The latest incident in Texas

You’ve probably all heard about the church shooting in a Texas Church of Christ worship service. The commentary from people online is mixed, but some are saying that too many of the worshipers in the church were just hiding from the shooter, not trying to defend themselves.

However it was reported and noted that many of the churchgoers in attendance were carrying, and that several had drawn their guns for protection against the gunman.

I expect that some people in states where carrying is not so common among ordinary people will criticize those who did try and actually succeeded in taking down the shooter.

Just for perspective, as people were criticizing those who hid from the gunman, I wondered what kind of group of people they were; in my experience, Church of Christ people (and that includes many family members) are very conservative socially and politically, though they are giving way to ‘political correctness’ in the matter of ‘diversity’, but that doesn’t appear to play any part in this situation. The media, as usual, are being very close-mouthed about the identity of the gunman. There is this silly meme going around about this shooter, saying ”we won’t name him, because obviously that’s giving him what he wanted: notoriety. So we won’t even mention his name.” That’s some kind of lefty nonsense; of course someone who commits a crime like that should be named. Keeping the name a secret is just another way of shielding the person — a name can give away demographic information, and the PTB don’t want those kinds of facts known. Notice how they issue bulletins for wanted suspects — they give no description except that it was a male, etc. If it’s a man of European descent, we’ll surely be told that, up front. Otherwise?? Mentioning name or physical description? It will soon be illegal to do so, if it isn’t already in some places.

The only place online where I could find a good picture of the Church where the shooting happened was here. Take a look to see the people. I did notice that there were a lot of grey heads in the pews. It’s understandable then that not all were young and fit enough to react quickly to a situation like this. The shooter may have picked a church which looked like there were older people, seeing them as vulnerable.

One last note: some people questioned why the town where this happened was named ”White Settlement.” I suppose the fevered lefties jumped to the conclusion that it was some kind of ‘bigoted’ name choice. But the town’s own website says that the name was originated by the local Comanche people, who noticed the growing community of White settlers. And some of the local Indian tribes eventually settled down there as well. Yes, that did happen sometimes; the old ‘genocide’ meme is not necessarily factual.

This particular attack seems to have been targeting someone other than one of the ”protected groups.” Were they targeted as Christians? As Whites? Or just targets who looked vulnerable and ‘easy’ to pick off?

The left loves these events, so they can thump the drum for abolishing the Second Amendment, and disarming everyone, at least everyone who obeys the law. The criminal won’t be stopped by taking legal guns away or passing laws against citizens bearing arms. The bad guys always manage to get guns, and always will. And the frequency of these attacks seems to be intensifying.

Dixie Highway to be renamed?

It looks like yet another name is distressing some people — conjuring up ”painful memories.” The name Dixie, after all these years, is supposedly bringing up traumatic memories of things that happened what, centuries ago.

The elected officials who are eager to change the name ‘Dixie Highway’ to Freedom Highway are people who are too young to remember the time before political correctness, (the Vice-Mayor is all of 22 years old) and so it’s natural to destroy the ancient landmarks, as the Bible calls such things as Dixie Highway. Now, it is no longer a matter for the people as a whole to decide, but the prerogative of a handful of people who get ‘triggered’ by the mere thought of something they themselves never experienced, never lived through. How can anyone have ‘painful memories’ of something that happened before they were born, hundreds of years before?

Dixie Highway, Florida, ca 1920s

Miss (or is it Ms?) Javellana thinks that the song Dixie is all about slaves picking cotton, which apparently is a horrifying experience. The name Dixie and the well-known song of that title, which is an unofficial anthem in the South — or was, before this PC age — was one that we all sang in school and we thought of it just as a vision of life in the South. The phrase ‘the land of cotton’ just called up images of ‘Sweet Home’. Cotton growing in fields was a near-ubiquitous sight in certain areas of the South. Strangely, though, in recent years the sight of cotton growing is not so common anymore.

Apparently ‘cotton’ is itself a traumatic sight.

