Cultural change and who’s behind it

Audacious Epigone has an interesting post about changing attitudes on social issues, as measured in the GSS, (General Social Survey). The survey in question here has to do with ‘Gay’ sex and Same-sex Marriage, and the respondents were categorized by their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Now, it’s obvious that in recent decades cultural attitudes on the subject of homosexuality have changed (or been changed) enormously, and anybody who pays much attention to these things can detect the heavy hand of the media in shaping beliefs and attitudes. Judging by what the surveys show, it appears pop culture, via the media, is more influential than religion. Sad, but apparently true.

You can look at the results on Audacious Epigone, here.

You’ll notice that the blog piece begins by quoting a statement by Joe Biden, (via Vox Day), crediting Jews’ sizable influence in the mass media, and Biden sees this as a good thing, a beneficial thing:

“It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” gay marriage, Biden said.

“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.”

Thanks for confirming, Joe, what many people on the right have said for years, decades even. Of course when someone on the right, some White Christian person says these things, it’s anti-Semitism and bigotry and hate, but when he says it? It’s praise, or credit given where due, I suppose.

But even though Joe Biden was kind enough (– or should I say clueless enough?) to verify that for us, you can bet that the Respectable Right, or the Zionist churchians/Judeo-Christians will not repeat it; they will merely tsk-tsk or pretend to get the vapors over Biden’s candor. “The Democrats are the real anti-Semites”, just like they are The Real Racists.

But as to the survey itself, it’s somewhat interesting that Protestants had the lowest number of people agreeing that ‘gay sex is not wrong at all’, at 15.8 per cent, with Moslems at 21 per cent in agreement with that statement. The counter-jihad movement and the ‘Respectable Republicans’ seem to think that we must oppose Moslem immigration because they are so illiberal on that issue; Moslems are ‘homophobes’ and not compatible with the rules of our Western values of ‘tolerance’ and libertinism. The left denounces Christians, especially Protestants, as being ‘the American Taliban‘, but it appears that even Moslems in the U.S. are more tolerant of gay sex. Some of the comments on the blog piece seemed puzzled by this, but given the Moslem culture’s traditions of pederasty is it so surprising?

The other puzzling thing is that more Protestants are tolerant of ‘gay marriage’, so-called. How can it be that 33.8 per cent of Protestants think gay ‘marriage’ is OK while gay sex is not? You tell me. The fact that the levels of acceptance are even that high amongst Protestants is a sign that many who call themselves Christians are not, in truth. There are a lot of people who are Christian in name only, choosing to follow the trends and cues of the world instead of the truths of Christianity.

So is Jewish influence at work in that cultural trend, too? It may be that they prefer to work their influence more ‘discreetly’ through the media, via popular entertainment as well as social media. And let’s not forget porn, and the Jewish presence in that medium.

I personally think that we often forget the social influence of psychology and psychiatry, and the ways in which our culture is shaped by those ‘sciences’. Those fields are in fact competing belief systems which act to undermine if not replace Christian traditional morals and ethics. They are also a big factor in pushing ”tolerance” of anything and everything sexual (“it’s individual choice; who are we to judge?”), including the ‘side-effect’ of abortion-on-demand.

And there again we find that there is an overwhelming Jewish influence there.

What’s the answer, when to even notice this is a thought-crime?


Senator Frank Boyd Gary on immigration

Senator Frank Boyd Gary represented South Carolina in the U.S. Senate, and he died in 1922. Obviously in 2017 no Democrat Senator could — or would — expressing ideas such as those in the quote below. And to quote Aldrich’s ”nativist” verse was not all that controversial in the climate of those days, when most of our elected representatives were not sold on unrestricted, promiscuous immigration policies.


Sen Frank B Gary on immigration_1909



What is an American?

Here is one definition of an American, from Harry Laughlin, as quoted by blogger ‘n/a’ way back in 2008.

“Racially, an American is a Caucasian each of whose ancestral lines traces directly to a member of the foundation racial stock of the American people, or to a race-assimilant thereto who was fully assimilated thereby.”

