Sticks and stones

Thanks to the perpetual propaganda machine that is the media, we’ve heard a constant barrage of rhetoric, the most popular being the term ‘supremacist’. Needless to say, the term ‘supremacist’ is always paired with the word ‘White.’

The media and their masters are intent on playing ‘pin the tail on the supremacist’, and they are relentless when it comes to perpetrating these slanders.

But what does the word ‘supremacist’ mean? According to Merriam-Webster, it means, in simple language for English learners, “a person who believes that one group of people is better than all other groups and should have control over them.”

So, a so-called ‘White supremacist‘ would wish to rule over all other groups in their society, because they believe themselves and their people superior.

Incidentally, I’ve used the term ‘female supremacist‘ to refer to feminists, because the label fits there; most feminists believe women should run the world, because they make better rulers, supposedly. So they are actual supremacists — but there is no stigma associated with that viewpoint.

I think if White people were asked, and if they felt free to give honest answers, few would want to rule over other groups. I certainly have no such wish. The dictionary definition, when applied to ‘White supremacists’, would have them trying to assume rulership over all other ethnic groups, and that’s not what most Whites would want, in my opinion. The media people who are pushing this ‘White supremacy‘ accusation are, as usual, being disingenuous or outright dishonest. Likely the latter.

The media are purposely confusing ‘White nationalism’, which is in bad repute with some on the dissident right these days, with ‘supremacy.’ They are not the same. The idea of White nationalism is that Whites should have control of their own societies, being independent and sovereign. Up until the ‘Civil Rights’ revolution of the 1950s and after, White people, being a solid majority, were the dominant group, culturally, socially, and politically. This was merely the natural situation, in a country in which a large majority were White Americans. However the devious media have twisted those facts into ”oppression” by Whites toward minorities — ”keeping non-Whites down”, as the mantra has it.

Most people, if asked, would probably say that every people has a right to self-rule and autonomy. However the current overheated rhetoric from the media and the reigning far left has it that Whites should be put away, silenced, prosecuted for their ‘deviant’ views. Some media personality suggested that White people should be ”destroyed.” And yet it is White people who are being de-platformed, shadowbanned, and so on. The situation is upside down.

The media have created a bogeyman in ‘White supremacists’. Such people are very rare, all but non-existent. But the media need to keep directing anger and rage from the disturbed left in some direction, and they choose to stoke the irrational rage of the left and point these people toward the mythical ‘White supremacists’ who supposedly lurk everywhere.

To think: the left used to jeer and laugh at the right’s anti-Communism, calling their suspicion of Communists ”the Red scare” or the ”Witch-hunt.”

But what if there were ‘witches’? There certainly were Communists aplenty, as evidenced not just by Joe McCarthy (who was unjustly discredited) but by the proof of the Venona Papers, which have been released by the government, verifying the fears of the right. There were Communists in high places, and many in Hollywood. Now Communism calls itself by other names but the same old totalitarian, tyrannical leanings are still there, and fiercer than ever.

White people, who for now are still a majority in this country, are being scapegoated with this ‘Supremacist’ nonsense.

Every ethnic group, if they are honest, will admit to preferring the society of people of their own folk, people like them, with similar habits and customs, similar ways of expressing themselves. Everyone feels most at home with those more like themselves. That allows us to speak freely, to relax, with no fear of ‘offending’ someone by some offhand comment.

The fact that blacks, Hispanics, et al seem to separate themselves, preferring their own ethnic group and its ways is evidence that it’s natural for people to congregate with those like themselves. It is not ”racism”, whatever that may mean on this particular day. It is nothing to do with ”supremacy”. It is everything to do with human nature, or even animal life, where, as the saying goes, ‘birds of a feather flock together.’ Did you ever see a ‘diverse’ flock of birds, with various species grouping together? Nature does not ”celebrate diversity.” All forms of life form like groups.

Those of us who are Christians are instructed by the Bible, in Deuteronomy 17:15, to choose a leader from among our own people, not a ‘stranger’, but one of our own folk.

In simple English, from the New American Standard Bible,
“…you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.”

