Who will defend the truth?

Anybody?

So far Patrick Buchanan has been one person at least offering a sort-of defense of Woodrow Wilson, who is now another name and face being banished from our public square and our national memory, thanks to the aggression and venom from BLM and Antifa and all their little helpers.

Among their ‘helpers’, though they are probably too clueless to see it, are the unthinking Republican faithful, for whom the greatest good is always the good of the Grand Old Party, even when it is obviously against the ordinary people of this country. People like those strange creatures who are always shrilly concerned about the Democrats; it appears that (in their eyes) the Democrats are “Keeping African-Americans On The Plantation”, forcing them to vote Democrat and believe in leftist politics. I will say that they themselves, these ‘concerned’ people who see themselves as the champions and protectors of victims everywhere, are being paternalistic and treating a group of people as though they are children, in need of White folks to speak up for them and fight their battles, and it seems as if the enemy is other whites — Democrats, to be precise.

So Wilson was a “Progressive’ but in his time, though we find it hard to envision, most ”Progressives” or ‘liberals’ held social views much like those of normal people; in other words they were much more socially traditional and not fond of the crazy-quilt of radical ideas they hold now. As Buchanan points out in his article, most Democrats, most people then supported segregation. Today’s uninformed can’t fathom this; anybody who supported such policies are now equivalent to Nazis, and the battle flag that flew over the Confederate states is now regarded with the same contempt as the German flag of WWII.

But Wilson lived in a time in which there was not one monolithic worldview and people were not threatened with ‘hate crime’ charges for differing from the acceptable dogma, as today. In other words they were freer than we are now.

I’ll say it again — it needs to be said: people of 100 years ago were freer people than we are, and that was so before our modern Jacobins started their mob rule. People could speak their minds more freely than we can. Look at all the de-platformings and bans that have just happened, and probably more to come.

I think Woodrow Wilson will go down the leftist memory hole because he was ‘one of them’, meaning a ‘progressive’ in most ways,, but his crime was being a ‘thought criminal’ according to the distorted vision of today’s left. He not only viewed the film “Birth of a Nation” but praised it as a great film. Incidentally the film was a box office hit, and was revived again in the 1920s I believe. Wilson also presided over a parade of members of a certain ‘secret society’, though that organization was not illegal or secret then, contrary to some confused stories. In its beginnings it sought to protect those who had been disenfranchised and disarmed. I refer here to the Whites. I know some will disbelieve me but the information is in old history books, which of course will probably go down the memory hole too.

In fact a lot of Americans are now repeating falsehoods about that history and who is correcting this? I don’t hear any such voices. Southrons?

Some of the self-righteous Republicans who promulgate the ”Dems R the Real Racists’ silliness are now denouncing anybody to their right. It is just wrong that these same people have worked up a hatred for the Founding Fathers (because they were ‘slave owners’, all of whom were evil) and many prominent and accomplished people who helped make our country what it was at its best. If we condemn them we condemn most of our Founding Fathers; even the Northerners participated. Do we regard them as human trash to be discarded because of this? Why are we required to use a single lens, a single criterion, with which to judge (and condemn) people of the past? Why are we not granted the ‘right’ to judge by our own standards, and why are we compelled by ourselves or others to condemn our own folk so quickly and harshly?

These attitudes match those of the antifas who are demolishing the statues of many of these great individuals, most of whom were Christian men. So when these self-righteous Republicans think they are being chivalrous toward the downtrodden, they are simply further discrediting our history, our great men, and our culture. They are helping the violent left to do their ugly job of ‘burning it all down’, as they promised they will do.

There is more than one way of destroying a society and a people and a nation. The self-righteous ‘right’ ought to think about what part they are playing. In the name of political correctness they are aligning, whether aware of it or not, with our enemies.

From R.L. Dabney’s Defence of Virginia

For various reasons, the South has suddenly been the target of some venomous statements from ‘conservatives’ lately; it seems that overnight the cause of the South in the Late Unpleasantness is now considered as immoral and evil. It appears that people born in the last half-century or so either were not taught the history of that conflict or they did not comprehend it. No one in the North seems to want to defend the Confederacy, though there was a time when the South was formally “forgiven” and cleared of the North’s accusations of ‘treason’, and even formally pardoned for their actions in fighting against the Holy Union Army, I mean, the Grand National Army. But now that period of reconciliation seems to have disappeared, shall I say ‘gone with the wind?’

Just to see what I mean, do a web search and look at the kinds of condemnatory statements being made about the South. Maybe I’ve been asleep but I haven’t seem this kind of harsh judgment before. It looks as though a new Reconstruction/Punishment phase is being rolled out.