The complete definition is at the link.

I know the definition would not be politically correct today, and it would offend lots of people who don’t fit the criteria Laughlin uses.

But then again, I am seeing a lot more cynicism toward the very idea of America and American nationality on the part of people who are, by Laughlin’s definition, Americans.

While millions (or billions?) of people in foreign lands clamor for admission to this country those born here, those who are the rightful inheritors of this land, think being an American is shameful or of no value to them. Ironic.

I’m disillusioned, too, but we can choose to try to salvage something of value in our heritage;  the past was not all bad, and there is still good to be found in our country. And nothing can take away the very real accomplishments of our forefathers in coming here in a time when the long sea voyage meant great peril, and ‘merciless savages’, in Jefferson’s words, awaited the new arrivals when they landed.

For a good long while this was a very pleasant and free country in which to live and to raise a family. The fact that it’s been corrupted and usurped from us does not negate all that was good here. It only makes our situation all the more tragic and unjust, and if we choose we can use that knowledge to motivate us to do something other than steep ourselves in bitterness. And I am talking to myself as well as to any readers who may be out there (wherever you are). I need a little motivation myself, as I am prone to discouragement these days.

And just a word about “n/a” and his blog, race/history/evolution: the blog seems to be inactive but there are quite a few informative and interesting posts there on the subject of heredity, genetics, and ethnicity, especially in an American context. I recommend it if you are at all interested in those subjects.

‘Are Americans People?’

The question was asked, in 1923, by the editor of The Story World and Photodramatist, as the topic of a discussion between several writers and readers of the magazine. The discussion originally revolved around the writer H.L. Mencken and his coterie of cosmopolitan-minded writers. They styled themselves ‘The Young Intellectuals’, representing an anti-traditional viewpoint and style, and this raised the hackles of the more traditionally-minded readers and writers. Several articles resulted, and the discussion was an interesting one, touching not only on literary matters but on American culture, ethnicity, and ultimately nationalism.

Mencken, of course was an anti-Anglo-Saxonist, and he thought none too highly of Americans generally, especially the rural Americans and the middle class (the ‘Booboisie’, obviously an object of disdain to him.) Mencken’s obviously cosmopolitan attitudes elicited some spirited responses. Among those was a piece by writer Emerson Hough. I was not familiar with Hough, but apparently he was a pioneer, a settler of the old West, and he wrote novels with Western themes: The Sagebrusher and The Covered Wagon among them. Some of his works were translated to the screen in the silent film era.

His strongly expressed opinions are strikingly relevant to our day; the 1920s were a time when Ellis Island immigration was changing the country to a degree that alarmed many Americans, and Hough was definitely not an open-borders sympathizer. He is writing with some irony and sarcasm here:

“Of course, in certain circles, it is unfashionable, inept, deplorable to confess an American origin; yet I cannot deny that unhappy truth in my own case. Alas! I know my grandfather. My family dates back to 1683 in America. It is most unfortunate, but they did not come steerage from England — indeed, I think they owned an interest in the ship that brought them, when they came over with William Penn. Myself, I can have had no chance in letters, because my first American ancestor had no statue of Liberty before which to prostrate himself on the ship deck when he greeted the land of Liberty, Cloaks and Suits, and Literature.

My said ancestor helped to make the village of Philadelphia. Obviously, I can have passed through no Melting Pot. Woe is me! I have had no chance.”

Evidently, even in 1923, the immigrants were being exalted as being the best hope fr the future, as quintessentially genuine ‘Americans’. Later, Hough writes:

“I think it was Mr. Israel Zangwill who was the proud author of that contemptible phrase, the “melting pot.” Mr. Zangwill apparently still takes himself rather seriously. He goes wider than the regulation of our literature, and would run our government as well. I am shocked, pained and grieved that Mr. Zangwill no longer seems to like us! We must endeavor to bear up under it.

I have no special ambition to be a John the Baptist crying in the wilderness. But John the Baptist said, “And even now the ax also lieth at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.”

