Room for more…

Joe Biden is calling for 11 million illegals to be put on the well-known ‘path to citizenship’.

It’s sort of amusing how this article, from Bongino’s web site, takes the ’11 million’ number as being factual and verified. It’s bizarre how the media have used these lowball numbers for decades now, with straight faces, to lull us into thinking there are only these same ’11 million’ illegals lurking here and there in our country for all these years. Apparently these 11 million never have children nor do they ever bring their aged parents, grandparents, or in-laws to live here with them. Right.

To be fair, the article does ask whether the numbers of illegals might be higher, maybe even as many as 22 million!

“The estimate that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. (representing over 3% of the total population) is on the conservative end. A study from the Yale School of Management estimates that the true illegal population could exceed 22 million.”

Try doubling that number, and even that might not be close to the actual count. The fact is that probably nobody knows the true number.

Rmployers constantly make the excuse that immigrants are needed to fill the demands of the job market. But it looks as though we’ve got plenty of unemployed people in need of work especially as the temporary stay on evictions is about to expire. Any sympathy or empathy I feel is towards our own folk who are now in need, or will be, soon. More ‘immigrants’ flooding in to take jobs that should go to our own will just make things worse.

To be fair, the Bongino article does point out the negatives associated with this inept and careless program to bring in more immigrants. While is true, as the article says, that the Democrats want more votes (and yes, regardless of Trump’s claims about the new ‘Hispanic Republican’ voters he is attracting, the Republicans are still determined to elect themselves a new constituency, made up of Latino conservatives and black Trump fans — along with their colorblind loyalist base.

Meanwhile in Canada, the ‘Family reunification’ laws have been expanded which will no doubt alter the demographics of that country, which have already been noticeably altered.

“So far, family reunification was intended only for close relatives, members of the so-called nuclear family, that is, parents, grandparents, siblings or children. However, according to new measures set up by Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino and Health Minister Patty Hajdu, the “close relationship” will now also include uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, cousins and other extended family members. Even “permanent partners” who are neither registered spouses nor partners, foster children, and many other groups of people fall in this category, including foreigners in “an exclusive dating relationship of at least one year and their dependent children”.

Ricardo Duchesne, William Greenough, Council of European Canadians blog, 10/24/20

Patty Hadju, the Health Minister, asks Canadians to display ‘compassion’ in view of what the authorities say is a resurgence of Covid, and in view of ‘renewed lockdown measures.’ So because of a supposed new epidemic of Covid, it’s somehow “compassionate” to bring in new immigrants? Why? Compassionat to whom?

Likewise with new lockdowns. Bring in new immigrants so they can be confined to their new ‘homes’? Excuse me but that makes no sense, but then neither do any of these authoritarian measures they are implementing anywhere in the world, such as Australia or Wales or anywhere else we can think of.

But, regardless of pandemics or lockdowns, the show must go on, and there’s always room for one more. Or 11 million more.

Where your heart is

Reading the right-wing blogs is getting to be a very depressing exercise. I have just about given up on many of the blogs, whether they are classified as ‘dissident right’ or whatever. Ever since the salad days of the alt-right, there is a heavy undercurrent of anti-American sentiment, what with all the comments favoring departing to Russia or Poland or Hungary, ditching Christianity and our Western culture for Eastern Orthodoxy or heathenism of some variety.

I don’t mean to offend anybody who makes these choices; if you are inclined to see Christianity as a bad thing for Western-European-descended people then perhaps it isn’t for you. “Many are called, but …” etc. etc. My objection is that the presence of so many detractors of Christianity and the West makes for more division and dissension within the dwindling ranks of Christians, at least those who are genetically linked to Western Christianity. All the criticism and the attacks on Christianity which are so common on certain ‘nationalist’ or ‘populist’ or dissident right blogs has a debilitating effect and will, if continued, aid our foes in rendering us passive and helpless against outside critics and enemies.

