Maybe this is trivial, but…

Since we have to hear so much about the mayhem that’ s going on unchecked in our cities, I keep hearing different pronunciations of the word ‘antifa’.

I’ve always said the word with the first two syllables accented. That is, ‘ANTIfa.’ However I noticed people online or on TV saying ‘an-TEE-fa’, as if it were an Italian or Spanish word, where the accent would be on the second of the three syllables. So I looked it up online and the different sources both said the accent is on the ANTI .

Still we live in a world in which people have discarded rules and authority so the pronunciation will be whatever the consensus is or whatever the ‘majority’ decides. Whatever.

And yes, it’s a nit-picky point; I do actually care more about what’s being done to our world than about correct pronunciation of the name.

Can conservatism be conserved?

Some of you may have read an article by David Azerrad on the subject of the ‘failure of conservatism.’ Of course a piece written to condemn conservatism’s failure will get a lot of ‘Amens’; people on the right (or the ‘right’) have been denouncing conservatives and conservatism for years now but it looks like the ‘respectable’ conservatives who write these kinds of think-pieces are now realizing this.

Talk is always dirt-cheap, and it’s easy to jump on a bandwagon rather than to start a new movement. And it’s quite safe and easy to say ‘conservatism is a failure because “conservatives never conserve anything.” We can all recite it in unison; we know it by heart.

But do the people who say ”conservatism never conserved anything” really want conservatism to conserve anything? Is there anything left that they would conserve if they could? I see no sign of that, except maybe among social conservatives (who are pretty thin on the ground now) lamenting the loss of morality, civility, civic order, decorum, manners, good taste — and also the apparent loss of the guts or the gumption to even try to preserve or conserve anything of value.

I do see the ‘sour grapes’ attitude among the critics; they are prone to say that America is the villain in every international dispute or war; that America was on the wrong track from the start (the Founders were all Masons or atheists like Thomas Paine (he was a ‘humanist’, it’s said.)

The attitude of disaffection is another reason why conservatives never conserved anything; the will is not there.

But back to the author of the piece on the failure of conservatism. I’ve been looking at what he has to say, and what I am seeing is that he ultimately wants Americans to embrace ‘born-again’ multiculturalism under other names. He is promoting a kind of civic nationalism in which we accept ‘Brotherhood’ as the rightful order of things; we forget any cultural/ethnic/religious differences and just learn to live together as we are all Americans.

The Canadian-born Azerrad refers at times to influences that lead to divisiveness. He warns against ‘identity politics’ and even Identitarianism. Identity politics is seen as a bogeyman among mainstream Republicans and ‘conservatives’; I remember in my younger days believing it to be bad, but is it ‘identity politics’ per se which is bad? I would say it’s unhealthy only if it’s ‘grievance politics’ or the politics of victimhood, of constant racial guilt accusations, the politics of reparations for past wrongs, real or imagined. That’s what is bad and it’s what we have had far too much of, yet it only ever escalates, as it is doing now.

And yet Azerrad seems to think grievance politics good when Frederick Douglass or MLK espoused that attitude. He has written of his admiration for MLK.

Azerrad seems to be taking both sides; he writes as if he opposes political correctness, the victimhood cult, and all the dishonesty and hypocrisy therein. But then in the next sentence he sounds like another multiculturalist who believes in diversity and all the baggage that it carries with it.

I notice that he emphasizes ‘Unity’ and ‘Brotherhood’ and in this he sounds very much like ‘Q’, who stresses those things frequently. Is ‘brotherhood’ undesirable or is unity bad? If we had an organic unity, a natural unity, that would be the only genuine kind. The Bible has the precept about being ‘unequally yoked’ and I know those things are there for a reason; we ignore them to our detriment.

And what about this:
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

Amos, 3:3

We are hardly in agreement with those we are asked to ‘walk’ with. And even less are they ‘agreed’ with us.

I see this idea of compulsory ‘unity’ and ‘brotherhood’ being pushed by increasing numbers of people on the ‘right’; this is being preached to counteract the dissident right, or as a lure to those people who are inclined to want to like and be liked by everyone. It appeals to the ‘civic nationalists’ who never met an ‘Other’ they didn’t like. It’s popular amongst women.

I risk being derided for saying the following, but I see a Masonic influence here; the language used by Freemasons (as well as their emphasis on unity and brotherhood}, as well as the desire to be ‘inclusive’ and universalist.

