Was the WBTS ‘Treason’?

I have been hearing or reading more comments (especially from the young, who’ve been taught so much false history, that the South was guilty of ‘treason’ when they seceded and fought against the North. To most young people who have been fed the PC party line, slavery was ‘a terrible evil’ and therefore, I guess, the Southern cause was illegitimate. Whatever. But this kind of view of the WBTS is catching on among those who can’t or won’t read, and use discernment in their sources.

Kudos, though, to those Freepers in this discussion who can see the obvious fact that the WBTS was not ”treason”. Why? Because the South was not seeking to overthrow or subvert the D.C. government, nor were they trying to destroy the system. They merely wanted out, just as our original Founding Fathers did when they announced their determination to govern themselves and not be governed by people who were in fact denying their basic rights.

Our own founding documents stated this, almost 100 years before the South seceded. What kind of ‘free country’ will let a state be admitted to the Union but will never let a state out, or in fact, will wage total war (as Sherman did) to guarantee that those wanting to secede are kept by force?

There is a world of difference there. The South did not want to rule over the Northerners and impose their views of government on them, though the opposite was most definitely the case. Think about it; the North wanted to impose their absolute worldview on the South. The devastation of the South would not have happened, if they had just been allowed to leave and go their own way. The South had one way of life and the North a much different one. Only one side wanted to force an unwilling populace to agree to things which were antithetical to their own ways. You can force people to toe your line, but then you have a subject people who obey and conform reluctantly and resentfully.

No, the South was not guilty of ‘treason’, not collectively nor individually.

As to the definition of treason under U.S. Law, it seems there are lots of people who have committed treason and faced no consequences. A certain ex-president, for example:

“Treason requires overt acts such as giving sensitive government security secrets to other countries, even if such countries are not enemies. Treason can include spying on behalf of a foreign power or divulging military secrets.”

Interestingly, of the convicted:

“There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.”

John Brown, abolitionist extraordinaire, and inspiring hero of some Antifas — I understand there is or was a ‘John Brown Brigade’ among leftist admirers. Lots of people are still in sympathy with his kind of cause. That’s the spirit of our times, whether we realize it or not. Unless the PC lies about the WBTS stop, soon everybody will believe the John Brown version of history.

A misguided plan

Feeling as though I was the odd one out on the question of Trump’s ‘Platinum Plan’, his $500 billion package for America’s oppressed, I felt more vindicated when reading this analysis of it at VDare. It was written by ‘Washington Watcher II‘ and I think his take is accurate, rather than that of the perpetual apologists who have endless excuses for defending the Platinum Plan.

The writer of the piece, incidentally, refers to the plan as “Javanka’s.” That may well be the case. It is curious that, formerly, commenters online blamed whatever they did not like in Trump’s policies on Jared Kushner, aka President Kushner. Somehow nobody has so far blamed Kushner for this particular plan. I suppose that would be because somehow they like it, and see it as politically shrewd if not fiscally sound. The idea, I have been told, is to ‘beat the liberals to it’, to pre-emptively give this generous ‘aid package’ to the Community so as to do it first, and steal the left’s thunder.

That seems to me to be a rather convoluted argument for this thing, but realizing I am in the minority as to my opinion, I just have to resign myself to being “wrong” on this, even among people on the ‘right’. But then that’s nothing new for me.

Washington Watcher II points out some problems with the plan:

“But problems abound:

“Infrastructure investment of $500 billion in black communities, aiming to create 3 million new jobs, and 500,000 black-owned businesses. As part of a general economic plan that would benefit all Americans, that wouldn’t be so bad. But this is a pledge intended only for blacks. Is this legal?

“Home ownership opportunities” a daft idea from George W. Bush, which contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis because blacks and other minorities received home loans they could not afford.

“Criminal justice reforms” to reaffirm Jared Kushner’s First Step Act, which sprung hundreds of violent offenders and drug dealers from prison. It includes “a National Clemency Program to unite families and invest in human potential, focusing on wrongful prosecution and rehabilitation,” more “diversity training” for cops and incentives to hire ex-cons.”

And then we get to what I consider moral issues, issues of truth vs. falsehoods and slanders: the implied moral equivalency between Antifa and the Southern ‘secret societies’ of the Reconstruction Era.