I grant you, most White Americans are no longer Christian in the old sense, but I think most would agree that this is the ‘American way’, to have our own folk leading us. I would think other ethnic groups would prefer to be governed by their own, but for some peculiar reason they want to have their cake and penny too, and have their own folk ruling in our country.

And is being a ‘White nationalist’ a bad thing in and of itself? I don’t believe so, despite WN-ism being in disfavor with many on the dissident right; my only objection to it is that it tends to deny differences between White ethnic groups, and in some cases, its followers advocate some kind of pan-Europeanism, where Whites may live in any European country simply by virtue of European ancestry. But what if other Whites choose to keep their ethnic integrity? Still, there is no reason to criminalize anybody who has nationalist beliefs. White Americans were, for the most part, all nationalists up until recent years, and contrary to the horror stories of the left about the Bad Old Days, this country was a good place to live, almost a paradise by comparison with today. And that’s when nationalism was the norm, not a crime.

Some commenters online seem to think that the labelling of Whites as ‘supremacists’ or ‘White nationalists’ will take away some of the stigma associated with those words. It may, or it may be that the left’s hysterical rhetoric will escalate beyond even the excessive levels of today, and Whites may be further scapegoated and hounded by the likes of the masked Antifa, who are surely more of a menace than the extremely rare White who commits some politically-motivated violence.

For years I’ve said that Whites are being deliberately baited and goaded, with all this vitrolic talk from the far left, into acting out, and it is a miracle or a testament to the restraint of White people that so few have in fact acted out. Yet the left keeps on with their incendiary ranting, taunting and slandering and provoking. They are intent, it seems on inciting violence.

I hope and pray that our folk will continue to show restraint but at some point someone on the left should rein in the fulminating far-left, but unfortunately many of the worst offenders are in the media, with their big megaphone, to broadcast their militant rhetoric everywhere. And there seem to be no adults on the left to keep things sane.

Should we be afraid of the labels placed on us? We will be labeled, regardless of whether those labels are accurate or deserved. But just as with the ‘r-word’, we have to slough off the attacks and go on about our lives, despite those who are spoiling for a battle, and despite those who want to silence us.

Uncharted waters

Does it seem as though the world is getting darker and darker? I mean, in the sense of becoming murkier, more uncertain, more unsettled. I’ve been saying this to people for some years now. It’s just something that’s palpable to me, and it’s distressing.

It seems so many recent events are odd, unprecedented, and things are spiralling out of control. Maybe some few don’t feel it, and think I am exaggerating or magnifying things.

The line from Yeats, ‘Things fall apart; the center cannot hold‘ comes to mind. Well, for years I’ve been quoting the rest of that poem, especially the part about ‘the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Was Yeats prophetic? I ask rhetorically, though Yeats was unlikely to have been divinely inspired; he was a dabbler in the occult — more than a dabbler, actually; he was involved with the Aleister Crowley cult, Crowley touting himself as the world’s most evil man, or something of the sort.

At this point, it’s people who dissent from the present day’s orthodoxy who are considered ‘evil’ — people who question the leftist, PC consensus. It’s they and their subservient media who control the narrative and the dialectic.

Thinking back to when I began blogging — that was 13 years ago, I think — there still seemed to be reason to hope that America might wake up from its stupor and see what was transpiring, but no; it seems in retrospect that people were reluctant to open their eyes, and wanted to remain in the dark.

But when I began, I thought there was hope in trying to awaken our folk to our history, our heritage, our traditions — and yes, we did and do have a culture. I hoped to exhort people to some kind of healthy pride and awareness of where we came from, and what we had in our way of life and our very identity. But as time went on, and with the changing of the guard — the passing of the older generations and the new ‘young adult’ generations — there no longer seemed to be a receptive audience to the message I tried to convey. Cynicism is the order of the day, and to be honest it’s partly the fact that some of the younger ones never learned the history of their folk or of this country. History and heritage don’t sell. There is no demand for that it seems.

The pietas to which Cambria Will Not Yield often alludes must be found and restored. But are we ready to do that?

If I had my wish, I would focus on our history, and on our fellow-feeling, our love for our own, for our folk. That, to me, is of value; the political situation is very worrying and maddening at times. I don’t believe there will be a political solution to our crisis.

