Changing times, shifting definitions

Over the last decade or so, the political discussion has changed, which in itself isn’t surprising. Things are always changing, but it seems the pace at which change has happened is accelerating.

The changes that are the most disheartening, or should be, for an ethnonationalist are the changes in attitude and in language: for instance, there are people who title themselves ethnonationalists who spend most of their time expressing animosity towards our own kinsmen. Example? Blog pieces and long, long threads condemning their elders and all that they stand for, or people from one region of the U.S. ranting about those from another region or state.  Then there are many on the right, especially among certain age groups, who defend abortion-on-demand and even defend infanticide and euthanasia of the sick and even of elders, whether sick or not. Is there anyone who still finds this shocking? Is Christianity so altogether useless to preserve even basic morality anymore? Many of the people who defend these ideas are Christians, or so they say.

Do those who defend killing the sick, the old, and the ‘pre-born’ stop to think that one day it may be their child who is seriously ill? Or they themselves? Will they be ready to die, or sentence a loved one to death on the say-so of the euthanasia-mongers? In the Netherlands they have euthanized people who were merely depressed. They’ve also euthanized people by force, while the patient struggled for life. Is this what we want?

Another rift amongst our folk is the loathing of many on the right towards all conservatives, as if there is only one kind of conservative. The very word, the mere idea of conservatism is anathema to many of the young right. The cliche is that conservatives haven’t conserved anything. But it seems as if the critics themselves are absolutely opposed to conserving anything, because they, like their age-mates on the left, think that old America was worthless, 100 percent corrupt, and a sham. Most of us have some of that youthful arrogance when we are of, say, college age or younger; most people at that age think they know all the answers, while their elders are ignoramuses, having no clue. But when those attitudes are found amongst people who are old enough to have college-age children themselves, this is something new under the sun.

It’s probably part of this youth-worship culture in which we’ve been marinating for the last eight or so decades. The 1920s was the first glimmer of it in the 20th century, and it’s intensified ever since, rather than going away as do most fads. But the overemphasis on youth and its popular culture icons has made the youth-worship into what may be a permanent obsession in our culture.

So now we have the phenomenon of middle-aged people who emulate their kids’ dress styles, taste in music, slang, and sexual mores, rather than being an example and a good influence.

Being callow at a young age is one thing but we have some middle-aged and older people, believing themselves to be still young and up-to-date, promoting  what amounts to a ‘culture of death’ — euthanasia and abortion, as well as anti-family, anti-fertility ideas (widespread contraception, promiscuity, perversions, etc.) And all these ideas have been promoted in the media, the schools, and in popular culture — from the left, 100 percent of the time — until now, when we have those on the right joining in the chorus. So what, exactly, do the terms ‘left’ or ‘right’ mean anymore, when the sides are so much in agreement?

Generational warfare is practiced by the far-left; they and the young right are in full agreement that their elders are useless, obnoxious, and a waste of oxygen. Ezekiel Emanuel and Peter Singer, two far-leftists, have been arguing for killing the old and ‘aborting’ children who are already born; they’ve got their counterparts on the right.

So why are the left and right at such odds, since it seems that they agree on more things than not? It seems that the only thing on which the two sides differ is the HBD/racial question. That’s not enough of a difference, though, as it seems that many on the so-called ‘far right’ make their exceptions on racial and social issues. Many on the right, even those who focus on the JQ, find exceptions to their rule. Just look at how many Jewish thinkers or media personalities are favored by that segment of the right.  Why the inconsistency? Are the supporters on the right shills? Lefty moles? Subverters? Even if it’s unwitting, it creates suspicion as to their motives. If they are sincere, they are uninformed.

So are we headed for a complete political split in this society? Is secession on the cards? Or is this supposed ‘rift’ just for show or is it only a surface thing? I hope to be wrong, but I think there will be more internal splits, within our own kinsmen, as the popular culture, increasingly accepted by both left and right, will eventually win out over the ideological differences.

I hope to be wrong when I say that in a couple of decades at most, due to the weakening and loss of Christian moral laws, our society won’t be recognizable.

And things are getting bad when even Christians, on Christian blogs, who profess ethnonationalism are participating in the ritual denunciations of the older generations.

P.S.: Ethnonationalism must at minimum require a loyalty to, and love for, our own folk. At the very least, we owe something to those of our extended family, our kinsmen, our ethnic group, not just to those of our age cohort. A family — of which a nation is, on a wider scale — takes all ages. It’s an unbroken chain.

The phrase on my header says, what? ”Ourselves and our posterity” – but we all owe our lives to those who came before us. All those who gave us life.






One thought on “Changing times, shifting definitions

  1. I have very strong doubts that the vast majority of the “common herd” in America know that the phrase “to ourselves and our posterity” even exists in the Constitution. Much less that they know what that means, or originally meant to the framers. I take it that modern Americans believe that “our posterity” means the world’s posterity, if they have any sense of the terms at all.

    I was in a conversation a couple of years back over the whole abortion/infanticide issue wherein I wondered why certain commenters tended towards concern for the welfare of the other in preference to their own kith and kin. The answer I got was “because they belong to America.” Citizens of the world and all of that. This ideological bent all goes back a long long time of course. Pre-Civil War Era. The whole notion that the US Constitution (original Constitution) was/is a “covenant with death” and all that is nothing new. People are emotion-driven creatures to begin with. That is why Uncle Tom’s Cabin was so popular among the masses in its day, even though it was just a story – a fiction – written by a woman with an ax to grind and had no basis in fact.

    What can any of us do about that? Well, not much when you boil it all down. There is still one photograph of a southern slave with the marks of whippings on his back that “informs” people of what slavery was like on the whole. In the meantime, we have no idea of the character of the man. It might well have been that he was a very angry person equivalent in character to some of those persons who are kept in solitary confinement in our super max prisons. Or perhaps not. We just don’t know because the whole idea behind the photographs to start with was to play on peoples’ emotions. Worked like a charm. Still does.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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