Is QAnon what ‘they’ say?

Seeing that the QAnon movement is being raked over the coals as some kind of dangerous Christian cult, I feel compelled to offer some words in their defense. Though I am not a part of the group, I think I know a good bit more than the pack of critics who are suddenly coming against them.

As I’ve said I follow their doings on a regular basis. Sometimes the Q channels on streaming services have news stories that I don’t get elsewhere, and I follow the ‘chat’ to see what the average Q follower says. However I am not a member of the group, so I have a more detached perspective. I have been mildly critical of the group, but not because I see them as a ‘danger‘, as un-Christian or as ‘Gnostic’ cultists as do some of these self-righteous churchians quoted in the hysterical articles all over the news media.

The usual suspects on the left are attacking Q because they hate Christians probably more than they hate non-Christian rightists. The religious personalities, ‘preachers’ or theologians in some cases, are rushing to defame, rather than defend the QAnons. This in itself betrays an un-Christian attitude. All of us who are Christians are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ. If your brother or sister is in error regarding their faith, a Christian’s place is to speak gently to them so as to correct them, not to condemn them or accuse them in public or amongst nonbelievers. That’s decidedly not what a faithful and loving Christian does. And I notice that some of the accusers or those being quick to criticize their fellow Christians (most people in the QAnon movement seem to be Christian) are people who are themselves subjects of controversy, such as one minister involved in a denomination which has recently aligned itself with a certain anti-White racial group. Could such a person be trying to draw attention away from the criticism he’s receiving by pointing a finger at the Q followers?

The tone of the many articles from the usual left-wing media is excessive, alarmist, implying if not outright asserting that the QAnon movement is evil and a threat to ‘normal’ Americans. The critics often use the term ‘Gnostic’, not that most people even know what that term means, but it sounds scary to some. It is not gnostic, with a small ‘g’ or a capital ‘G’. If there is anything that is actually gnostic (or Gnostic) in today’s America, it is the New Age Movement, or whatever it currently titles itself. This piece is not the place to go into detail about definitions but to say the QAnons claim to have ‘secret’ or occult religious knowledge is just false. The only ‘secrets’ they seek out are facts evidently being concealed from the public by people in authority. As citizens of a supposed ‘free republic’ we should not have so much concealed from us, the citizenry, and we should not be called ‘gnostic’ or ‘conspiracy theorists’ for seeking to know what is going on in our own country.

Articles like the Christian Post article quote ‘preachers’ or ‘ministers’ who flat-out say that the movement is full of ”liars” and is a ”demonic.” belief system. To use the term demonic so loosely is not reflective of a discerning Christian. A Christian should not be willy-nilly labeling another group of Christians in that fashion; it can only defame fellow Christians as a group, and divide us, when we are already in disarray and beleaguered. It’s bad enough that the unbelieving left (and some of the atheist right) hate Christians but it should not cause Christians to turn on one another.

As far as I’ve observed, Q followers are most often active members of varying Christian denominations, including the usual mainstream churches. To make them out to be scary people who should thus be monitored or denounced is dishonest.

As far as the Q movement fomenting ”conspiracy theories”, especially when leftist media establishment pretends that conspiracies exist only in diseased, ignorant minds, that conpiracies just don’t exist (look up Cass Sunstein’s words on conspiracies) it’s almost laughable that now they have got themselves in a tizzy over QAnons believing in ‘non-existent’ conspiracies. The left might try being consistent, but I forgot; they are never consistent except in being dishonest and malicious.

The media and the weak-tea Christians are now heaping ridicule on QAnons for believing that there are trafficked children being held in captivity, and children being seriously and evilly harmed. The critics act as though this is ridiculous and not at all credible. It just couldn’t happen, so they imply. Well, the media are very efficient at controlling the news flow, and hiding those things that don’t fit their ‘narrative.’ There was a story a few months ago about a large international child-trafficking ring involving thousands of adults on a few continents. Nothing imaginary about it. Then there was the Dutroux story out of Belgium some years ago, involving outwardly respectable people, prominent people, wealthy people. It happens.