TPTB are trying to preserve, or salvage, their Babelist empire, by persuading us that we just need to work a little harder at the multiculturalist project, or as one Q follower said, we have to lose our ‘tribalism’ and learn to live with people from every country.

A Patriot doesn’t see race”, so they say over at the Q channel.
So, round and round we go; more of the same of what we’ve been conditioned to over the last few decades.

Not much is being ”conserved” except for the multicult and ‘colorblind’ civnattery.

Confusion

For some time the Southern Baptist denomination has been moving farther leftward in its theology, politics, and social views. I am sure many of the clergy and of the membership would deny that, but to such denials I would say that they have been moving leftward along with their denomination and are not accurately perceiving the degree of the changes that have occurred and are still occurring.

Lately the Southern Baptists, like most Christian denominations, have been flirting with the Protestant version of what Catholics called ”Liberation Theology.” It has gripped much of the Church in the Western world. It is evidence that the churches have been subverted; we know that this was the Communist goal for decades — remember the Gramscian ‘Long March Through the Institutions”? They now hold the media, academia, schools in general, “science” — the list could go on. The churches have been in the crosshairs of the left for a long, long time, and the churches seem now to have been subsumed within the leftist hive, deny it though they will.

Hint: if it isn’t in the Bible, it is not Christian.

How many churches, apart from a few ‘home churches’ which meet in believers’ homes, are Biblically sound, and how many believers know the actual content of the Bible?

The SBC is now embracing the BLM, although they are trying to dodge any criticism by saying that the catchphrase/slogan of that group is valid, but they don’t necessarily accept the militant ideas and actions of that group. They are trying to have their cake and penny, too. They can appear ‘woke’ (can we please re-learn to speak English?)
and politically correct, appropriately ‘sensitive’, but still disclaim any controversial, extreme ideas,

Cambria Will Not Yield’s most recent post, titled ‘Up Off Our Knees’ looks at what seems to be our total capitulation, and the SBC, as well as other likewise liberal, worldly churches, illustrate Cambria’s point.

Recently a couple of bloggers depicted today’s society as devoted to a new religion — or is it a cult? — which seems to be centered around the so-called antiracist movement. It appears as though this issue, mostly ginned up and stoked by far-left, race-centric fanatics such as those in Portland and Seattle, is all-consuming. (Incidentally, those groups are reportedly burning large numbers of Bibles as part of their Jacobin ‘rituals’ Does that tell us anything?) These are pretty strange bedfellows for the postmodern Churches to be seeking out.

And these 21st century churches, in their pathetic wish to be up-to-date while many churches face dwindling membership, are willing to follow the World’s strayings. What seems to be happening is that somehow the postmodern churches, especially those ‘hipster’ megachurches, and the ‘woke’ cult, have wandered into some kind of Christian heresy wherein groups of people seen as oppressed victims are somehow martyr-like, almost in a Christ-like position. Has there ever been an analogue to this?

And being seen as blameless victims of ‘evil racists’ has earned them halos, though we know that all of us are born with a proclivity to sin. And having said that, the condemnation of one race only as guilty of ‘systemic racism’ makes that one race the eternal villain in this melodrama. According to the ‘woke’ doctrine, only one race was born with Original Sin.

And yet those like the liberal preachers and teachers, sanctimoniously saying that we are all guilty of causing ‘suffering’ are openly virtue-signaling which helps no one, but causes deeper rifts. It further inflames the very real animosities and resentments, which incites violence. The media have blood on their hands, as do all those who perpetuate the narrative which condemns. That ‘narrative’ has, at its heart, the ‘blood libel’ that pronounces us guilty of violence we did not commit ( persistent ‘hate hoaxes’ which are rife, and fabricated stories accusing innocent people, for example) and there is real harm being done to our people. Yet all the tender concern and smarmy excuse-making is reserved for our accusers.

If these members of the Cult of Nice feel the need to confess and grovel, at least don’t do it in the name of others; they can confess and shed crocodile tears to their hearts’ content, but don’t pretend to speak for all of us.

How has this seemingly become a salvation issue? Any minister who implies that is in error. Yet the idea seems implicit in placing this group on a very high pedestal.