And Miss Javellana and her colleagues should be aware that picking cotton was something that all races and ages did in the South. White children picked cotton. Whole families picked cotton, particularly if they were poor White migrant workers (they existed), and many who grew cotton, if they couldn’t afford help, picked their own cotton. So no group can claim they alone had to pick cotton.

In any case slavery was abolished long ago. The South was devastated by the War and even more by Reconstruction. I think these city officials might benefit by reading the history of the place they live in, and try to understand the whole picture. The South is still being blamed though I think they have paid in full, and then some.

But reading the article shows how the South is no longer the same place. The people of the South are more or less a subjugated people.

What’s the saying? Vae victis.

Democratic censorship

Some years ago, in a book I read, the writer used the term ‘democratic censorship’ to describe a kind of totalitarian society in which the government does not have to carry out heavy-handed control over speech and the press, a la the old Soviet Union. In the ‘democratic” censorship method, the people themselves are indoctrinated so fully that they will police each other (and probably self-censor as well) so that peer pressure will discourage independent thought or heretical views. At the time I thought such a system would be very suited to Americans because it seems we Americans are very tuned into the consensus; most Americans don’t want to be the odd one out, the one who steps outside the bounds of what’s socially popular. We don’t want to feel excluded or outside the acceptable norms.

Now of course there are always some who don’t fit the majority pattern. There are always some who go to the other extreme — this is often true of the adolescent and the perpetually adolescent, who make a point of being nonconformist and rebellious in an attention-seeking way, or just to be a thorn in everyone’s side. And there are a few, I mean a real few, who simply seek out the truth, without caring if the majority agree or not. There’s a saying something along the lines of “It’s better to be in the right with two or three than to be wrong with the majority. “

Whatever the reason, most Americans prefer to fit in with their crowd, whoever that may be, and will avoid taking controversial stands. I suppose that’s why it seems we dissidents are seemingly outnumbered by the SJWs, the antis, and all their motley groups.

So it seems we have a kind of ‘democratic censorship’ in which we’ve learned like Pavlov’s dogs to salivate when the bell rings, in anticipation. I think that many we call ‘normies’ are people who try to ascertain which way the wind is blowing before they come down on one side or the other. Principles are optional for these people; they may change with the direction of the political/social winds. It was that way in the American revolution; most colonists were in the “big middle”, and something like a third were for the Revolution, with others being ‘anti’.

It happened that I just read an article on the TakiMag blog, wherein Taki writes about how the present war on free speech is being prosecuted not by government primarily but by private entities: the Big Media, including the Social Media goliaths. I agree with Taki substantially, and it does seem strange that the fictional dystopias written of by Orwell and Huxley were the work of all-powerful governments. Now here we are with private corporations telling us what we may say or write, and despite the warnings by Thomas Jefferson so long ago, we no longer have a free press.

We also seem to have a government, though, which acquiesces for the most part in the censorship and the dishonesty of the major media. We have a government which does not, or will not, carry out the primary duty of a national government: to protect from foreign invasions. So it seems as if our government as a whole is at best, taking a hands-off role regarding the obvious unconstitutional actions of private corporations.

But the strange role played by supposedly private entities in dictating to us what we can and cannot say or write is something I’d like to hear a libertarian address. I always wondered why libertarians clamored for everything to be privatized, to be handed over to the private sector, which is apparently incapable of becoming corrupted or compromised, unlike government. I’ve noticed for most of my adult life that private entities, banks, and other financial institutions, often oppress in ways of their own, just as much as governmental entities do. How, then, does placing more power in the hands of corporations (think of big media, big pharma, big medicine, big whatever) improve things for us, much less make us freer?

As for the censorship we now endure, in which many of us who blog live under the shadow of being de-platformed for our ideas and our thoughts, it seems that they really need not bother; the average citizen, especially those who’ve been thoroughly brain-laundered and gaslighted, will use peer pressure, shunning, and other such social means to discourage fellow citizens from coloring outside the lines and thinking outside the narrow bounds of “socially acceptable”, PC speech and thought. It seems, though, that there is a concentration of efforts on the part of several forces here.