Those things do happen. They have happened. Ergo, they are probably happening now; why would they just stop? Why do the leftists act as though anyone who believes they exist is ‘paranoid’ or crazy?

Recently a nice respectable Christian TV personality explained why he would not report stories like those which Q apparently investigates. His excuse was that the subject was too sordid or troubling for many people — and that ”they” (whoever ‘they’ are, presumably TPTB) want us to believe wild stories of captive trafficked children to ”distract us, discredit us, and also to make us look in the other direction’ because they are hiding some ”bigger story” in the political realm. (!) I mean, what should take precedence, children in danger or our perennially corrupt political scene?

To my mind, if there are children in danger (and we have so many missing children out there) we owe it to them to find out if it’s happening, and do all we can for those children. That deserves priority. I think those who want to pretend it does not happen are living in a delusion, and that includes those Christian critics who say QAnons imagine such things.

If we fail to do anything about children possibly in danger or in need of rescue — we will have to answer to Higher Authority if we do nothing. We have a moral duty to do all we can to find out. We cannot in good conscience close our eyes and ears and minds.

The leftists who scoff at the notion of captive children are probably the same people working to legalize things, working for lowering age-of-consent. They have their ulterior motives.

It’s also noticeable that the articles on the Q movement use scare quotes around the phrase Deep State, as if to discredit the term and the idea, as if it has not been discussed frequently in the media. The whole idea seems to be to make the Q people out to be delusional and ‘paranoid’, but going even further, the articles refer to QAnon as ‘demonic’ or ‘satanic.’ This is disgusting; it’s ironic that Satansim, the real thing, is out in the open now, with actual statues in public and Satanic worship going public — and yet a group that is mostly Christian is being smeared with that label?

My main point of disagreement with the Q movement is not the members themselves, who I believe to be well-intentioned and patriotic. I do, however, think they see the world through a rosy, multicult, rainbow lens, where diversity is still our greatest strength, as the propaganda-meisters have assured us. I trace this to ‘Q’ himself, as he does emphasize that we all have to learn to live with everybody else, Tower-of-Babel style. How is this Christian? I believe Q to be a Masonic pied-piper, probably for TPTB who fear that people are slowly rejecting the One World scenario.

I think the Q followers are being naive and trusting to a fault, like most White folk are, and that they are being led up the garden path. But I disagree strongly with the mob that is attacking them in such over-the-top terms.

For more on the trafficking issue.

Is Reed right?

I generally don’t read Fred Reed’s columns but Vox Day linked to this piece by him, written back in late July. In it he offers his conclusions about the future of our country.

I’ve been giving the subject a lot of thought and I tend to see it as Reed does. The current situation is untenable. We cannot maintain the status quo. There is no acceptable (read: Politically Correct) solution to the problem.

Being realistic is exclusively a right-wing trait, so if we on the right don’t see things as they are, who will?

The sincerest form of flattery

It’s been said that ‘Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.’ If so, then the Republicans are doing their best to flatter their Democrat counterparts: playing the ‘we can be diverse, too’ game, and then in the second tweet, using the left’s jeering epithets (“xenophobe”) as a retort to Bette Midler’s petty tweet about Melania Trump’s alleged inability to speak English.

In my opinion there are better ways of responding to Bette Midler’s remarks than by resorting to the name-calling tactic, especially when it’s parroting the left’s disparaging names for ethnopatriots. It makes it appear that the Republicans want to discredit the natural preference for one’s own just as the Democrats do, constantly. It’s just another variation on the inept and ineffective ”the Dems are the REAL racists.’ So now we’ve got two parties competing for the prize: who’s got the most ‘diversity’, and two parties who think that ethnopatriotism is wrong, and worthy of condemnation.

And if the Republicans can’t see the wrong-headedness of this approach, well, we may as well give up.

