In praise of narrowness

On another dissident-right blog, a commenter is taken to task by several others; the charge is that he (or she?) is ‘too negative‘, especially towards other White ethnic groups or nationalities. I know that this attitude, this idea that one must not speak critically of other White ethnicities, is often de rigueur among WNs, because their belief system  holds that our White skin is our identity, not our specific ethnic group or tribe. By this particular tenet (which seems to place me outside the WN camp) ethnicity is too narrow an identification; survival necessitates that we identify with all people of European descent or else perish, because we cannot allow the petty divisiveness of ethnic identities; doing so is inviting our obliteration as a race.

However there are some quibbles here; some WNs define the White race more narrowly, excluding Mediterraneans, broadly speaking. The writer H.P. Lovecraft would probably have fallen into this camp, although I believe no one used the term ‘White Nationalist’ in his day, to my knowledge. I believe he called himself an Anglo-Saxonist, identifying most with his particular ethnic group, though he acknowledged he didn’t fit the stereotype of the blond, Viking-looking Northman which is important to some Nordicists, who believe very much in going by phenotypes. (And yes, phenotypes are useful).

However, though Lovecraft was Anglo-Saxonist by his own description, he embraced Northwestern/Northern Europeans generally as being his kinsmen. This is expressed in his personal writings. He did not think that all Europeans were his kinsmen in the same way that Northern Europeans were, and especially Englishmen.

Lovecraft, then, is often criticized by those who think that Lovecraft was excluding them or their ancestors from his kin group; they see his opinions as being bigoted or lacking in solidarity with all Europeans, which is now becoming the correct position amongst many on the pro-White or WN or Alt-Right side.

To be accused of being too narrow in one’s loyalties or identifications carries with it the implicit, or sometimes explicit, charge of jeopardizing White survival by refusing to embrace a pan-European identity in preference to narrow loyalty to one’s nearer kin. The rhetoric goes that only by uniting as one White race, irrespective of any genetic, linguistic, religious, or cultural distinctions, can Whites/European-descended people survive. Unite, by putting aside your petty ethnic loyalty, or die, your race forever extinct.

But is this the only choice? Is this the one option for Whites or European peoples?

History shows us many examples of genetically similar peoples, closely akin, who were frequently at war with each other. To the outsider, the differences between such clashing peoples is often not detectable. Ukrainians and Russians appear similar to most casual outside observers, and they are at odds. Also, many people cannot see why the Protestant Northern Irish (Ulstermen) and the Catholic Irish of the North have a long history of bloodshed between them. No, it is not just about religion, but about ethnicity and different cultures as well. Granted, though, the ethnic differences are not all that great, as DNA shows. Likewise with the Irish and the English; all the British Isles peoples are fairly close genetically, but to each people, especially those identifying as ‘Celtic’, the differences are all-important.

If these closely-related peoples cannot get along, how can we expect peoples as dissimilar as Greeks and Scandinavians, or Finns and Portuguese, or Icelandic people and Corsicans, to think of one another as equally brothers, except in the most abstract sense?

We’ve seen how well that has worked out in America where we are all officially ‘one people’ and yet many ethnicities still have frictions between them despite long-time contact and the ‘unifying’ factor of Americanized culture. Yes, even people of differing European ethnicities have clashed and prefer to maintain their own cultures and enclaves.

How many Europeans and European-descended people on this planet are there? We are scattered widely from South America to Australia/New Zealand to Iceland and Greenland to North America, Southern Africa, and to Europe proper. How can we come to think of such a dispersed and disparate collection of peoples as equally our brethren, having an equal claim to our loyalty and support? I say it’s not practicable. Just as with the ‘One World’ mentality, our loyalties and attachments cannot be stretched that far without being so attenuated as to be nonexistent. We are built for concentric circles of loyalties, with those of our nearest genetic connections, our immediate families, being the strongest bonds, and as the circle of loyalties go outward, the bonds necessarily grow weaker. Those who are most distant not only geographically but genetically command the least claim on our obligations and affections.