It seems we’re far from home, without a compass or a map.

Acknowledging we are lost is hard in times like these, at least for those who, like me, tend to be optimistic — though cautiously, much more cautiously so, in these times. We have to be honest and acknowledge that we are in uncharted waters. But then we can’t lose heart and lose hope.

Having just read CWNY’s latest post, his last paragraph says some of what I am thinking:

There are no supports left for the Christian European. Everything Christian and European has been torn asunder. Only our hearts are left. Inside His Kingdom of the heart, we must find the strength to resist liberalism and cling to our European hearth fire. All is indeed cheerless, dark, and deadly – we have only our “trembling faith,” and His promise that He will be with us “alway, even unto the ending of the world.” +

Banishing reality

Now the left is proclaiming that anyone who uses the term ”illegal alien” must be condemned.

Of course this was the panel on ”Meet the Press”, indicating the usual leftist bigotry. I would like to think that the average citizen is more reasonable and not as radically left as is the “Meet the Press” panel.

Why do these people demand ‘condemnation’ of anyone using a factual term? They say that the phrase “illegal alien” is an invitation to violence, that it is ‘dehumanizing’ and lacking in empathy.

Speaking for myself, I have plenty of empathy; I’ve never been accused of a deficiency of that quality — but it’s hard to empathize with people who knowingly flout laws and violate boundaries. I would not empathize with someone breaking into my home, or my neighbors’ homes. Why would I? I’ve never felt an urge to let myself into someone’s home, to sneak in through a window or to break in. The left, who are prone to “empathize” excessively with lawbreakers, inevitably claim that the illegals poor dears are ”forced” to come here lest they die of starvation or fall victim to violence in their own countries. I know of no famine in their home countries, nor are they in fear of their lives from some kind of murderous pursuers. Yet I am still expected to ”empathize” with those millions who ‘let themselves in’ to this country, in violation of laws.

I keep reading about the many leftists who are fleeing to Canada because they so abhor our country and our current political situation. Do those fleeing leftists just saunter across into Canada as the spirit moves them? Do they tunnel across in the dead of night — there are tunnels found on the U.S.-Canada border. But somehow I suspect even the leftists don’t defy the Canadian laws and sneak across in violation of Canadian laws. I would bet they observe the rules and get the necessary paperwork. Funny, that. Why not follow the example of their mascot illegals undocumented pre-Americans? If this world is naturally borderless, and borders are just a socio-political construct, why not just rush the Canadian border and demand your free health care, education, and housing? Seems like a good plan for millions of illegal aliens Americans-to-be; it works for them, as witnessed by the fact that upwards of 30 million have successfully arrived.

By the way, I am not recommending this course of action to anyone, lest anyone twist my words. It’s meant as irony, for anyone who is in doubt.

In any case the Canadians seem to control their borders more closely than we do.

But back to this condemnation business: American citizens, in theory covered by First Amendment freedom of speech, are to be ‘condemned’ for the words they choose to express themselves. Certain words merit condemnation in the left’s eyes, but illegal unlawful entry of another country is something which deserves ’empathy’ and support. What next?

Next? I wouldn’t be surprised to see more de-platforming, more people banned from Twitter and more blogs taken down because of of using speech that the all-powerful left ‘condemns.’ And who gave anyone on the left power to nullify the First Amendment? Who made them gods over the rest of us, to control what we can say and what we can’t say?

Another edict of the left: any mention of ‘conspiracy theories‘, so-called, will possibly bring on more de-platforming and more disappeared blogs — but only one side, the right, is ever targeted for this sort of thing. Funny.

Never mind the fact that conspiracies have happened throughout human history — anytime two or more people collude or cooperate in some sort of plan, that’s a conspiracy. But the left, including those who control which views are heard and which are silenced, thinks they can ban something which undoubtedly is factual.

The left can ban and banish and de-platform all they like, but they cannot erase Truth itself. Truth always wins, ultimately. But the left keeps on working tirelessly to nullify reality.