Some of those who are so vocal in proposing Eastern Orthodoxy as superior to the Christianity of our fathers is that few of the champions of the Eastern faith seem unaware that the Eastern Orthodox Church tends to be pro-immigrant, at least when the immigrants and refugees are from the Middle East (Syrians) or from Eastern Europe. Is this a proper stance for a supposedly ‘nationalist’ church and a nationalist populace?

Nationalism for me but not for thee?

However I realize that for a certain number of Americans, religions can be seen as interchangeable, as a matter of expediency, not as a matter of Truth. I gather this from the many comments I see and hear about how the West “needs a new religion” because our fathers’ faith did not serve us well, and weakens us. It never occurred to me previously that people might choose a religion on something other than faith and Truth or that we should just make up a new religion from the bits and pieces that we are ‘willing’ to put up with in order to have a religion we don’t object to.

It seems that many dissenters are willing to jettison our traditions and our history because they are attracted by other religions that are touted, in many cases, by a lot of otherwise irreligious people. A lot of those who promote other religions seem to be people who are infatuated with what they’ve heard about Eastern Europe’s ethnocentric culture; for example, the favorable reports in dissident news stories about Hungary, for example. So far Hungary seems to have held out against the dubious charms of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’. But will it always be thus?

Ireland used to be a country that was ethnocentric — at least when the ‘Other’ was mostly English. Now Ireland is being subjected to the ‘strengths’ of Diversity and global culture.

Hearsay has it that the Polish people, once very ethnocentric and ethno-patriotic have been weakened by their exposure, once they’ve emigrated to, say, Britain or Ireland or France, the allure of dating and mating outside the fold. The propaganda in favor of that is ubiquitous and apparently quite successful. So it can’t safely be assumed that the people of Eastern Europe will always be immune to the seductive mind-conditioning.

In any case, in many right-wing discussions the topics of leaving the West for Russia or Hungary (or Thailand or the Philippines, for those who’ve decided they disdain the lands our forefathers conquered and settled), are always on the table.

I still maintain that anyone contemplating making a move to a country speaking a language that’s unfamiliar, and very different, should must find out firsthand what it’s like in that other country, and attempt to learn the language. P.S.: Eastern European languages are not easy for most Western peoples to master. If you are good at mastering a very different language, both written and spoken, then more power to you.

The culture of those countries is also very different, despite the influence of the West.

However we seem to be, as a nation, in a kind of limbo state; is it even possible for anyone to emigrate, given that we seem not to be a sovereign nation anymore? I think we are in this twilight state, betwixt and between. Do we even have the freedom to leave anymore?

For those Americans who are committed to staying, come what may, in the land of their birth (and their forefathers’ birth, for generations) the prospects are dim if the numbers of patriotic Americans keeps shrinking, and fewer people know or speak English, nor do they maintain our traditions and history, or show any loyalty to or love for this country.

A lot of those who are dissidents are too close to being part of this ‘Culture of Repudiation’: of repudiating anything that’s ours, that’s American — because Americans are so provincial and gauche; most Americans don’t even speak another language fluently. Europeans are so sophisticated and hip, while we’re just a lot of yokels at heart.

I’m not promoting the cheap kind of patriotism or nationalism, but ethnonationalism, which is, for me, the only real kind. It isn’t just a matter of sentiment, or of flags or national anthems, but a deep attachment to the people, to your kinsmen, and to the ‘unbroken chain’ that binds us to our forefathers. I know the cynics look down on that older kind of patriotism too, but it is real and genuine with a lot of us.

At the risk of being out-of-step with the trend-setters, I will maintain my roots here in this country; the cost to my ancestors was not cheap. They risked everything to come here and undertake the building of a new nation. They eventually succeeded and today, sadly, more than a few of the inheritors of this country denigrate the colonists’ efforts as something paltry and insignificant. I can only hope that those who constantly talk of escaping to Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia or Costa Rica will do more than just talk about it. It would be best all around if those few who have loyalties to this country are the ones who stay and help to maintain — or rebuild — this country. The rest may be happier elsewhere.

Best to be in a country where your heart is.

History repeats?

At the Circa1865 blog, read how a Southern theologian named James H. Thornwell made very prescient remarks about the nature of the War Between the States, as well as describing what he believed would follow after the war — if the South lost the war.