Obviously we are only allowed to look at that chapter of history through one viewpoint, and it is not a matter of freedom of conscience; our viewpoint is given to us, and we accept it and parrot it, or we are subject to being silenced and called names. We are not given the option to take the side of our own forefathers, especially as they have been made villains.

History classes seem to be in order, especially for the young ones, but I forget that schools are not there to teach history or facts. Few people seek out the truth for themselves. But for those who have ears to hear, I will quote some Dabney passages.

The Rev. R.L. Dabney was a brilliant man and a staunch defender of his state and of the South. I’m afraid he is too truthful for this present time, in which even the mildest lapse of ‘political correctness’ (which is in no way correct) brings down serious consequences, tension rather than understanding.

Dabney also predicted that equality would bring about escalating racial tension rather than racial harmony.

Davis Carlton, Faith and Heritage

As our society seems to be plunging toward more stringent subjection to political correctness Dabney seems to have been right about the escalation of tensions.

From the introduction to Dabney’s Defence of Virginia, his thoughts about ‘subjugated nations’ and ‘victims of arbitrary rulership’:

“The weapon of arbitrary rulers is physical force; the shield of its victims is usually evasion and duplicity. Again: few minds and consciences have that stable independence which remains erect and undebauched amidst the disappointments, anguish, and losses of defeat, and the desertion of numbers, and the obloquy of a lost cause. Hence it has usually been found, in the history of subjugated nations, that they receive at the hands of their conquerors this crowning woe — a depraved, cringing, and cowardly spirit. The wisest, kindest, most patriotic thing which any man can do for his country, amidst such calamities, is to aid in preserving and reinstating the tottering principles of his countrymen; to teach them, while they give place to inexorable force, to abate nothing of righteous convictions and self-respect. And in this work he is as really a benefactor of the conquerors as of the conquered. For thus he aids in preserving that precious seed of men, who are men of principle, and not of expediency; who alone (if any can) are able to reconstruct society, after the tumult of faction shall have spent its rage, upon the foundations of truth and justice. The men at the North who have stood firmly aloof from the errors and crimes of this revolution, and the men at the South who have not been unmanned and debauched by defeat — these are the men whom Providence will call forth from their seclusion, when the fury of fanaticism shall have done its worst, to repair its mischiefs, and save America from chronic anarchy and barbarism; if, indeed, any rescue is designed for us. It is this audience, “few but fit,” with which I would chiefly commune. They will appreciate this humble effort to justify the history of our native States, and to sustain the hearts of their sons in the hour of cruel reproach.”

Hampden Sidney, Virginia, June 1867

Words

We live in a very peculiar age, in which using a word can condemn us as individuals or as groups. There are certain words which are almost universally condemned in our society. But somehow the wrongness of a word hinges on who is using the word. One group of people can use such words with no objection from hearers, while others are castigated and perhaps even charged with crimes, and subject to legal sanctions, even imprisonment. Isn’t this a weird state of affairs? Why should this be?

How many people ever ponder the oddness of this situation? Surely if a word is wrong or forbidden, then it should be wrong for anyone to use the word.

And shouldn’t a society generally be in agreement about the intrinsic wrongness or offensiveness of a word? If general agreement should exist, (and it seems to me it should; such things should not be arbitrary and random) then surely the majority should decide which words are not to be tolerated, rather than a smaller group deciding unilaterally. Such a situation is tantamount to having dictatorial ruling groups deciding, if the majority have no say.

Mind you I am not a big fan of ‘democracy’ as it has played out in our current situation, but since our system pretends to honor ‘the will of the majority’ why are we content to kneel to the whim of a minority of — say — 15 percent?

If a small segment of a population can wield so much influence and control over the majority, can we be said to have anything like a ‘representative’ government? Our elected officials are more likely to cater to the loudest and most overbearing group as well as to wealthy factions who ally themselves to this demanding 14 or 15 percent.

So we have given up our freedom of speech in order to appear ‘fair’ to smaller groups who pretend to be harmed or traumatized by certain words. What kinds of words have such power? Mostly it amounts to simple slang terms or abbreviated words describing ethnic groups, regardless of whether those words contain any kind of insult or “slur” as they are usually called. The words designated as offensive and ‘hateful’ are judged as such by purely subjective criteria, and those who pay attention to this attempt to control speech will notice that the criteria change arbitrarily, when it comes to accusing people of wrong-speech or “hate” as it is described.

Is it a sin to call an American a ‘Yank’? Why not? Some of us don’t like the word ‘yank’, especially if the person so labeled is from the Southern states. But when we are in the UK or Australia we are often referred to as ‘Yanks’ or by semi-insulting terms like ‘Septics’ in Australia. (Septic=rhyming slang: ‘Septic tank’) So we could rightly claim offense but we aren’t prone to do that, so we accept it.

