Defending our heritage

There is a crying need for a blog which is pro-South, written by and for non-scholarly Southern readers. When I specify ”non-scholarly”, I am not disparaging the intelligence of Southern readers, nor am I denying the value of the academic, history-oriented blogs dealing with the South. I link to a couple of such blogs in my sidebar.

However there’s a need for a blog where history and current events can be discussed, and there needs to be an effort to maintain a high standard of civility in discourse without being academic.

The Southern-oriented blogs I do know of, which still exist, are plagued by antagonistic people from the North who really hate the South and want to harp on what they see as the blame incurred by Southrons for ”starting” the War Between the States. The level of discourse is very low, with much profanity and uncivil comments. There is constant anti-Anglo, WASP-baiting-and-blaming going on. For a time, on one such blog, most of the commenters seemed to be not only non-Southrons but non-Americans. Who is meant to be served by a blog like that, which is not South-friendly and where the South-haters, and Anglophobes dominate? I mean, after all, the South is mostly Anglo — or was.

Another South-oriented blog I know of seemed to hold some promise of being a viable pro-South blog where things could be discussed in a civilized way, on topic, and minus the trollish non-Southrons and Anglophobes. But that ‘promising’ new blog turned out to attract the ‘identitarianism’ of the jaded French academic set? If I tried to find a people who had the least in common with Southrons, it would likely be the French. Nothing against the French but they have little in common with us in terms of their worldview. (Cajuns excepted. They are good, unpretentious people, American and Southron while being French by ancestry — but usually never the twain shall meet.)

Generally when I have written pieces on Southern history, they attract no comment. Whether that indicates a general lack of interest or whether my writings just don’t resonate with my audience — (most of whom are unidentified to me) — is a question mark. In any case, bloggers are being given less latitude to write on these sensitive subjects like the North-South divide, Southern history, etc., so I might not be blogging much longer. So all this may be moot.

But as we have to ”work while it is day” I feel an urge to try to write while I still can. Even if few people are interested, if just one person finds anything I write to be of benefit then I will write, until we politically incorrect people are shut down, even as the media echo chamber continues, being like Pravda and Izvestia, the only game in town.

Somehow I find it unbearable when the only ‘facts’ being taught come from the averse-to-truth media or the uninformed random commenters, spouting half-truths and slanders on the internet. It’s painfully evident that quite a few people who dominate the relevant comment sections are clueless or that they are shills, operatives and the like, sent to misinform or dis-inform. Some simply have a personal axe to grind. This is true everywhere, but when it comes to the South there is a burning anger which I never saw until the last couple of decades. This, in part, is because there are generations who never heard any truth, only anti-South propaganda on the part of far-left ”teachers” who themselves are ignorant, and filled with Politically Correct indignation and self-righteousness. So the younger generations are imbued with PC and Cultural Marxism, and lack knowledge on the South as well as on HBD. That’s the perfect recipe for producing anti-Southron prigs and do-gooders.

And whatever happened to the ‘Southern Gentleman’? I know of one older Southern gentleman who blogged, but I don’t know if he is still participating. Maybe that generation, his generation, was the last of the Gentlemanly south. But there was, for much of the last century, a sort of truce regarding the North-South history. But that suddenly stopped. Why?

And why, I wondered, do so many people who hate the South frequent that one blog, creating a toxic and depressing atmosphere? They also repeat frequently the canards and slanders against the South. Example: there are more mixed people in the South because the Southern ”slave-masters” — let me be delicate in saying it — “had their way” with all the slave women. And nobody ever counters this slander.

In point of fact, there were/are more mixed people outside the South. There are census records showing this, and the numbers are not even close.

Then the South-haters use what they think is a devastating witticism about slavery saying ”your ancestors shoulda picked their own d__n cotton!” I’ve addressed that.

News Flash: Northerners bought and sold slaves. My New England ancestors owned slaves. The Salem Witch trials also had, at the center of the story, an African slave named Tituba. So Northerners also owned slaves, but they sold theirs when the War approached. It was not just Southrons who owned slaves.