As to the different factions involved in the War, Thornwell said the parties were

“…atheists, socialists, communists, red Republicans and Jacobins, and the other by the “friends of order and regulated freedom. In one word, the world is the battleground and Christianity and Atheism the combatants.”

It sounds very much like the people who are the combatants in today’s mostly one-sided war.

An aside: many Americans are muddled and confused by the fact that a party called ‘the red Republicans‘ agitated for the war, fomenting the abolitionist frenzy, as if it were a sort of holy Crusade. Today’s Americans, especially the younger ones, can’t seem to grasp that those radical Republicans were akin to the far-left groups of today, while the Democrats of the WBTS were moderates by comparison, being implicitly if not explicitly pro-White. In other words, the two parties were not at all the same as today’s Republicans and Democrats; I don’t know why that is so confusing for a lot of people.

As to the rather ominous state of affairs Thornwell foresaw for a post-WBTS America, it seems that if today’s conflict ends with our defeat, we face similar outcomes to those predicted by Thornwell. I suggest reading the whole thing at the Circa1865 blog.

Blogging vs. social media

Blogger Matthew Archbold at Creative Minority Report writes a pertinent piece about the advantages of blogging, and the weaknesses of confining one’s online presence to the big social media.

The current situation in which social media like Twitter and Facebook act in concert to block an important breaking news story illustrates the heavy-handed censorship being exercised by the social media. For some time there has been a slow-motion purge of right-wing people from Twitter — even the President has been ‘censored’ by Twitter — and Facebook, as well as from YouTube.

But when the social media can succeed in interfering with the publication of certain important news stories, especially on the eve of an election, then they’ve gotten too big for their britches, as the old saying goes.

So Matthew Archbold on his blog says that blogging may be preferable to using the overbearing ‘social media’. As someone who first started blogging in 2006, I believe the atmosphere on the blogs was much more conducive to discussion, especially in-depth discussion, than are the social media. And I think that the popularity of the new means of communication, vs. blogging, gave the social media an advantage for a good while; the generations who grew up on texting, rather than writing in complete sentences and paragraphs, would not have favored blogs. I confess I’ve never used any social media so I am something of an oddity, but there were things about blogging that made it satisfying at times: there was a sense of ‘community’ amongst bloggers of a similar mindset and philosophy. There was a collegiality. It was good to communicate with people who felt and thought the same. And in those days most blogs had more regular readers and commenters which could make for some good discussions.

Now much of the traffic that went to blogs or forums goes instead to the social media. It’s somewhat understandable that everyone wants to go where the crowds are, but what happens when those social media giants are purging everyone who is not politically correct enough? Will the readers being chased away be locked out for good eventually, or just keep on signing up again under another name? You can only do that so many times, I would think.

I hope to continue blogging myself, but the fact is, even the big blogging platforms do purge right-wing or Christian bloggers; I’ve seen it happen, and it’s happened to some people who are far from fanatical or undesirable.

The bigger question that must be asked is: what is the future of free speech in a country so dominated by the ‘[anti]-social media’?

If blogging can make a comeback and if people can be steered away from the social media that would be a good thing; bring back more open discussion amongst small groups of people, minus the stifling control of the social media giants.

Columbus Day

Yesterday, October 12, was Columbus Day, the day commemorating the discovery of the ‘New World’ as it was called, the Western hemisphere. I am sure everyone reading this is aware of that, but we can almost be sure that the coming generations, and even those who were ‘educated’ in today’s subversive and truth-averse schools, do not know those things.

Columbus Day is politically incorrect; statues and monuments to Christopher Columbus have been defaced and pulled down by the barbarians, but to me October 12 will still be Columbus Day. The traditional history that was taught up until recent years does not stop being true because some people don’t like it.

I can understand how people of Italian descent in this country dislike the way the good name of their countryman is being disrespected. It seems to be a large part of the agenda: to slander and discredit all historic figures of European descent. We should not passively enable that, but on the other hand ‘we’ are being silenced. So who will speak up for our historical heroes?