There are lots of ethnic designations that are simple abbreviations but yet they are considered OK if the target is of a White nationality. Some ethnic peoples don’t like terms like I-tie (Italian) or Mick or but when the label describes someone non-European in origin, then the term ‘hate speech’ is invoked. Some hapless woman in the Midwest, years ago, was turned in to the police (by some busybody eavesdropping on a private conversation) to report this woman saying ‘S—s should learn English.’ I think a jail sentence was her punishment — for a simple one-syllable word.

People have been killed for uttering a slang name to which someone objects, even saying that being called an ‘epithet’ drove them to kill the offender. Thus people have been given light sentences for murder because of a ‘taboo’ word.

Why are we so easily cowed by the power of these words?

The word that causes more high feelings is the familiar ‘r-word’, which has been given incredible amounts of power in our current day. And yet it is we and our undeniably corrupt legal system that have invested the word with the power to destroy lives, metaphorically if not always physically.

Why?

Why are we willing to condemn ourselves, or if not ourselves, then our kin and kind, because of a word? Some will say ”but it’s not just a word; it implies an evil attitude on the part of the speaker, and fear, plus psychological harm to the person to whom it’s directed.”

Again, how can something subjective be determined with certainty? Many ‘hate hoaxes’ have happened and do happen, and they are documented. In many cases the hoaxsters admit to concocting a false story. Yet such stories are treated as irrefutable right out of the box, because some people are held to be above scrutiny, and are not held to the same standards as the rest of us.

It’s become as if it’s unthinkable to hold certain people to any standard, much less to question their veracity. But any human being is capable of dishonesty, so why exempt anyone? One standard for all. But we know it doesn’t happen that way.

Today, in the wake of recent events, it seems a sizable segment of our population is obsessed with showing themselves to be concerned about the plight of this protected group, worrying that the ‘Democrats aren’t taking good care of” this group of people.

It seems that we are very solicitous and protective of certain groups, especially one, because it would appear that people see them as perpetual children, who need our protection and charity. In their estimation we owe them that, and more, indefinitely.

And now, it’s reached the point where our folk are willing to kneel and prostrate themselves to certain people. This seems like some kind of mental aberration which has taken hold on European-descended folk. Maybe it’s a sign of stress; it’s quite a strain to be under for all one’s life, to be told again and again how evil our ancestors were and how we are responsible for everyone’s troubles and disappointments in life, we and our evil genes.

Yet our reprobate ”leaders” and politicians side against us, and help load us down with more burdens of guilt and blame. These political hacks are not our ‘representatives’ nor are they our advocates nor are they our ‘friends’. If they are leaders, they are leading us to destruction.

How many times a day do we hear or read the ubiquitous ‘r-word’? Hundreds? Surely the word should lose some of its power, given how it is overused, ad nauseam? Or have we decided to surrender to that word?

And is the thing described by that word a ‘sin’ in God’s eyes? Let’s look at what the word is supposed to mean, (though we all know there is no fixed meaning; they keep changing the meaning according to expediency). At its core, the invented word (not in use before 1930s) just means wariness of, or dislike for, a particular ethnic group or people. I am talking about common parlance, not any fluid dictionary definition.

Is it a sin to dislike, or be wary of, a group of people? It may be unfair to judge a people as a group — so we’re told — but is it a sin, much less a crime?

Remember, it isn’t we who decide what constitutes a sin. That’s God’s prerogative. Popular vote, or peer pressure has no say in what is a sin. My neighbor may not approve of an act, as I might, but neither of us has the power to make it a ‘sin.’

So what ‘people’, even the majority say, about the ‘r-word’ holds no weight in a religious sense. That’s just fallible human opinion.

Is it possible to ‘love everyone’ as we’re always told? Is that required of Christians? The Bible condemns hating ‘our brother without a cause.’ Notice that phrase ‘without a cause.’ That phrase is there for a reason.

Most of us would not hate someone without a cause. Yet that is what the Left and the clueless Civic Nationalist right thinks is the case: ”just because of the color of their skin!”

Only an idiot would hate someone because of outward appearance, skin color, etc. Scarcely anybody is guilty of that. Yet it’s what the ‘r-word’ supposedly implies.

Very few on the right judge people just according to their skin color. It is because of drastically different behavioral patterns and cultures that friction, animosity, and misunderstanding happen — and will always happen, based on what history shows.

It is the liberal ‘right’ who think that we can shoehorn everyone into one country and pretend that no differences exist, that ‘we’re all one race, the human race.’