It’s all but impossible for mere humans to love something distant and abstract. This is the weakness of the ‘One planet, one people’ nonsense, which is the globalist mantra. Brainwashed churchians and lefties notwithstanding, we just can’t love the distant and the unseen in the same way that we love those nearest to us and closest to us by blood bonds.

So if it’s sin in the pro-White world to prefer one’s own close kinsmen over far-distant relatives, then I plead guilty. No doubt I would be eighty-sixed from the blog I refer to in the opening paragraph of this post for being ”divisive” and “negative” towards my brothers from countries on the other side of the globe, and so be it. After all, in this increasingly New-Age, pop-psychology oriented world we live in, being “negative” is Sin Number One. Thou Shalt Not Be Negative, saith the feel-good law as expounded by people like Oprah and Dr. Phil and probably Joel Osteen. And especially shalt thou not be negative towards The Other, the Sacred Other. For most people, the Sacred Other about whom we must not be negative means specifically People of Color, or Immigrants of whatever color.But what if the truth is negative?

For the Pan-Europeanist, we must not be negative towards the Other European, even if they do in fact have bad cultural habits or at least, if you shrink from making ‘value judgments’  then let’s say some Others have traits that are just not compatible with our own ways of doing things.

For example, when I was in the New York City area, I quickly learned that having to ‘grease people’s palms’ was a necessary part of getting things done. You will be told that something can’t be done until you slip someone some money and suddenly it can be done. You’ve heard of the ‘baksheesh’ system; it’s not just in the Middle East. In Mexico it’s called ‘mordida.’ This kind of thing seems most common in Mediterranean countries or peoples, or those derived from that area. It isn’t generally an Anglo-Saxon thing.

So yes, in order for us to accommodate peoples from different cultures we end up absorbing some corrupt practices and habits. We compromised who we were, when we decided that we are all brothers under the skin.

Something has to give when disparate peoples are blended together. Most importantly of all, to be told that all Europeans are as brothers despite strong differences is just one step away from the multicult worldview that ‘we are all one race, the human race’, and that we all bleed red. We end by acquiescing in falsehoods, these denials of difference, and we live a lie. Christians cannot do this, not if they wish to live up to their faith.

Now we live under a tyranny of lies in which people are being punished, even prosecuted and jailed, for speaking ‘ill’ of some protected group, because noticing differences and speaking unpleasant truths offends. So we have let truth be suppressed in many instances. Are we not to note the drawbacks of having those unlike ourselves living amongst us? Shall we choose, if we ever get out from under the globalist tyranny, to live in multicultural societies made up of disparate Europeans? It would be preferable to the Coudenhove-Kalergi nightmare, but it would still be fraught with problems. A European mega-nation would also be polyglot, multicultural, and multilingual, unless we want to impose one language and one culture.

To want to preserve our own peoples, languages, cultures, and traditions does not mean ‘hating’ our fellow Europeans/Whites. To say that ethnoloyalty is hatred of outsiders is the kind of cheap rhetoric that the leftist/multi-cultist uses towards us now. It should be beneath WNs or any pro-Whites to use such manipulation.

We can surely make common cause, offer moral and other support to our counterparts in Europe and elsewhere without trying to invent some pro-White version of the EU, which itself is proto-globalist. We can be allies with our kinsmen without putting them on a par with our more immediate kin, or without giving them all free rein to enter our countries at will. To imply otherwise is dishonest or foolish.

Personally I have always enjoyed other cultures at an arm’s length, and I am not in the habit of being hostile to people because of their different ethnic origins or even racial origins. But I still maintain that good fences make good neighbors. We all have relatives that, though they are our kin, we would not welcome as permanent guests in our homes. Why, then, should we be expected to welcome distantly-related strangers into our countries? Remember our countries are also our homes. Just as in English tradition, every man’s home is his castle, so our countries are our homes, our castles. They are our birthright and our rightful inheritance. Though the pan-Europeanist thinks that I must share my country with any White person who stakes a claim here, would those people reciprocate and give me the right to enter their country, and bring my extended clan with me? To impose this ideal on us all is depriving us of our sovereignty and our birthright, our homes, regardless of who the usurpers are.