“Its designation of Antifa as a “Terror Group” is all well and good—and obvious to anyone but someone like Son-In-Law In Chief Jared Kushner — but why lump these communist revolutionaries, who with Black Lives Matter are setting American cities aflame, with the virtually non-existent (except for FBI infiltrators) KKK?”

VDare.com, 9/27/2020

The Antifas et al are made up, apparently, by hard-core criminal types, people with no compunctions about defying all law and authority, and no inhibitions about harming innocent people. By contrast, the so-called ‘terrorists’ of the Reconstruction Era South were, in the early days, recruited from former CSA Army Officers who had to have records of honorable service. They were Christian men, not riff-raff like today’s ”activists.” Lumping the two groups together is dishonest and misleading, only furthering the false image that the 1800s era self-defense groups (who could not operate openly) were criminals and ”terrorists”. People should inform themselves by reading old books and materials to be able to understand, and few people have done that, or will do it, so the false images are the ones that people are buying, and thus they are making wrong judgments.

There is now no ‘Klan’ to speak of, not anymore, and the article also says as much.

But the image of the history of the South is being distorted and misrepresented. Maybe Trump himself does not know the real history, and probably will not ever. Maybe he believes the canards and myths which make the South and its people perpetual villains. After all, in our country, black people are put on a pedestal as being innocent victms of evil oppressors, and we all know who those oppressors are. Is everyone really OK with being the eternal heavy in this narrative? Seriously?

I am unhappy with the lack of a truthful narrative here; I perceive it as an injustice which I find intolerable. Maybe it’s just me; maybe I should just shrug it off, but something in me won’t let me do that. It may be that no one will hear what I have to say, but nonetheless I have to say it, and keep faith with my forefathers. Only then can I feel I’ve done my duty.

Truth matters, even though we live in the Age of the Lie. It matters more now than ever.

So, let those who want to condescend to their perpetual ‘clients’ work out their paternalistic and maternalistic compulsions, and do their social work to assuage their consciences about their ‘racist’ guilt. But I want the truth to be known about what really happened in those bygone days. It was not like some simplistic, fatuous Hollywood movie with a cloying antiracist moral, and not like one of those movies with a White villain who gets his just deserts. Life is not even figuratively ‘black and white’, but more complex than that.

Our ancestors were not monsters who inflicted violence on people “just because of the color of their skin.” That last phrase, so often ignorantly invoked as being a description of ‘racism’, should be laughed at and derided; has anyone ever persecuted or attacked people just based on their complexion or skin color? No. Now what was it that someone said about judging by content of character? Behavior just might have had more to do with it, but we can’t say that, can we, lest we bring trouble on ourselves.

Honesty’s all out of fashion“, as an old English song said.

The Platinum Plan will no doubt go ahead regardless of a few people who dislike it, people like me. But the moral equivalency, and the misrepresentation of long-dead people’s character and motives and actions — that must be corrected; those who care will have to speak up for the truth.

Courting the Community

I knew that the President was courting the black and Hispanic vote heavily; he did that in the 2016 campaign. But his latest effort, the Platinum Plan, really ups the ante: 500 billion offered to the ”community”.

This shows where his priorities are. And it appears that he has less interest in the majority population than in wooing the coy “communities” who are always needing to be courted and bribed to vote for anybody other than the Democrats.

The last blog discussion I read about this situation amounted to a lot of the tired old excuses, mainly the ‘we have no choice’ argument. As I am becoming less and less a believer in the efficacy of voting, especially as we have no one who represents us, I am not swayed by that half-hearted excuse.

The other excuse I’ve heard is also a tattered, tired one: ‘Politicians HAVE to do those things, they HAVE to buy votes; all of them do it, all presidents have done it’, etc. etc. I wonder if that was the expectation of the Founding Fathers when they set up our system? George Washington et al were opposed to the very idea of political parties and ‘factions.’ When we have two parties steeped and marinated in corruption then I’d say we’ve failed somewhere. Yet it seems everyone is resigned to this system and lack the will to change things. Apparently we have to stay in this runaway vehicle which can only go in one direction, without brakes.

Am I too idealistic in wishing that this pandering ‘need’ could just be rejected? What would be the repercussions if somebody in power just refused? ‘Just say no’. Instead — well, if you haven’t read about what this ‘package’ promises, you can see it here.