What makes the ‘patriotic civnats’ think that the Others want to be just like us? Our culture and our ways are laughed at by other ethnicities: we are bland, boring, we eat tasteless foods, we can’t dance, we have no coordination, and we’re silly dupes who are easily manipulated. And maybe there’s good reason for believing that last one. Remember ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me’? Yet it seems names and words have got us, in truth, on our knees.

Some numbers

In the midst of all the turmoil, lots of talk about the “Peculiar Institution” which has been frequently discussed.

A number of times in various online conversations (or arguments) the question of just how many people – YT, of course — participated in that same Peculiar Institution.

Probably in an effort to absolve themselves or ancestors of perceived guilt. a lot of people state that a very tiny percentage of landowners or planters actually participated. In any case, even if one had some kind of documentation which would nullify any ascribed guilt, it wouldn’t help. No excuses allowed. YT is being judged in advance and has been found guilty. And there’s no statute of limitations, no pardons or no hope of exoneration.

Anyway, just out of curiosity I looked for some documentation of the number of landowners who did hold slaves. Yes, it was a minority not a majority, but here are statistics from a 1938 book by Almon Parkins titled The South, Its Economic and Geographic Development. In it he presents statistics.

“In 1860 there were in the thirteen Southern states 663,000 farms; only 4,576 had 1,000 acres or more; the total number of slaveholders was about 4,000,000…
[…]

The total white population numbered about 8,000,000. The census data show that only one slave owner in the entire South had 1,000 or more slaves; 13 owned from 500 to 1,000; only 298 held from 200 to 500; 1,980 held 100 to 200. On the other hand, 77,000 held one slave only, 110,000 held 2 to 5, 189,000 held 5 to 50. Only about 50 per cent of the owners of farms or plantations held slaves; and considering both rural and urban population, probably not much more than one-third of the population was slaveholding.

Plantations of 50 or more slaves, if evenly distributed over the South, would number about 7 or 8 to the county. But these large plantations were far from being evenly distributed.
[…]
The percentage of farmers that were slaveholders varied greatly in the [thirteen southern] states. In South Carolina 81 per cent of the farmers held slaves; in Alabama about 60 per cent; in Tennessee about 45 per cent; in Kentucky about 42 per cent; and in Virginia about 56 per cent. Thus the percentage of slaveholders of total owners was largest in the Lower South, in the Cotton Belt, and in the older states of the Upper South.”

p.206, The South, Its Economic-Geographic Development
Almon Parkins, 1938

[Emphasis above is mine]

Parkins’ statistics give us some kind of idea of the numbers. I hear people citing percentages that seem to come out of thin air, no sources cited, just out-of-the-blue assertions. All those who claim it was a minuscule percentage never offer any support for their statements.

The people who say that only the richest of the rich had slaves are just trying to put a good face on it. But these figures indicate that slave-owning was not as rife or universal as our enemies want us to think.

History is what it is. The fact that some people are at war with reality doesn’t change anything.

Is there an answer?

I see the vandal mobs have pulled down the George Washington statue in Portland, Oregon. We all knew they would eventually come after all the great men and all the symbols of historical (true) America. Washington would not be spared just because he had no connection to the Confederacy. He was a Southron as well, a fact which is often forgotten, because he was the first President of the United States.

The phrase ‘Genocidal Colonist’ was spray-painted on the statue.

If we didn’t already know how deeply and hopelessly ignorant these destroying thugs are, this phrase ‘genocidal colonists’ shows it. I may be alone in this opinion, I usually am, but when and how did the word ‘genocide’ become so wrongly used?

The word ‘genocide’ derives from the words ‘genos’, meaning race or kindred group, plus the suffix ‘-cide‘, meaning killing or extinction.

The fact that some Amerindians were killed by European colonists — usually in self-defense — does not constitute “genocide” which usually implies root-and-branch destruction of a people or race.

And incidentally, how many Europeans were killed by Amerindians? We probably don’t know the exact count. But many were killed, and how do we not know that a ”genocide” was not intended against them? And they were often killed with a ferocity that was not equaled by the European colonists, who rarely practiced torture as did the Amerindian tribes. Even the so-called ‘Civilized Tribes’ did so; their title as ‘civilized’ referred to their political system, which they claim influenced the Founding Fathers’ model for our system.

The Christian settlers and colonists tried to coexist and form alliances or friendly trading relationships. The English had their families here; they preferred to try to get along. To accuse them of wanting to wipe out peoples wholesale is just wrong. It’s a libel against our folk.

History notwithstanding (and few seem to care about history today) it is just incorrect for us to use the word ‘genocide’ except in cases where a whole people are wiped out intentionally.