And I ask this: what normal person, given that our Western countries are all being flooded with immigrants, thinks that it should be wrong to criticize these uninvited guests? I would say there is something off about people who still think that it is some kind of sin to object to more foreign neighbors, given the way in which our countries are being overwhelmed by strangers.

Are honest, factual, criticisms of other European peoples now ‘hatefacts’ as with racial Other groups? Is that acceptable?

I honestly suspect the motives of anyone who would chastise a kinsman for his honest feelings, while rushing to the defense of the poor immigrant, whoever he is. Loyalty is still a virtue, and loyalty to kin and kind comes first.

And real loyalties and loves must necessarily be narrow. We cannot be loyal to all things and all peoples, else it is not loyalty but promiscuity. Love by nature is exclusive, reserved for the closest and deepest bonds, else it is not love.

Yet another incident

Another incident involving a ‘refugee’, in news from El Cajon, California. A man, shot by the police while behaving ‘erratically’, has since died at a local hospital.

The inevitable unrest, protests, and agitprop from the media follow in the wake.

“A black man was shot in an encounter with El Cajon Police Tuesday, multiple witnesses said, while a woman wailed nearby, demanding to know why police shot her brother.

Hours later, police officers told NBC 7 San Diego the man, now identified as Alfred Olango, was acting erratically and failed to comply, although they did not release details on the specific threat he presented to officers.”

The man is said to be a refugee, ‘with mental problems’, from Uganda. The news stories I’ve seen don’t indicate whether he is one of the latest wave of ‘refugees’ from African coming across the Southern border, or whether he arrived earlier.

Somewhat amusingly, CNN’s news story referred to the Ugandan man as ‘African-American.’ If he is a refugee, obviously he’s not an ‘African-American’ nor any kind of American at all, simply Ugandan or African. But political correctness results in just such kinds of absurdities.

Speaking of incidents involving refugees, someone in the comments section at Refugee Resettlement watch asked the other day if Arcan Cetin, the Turkish shooter at the mall in Washington State was a refugee. That question immediately occurred to me when his identity was disclosed — not that it is ultimately relevant whether a homicidal foreign person arrived as a refugee or as an immigrant. The fact is such people need not be here, and should not be here, as our promiscuous ‘immigration’ and refugee policies are a disaster. And even less does it matter whether an immigrant was illegal or legal; both kinds have proven to be a problem in too many cases. Major Hasan, the notorious Fort Hood killer, was the child of parents who came here legally, as were the Tsarnaevs.

Legal or illegal, it’s irrelevant ultimately. Being legal does not make someone a good choice for American residence or citizenship.

But was Arcan Cetin a refugee or the son of refugees? Neither, it appears. I had read from a comment online, ostensibly from somebody who knew the family, that his mother had married an American who was in the miltary over in Turkey, and he brought mother and son to this country — legally, of course, and I’d bet that there are probably a number of other relatives who are now here via chain migration.

This story verifies some of those details.  It also mentions his blog postings in connection with his religion:

“One post on Cetin’s Tumblr page urged readers to repeat the phrase “Subhan Allah” (“Glory to God”) 10 times “and then reblog this, do not stop reblogging it.”

But of course according to the media, his motives are unknown.

The Cetin story has all but vanished from the media, and I expect we’ll hear little about it as it can’t easily be turned to good use by the media propagandists. But it is necessary, it seems to me, to mention these facts because there is still some talk on the Internet that he was just a disgruntled ‘beta male’ who was spurned by some girl, and that she was the intended target of his shooting spree. Not true, or at least that does not appear to be his main motivation.

It’s also assumed by quite a few that the supposed ex-girlfriend was one of those killed at the mall, and this is evidently incorrect; the victims were apparently unknown to him. He was just seething with resentments and went after random targets — probably White people, though one of his victims had a possibly Hispanic name.