Notice that Antifa is (again) supposedly to be labeled a ‘terrorist organization’ (Trump promised that some time ago), and notice that the klan will also be labeled that way. By the way, I presume they must have found a half a dozen or so klan ‘terrorists’ somewhere, although I haven’t read of any activity on their part. And you can bet that if they were terrorizing anyone (as the Antifa so obviously are) we would be reading about it in every newspaper and hearing about it on Fox News and everywhere else. But there have been no news stories about them.

There are no Klan terrorists these days. As Hunter Wallace has said, there are none in 2020. The Klan of the 1950s I have heard little about, and that of the era of President Wilson was not an outlaw organization; they paraded legally through Washington D.C. and were greeted by Woodrow Wilson, hardly a ‘right-wing’ president.

The original organization was part of Reconstruction. It demonstrably saved lives of unarmed civilians who did no harm, but themselves needed help. No one seems to ”get” this part of history; instead it’s been criminalized and those in power now are intent on spreading erroneous ‘history’. This is wrong.

Will I bring trouble on myself by speaking the truth about this? It’s sad when the truth gets one in trouble with those in authority. But that’s the world we live in in 2020.

So did the President ‘have to’ promise to take action against the phantom ‘white supremacists’ to placate the ‘communities’? Looks that way. Prosecute non-existent White terrorists to make it ”fair”. Last I read, one of those klan groups in Florida was made up of, well, government employees, agents.

As I also heard, a ‘lynch law’ is included in this package. Does anyone remember the Carter Strange case, several years back? A teenaged White boy was savagely assaulted in a parking lot at night by eight ‘youths’. Surprisingly they were charged under the state’s lynch laws — and lynching does not always mean hanging or killing — nor need it be White-on-black, as many people falsely believe:

“Four members of the gang were charged under South Carolina’s old lynching law for the vicious beating, which left Carter Strange so badly injured he required facial reconstruction surgery.”

But who knows? What with the lopsided system I wouldn’t be surprised if someone amended those laws eventually so that only one side can be guilty of the crime, and only one kind of ‘victim’ can be protected.

What I see in the whole situation with the President’s efforts is that he is thoroughly a ‘civnat’ (which we have known since the 2016 campaign), and that he believes 100 percent in America as a multicultural, multiracial, diverse and inclusive nation in which we have token beliefs in ‘equality’ but in which some are more equal than others.

And it looks like there is no way of altering the course toward a globalist system, because it’s a necessary step on the way to the One World Utopia.

And as for the present situation, as my black sociology teacher in college said, ‘the squeaky wheel gets the grease’,— or the $500 billion as the case may be.


Every day, what with all perpetual noice about ”racism”‘, White people are, explicitly or implicitly, accused of ”hating” others, specifically those of other ethnicities or races. The fact is, let’s admit it: we do hate a lot of people if you look at the numerous different types of peoples despised by individuals. Oddly — or not — most of the people who are the targets of our animus and loathing are people of our own kind.

A lot of us, even people on the ‘right’, express loathing of America and Americans, aka ‘Murkans’. Lots of Americans show contempt for the Founding generations, who were apparently far less intelligent and sensible than the present-day citizens of this country. Today’s Americans, it seems, would have written a much better Constitution and could have conceived a much better country than what we had.

Oh, and ‘Southrons ‘shoulda picked their own cotton‘, because if they had, we would not have today’s crises. At all. At least, so I’ve heard, many times.

P.S.:the colonial settlers tried picking their own cotton; how else did they get it done in the early days? Trouble was, many of the colonists, being pale-skinned and acclimated only to a cool, damp climate, died of heat stroke while picking cotton or other crops in hot, humid Southeastern colonies. Malaria was rife. Seeing as their numbers were already diminished by plagues, famine, and Indian massacres — well, they ‘coulda picked their own cotton‘ and thus gone extinct. I, for one, would not be here to write this, nor would some of my readers.

What would the know-it-alls have done?

Hindsight, remember, is 20/20.