Dishonoring Dixie

A Texas school district is being criticized (rightfully) for likening police to “slave owners” and KKK members. Whoever these people may be, they are revealing their own lack of factual knowledge, flaunting the fact that they are unfamiliar with the history of the War Between the States and especially with the program called ‘Reconstruction’ in the South. This is shocking because these ‘teachers’ and administrators live in a Southern state — – a Southern state, which was part of the Confederate States of America, and was fully a part of a Southern culture which included Texas.

When the country was torn apart by crusading abolitionists,Texas seceded from the “inviolable” union and joined the Confederacy. The history of the South involves the very touchy issue of slavery, now being used to pillory and punish the South and its heroes and leaders. This, despite the effort, apparently a successful one for a time, to put the troubled history of the War Between the States behind us. Textbooks of the early 20th century appropriately praised men such as Robert E. Lee, and reconciliation was favored, letting ‘bygones be bygones.’ But the present day, for whatever reason, focuses on slandering the South and causing that region and its people to be held up as the worst examples, as bigots and as the very lowest kind of scum; now we have the Confederacy and anyone associated with it banished (removal of Confederate officers’ names from military bases, etc.) and their reputations dragged through the mud. Anyone who owned slaves is subject to vilification: men like Jefferson, with all the lewd-minded rumormongers trying to destroy his name and reputation, or even George Washington.

The wild-eyed fanatic abolitionist/terrorist John Brown has a new generation of admirers, among the antifa types.

“The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted,”

Psalm 12:8

The vilest men are exalted these days, while good mens’ names are smeared. The schools are a big part of this practice. Young people idolize people like Che Guevara, Mandela, Rosa Luxemburg.

The educators, the vast majority of whom — even in once-conservative Texas — are leftists — obviously think traditional heroes are the ‘vilest’, while they cheer on the antifa, today’s equivalent of yesterday’s anarchists and Jacobins.

Those whose job is supposedly to educate the young minds of Texas have no inkling of the history of that state, or else they do know true history and are deliberately misinforming their students.

I don’t know which is true. I know there are now a couple of generations of ‘educators’ who teach a politically correct version of history; teachers are heavily propagandized while in college, as is everyone else, and the consensus seems to be that the ”narrative” and the wish to avoid hurting someone’s feelings is more important, by far, than teaching verifiable facts and Truth. Lying has become a virtue. The more people lie, the more politically correct they are, and PC must be served above all.

So the people in the Texas schools are teaching that police officers are on a moral level with ”slave owners’ and ‘KKK members.’ My objection to this is that they are deliberately equating “slave owners”, the latter group including many of our Founding Fathers, with “nazis” as the very worst sort of people, as a group which is utterly evil. Actually in the left’s worldview, the most egregious kind of evil is having the wrong views on anything to do with HBD or ethnic/racial differences. If someone fails to show appropriate deference toward the favored victim group, then that person is ‘vile’ (the word they prefer for such offenders) and not worthy of life.

Despite the widespread ignorance on anything to do with these issues, everybody is willing to condemn the heretics who don’t toe the line on differences between peoples.
People from the South are under scrutiny and judgement because of the North-South conflict. Leftist Northerners want to position themselves as the heroes of the melodrama, while the Southron has to ‘answer for’ what our ancestors supposedly did. In a very short time, everything to do with the South is being almost criminalized, made fair game,

Why don’t these maleducated educators just openly say that the Founding Fathers were the dregs of society; that is what they seem to believe all of a sudden in 2020. Not so very long ago the majority of Americans accepted that the Confederates were not monsters or scum; they were decent and honorable men. They certainly behaved more honorably in the course of the War than the other side, but the Union soldiers are being lionized for being pro-black and pro-abolition. Everything today must be seen only through the racial prism, and only through the eyes of blacks. In order to uphold the pro-black narrative it’s necessary to make the Confederates double-dyed villains. This is morally wrong especially after there was an official effort to ‘rehabilitate’ the CSA veterans in the past, and to bring about reconciliation and ‘closure.’ Now that’s being undone. Now it appears there is another round of punishment for the South and a revival of the overheated rhetoric about ‘traitors’ who ripped apart the hallowed Union.

