A warning from a surprising source

Well, this is one for the books. Vladimir Putin has warned us about endangered ”democracy”, caused by rampant censorship. I realize that most Americans now think of Putin and Russia as our ‘friends’, probably as a result of the baseless allegations of Russia influencing our elections. However, contrarian that I am by nature, I retain some skepticism about Russia and the leadership there. But Putin’s warning increases my respect for him, at least in this instance.

Paul Craig Roberts’ piece, to which I link here, sums up the troubling situation in which American citizens who have been heretofore guilty of no crime, are being prosecuted for ‘wrong’ political affiliations and opinions, and even for memes. I wonder if this crackdown is meant to make examples of a few or does it presage a larger net being cast to send a message to those who are being designated as ‘terrorists’ and ‘extremists’?

And why are so many of us unwilling — or is it unable? — to break free from Social Media, despite their totalitarian actions against anyone who is not in agreement with their extremism and their heavy-handed silencing of those whose politics are not acceptable to the Media Oligarchs?

Another ‘hit piece’ on the Q movement

TAs far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the Q movement. Nobody seems willing, outside that group, to give them the benefit of the doubt. Another sneering hit piece here.

The last sentence of that piece, directed at the anons:

“…if you want to keep digging that hole, dig far away from the rest of us.”

What did I say in my previous piece? That the ‘conservatives’ were afraid of the Q movement ‘making them look bad’ by association? That’s always the refrain of the ‘safe’ conservatives, who are worried about looking bad — in whose eyes exactly? Why? The ‘respectable’ conservatives seem more concerned with image than substance or principles.

I get the impression, perhaps because of the author referring to Trump as a ‘little troll’, that the writer was a ‘never-Trumper’ Republican. Maybe the writer is not aware that the vast majority of American voters voted for Trump. He was not some obscure Presidential aspirant. He garnered something like 78 million votes. And yet the writer puts the term steal in scare quotes, as if the whole thing was a figment of some “QTard’s” imagination. No, 78 million Americans were deprived of their choice in this travesty of an election. To let something like that go unchallenged, to accept it meekly, is to make a mockery of our system and to wrong the vast majority of the American people. The results of an election having been stolen (yes, it was) include the fact that, given such vote-rigging technology exists, and has been defiantly used by the Left, as if to rub our noses in their crime, we cannot ever trust our electoral system or those who control it, ever again. Honest elections are not possible after this. Maybe the writer is fine with that; most of us are not.

The writer of that piece seems to agree with the Lying Left that Trump somehow incited violence at that Capitol rally. He did not. His words said nothing to that effect. In fact the so-called “insurrection” had already begun while Trump was speaking. Maybe the author agrees with the Left that his words were some secret “dog-whistle” code such as the Left always alleges when they don’t like what we say.

In fact, that “dog-whistle’ allegation which the Left always invokes when they have nothing else, is a type of a ”Conspiracy Theory”, in fact a ‘wacky’ conspiracy theory, such as the Left and the Faux Right accuse others of, while they themselves indulge in their own ‘conspiracy theories’. And somehow the very idea of a ‘conspiracy’ seems to have been twisted to mean ‘a lie‘ or a wild rumor with no substance to it. Now how did this distortion of language come about? It must have been an effort on the part of people to displace blame, to turn the conversation, a method of evasion of guilt, attempting to direct the blame towards some third party, who made up a ‘wacky conspiracy theory’. Just the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is enough to divert attention and ultimately, blame. Works like a charm most of the time.

Conspiracies are real. They happen. History books tell of many conspiracies. They were true. They happened. Those who found out about them took them seriously, and those who discovered the conspiracy in question must have been given credulity so that the plot could be thwarted. Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot was discovered because of an anonymous letter to authorities. By the 20th century the anonymous letter-writer might be labeled a ‘crazy conspiracy theorist’ and laughed at.