Genocide does not mean people are being treated badly or unfairly (as European-descended people are); our foes have made it clear that we should be eliminated. Numerous statements by many ‘white’ leaders as well as Others have made that clear. We are always being accused of being paranoid ”conspiracy theorists” — as if history is not rife with conspiracies and various plots. Do the globalist media masters think that they have dumbed us down to such a low level that we think conspiracies never happen, even in a world full of duplicitous people looking to obtain power and control?

We are undoubtedly in distress and under siege. That is not a figment of anyone’s imagination.

The mob shouting that they are victims of ‘genocide’ is absurd. The suffix of the word (-cide) indicates death and demise; in this case, elimination. It’s a gross exaggeration of the situation. If there were a real ‘genocide’, that is, a wiping-out of a people, would they be here to protest their own demise? The fact is the population of A-As is not declining but slowly growing. That would not be the case if there were a ‘genocide’.

Amerindian tribes experienced a 26.7% population growth between the years 2000 and 2010 — a faster population growth than the country as a whole. Not a genocide to be found there.

Language is important. Words matter.

I remember some years ago a pro-White writer raised a mild objection to this misuse of the word ‘genocide’, remarking on how many pro-White people were using it to describe our situation, wherein we’re diminishing, by design. Soon, as the media keep reminding us, we will be a minority. Or ‘The’ minority, and the rest will be celebrating that.

Personally I think it’s not only an incorrect usage to claim ‘genocide’ — if memory serves it was the UN who loosened up the usage of the word in order to make it sound more dire, or to ramp up the accusations against European-descended peoples. By accusing us of perpetrating this, we are made into the arch-villains of the world. The weak-minded believe it.

There is little chance of the corrupt anti-White alliance called the UN taking up our cause and defending us. We are of use only as a source of funding; otherwise we are the bad guys there.

It’s about time we avoid such a strong word as ‘genocide’ inaccurately. It has no beneficial effect to using it as our foes and enemies (mis)use it.

Most of all we should ignore their hysterical over-the-top rhetoric, especially when they misuse English words. English is our language; we should use the ‘tongue that Shakespeare spake’ with precision and not accede to the misuse and abuse of that language. We know they are using loaded and shocking terms for effect: to silence us or to gain sympathy from the weak simpletons out there who sympathize with wrongdoers.

People crying about being ‘genocided’ when they are very much alive, and are dominating the discourse, should provoke only incredulity, not sympathy.

The politically correct ‘right’

I am past fed up with the Republican writers and bloggers who write for the popular Politically Correct Republican readership. This to me means the milk-and-water type, who unbeknownst to themselves are inching closer and closer to the left with their obsession with rooting out ‘racism’

As of now, the liberal-right’s favorite culprit in the ‘racist’ witch-hunt is Southrons who defend their heritage and ancestors. More and more fiery op-ed pieces about the horrible ‘racism’ of the Democrat Party of the 1800s, and silly attempts to link that party to the Democrat communists of today — because according to this wacky belief system, the Democrats of the Confederate era were — what else? — evil racists just as the anti-White Democrat Party of today, the party which is most pro-POC, is somehow ”racist”. Racists under every bed, but thank goodness for the holier-than-thou Repubs. They are innocent of the crime of ‘racism; and are now busily trying to establish ‘street cred’ by wooing POCs.

SJW-aspirants: anti-White rhetoric is good for your street cred; it will insulate you from being called the ‘r-word’ yourself if you throw that word at everyone else. So virtue-signal for all you’re worth.

And it doesn’t matter if you are bearing false witness against whole groups of people; you will look virtuous and moral by doing it. Target White Southern people, accuse them of various politically correct ‘crimes’; it’s free; no penalties for accusing a Southron or slandering our ancestors — I have to listen to constant lies about Thomas Jefferson. Idiots say he was a ‘slave-rapist’ and father of illegitimate children, and the lies have become widely accepted — thanks to the current craze for making such accusations, and treating them as truth. As a Jefferson descendant I am disturbed by this and frankly fed up. I used to try to defend him online but nobody wanted to receive it. People prefer salacious lies or innuendoes rather than seeking the truth. The truth is too boring or bland, after you watch so many Hollywood movies that skew reality.

Jefferson was a slaveholder and so were many honorable men. No need to deny that. Some of the Biblical personages we revere also had slaves. Were they evil?

John Brown , on the other hand, was a 19th-century SJW, who killed innocents in cold blood, in the name of abolition. Did being on the ‘right side’ politically make him any less a murderer? Oh, but he loved the ‘right’ people so he was good, and hated White Southrons, so that puts him on the good side. See how odd our morality has become? Hate is OK if the ojbect of your hate is not in line with political correctness. So goes the social justice gospel.

PC ‘conservatives’ probably think Brown was a good guy who is up in heaven now.

