The universal franchise

At this moment in history a lot of Americans are expressing their deep dissatisfaction with our political system. So I am going to utter a forbidden sentiment here and say that I think this whole debacle shows us — or should show us — the folly of the universal franchise. It was not a good idea to extend the right to vote to anybody and everybody. And it was not the idea of the Founding Fathers, so we can’t curse them for getting us into this mess, as a lot of Americans are doing right now, saying the Founding Fathers were wrong, and ignorant, they should have foreseen this and prevented it, etc.

But they were not fools and bunglers, though they were human and fallible as we are — but wiser I think than we are. They believed the vote should be limited to property owning, tax-paying males over the age of 21, and the linked website describes other restrictions — all of which the writers of the article object to. The writers of the article says we still have a ‘long way to go’ in extending voting rights. Just how they imagine we can expand the franchise to other deserving people or life forms I am not sure; can we offer the vote to aliens visiting from space? If not, why not, according to their logic? How about extending the vote to everyone on the planet? I would bet that you could find a lot of people who would cheer for that idea; why shouldn’t all terrestrial beings have the right to vote in our elections?

As for me, I would support returning to the Founding Fathers’ ideas, and let the franchise be restricted to the same group of people. But wouldn’t that be discrimination because we excluded some people? Then we have to allow children to vote, or people who are legally insane or convicted felons — oh, yes, in some places felons are now allowed to vote, just as law-abiding people do. And it seems many people find nothing wrong with that.

During the years when ‘suffragettes’ — oh, excuse me, I mean ‘suffragists agitated for the vote — they marched, chained themselves to fences, went on hunger strikes in jail, and in one case a suffragette ran onto a racetrack during a horse race and was killed. A little extreme, wouldn’t you think? Why was the vote so important? There are other ways to influence society than measures like these attention-seeking means; the vote was not the be-all and end-all, nor is it now. In retrospect ithe sensationalism of the suffragettes seems like the actions of those people during the Vietnam war who set themselves on fire to protest the war: rather overwrought and extreme.

We’ve allowed the vote to be cheapened, and put it in the hands of as many people as possible, knowing that a certain percentage of these voters are not informed about the issues at stake; many do not know the basics of how our system works, or should work. Quite a few vote on emotion rather than by an objective approach, vote for selfish interests, especially nepotism or ethnic loyalties, or worse, might be inclined to ‘sell’ their vote.

We do not have a single culture anymore, rather a hodgepodge, or a crazyquilt made up of a lot of differing, often conflicting and contradictory ”values” and cultural practices. How can this kind of chaos work to our benefit when our country faces a decision at the polls?

As far as women voting, too many women vote based on emotion or sentimentality, the desire to ‘take care’ of the world’s basket cases when we cannot do that, nor were we ever given some kind of commission to be responsible for everyone.

Universalists and nationalists are two opposite ends of the spectrum.

A male reader, presumably wanting to be chivalrous to ladies, accused me of being ‘hard’ on women, at which point I had to inform the critic that I am a woman. And I do know my own sex.

Our country was not meant to be a ‘democracy’ despite the constant use of that term to refer to our system of government. It was meant to be a constitutional republic, as our founders often stated. However the term ‘democracy‘ has won over the American mind and imagination, and Americans seem to believe in the idea of equality across the board — an impossible ideal. Along with that ideal, there’s the idea that we must be ever pushing towards some kind of ideological perfection involving making everyone absolutely equal. It can never work, and it seems our current situation is one example of how this endless crusade for equity ‘for all’ is a vain cause.

They don’t get to decide

The TV networks don’t decide who is the president. They themselves don’t appear to be aware of this fact, much less do some of the people of this country who are falling for a purported bit of “news” which was brazenly announced by the fake news media in the last 24 hours or so.