‘No substitute for free nations’

No Substitute for Free Nations – Editorial, Jan 30, 1919

“Beaten down by facts and the reasoning that is based upon them, President Wilson is retiring as gracefully as possible from his untenable position on the question of the league of nations. The supreme peace council is helping him to “save his face” by outlining a so-called league of nations, which is as different from his original proposal as day is from night. The league as now agreed upon will be nothing more than an international association, without power. Sovereign nations like the United States will remain sovereign, determining for themselves, absolutely without interference, upon such course of action at any time as seems best to them. The world is merely to have another advisory, statistical, rhetorical headquarters. President Wilson’s original league of nations, the United States of the World, armed with military and naval power, and bound to suppress any nation that should dare to disturb the world’s peace, has gone glimmering into the shadows of Never-Never land.

It is well. There should not be any league of nations on the original plan. It is in its essence internationalism, destructive of nations, and therefore dangerously resembling bolshevism. In order to live such a league of nations would have had to draw its strength from the nations, and therefore each nation would have been left weaker than before. No nation’s peculiar problems could have been solved by itself alone, but would have been passed upon also by other nations, perhaps secret enemies.

The hard facts which have wrecked the ideal supernation are these: The civilized peoples of Europe have just saved themselves from slavery by the exercise of their strength organized in separate distinct nations. These nations are far from perfect organizations, but they are the best working systems yet devised by man for making his life, liberty, and welfare reasonably secure. By grouping themselves in nations, people of the same blood and sympathy are able to combine their individual strength in fairly effective cooperation. Autocracy decreed that there should be only one nation; bolshevism decrees that there shall be no nations. The free and civilized peoples beat one of their assailants by sticking to the plan of fighting by nations. The fight with the other assailant is now beginning.

The logical deductions from the foregoing facts are these: Governments organized and maintained by free peoples are effective barriers against the tyranny of both autocrats and anarchists. Any project which aims at weakening free nations is therefore dangerous, if not fatal, to liberty. A league of nations acting as a substitute for free nations is an experiment. If not powerful, it cannot prevail; and if powerful it must derive its power from free nations, thereby weakening their individual strength. Free peoples cooperate within a nation, but whether they would cooperate in a universal league of nations is doubtful, for this reason: In a nation all treason is purged, but in a league there may be traitor nations. Racial differences form barriers which are not removed by formal compacts, and different standards of living form economic obstacles which no league can surmount.

Nations must determine their own standards of living according to their ability. In a certain sense every nation is perpetually at war with other nations, with offensive and defensive economic weapons. Since the proposed league of nations was essentially a project to deprive individual nations of these weapons, it was an attack upon them. They resisted the destructive effect of direct attack by autocracy. They are resisting the destructive effect of indirect attack which would disarm them. They will resist the destructive effect of direct attack by bolshevism, or go down in universal anarchy.

In the oncoming war between liberty and anarchy there is no other plan which takes the place of organized nations acting in harmony according to the exigencies of the hour. If civilization is to be saved, it will be saved by free nations, not by a substitute.”

Washington Post, 30 January, 1919

The editorial writer displays a great deal more common sense and savvy than today’s crop of people. And it’s hard to imagine that the Washington Post would argue for nationalism — and not watered-down civic nationalism. Notice where he refers to nations of people connected by the ‘same blood and sympathy.’

And the writer was prescient to mention the oncoming conflict: liberty vs. anarchy.

“Who are these supremacists of whom you speak?”

In case you were wondering who, exactly, fits the description of these ‘supremacists’ we’ve been warned against, some people — predictably, ‘educators’, graduates of schools of education, have come up with a list of characteristics of the ‘supremacist culture’, and it appears that the people who created this ‘culture of supremacy’ are — you guessed it — White.

At the Reference Frame blog, there is a list delineating the telltale characteristics.