The truth about those ‘societies’ which all the Respectable people learn to condemn is that they were self-defense groups, which were a means to protect the disenfranchised and beleaguered Whites in the South. The occupying Reconstruction ‘governments’ in the South included many people who were illiterate and uninformed, and people who harbored grudges and vengeful attitudes. Reconstruction, despite its name, was all about destruction, and it’s continuing these many years later.

As for the blanket condemnations of slave owners — like George Washington for example — do they have the nerve to sling mud at him because of his being involved in the ‘Peculiar Institution’? And does anybody acknowledge that slave owners were not always fiends who abused their servants? It’s best not to learn history from paperback novels or TV shows (like Roots).

And what about the people mentioned in the Bible who owned bond-servants / slaves? Soon I expect their names to be smeared and slandered because of our modern obsession with punishing “crimes” of the past.

I don’t know who is behind this apparent effort to stir up old regional and racial animosities, but in an already conflict-ridden society it’s downright immoral and reckless to do that.But it appears the powers-that-be want to instill in Southrons shame and disgust towards our Confederate ancestors, because they’ve been pronounced evil according to today’s misguided Politically Correct standards.

The uniparty’s false narratives

I still wonder why people on the right think it’s a good strategy to call the left That Word. I see that AG Barr is using that tactic now.

“And people talk about implicit racism or systemic racism,” said Barr during an Aug. 13 interview on Hannity. “The racism in this country, look no further than our public education system.”

“That’s a racist system, maintained by the Democratic Party and the teachers union,” he said, “keeping inner-city kids in failing schools, instead of putting the resources in the hands of the parents to choose the schools to send their kids to.”

It appears he is saying that the Democrats are ‘keeping black students down’ by deliberately assuring that they don’t get a good education — and saying that it’s because the Democrats discriminate against blacks. Well, that’s a hard idea to sell when so many of the Congress-persons are black or otherwise ‘of color’, particularly in areas with many black students. Do the Republicans who make these charges, like Barr and a lot of others, really think that the black representatives are discriminating against their own people? As he isn’t specific, he leaves open the possibility that black teachers also are keeping their students down. Schools with many black students are also likely to have more black teachers, because that was always an accusation made by blacks: that White teachers could not educate black students because of prejudice and because of different cultures.

It sounds just hollow to me when White politicians or other public figures make these charges of bias or racism. Even though many of the educators in these schools are not White, the general public who know no better assume that it is always White people controlling schools, and Whites who are guilty of keeping black students back or keeping them ‘down.’

I don’t believe that the Educational unions, bad as they are (because so left-wing) are intent on preventing black students from succeeding. I think that Barr and others who make similar charges for political points (with whom?) are being disingenuous or shall I say dishonest.

If people self-censor in discounting innate differences in academic ability, they have no choice but to fall back on ‘discrimination’ to explain outcomes.

I don’t see any evidence that funding for sending students to an expensive private school would change academic outcomes much. That’s been tried with a number of “elite”, sometimes all-black schools here and there, supposedly to enable struggling students to learn. The result? These schools have drawn their share of critics many of them black. Black activists are opposing these schools for various reasons.

…there’s some evidence they expel students at a higher rate than traditional public schools. It’s of particular concern to minority students, who—along with students with disabilities—face more expulsions in general. Similar to traditional public schools, black students are four times more likely than white students to be suspended from charters, according to analysis last year by the University of California.


People on the right who use the ‘r-word’ to denigrate political opponents are no better when it comes to that issue than the Democrats; both are being manipulative by pointing the finger at one another, and perpetuating the belief in the widespread prevalence of ‘hate’ towards certain groups. This only increases resentments and grievances, and guess who is always judged to be the offender, the cause of all the conflicts and problems?

It not only increases resentments and misunderstandings but it increases the number of times we have to hear the ‘r-word’ and listen to more media screeds on ‘hate’. Thanks, Republicans and faux-rightists, for adding more to the total.

“Right-wingers” who play this game are engaging in virtue signalling. They are trying to convince nonwhites that ‘other Whites are guilty, but not me; I’m your friend so I am warning you about those badwhites out there who don’t like you.’