Needed: return to common sense

I recently read a comment from another blog in which the commenter remarked on the young right’s tendency to indulge in disparaging the Founding Fathers and the original basis of this country. The writer ascribed this popular tendency amongst the young right to the fact that they grew up steeped in the leftism and anti-Americanism that is the reigning orthodoxy in what we term ”schools” and ”universities” these days.

The blog comment caught my attention because it rang true, and I find it disturbing that the right, the young right in particular seems to disdain this country and our past as much as the Left does. Like the commenter whose post I refer to, I don’t see how this viewpoint can be useful in offering an alternative to the present corrupt state of things; it is essentially a cynical and bitter viewpoint which does not embody anything positive. It’s merely another take on the leftist worldview. America is always wrong, has always been wrong, and we have no country, no culture, nothing worth saving, etc.

How did this come about? Obviously the indoctrination educational system sets out to create cynicism and loathing for our traditions, our past, our history, and this effort seems to have succeeded in creating generations of embittered, disconnected people who think that tearing the system down and replacing it with some unknown substitute is the answer. Somewhere along the line, regard for facts and for reality itself has fallen by the wayside. How can we recover it, or can we?

Part of the cynicism which has been engendered by the leftist system is a generational animosity on an unprecedented scale. Do I exaggerate? I don’t think so; it’s hardly possible to read a single thread on most blogs without encountering vitrolic rhetoric about ”boomers”, which term seems to include anyone over a certain age, boomer or not. For example: octogenarian Nancy Pelosi is called a ”boomer” although she is old enough to be a mother to ”boomers.” She is a ‘silent’ generation member, if that means anything (except the obvious fact that she is old).

But the term ”boomer” is an all-purpose insult directed at anyone considered over the hill, and it usually implies unpleasant traits such as ‘fat‘ or ‘stupid‘ just for extra insult value. There is little logic or factual basis for accusing older generations of stupidity, greed, or selfishness, as is currently ascribed to the older age groups. The idea that ”boomers” somehow “ruined’ our country, with no help from anyone else, is absurd on the face of it, presuming some kind of near-supernatural power on the part of a whole generation. By the way, have the elder-haters noticed the obvious fact that the older generations are ailing and dying at quite a rapid rate? Maybe the evil oldsters will continue to exert their baleful influence even from the grave, seeing as how they hold such preternatural power to do evil. Perhaps their ghosts will walk the earth, after death, continuing to work their powerful curse on the hapless Millennials and X-ers who fear them so. Honestly, it would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

I do believe the ‘hate-watch’ groups can stop worrying about their clients being blamed for all the ills of the world, because the Boomers and the Silents have taken over the role of that certain population who were formerly believed to wield such excessive influence. Move over; the Boomers and aged Silent generations are the new villains.

Really, though, believing that the year or decade of one’s birth makes people who they are is just another form of the pseudo-science Astrology; being born in a certain year or era does not make us who we are; what ignorance.

However, having grown up in a time in which the Frankfurt School and Political Correctness is ascendant does affect one’s ability to think clearly and objectively; sadly from Gen-X downward the effect of the propaganda machine is evident.

The generational warfare is just another form of manipulation meant to divide us, our folk, even more than we already are. I believe certain specific bloggers have seeded these nonsense ideas, going back a few years when it all began, and those same bloggers continue to foster these absurd tropes about the generations. Why? Obviously there’s an agenda at work here. Who benefits?

Raspail interview

There’s a very interesting interview with Jean Raspail, author of Camp of the Saints, at Gallia Watch, with an English translation. Of course if you read French the original interview is at Nous Sommes Partout, here.

It’s well worth reading, in my opinion; Raspail, at 94, seems still very lucid and he has some ideas to offer about our current situation in the West. He speaks of ‘islands of survival’, which is something to ponder.

I recommend reading the interview, and I’m interested in any thoughts it might stimulate.

The importance of word choice

I was just about to write a piece on the usage and misuse of the word ‘genocide‘, when I came across Thomas Dalton’s very helpful piece on that very subject, on TOO.

Dalton, in a very apropos essay, addresses how the word is very vaguely and broadly defined, and he delineates the origins of the word, as well as the current definitions as laid down by the likes of the U.N.