Some of us on the right have been told that our media put out ‘wacky conspiracy theories’ and the right are accused of spreading ‘fake news.’ Now part of the right is accusing other conservatives and rightists of that. Eating their ‘own’ or those who deviate from respectable ‘received opinion.’

So millions of votes were not stolen. What then? Were they lost? Human error, to the tune of tens of millions? That is a crazy non-conspiracy theory.

It seems to me that TDS is real, and it exists on both sides of the political aisle.

As for me? As I’ve said here before, I am not part of the Q movement. I want them to get a fair shake. They are, in my experience, mostly decent and well-intentioned people. They are also intelligent, not ignoramuses as the author’s ‘parody’ of their speech implies. They are also mostly Christian, and that does not mean members of a ‘wacky fundamentalist’ group or something, as those who stereotype them want to think.

Sure, it’s easy to make the Q people a target, a scapegoat. I hope that will not continue.

Q people are your neighbors, relatives, they are probably much like your Church family, and they are fellow Americans. Journalists: there is no call to make them your enemies. They are on your side even if you are not on theirs.

As for me, I will not likely vote for any ‘R’ candidate ever — not that voting has any further use as of now. And what if the Q followers turn out to be right? I suppose it never enters any of the cynics’ minds that they might be wrong, and wrong on a big scale. At least that scenario is more hopeful than the cynics’ outcome which would be what, exactly? Downfall complete? No hope? That seems to be what they wish for: more of the same. More corruption from both sides, endless decline.

What about ‘Operation Trust’?

Lately there has been a story making its rounds about the Q movement, claiming that something called Operation Trust, which is said to be a ‘Bolshevik Psy-Op’ was the prototype for the Q movement. Some of what I’ve read says that this Operation Trust was used by DS to dupe the Q movement, hence the ‘Trust the Plan’ trope. This idea seems a little too handy in my opinion; it sort of has a feel of desperation about it, as if those who started this story are trying to quickly discredit the Q movement.

Lest anyone say or think that I am shilling for Q, I’m not a member of that group, but neither am I hostile to the anons; they’re being wrongly slandered as extremists, and they should and must not be thrown to the wolves just because some anti-Q folk want to ‘distance themselves.’

I think it’s only fair and reasonable to hear both sides of a question. I came across this piece which discusses the ‘Operation Trust’ honeypot.

“Operation Trust” was a Bolshevik Counter-Intelligence honeypot trap to identify anti-communist patriots by having them wait for a secret military plan that didn’t exist.”

Read the entire piece. Whether or not you accept it is your call. I am not sure what I believe about it, but just accepting the (in many cases biased) assertions of the ‘conservative’ apologists online isn’t enough for me. The writer of the piece offers arguments against the stories that have made the rounds. There are also some links within the article that are worth looking at.


The events of this last week have left many people puzzled; what is going on? Why the troops, and why in such great numbers? There has been so much speculation, but I won’t presume to offer an opinion or an explanation; I’ve considered the many possible explanations and discussed the subject with others, and I’m left with no satisfactory answers.

This story seems not to make sense: The Daily Mail reports that antifa mobs attacked Democrat Party Headquarters in Portland, rioted in Seattle and Denver — protesting Biden. The first thing that’s odd here is that they even report on leftist protests and riots, but this story asserts that the rioters are opposing their supposed allies. Is this just propaganda or did it really happen? Maybe the antifa are just looking for more notoriety; maybe they are bored with not being given enough to do, so they decided to burn and destroy a few things, just to keep their hand in? But on the face of it, it looks very strange.

Something that I see as a worrying trend: the media are ratcheting up their rhetoric, describing the Q followers as ‘dangerous’ and ‘potentially violent’ and other such terms. And they are consistently using the term ‘cult’ to describe the group. I’ve been familiarizing myself with the group because they have drawn so much attention, but I am not going to consult only biased and hostile ‘news’ sources when I can simply observe the group members and try to learn from sources with first-hand information.
From what I’ve observed they are not a ‘dangerous’ or violent group, but then we have to keep in mind that today words are defined differently, with anybody on the right deemed dangerous. And the label, once applied to somebody, can potentially carry a heavy social stigma. Social Credit System?