How can you and I do some good in the world? Well, it occurs to me that we could be useful if we could put before all the inhabitants of America, alien, foreign and native, a proposition or so like this: Let those who do not like America get out of America — we do not need them. Let those who cannot be decent citizens be sent out of America — we do not need them. Let those who cannot obey the laws of America, who cannot accept the flag of America, and who cannot in every way become actual Americans themselves, be forever debarred from admission to America — we do not need them.

What we do need is a nationalism.”

Today we call this ‘civic nationalism’, and no, it’s not the kind we need, but remember Hough was writing at a time when we still had relatively few non-European immigrants, so perhaps it was easier for Americans to believe that the Europeans who made up the majority of immigrants might be assimilable. Then, even if ‘assimilation’ (read: amalgamation or mixing) did its supposed magic, we would still have people of many European ethnicities and cultures, some of whom had grudges (like H.L. Mencken) against the founding stock of this country, or against some other ethnic group. But it was not always easy to foresee today’s situation, from the viewpoint of the people of 1923.

Hough, though he was evidently an ethnopatriot, taking pride in his founding-stock ancestry, took his fellow Americans to task for their complicity in allowing the flood-tide of immigration, culminating in the Ellis Island influx which was still ongoing. He writes of how Americans were too fearful of the ‘feelings’ of non-Americans, particularly the immigrants, and how they failed to speak their minds, being reluctant to exhibit any pride in who they were, choosing to be self-effacing — then as now.

“The trouble with our civilization is that we have lacked courage to enforce rigid selection in our foreign immigration. Now, well nigh too late, we begin in that obvious duty. I don’t know that we need set any absolute or arbitrary date in the past as the proper shutting down point — although, since my ancestor Richard Hough came over in 1683, I could not be blamed for the conviction that 1683 would have been a very good time to bar all further foreign immigration! Had we stopped all immigration in 1783, or in 1883, we would have today close to the same 110,000,000 population, and it would be a better population. The influx of latter day immigration has taken the roof from the home of the American middle-class woman, the fire from her hearth-stone — yes, and the child from her bosom. And you ask me, dear Editor, Are Americans people?

Criminally careless — is that their one fault? No, I think they also have been guilty of criminal cowardice.”

‘Spineless Americanism’ was Hough’s phrase. Another aspect of this ‘spinelessness’ was the tendency to want to play Santa Claus to all the world’s needy, and that what we did was to give away our patrimony:

“But, in all these displays of caution or of cowardice we rarely ever help our own business one whit; and we always do damage our country. It is a grandiose gesture to call America the land of the free; to invite to our shores every item of dead broke and wholly inefficient humanity which could not make a living even in commercialized vice, at theft or highway robbery in any other country in the world. Drawing to us the dregs of humanity with yet another grandiose gesture, we always have declared the certainty of our remaining the greatest people in the world.

[…]I think it was the tremendous alteration of the population of this country. The lifted gates let muddy waters into our stream. We can trace back a great many American evils — a great deal of American discontent, uneasiness, anxiety, restlessness, apprehension, timidity — fear, if you please; fear of the future — to that one great cause. We have settled this country too fast, used it up too soon. In material ways the richest country in the world today, in the intangible, imponderable values we soon will be the poorest in the world.

The old America is gone, and we shall see it again no more forever. No crusade can bring that back. Out of the immoderate abundance of the richest table in the world we have only a half loaf left. And all that we can do today must be done in reference to that half loaf. Our patrimony is wasted.

He sounds pessimistic there, but was he wrong? However it seemed that, bleak as things looked to men like Emerson Hough in 1923, just ahead was an effort to curtail this immigration onslaught. The Immigration Act of 1924 was a step in the right direction. But Hough did not live to see that; he died less than six weeks after he wrote the piece I’ve excerpted here.

And the 1924 immigration bill was later to be nullified by further legislation which again opened the gates, and as time went on the immigrants were even less compatible with the founding stock. But that was by design. Hough and many of those alive then didn’t foresee fifth-columns and treasonous One-World types in the driver’s seat.