All right. America haters, and American haters. It’s popular these days.
Haters of the South: stereotypes about Southrons being toothless mouth-breathing yokels — while in fact many were far more educated and cultured than their Northern counterparts. Now wait: nobody take offense; I won’t insult my own ancestors, who included settlers in both Northern and Southern colonies, and who represented various places in England.

Speaking of the English, let’s remember the Anglophobes, seen a lot in certain places on the Internet.

The English/British colonists, overall, were a well-educated set of people. Later immigrants, by contrast, were in many cases illiterate in their own languages and of course they often knew no English. England sent some of its best people here, and that includeds the Yankee settlers of New England, who were mostly yeoman farmers.

And let’s not forget that being of the upper classes is a cause for disdain to many Americans of today who resent and envy any aristocracy, or a class structure of any kind. Look at all the opprobrium that is directed at the Windsors — of whom I am no particular fan, but just because one dislikes the Windsors, that doesn’t constitute a reason for hating all royalty.

Many Americans dislike America, its people, its system (meant only for a ‘moral and religious people‘, remember, so it doesn’t fit us anymore). And speaking of ‘religious’, there is no shortage of bitter anti-Christian Americans, and now we’ve even got avowed satanists coming out in the open with their anti-Christian venom.

But often Christians strongly dislike those of other Christian denominations; read some of the threads, if you can find them since Facebook started censoring — of Kinists who are called all sorts of names by ‘mainstream’ Christians. Then there are the Protestant-Catholic disputes which get very heated, more so now than years ago, I think.

I find that one of the least respected forms of Christianity is CI. Everybody feels free to ridicule or dismiss or argue it down. Even if they know nothing about it.

I think it’s because they want to be able to link it to Judaism, and to dismiss both with one condemnation. Whereas the two religions are not tied together.

People like me, who follow some type of the old-time religion, like that of my grandmother’s generation, are derided as ‘fundies’ who are narrow-minded, ignorant, and fanatical. No use protesting that; nobody listens to argument or facts or sense or logic. Or very few people do. Very few.

It goes without saying that the left hates, in the deepest sense of the word, anybody of right-leaning inclinations, and they’ve proven that they have no qualms about taking lives of those who disagree with their unhinged brand of politics.

Let’s not forget that the sexes are at odds, with some extremists on both sides hating the opposite sex, which escalates things constantly. Nothing good can come of it; ethnicities and races can live apart from each other — although our government wants to ban that, and force the opposite, to make intermingling a must; we are not to have freedom to associate with whom we choose, despite it being one of the rights in our Bill of Rights.

Who hates whom in this situation? It appears ‘our’ government hates somebody in order to want to control our lives to that degree.

Again, most of the ‘hating’ of which we are guilty is against those of our own folk and fold. Most of it is not directed at ‘Others’ despite our being accused of hating Others. In fact White Americans seem to overcompensate massively towards, let’s say, ‘kissing up’ to those groups who most dislike us. Is it virtue signalling, or is it a ‘survival mechanism’ of appeasing? Whatever the motive it is way out of hand, and it’s a form of living a lie.

But it’s forbidden to even be annoyed, much less to ‘hate’ the Protected Groups. So we re-direct our hate towards those toward whom it is allowed to be hateful and scathing.

Who would that be? Who’s lowest on the totem pole of social esteem?
Old people. A British website recently published a piece called ‘Respect Your Elders’ because this peculiar trend has caught on in Britain. Oldies are stupid, fat ugly, worthless and they Stole My Inheritance and Gave Away My Country, It isn’t Fair’, etc.

The Bible calls for capital punishment for those cursing their parents. But oh well. Scapegoating.; ever- popular, useful, but especially so in this 21st century.

We all have some individuals, or even some groups, for whom we have some kind of gut-level antipathy. It’s spontaneous, not something subject to our control. But hating our own flesh and blood is in a class by itself. It’s not like disliking a stranger. It’s easier to dislike someone about whom we know nothing and with whom we have few commonalities, so why is it currently so easy to loathe our own?

At the same time, the Big Brother/Big Sister apparatchiks whose role seems to be lecturing, hectoring, accusing, monitoring, and gaslighting tell us that it is a ‘crime’ to have unapproved ‘bad’ feelings towards specific Others, as they actively incite and knowingly stir up feelings of anger and loathing on the part of said Others leading them to scapegoat us for their dissatisfaction and feelings of ‘persecution.’