They are sending signals that they are full of tender concern for people they seem to see as helpless, while simultaneously implying that they don’t care about their own folk. They’ve succeeded in convincing me that the latter part is true.

It’s virtue signalling, and should be called as such, but it seems like at least half of the Republicans are willing to stoop to this, and the other half won’t call them out on it. Maybe the offenders just don’t ‘get it’. So they hang onto this kind of cheap tactic.

Conspicuous compassion

One of the identifying traits of “liberals” or progressives is their conspicuous claim to ”compassion” toward certain groups that are called downtrodden or oppressed. In the Left’s cult, those classed as ‘poor’ are one of the left’s certified victims, and it helps that numbers of POCs are classed as ‘poor’, because the POCs make up the largest contingents of beneficiaries of the left’s alleged compassion.

Young white people, themselves often of middle- to upper-class origins, sometimes play the ‘conspicuous compassion’ role to the hilt, maybe because of guilt over their ‘White privilege’.

Most of us have been taught that giving to charity is a good thing, a worthy thing. But nowadays is charity money actually going to help the truly needy people, or is it being distributed according to the racial spoils system more often than not? When people want to show off their superior compassion, they are often prone give to those POCs, who are higher in the PC pecking order, rather than to those who demonstrably need it. And certain people are more likely to be fawned over and favored.

But is a poor person, whoever they may be, automatically heroic or superior to the middle-class or the upper class?

I know that egalitarian-minded Americans disavow a ‘class system’ and if they do acknowledge it, they are outraged that it exists, but the rest of us know equality is a myth in any case. As to poor people, are they necessarily victims of a heartless, greedy society, as the left frames it?

I read a quote posted online by a very left-wing young woman. It was a quote whose author I don’t recall; someone I’ve never heard of. The gist of the quote was the profession of the author to ”always take the side of the poor and needy” or of ‘those who have no money and are not allowed to enjoy what they do possess”.

Very touching. But so often these kinds of peoples who play the part of the soul of compassion and ”caring” are often people who have considerable creature-comforts and resources. Their public pose is often belied by the way they live their lives.

But back to my question as to whether the poor are always helpless victims — in some cases, yes — but are there not people whose irresponsibility and profligate habits leave them in poverty, or prevent them from escaping it?

In earlier times, those in charge of dispensing charity usually looked at the circumstances: did the person in need create his own problems by irresponsibility, recklessness, idleness, or by bad habits like excessive drinking? Those who drank or drugged themselves into poverty were classed as “the vicious poor“. That term didn’t mean that they were cruel or dangerous; ‘vicious’ then meant ‘having vices‘. Such people were not absolved of guilt in creating their own problems, or for neglecting their children and their homes in favor of enjoying their vices.

There were the ‘deserving poor‘, meaning obviously that some people were poor through no definite fault of their own. There are such people today, those whose businesses and livelihoods have been shut down or even destroyed by recent events beyond the control of most of us. Those people deserve compassion.

Still, the left, with their play-acted ‘bleeding heart’ ways, insist on their conspicuous compassion towards POCs exclusively. There have been lots of young people outside the U.S.A. asking how they can contribute (in money or in kind) towards the cause of a certain groups which has been in the news daily. Never mind that this particular organization has been funded to the tune of billions of dollars by these insane corporate donors, who apparently have far more money than they know what to do with. No; billions are not enough. More is needed, and these deluded young people in far-off countries want to pay their share of the tribute, adding it to the billions.

People should be made aware that there are poor people amongst our own, and that many of them are being forgotten in favor of the politically correct victims du jour.

One final point: a lot of Christians will say that the Bible teaches us to favor the poor always, because they are poor. And today, many would say it was doubly true that we should favor POCs. But the Bible tells us “…[T]hou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty“. Not all the poor are saintly and innocent, and not all the ‘mighty’ are villains. As it is, we are wrongly ‘respecting the persons’ of whole groups of people when we are warned not to do so.

Media ‘concern’ about Q

The media have become concerned — putting it mildly — with the QAnon group, and they are identifying the people who follow Q as a dangerous cult, and as a conspiracy.