The media always work hand in hand with the propaganda manufacturers; of course they would. They are part of the same political machine working towards the same end, and that end is not ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, nor does it involve anything as alien to them as the rule of law or the Constitution or centuries of British Common Law and the Bible, which formed the basis for our legal system previously, and which appears to have been quietly discarded behind our backs. So what’s taking its place? Arbitrary rule; anarcho-tyranny, kakistocracy, call it what you will. We never ‘voted’ for it, and any voting that takes place in this country in future will be a sham, just as last week’s voting was a farce and a sham, unless this present usurpation is treated as the living lie that it is.

Does this mean all is hopeless? I don’t believe that to be true — but I think we must realize that we must not become passive and despairing. If we allow ourselves to believe it’s hopeless, then we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. I am heartened to see that there are people on our side — the right side — who are maintaining a hopeful or positive attitude.

Sidney Powell: election software hacked

The possibility that election software was hacked has been raised by Sidney Powell and Tom Fitton via Fox News. This is something that was part of the article I linked to here on the day after the election. I hope that the public out there is not so jaded as to ignore this story; it’s vital that we look into this and that we are not all so black-pilled as to brush this story aside.

‘She forwarded the possibility that at least three percent of the vote may have been changed due to pre-election ballots collected digitally by the Hammer program.

“I think there are any number of things they need to investigate, including the likelihood that 3% of the vote total was changed in the pre-election voting ballots that were collected digitally, by using the Hammer program and a software program called Scorecard that would have amounted to a massive change in the vote that would have gone across the country explains a lot of what we’re seeing.” ‘

Sidney Powell, Rebel News, 6 November 2020

To try, as the Other Side has been doing, to write this off as simply the result of a ‘glitch’ or ‘human error’ is just insulting to the intelligence of the people of this country. But with the great dumbing-down process that’s been purposely carried out over the last several decades, maybe it isn’t an insult; if they think they can get away with this blatant, clumsy scam they will of course be tempted to try it and to brazen it out, as they usually do.

But this is something we cannot ignore lest we just fall into apathy and let it happen.

Avoiding the doom and gloom

It’s very easy to be overcome by the negativity which is so rife now. I am seeing a lot of resignation but we really don’t even have enough information to justify giving up and giving in. This election situation, though it’s glaringly obvious that tampering and fraud on a huge scale is involved, is still far from a full discovery. For the time being we have to assume that there is some hope that this tangle of lies and deception can be unraveled.

The media are so obviously complicit in all this, and they are on a demoralization campaign against us. Realizing how widespread this thing is can be overwhelming but surrender is not the way out of this.

Brett Stevens at the Amerika blog says

If this were a legitimate election, you would not see media censorship of Trump’s remarks. You are seeing thought control; Trump is not the one who has gathered together a clique to pretend that what is real is not real. He is the lone voice telling them that their false reality is both in fact false and dangerous, like most unrealistic things, since the house — the universe, the patterns of nature, the gods, or God — wins in the end.

Brett Stevens, Amerika blog, 6 November, 2020

The over-the-top disrespect for the President, on the part of the controlled media is brazen and disgusting. I never thought my opinion of the ‘mainstream media’ could go lower, but I was wrong; I thoroughly despise the media’s lies and malice. And this is from someone who was not initially a strong supporter of the President. Congratulations to the media whores; they are probably creating more support for President Trump by their open hostility towards the President and towards us, the real American people.

What happened?

Despite having watched the election returns last night, I can’t say I understood exactly what was happening, except that it seemed obvious that there were some irregularities in the way in which the results were being reported.

There was surprisingly good coverage from Newsmax, which was where I eventually watched most of the election coverage; no commercials (I use streaming services not TV) and fair-minded commentary.

However everything seemed to have come to a halt when some questioned Fox News “early call” giving Arizona to Trump, and before you knew it, the proceedings stopped, and it was announced that everything would be suspended until morning, and suddenly it was implied that Joe Biden was favored over Trump based on the electoral votes that had been (theoretically) awarded to Biden.

Additionally it seemed that the analysts decided to hold back on the counting for the time being, until today.