Is there even a possibility that we stop scapegoating and directing all our antipathies toward our own kind, or am I alone in this wish? Q keeps harping on the dire need for ‘unity’ but we can’t unify with the whole planet, though some would wish to force that. “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” And civic or political unity is not sufficient to bond with others.

The fact is we have very real enemies out there, and an existential threat, yet so many of us are aligning themselves with those who despise us openly, hoping to show their goodwill, or hoping to be ‘et by the alligator last’, so they hope.

We can’t go on assuming responsibility for those outside our fold; we are not Santa or the World’s nanny; we are not responsible for trying to fix dysfunctional ‘communities’ nor should we assume guilt for their problems. We first have to learn to recognize those who are ours first, and put aside the useless animosity.

The ‘real haters’

Some Republicans and ‘conservatives’ can’t help themselves; they have a compulsion to call the left “the real racists”. It’s never been known to have the desired effect; it goes in one ear and out the other, with the left.

Regardless of whether the Democrats are the ”real racists” or fake racists or any other kind, they are the real haters. They relish hating others. And I include not just the White left but their clients and mascots and partners-in-mayhem.

It is, however, simultaneously pathetic and disgusting when White white people seem to hate other Whites. It’s disgusting because it is not natural for people to hate their own flesh and blood, their kindred. But this attitude is widespread, or it seems to be. It’s especially noticeable in large groups, like at public events. But is it genuine or faked? Often it seems to be a cowardly reaction: out of fear of being seen as less than amicable towards those of other races. I’ve noticed how at say, comedy performances where a black ‘comedian’ is ridiculing or defaming Whites, the white audience will laugh harder, so as to appease or to seem compliant and ‘able to take a joke’ And of course we’re assured it is all just a joke, all in good fun and we have to display our sense of humor, our ability to be a ‘good sport’.

Was the BBC audience in this news story displaying a healthy sense of humor in the situation? Sophie Duker, the alleged comedian, on the Frankie Boyle New World Order (!) show, “joked” about ‘killing Whitey.’ Would that kind of speech be allowed if the comedian was White (Duker is black, of course) ? Of course the question is rhetorical.

There was reportedly some outrage from viewers, and that’s a good sign, I suppose, though nothing will change. White performers who know the offender came to her defense, predictably. What was it that the poet Robert Frost supposedly said — that a liberal is someone who won’t take his own side in an argument?

But this attitude on the part of Whites has been developing for a long time. Back in 1998, Bill Clinton, in a commencement speech, said that by 2040, Whites would be a minority. The reaction of the audience was applause and cheering. Apparently our demise causes hilarity, though I don’t get the ‘joke.’

I still say it’s unnatural, though people have been conditioned or manipulated into these behaviors.

It seems that the hatred that’s been directed towards us has become internalized, and some deluded ‘whites’ think they are somehow better for playing along and laughing at their own dispossession and debasement.

The BBC is disgraceful for promoting this kind of thing, and it’s not a good sign that White people even consume this toxic and malicious propaganda.

And they is us — it seems

Chris Wray’s recent remarks, confuse the reader. For example his saying that Anti-fa were not a ‘group’ but they were a ‘movement’ — can a ‘movement’ mean an un-organized group? He says it is not a ‘group.’ He says it IS an ideology. So much hair-splitting.

It is obviously a coordinated group, as seen in the current arson (no, NOT climate-change) spree in the West. There have been tweets and communications between these supposed Lone Wolf ”activists” indicating that they are working systematically. These have been made public, and no denial from ‘official sources’ will convince me otherwise.

The alleged ‘authorities’ who deny and who sit on their hands, refusing to act against the obvious violence, should stop worrying about some phantom ‘systemic racism. Instead they ought to look at where the real danger is: it’s in these corporate-funded, government-protected ‘activists’ who so far have been insulated from any consequences, other than being booked and released in quick succession.

The slippery answers from the officials about Antifa were purposely obfuscated; the following, however, was plain enough — though not credible.

“The FBI director said racially motivated violent extremists, such as white supremacists, have been responsible for the most lethal attacks in the U.S. in recent years.”

apnews, 18 September, 2020

Who? Where? How? Names? How many lives were taken by these ‘supremacists’?