Christmas season

I’m a little late in sending Christmas greetings to you all, but I’ll wish you a wonderful Christmas season, and many blessings.

I wish you health, happiness and all good things in the year to come. Though we are living in troubled times, we can’t let this detract from the season of Christmas, and all the hope and inner peace that this holiday season can bring.

Political views by generation

Via Zero Hedge, the results of a survey by YouGov on the voting trends by generation in the UK, with the results being from the recent elections in the UK.

Evidently the same patterns hold true in this country as in the UK, with the younger voters being decidedly to the left in their voting habits, and the oldest being most ‘right-wing.’ The pattern held true in the Brexit referendum, with the young being very upset at the “racist” oldsters for voting to leave the EU.

Without the votes of the older segments (50+, and especially 60+) Britain could not have had a chance of extricating itself, via Brexit, from the EU.

Youth has its good points, but the young on both sides of the Atlantic seem to have been easy prey for the left’s propaganda for all these years. One can hope they’ll outgrow it, but they have to want to. They can easily find the truth if they really want to know; nobody has to be a victim of propaganda but it seems to have quite a hold on some segments of the population in the West.

Where do we go from here?

After yesterday’s impeachment charade, I suppose all that could be said about it has been said by somebody somewhere, or will be, shortly.

Most of us were likely not surprised by the way this staged event played out. I know I wasn’t surprised.

Some of us may follow Q and the ‘predictions’ or riddles that are doled out to us. Do I believe Q absolutely? I would say I’m not a denier or a complete skeptic, but more of an agnostic, who is open to being convinced, looking to see if the ‘predictions’ or whatever prove to be valid.

I have noticed that Q often tells readers that “they” (TPTB) “want us divided.” Dividing the populace so as to solidify control is a very old idea in the minds of the more manipulative people who rule over others, or who want to rule. But are TPTB the ones who have divided us, and who keep ‘us’ divided? They like us to be divided; it makes things easier for them when we take out our anger and hostility on our neighbors or even kinsmen instead of focusing it on the people holding the reins.

The ‘civnats’ and mainstream conservatives like the mantra about those in power dividing us. They appear, these civic nationalist types, to think that once upon a time it was otherwise; we all lived in happy harmony in a rainbow America where all that mattered was our belief in holy Democracy and Brotherhood and Equality, until the left came and taught us to distrust one another and stirred up trouble amongst us, which was something new and unprecedented. Why, for example, during the Revolution (against King George and the villainous ‘redcoats’ who had somehow gotten the whip hand over us) Crispus Attucks was our hero , proving that there were no divisions among us apple-pie Americans. Or so the story goes.

It may be that the people who seem to believe this view of a once-idyllic America don’t actually believe it, but feign belief in the hope that believing in it really hard will bring it into being.

Forgive me for being a little cynical here; when I began this blogging business some 13 years ago, I was a little more idealistic. Still I was not as naive as to believe that America was ever a peaceful “pluralistic” (pre-multicult) country; ‘E Pluribus Unum‘ and all that. I think some people still don’t know that the Latin E Pluribus Unum never referred to multiculturalism and ‘world citizenship’ or any such fairy-tales. It referred to the states, the sovereign States, a confederation forming one nation. Only the South, or what is left of it, remembers that rather important fact. America has always had problems stemming from its ‘pluralistic’ origins.

But since the Civil Rights contretemps, the ‘Late Unpleasantness’ in the South, it’s required that we speak as though we were once a big happy family until The Left divided us, an event which would never have occurred otherwise, as we were all like peas in a pod, living side by side. The ‘right’ manages to give the appearance of believing this, but the left and their client ‘victim’ groups don’t believe this, and never did; why would they? There’s no advantage to be had from believing it. No grievances, no payoff.