But rarely does anyone mention that salient fact.

Why are Southrons so unwilling to fire back some answers when the South-haters start this nonsense? Why is there so little ethnocentrism and kinist instinct with Southrons today? Why can’t both Southron and Yankee agree that we are under siege from those outside the fold, and that there is no value in fighting amongst ourselves over the long-ago slavery issue — a ”sin” of which both sides partook? If it is a sin then both sides are guilty. No use pointing the finger of accusation only at the South.

And it isn’t just those semi-mythical ‘evil New England Yankees’.

Maybe I should start a blog about Southern issues, but it would be just one more unpopular blog, and de-platforming looms as a possibility for all of us who blog any truth. Even a link gets you banned on Twitter.

What a time to live in, when truth is near to being outlawed, but then the truth is unpopular with all sides in this 21st century…

What do they believe?

The most recent post by fellow blogger Cambria Will Not Yield is, like all his posts, very much worth reading. But this latest one was especially so, from my point of view. In that post, he writes of his experience attending a political rally for Trump recently. As he explains, he does not customarily attend events like that but one of his purposes was to learn about the Trump followers who attended the rally. He wanted to know, inter alia, whether the Trump faithful displayed any ‘counterrevolutionary spirit.’

I understand his wanting to know this about the Trump supporters. I had a similar wish to learn whether the ‘Q’ followers (who are the most devout of Trump supporters) had that kind of spirit, because the current ethical stance is to be politically correct. To fail to conform to the current orthodoxy on ethnicity and HBD is to be a heretic and a very bad person. What I learned about the maligned ‘Q’ followers is that they are mostly very nice people, who believe that ‘Dems are the Real Racists’, so they feel compelled to overcompensate when it comes to their antiracist bona fides. It sounds as though there are similar pressures at work amongst the average Trump supporters, especially as Trump, along with the ‘Q’ team, emphasize inclusion, equality/’colorblindness’, nonviolence, and ‘unity’ in the context of diversity — which is a little self-contradictory.

Despite these conflicting wishful-thinking ideas held by the Q folk, it seems they are well-meaning people, apparently like most Trump followers. It’s ironic that the lying media have done so much to create a bad stereotype of the Right as being ‘haters’ and ‘racists’, especially given that there has been little violence on the part of the Right, especially those who are Trump voters.

But to return to CWNY’s post and his need to learn about the motivations or character of the Trump loyalists:

“I wanted to see if there was any counterrevolutionary sentiment among the Trump supporters. There was none. Possibly in the MAGA rally in Washington DC I would have found someone who was willing to think counterrevolution instead of ‘wait till next time,’ but I doubt it. The white Trump supporters, like Trump himself, are supporters of a fusion of Christianity and liberalism. They have more of a Christian ethos than the mad-dog liberals, but they still believe in demon-cracy and reject the older Christian cultures of the European nations. Half-liberal and half-Christian will not prevail against the internal demonism of the liberals. Four more years of Trump will give us a President who opposes communism, who opposes the anti-white instruction in our military and civil service agencies, and who opposes the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. But you can’t have just a little bit of liberalism.”

I found the same kind of sentiment amongst the Q followers. Most of them are Christians who seem quite sincere and even devout. Many seem quite Biblically knowledgeable — but yet some of the ideas they absorb through the Q teachings come into conflict with Biblical principles: for example, the idea of near-pacifism (which is not Biblically-based), and the idea taught by the Q team that there must be ‘unity’ and ‘colorblindness’ with absolute equality; no leaders, nobody ‘above’ anyone else. In other words they’ve taken in a lot of the “liberal” worldview, and they seem to have accepted the idea that we should “trust human nature” which they’ve been told is ‘basically good.’ Genesis 3 contradicts the Q idea of a benign human nature. Life itself contradicts that trusting idea. Not to say, of course, that all people are equally bad, but trusting human nature is not a Biblical idea, and yet it’s what most people believe, thanks to liberalism. The average Q follower or Trump supporter or Republican likely believes the ‘human nature good’ trope.