Proof? Facts? Statistics? Corroboration? Evidence? Witnesses?

Sadly a certain number of people will hear or read this and accept it uncritically.

It’s depressing that the Charlottesville event has been painted as ‘murder’ when we all know that had the people involved had been different it would all have played out in a different way.

Yet other than that incident, what actual reality can the accusers point to to establish their claims? If they can’t then it constitutes something like a blood libel. But then right and wrong, honest or dishonest, true or false, no longer hold meaning in post-American America.

However those of us who’ve read about earlier, real-life events, or those old enough to remember, can cite Randy Weaver and his family and LaVoy Finicum. What did they do to earn their fate? If I took time to do a little research I could mention other such cases in which people with ‘wrong’ political/religious views plus ‘wrong’ skin color were made targets by TPTB.

Fabricating in order to defame leads to justifying unethical action against them.

The ramshackle edifice of lies will fall of its own weight eventually.

The cover-up

You know; the cover-up into which everybody is pressured to participate.

The blog Human Stupidity asks whether it’s wrong, or a sin, to omit the truth about certain things, such as crime. The idea is to avoid ‘prejudice’; if people are not aware of the statistics, showing the widespread nature of certain crimes, then they can’t form ‘prejudices.’

But this kind of concealment not only treats the public like children, as if we must be kept from knowing certain things, it’s actually insulting to us. It also means that the public are deliberately left vulnerable because facts are hidden from us; many people who don’t stay in touch with what’s going on in their world are left ignorant, so as not to ‘offend’ someone or some group of people.

Who puts the pressure on us to go along with this cover-up of facts? On one side we have these people in public office who are ideologues, or bureaucrats who conform and follow orders blindly. On the other side we have very ethnocentric ‘communities’ who raise a fuss about ‘prejudice’ and false accusations motivated by ‘racism’, etc.

I remember some years ago when ‘they’ (law enforcement higher-ups? Media people?) stopped issuing physical descriptions of wanted criminals or fugitives. Nothing would be announced in media reports as to what the wanted man (or woman) looked like, except for vague descriptions involving clothing, or else useless descriptions like ‘dark hair, medium complexion‘. Increasingly names and pictures are withheld.

I wonder how many lives have been lost because the authorities would not provide a description of a suspect or fugitive wanted criminal ? The safety and lives of the general public are obviously not top priority with the people who decide these things. And we, the public, do little to try to fix this.

It appears that antiracism is the entire ‘ mission’ of this country, and in fact of all Western countries now. It’s a religion for some, or a cult.

There is no higher goal for most people who hold authority, apparently, than the antiracist mission.

So in the name of this ‘mission’ we are expected to go along, by word and deed, with this pretense that everybody is equal, and equally prone to crime and violence. No — wait; we are not equally prone to wrongdoing; we are even more so because only we can be guilty of this crime-of-all-crimes — racism. We are Public Enemy #1.

But to be asked to lie, in word, attitude, and action, in order to take part in this big cover-up of reality, is wrong. It’s morally wrong, in answer the question posed by the blogger.

As a Christian, I’m not supposed to lie. None of us are to lie, and we’re not given special permission to lie in order to avoid angering or offending someone or some group. It seems especially wrong to compound it by concealing things people need to know. If the concealed facts affect someone’s personal safety or that of their families, it’s especially wrong to hide facts or lie.

I’ve wondered often how Christians or anybody who is honest can lie just for the sake of not being called a name, or to spare someone else from being offended or ”hurt” or angered. There is no special permission to lie for such reasons. But it seems to be an unspoken assumption on the part of many people that some kinds of lying are good, or at least neutral.

The conditioning has done its job all too well

In some of the material I’ve been reading online, both blog pieces and comments, (not to mention the ‘news reports), I find myself exasperated at the evidence that so many Americans cannot think sensibly about this mess we are in.

There is no way to maintain our current obsession with ‘antiracism’ or equality or ”fairness” and still be able to extricate ourselves from this rapidly deteriorating situation.