Cultural imperialism?

The term ‘cultural imperialism‘ is associated with the left; whether or not it was, like word-weapons such as ‘racism’ and various other ‘isms’, coined by leftists, I don’t know. It does seem to be used almost exclusively by leftists/SJWs to describe what they consider White cultures ‘imposing themselves’ on People of Color, usually through colonization in the past, but nowadays the popular media (music and movies, primarily) spread ‘American culture’ — which is not of European/White provenance, but of black and/or Jewish origin.

Are we Americans culturally colonized, or are we the colonizers?  If we are still ‘cultural imperialists’, then what about the millions of immigrants and other assorted flotsam arriving hourly on our shores? They are bringing their culture, for better or for worse, to our country, and it’s being presented to us as an ‘enriching’ and ‘vibrant’ improvement over our bland, colorless native culture.

Susan D. Harris at American Thinker writes about how the Mexican pagan holiday ‘El Dia de los Muertos’, or the Day of the Dead, is taking over Hallowe’en. I’ve noticed that for some years, and I believe I complained about it some years ago on the old blog, and I’m still complaining about it to my friends, who are now starting to notice. Susan Harris does a good job of examining this phenomenon, and she explains why, though many Christians object to Hallowe’en (yes, I do use the old-fashioned spelling) because of its pagan influences, the Day of the Dead is even more morbid in its symbolism and less Christian in its ”theology” insofar as it has a theology.

“Whatever it may have grown into, the Halloween fright night Americans came to know and love never involved anything even close to human sacrifices, or any solid belief in keeping departed souls scared off or welcoming others.”

My intention here isn’t to examine the merits or lack thereof of Hallowe’en, but to note the way in which our country is being ‘colonized’ or conquered in a cultural sense as well as in a political and demographic sense. In this case it’s the Latino influence, and the many Americans who somehow believe ‘Mexico is a Christian country’ or even ‘a Catholic country’ should be made aware of how much of heathenism still pervades Mexican and Latin American culture.

Some Americans, women especially it seems, see something like ‘The Day of the Dead’ as something cute and colorful, and many of the gewgaws and decorations are geared toward children. It’s likely that the multicultists who run the school system are pushing ‘enriching’ customs like this to the children, and the parents don’t object. I suppose anyone who did object would be regarded as a ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe’.

Foreign immigrants have carte blanche to push their cultures in the public sphere, and White people can object — and risk being identified as a ‘hater’ because any criticism of nonwhites and their culture has to be ‘racism’.

This Mexican celebration may be ‘harmless’ as the usual ‘nice’ Whites say, but it’s just one aspect of the incursion of foreign customs — holidays, music, and food — that are now beginning to eclipse our own. European (or simply ‘White people’s) foods are being displaced from the grocery shelves to make way for various exotic products. There are quite a few people here in my area with roots in a certain Northern European country, and the two grocery stores here stopped carrying those foods to make way for an aisle full of Mexican and Asian foods. Soon our traditional foods may have to be ordered as ‘specialty foods’ online.

Trivial? Maybe, but our culture consists of many threads, and food is one important part of our way of life, and of our memories, and our sentiments. Likewise our folk-celebrations and holidays, and our Christian traditions reflect our history and help define who we are. But now? We are becoming acculturated to the ‘newcomers’ not vice versa. We are the colonized. They are the ‘cultural imperialists’ though they posture as ‘victimized, helpless’ people. We, however, are too easily imposed upon, and maybe our endless thirst for novelty and the exotic, and the cachet attached to those things, is doing us in, weakening our will to remain ‘who we are’.

A few more words on Columbus Day

In a Columbus Day post, Alberto Zambrano explains how those who trash Columbus — and the day which honors him — justify their attitudes.