But events in the world today should give people a clue that the ‘benign human nature’ theory conflicts with what we see going on today.

I think that too many Americans are like lambs to the slaughter today because they wish to see only good in most other people, but the world is not as it was when many of us grew up.

I am with CWNY; we need Pietas in this world but we should not be pollyannas who think everyone is our friend, nor should we imagine we can ‘unite’ with everyone, regardless of glaring differences.

It makes me sad to see that many of these very nice people choose niceness over self-protection, because of their underlying liberal beliefs. Most Americans, even those who consider themselves ‘right-wing’ and realistic, are aware of how very liberal many of their attitudes are. And much of this is due to the loss of Christian principles and ways of behaving, replaced by the ‘therapeutic’ dogma as taught by pop psychologists and faux-philosophers. ‘New Age’ thinking is widely taught by the varied TV personalities (Oprah et al) and New Age ‘sages’ popular with the young and the religious faddists. CWNY is right; once we abandoned the Faith of our Fathers we are in uncharted territory, where we don’t just believe in nothing, we believe in anything, as Chesterton said.

Incidentally I hope you will read CWNY’s piece in its entirety, if you haven’t yet.

An interesting blog piece

I just read a piece at The Orthosphere; it’s titled The Morlock Question. I must admit it gave me something to think about, and it’s rather a different take on H.G. Wells’ ‘Morlocks’. Having read it I suppose I am in the same category with those fictional characters, being one of the ‘dispossessed’ and deplorable. I recommend reading it.

Blog changes

[Note – this post will stay here for the time being, as a ‘sticky’. Later posts will appear below this].

It appears that this blog will be moving as of late this month, maybe sooner rather than later. Word Press has warned us WP bloggers of possible deplatforming for violators of Terms of Service. As far as I know I haven’t violated the TOS though it has happened to some of my fellow bloggers, but I think it’s best to move before being asked to. I value free speech and truth and those are paramount to me.

I hope those of you who read here will follow me to my new address, which is unknown as of now, and I hope that Word Press will be patient with me as I find a new blog address.

Thanks everyone.

Journalistic ‘standards’ or lack thereof

Whatever happened to the concept of journalistic standards, such as objectivity, or plain old honesty? They seem to have gone out the window, and there is no shame or conscience on the part of many of these journos, at least none to which they will admit in public. It seems to be de rigueur to lie repeatedly and unashamedly.

Maybe it’s a nitpicky complaint, but I am glad that The Justice Team at Twitter has seen fit to address that ‘President-elect Biden’ nonsense. They posted a letter from Congress stating the facts about usage of that title.

“In case you’re confused…. CONGRESS made an official statement THERE IS NO PRESIDENT ELECT AS OF NOW! Which means JOE BIDEN, is falsely claiming to be president elect. The MEDIA, is falsely confirming a president elect.”

The Justice Team on Twitter, referencing letter from U.S. Congress, 10 Nov 2020

I suppose we live in an age in which most people don’t have any regard for observing rules, traditions, standards, etiquette — it belongs to the dead old days, who cares? Well, some of us do. It does matter. We don’t just make up our rules as we go along.

But the media people like to make up their ‘truths’ as they go along, especially anything they decide is ‘true’ about Donald Trump, and just about everything they say in the media about him is malicious and untrue. Notice how in these articles about the disputed election, they always use the terms ‘baseless‘ or ‘unfounded claims’? I’ve seen those words time and again; they must be following some kind of template which requires them to use that insulting verbiage when the subject of the piece is Trump — or any right-wing politician. Not exactly subtle, is it?

Once upon a time, journalists were taught to use more neutral or objective language, unless they were writing an op-ed piece which is opinion not simple reporting of facts. Facts? Hardly any journalists bother with facts or objectivity today. But that’s true of the people in general, at least in the United States, I’m sorry to say.

