Is there an unbiased source anywhere?

As the world continues to get crazier, the latest thing I am reading is that there is some kind of building controversy going on about the Rotherham crimes: several people commenting have said that the authorities in the UK are denying that ‘Asians’ are the prime perpetrators of the crimes.

For years now it’s been frustrating to watch many Americans in particular get angry that the term ‘Asian’ is applied to Pakistanis in Britain. I have never understood why this angers a lot of people. And now the prosecutor in the Rotherham cases denies that ‘Asians’ or Pakistanis have been the perpetrators in Rotherham or in a number of other Midlands towns and elsewhere. Nazir Afzal here says that White men have been responsible for a lot of the cases and he denies there is a religious connection to the crimes. Islam has nothing to do with it. So he says, even though some who are knowledgeable about Islam would say otherwise.

It seems to me that he will not admit that he is biased in favor of those he identifies with, but no person ‘of color’ ever gets accused of bias or prejudice; only us.

Meantime, a number of silly Americans are getting upset because they think the term ‘Asian’ should be reserved only for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, apparently.

But look at a globe or an Atlas. On which continent are Pakistan and India and Bangladesh? Africa? South America? Europe? Am I getting warm?

Years ago I was interviewed by an apparent Subcontinental. The issue of race came up and he pronounced himself to be ‘Asian.’ Then he specified he was ‘an Indo-Dravidian’. Was he wrong to say he was Asian? Are Dravidians also excluded from the club called ‘Asian’? According to most Americans, I guess the answer is yes. Only Northeast Asians are real Asians, it seems. And I can only guess that Americans, being partial to that group, are very protective of their image and want to reserve the name ‘Asian’ only for them.

Asia is a huge continent, including much of what was once the USSR. It includes a multitude of peoples, people with whom most of us are not personally familiar.

But Pakistanis originate in Asia. We all learned that in elementary geography classes, did we not? Also, most of the people we think of as Middle Eastern are also from the larger Asian continent. Israel is in Asia.

Another issue that frequently crops up is the assertion that Moslems are not a race. Well, that’s strictly speaking, true. H o w e v e r, those who are in our countries, though theoretically they could be from anywyhere, are in fact of Middle Eastern or South Asian ancestry most often. This means Asia.

In the UK it seems they are most often South Asian. So the term ‘Asian’ is not incorrect. And I know it’s pointless for me to write this, as the same things will be said again and again regardless.

The fact that most of our derelict schools stopped bothering to teach geography has not helped.

The ‘Asian-Not-Asian’ quarrel is sort of a side issue, but I just don’t understand why it is such an important thing for some people.

And it seems that on many of the blogs where this issue is being discussed, attacking Christianity is the priority for most of the people. Do these people represent the dominant group, since they seem to be everywhere? Or are they astroturf, shills?

Why are so many ‘intellectuals’ on the right obsessed with blaming Christianity and Christians for these situations? Why must they conflate the Christian faith with what they call the ‘alien desert religion?’ The tiresome fact that they do so only shows that they know nothing of Christianity nor of the meaning of certain Biblical passages — which they misquote and misunderstand.

Hence my question at the top of this piece: where are the people out there who don’t have a huge bias against Christianity, or against the British? It’s getting very depressing reading this stuff on so many blogs. But maybe that’s the whole purpose and point of it: to demoralize. And that itself says that the people behind this barrage of bias are not on our side.

Remembering Robert E. Lee

I don’t want to neglect the birthday of General Robert E. Lee. Now that his statues and memorials are being targeted, and his memory is being disparaged by emboldened leftist writers, I feel the need to give him the honor which is due him.


Robert Edward Lee in 1838

It’s sad to have to note that our history and heritage are under attack, and our heroes like General Lee are being called ‘traitors’ and other such names. And the saddest thing is the weak response to this. I give credit to those who stand up for our heritage; but there should be more voices heard speaking up to defend General Lee, and all our ancestors and kinsmen who fought honorably for the ‘Lost Cause’, defending our homeland against heavy odds.

I’ll just leave you with a quote from another great Southron, Rev. R.L. Dabney:

“We are a beaten, conquered people, gentlemen, and yet if we are true to ourselves, we have no cause for humiliation, however much for deep sorrow. It is only the atheist who adopts success as the criterion of right. It is not a new thing in the history of men that God appoints to the brave and true the stern task of contending and falling in a righteous quarrel. Would you find the grandest of all names upon the roll of time? You must seek them among this “noble army of martyrs,” whose faith in God and the right was stronger than death and defeat. Let the besotted fools say that our dead have fallen in a “lost cause.” Let abandoned defamers and pulpit buffoons say that theirs are “dishonored graves.” … We have no need, sirs, to be ashamed of our dead; let us see to it that they be not ashamed of us.” – –

Robert Lewis Dabney

Rotherham

One of my favorite traditional English songs mentions ‘Rotherham, in Yorkshire’ in the lyrics. Today the name ‘Rotherham’ calls up very sinister and unpleasant connotations, at least for those seeming few Americans who are paying attention.