“History of mankind is one of conflict and constant competition for limited resources: Water, earth, food and women. Those who trash Columbus day want to make people believe that the pre columbine societies were much more advanced than the european societies and history has proven that this isn’t the case. Europeans have proven to be better in these sorts of disputes, conflicts and competences than any other race in the face of the earth, the indigenous peoples were losers, and their friends and successors want europeans to feel sorry, shame and regret for being better than the savages in matters of conquest and exploration.”

He is right about the anti-Columbus crowd and their ‘sore loser’ mentality. In fact that’s the whole history of the “aggrieved victim” mentality vs. those who bested them in conflict or conquered them. The thought that their side lost is unbearable to them, and they will settle for nothing less than revenge in some form, and now that mentality takes the form of forcing guilt, contrition and apologies from the descendants of their conquerors. They simply want to turn the tables, and make us grovel, and too often they succeed, fueling more demands for apologies and appeasement. The cycle shows no signs of ever ending.

So much of the Columbus Day discussion centers on claims of atrocities by the European explorers and colonists against the ‘indigenous peoples’, even to the extent of charging Columbus with ”genocide”. I still maintain that the term genocide ought to be reserved for actual extermination of a people, not things like forcing them to speak European languages, or forbidding their often bloodthirsty ‘religions’. The fact is that these peoples for the most part still exist; they were not victims of ‘genocide’. They survived not only to ‘tell the tale’ but to complain endlessly of the injustices supposedly done to them.

Most White people are willing to accept at least some guilt for what the earliest European explorers and colonists did, willingly believing the leftist narrative of victimhood vs. oppression, and accepting that their ancestors were the villains. When presented with evidence of horrible atrocities committed by ‘indigenous’ peoples against Whites, they are easily gulled into thinking that the stories of savagery on the part of the indigenous were ‘exaggerated’ if not completely false. As with the following comment from another website:

“I’ve read a couple places that Columbus and sailors before him started the cannibalism rumor to justify enslaving and killing the natives, which certainly makes more sense to me.”

Again, from Alberto Zambrano’s blog piece:

“All of the elements that have sustained previous forms of success and european western pride are either in decline or withered to the extreme. What the west must do is to awaken and stop giving terrain to the demands of minorities and other groups that demand from majorities a more liberal mindset.”

Yes. All too often White people try to meet the other side halfway and concede vital points to them, such as this kind of thing: ‘Yes, Columbus and his men were brutal to the natives and they enslaved them…’ or in other cases, ”yes, slavery was a great evil, an abomination, an atrocity, but at least we abolished slavery and stopped forcing Christianity on the natives…”

This kind of response is weak because it is defensive, and it concedes too much to the other side. The other side sees it as weak and continues to attack our Achilles heel of wanting to be conciliatory and ”fair.”

And I find it disgusting that the people who try to appease in this fashion are affecting some kind of moral superiority over those of Columbus’ time, or those of the early colonial days. My ancestors, like those of many Americans, had to fight for survival against often hostile and yes, savage natives, people who often attacked at night, stealthily, showing no quarter to the old, the weak, to children, or women. These same hostile Indians did in fact treat captives brutally, often torturing them, and doing so with open enjoyment. Our ancestors tried to live peaceably alongside these people(s) at first, and too often found that their newfound Indian ”friends” would turn on them and attack them treacherously out of the blue.

Modern Americans who apologize for or condemn their colonist ancestors for using force should be ashamed. Were it not for their ancestors’ tough-mindedness and willingness to fight for their families and their own lives and property they (we) would not be here today. We have them to thank for our very existence here. We should look up to them, and never be ashamed or apologetic. If we do so, we disgrace them, and are unworthy of them.

As Zambrano says in closing his piece,

“It is really foolish and decadent when western men, that have never have had to subdue entire tribes of savages are forced to morally condemn those men that in a past fought tooth and nail to take the continent for their Kingdom. Those men who’s blood, sweat, tears, pain, broken bones bought peace at a very high cost for the territories over which liberals cry and communists fantasize about by lying to the public by saying that the indians were good savages.”

Europe: Independence or union?

