apart’ line are liars or idiots or both.

As the Mexican population of this country increases (and it is still increasing) our dubious friend Gonzales and other ‘Americanized Hispanics’ will be more emboldened and more ethnocentric and aggressively so. He is telling us as much — how many gringos will take him at his word? Not enough, I suspect, until it’s too late to alter our destiny as a country.

Globalist or nationalist?

In the wake of the ‘Super Saturday’ results, there is a lot of heated back-and-forth between those who prefer Cruz and those who prefer Trump.

I admit to having a bias here. I don’t see the allure that Cruz seems to have for some. And it seems that the people who support him are anything but lukewarm; it seems they are not to be persuaded by any argument against his candidacy or his qualifications.

I can see why some are vehement in their support for Trump, despite his obvious flaws. I think it’s because many people feel this is our last chance; the hour is late, and if the immigration issue, most of all, is not addressed once and for all, the rest is irrelevant. And I think the Trump fans are correct in perceiving that Trump is the only one who even might try to correct our course as we stand in danger of going off the cliff.

I see no convincing evidence that Rafael Cruz, an immigrant and son of an immigrant, has the will or the intent to stop the immigration tsunami, or to make any other necessary change. His recent hard-line posture on immigration struck me as ”me-too” echoing what Trump said in order to try to steal Trump’s thunder.

Cruz was no doubt elected to office in Texas in considerable part because of the Hispanic vote. I doubt very much that he would betray that constituency.

One more question: many of the people who read and comment on ‘alt-right’ blogs claim to be nationalists or pro-White — yet many seem to support Cruz. Now, if the political divide is now, as Marine Le Pen says, not between left and right, but between globalists and nationalists. which side are the Cruz followers on? How can their consciences let them vote for a man who is not ‘of us,’, not American-born, of our stock? Actions speak louder than words.

Christians, too, who support Cruz should re-read the passage from Deuteronomy which tells us to choose a leader from amongst our own people, not a stranger.

Seeing how many on the ‘right’ support a stranger (possibly just because they dislike Trump more than they actually like Cruz) makes me discouraged about the strength of ethnonationalism in this country.