As Americans we should not be so ready to apply harsh labels to our own folk but that is what is happening. I see a lot of people calling Q followers ‘Q-tards‘ (what a juvenile label to put on people; are we all schoolchildren?) ‘crackpots’, ‘crazy’ and so on. Meanwhile any really crazy cult is tolerated.

Cults are something I’ve made a study of; they are morbidly fascinating. But for a real example of a cult, how about Jim Jones’ little group? They mingled with the high society crowd in the Bay Area, were friends with the politicians. They had connections while today, the Q people, who are for the most part very normal people, are made out to be lunatics. It’s a dangerous trend to ‘demonize’ them or anyone who does not hold the majority viewpoints. Any Americans who are even slightly right-wing and/or Christian will end up being targets.

However the Q people, absorbed in the strange spectacle that has transpired in D.C., seem to be stunned by what seems to be happening. There are Q followers who are having to consider the possibility that their leaders/heroes may not be what they purported to be. Some have become disillusioned while some have renewed their absolute faith in Trump and ‘Q’; there are those who are terribly confused by it all, and very emotional because of their doubts.

And the Q followers, for some reason, are besieged by haranguing ‘trolls’ on their streaming channels. The Q followers, having been de-platformed and ejected from some of their former streaming services, have gone from pillar to post — I suppose this is the result of the very negative propaganda being put out by those who control the media platforms.

I think the presence of the leftist ‘trolls’ in the chat rooms of Q channels is a kind of abuse; it has a bullying aspect to it, as these people taunt and ridicule and insult the Q followers. What is the purpose of that, other than just a sadistic desire to humiliate and harass innocent people? Even though the “election” is over and a new president inaugurated — the left persists with this particular campaign of gaslighting and bullying. It appears that they are ‘assigned’ to do this on a regular basis; some of these creatures say they are paid so much per hour to do this, and the Q Patriots too often meekly subject themselves to that treatment. If I were subjected to that kind of emotional and mental abuse I would not take kindly to it, nor tolerate it. But then I am not as pacifistic as the Q ‘family.’

What a strange time we live in.

It is interesting to see how some people — not just Q followers (or actual ‘cultists’) manage to hold onto their beliefs despite being disappointed when the promises turn out to be unfulfilled, and when their heroes’ prophecies don’t materialize. But studies of these things have shown that ‘true believers’ often find their beliefs reinforced when the hoped-for rewards don’t come. It’s odd, but it does seem to happen that way. I suppose that we all have a need to believe and to hope, even despite the odds being against the ideal outcome.

I generally maintain a cautious hope when it comes to trusting, especially when I am expected to take a great leap of faith with little evidence to justify it.

At this moment I can only say that to all appearances, Trump has let his devoted followers down, but I am open to being wrong. I would like to be wrong in this case. I think that a lot of Americans feel the same.

The reigning “-ism”

I ‘d like to call your attention to an important piece at Throne, Altar, Liberty. It’s titled ‘The Ism that Isn’t”.

When you read the piece, you will see how the title applies, but I am calling my piece ‘The Reigning ‘-ism‘ because it is something that, in my humble opinion, does exert a lot of control over our lives, compelling us to obey the PC rules as to what words we may use, how we are to behave, and it inhibits us when it comes to even broach certain subjects. For example, I have had it in mind to write a piece much along the same lines as the piece by Gerry T. Neal but in this atmosphere of censorship I suppose I felt that I would have to walk on eggshells and take care with my word choice. But in any case I think his piece is much more thorough than one I would have written.