So when Q (or are there multiple Qs?) talks of ‘Them’ wanting us divided, he means the invisible PTBs. Sure, they want us divided, but it wasn’t their doing from the beginning. Nature divided us, or God divided us. The Bible itself says that God ‘sets the bounds of nations’. In speaking of this dividing, the great Bible commentator Matthew Henry, in his commentary, said, of this division amongst the various peoples, ‘What God hath set asunder, let no man join together.’ He had a sly sense of humor, apparently, did Matthew Henry, but he was serious in his meaning.

The whole point of the Babel story was that there were meant to be differences; that we were not all made identical and interchangeable, and it was God-ordained, and for a reason.

Now, I can see that there is a need for strategic alliances in certain circumstances, and that there ought not to be perpetual hostilities between peoples, as is now the case. The events in this pretend impeachment story are the result of the out-of-control animosities between people, even people of a common origin and language and history. The left has stoked those flames of anger and hostility, and they continue to do so; it seems a deliberate decision they’ve made, evidently looking to provoke some aggressive action on the part of the right, providing them with a pretext to — – what, exactly? Only they know what they are thinking, if in fact they are capable of thought; we can only guess.

The powers that be, those Q says ‘want us divided’, are sitting back watching this as their surrogates or puppets stir up more conflict. The latter seem unmoored from reality, whereas many of the ‘mainstream’ right choose to live in some kind of civnat fool’s paradise, where we’re all really the best of friends, brothers and sisters, if only the Left wasn’t stirring the pot, bringing it to the boil.

Meantime, does the POTUS really believe in the civic nationalist ideals he expresses so often? Does he really believe that we need ‘more legal immigration, much, much more’? Does he really believe that Israel is our friend? I don’t know. Only he knows, I suppose.

I think I wrote on my blog years ago that it seemed we were in a car with no brakes, careening toward the edge of a cliff.

Somehow, though, I believe that there is someone in charge; I have complete faith in a Creator who knows the end from the beginning, and I trust Him completely, though all looks to be out of control. Isn’t it increasingly obvious that we humans are not able to extricate ourselves from this dangerous situation under our own power?

Does that mean we should do nothing? No. We have a part to play, and we are to be actively trying to do what we can to right things. It’s obvious that we are not really in charge — and neither are the other guys. But they are at a disadvantage because they are blinded to their own wrongness.

Do Q and the others (whoever they may be) know what they are doing? There are a lot of verbal reassurances that they expect success, and a reversal of the dire conditions. Some are putting their trust fully in the mysterious Q et al, and in the President, saying that it’s all a grand plan, a ‘strategy’, as they said about G.W. Bush during his bungled presidency. Obviously, though, “W” did know what he was doing — but he was not on our side. Things are seldom what they seem.

Right now praying seems the best plan.

In my opinion.

More controversy over Southern monuments

It’s really exasperating to read these stories about the conflicts in the South over Southern monuments, in this case, the ongoing verbal battles involving UNC and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. If you read the comments on the article you will see how irrational and uninformed the left (the ‘antis’, who are proud of their venomous loathing for all things related to Southern culture and history) the verbal skirmishes are.

It seems that the anti-Southern fanatics know nothing about the past other than the ‘evils’ of the antebellum South, and the minds of these people are bereft of any common sense, and even worse, they are averse to actually reading factual history. It seems all their learning came from urban legends, probably dubious sources like Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Even Abraham Lincoln referred to Harriet Beecher Stowe as ‘the little lady that started the War [Between the States].’ And though she and others like her, including her crowds of abolitionist female followers, had never set foot in the South, Stowe’s overwrought book was so influential that the fantasy Evil South still lives on in some uninformed minds.

How and where did this sad situation start? In the minds of the antifa types, and the dyed-in-the-wool academics who perpetuate these half-baked ideas about the antebellum South. And they teach nothing about the Reconstruction era.

It’s not possible to even have a common-sense dialogue about these things, though these troubles could ignite real conflict. Feeling runs so high, and the left keeps fueling the flames. It’s as though they are hoping to provoke something more serious than the name-calling and juvenile nonsense. I certainly hope that it doesn’t escalate to more than words. Some violence has happened, thanks to anti-types’ aggression.