I have to give credit to Howard Rotberg for writing a piece pointing out the problem of journalistic standards in this highly polarized age. He draws attention to the very things that have caused me to shun most of the media. At least there seems to be one honest journalist. I am not familiar with his work but I came across it on The Iconoclast.

So the ‘reset’ is real, according to Trudeau?

Trudeau’s words seem to confirm the so-called ‘Great Reset’, if Trudeau’s speech is factual. A lot of people have heard talk of this but not many are sure of what exactly was meant by the terminology. A lot of people dismissed it as rumor. Judge for yourself.

If this link is no longer good then try this link.

This UN plan seems to pertain to all of us, not just to our Canadian neighbors.

“Leader of Canada admitting that COVID is an excuse to institute a new global economic order.

The “reset” and “build back better”.”

via Spencer Fernando website, 15 Nov 2020

I may be on thin ice to bring this topic up, because in some quarters the topic is not discussed; too controversial. But for what it’s worth, here it is and it is important. One could say it may not be true — and some are saying that, but why then are Trudeau and other leaders talking about it if it is just a rumor?

Have the media gone mad?

I noticed yesterday, after having avoided reading much of the ”news” online, that the news in the ”mainstream” propaganda news sources were full of bald statements that Trump was now irrelevant, having lost the election, and that Biden would now be President, having somehow won.

It seems to me that the media people have dropped any pretense of being (as Fox News used to say) “fair and balanced” and are now not even bothering to pretend, They’ve simply decided to show their true colors as far-left. They are not reporters or honest news ‘analysts’ and much less are they ‘pundits’, which implies they possess wisdom or learning. But they seem to think their job is to tell us plebeians how to vote, what to think, how to live.

But when The Hill offers up something like this bizarre and ignorant screed:

Prediction: Trump will resign, Pence will pardon him

what are we to think? The Hill used to be a sort of ordinary newspaper; I never came across a bizarre piece like the linked piece in the past; I never thought of it as a satirical ‘newspaper’ or a parody, but please tell me this is not serious.

The writer speaks of Trump being ‘pardoned’ by Vice President Pence. Pardoned for what? For some imaginary offense dreamed up by his sworn enemies in the media, or have the unhinged leftist rioters and vandals and election-fraudsters been given power to judge the rest of us?

The piece I link to here is just one example, but it seems that the Left are addled people who think they can insist on their own version of ‘reality’.

Reading many of the pieces about the election, especially that absurd bit of gaslighting in which Mr. Biden has somehow been made “President-elect Biden”, there is a surreal feeling. Are we in the Twilight Zone, where there is no normal reality in which to anchor oneself? A reality where what is true or factual is completely at the whim of the fanatics and reality-deniers of the Left?

I am really serious about this; it seems as if those whose religion is leftism have lost their moorings completely, and as they refuse to acknowledge basic reality, how can we communicate with them, or understand them? It’s clear they don’t intend to acknowledge reality as the rest of us do. And it isn’t just the hard-core left, but it seems that increasingly people don’t even comprehend facts, solid evidence or proof when discussing or arguing with normal people. Facts are irrelevant to them; they refuse to examine facts, and prefer to speak in inflammatory and contrary (in the old-fashioned sense) rhetoric. They will insist that up is down, black is white, bitter is sweet, day is night — and that evil is good.

They never discuss anything in good faith. I suppose those last two words are words that are beyond their understanding.

The media, who are supposed to keep us informed of current events and important facts, are deliberately refusing to do that, choosing to distort and mislead and deceive people in the name of their godforsaken ‘agenda’ and ‘narrative’ (read: pack of lies).

The media and their collaborators in high places work together, and often people on the right say that the media are not responsible because they are just following orders; we should only criticize those who give the orders. But who are they? They keep themselves hidden; we don’t know who exactly they are. The fact that they keep out of public view says something about them. If there is nothing to conceal, why hide?