  • Perfectionism
  • Sense of Urgency
  • Defensiveness
  • Quantity Over Quality
  • Worship of the Written Word
  • Only One Right Way
  • Paternalism
  • Either/Or Thinking
  • Power Hoarding
  • Fear of Open Conflict
  • Individualism
  • I’m the Only One
  • Progress is Bigger,
  • More Objectivity
  • Right to Comfort

I suppose the people who specialize in the politics of grievance and victimhood have to earn a living, and have to justify themselves by coming up with mock-scholarly analyses of why unequal outcomes in life never seem to happen, but this is pretty weak fare.

At a glance it looks to me as though the traits listed are good ones, and that any parent worth his (or her) salt tries to imbue their children with some of these traits. And some do come naturally to Whites. Does it deserve to be disparaged as ‘privilege’ if those traits are innate to some people? Should they un-learn those things so as to “level the playing field”?

I would also say, at a glance, that some of the things of which Whites are being accused here, such as ‘perfectionism’ or ‘only one right way’ or ‘a sense of urgency’ — that first, some things do require extreme precision, and as-close -to perfection as we can achieve. Some things can’t be done in a sloppy, slapdash, careless fashion, and the lazy person or the feckless type complains of ‘perfectionism.’ Excuses. Self-exculpation. And some things have to be done now; sometimes the situation is urgent and calls for immediate action. Maybe schoolchildren aren’t in those kinds of situations — yet, but heaven help us if a real-life situation arises in which we have to act now, and we have to get it right, no mistakes. Life can be unforgiving and young people have to learn that fact. It’s part of education. ‘Educators’ who can only be bothered to teach excuse-making and blaming the other guy are not doing their job; they’re not earning their pay. They do all of society an injury.

And let’s glance at the rest of the list:

Either/or thinking‘ is just a phrase used as a cop-out for those who can’t think logically, and when a student comes up with some irrational answer to a question they can plead that they are ‘thinking outside the box’ and that ‘there’s more than just two possible answers to every question.’ Sophist teachers learn this sort of rationalizing twaddle in Education grad school and arm their barely-mediocre students with excuses for not doing better.

Defensiveness? I am being defensive here, I suppose, and I don’t know what the authors of this list intended to convey. Some kinds of defensiveness show at least an effort to counter any false accusations but there is a kind of defensiveness that’s read by an opponent as nothing but weakness, and a ‘pleading’ kind of attitude. If Whites exhibit that, it’s hardly surprising, given that Whites are constantly accused of something or other, generally oppressing the weaker. Oh, but wait a minute: who is the weaker or weakest of the races? Are we not all equal, perfectly on a par with everyone else? Equal in potential as well as in accomplishment?

It isn’t possible to deal with all these traits in depth. But to address one or two more: Worship of the written word? Can I just say that certain peoples not only do not worship the written word, they have no regard for it at all. They are highly averse to it; they hate to read. They are suspicious of anything in a book unless it is a book written about race — from their own side’s point of view. Not everything in books is worth reading, but to be averse to reading is to be cut off from some of the greatest and most inspiring thoughts and ideas. If a teacher won’t or can’t inspire a student to broaden their horizons by reading, again, they ought not to ‘teach’, especially if their idea of ‘teaching’ is to encourage grievances, a victimhood mentality, and bitterness — which is what is being taught in the schools now.

And feeding on a mental diet of TV and Hollywood movies is worse than illiteracy.

One more thing: individualism is, in a sense, a trait of Whites, at least Northern/Northwestern European stock. But in a sense we are, despite superficial appearances, more communal-minded than given credit for, while POCs are praised by the usual people as being ‘family-oriented, ethnocentric (in a good way, of course), and cooperative — but just look at how much conflict and disorder occurs within those ”communities” — it is not all sweetness-and-light in their world. We are at least able to interact within our kin groups in a peaceful way, the usual leftist aberrations excluded.

I think one White trait was missed on this list: the capacity for self-examination; the ability to reflect on our own behavior, and to be willing to self-correct where needed. I think the ability to reflect and to be honest with ourselves without wrongly self-blaming is a rare thing, and helps make us who we are. There are people who cannot even see themselves accurately nor wish to.

Creating a scapegoat

The QAnon movement is again the target of the PC speech/thought police. Facebook says it will ban QAnon accounts.