If you read my piece which touches on this situation on the other blog you know my opinions about this, about how Americans disparage the English or the British for their lack of action.

But read the piece from the Iconconlast/New English Review to see what the situation is like there: the police appear complicit.

Rotherham police chief: we ignored sex abuse of children’. With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out.

This is so distasteful, this whole situation, that I think a lot of us shy away from it, avoid discussing it except maybe in private conversations with people we know well, and people who are not going to throw tantrums if they are hearing things that violate their ‘snowflake’ preconceptions, or their politically correct religion.

I’m not an exception; I don’t like discussing these things, but even less do I like the fact that these things are happening. And what was Edmund Burke’s famous saying? “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Actually if we want to be pedantic Burke didn’t say that. According to this website, J.S. Mill said something like it before Burke made his statement.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Attributed to Edmund Burke, including by John F Kennedy in a speech in 1961. Burke didn’t say it, and its earliest form was by John Stuart Mill, who said in 1867: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Thanks to Andrew Marshall. 

[Bolding at the end of the quote is mine.]

But to return to the point here, the bad men who are carrying out this systematic Rotherham atrocity (and I call it that purposely) are finding that the ‘good men’ seem to be ”looking on and doing nothing.” That’s at least the belief of the Rotherham perpetrators, and seemingly of many Americans who post comments online. People seem to have decided that Britain is essentially a lost cause, an island of people who don’t love their children and don’t have any revulsion towards evil.

But is that true? The hands of the British public have been tied, where legal options are concerned, and the ‘hate speech’ laws have criminalized even telling the truth about this situation — the perpetrators are of a shielded and protected group, who are apparently being given carte blanche to carry out this demoralizing and degrading action against a lot of young people who will be damaged physically, psychically, and spiritually, as will their families and thus the whole town. And the worse thing is that this situation in Rotherham is not isolated, not a one-off situation. It’s apparently being done or has been done in various English towns.

Fathers have tried to get help from the so-called law-enforcement authorities, and have been accused and imprisoned for doing so, in some cases. This is as I said on the other piece I just wrote.

Surely we owe some sympathy rather than disdain and condemnation towards the families of these young people. What can the populace do if the authorities seem to be siding against them, rather than the criminals?

For whom do the ‘law-enforcers’ work? Are they supposed to defend their own folk, or people who are a danger to the citizenry?

And do we in America have a right to criticize or condemn, when our folk, too, have been victims of known criminals? What about Kate Steinle in San Francisco? Not the same situation, obviously, but whose side were the authorities on? Where was justice there? And what has been done to rectify it? What can we do? Nothing as long as ‘our’ leaders continue to appear to be against us.

I should not feel the need to be constrained in saying what I am saying, because our system, our Constitution supposedly guarantees us the right to free speech, and to speak truth, and to petition for our grievances, to ‘cry in the street’ our grievances. But the fact is we don’t have free speech, and others who claim to be ”offended” can silence us with just a word of complaint. Who is preferred here? Or in the UK?

As to our rights, which are now under attack everywhere it seems, the late R. Carter Pittman wrote a lot about these things, years ago. On the first Amendment:

The First Amendment doesn’t say that those rights are given to the people. It says the people never gave them away. That Amendment is based upon the proposition that freedom of religion, freedom to speak, to write and to sigh and to cry, to assemble and to pray for deliverance from grievances, are the gift of God—not governments—and that they are held by the leave of no man and no government on earth. If government can give a right it can take it away or it can license the exercise of it.”

In much of the former Western world, former Christendom, those rights were protected almost universally, except in the Eastern bloc totalitarian systems. But though we are not in the best of shape here, the UK seems to be gone further down the Orwellian path; it may be that we will follow right behind them unless things turn around. But without the right to speak freely, or to even name known wrongdoers for fear of punishment by the Powers, do they have freedom?

Do we? So far we still have a little leeway to speak or write — but it seems to be shrinking by the day. More and more we have to take care what we say, with what words we say it, and to whom or about whom we say it or write it.