Whether these problem ‘refugees/immigrants’ arrive by one means or another, or whether they are here legally or otherwise is not the main concern; it’s that our policy of admitting just anybody, especially people from hostile countries and cultures, is costing us many lives, as well as destroying our cultural fabric and our social cohesion. It is not in any way beneficial to us; it serves interests other than those of the people of this country. It’s in fact killing us, quickly or slowly.

Debates: some historical perspective

I have no opinions to voice about the debate really as I didn’t watch it. There is a lot of analysis online from people who did endure the debate, and so my impressions, based on what I’ve heard or read are not worth much.

I actually haven’t watched any presidential debates since 2000, I think, which was also an important election for anybody on the right then, because the Clintons and their minions were on the way out of the White House (or so we hoped; if Al Gore had been elected it probably would have been a continuation of the Clinton regime with the same corrupt and venal cast of characters.)

A lot of us on the right then were desperate to get the Democrats out of the White House but the candidates were not inspiring. Most of us who voted for G.W. Bush did so only because he seemed preferable to the other options. At the time the election seemed all-important because so many of us were just living to see the back of the Clintons and their ilk. Even then, mind you, there was talk of Hillary planning to follow her ”husband” as President, eventually. But none of us could have envisioned the situation that we find ourselves in now, with our country in such dire straits, being overrun by immigration, our economy in a shambles, race conflicts at a possible all-time peak. No one could imagine that things could get so bad, so fast. It is dizzying, in retrospect, to ponder how far we’ve fallen.

But again, the younger people among us have no memory of the days of the Clinton scandals and all the corruption and deception which marked those years. If the younger generations know anything about the Clinton years they may know about the ‘sex scandals’, ‘Zippergate’, and so on. They may not have heard of Chinagate, Whitewater, the Mena, Arkansas drug-running allegations, the ‘tainted blood’ scandal which had to do with Arkansas prison inmates (on Bill Clinton’s watch as governor) donating tainted blood to Canada, etc. And what about the White House travel office scandal. Then there was the Arkancides, and let’s not leave out Waco, and the OKC bombing. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

We then thought that our country had reached a nadir in politics, and that things could not be worse than what we had seen under the Clintons. Yes, we thought the 2000 election was very important, and I remember how frustrating and angering it was that the Democrats managed to contrive a way to contest the election when Bush was declared the winner.

Some may wonder why so many of us were ‘fooled’ by G.W. Bush but the thing is, we thought he was a prince compared to the Clintons, or Al Gore. And the ‘prince’ we elected turned out to be a frog, after all.

Sometimes I wonder if whoever pre-selects our candidates purposely chooses the worst possible candidate on one side to ensure that the other one is elected.

When G.W. Bush started showing his true, globalist/neocon colors early in his first term, I remember on an online forum I used to frequent, quoting from Scripture  “Put not your trust in princes.” Did I catch flak for saying that! I’d uttered blasphemy and treason, as Bush was still above criticism among average Republicans. So I was disaffected with Bush very early on, and left the GOP fold to ultimately find myself where I am now. Wherever that is; on the right side, I hope.

Suspect descriptions: problems

For about 10 years, perhaps more, law enforcement officials along with news media have made a conspicuous effort to avoid too-specific descriptions of criminal suspects or fugitives.  I first began to notice it when there were alerts out for local suspects  and the descriptions said something like ‘suspect is a male about 30 years old wearing dark clothing, driving such-and-such a vehicle.’ No mention of race or ethnicity or complexion, which, let’s face it, are some of the first things we notice about people.

Then there was the Brian Nichols case in Atlanta, wherein Nichols, a black man being escorted to the courtroom by a ‘guard’ who was a female (and a grandmother), overpowered her and escaped, killing a total of four people before being recaptured.

When I first heard the ‘breaking news’ about the escape, the description of Nichols told his height, his age, and the fact that he had a ‘medium complexion.’  I thought the omission of race was odd, as that was not yet standard practice, and I thought to myself he must be White, because of his complexion description and his White-sounding name. Blacks these days don’t tend to be named ‘boring’ white-bread names like Brian.