Some of the holier-than-thou Republican SJWs say that a slaveholder is a criminal or a sinner. I am waiting for someone to show me chapter and verse where it is named as a sin. It appears that page is missing from my Bible.

Christian SJWs: have likely never read Philemon. It’s a short book, easy read, simple message. But it won’t fit the ‘social justice’ worldview.

Meanwhile, alleged ‘conservatives’ are spreading false witness about the Confederacy. Those people should never write about something with which they are not familiar, and don’t want to be familiar. Thomas Jefferson famously said a very simple thing: that we should always ‘hear both sides’ of any question. Few people heed that saying.

The misinformed writers who vilify the South, never having heard of the outrages of Reconstruction should force themselves to read old accounts, written during that time, about the lawlessness and yes, anarchy that characterized the Union-occupied South after the War. The defeated people of the South were terrorized by their day’s equivalent of Antifas — the Republicans, the Radical Republican Party. They were, for the South, far worse than the Democrats of that time. People’s lives were threatened. People died. There was violence and intimidation and no ‘law and order’ as such. Read it in contemporary documents.

However, there’s a dearth of information written during that time that’s readily available. I suggest Archive.org as the place to search for books telling the Southern side. Most of the books you will find as you search will be from the Union point of view. But there are sources to be found if you search.

But likely no one who needs to read the history, will. The liberal ‘right’ is waging a propaganda war against the South and its history. I wonder if they are encouraging the vandals in destroying statues of the South’s great men. Am I falsely accusing? I am simply wondering. The Republicans and the left are working towards the same goal. They are competing for the POC vote, and throwing the goodwill of the South to the winds. Yet the South has for long voted Republican. I hope they can see that the South is no longer wanted in the GOP’s little club.

Why

I was just reading a discussion as to why it’s difficult to find conservative candidates for the Supreme Court these days. There is probably no single explanation for it, but it seems that one factor is overlooked whenever a subject like this comes up.

I might point out the obvious, that in the year 2020 there are few real right-wing people in our society, contrary to the left’s insistence that ‘Supremacists’ and right-wing extremists lurk everywhere. Those who call themselves conservatives or rightists fall far short of that definition as it was even one generation ago. Liberal/left/globalist/multicult ideas have taken a firm hold on our society, even on the ”right”.

Maybe this article helps by pointing out the obvious fact that it is a generational thing, this scarcity of conservatives and the concomitant trend towards conforming to the cultural/social trend, which is ever-leftward.

There is a ‘changing of the guard.’ Those who upheld the classic Christian-inspired standards are aging, or are already gone, along with any influence they wielded during their day. Those people were better-educated, being taught by classical and more rigorous standards. They had more extensive life-experience. The older generations were often well-read and informed — even those with only 8th grade educations. They were less susceptible, it seems, to the lure of socialism/Communism.

Some Republicans/Conservatives (they are not always synonymous) don’t even realize or won’t acknowledge that they, like the left, have absorbed a great deal of liberal/left propaganda via media and peer pressure. How much effect has social media, like Facebook, had in leading people to join the herd in some social/cultural trend which is based on leftist influence?

Just think of how quickly the LGBTQXYZ movement got approval, or at least passive tolerance, from the so-called ‘right’? Or feminism, along with women in combat, women as police officers, etc. ?

It is seldom mentioned or credited that each generation becomes more liberal and left-wing. Of the generations that are alive now, the older the generation, the more conservative, and conversely the younger generations more liberal. They are driving the trends toward a more left-wing, less traditional population. This is not just my personal view; it’s documented in studies and polls.

It seems that unless something happens to reverse the direction among the younger generations, those most affected by the propaganda machine, our society will likely continue down the path it is on, with the Gordian Knot of the ‘racial issue’ being at the center of most of the crises. As long as the present dominant way of addressing (or not addressing) the question prevails, as it looks impossible to challenge, where is the way out of the intractable situation? It seems increasingly unlikely that those steeped in today’s dogmas could ever even imagine any other way of thinking.

There will be no more ‘conservative’ Supreme Court Justices if our society is not able to question the ironclad dogmas that have people’s minds captured. Yes, there are still ‘heartland’ Americans who retain some of the old attitudes, but to use a turn of phrase ”they don’t make ’em like that anymore.” Our society looks capable only of producing more of what we now have.

It looks as though the best we can hope for is simply crazy-far-left and not-quite-as-crazy-far-left, as the Hobson’s Choice of our political system. It’s becoming undeniable that what passes as ‘right-wing’ now is far from right; it is just a slightly more attenuated form of ‘progressivism’, very much driven by ideas of ‘social justice’ and ‘racial equality’ as the heart and center of American principles. And that’s a labyrinth from which nobody can seem to find a realistic way out.

One out of many?