As a result of the media dereliction and the corruption of our ‘news sources’, our politicians, and every institution of any note, our people are kept in the dark, with so many unable to see what is happening, unaware that they and their offspring are being misled, kept in a state of distraction or unawareness. Our country, our folk, our way of life are being changed against our will — or being slowly destroyed while the people wonder why things keep getting worse.

And how is it that the media are so easily able to sweep major scandals and crises under the rug, while the public seems unable to see what is in plain sight? Why was it so easy to make a major scandal disappear so effectively?

As long as these deceivers and manipulators are able to work their will on a distractible populace I don’t see how we can hope for things to get better. And the idea that unelected, self-designated ‘experts’ or ‘pundits’ or New York Times employees can choose our Presidents (or ‘Presidents-elect’) is just an outrage. Biden has not been duly elected and he is neither President nor ‘President-elect’, despite what The Hill or any other rag proclaims.

Questions

Has anyone out there had a change of opinion about the ‘Q’ movement? Following the events of election day and the immediate aftermath — when it then appeared that the ‘Q’ plan was not a con job as the skeptics liked to say — I had to admit I had been on the verge of dismissing it as just that. I was not convinced at first.

I usually keep an open mind about the unknown. I admit I generally dislike and distrust anybody whose habitual attitude is scoffing and dismissing anything new or unusual out-of-hand. I just think it’s a bad way to go through life, being a habitual naysayer. Why? Because those who deny everything that is new or outside their (usually limited) experience are really implying superior knowledge, even of things never before experienced in their lives. There’s such a thing as a healthy skepticism but if we are not open to something new or outside our previous experience, then we never learn anything.

Obviously if ‘Q’ was instrumental in exposing the staggering amount of fraud in our electoral system, it was not ESP or clairvoyance but just insider information coupled with shrewdness doggedness, and savvy. And if they made this possible, they deserve credit.

The GovernMedia informed us in one of their hit-pieces about Q that there are no conspiracies, or if there are, it’s because the Q people “weave conspiracies” and that’s why the media hacks created their little crusade to censor the news and the online commentary, so that ”fake news” as they call it can be expunged from public view.

But the conspiracy (and yes, there was one, involving the media operatives as well as a huge chunk of the political class)to overturn the will of the people as expressed at the polls could have succeeded. Thank goodness there were vigilant people to thwart the lawless actions of the political hacks and their media partner-deceivers.

So now, will the brazen media (still not ashamed to show their faces in public, as they rightfully should be) still going on slandering the Q people as ‘dangerous’ and ‘potentially violent’ or as mentally unstable? Yes, they are. They have no shame. How would it feel to make one’s living by lying, calumny, misleading the whole population? What honorable person would choose to do that?

I can’t help feeling bad for the Q people; most seem like they are genuinely patriotic in the sense of caring about their country and people. I know that the cynics out there — and it’s ”in” with some people to be cynical and anti-patriotic — don’t like patriotism or kin-feeling or any old-fashioned sentiments.

So, recently on some of the streaming channels for Q people, they are being besieged by aggressive trolls who at times swarm the channels and bring a lot of disruption and strife. Who are these trolls and operatives? Most likely they are ‘assigned’ there by the antifa or their counterparts. They have bullying tactics and at times they are using some kind of gaslighting tactics, telling the Q people that they are ‘mentally ill’ and a ‘cult’ in need of deprogramming. Nobody should have the right to browbeat and disturb people who are doing nothing to deserve this. And it appears that ‘moderators’ do little to stop it, even when it is disrupting their own discussions and activities.

Or do these harassing trolls represent some group or some official body? They seem to have an attitude that indicates authority or perhaps they are trained to act this way.

Lots of Americans seem to dislike groups like the Q followers and see it as a point of pride to ridicule groups like that; the feeling is that one is proven ‘smarter’ by avoiding ‘alternative’ or offbeat opinions. Yet those of us who are ‘dissident’ or whatever the PTB call us, are also outsiders in most ways — not that we’ve necessarily chosen it, but because society decides we aren’t mainstream or ‘normal’, and because “society” has drawn a circle that shuts us out because of our attitudes or opinions. The actual situation is that ‘mainstream’ society has moved far to the left, unable or unwilling to see that they are outside the long-prevailing norms of America. They are the ones who moved the boundaries and walked — or ran — away from old America.