But to condemn other peoples because they find themselves deprived of the ‘rights of Englishmen’ as we and they once had is misplaced. Most of us did not believe we could ever have our ‘inviolable’ rights taken away; some just can’t believe the brazenness with which it’s being done, and it’s taken many of us by surprise. We weren’t vigilant in protecting our liberties, as we were told to ‘guard’ our liberties zealously. We haven’t. Neither have our British and English cousins. We are all facing the same quandary.

In the meantime the Rotherham-style crimes go on, as the local ‘authorities’ go on protecting the perpetrators, and it seems as in Mill’s words, ”good men look on and do nothing.” But some have tried, and were thwarted.

But as I’ve said before when questioning that spurious quote from Edmund Burke, if a man looks on evil and does nothing, is he a good man? No good man can look on evil dispassionately. Only amoral, hollowed-out, demoralized people can do that. And there are such people; we see them, and the results of their lack of righteousness.

I feel the need to add that no good man looks on the misfortune and suffering of others and turns away in indifference, and no good man or woman derides others’ troubles. I see that happening in this situation.

We have our own problems to solve; our problems are not completely unlike what our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic are facing. They may differ in degree but not in kind. We can’t afford to look down on the people over there, or feel morally superior to them. Only the soulless cynics are prone to do that.

Disappointing news

I was sorry to read that the blogger at Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores/Cantandum in Ezkhaton will be discontinuing his blog. I thought he was doing great work in aggregating links from various dissident right blogs, including my own blog here, occasionally. Through his work I found other worthy blogs I hadn’t yet been familiar with. It’s helpful to discover new voices and different opinions. Change is a good thing at times.

I realize people often have to make changes due to life circumstances and I wish him well in his future endeavors, though I am sorry the blog won’t be continuing.

Fake news?

Lately the left and the whole media establishment are again accusing the right, or anyone else telling the truth, that they are actually guilty of creating ‘fake news’. This time, the left has been shouting that the cause of global warming climate change Climate Crisis is ‘Climate-deniers’, people who refuse to go along with the left’s half-baked notions.

The recent arrests made by Australian authorities, reportedly almost two hundred people, have elicited shrill denials from the left’s media lackeys and the small army of leftist adolescents of all ages who refuse to admit that there have been a number of intentional fires set. The left think that by stopping their ears at any hint of Truth, and issuing their own fabricated story of what ”really”’ happened, they can keep their anti-factual narrative alive and dominant. Sadly, it often works because most of the time the media supports the left’s Fake News narratives even when the evidence doesn’t. But will this situation go on forever or will the majority use their common sense instead of accepting a false account of these fires?

When some of the media organs in Australia reporting that a certain percentage of the fires were man-caused by either carelessness or outright arson, the media and their leftist faithful went into overdrive trying to discredit the stories of how the fires began. However even before the stories became more widely publicized, I read articles giving a breakdown of the causes of Australian bushfires in general, even before the latest highly sensationalized media reports about the unprecedented number of fires this year. I’m sure many people saw those reports, containing pie charts showing the different causes of fires, as documented by authorities.

The left must have anticipated this contradiction because they had their accusations all ready to go when the reports came out.

I encounter a lot of younger, left-wing young ones on a certain site and some of them if not most are beyond agitated about the stories that anyone has actually started fires. In their minds, the only guilty parties are the people who don’t go along with the ‘Climate crisis’, the ”deniers”,. Remember the talk in the media about proposals to jail anyone who denies that global warming Warble Gloaming The Climate Crisis’ exists? Also the Australian politicians who are ‘right-wing’ (in fact, probably just middle-of-the-road) are the only other designated villains in this story, as the young leftists see it, and that’s the way the left has purposely framed it. Anybody who is not on the same page as Greta Thunberg and her legion of juvenile ‘activists’ is the Enemy.

It’s certainly well-known by a lot of people in our country that environmentalists’ practices of refusing to cut underbrush contributes considerably to the spread of these fires. But I suppose the worse-than-useless Big Media everywhere refuses to discuss the facts. There are a number of articles like this one which discuss this approach to controlling fires, but the search engines seem to do their best to hide these suggestions before the ideas can catch on, or even be discussed.

I’m not a fan of Townhall Magazine in general, but there’s a good sound article there about the fires.

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a really free press in which the truth was not only allowed, but held in high regard? Woudn’t it help to hear all sides the story? Imagine. And how many of the Thunberg cult are aware of any facts on this situation? Instead they are all blind followers of the blind. We can’t build a healthy society in such conditions.

And wouldn’t it be good if humankind could stop trying to be his own god?