I appreciate that the writer traces the history of the ‘R-word’ and its usage down the decades, showing how the left began to tamper with words and meanings so as to shape people’s ideas. The word ‘racism’ was apparently coined by them during the pre-WWII era. I have heard varied stories about that — such as the story that Trotsky himself invented the word; that is likely not correct. Then later the more neutral word ‘racialism‘ was used. I know that it was more commonly used in Britain as a less condemnatory label. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, the term ‘racialist‘ described someone who believed in the reality of race or in certain accepted tenets on the subject. A racist, on the other hand, was to be condemned as a bigot and scoundrel. I never hear anyone use the term ‘racialist’ anymore, but if the term were used, I believe it would carry the same stigma as the ‘r-word’.

The term ‘colour bar’ was often used in the context of South Africa’s apartheid policy and in the case of young people I knew, it often referenced any segregation or ‘discrimination’ in the UK. Young friends used to ask if we as Americans ‘agreed with the colour bar’; this was a test I suppose to see whether we were acceptably liberal.

But how did the ‘Ism’ become so all-powerful that even using a word could lead to loss of livelihood, social status, lawsuits, loss of friends? Now many churches, for the most part have become not Christian soldiers, but Social Justice Warriors, or perhaps witch-hunters, with their declarations that the r-word or ‘ism’ is a sin.

I was taught that we are not to add to or take from the Word of God, not to invent sins and add them to the already listed ones. It appears the churchian faction puts human opinions ahead of the Word. Another example of this is the feminist attempt to legitimize their liberal ideas as compatible with Christianity, but that’s another story, though the people and the ‘theology’ involved are similar.

It seems that Political Correctness, which essentially requires and mandates dishonesty and outright lying, has more power over most White people’s behavior than does the Law of the Land or the Ten Commandments. People are more afraid of unwittingly offending some person of the ‘protected groups’ as TPTB put it, yet more afraid still of losing social status by having the wrong opinions and being shunned by people whose acceptance is important to them. I see people adopting insincere and deceiving poses so as not to breach any rules of behavior or speech. I see people in public being treacly-sweet towards certain groups while in their presence, whereas that is not their normal self. I think PC has contributed to insincerity and to falsity. Ideally we would and could be civil and polite to all, but life doesn’t always work out that way. The Word tells us that, insofar as it’s possible we are to be at peace with all, but forcing people together or pretending a goodwill which is nonexistent is dishonest, and can’t be an acceptable way of life.

I personally think that the ‘Ism’ should be subtracted from our vocabulary, and that we stop all the falsehood and pretense and fear that is wrapped up in that one word.


It appears from my blog stats that I consistently get visitors from various non-Anglosphere countries. That’s not so unusual in general as the Internet does not have ‘borders’ as such, except where certain countries don’t allow it. I simply wondered if I really have visitors from these exotic countries or if VPNs are the reason for these countries showing up among the traffic.

On my old blog I was familiar with a lot of my regular readers but not so now, except for a few from the old days who comment now and then. Well, whoever my readers may be I am glad I have somebody visiting.

Some interesting news items

One of the more heartening news stories has it that Tim Berners-Lee, the real inventor of the ‘world wide web’ is building a new platform, which he indicates will be much better than our present situation, where ‘Big Tech’ and social media have captured it — and us, leading to the current censorship and de-platforming. Having a better internet would improve our lives greatly — if the Big Media tyrants don’t find a way to thwart it.

Twitter says it has suspended more than 70,000 accounts containing ‘dangerous’ Q-related material. Disturbing, because though the Q movement has gained a bad reputation (thanks to the mainstream media and their demonizing any remotely right-wing group) Q followers are not dangerous, and I find it odd that so many Americans were quick to jump on the anti-Q bandwagon, calling Q followers ‘crazy’ and ‘stupid’. What drives this kind of hostility? The need to have someone on whom to look down and feel superior? In any case they are entitled to the same freedoms — which none of us seem to have as of now, sadly. But this criminalizing tendency toward people who have done nothing wrong — except to see things differently — is not good. And if Twitter found 70,000+ ‘wrongthinkers’ following Q , there must be more of them than we think. Isolating and ‘othering’ them is something the left has chosen as a way of getting conformity and obedience to their way.