Somehow the narrative of victimhood has become part of religious dogma for many White folk today. How? Why? Can anyone show me chapter and verse where our character is to be judged by our degree of subservience to a particular group of people because they claim to be victimized? Is it Biblical or even moral to judge (and condemn) the character of those who are deemed not contrite enough, not deferential enough, towards a particular group of people, particularly if they are not guilty as charged?

If victimhood=saintliness, I would like to see where the Bible teaches us this. Is our salvation dependent on coerced politically correct ideas? The idea that something called ‘racism’ is the very worst, most unforgivable of all evils certainly implies that we’ve come to confuse Political Correctness with God’s law.

All this controversy is a political matter, and while Christians are to be moral and honest in our political choices and actions, politics is of this world, ultimately, which is passing away, transient.

This quasi-Christian heresy that is growing before our eyes needs to be addressed honestly — but most are too busy acting the nicey-nice role, and being seen as tolerant, inclusive, diverse, and above all, ‘woke.’

They are right about the necessity for waking up, but waking up to reality and truth, not to more posturing and posing.

Who is behind the turmoil?

I know there are lots of possible answers to that, but it seems that the topic gets very little discussion either in the untrustworthy media or in the blogging world.

However for the past few months there have been stories here and there by those who are willing to look at this and to follow the truth (not the so-called narrative) but the subject is still neglected.

I know there are lots of possible answers to that, but it seems that the topic gets very little discussion either in the untrustworthy media or in the blogging world.

However for the past few months there have been stories here and there by those who are willing to look at this and to follow the truth (not the so-called narrative) but the subject is still neglected.

Are foreign governments involved? Most often it’s assumed that Soros is prominent in funding these things. But is that the whole story?

For example, some answers (which may be labeled ‘fake news’ by the censors gatekeepers,) but I will try linking here.

And here.

And here

This whole phenomenon looks chaotic and ‘spontaneous’ if only looked at on the surface, but when you think about it, it’s much better coordinated than we might believe.

The strange turns and twists of the Canadian leadership lately suggests they may also be playing a part in what is an international thing. It’s all ‘global’ now isn’t it? Sovereign nations are passe.

A worthwhile read

I hope all of you have visited the link to the ‘Circa 1865‘ blog on my blogroll.

The latest post is about ‘Men Without a Country’, that is the men who, after Appomattox, had to make their way back to a devastated and desolate ‘home’.

The piece also tells us, if we didn’t already know, that the Union army at that time had recruited (sometimes conscripted) men of many nationalities, from many countries, and this was what the CSA army was up against. It put them at a considerable disadvantage.

More and more, speaking for myself, it feels like we are a people without a country.

If you haven’t read the Circa 1865 blog I highly recommend it; it’s very informative and the writer is knowledgeable in his subject. It is sad and vexing that the general public know so very little about the history behind the WBTS, and a great deal of misinformation is out there.

Weatherford, Texas clash

There was some ‘violence’, as the media called it, at a protest in Weatherford, Texas over the past weekend. There was a group of citizens who were there to try to protect yet another endangered Confederate monument, when antifas, apparently from Dallas-Fort Worth, showed up in support of BLM. Unsurprisingly disagreements led to scuffles and clashes between the two groups.

The mostly-young antifas carried signs describing those who favored keeping the monument as being ‘traitors’. It seems almost humorous for antifas to call the people of Weatherford who were there as traitors; just what are they loyal to? Certainly not the country of their birth, and most certainly not their own kindred.

I mean, do they even know what the term ‘traitor’ means? Lately it’s “in” to call Confederates and their descendants ”traitors.” Quite the contrary; they were loyal to the death to their states, their Christian faith, their leaders (mostly good men, no matter what the ignorant say) and above all, loyal to their folk, their kin, their hearths and their homes.

What are antifas ‘loyal’ to? Anything at all? What do they believe in? Destruction and malice? Or are they ‘loyal’ to whoever gives them their pay for what they do?

And incidentally it seems the antifas found it hard to spell ‘traitor’, and some of their handmade signs read ‘traiter’ or ‘traiterist’, (I think they meant to write ‘traitorous’, the adjective, but oh well. Schools don’t teach spelling, grammar, or any such old-fashioned subjects.)

Apparently no one was seriously hurt during the scuffle, as the police dispersed the crowd of 200 or so people.

I am heartened somewhat to see that the people in Weatherford still have some spirit, to exercise their right to object to the removal of the monument — and to stand up to the antifas who crashed the party.