Even now, a lot of us think that if we only do certain things, we can have a harmonious society. Yet all recent history seems to indicate that things are deteriorating, and common sense tells us that we can’t hope to ‘win’ by doing what we’ve done all along: trying to appease and placate and accommodate. Or, more specifically, we certainly get nowhere by accepting the category of ”racism”, because it is useless to plead ‘guilty’ as we’ve seemingly done from the beginning, and hope to get clemency by saying, “yes, we (or our ancestors) did horrible wrongs to you and your ancestors, so let us make it up to you, and we can then coexist.” It’s like consenting to be blackmailed and then finding more demands await us — imagine our surprise!

I was just skimming through an ‘American Thinker’ piece about this issue, (yes, I know; American Thinker is politically correct even when they imagine they are being edgy or ‘bold’) and the writer seemed, as most of the commenters there, to think that hurling back accusations of racism was a good plan.But we should all have seen how weak and ineffectual that is.

I think the key is not to accept the other side’s definitions and ideas, and when people think ‘DR3’ is a sure-fire tactic, you know we’re in trouble. Everyone but clueless Whites knows that those ‘real racist’ accusations fall on deaf ears, or are laughed off by the recipient. The official definition of racism (according to the accusers) is ‘prejudice plus power’, and of course in that world, only Whites have any power. Absurd, but as long as we let them, they will keep using this line of nonsense.

I will ask again, how did it come to be that the very worst of the worst of moral flaws or sins is to prefer one’s own folk, people like oneself? And how is it a moral transgression to like certain people and dislike others? Everyone likes or dislikes other people for varying reasons. Everyone.dislikes.someone. Anyone who says otherwise lies. Even God himself says he hates the wicked, and that he hated some people and loved others. God gave us both emotions. We are to ‘abhor’ that which is bad and ‘cleave to’ the good. In other words, to choose.

What’s another word for “choose?”

Everybody ”discriminates” by being friends with some and not others.

The foolishness that says we must ‘love everybody’ is not reality; nobody can love everybody. If we love everybody, we don’t love anybody, because love is by definition an exclusive thing. We prefer somebody, or certain people, very strongly. Love excludes. But it does not mean that we ”hate” those we do not prefer. Yet we allow people to make these false statements all the time.

People blame Christianity for this soft-headedness, because some people say Christianity is ‘universalist.’ That word does not mean what its users often think; in a Christian context it means only a doctrine that all people will be saved, whether good or bad, because God does not exclude anyone; that would be cruel, so he is only bluffing, I guess, about damnation. Everyone wins the prize in the end, just like in our nanny-state egalitarian schools where all kids win a trophy or a prize, and nobody gets a bad grade.

Universalism does not mean that Christians are required to love everyone and love them equally, as the critics of Christianity say.

Love is not forced or ordered by law. One can only coerce grudging acceptance, but it comes with resentment oftentimes.

And do Christians teach that everyone is our brother? Some Christians teach that, but some of the more discerning teachers say that we are not born children of God, but must receive that right.

Whatever the truth may be it is wrong to coerce ‘love’ or ‘brotherhood.’ People frown on shotgun marriages but that’s a good analogy.

And yet there are so many Americans who reflexively side with the other side, for various less-than-honorable reasons.

I don’t have a ready answer but it has to start with people rejecting the very notions that have such a grip on us as a folk. And we’ve got to refuse to use the terminology and the words and the ‘arguments’ of anyone who does not have our interests at heart.

Slovenian Magazine Interviews Ricardo Duchesne — Council of European Canadians

by The Editors This is an interview Ricardo Duchesne did with the popular Slovenian magazine, Demokracija, in February 2020. This magazine is very concerned with the way Slovenia is falling prey to the notion that the principles of equal rights and democratic rule entail “support for the integration of foreigners” into Slovenia. It was from this perspective that Demokracija…

Slovenian Magazine Interviews Ricardo Duchesne — Council of European Canadians

Not a popular subject, but…

I have been reflecting on the recent incident in California in which two police officers were shot in the head while sitting in their car. The incident happened, according to all accounts, without provocation. The provocation was just being police officers, as far as we know at this point.

As if this cowardly attack were not outrage enough, the “people” bipeds who shot the officers reportedly tried to block the medics or whoever from getting the wounded officers into the hospital for treatment. The miscreants were chanting “We hope you die”, and similar callous taunts.

Is this what we’ve come to as a society?