I happened to catch part of the ceremonies at West Point yesterday, with President Trump officiating.

I couldn’t help but notice the dominance of ”diversity.” It seemed to me, just scanning over the WP graduates that there were few Whites to be seen and that girls (I mean, women, or womyn, whatever) accounted for some of the slots obviously allotted to Whites, so that even fewer White males appeared.

Obviously they are continuing in the tradition of a predecessor:

A diverse Army gives us strength,” said General George Casey some years ago.

Remember the rest of his comments, and the context? In a memorial service for those killed at Fort Hood in Texas. In case anyone has forgotten, the shooter was Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan. Enough said.

Hassan’s presence surely ‘gave us strength’ according to Casey’s calculus.

Anyway the rest of his remarks:

“Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

General George Casey Jr.

West Point is following the Casey doctrine, evidently, as is the rest of our confused society. Diversity must be served, at all costs.

Then we have talk of ‘Unity’ being a must, because we can’t let “Them” divide us. A lot of people have bought this argument, that some outside forces (probably the ‘racist’ democrats, which many liberal Republicans devoutly believe) are sowing divisions — which would never exist if they weren’t being caused by some outside element — ‘Them’.

I realize many people alive now weren’t around to be aware that these things, these divisions and clashes and animosities have always been present, because different groups are — wait for it — different. Imagine that. People have somehow been persuaded, or persuaded themselves that we all once lived side-by-side in relative peace, while certain ethnic groups did not commit crimes. They all lived upstanding lives, got married (legally) and stayed married and raised families. We were all Americans, all melting-pot descendants of immigrants who became model citizens.

Believing this, people are expecting — should Q et al restore America after delivering all the malefactors to their just deserts — that we can all live in a state of Unity-in-Diversity, happily ever after. Because some things are just social constructs.

The Unity that is being touted is paradoxically Diversity, but it will, ideally, be a Diversity which does not divide; we will all just be flag-waving Americans. But the diversity that does not divide or set us against each other will not dissolve into some kind of fairyland Unity; it will corrode any possible unity.

I believe Donald Trump’s view of this imagined Unity is the same as that promoted by the Q movement; I’ve seen enough of their memes and of their channel which is on YouTube. Some of those who are regulars speak very harshly of anybody who they deem ‘racist’ (that is, too ethnocentric or ethnopatriotic); their programming is very heavy on the ‘rainbow’ view of America. The ‘Democrats Are the Real Racists’ meme, despite its uselessness as a political argument, is very much alive and well.

On the other hand, Vox Day in a recent post declared that Unity is not desirable; it is the problem. {I am paraphrasing}. If Unity somehow = Diversity, then he is certainly right. Of course Unity as envisioned by the pollyannas does imply that we have to create some artificial, non-organic unity, and that would be forced, just like things were forced back in 1957.

Unity has to be organic, from the ground up, not coerced and enforced by laws or government edicts, nor can it be forced by self-designated arbiters like the Antifa. It also should not be the result of peer-pressure from self-righteous liberals and lefties, or liberal Republicans who are little different from outright lefties now, with their bowing and genuflecting. Some do this physically, as we saw, but some do it in spirit, in words, and it’s just as bad.

What ails us?

“It is character that rules in nations as in individuals. Only in loyalty to the old can we serve the new; only in understanding the Past, can we interpret and use the Present; for history is not made but unfolded, and the Old World is ever present in the New.”

— Benjamin Ide Wheeler.

I constantly hear it said that ‘America is dead’, and that we should just get over it, not even grieve for what was lost, or what is being lost.

These flippant statements, I suppose, are just more proof that America is, in fact, dead. A country cannot survive if the people of a country no longer care if their homeland survives, or if they greet its demise with no apparent feeling of regret, grief, or sign of bereavement. There are even people who seem glad to hear of the death of their country because they saw only its flaws and none of its strengths. This category of people includes not just embittered, rage-filled malcontents like those we’ve seen in the news of the past couple of weeks, but people who call themselves right-wing.

In the normal state of things, the right represents the patriotic and loyal element, while the left often has no feelings of loyalty to country and citizens, nor do they feel much attachment to the land. And they are not ethnopatriots, which to my mind is the only real patriotism; they are often the kind who hate their land of birth.

I see a lot of the same inverted sentiments among the disaffected right (the alt-right as was). Some of the young right are among those who want to see their homeland fall and be no more. What do they think will replace it? They seem indifferent about what will replace the U.S. The idea that something much worse may fill the vacuum doesn’t seem to trouble them.