It seemed as if somebody somewhere wanted to halt Trump’s momentum. Given the media’s obvious bias against Trump, this seemed a little suspicious.

It was very frustrating to watch this play out, and to wonder just who is in ‘control’ of a situation like this?

Lots of Americans in recent years have seen election outcomes reversed when, in a close contest, the Left somehow finds a few thousand votes, just enough to reverse the outcome of the election, making the Democrats the beneficiaries of the ‘good luck’ needed to just stumble across a few thousand votes. And they’ve gotten away with it a number of times, including in gubernatorial elections. When are they going to be caught in the act? It’s infuriating to see people get away with this time and again, and the GOP seems not to have the will to contest these things sufficiently.

I can’t help thinking: how can anyone believe that Biden supposedly
garnered so many votes when he could hardly get a dozen people to any of his few ‘rallies’, while Trump’s rallies drew large crowds at just about every place he appeared. Where were Biden’s supposed legions of followers hiding all these months? Six or eight people at some of his appearances, and somehow he had millions of invisible supporters voting for him??

That stretches credulity, to say the least.

And then there’s this. But will anybody in authority look into it?

The situation in France

The recent incidents in France, in which French clergy in particular have been attacked, seem to be evidence that a new pattern is emerging, and more attacks on the French folk seem to be indicated.

The question always comes up in my mind when I hear of these things: how did the French become so complacent about these attacks? How is it that a people apparently become jaded to the presence of a hostile population in their midst? We could ask ourselves the same question. Why are the host population willing to take the risk of becoming one of the casualties, or of one of their family members becoming a target? What is the reasoning which leads a people to accept the risk, and to willingly let their native country’s culture and history to be potentially lost?

There are always xenophiles in any country, and a country such as France which prides itself on its sophistication and cosmopolitanism seems especially vulnerable.

France, though, has had some strong nationalistic tendencies, but some of those instincts, when focused on what might seem trivial , could seem absurd to outsiders. For example, the objection to the absorption of English words into French speech. That particular movement to keep the French language ‘pure’ is probably not seen as such an important battle. But if the French or any people have accepted English slang, albeit grudgingly, they seem to have been very cavalier about accepting millions of ‘migrants’ or ex-colonials like the Algerians. That seems to me to be an example of “straining at a gnat, but swallowing a camel.”

It appears that the people who accept millions of people of other ethnicities and religions, knowing of the long history of conflict and violence amongst disparate peoples, are knowingly accepting certain risks, which seem incomprehensible if looked at objectively.

If the French people couldn’t tolerate the Huguenots in their country, why on earth would they willingly accept peoples who were more distinct, less compatible, than the native French Huguenots? Yet there are people who defend the presence of peoples who lack cultural or genetic connections to the French.

It seems such an injustice to Huguenots, a people who were law-abiding, productive, intelligent and Christian (not cultists, as somebody said here once) to violently purge them from the country, massacring many of them. I suppose it could be said to be a rehearsal for the Jacobins’ bloodshed.

There’s no understanding the human mind sometimes, it seems.

But things look a little ominous for France — and what about the incident in Vienna? I hope it isn’t just a foreshadowing of things to come.

Election speculations from the peanut gallery

Naturally there is a lot of speculation and conjecturing from voters on the eve of the election — well, almost the eve of the big day. I won’t be bold or foolish enough to make any predictions of my own; I think the crystal ball looks a little too cloudy for that just now. In today’s wild atmosphere, almost anything might happen.

I did notice some comments made by readers of various blogs, and there are some non-factual remarks. Example: the assertion that most women will not vote for Trump. I think if you look at his rallies you will see lots of women, and they appear very enthusiastic in support of the President. If anyone thinks those women are there because their pro-Trump husbands dragged them along against their will — well, that’s an unlikely scenario in the very pro-feminist world of 2020; the non-liberal women have bought into feminism if only in a milder form than the pink-hat-wearing leftist women.

So yes plenty of right-leaning women do support Trump.