I’ve been slightly critical of the Q movement here on this blog, but I think the media are overreacting, hoping to gin up some kind of fear of the Q group, creating a pretext for suppressing it.

The CNN article quotes someone called a “disinformation researcher” warns about the dangers of the QAnon movement:

On Twitter Thursday morning, disinformation researcher Molly McKew argued that TV news “is not doing a good job covering this corrosive conspiracy or explaining it. You can’t just call it insane. That doesn’t explain why it is cognitive cancer.”
So I asked her to elaborate. Here’s what she wrote to me: “QAnon offers its adherents an addictive alternative reality that requires their participation and, through this participation, draws them into the elaborate architecture of the conspiracy. It exploits the sense that something is broken in our society. But rather than focus on understanding these social fractures and healing them, QAnon instead fixates on the pursuit of enemies and villains described in such extreme terms that any action — either by adherents or by identified champions like President Trump —becomes justifiable. By drawing on the culture and value system, Q adherents have justified violent attacks.”

So they are worried about the Q people potentially “justifying violent attacks”?

Hello? There are groups of people roaming some of our cities and towns, and actually attacking people — and the name by which they are known is not ‘QAnon’, but political correctness gives those groups carte blanche to burn buildings, threaten and harm people, and take over whole city blocks — with no consequences. And CNN et al are lying awake at nights for fear of the QAnons.

Leave it to the media to point in the wrong direction when looking for ‘danger.’ The left has a history of stirring up fear of phantom bogeymen such as the elusive neo-Nazis, or the imaginary men in white sheets and hoods. Or ‘militias’ who were supposedly everywhere back in the 1990s. The left has a lot of imagination; I give them that.

In contrast to the left and their panic over invisible villains, Joe McCarthy was dismissed as a ‘paranoiac’ who imagined the supposedly non-existent threat of Communism. Today’s monopolistic media and the whole coordinated apparatus of control is proof that McCarthy had it right; while he was being shouted down and pushed out of public life, the ‘long march through the institutions’ was going on, and CNN et al are visible proof.

You might ask: what do I know about the Q movement? I am not a follower, but I have been observing by reading the sites, watching their YouTube channel and following their ‘chat’. I’ve spent many an hour doing that out of curiosity, learning from the conversation and the guests, who are interesting and informative. There are a lot of ways in which the Q movement is not that far off from what the dissident right thinks or believes, though there is not an ‘ideology’ as such. There is a range of opinions, but most of the Q people are very loyal to the elusive ‘Q’ and eagerly read and dissect his ‘drops’. Of course most followers are also very loyal to the POTUS.

Are the Q Patriots a threat or a danger? Rest easy, lefties. The Q movement does have some quirky obsessions (like the idea that JFK Jr. is still alive and in disguise, or the ‘Ten Days of Darkness’) but most importantly they are not “racists” as that seems to be considered the most heinous and shocking offense most people can imagine these days. So they are not outside the acceptable limits of ”racial orthodoxy”. The phrase ‘patriots don’t see race’ is a popular phrase, and they seem very concerned about the well-being of black people; isn’t that the highest virtue for most people, at least on the left and in the middle, politically?

In fact, this is my biggest issue with the Q movement; if they succeed in becoming more influential in politics and society (and it may happen), it would represent a slight swing to the ‘right’ but their brand of ‘conservatism’ is decidedly watered down. They believe in the Second Amendment but they also believe in MLK, the Civil Rights revolution, and a multicultural, polyglot, multiracial America where everyone will live side by side in harmony, and blacks will no longer be on the ‘Democrat plantation.’ They are civic-Americans. I won’t say they are ‘civic nationalists’ as I have been saying, because people cannot be nationalist and multiculturalists at the same time; there is no nation where there is so little homogeneity.

As for Q himself (if Q is just one person, or a group, I am unsure) — he seems to lean heavily on the ideas of Freemasonry, and he uses a lot of telltale phrases and verbiage that are linked to Freemasonry. For example, heavily emphasizing ‘unity’ and avoiding ‘divisiveness’ (no ethnoloyalty or religious differences), shunning “dogma” and “traditions” and embracing ‘Freethought’. Look it up. It’s all very much in the Masonic catechism if I may use that word.