Imagine my surprise when I learned he was black. Soon every criminal suspect was given a vague, non-ethnic/non-racial description, and we were left to guess, though the guesswork is simplified if we know the suspect’s name. Nobody named DeQuantavious is going to be White. Also the nature of the crime often tells us who the suspect is, racially or ethnically. Shooting or stabbing at a girl’s 15th birthday party? Hispanics. Quinceanera. If you are not familiar with that word (and is there anybody in America that is not?) look it up, and for more interesting info, just look up ‘quinceanera stabbing’ (or shooting).  Riot at a pizza parlor or children’s birthday party? Black, usually involving many mothers.

So the shooting at the Washington state mall in Burlington immediately suggested ‘random jihad’ or ‘immigrant derangement syndrome’, so most people correctly guessed that the perpetrator was from an Islamic background, Middle Easterner most likely. The official description mentioned ‘Hispanic male’, and from the security camera picture, there could be some ambiguity there. Understandable. And the police officials in the area probably figured that because of the high percentage of Hispanics in the county that the odds were more in favor of the shooter being Hispanic. I mean, it’s not as though Hispanics are nonviolent, and always law-abiding. They are not the Amish, (I mean the real Amish, not those who are wryly described as Amish).

So why in heaven’s name are so many apparent White people, even ”conservatives” online getting all outraged and sputtering about the outrage of Hispanics being horribly wronged by this shooter suspect being described as Hispanic? Why not save their outrage for the many, many times that Whites are slandered by having nonwhite suspects called ‘White’, or Hispanics and Middle Easterners on ‘Most Wanted’ lists described, for the record, as ‘White’ — even when their names and photos scream that they are in no way White, nor could anyone honestly mistake them for White? No, these fools are working themselves up into a lather with this kind of nonsense:

Why are Hispanics not SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER at being smeared by the media?”

Don’t give them ideas! Next thing you know, LaRaza or MECha or somebody will be suing everybody for this slander against their law-abiding and pacifistic folk.

The question that this probably White person asks should rightly be about why Whites are slandered, being made to bear the burden, statistically, of nonwhite criminals identified as ours? People should be wondering why we aren’t ‘screaming bloody murder’ about our own folk being smeared.

I’ve said I judged this mall shooter, Cetin, to be Middle Eastern by the pictures shown. But in some cases there can be confusion. Just look at these photos of fugitives. Most are Hispanic, some Middle Eastern/Caucasus origin. Some could honestly be confused, one for the other. Some Hispanics do have more olive skin than brown, and some do have heavier eyebrows like Middle Easterners. The differences are not always clear-cut.

What with so many different ethnicities being thrown into the melting pot, how on earth can all of us become experts in distinguishing someone’s origins, out of so many hundreds of ethnicities?

Maybe the official policy of withholding information on race/ethnicity of suspects is preferable if people are going to get all incensed on behalf of some poor innocent minority group when an incorrect description is made.

What is to be done about these many brainwashed Whites, who instantly go into their defense mode when it comes to being ‘White Knights’ for their favorite minority group?

Mall shooter ID’d?

It may not be official yet, but a Twitter user has identified the Burlington, Washington mall shooting suspect as a Turkish immigrant.

See the Free Republic discussion here.

When the suspect was referred to by authorities as possibly a ‘Hispanic male’, I was skeptical, thinking he looked more Middle Eastern. Hardly a surprise.

There will be more known later, obviously.

This piece sums it up for me

I wasn’t able to get a blog post of my own out today; we had an Internet outage here. But making quick rounds of the blogs I usually look at, I came across this piece, by Alex Fontana. I was not aware of his blog; I found it here; thanks to Alternative Right.

Read the whole piece at Alex Fontana’s blog. He makes some analogies between the ‘Alt-Right’ and the New Left of the 1960s, with its ‘sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll’ carnival atmosphere, more concerned with wreaking cultural and social havoc than with the old left and its ideology.