Another ‘iffy’ statement: Trump will lure away many POC voters, so many that it will give Trump a boost and a new POC voter base. But if we go by historical voting patterns I don’t believe those patterns can be overturned just like that, just that easily. What was the percentage of blacks voting for Obama in 2012? 90 per cent. It remains to be seen whether the GOP will achieve their longstanding dream of winning over black voters, wooing them away from the “Democrat Plantation” [their phrase, not mine].

The GOP is a so-far rejected or jilted suitor for the black vote. But they remain confident of winning over the object of their apparent affections.

And here’s where I see some wishful thinking: some voters are saying that even if women don’t come around to supporting Trump, maybe the young men (millennials and younger, as well as Gen X-ers) will make up for it by voting for right-ish candidates. (How many real right-wingers, or even mildly conservative politicians, are on ‘our side’?)

A Washington Post – ABC News Poll prior to the 2016 election showed that among voters, those who opposed Trump’s ‘harsh enforcement policies’ (as they described them), were 75 percent of Hispanics, 79 percent of Democrats, and 57 percent of voters overall. And what about the young voters just champing at the bit to come in and save the day? Two-thirds of them opposed Trump’s policies on immigration.

The only age group that supported Trump’s plans were the over 65 age group.

Trump himself is of that age group.

And that age group is growing fewer in number by the day. I don’t know how many of those people are still alive and thriving; I keep hearing that they are the group most likely to succumb to the pandemic, as the youngest of them are 74 years old. Who will take their place, demographically? Newly-minted voters from the third world? People who entered illegally but who are being made legal by amnesty schemes?

What does this mean for America, or what used to be America? What will the demise of the older age group mean to the political landscape?

How is ”democracy”, falsely so-called going to be affected by our own Grand Remplacement?

By the way, I’ve just read on the Internet that the Grand Remplacement is a ”right-wing conspiracy”. I am trying not to laugh here, but it’s no laughing matter. Someone must inform Canadian PM Trudeau about it; I think he ought to be informed about this conspiracy by Whites to replace Whites.

The election, though, is a serious issue, and I hope it proceeds without any disorder or conflict. How it unfolds will indicate whether we are still a relatively civilized country with rules and standards and order, or whether we are en route to banana-republicdom.

Encouraging words

I will just quickly note that I’ve had difficulty getting a post up here, though I did manage to get one through on the other blog. This is an ongoing problem, but for the time being I will keep trying.

Moving on to more important thoughts, I was surprised to see an upbeat post on another blog: Malcolm Pollack has an encouraging piece at his blog. giving reasons why he thinks the ‘American Remnant’ has natural advantages over our fanatical opponents on the Left.

I found that post uplifting, amidst all the doom-and-gloom posts out there. I am aware of what we are up against, and I have no delusions that the difficulties we face, and the big factor of the Unknown, will suddenly resolve themselves without any real effort on our part.

The ‘Q’ people repeat the phrase ‘God wins.’ Well, of course God wins ultimately. But it won’t be a piece of cake; there’s a rough road ahead on the way to the ‘God wins‘ scenario.

All the more reason to look at the reasons why we might have an advantage or two over the chaotic left.

What is that advantage? It is that, in sharp contrast to the Bioleninist coalition of the Left, the American community that brought Trump to power, and that will persist even in defeat, is remarkably monolithic. It has deep roots in not only American, but Western, cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions — traditions, such as the intrinsic worth of the individual, the paramount importance of liberty and property, and the belief that there are natural rights that flow from Man’s creation in the image of God, that are shared, with very little disagreement, by everyone who is about to vote for Trump in the coming election. The basis of the Left’s coalition, on the other hand, is little more than a tallying-up, or adoption by proxy, of grievances — sullen resentments that arise from one’s membership in this or that victim-group.

Read the rest at the link. I felt encouraged by the points the writer makes. I hope you will, too.

Room for more…

Joe Biden is calling for 11 million illegals to be put on the well-known ‘path to citizenship’.