There are many facts about the South that cannot even be spoken at the risk of being called a ‘hater’ or whatever insult du jour. And seeing many people de-platformed on various pretexts, vague charges like ‘violating terms of service’, discourages many people online from speaking anything that violates the official Narrative, which is (of course) anti-Southern and anti-White.

And what of those young men at UConn who were arrested for speaking a taboo word in conversation?

The message is we all have to watch our step if we are to be allowed to discuss anything in a public place, or on the internet — or even in a private conversation. And we’re still told that we live in a free country.

As for the anti-South crowd, why are they still fighting battles over things that happened almost 3 centuries ago? Why are they trying to punish Southrons for things that were done by people that are long dead, and why are those who claim to be victims, even now, after many generations have lived and died since that time? Nobody today has owned or ‘mistreated’ slaves, and no Americans have been enslaved in this country for hundreds of years. Where is the justice in this; these things cannot be made a perpetual vendetta — except when it comes to the WBTS; the [White] South can never be absolved, apparently, and there’s no Statute of Limitations.

Incidentally, the people of the South are treated as criminals when it comes to the hysteria over the supposed ‘monstrous’ deeds for which they are blamed. The anti-South, anti-White accusers on that comment thread are obviously closed-minded, like all such people, and will not open their eyes and ears and ”minds” to facts.

The whole subject is basically taboo; the rabid antis emerge from the woodwork anytime they catch someone violating the ‘Narrative’ of victimhood, and of the perpetual guilt of White Southrons.

Yet, if the Southron slaveholders (including most of our Founding Fathers) so mistreated their slaves, why did slaves have a longer life expectancy than most Europeans of that time? Why did they live as long as most Whites in America, and longer than their African ancestors? There are statistics that show this to be fact. But in many peoples’ imaginations, they can never recover from the ”legacy” of their servitude.

Now there are many Americans who refer to Thomas Jefferson as a ‘rapist’ of slaves, with no evidence (much less, proof) to verify this slander. Now even our Founding Fathers, whose ideals are now being junked and trampled on, are tried posthumously and judged unjustly, their names and reputations destroyed for the most part, along with those monuments and statues. I hear the Stone Mountain monument is to be made subordinate to MLK et al, just as a slap in the face to Southrons.

Will the coming generations take a stand in favor of truth, and for justice to our ancestors and our heroes? I can neither sympathize with, nor understand those who want to discard the Battle Flag because it is a catalyst for controversy.

There’s no advantage in trying to appease, or mollify the South-haters. They love hating the South, and wallowing in their delusion of being morally superior, while the South is forced to accept being the scapegoat, and compelled to acquiesce in being the guilty party in the bloodshed of the WBTS. Half a million people, at least, lost their lives, and many were maimed, and left with lifelong impairments. The South also lost many civilians as the Northern Armies swept through the South. The people of the South in many cases lost all their possessions — homes, livestock, crops, family heirlooms, etc. Some of my ancestors were left destitute though they had been prosperous. But in many cases the older generations who lived through this, passed on the individual stories of the War, and the aftermath, which is not taught in schools. The real-life stories that individuals preserved and passed on are otherwise ignored.

And yet ‘reparations’ are still being discussed. I say the South has long since paid for the alleged atrocities for which they are still accused. And now there are probably more people who are recently arrived in the South, who have no roots in the South, and who can never understand the history.

When even the native-born American is also mostly ignorant of the facts, what hope is there of the history ever being understood, or our forefathers’ story even getting a hearing?

Yet somehow we, those of us who care for our heritage, have got to find a way, without any appeasement, of getting the real story told to those who are unaware of the reality.

Problems posting comments

I’ve heard that some of you have had problems posting comments. I’ve mentioned that I had persistent problems with this myself, and I’ve attempted to get some help from tech support, but so far I haven’t got the problem solved. I do apologize, and I have given feedback very recently so maybe there will be a solution. I hope. Otherwise I might have to change platforms.

I do value comments and I hope this doesn’t mean losing readers.