The left takes its cues from these latter-day high priests known as scientists, imputing near-omniscience to them, when reality shows that ‘science’ does not have all the answers, though they often seem to pretend to. But we’ve seen how the integrity of ‘science’ has been compromised, how scientists have at times (how many times, who knows?) falsified data and hence perpetrated incorrect if not outright fraudulent conclusions. Climategate, if anyone remembers that, was proof of the lack of trustworthiness in science, but the media, the scientists, and their young cult followers succeeded in hushing up the sordid story and burying it, or so it appears.

And yet these same people claim to be the unimpeachable sources of truth, the ultimate authorities in their world in which there is no God. They prefer to acknowledge either no god(s) or the false god of Science — which ultimately means that God is simply human reason — as they see it, anyway.

Maybe only those who believe in an ordered and purposeful universe, ruled by a God who is not a chaotic and unknowable deity, can make sense of the reality we live in, and recognize truth, rather than coming up with confusing fabrications about the nature of reality.

Building walls, and laying out the welcome mat

I’m always a little leery of spending my scarce blogging time on criticizing the President. There is always a group that believe in unquestioning support for anything and everything that someone on ‘our side’ says or does. We’re only supposed to shout ‘Amen’.

Usually this attitude holds toward any GOP president; GWB, inept as he was, had quite a crowd of cheerleaders who called anyone who found a fault in him a ‘traitor’ or a turncoat.

Now we have a President talking about the walls being built along our Southern border, or should we say our onetime, used-to-be border. Or what we laughingly refer to as a border. The word means a line dividing two countries, districts, etc. Or it may mean just the area in the vicinity of that line. I think the meaning for the current political leaders, of both parties, is a far more vague meaning than the primary one.

Why all the talk, in the earlier days of this administration, of limiting refugee intake, which is overwhelming many areas of this country, especially the areas that these double-talking politicians consider ”diversity-deficient?” Areas which have had stable demographics for the most part, which are now being overwhelmed, both with cultural change and the costs of dealing with many newcomers? And while the government spends lots of money towards this refugee scheme, the local authorities have to deal with much of the cost, both in monetary terms and in cultural terms, social terms. The communities (by which I mean the long-established populations who actually have a connection, a bond, and a history as cohesive groups of people here in America) pay a toll. The powers that be just want us to continue to turn a blind eye or the other cheek.

And in addition to the 1.5 Million (approximately) legal immigrants we have the ‘refugees’ and unknown numbers of people not here legally. Here to stay. Occasionally we are reassured that illegal border crossing is diminishing, or the other dubious story that ‘the illegals are going home now because they’re afraid. Somehow I’m unconvinced. I think the PTB just don’t want the nativists getting restless.

So now I’m hearing that the President defended bringing many more H1b visa workers from India or wherever. When Laura Ingraham of Fox News questioned him rather aggressively about this, reminding him that he ran on an ‘America First’ policy, it angered a few people because Laura was rude or disrespectful to him. I’m in favor of everyone being polite and civil inasmuch as possible. But I don’t want the knee-jerk defenders of what passes for the ‘right’ in this country to try to stifle any honest questioning of our political leaders.Politicians are not demigods; they are not sacrosanct. I saw far too much of this ‘my President, right or wrong” when GW Bush was President. Brazen as the two grifting Democrat ‘Co-presidents’ of 1992-2000 were, it was Reagan and Bush who did more to create and escalate our essentially open-borders policy.

I think some of the drama and sleight-of-hand that’s been going on for so many years, what with all the talk of ‘enforcing the border’ vs. the ‘nation of immigrants’ propaganda, is an effort to say one thing and continue doing the opposite. I had doubts back in 2016, which have now been confirmed.

The President and all the other immigration-sympathizing politicians seem to think that they are just as much obliged to people from every other country on this planet as they are to the people who elected them, the people who are their compatriots. But I increasingly think the ‘New World Order’ that George H.W. Bush alluded to is our reality now.

On the situation in the Middle East

I realize it’s the topic of discussion on most blogs at the moment, as well as possibly IRL. But then I don’t get out into the ‘real world’ as much these days due to circumstances.

I won’t offer much of an opinion on the matter right now, though I suppose everyone is waiting to hear my take on it. (Obviously I’m saying that wryly and not in seriousness.) I have no illusions there.

All I can say is: although I’m no pacifist, not by a long shot, neither am I eager for this thing to end in a big worldwide mess. I was one of a relatively small group of right-wing bloggers, other than the Old Guard of the Paleocons (whom I admired, for their principles) who did not support the Iraq war, because like the Paleocons, I thought we just had no business meddling in other countries. All of us who held that position took a lot of criticism and outright condemnation for it.

I thought that G.W. Bush and the neocons’ idea of ”bringing Democracy to the world” was one never-ending fool’s errand. More than ever I think so, because history has proven it since then.