I recommend the Dalton piece, but I will add my own thoughts as to the questionable utility of a word whose meaning is so elastic that it can include both ‘lethal’ and ‘non-lethal’ meanings and outcomes. For example, any attempt or ‘conspiracy’ to eliminate, or even damage or harm another group is ‘genocide’, per the existing and widely accepted definitions.

However, consult a dicitionary and you will see that the suffix “-cide” as in ‘suicide‘ or ‘homicide’, etc., describe killer, or act of killing. Hence words like ‘regicide’, ‘pesticide’, parricide, and on and on. So it seems we are wresting the meaning by applying it to other situations in which there is no death implied.

There is no half-measure with death; no-one can be sort of killed or somewhat dead. It’s one or the other.

I’ve asked rhetorically in the past: how can there have been ‘genocide’ against American Indians when there are still many living Amerindians, across North, South, and Central America? The rabid left, of course, will say that there were tens of millions of American Indians and that they were ‘all but wiped out’, and would otherwise have represented hundreds of millions. That, however, is just conjecture or plain sophistry. There was never any official census to count the number of Amerindians during the time of the early colonies. How could there have been? And it’s fact that the tribes, being mostly hunter-gatherers, could not have been sustained by that lifestyle had they numbered in hundreds of millions; hunter-gatherers require lots of land and open space to pursue their hunting-gathering way of life.

Amerindians often succumbed to diseases for which Europeans had developed some degree of immunity. This was not intentional ‘genocide’ by Whites, and what about the current situation in which many new arrivals are carrying diseases which are new to North America, and for which we may have no immunity? It’s a fact, but does the left accuse anyone of intentional harm there? Not likely.

In short, it’s fallacious and dishonest to say that ‘genocide’ took place on this continent in the past. And yet, a lot of careless thinkers on the ‘right’ agree with the charges that our ancestors ‘genocided’ Amerindians. But the tribes are still alive and holding their own, so the charge is without validity. Why can’t people grasp that?

To address the question of whether it’s useful or wise, as Dalton questions, to apply the term ‘genocide’ to the replacement of our folk here or in Europe, I would argue, also, for a careful and correct use of language. For many people the word ‘genocide’ seems hyperbolic and hysterical in the current context. I’ve certainly used the term ‘existential threat’ to describe our situation, and I think that’s accurate, but in my opinion it’s about as useful to use the term ‘genocide’ at this point as it is to call the left ‘the real racists’ (the old DR3), in other words, not useful at all. It just rolls of the backs of the targets.

In any case, even if one supposes there’s some utility in throwing these words around in hopes of scoring a bullseye somewhere, there’s this question: considering the history of the word ‘genocide’, its origins and its current definitions (as defined by the United Nations et al), do we really wish to adopt their definitions and their ways of thinking? Since when?

The right can and should do better than to adopt slippery and sophistical rhetoric just because our foes do that so freely.

And far too many on the right, not just the ‘respectable cons’ or cuckservatives have fallen prey to the endless guilt that the left tends to heap on our folk. There is too much ready adoption of undeserved guilt feelings, and the groveling desire to point the finger elsewhere and try to deflect the blame. If we stand on the truth — not easy in this Age of the Lie, we will be much stronger.

The booming South

According to the Washington Times, the South is still ‘booming’ economically, and continues to be a magnet for non-Southrons wanting to find a more congenial home.

The popular wisdom has it that most of the newcomers to the South are ‘conservative’ and looking for a new home with lower taxes, pleasanter weather, and ‘smaller government.’ This may be true in many cases, or even most cases. But is a continuing wave of migration good for the South, or more specifically for the people of the South, that is, the ‘heritage Southrons’ if I may use that term?

And before I go further, I don’t write from any malice towards people from the North. My mother was from the North, and I’m no stranger to that culture.

Large-scale migration of people from outside the South began in earnest in the 1970s. When I search on this subject, the vast majority of hits I get are strictly about black migration back to the South in the 20th century. However the influx of Whites from outside the South seemed most visible in the 1970s and later, and with the ‘tech’ industry (Dell, et al) later. I don’t know that the migration ever really slowed down; the presence of Northerners (including many from Western States) is very evident.