I’ve been trying to articulate for myself just what it is that I find unsettling about the Alt-Right as it’s been mutating in the last several months. Granted, I don’t claim to be part of the Alt-Right, though I’ve thought of them as basically in sympathy with the same goals, broadly speaking, as mine. I don’t assume that the arbiters of just who is considered Alt-Right would include someone like me; I consider myself an ethnonationalist (not strictly a WN, though I think Moldbug, guru of many on the right was the first to label me that way). However I’ve never been one for doctrines and labels and ideologies.

But I have been troubled to see that it seems that the Alt-Right, having had the spotlight shone on it by Hillary, is now enjoying the notoriety and feeling the heady feeling of having ‘arrived’ in the national consciousness. However notoriety (or fame) carries a price; oftentimes hangers-on and attention-seekers appear and attach themselves to the newly-famous. Opportunists and people with their own agendas pop out of the woodwork. Then you’ve got the factor of The Powers-That-Be trying to infiltrate and co-opt any newly popular movement, one that they perceive as a threat.

Meanwhile, a group wanting to attain more power by building on the opportunity provided by media coverage may compromise itself in the quest for greater numbers. “Let’s reach out and be more inclusive!” The Big Tent philosophy, so popular with the GOPe, is now the goal for many of the party faithful. More voters! Let’s reach out to gays!  My radar says beware of this temptation, but yet I haven’t noticed anyone calling for caution.

There are parallels with what happened to the Tea Party, the way in which they tried to be all things to all people — as well as parallels with the Sixties ‘New Left’, which tried to lure the empty-headed hedonists rather than the political junkie leftists.

The following needed to be said.

“How do we keep from sliding down the rabbit hole of dissidence for the LOLs that Milo seems to think the whole enterprise is meant to achieve? How do we avoid the pitfalls of the New Left yet still be able to attract those fence-sitting, shallow, attention-deficient, synthetically stimulated Last Men reared on South Park and Opie and Anthony? Do we even want them? Are the carnival lights too engaging and are those who embody the true AltRight just not entertaining enough to hold our attention?”

I hope the quoted words above are heeded.

An illustration

This discussion on Steve Sailer’s blog features many comments by someone with the creative screen name ‘Anonymous’, who seems to be an example of the paid operatives who are assigned to Internet blogs and forums (fora, if you want to be pedantic) to issue the Official Party Line, and to derail/influence/steer discussion in an appropriate (read: government-sanctioned) way.

This kind of thing has been brought out in the open for several years now, but it’s amazing how it’s still thought of as being more ‘conspiracy theorizing.’ But note how the principals named in that blog piece I link above explicitly discuss how to discredit ‘conspiracy theories’ in general, by Internet manipulation of discussion.

“Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government.”

Some will say that this ‘Anonymous’ person is just your garden-variety Leftie troll or ideologue. He may well be; there are many such people. This person, however, like many such commenters of that type, seems to have endless hours to devote to hanging on one discussion thread and writing detailed responses to those who disagree. They often seem to be one-man armies of discourse manipulation, and often disinformation.

Not all of them will be focusing on ‘conspiracy theories’ as such but just spreading the usual multicult, anti-White propaganda; trying to demoralize and spread fatalism among people on the right oftentimes is their focus.

Granted, there are many obsessive leftist/multicultis who seem to do nothing but post on multiple blogs and forums and comment sections, often cut-and-paste jobs, the same comments everywhere. They may be the stereotypical slackers living in Mom’s basement, spending days and nights online fighting their ideological enemies but chances are those who spend this much time dispensing so much propaganda online are part of Sunstein’s army or something similar.

The recent terror attacks

It’s been my pattern generally to blog about the various terror attacks in our country and in Europe. It appears that quite a few bloggers are writing about the recent spate of attacks in New York and New Jersey, while I’ve been silent on that, while in the past it was the other way around.

The fact is, I seem to find little to say as these things become frequent. Not long ago some French official arrogantly told his countrymen that they would just have to ‘get used to’ the acts of terror. And sadly I think it’s easy to become hardened and blase about these things, horrible though they may be. Ever since 9/11 and the ensuing acts of violence against us, there has been talk of how this state of  things would become ‘the new normal’, and we would just adapt to it, ceasing to be troubled or outraged, unable to even feel reasonable fear.

