In the wake of the Charlottesville clashes, politicians and political figures on both sides of the political divide (a divide which is probably only apparent, judging by the quotes I post below) are all over the media issuing pious condemnations of the pro-Whites. Notice anything similar in the quotes below?

The white supremacists and their bigotry do not represent our great country. All Americans should condemn this vile hatred.” — Jeb Bush

Ed Gillespie, Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, denounced the protests as “vile hate” that has “no place in our Commonwealth.”

Paul Ryan’s ritual denunciation seems to be the most frequently quoted in today’s lying press: “The views fueling the spectacle in Charlottesville are repugnant. Let it only serve to unite Americans against this kind of vile bigotry.

Racism is vile and the #Charlottesville rally is disgusting. Let’s stand as Americans for the self-evident truth that all are created equal.” – Justin Amash

Justin Amash is a Republican congressman from Michigan, and no surprise, he is of Arab extraction. Reportedly a Christian Arab. Also, he’s the only GOP congressman to vote against Kate’s Law, which proposed harsher punishment for deported aliens who came back.

And even two men, Southerners, who have a reputation as being more right-wing, lined up eagerly to denounce the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally and the violence, which they implicitly blame Whites for.

Jeff Sessions:

“When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated.”

White supremacy has no place in America. When it turned violent in the 80’s, I prosecuted them as U.S. Attorney.  — Gov. Asa Hutchinson

As to the commonality between the denunciation statements, all but the last two contain the adjective “vile”, using it to describe ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’, ‘racism’, and implicitly, the pro-White protesters themselves.

Even the FReepers, who lately have been identifying themselves as ‘Deplorables’ and sometimes even calling themselves ‘Alt-Right’ are eager to get in on the act, so they make their little de rigueur condemnations:

Some thoughts about the horrible events in Charlottesville:

First of all, the ideology of the white nationalists who showed up to protest is vile and unacceptable.”

Too many of the comments implied moral equivalency between the antifas and the pro-Whites, to the effect that both sides are thugs and equally to blame. Others pulled out the feeble ‘Dems are the real racists’.

Still others say the clash was a ‘put-up job’, paid for by Soros. I expect some of the ‘it’s all a hoax‘ crowd will be saying this.

Someone on a blog commented that it was uncanny how the left — and even the so-called ‘right’, will use the exact same words when they make speeches condemning the ”far right.” And shouldn’t all these canting ‘conservatives’ stop and think whenever they find themselves agreeing with the likes of Michael Moore? Or even Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz?

So is it just ‘groupthink’ that produces these mechanical, robotic statements using the current PC terminology, such as the use of the word ‘vile’ to make monsters of the pro-White right? I mean, few people condemn the truly loathsome things as ‘vile’ these days,  instead calling for ”tolerance”  but this shows the inversion of morality in our time.

If I had any of these ‘respectable Republicans’ as friends, I’d like to confront them, to force them to face the fact that America before the 1960s would have had to be condemned, according to today’s warped standards,  as a country because it was, in essence, what today’s mindless masses would denounce as a ‘vile White Supremacist country.’ The Founding Fathers, after all, in the first Immigration act, said that only free White people might become citizens. And these ‘conservatives’ imagine they are conserving the original America.

Once, in my naïve ‘conservative’ days, I would probably have shunned the term ‘White supremacist’ because I, like almost everybody else in this country, had been conditioned to cringe at terms like that and to deny their validity. But would not being simply a majority-White country, governed by Whites (some would dispute that part, but let’s assume it) and for Whites. After all, aren’t all countries run by and for the good of their people? Japan is a Japanese-supremacist country. The African countries are African-supremacist. And so on. It’s so obvious a child could understand it. Yet ‘White supremacy’ alone is singled out vile and is the ultimate evil. Is that not anti-White? Conservatives, are you unwittingly being manipulated into being anti-White in the name of being ‘anti-racist’?

Are people being subliminally brainwashed even to the extent of their parroting the same formula words when talking about these things? How can one account for the way they speak, which seems to indicate some kind of group mind at work? It can’t be just the influence of the controlled media. And the word ‘vile’ is a word that most people seldom use. Especially in America it is just not a common word.

However for years I’ve noticed how in Britain the term ‘vile’ is used most in conjunction with any political group or public figure who is even slightly right wing, but especially applied to people like Nick Griffin, former British National Party leader, and Nigel Farage, who is nothing more than a civic nationalist, very middle-of-the-road. For instance:

‘Farage’s vile views are dominating the Europhobe pitch’ headline from a Nick Cohen hit piece, and “UKIP candidates spouting vile anti-Islamic hate messages” – from the Mirror.

Of the BNP: “If it is not stopped in its tracks and driven back into the sewer from which it has emerged the vile BNP will push its warped agenda of racial purity to the limit, causing millions of loyal British people to live in fear of victimisation and even of deportation from the only country they have ever called home.” That was from a piece in the Express, called BNP’s Nick Griffin, a Disgrace to Humanity.

I begin to think that there is as little hope of awakening or redeeming the ‘cuckservatives’ who see themselves as the standard-bearers of the ”right” and who fear being associated with the ‘vile bigots and haters’ to their right. In adopting this habit they are just being pulled closer to their nominal enemies on the left. Maybe they are not as barking-mad as the left, but they are running scared of being accused by the left’s Inquisitors, so they find themselves now with strange bedfellows.

There really is only one party in this country; the two parties are a sham and a circus put on for the gullible populace, which, sadly, seems to be the majority.

The right needs to combat the constant propaganda and rhetoric from the Left, and from the so-called mainstream right, who are, I think, just as much the enemy to those who reject The Racial Narrative  that they and the Left alike cling to.

5 thoughts on “Charlottesvile

  1. Political ‘conservatism’ in the U.S. is a JOKE! You’re right about it all being a circus – Greatest (political) Show on Earth!

    As prescient southrens in American history have before noted, ‘the most outstanding feature of political conservatism in America is that it never conserves anything.’ Nothing but the latest greatest liberal/progressive innovation, that is.

    Regarding “white supremacy,” methinks some (most?) of our ‘brethren’ on the right might ought to go back and study their sainted hero’s (the ‘Great Emancipator’s’) own words.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “The Founding Fathers, after all, in the first Immigration act, said that only free White people might become citizens. And these ‘conservatives’ imagine they are conserving the original America.”

    Yes, I cringe when I hear or read that someone is a “Constitutional Conservative”, like Ted Cruz. What this typically means is they conserve the Constitution or other facets of traditional society where it is convenient for them and socially acceptable to so. For example, no longer do you hear a defense of traditional marriage or a defense of a white majority from these Conservatives, because these are not socially acceptable positions to publicly defend. I imagine when the 2nd ammendment is ratified, they’ll no longer defend it’s original meaning either.

    They’re defined by the times rather than what’s timeless, which means they should always be rejected.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Nick, that’s exactly right. And conservatism ideally should be about conserving the timeless, the time-tested and true, not having fluid standards to fit the whims of current popular opinion.


Leave a Reply to Nick Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s