Certainly there are ‘conservatives’ migrating there, or at least conservatives in the broadest sense — but no matter how conservative their politics may be they do change the culture of the South, and have changed it.

To be fair, some of the changes were the result of the omnipresent and intrusive ‘mass media’, with the requisite load of propaganda. The media also exerted a big effect on local ways of speaking — the Southron accent has all but vanished amongst most of the younger generations (Gen X on downward). This I find sad.

When I studied linguistics in college there was a lot of discussion of how language, that is, the language we use, affects our thought processes.
I am no professional linguist, but I’m very familiar with the differences between the Southron dialect, as it existed for centuries, and the sort of mainstream American English accents, as modeled in the media. There used to be considerable differences between traditional Southron dialect speakers and Northern American English speakers, though those differences are quickly being erased, with a consequent loss of a great deal of color and nuance in the English language.

There are of course pockets of people here and there in the South who retain much of their dialect and vocabulary, but they are becoming harder to find. The Southron accent has long been an object of ridicule from non-Southrons, with a prevailing attitude that the accent and dialect sound ‘backward’ or ignorant. That attitude has been very harmful and may explain the wish of some Southern-born people to lose or at least downplay their ‘drawl.’

Language is not the only thing that has been changed by the ongoing influx of people from outside the South; the culture of the South was always very Christian by comparison with the rest of the country. Of course the Bible Belt for a long time included parts of the Midwest and the Western, more rural areas, but the South held out the longest as far as their Christian culture was concerned. Now, though, with the great falling-away in most of the Western world, the influence of Christianity is waning in the South, and the presence of so many non-churched people from outside plays a part.

My state, Texas, is these days often erroneously lumped with ‘the Southwest’, though it used to be considered a Southern state — by virtue of its having been settled mostly by Southrons, as well as because of its solid ‘Bible belt’ status, and very importantly, as being part of the Confederacy. Texas has much more in common with the South than with the ‘Southwest’, that is, New Mexico, Arizona, California, et al.

Texas is obviously on the verge of changing to a far less conservative and traditional place than it used to be. I find this tragic, because it need not have happened, yet the change may be irrevocable, just as the changes to our country as a whole may never be reversed.

And yet — those who look only at economics and see ‘booming’ states in the South don’t ever look at the far more important ramifications of this willy-nilly, top-down imposed change: the loss of the culture, of the heritage, and above all, a change in the very people of the South. People, as I’ve said ever since I started blogging, are not interchangeable. The people make the place. The place, once populated by different people — no matter how ‘conservative’ or Republican they are, will never be the same. And a population of people with vastly different languages, religions, and cultures will eradicate the places we once knew and loved, and will make a mockery of the sacrifices of our forefathers. But this is of no moment to the decision makers, who make these decisions over our heads in our ”democracy” demockracy.

But then we’re not supposed to notice, much less question or mention these things. In parts of Europe it’s criminal to criticize such changes, or even to mention them. And how much longer will we be permitted the luxury to speak or write about it?

Is the state the only threat to liberty?

Libertarians usually emphasis ‘the state’ as the main threat to ‘liberty’, and no doubt an overbearing, overpowerful state is inimical to freedom and liberty. But what about private businesses which exercise inordinate power over people’s lives and freedoms?

Today we are hearing about banks and other financial instititutions cancelling the accounts of those with ‘wrong’ political views; of other businesses (lodgings, etc.) banning people for similar reasons. And then there is the de-platforming of those ‘badthinking’ individuals who have politically incorrect opinions and ideas which they expressed on social media. And because of the apparent ambiguity of laws on issues like this (and I don’t pretend to be a lawyer) it seems they are getting away with it. It seems as if the social media giants have more power than the very state itself.

I confess I don’t seek out libertarian views, (although I can agree with more ‘maverick’ libertarians like Hans Hermann Hoppe or the great Albert Jay Nock). So I have no idea really how the mass of libertarian-leaning people address this apparent power of unscrupulous Business as corrosive of liberty and freedom. Are they really able only to see a threat from Statism?

Is there any checking this power of private business to interfere in people’s lives? How can it be squared with our personal freedoms and our constitutional rights? Or are they a dead letter now, as so many pessimists say?