I haven’t written anything on the Catalonian independence issue, not because of lack of interest in it, but because it is a complicated issue, and like most outsiders, I don’t have in-depth knowledge of the overall situation, and felt a need to learn more about it.

John Bruce Leonard at Countercurrents touches on the Catalonian issue in this piece at Counter-Currents, as well as the larger issue of the European Union, and whether the fact that the age we live in impels us towards the nation-state and ultimately ‘global governance.’ Leonard’s piece is in response to a comment by a reader who raised these questions, and Leonard makes some good points in favor of independence or balkanization vs. a pan-European superstate or federation.

I’ve written against the latter a number of times, but it is a popular idea amongst some on the right, mostly WNs, who believe that being White is  enough to bind the many European or European-descended peoples together under one government or nation-state. The very fact that there has been violence associated with a peaceful vote on Catalonian independence, with Spain apparently wanting to keep the Catalonians under Spanish rule by force, should illustrate the unrealistic nature of the belief in pan-Europeanism or some kind of White state encompassing disparate European groups. Also, the fact is, the Catalonian people and their culture are no doubt distinct from the Spanish to some extent, but they are not genetically distant peoples. As with many other European ethnicities who seem similar to outsiders, and who may in fact be close cousins genetically, there are distinctions that matter to the people of those ethnic groups. Trying to compel them to live in one nation-state is often a recipe for conflict.

It’s for this reason that I think the European Union is not a good thing, and its totalitarian policies only confirm this in my mind. I think Catalonia would be foolish, if they become independent, to want to stay in the EU, just as I think the Scots are foolish to want to remain in the EU, while threatening to leave the UK.

I think, for this reason and because Scots tend to favor leftist policies, including mass immigration, Scots nationalism is not true nationalism. Catalonia apparently is similar in that they have a significant Moslem population which they seem to accept.

“A fiery editorial in right-wing newspaper La Razon branded Catalonia the “capital of Salafism in Spain.” With this reference to an ultra-conservative branch of Islam, polemicist Alfonso Ussía took aim at local politicians for avoiding the issue and suggested local Muslims had not shown sufficient anxiety.”

Theirs is a strange kind of nationalism if they accept Islam in their midst, especially considering that Moslems occupied the Iberian peninsula until 1492, and a ‘Reconquista’ was required to free Spain and Portugal from Moslem rule.

The Scots, too, seem eager to prove their Islamophilic bona fides by having Moslem members in the Scottish Nationalist [sic] Party, and this policy goes back some years.

However, just because I think these countries are not nationalistic in a true sense, perhaps believing in what we call ‘civic nationalism’, based on documents and ‘citizenship’ or based on adhering to some creed or ideology, they still should be independent. Just as the Confederate states in our country wanted the right to govern themselves and not be held in a ‘shotgun marriage’ with a hostile North, so should these nations have a right to be left alone and to work out their own destiny.

Balkanization,if you like, ethnonationalism and self-rule, self-sufficiency, being governed by our own kinsmen, is better than rule by strangers in distant places, people who do not have our interests at heart.

Yes, it’s Columbus Day

Well, technically it isn’t ‘Columbus Day’ because that day falls on October 12. But even though it is not really Columbus Day, I will commemorate it here, in defiance of the PC kommissars who want to force ‘Indigenous People’s Day’ on us.

Artist’s depiction of Christopher Columbus

The late Sam Francis understood what this war on our heritage was really all about.

“What is being fought in the jihad against the Confederate Flag, Thanksgiving, Columbus Day and Christmas is not the ’sexism, racism, anti-lesbian and gay bigotry’ and other pastimes of Western man but the West itself and its local manifestation in American civilization. The isms being denounced are icing on the cake. The real target is the cake itself, and those taking aim at it know the only way they can get to it is by scraping off the symbols and icons that represent it in the minds of most Americans. Americans who still care what the real meanings of their holidays, as opposed to the three-day orgies of stuffing, guzzling and spending the national ruling class wants them to mean, need to know that the war against holidays is a war against their country and against them. If they don’t hang together in defending each others’ myths and icons, sooner or later their enemies will hang all of them separately.