Do the powers-that-be really believe their own words, that the Q movement is a danger, that it may have the potential to ‘incite violence’? And for them to say this in all apparent seriousness, while riots continue, and have been allowed to go on with no concern for the damage done to properties and human beings? It beggars the imagination.

In other words they (all the politically correct ‘theys’, the social media tyrants as well as the Official PTB) are eager to take action against whoever they say has the ”potential” to incite actual violence. Hello? What about Portland? Seattle? New York? And other places where real-life, flesh-and-blood violence is occurring?

Have these people who have decided that the QAnons are to be treated as a threat even familiar with the Q movement? I’ve familiarized myself with it; I see nothing in that group to even hint at any potential for extremist violence. So it seems an injustice to me that they are being described by TPTB in a way that is almost scary, and it is just not in line with reality, but since when do we get truth from the propaganda meisters?

In a comment I read somewhere online, someone described the Q members as ‘normies’, and there’s no need to disparage them that way; to me, a normie is one of those apathetic, uninformed or misinformed people who vote but who are generally disconnected from any sort of cogent political ideas.

Predictably some people say the Q people are part of that generation labeled as ‘Boomers’ which generally implies a sense of superiority on the part of the person using that label. In any case from what I’ve deduced the majority of the QAnons are of the Gen X age group. Maybe ten or fifteen years ago such a political movement would have been mostly boomers, but more than a few of the latter have died or are ailing. The Tea Party movement was the last hurrah for Boomers as an organized cohort organizing for political action.

So the Gen X segment of people are represented most obviously in the Q group.

The varying political views within the group are rather right wing in some respects (pro-2nd Amendment, pro-capital punishment, pro-First Amendment, Christian, mostly Protestant of some variety, but some ‘New Age’)

The QAnon group has a (semi-official?) Christian pastor who offers Bible lessons — in my opinion he is a good teacher, not one of those politically correct fakes.

Does this add up to a group that is in any way threatening? These are, for the most part, not young hotheads or even middle-aged hotheads. There are more than a few women involved in this group; from what I can tell there may be slightly more women, but mind you these are not rabid feminist women as you find in the leftist groups. However the Q movement emphasizes being ‘inclusive’, a holdover from the antiracist mainstream and/or the Q dogma about how we all have to ‘unify’ and not let ‘Them’ divide us.

One liberal view seems central to the movement: absolute equality. Nobody is ‘the’ leader, nobody is better or more important, because we’re all the same under the skin.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Q’s philosophy, somebody is trying to discredit and scapegoat them, and anybody even slightly to the right; the left always tries to set the boundaries way to the left so that anyone right of center, even just a little, is The Enemy, a dangerous extremist. Remember, anyone, how the media called Bill O’Reilly, of all people, ”far-right”. What a joke. But if things escalate, and the people who dictate the acceptable views begin to point fingers at people who have never been a threat or a danger, this is bad. They have no basis on which to pin the charge of ‘extremism’ onto Q or on any other non-left or anti-left group.

There is talk on the ‘mainstream’ media about ‘de-programming’ QAnons, the implication being that they are brainwashed cult members. Do these people writing these articles even know what constitutes an actual cult? What the hallmarks are? Obviously not; the journos, so-called, are assigned to write these propaganda pieces and they all use the same approach, the same verbiage. No sign of independent thought there.

The articles keep referring to QAnon as a ‘baseless conspiracy theory.’ How is a group a ‘conspiracy theory’? To the left, everything they don’t like or which goes against their rigid beliefs is ‘fake news’ or a ‘conspiracy theory.’

There are some people who do need de-programming: the genuinely cultish Antifas and BLM, as well as the thoroughly programmed and brainwashed ‘journalists’ and ‘reporters.’ Even the so-called right media are almost as PC as the left; they share more and more liberal beliefs every day that passes.

But the media and their political soulmates should stop looking for scapegoats among those who are law-abiding and civilized, while enabling and abetting the violent segment of the population.