The influential New Age writer and ‘channeler’ Alice Bailey wrote in some of her many books of how Freemasons would play a significant role in the coming ‘one world’ system. And I believe she wrote those books before the existence of our present-day globalist apparatus.

I find it plausible that Q is not simply a ”patriot” but is working towards some agenda; I am not so overconfident as to guess just what the purpose is. It may be, as some familiar with Q are saying, that at worst Q is just trying to buy time for the President to accomplish some things. I don’t think he is as sinister or that the Q followers are ‘dangerous’ conspiracy theorists. For the most part I think they are well-intentioned and justifiably alarmed about the insanity and chaos that is growing around us, in our cities especially. Anybody who is not alarmed, or at least very concerned, is more likely one of the crazy ones. How can one be indifferent to what is happening around us? I suppose only the Left is capable of getting things so wrong.

So Q, if it is an individual or a group, is likely connected to Freemasonry — which is usually defended by members or families of members as harmless or benevolent — but given any choice I would choose not to live in a system run by Freemasons, with their secretive history and their ideas about a Babel-like multicultural society in which differences are all blended away so as to have a forced ”unity.” It sounds a little too much like the present system. More of the same.

From the past

From the vantage point of sometime last century, Lothrop Stoddard describes some of today’s people:

“In all these social revolutionary phenomena there is nothing essentially novel. There is always the same violent revolt of the unadaptable, inferior, and degenerate elements against civilized society, in atavistic reaction to lower planes; the same hatred of superiors and fierce desire for absolute equality; finally, the same tendency of revolutionary leaders to become tyrants and to transform anarchy into barbarous despotism.”

Thomas Lothrop Stoddard

Digging up skeletons

I see that somebody (undoubtedly one of those ‘DR3’ zealots) has dug up something indicating that some of Biden’s ancestors were slaveholders. I saw this story on a “conservative” blog.

Does this mean that from now on the DR3 so-called conservatives are going to pore over genealogy sources looking for evidence that Democrats had naughty slave-holding ancestors, to ensure that they can disqualify such people from office-holding?

Honestly, is this a good precedent to set, for any ”conservatives” to follow, to emulate? Is it?

We had to watch, helplessly, while a lot of vandals tore down statuary, defacing them with ugly graffiti, and smashing them? The left wants to deface and destroy even the images of our heroes, especially those who participated in the ‘peculiar institution’. Now that ”conservatives” have decided that they want to follow the footsteps of the left and destroy those who trespass against the PC gods it looks as though they are joining forces by targeting some of the same people for destruction.

And do we now believe that the descendants of someone guilty of a PC transgression are to be held responsible, and made to bear blame for it? How can today’s people be blamed for what happened generations ago?

Maybe we should investigate every office-seekers’ ancestry to see what we can find. It’s an old cliche that everybody has a few horse thieves in their family tree. Do horse thieves count? I suppose the ultimate crime nowadays is being ‘racist’ or one’s ancestors owning slaves. If today’s rules and standards prevailed back then, we would never have had many of our best Presidents and other leaders, who are now condemned for practices that were not illegal or necessarily immoral then. But it seems we can retroactively criminalize people, because the issue at the center of it is now the most heinous and evil of crimes. So they say.

Those people who are always trying to point a finger at someone’s hidden ‘racist’ ancestry are as bad — no, worse, because they should know better — worse than the rabid left who are always creating a hue and cry, pursuing the ”real racists.”

We don’t need two political parties who police everybody for PC offenses. Antiracism is not a valid religion, yet both parties seem under that delusion.

If someone in public life has a hidden record of illegal or criminal habits, by all means, we need to know that and such people should not hold office. But this business of character assassination based on people having slaveholders in their family tree is just wrong; worse, it invites more such behavior on the part of the right, who used to be more principled (once upon a time) than the moral derelicts on the other side.