The left, however, have plans and their ‘utopia’ will be everyone else’s nightmare.
The situation in Seattle, with the ‘Chaz’ charade, may be a laughable attempt at creating an enclave or even a separate ‘state’ within a state but it is not something we should just shrug off. Never underestimate the left’s ability to create destruction and chaos. I hear people saying we should just let them go on with their plan and ignore them because it will fail anyway. Or people talk about the ‘optics’ of interfering; it will make Trump ”look bad” if he acts (which he has not shown signs of doing anyway) so let them do what they like so nobody can condemn Trump.

As I understand it, both the lefty Mayoress of Seattle, Miss Durkan, and the governor of Washington State, were pointedly nasty and disrespectful in talking to the President about the situation in Seattle. My readers know that I was a Trump skeptic but I abhor the way in which all the enemies of Trump address him or talk about him. They are uncouth, ill-bred, coarse, and ignorant — this kind of openly hostile and crude discourse is something new in our increasingly nasty political scene. Maybe this low behavior went on behind closed doors but not in the public square. It is not good; it further degrades our political discourse and it makes us that much less civil and mature a people.

Politics of course is war by other means, but some degree of collegial civility used to be de rigueur, but now there are no holds barred. Another sign of a moribund America.

I don’t question that the America I loved is gone. I have always said, though, that the people make the place. Bad people, bad country, no matter its wealth or natural beauty; if the reigning spirit is that of hostility, suspicion, anger, vindictiveness, division — which are all increasing in this country — how can such a country continue? And if there is no public will to reverse the dangerous trends, there’s not much hope of salvaging a country. However, it seems a lot of Americans now have a kind of passivist/fatalist attitude, as if no human effort can change things; it’s all ‘Karma’, which many post-Christian Americans think, or Fate. Hence it’s beyond any human effort.

The guilty-minded and mind-conditioned Americans think America is deserving of death because Reasons. (Politically Correct reasons, of course.) Some embittered young rightists think we deserve destruction because we shouldn’t have fought the two world wars. We were the bad guys in all cases. Hence we deserve the death penalty as a nation. The left — well, we know what they “think” and why they want America destroyed. They’ve been slowly killing the nation and destroying the minds of its people for generations — the Gramscian approach.

Still, despite our country being under siege and denounced every day on the ”News”, there seems to be little response from the public other than sporadic grumbling but little will to do anything more practical. It seems the right has us stymied, and people seem resigned. The left finds ways to box us in, or to silence us and we have no counter-response of any significance. It seems the President embodies this stance; he spoke of ending the Seattle situation but after his ‘conversation’ with the spinster Mayoress of Seattle and the governor, nothing was done.

Sometimes I half-wonder if those ‘witches’ who say they are directing curses at the President(and probably the rest of us) are having some success in with their efforts to harm this country as well as those in authority. It seems like we’re all under some kind of spell making us apathetic.

I started out blogging as a patriot, or as one early commenter called me, a ”Hyper-Americanist.’ Maybe that’s what I was. This country was once a great country in which to grow up and to raise a family. Sure, it was never perfect; nothing run by human beings can be. But it was a wonderful country; it’s a shame that all who criticize and jeer at the ‘old America’ didn’t live there and see it as it was. But the sour grapes approach is just wrong. My heart breaks to think that America is gone, and can never be what it once was. But must we sit and passively watch it happen, like some kind of Eastern fatalist? We used to be a can-do people, a people who believed in being more pro-active and willing to give it the old school try. If we hadn’t been that kind, this country would never have existed. My ancestors and many of yours would have never survived the first winter or the first famine or epidemic or Indian attack — but they did, by sheer grit and by faith in God. Do we still possess the genes or the will for that kind of determination and fortitude? Maybe not. I have less and less faith in us.

We are also missing what some philosophers said a nation needs: pietas, what blogger Cambria Will Not Yield often writes of. It seems a lot of us don’t like our fellow Americans. The young — not all, but many — have developed a loathing for their elders. POCs blame Whites for all their difficulties or problems, or just dislike the latter because of their successes. Envy, in other words. Men and women are at odds as never before. And then people blame outside forces for this: ”They want us divided” — so Q and his/their followers say — but nature divides us. Others may stir up more division or exploit existing division, but what’s the answer, Q? More forcible ‘multiculturalism and inclusion” under the guise of ”Unity” ? More of what ails us? Globalism? More concessions? We’re on that road now, where we will be under greater pressure to conform to the multicult and cultural Marxism. More weakening of America.

I don’t know the answers, except that I am certain that going further down the treacherous road we are on is not the answer and will only lead to far worse situations.

And if we can’t bring back ‘dead’ America? Well, let’s not pronounce the patient dead while there’s still a pulse, and let’s not administer euthanasia yet.

This world is not ”home” for Christians; we’re pilgrims and strangers — but we’re called to ‘occupy’ until the final curtain rings down.