An interesting read

At there’s a long but very educational piece , of a very politically incorrect nature. It’s about ‘White racialism’, or more properly, I think, about Whites’ lost ethnocentrism. I don’t mean to ascribe this meaning to Unz’s piece, but really when we speak of ‘racialism’ these days, often what is meant, in a White context, is Whites’ consciousness of themselves as White, and of their differences from other ethnicities or races. It also includes, by implication, a loyalty to one’s own kindred. We know who we are, ideally, (we certainly used to know) and we know where we fit in this world and where we don’t.

And now that it’s ”not OK to be White” and it’s not allowed — in fact it’s dangerous to say “All Lives Matter” much less to say the same of White lives, we probably inhibit ourselves from expressing confidence in who we are, and who we could be if only we were freed from the shackles of political correctness.

It is a long read, as Unz’s essays usually are, but it is informative. I was aware of many of the people Unz writes of in the piece, except for E.A. Ross. I wonder why we have never heard much about him?

I have read works by most of the others he includes in the piece. I’ve read Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, Carleton Putnam, Carleton Coon, Wilmot Robertson, — and Boas, while studying Anthropology in college, so I’ve heard the politically correct lies via Boas’ teachings.

The comments on this kind of article are almost always depressing, with the attitude some ‘respectable’ people take towards anyone who is a realist, who sees things as they are, no rose-colored glasses or denialism allowed.

One thing that I noticed is that Anglo-Saxon Americans were at the forefront of this movement, trying to inform and put facts out there in the public sphere. Why are there no such voices being allowed to examine such subjects? Because no dissenting voices, no contradictions to the narrative are to be heard or read. Whoever can break through that PC barrier and say something to challenge the narrative will be disparaged, ridiculed, and marginalized.

And I wonder if the people who were born into this politically correct echo chamber realize that most people, the vast majority of people, North and South, East and West, held the same opinions as those called the ‘r-word’ today? Do people realize that if they had been born back in those days when people were more of a similar mind, and could speak freely, they would have been one of those politically incorrect people who are so despised now. The past is truly another country, and they did ‘do things differently there.’

They were free in that “other country”. Say what you will (and some people hate the past, or hate what they’ve been told it was) but people were freer.

In sheep’s clothing

I had just started to write another post but this one from Bruce Charlton caught my attention. I don’t always find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Charlton because we differ on our religious beliefs. Still I respect his ideas, and I appreciate that he seems to show respect for others — not a very common attitude in today’s world.

But I would love to be able to share this post of Dr. Charlton’s with a certain relative of mine. But that can’t happen; this person is hardened where political opinions are concerned, as are the great majority of people on that side of the politico-spiritual war. That kind of person flies into a rage at any word of disagreement.

I agree with Dr. Charlton on the spiritual state of most ‘believers’ today. I say ‘believers’ because I hesitate to apply the term Christian where it doesn’t express the truth of the matter. That’s where I differ with Dr. Charlton; where he says

“And those who have taken Satan’s side include many people who are (let’s say) 95% or more Good Christians in what they profess and practice.”

But what people profess outwardly may not be true to what they think in their hearts; people can become very practiced at saying — and doing — what is expected, even if it is not wholehearted. The Pharisees and their ilk knew their Scripture inside out and represented themselves as ultra-religious and upright, better than others.

God, however, ‘knows the heart’, so he knows that some people are good at play-acting. I believe the originally Greek word ‘hypocrite’ as spoken by Jesus meant ‘play-actor’ or insincere person. There were ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ in that time. Now that Christianity is out of fashion, many people can’t be bothered to live their supposed faith in order to be respectable. There’s not much of a social payoff now; just the opposite.

I would say that no Christian with a real, heartfelt faith could side with evil.
Edmund Burke is quoted (some say it’s wrongly credited to him) as saying “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I say that a good man, a truly good man — would not be able to sit and ”do nothing” should evil be triumphing, as it seems to be at this very moment. And a real Christian could not side with evil, thus joining himself to it and aiding it. Then the impostor proves himself a false Christian, just as Burke’s hypothetical ‘good man’ would prove himself cowardly by his inaction in the face of a triumphant evil.