We know that the powers-that-be discussed using the internet (and other such means) to ‘combat conspiracy theories’ and a plan discussed was to send in disruptive operatives to argue (read: gaslight, because that’s what they do) and browbeat and to try to put enough pressure on the recalcitrant ones so that they change their unacceptable views.

So now the right are on the outside, but it’s the only legitimate place to be, while the rest of America is closer to the malevolent left; they just can’t admit it.

For now I think those who can repudiate the left fully should do so, and make common cause with those who still hold to the right way. And I think, despite some small differences, the Q folk are more on our side than not, and they don’t deserve to be made an example of and left out there as targets, as the left are trying to do to them.

Definitions

I see that a national magazine has a cover featuring a ‘President-elect.’ The magazine in question might want to consult a dictionary for a definition of the title ‘President-elect‘ lest they embarrass themselves further.

It does not mean ‘a former candidate who has been chosen by the news media as the media’s own choice‘. I did check the definition myself, and according to this source, at least by the last definition, it means what it has always meant:

President-elect (ProperNoun)

Strictly, the person elected President of the United States between the time of election by the Electoral College and installation in office.

Wiktionary

I like how they begin the definition with the word ‘strictly‘. Actually I prefer the ‘strict’ definition of a word or phrase in most cases; at least then there is a nod to standards and tradition and correctness, rather than the careless, “whatever” approach to word-meanings.

So a “President-elect’ means one who has been elected via the Electoral College, but who is awaiting his inauguration. There is no such person as of this writing. The Electoral College will not meet until January, 2021, to cast their duly-allotted votes. Then there will be a ‘President-Elect’ who will be sworn into office later that month. But not until then. And until then the media should stop misleading the public by implying that we have a ‘President-Elect at this moment.

But then they know what they are doing, don’t they.

Social media and free speech

What with all the social media censorship, and with many people (including the President) being subject to that censorship and banning/de-platforming, newer social media promising ‘free speech’ are attracting interest among those of us on the right.

I’ve never been inclined to join any of the social media; I am not much of a ‘joiner’ especially when agreeing to be censored is part of the deal.

Granted, the Internet in A.D. 2020 is not a place where one can reasonably expect to be granted much real freedom of speech or expression. I’ve seen too many instances of people losing their ‘privileges’ on social media, apparently for the most trifling and trivial offenses. Yet when a social media participant is cast into the outer darkness by those who wield the ban-hammer, it is always left vague as to why the offender is suddenly an outcast.

Why are the terms of service always left mysterious and vague? The legalese in the TOS always says something about the user being subject to banning for any reason; it’s arbitrary and they never spell out the specific ‘offense’. This kind of totalitarian attitude does not entice me to want to join.

I briefly considered joining what is considered a ‘right-wing version of Twitter’ but now that I see them engaging in the same practices as Twitter and its imitators I thought better of it. And I am not good at writing ”terse” statements so it’s probably for the best.

I still can’t help speculating: what is the most common excuse ‘reason’ for banning users on these social media? When I think about it I come up with the conclusion that it must involve political incorrectness relating to HBD/Ethnicity. It seems the most likely to me, because it seems that our crazy society thinks that our ideas about those issues determine our basic character, our actual worth as human beings. Whoever has non-PC ideas about those things is determined by the self-appointed judges to be the dregs of society, someone who does not deserve, who has no right to be allowed to speak freely and honestly, even if he speaks factually and truly. Only those willing and able to walk the tightrope, carefully speaking in the politically correct cant of the day are allowed to participate in online discussions or conversations in ‘real life.’

Speaking truths about those issues (HBD, IQ, ethnicity) above all has probably been THE reason given for most bans, and the charge of committing the unforgivable ‘sin’.

Just my guess, based on what I’ve observed.