I certainly haven’t become callous about this state of things. I do know people in the areas which were hit by the recent bombings, both in northern New Jersey and in Manhattan, Chelsea to be precise. I know people who knew relatives of 9/11 victims.

It is hard to find anything new to say about these things, something that has not been said hundreds of times before by me and by numerous others. We can wryly observe how the Lying Press rolls out the cliche stories with headlines like ‘Local Muslims fear backlash.‘ And they never disappoint, these media whores: there was an article from the Minnesota press titled something like ‘Local Somali community fears backlash.

All they do is change a few names and dates and they just use the well-worn template for these insulting stories — insulting in that they imply that American White Christians are bloodthirsty, violent people who attack innocents at every opportunity, and that Moslems are helpless, blameless victims. Lying Press, Luegenpresse, what an apt term.

For the moment I seem to be burnt out on writing about the terrorism/open borders syndrome, because there is nobody in positions of power who will care or heed us at all.

Russia banning porn?

Is the old ‘puritanical’ Russia making a comeback?

A commenter on Irish Savant’s blog links to a piece on the Jim Stone blog here which reports that Russia has apparently banned pornography.

I waited to comment on this until the MSM actually admitted it. It is still not being allowed to be huge news, but Russia really did ban porn. On top of that, Russia has released a huge team of trolls to bash anyone who argues about it online into oblivion. Here are the details, which you probably can’t find covered in one spot and this is not a “rumor”.

Russia has banned every single porn web site that does not require an identified log in to access. The MSM is focusing on Pornhub and Youporn, but as it turns out, the real deal is that ALL OF IT is blocked except for porn sites that require paid membership with log in, (and maybe those are gone next).”

Well, this sounds as though it is not technically banned, but the measures will require paying to view the sites and logging in to access the material.

Only those above 45 years old or so are likely to know that the old Communist regimes, even Communist China, were not at all tolerant of what was then (correctly) called ‘vice.’ When the Communist party took over China in the late 1940s, there was a campaign to ‘eradicate’ prostitution. It was not until the liberalizing reforms of the 1980s that this policy changed. The old Soviet Union, too, was not tolerant of vice of whatever kind, and this seemed to cause Western governments to become very defensive of the corruption in our countries, claiming that it merely represented our ‘liberty.’

It would be interesting if this reported crackdown on pornography proved to be a harbinger of a new direction in Russia, away from Western-style libertinism. Now it seems that even the ”right” in our country is supportive of various vices as part of the heritage of ‘freedom’ and personal choice. Now, the contrast to this is provided by Islam, with its overzealous prudishness and harsh laws. Now even the ‘conservatives’ in America are happy to defend homosexualism and porn as part of ‘the American way of life’, as being what our forefathers fought and died to preserve. I am not going to defend Islam’s harsh system of ‘morality’, nor do I necessarily countenance the police states practices of the old U.S.S.R., but surely there has to be a happy medium between tolerating anything and everything as in todays’s Western, ex-Christian societies, and too-stringent efforts at censorship. It’s not an all-or-nothing choice.

Some of the vices, like the so-called ”oldest profession” and pornography in some form, have likely always existed, and that because mankind is flawed and sin-prone from birth. Hoping to eradicate them once and for all by passing laws against them is unrealistic, just as we can never end war by outlawing it, or end crime by having ‘anti-crime’, anti-violence marches and protests as we see in so many cities in America. As if crime and violence will ever go away, as if they can be wished away.

But to give up any attempt at limiting vice and deviancy seems to be having a very damaging effect on our society. Just because we can’t totally eliminate them does not mean that we must tolerate it all, in the name of ‘liberty.’

One thought occurs to me, though: if Putin really is cracking down on porn, will this mean that he will lose some of his fans in this country? Many on the ‘right’ admire Putin though he is apparently more socially conservative than is acceptable to many of his fans.