So let’s observe our holidays and traditions while they are still legal. If things continue as they are, such observances will be made illegal, and observances punishable by law. Think I’m exaggerating? Look at what’s happening with our Confederate symbols.

You Tube ‘censoring’ search results?


“YouTube is modifying its search algorithms to prevent conspiracy theories and fake news videos from making it to the top of its search results, following outrage over the high visibility of videos spreading misinformation about the Las Vegas mass shootingthe Wall Street Journal reports.”

We know that Google seems to be doing this kind of thing, altering algorithms to push to the bottom of the search results anything that conflicts with The Narrative. I find this whenever I do web searches, even when using alternative search engines like duckduckgo or Startpage or Ixquick. They evidently use Google results but supposedly refrain from tracking the user or collecting and storing data about the user. And YouTube/Google have proven to be, in effect, just another arm of the government, enforcing ‘political correctness, attempting to stifle anything that questions the official Narrative.

There is still a large segment of the right, or should I say the ‘right’, that strongly oppose anything they deem a ‘conspiracy theory’, and generally it’s just good sense to exercise discernment when we come across speculations from people on the Internet or IRL. As the saying goes, “don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out,” but on the other hand, it is wrong for the Powers That Be to ‘protect’ us from conspiracy theories or other speculations about ‘what really happened’ in events like the Vegas shooting.

The Vegas shooting? Some out there would say that there was no such event; it was all a staged ‘psy-op’ involving ‘crisis actors’ and lots of fake blood and false testimonies from phony ‘witnesses’. We’ve heard this about any number of other shocking events.

If this is the case, are we likely to ever find incontrovertible proof of such fakery? Would TPTB be so careless as to fail to cover their tracks? I think that at the very least it is a dead end to speculate about such events being staged.

Nevertheless I don’t like anybody, YouTube or anyone else trying to suppress speculations which conflict with the official narrative.

There are many people who dismiss conspiracy theories per se, regardless of their merits or lack thereof. There is a tendency on the part of these people to go into knee-jerk mode when anyone even hints at a mystery regarding some event. It’s easy to scoff without even hearing the other side, a tendency to shut out anything that would raise questions or suspicions. Some people can’t stand a mystery and would prefer to close their eyes and ears. And the media have fostered this attitude in many cases. The media’s function seems to be to put across the ‘correct’ scenario, and in doing this, they are quick to ridicule anyone who differs with the official line.

Those in power do not like conspiracy theories or conspiracy theorists, though they concede, as in this paper, that some conspiracies do happen and have happened. Sunstein and Vermeule in the linked paper say that some conspiracy theories pose ‘risks’ and should be ‘dispelled’ or ‘rebutted’, and one of the means suggested was infiltration:

“Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them.

We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy- minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.”

With the Internet being the main source of many such ‘risky’ theories, it would seem the Internet — blogs, YouTube, forums, social media — would be a target for infiltration. We know that there are paid operatives on the Internet; other countries employ them, and certainly ours has done. Spreading disinformation and sowing discord and confusion amongst various dissident-leaning groups is something that has been discussed.

“One promising tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.

How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups, including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior, their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts. Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

So, some of those spreading bizarre theories may be these operatives, and anybody who stirs up discord and division, pitting one group against another is not trustworthy in my opinion. There are blogs where certain individuals specialize in expressing over-the-top ideas and causing divisions that way; some stir up animosity based on region, ethnicity, sex, or age group. I’ve noticed some blogs which seem rife with this kind of thing and it is demoralizing. Whether the people who stir things up are paid operatives acting according to plan, or whether they are ‘genuine’, yet polarizing and divisive naturally, the effect they have is toxic; they may as well be paid political operatives or provocateurs, for all intents and purposes.

I disagree with banning conspiracy theories, even though I find some of them bizarre and unhelpful. Opposing such discussion usually leads to more conspiracy theorizing, because it has the feel of the heavy hand of the Powers That Be, and it fuels more suspicion and cynicism.