Is this effective?

I came across this ”meme” via Tumblr. It was evidently made by a Republican, and the message it’s trying to convey is obvious; it is meant to persuade someone that Republican Party ”cares” about the disenfranchised POCs. The Democrats are “The Real Racists.”

What this “meme” reinforces to the would-be voter is that somehow or other, White people kept them from voting. It reinforces the idea that all Whites oppress POCs, which is exactly what the militant groups say anyway. The Republicans or “conservatives” who use this kind of rhetoric appear to be trying to divert criticism from themselves, lest they be accused of being part of the ”systematic oppression” (of which we read yesterday). It’s a way of proclaiming innocence while pointing the finger at other White folk. We see the selfsame kind of thing with those who say ” my family never owned slaves,’ or ”my family weren’t even here until after the war.” Remember, the War Between the States was generations ago for most people alive today; can all of us account for, say, all sixteen of our great-great grandparents, that many generations ago? I doubt it, so unless it’s provable it won’t convince anybody.

But back to the ‘DR3’ business: do the DR3 people want to become the party of POCs? Do they covet that status? It sure looks that way from the outside. Do they not realize that the GOP would, if ”successful” in their courtship, become responsible for keeping their new members happy and satisfied? Are the DR3 advocates prepared to lobby for that trillion or quadrillion dollars in reparations, or to deliver on it?

As far as Democrats disenfranchising blacks back in the post-abolition days, or during Jim Crow, keep in mind that American Indians, who at least have a longer history here, were not allowed to vote until the 1920s, I think, though many were literate, having had a basic education via Indian schools. Blacks were not the sole ”victims” of disenfranchisement.

And come to that, White former Confederates were subjected to deprivation of the right to vote and bear arms. Many lost all they had in the War, as happened in my family. Whites did not have the protection of the law when attacked, as they and their families were after the War; they had to resort to self-defense though their legal right to do so was ignored. A bit like today.

There were literacy tests for voting after the Reconstruction period, in the last century, and many liberals (including Republican bleeding-hearts) found that terribly oppressive — but is the universal franchise good if the voter is not literate, not conversant with the laws of the land, or if they are being manipulated to vote a certain way? It was the Republicans, yes, the (still)-Radical Republicans after the WBTS that pushed for the vote for freedmen, with the purpose of nullifying the votes of the Whites when they regained the vote.

The history here is more complex than the ”Democrats bad, Republicans good.” The Republicans of the War era, particularly the scallywags and carpetbaggers, were extremists, scoundrels and race-baiters, manipulators who sowed division, thoroughly anti-White. That’s the gist of it; the Republicans of that time are not interchangeable with the Republicans of today — or are they? The political parties of the mid to late 19th century were pretty corrupt and I’d say they are more so today.

I’ve just about given up on trying to correct these upside-down versions of history in which Confederates are now being depicted as ‘literally Hitler’, and everything associated with them is being destroyed. At the same time the media and a lot of maleducated people are trying to make the South into some kind of evil regime, while the Radical Republicans are supposed to have been knights in shining armor.

And that’s at the heart of ‘DR3’, with both deluded parties smearing the South and really, White folk as a group, in an attempt to win the coveted black vote. Good luck with that, DR3 enthusiasts.

The magic word

I missed this piece when it first appeared. Merriam-Webster Dictionary kowtows to one nonwhite person who thought it her ‘right’ to dictate a more ”correct” definition of that nebulous, all-purpose term, ‘racism.”

Coincidentally I was just working on a piece about that very thing. However I and the lone female who rewrote the Merriam-Webster definition see it very differently.

It must be nice, by the way, to be able to just e-mail the sycophants at M-W and tell them to rewrite the definition to order, tout de suite. And it worked, for her.

What exactly does ‘‘racism” mean? The woman who complained by e-mail, and succeeded in bringing the M-W people to their knees, says it’s ‘systematic.” In other words it’s all coordinated, pervasive, and planned by Whites. Nothing can be systematic if it is a random thing, depending on individual feelings or behaviors.

“I basically told them they need to include that there is systematic oppression on people. It’s not just ‘I don’t like someone,’ it’s a system of oppression for a certain group of people,” Mitchum explained.