The Occidental Observer has a not-very-long but thought-provoking piece about the rally at the Capitol on January 6. I could not be there but I did watch it on streaming media. As you are probably all aware, there was no riot. Again, there was no riot. But no matter how many of us might say that, the media will continue to say that there was, and that it was incited by Trump and by people on the right. They will continue to speak as if their concocted alternate reality is the Real Truth; they will continue with their gaslighting campaign. In any case, the writer, Thomas Dalton, takes a very gloomy view of the whole thing; I recommend reading it if you haven’t already. I will only say that Mr. Dalton feels that the only remedy or perhaps the best remedy is secession, just breaking away.

“There simply is no other feasible option. To continue to live in the current political environment, with its now-likely permanent radical leftist and anti-White orientation, is to surrender one’s future, and that of your children and grandchildren. It need not be so.”

Thomas Dalton, Ph.D, The Occidental Observer

I can’t say I disagree; when I first began blogging some fourteen or so years ago, I did my best to lay out a case for secession. I foresaw little chance of a solution in any other conceivable manner. However I got a lot of negative feedback. The late Lawrence Auster and I ‘debated’ it before a very small audience on my blog. (That was before the little contretemps between us.) Only Southrons, and those of the non-reconstructed type, agreed with me. There was then a (re)nascent Texas Nationalist movement which I hope still exists.

Secession is not illegal, by the way, though many will insist it is.

When secession was discussed anywhere online then, the usual ‘argument’ against it was “they won’t let us.” Well, King George was not very willing to ”let us” secede either, but we did, for better or for worse. We cannot wait for permission to take our destiny into our own hands, instead of passively resigning ourselves.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence

Though I think most Americans — who were (and are being) taught that secession = Treason! — will resist the idea fiercely, at least as things are now, maybe events will cause them to see things in a different light.

The discussion continues

The recent events in D.C. are still provoking discussion; there are so many different opinions about what happened. It’s necessary to read or hear what people think, and what it may portend, but after reading and hearing so many varied and sometimes opposing viewpoints, it’s hard to sort out what I think.

When I learn what people in other countries think about us, and about what is going on in “our ” country I get the impression that there are a lot of misconceptions, but that’s to be expected, given that there are different cultures and mindsets involved. And then there’s the factor of the so-called ‘mainstream media’ and their peculiar, warped view of the world — which bears little to no relationship to reality.

Will things ever be the same? It seems the answer is in the negative. Granted, for the last year or so, life has been changed greatly, so for some time we have been in uncharted terrain.

I found this piece to be a thought-provoking take:

“We have finally reached the End of the Republic. The results of future elections will lie within parameters established by the Powers That Be. There will be no more successful “dark horse” candidates; the system has been rigged to prevent them.

On a related note, Sundance at Conservative Tree House has joined the dreamers at Power Line, although his desperate optimism takes a somewhat different tack: he proposes the founding of a new political party led by Donald Trump, which would siphon off most Republican voters, as well as a big chunk of Democrats and independents.

It’s a nice idea, and it might have worked before the widespread adoption of Dominion voting machines. But after 2020, how does such a party go about actually winning an election? The machinery to prevent that possibility is already in place. Nobody can get elected without the approval of the Deep State. Which means it will be the UniParty — Democrats plus safe (neutered) Republicans — from here on out.”

Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, 8 Jan 2021

And further, the issue of how to have an effective protest by genteel rules:

“There has been a cavalcade of “conservatives” eager to denounce Donald Trump and the angry crowd at the Capitol. Their general theme is that “violence solves nothing.” How easily they have forgotten the means by which the Patriots of 1776 threw off the yoke of King George III and established a constitutional republic! If these modern-day talking heads had their way, we’d still be sending politely-worded lists of grievances to the queen and her ministers.”

Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, 8 Jan 2021

[Read the rest at the link.]

There has been a lot of dismay over the mass purges on the big social media. It’s as though a lot of people can’t imagine life without their social media, despite the fact that the social media consistently mistreat anyone who doesn’t go along with the accepted belief system. And what did people do before social media became such a part of life? There are other ways to communicate. But as things are going we may not have our First Amendment rights anyway; that will be reserved for those who have the correct views.