However the proliferation, in recent years, of theories about how these traumatic events ‘never happened’ leads to a great deal of confusion; these theories could, in some cases, actually be part of a disinformation campaign, meant to confuse and gaslight us, and once we no longer rely on common sense, or trust anyone, or believe our eyes, the likely result is resignation and a feeling of helplessness and passivity. If we can’t know, how can we act? All that is left is to withdraw into our entertainment and distractions, and disengage from any kind of participation in the larger world. I am certain that this is just what our overlords would like for us to do.

What motivated the Vegas shooter?

Lots of blog posts and news articles are speculating on why the Las Vegas shooter killed 50+ people and wounded many others. I’m sure you’ve all read quite a few such stories, and I don’t know if there is anything original left to say. I do know that all the facts are probably not in, and I suspect that any facts that conflict with the desired ‘narrative’ will stay unknown, or be covered up and rationalized away.

The ‘journalists’ at Newsweek, predictably, point out that it is White men who commit more mass shootings ‘than any other group.’ How do the Newsweek crowd and their fellow lefties at Mother Jones (which source they cite) define ‘group’? Do they include Moslems? I suspect that would be politically incorrect. Or do Moslems just prefer different kinds of weaponry in their mass killings? But the biggest example of dishonesty in naming White men as most likely to be mass killers is the fact that in this country White men are still (for now) the numerical majority, and thus in raw numbers will represent the largest numbers. The writer of the Newsweek piece, in the last paragraph, actually mentions this, as if grudgingly, but the average unaware reader would take away only the message that ‘White men are mass murderers, more so than any other group.’

These half-truths, or twisted facts, taken out of context, are doing us a great deal of damage.

On another blog, someone doubts that the ‘suspect’, Paddock, was “the type” to commit this act, saying that his bio just didn’t show a likely mass murderer. As if things always add up and make perfect sense in this world. People, all of us, are complex, and a quick look at someone’s biography, as reported by those who may be biased or dishonest, does not tell us everything about the suspect. And it may come as a surprise to some people that the ”experts”, so beloved of news sources, do not know everything and cannot predict who will or will not do such things. Yet even Rush Limbaugh, allegedly ‘conservative’, cites his own ‘expert’ as to the motives of this shooter.

At least one blogger, who is a professional in the mental health field, says that mental health cannot predict these things, and explains why.

I’ve often asked those who recommend that we ‘keep track’ of people with mental health problems and try to find in advance those who might ‘snap’ and kill people: suppose we could predict such things? What then? Could people be arrested pre-emptively in case they might be dangerous?

This shooting has brought some odious and twisted comments from the anti-White left on Twitter and elsewhere. This woman, a lawyer and a vice-president in the media was reportedly fired for her callous and malicious comments about the shooting victims. The fact that she is Jewish, some will say is irrelevant, but when her kinds of views are expressed with alarming frequency amongst prominent Jews — is it just coincidence?

I am no coincidence theorist.

However I don’t pretend to know what happened at that fateful concert and I don’t know that we will ever know the whole story. I suspect we will read more of the now-standard claims of ‘crisis actors’, false flags, patsies, sleepers, etc.

Some, even on ‘conservative’ sites, speculated that Paddock might be a ”White supremacist.” Assuming such a thing exists, would a ‘supremacist’ marry or set up housekeeping with a nonwhite woman, as this man supposedly did? If so then the label ‘White supremacist’ doesn’t mean what it’s purported to. Absurd.

Was the shooter an Islamic convert? Was his Indonesian-via-Australia female ‘girlfriend’ or wife Moslem?  Was she a mail-order bride? Does it matter?

There is still so much speculation swirling around that it seems impossible to make sense of it. Some of the information may be mixed with disinformation, assuming (as I do) the basic dishonesty of the media.

But in this life a great deal of what happens doesn’t make sense, especially in recent years, where it seems ‘things fall apart; the center cannot hold.’ It’s become a cliché to quote that phrase from Yeats, but more and more, it describes our times.