The very fact that this woman can simply call Merriam-Webster and be catered to is proof that there is no ‘systematic oppression.’ The systematic oppression is in the other direction: POCs have learned — well, they’ve known it for decades, really — that their wish is our command. All they have to do is call some individual or some institution or business ”racist” and voila, they get their demands.

This is how the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton et al enriched themselves – by means of systematically putting us on the defensive, and inculcating us with a sense of guilt. And words were the most common weapons used against us. This is how Whites end up genuflecting and kneeling at the command of thugs who intimidate them and issue commands.

Most of our folk seem to be scared spitless of the ‘oppressed’ POCs and their magic word, which they have used — systematically — to effectively silence us.

This woman is projecting, as do leftists of all colors, but she and her folk have profited the most from successfully projecting their insidious and systematic manipulation onto us, making us believe we are the guilty ones.

Sooner or later we have to get off this merry-go-round. No matter what is done to appease and mollify these people, their demands only grow. There will never be any kind of agreement or reconciliation. Why would they want that? They surmise that we are weak and frightened by mere words (as well as by physical threats and systematic aggression) which most of us have experienced.

The people who grew up under the present racial caste system don’t know any other reality. They seem to have no desire to reject the current order of things. Those most mind-conditioned are the youngest, and yet even some middle-aged adults are thoroughly resigned to the order of things — which is in fact ‘systematically’ anti-White.

The submissive mindset of Whites in general is becoming more firmly entrenched. How can this unworkable situation continue?

I think Thomas Jefferson was right. Either it will end with us being absorbed into the other peoples who now live on this continent (most of whom resent us at the very least, and they make it known), or there will be conflict, for which we seem to have no will, even verbal conflict.

After all, they have the Magic word at their disposal, while we’ve been disarmed psychologically.

Whatever “systematic oppression” we, or our ancestors of centuries ago were supposed to be guilty of, we are not forcing anyone to stay in this country if they find it so oppressive. But oddly their obvious preference is to stay and continue accusing, condemning, and assigning unearned guilt to us. It pays for them. They have ‘black privilege’ to issue demands and commands and then there’s affirmative action, jobs which don’t require competence, admission to once-elite colleges, and just general deference from weakling White folk who don’t want to be called That Name.

DR3, CivNats — two useless ideas

Louie Gohmert, GOP Congressman “representing” Texas, has moved to ban Democrats from Congress because of their history of ‘racism and hatred.’

At the Amerika blog, Brett Stevens sums up why the Republican fondness for the this DR3 ploy is not helpful.

“Dummy mainstream conservatives think that this is a good idea. Saner people realize that DR3 is always a trap. He has just endorsed far-Left ideas as conservative.”

As it happens I was just reading a thread at Free Republic where the original poster found a quote from Joe Biden that the O.P. thought was proof positive that Biden was a racist and should be exposed as such. One or two posters argued against the DR3 approach but could not get their point across to the original poster, who was champing at the bit to let people know what a horrible racist Biden is (or was, based on an old TV interview).

How does one get across to these people that it’s a useless strategy trying to discredit Democrats or leftists by pulling out the tattered race card? Nobody really believes the Democrats “care” about blacks, or minorities generally, even if they are certified “victims” according to the rules of Political Correctness. Everyone knows on some level that it’s all a cynical play for votes and support, but blacks’ votes are almost always guaranteed to go to Democrats. And no, it’s not that Democrats are ”keeping black on the Plantation” as the DR3 types say; they willingly choose to vote Democrat; they perceive, rightly or not, that that party best serves their interests. Who are we to argue with them? Blacks usually don’t share the philosophy or predilections of most people on the right. Trump is actively wooing the black vote and boasts of having a lot of support from blacks but I think he is overly optimistic or wanting to shore up his support among the CivNat segment who worry and fret about blacks being “neglected” by both parties.

There are still a great many conservatives who have now, after years of heavy ‘propaganda, come to believe that this nation was always destined to be a sort of rescue operation to save the world’s ‘tired and poor, huddled masses,‘, etc, and so therefore America must be multicultural and diverse.

In effect the social philosophies of the right are coming to resemble those of the left, and it seems that Republicans feel it is their duty to police people for ‘racism’ even though the left usually assumes that role. But what with the numbers of Republicans and their quest for Conservative blacks to display as examples, somehow I don’t think that lack of attention to black people or other ‘protected groups’ is the problem.