”Democracy” is not what it’s cracked up to be, even for us, and it was not what our ancestors envisioned for this country — which was from the beginning a Republic, not a democracy. Other cultures don’t seem to ‘get’ freedom in the same way that our ancestors did; I do believe that those of us who ‘speak the tongue that Shakespeare spake’ had an idea that was unique in that respect.

It may be that Trump took action that needed to be taken. Or it may be that this thing will escalate out of control. Let’s hope and pray it isn’t the beginning of something worse.

Scots-Irish presidents, and others

“It is a circumstance worthy of note, that three of the Presidents of the United States, Jackson, Monro [sic], and Polk, have sprung from the same race, the Scottish colonists of the north of Ireland. Jackson certainly exhibited in an eminent degree the strongest and best points of that ancestral character, which presents a singularly happy union of the sterner virtues that distinguish the Scot, with the strong impulses, quick perception, and warm affections of the Irish people. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the Adamses, were of English descent, and in the lives and character of all, in varying proportions, we can clearly trace the distinctive traits which point to their Anglo-Saxon origin. Van Buren has been the only descendant of the Dutch colonists that has attained the highest honours in the Union.” – New York Herald

I don’t know the date of publication of the quote above; sorry. I tried to track it down, with no luck. But the fact that the writer says that Van Buren was the only Dutch colonist-descendant to reach the Presidency dates the quote to no later than the late 19th-early 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt became President in 1901.

Interestingly those who promote the interests of Scots-Irish descendants in America also claim Teddy Roosevelt and his distant cousin Franklin Roosevelt as counted Scots Irish because they had, as in Teddy’s case, a recent ancestor who was Scottish.

It’s normal and natural and healthy to think favorably of your ancestral origins. I don’t object to that at all. And as for the Scots-Irish, or Ulster Scots more accurately, I like their spirit and their sternness, but reading the news out of Ulster, I wonder about the future. The nation-wreckers are turning their attention to Ulster, and are bestowing Diversity on the Ulster folk. Also the people in Ulster are apparently not in favor of the (still-pending) Brexit in the UK, at least under Boris Johnson’s terms. Will the people of Ulster, primarily the (for-now) majority, still identify as British and fly the Union Jack or will they unite with the Irish Republic, which is being transformed into another multicult province in the NWO? That’s a whole other story for another time; the situation is still in flux.

But to return to the history of the Scots-Irish in America, I notice that more and more presidents and other noted figures are being claimed by those who advocate for their folk. Most of the websites who promote their ethnicity make dubious claims about the presidents’ ancestry. As I mentioned, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR are claimed as Scots-Irish. The Roosevelts were aware of some Scottish ancestry. FDR, at least, acknowledged some English blood, but you won’t find that in a lot of the presidential ancestry pieces. Obviously by ancestry they were very much of Dutch colonial stock. Some people also claim that the Roosevelts were partly Jewish. I don’t know if that’s true; I have no knowledge about it other than what I’ve read.

Now, some people online say that Thomas Jefferson was ‘Scots-Irish’. As far as I know, and I know the family line well, Jefferson had some Welsh ancestry but he was primarily English, and spoke proudly of Anglo-Saxon forebears, and proposed that this country have a flag bearing likenesses of Hengist and Horsa, our Anglo-Saxon ancestors.

It’s claimed on some websites that Jefferson’s mother was Scottish through her Randolph ancestors. But knowing the Randolph line too, as it is my lineage also, the Scottish ancestry comes from many generations back. And if it comes right down to it, many of the Scottish nobility were Normans originally — even Robert the Bruce, the great heroic figure.

Maybe it’s flattering to be claimed by another nation or people as being one of their own; I suppose it should be considered something of an honor. But it does mislead many people when these shaky claims are made. In a sense it’s sort of like poaching other nations’ great men and heroes, by claiming they belong to another people, and their exploits and accomplishments are also claimed. I suppose some of this is not invidious in its intent; I suppose it’s just a case of believing too much of what one reads online, without looking to trustworthy sources. I recommend old books, primary sources where possible, rather than today’s sorry excuse for journalism.

In closing, I’ll mention another blog piece relating to the Scots-Irish. It’s from Ron Guhname at the Inductivist blog. To pique your interest, it’s called “Are the Scots-Irish leading the way toward race-consciousness?” It’s based on his interpretations of data (by ethnicity, and other factors) from the 2016 Presidential election.

N.B.: If you have any interest in Thomas Jefferson’s lineage this website has quite a lot of information. There are typos here and there but the information looks solid for the most part.