It’s sort of amusing how this article, from Bongino’s web site, takes the ’11 million’ number as being factual and verified. It’s bizarre how the media have used these lowball numbers for decades now, with straight faces, to lull us into thinking there are only these same ’11 million’ illegals lurking here and there in our country for all these years. Apparently these 11 million never have children nor do they ever bring their aged parents, grandparents, or in-laws to live here with them. Right.

To be fair, the article does ask whether the numbers of illegals might be higher, maybe even as many as 22 million!

“The estimate that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. (representing over 3% of the total population) is on the conservative end. A study from the Yale School of Management estimates that the true illegal population could exceed 22 million.”

Try doubling that number, and even that might not be close to the actual count. The fact is that probably nobody knows the true number.

Rmployers constantly make the excuse that immigrants are needed to fill the demands of the job market. But it looks as though we’ve got plenty of unemployed people in need of work especially as the temporary stay on evictions is about to expire. Any sympathy or empathy I feel is towards our own folk who are now in need, or will be, soon. More ‘immigrants’ flooding in to take jobs that should go to our own will just make things worse.

To be fair, the Bongino article does point out the negatives associated with this inept and careless program to bring in more immigrants. While is true, as the article says, that the Democrats want more votes (and yes, regardless of Trump’s claims about the new ‘Hispanic Republican’ voters he is attracting, the Republicans are still determined to elect themselves a new constituency, made up of Latino conservatives and black Trump fans — along with their colorblind loyalist base.

Meanwhile in Canada, the ‘Family reunification’ laws have been expanded which will no doubt alter the demographics of that country, which have already been noticeably altered.

“So far, family reunification was intended only for close relatives, members of the so-called nuclear family, that is, parents, grandparents, siblings or children. However, according to new measures set up by Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino and Health Minister Patty Hajdu, the “close relationship” will now also include uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, cousins and other extended family members. Even “permanent partners” who are neither registered spouses nor partners, foster children, and many other groups of people fall in this category, including foreigners in “an exclusive dating relationship of at least one year and their dependent children”.

Ricardo Duchesne, William Greenough, Council of European Canadians blog, 10/24/20

Patty Hadju, the Health Minister, asks Canadians to display ‘compassion’ in view of what the authorities say is a resurgence of Covid, and in view of ‘renewed lockdown measures.’ So because of a supposed new epidemic of Covid, it’s somehow “compassionate” to bring in new immigrants? Why? Compassionat to whom?

Likewise with new lockdowns. Bring in new immigrants so they can be confined to their new ‘homes’? Excuse me but that makes no sense, but then neither do any of these authoritarian measures they are implementing anywhere in the world, such as Australia or Wales or anywhere else we can think of.

But, regardless of pandemics or lockdowns, the show must go on, and there’s always room for one more. Or 11 million more.

Where your heart is

Reading the right-wing blogs is getting to be a very depressing exercise. I have just about given up on many of the blogs, whether they are classified as ‘dissident right’ or whatever. Ever since the salad days of the alt-right, there is a heavy undercurrent of anti-American sentiment, what with all the comments favoring departing to Russia or Poland or Hungary, ditching Christianity and our Western culture for Eastern Orthodoxy or heathenism of some variety.

I don’t mean to offend anybody who makes these choices; if you are inclined to see Christianity as a bad thing for Western-European-descended people then perhaps it isn’t for you. “Many are called, but …” etc. etc. My objection is that the presence of so many detractors of Christianity and the West makes for more division and dissension within the dwindling ranks of Christians, at least those who are genetically linked to Western Christianity. All the criticism and the attacks on Christianity which are so common on certain ‘nationalist’ or ‘populist’ or dissident right blogs has a debilitating effect and will, if continued, aid our foes in rendering us passive and helpless against outside critics and enemies.