But in the wake of this, I’ve been reading comments here and there, and it’s depressing to see that so many people are just fine with the kind of sentiments expressed by the shooters — because there is such a widespread hatred of police as a group. Now, I know that there are and have always been people who dislike, resent, and possibly fear police. But it seems that now there are far more people with a pretty intense hatred of police, so that they think these wounded officers deserve what they got.

When these insurrectionists and the far-left radical governors and mayors started the demand for ”de-funding the police” or even abolishing police, I was taken aback, to put it mildly, when so many people thought that was a great idea, and now there are quite a few people clamoring for abolishing the police, even people on the right.

So it almost seems from where I sit that some on the “right” (many libertarians, and a lot of people who just hate cops) are almost in harmony with the left on this issue. I’ve just been reading many online articles addressing the question ‘Why do we hate the police so much’?

In this time of so much disorder and chaos, is it really wise to want to remove police departments from the equation? How will the rampaging left react to a sudden absence of law enforcement?

Then I’ve wondered just how and why this anti-police movement seems to be gaining momentum, and just why there is such widespread feeling of loathing towards LEOs now when previously it was not this intense.

It’s a given that there are bad people in every group; this world is imperfect, and will always be so. There are ‘bad’ cops, cops who are corrupt, or brutal. Because — guess what? — we’re all sinners. We are all imperfect or flawed to some degree: some only to a small degree, others thoroughly so.

Only the idiotic left expects that a Utopia can be created out of flawed people and institutions. There is room for improvement; police departments need to be ‘cleaned up’, and I don’t mean more social engineering (more female cops and leadership, more draconian politically correct rules, no, not that.) But things could be improved without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So why is cop-hatred apparently at an all-time high?

For disclosure’s sake I do have a relative in law enforcement, and that person does not fit the stereotype of the corrupt or bullying or otherwise ‘bad’ cop.

I know that many people whose work involves contact with criminals or suspects become understandably hardened, just by the stress and danger involved, and because they have to deal with aggressive, sometimes violent, often abusive and troublesome suspects or perpetrators. This will harden all but the most patient and saintly.

The majority of the stories I’ve heard from people who had some kind of interaction with police (pulled over or arrested, etc.) swear that they did nothing wrong, and that the police treated them roughly or rudely. I’ve heard all varieties of the stories from people who saw themselves as victims of the police, who are supposed to be on ‘our side.’

I think more people see police as The Enemy, in part because more people are probably violating laws these days because of generally libertine ideas about ‘rights’, and so on. A lot more people are using recreational drugs, thus seeing police as their enemy who wants to deprive them of their ‘rights’, which they interpret a lot more broadly than used to be the case. People probably violate traffic laws more frequently as well. People just aren’t as scrupulous at obeying laws as they were a couple of generations ago, and there is also a general lack of respect for anybody in authority.

In past eras children were taught that police officers were their ‘friends’ and that if you were in any kind of trouble or need, you could seek out a police officer to help you. And children were taught to show respect not just to policemen but to adults in general. That’s mostly a thing of the past. Defiant and rebellious attitudes are not uncommon now. Of course the world is a different place today, in which adults
represent potential danger to children. There is less trust, and for a reason.

Still, I can’t help but conclude that the hatred of police is not a healthy thing, when you look at the larger picture. The cop-hatred seems as though it’s rooted ultimately in the adolescent resentment of all adult authority; as adolescents we don’t want anyone to interfere with our fun and the ‘right’ to express ourselves in any way we choose.

There have been a number of books by thoughtful social observers, discussing the fact that Americans or Westerners in general are slower to grow up, continuing in adolescent patterns well into adulthood. This is not an original idea with me, but it is noticeable.

But here’s one more wrinkle to the issue, and it pertains to Christians. In the book of Romans, Chapter 13, we’re told how we are to regard those in authority:

“For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

We all understand that if someone in authority orders us to do wrong, especially something against God’s law, we ‘obey God, not men.’ So exceptions obviously exist but in general those who act to administer justice or keep order are carrying out a duty that is ‘ordained of God.’

And what is the alternative to the present (imperfect) system? The corrupt mayors installing their own police forces? Private security forces? Or the UN?

I don’t know about anyone else but I would not choose those alternatives. And it seems clear that human beings are rarely able to have a peaceful and safe society without someone to carry out law enforcement functions.