But at this point we can only guess about the future.

About that rush to condemn ‘violence’

We’ve seen that the media and many politicians have been very quick to condemn the Right, particularly Trump supporters. Clergymen too in some cases have jumped on this bandwagon; it consists mostly of the ‘Respectable Right’ in my observation. But the important question is: does this rejection of violence in general, this almost-pacifistic sentiment true to Christianity? I’ve said what I believe and know to be true, but I highly recommend this piece from the Iron Ink blog.

Too quick to place blame

Who is to blame in the controversial situation at the Capitol? I don’t know what impression others have of the events there in this past week but there seem to be many people who are blaming Donald Trump and the ‘rioters’.

The condemnations often center around this issue of ”violence” perpetrated by the pro-Trump activists who are now officially labeled as ‘domestic terrorists’ by the Powers That Be. And the compliant and clueless Republicans, obediently taking their cues from the media, merely parrot what the media say, which means that they implicitly accept that the Trump followers committed violence, and rioted.

Are the media ‘professionals’ unfamiliar with the English language? Do they know what ‘riot’ means, or what a rioter is? Maybe they should search for some information on the events of last summer in Portland, Seattle, or even Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Those cities experienced riots, real ones This is not what happened in D.C.this past week. The media called those Antifa riots ”mostly peaceful protests’, refusing to acknowledge reality, just as they continue to do in the face of a lot of property destruction and chaos, not to mention the harm done to human beings, both physical and emotional.

We know the media will always insist that reality is 180 degrees off, the opposite of where the real truth is. Most of us know this, but for whatever reason, such as plain old wishful thinking or self-delusion, some of us insist on closing our eyes and minds to the truth. The first truth is: ‘We’re not in Kansas anymore’ and the second is that everything we’re told by ‘officials’ and media is wrong and false.

The ‘riots’ they are still condemning fell far short of what a real riot is. And the people who came to D.C. to protest are not extremists, not dangerous. Why, then, are so many ‘right-wing’ Americans ready to condemn them?

It seems they are kin to the people we used to call the ‘Respectables’, who are afraid of looking bad to someone. They are usually the preening Republicans who imagine that they set the standard of propriety. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to present a good image to others but there is such a thing as being too image-conscious and wanting the good opinion of others above everything else. Politicians and their image-obsession are an example of this, but ordinary people seek approval. So they are quick to condemn the protesters and to disavow “violence”.

But if someone is attacked physically, and the person or persons who are being attacked refrain from defending themselves (because ”violence never solves anything”) they may find that their high-flown ‘principles’ cause them to be hurt by an aggressive person who has no such principles. And what if members of one’s family are attacked?

The left used to make a pretense of opposing violence. For example they always condemned gun owners and disparaged the Second Amendment, as well as inveighing against war. However now that they finally gained power and control, suddenly their pacifist principles are gone with the wind. So they are OK with violence, while suddenly Republicans don’t want any part of fighting, even simply fighting for truth, for what is right.

Some of those who profess Christianity forget the words in Ecclesiastes: “a time for war, a time for peace…a time for love, a time for hate…” Yes, your Bible says that, as does mine. And what about David in Ps 144:1?

Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

Romans 12:18 (KJV) If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”

Please note the qualifying phrase “If it be possible.” IF. Sometimes it is not possible. What then?

The Bible does not teach pacifism.
Neither does it teach violence outside of self-defense.

It looks as though the people who worry about their public image, and who disavow any ‘aggressive’ behavior, want mostly to show off their liberal, nice ideals. It is for show, just as with the Pharisee showing off his piety.

We don’t know what will happen next; it’s not going to be easy making our way through this unknown situation. But it certainly won’t help us to follow the example of the media shills and manipulators. And this is not a time to be at odds with our own kin. The quickness to condemn our own is not a good thing for us.