Some of those who are so vocal in proposing Eastern Orthodoxy as superior to the Christianity of our fathers is that few of the champions of the Eastern faith seem unaware that the Eastern Orthodox Church tends to be pro-immigrant, at least when the immigrants and refugees are from the Middle East (Syrians) or from Eastern Europe. Is this a proper stance for a supposedly ‘nationalist’ church and a nationalist populace?

Nationalism for me but not for thee?

However I realize that for a certain number of Americans, religions can be seen as interchangeable, as a matter of expediency, not as a matter of Truth. I gather this from the many comments I see and hear about how the West “needs a new religion” because our fathers’ faith did not serve us well, and weakens us. It never occurred to me previously that people might choose a religion on something other than faith and Truth or that we should just make up a new religion from the bits and pieces that we are ‘willing’ to put up with in order to have a religion we don’t object to.

It seems that many dissenters are willing to jettison our traditions and our history because they are attracted by other religions that are touted, in many cases, by a lot of otherwise irreligious people. A lot of those who promote other religions seem to be people who are infatuated with what they’ve heard about Eastern Europe’s ethnocentric culture; for example, the favorable reports in dissident news stories about Hungary, for example. So far Hungary seems to have held out against the dubious charms of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’. But will it always be thus?

Ireland used to be a country that was ethnocentric — at least when the ‘Other’ was mostly English. Now Ireland is being subjected to the ‘strengths’ of Diversity and global culture.

Hearsay has it that the Polish people, once very ethnocentric and ethno-patriotic have been weakened by their exposure, once they’ve emigrated to, say, Britain or Ireland or France, the allure of dating and mating outside the fold. The propaganda in favor of that is ubiquitous and apparently quite successful. So it can’t safely be assumed that the people of Eastern Europe will always be immune to the seductive mind-conditioning.

In any case, in many right-wing discussions the topics of leaving the West for Russia or Hungary (or Thailand or the Philippines, for those who’ve decided they disdain the lands our forefathers conquered and settled), are always on the table.

I still maintain that anyone contemplating making a move to a country speaking a language that’s unfamiliar, and very different, should must find out firsthand what it’s like in that other country, and attempt to learn the language. P.S.: Eastern European languages are not easy for most Western peoples to master. If you are good at mastering a very different language, both written and spoken, then more power to you.

The culture of those countries is also very different, despite the influence of the West.

However we seem to be, as a nation, in a kind of limbo state; is it even possible for anyone to emigrate, given that we seem not to be a sovereign nation anymore? I think we are in this twilight state, betwixt and between. Do we even have the freedom to leave anymore?

For those Americans who are committed to staying, come what may, in the land of their birth (and their forefathers’ birth, for generations) the prospects are dim if the numbers of patriotic Americans keeps shrinking, and fewer people know or speak English, nor do they maintain our traditions and history, or show any loyalty to or love for this country.

A lot of those who are dissidents are too close to being part of this ‘Culture of Repudiation’: of repudiating anything that’s ours, that’s American — because Americans are so provincial and gauche; most Americans don’t even speak another language fluently. Europeans are so sophisticated and hip, while we’re just a lot of yokels at heart.

I’m not promoting the cheap kind of patriotism or nationalism, but ethnonationalism, which is, for me, the only real kind. It isn’t just a matter of sentiment, or of flags or national anthems, but a deep attachment to the people, to your kinsmen, and to the ‘unbroken chain’ that binds us to our forefathers. I know the cynics look down on that older kind of patriotism too, but it is real and genuine with a lot of us.

At the risk of being out-of-step with the trend-setters, I will maintain my roots here in this country; the cost to my ancestors was not cheap. They risked everything to come here and undertake the building of a new nation. They eventually succeeded and today, sadly, more than a few of the inheritors of this country denigrate the colonists’ efforts as something paltry and insignificant. I can only hope that those who constantly talk of escaping to Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia or Costa Rica will do more than just talk about it. It would be best all around if those few who have loyalties to this country are the ones who stay and help to maintain — or rebuild — this country. The rest may be happier elsewhere.

Best to be in a country where your heart is.