Then and now

In trying to get some perspective on this Covid threat, I’ve been looking at what happened with the so-called Spanish Flu from 1918. It seems that epidemic is the one most often likened to the current event, with all its confusion on rates of infection and numbers of casualties.

As it appears, there isn’t even much certainty about how many people in total died from the 1918 flu. I’ve seen a wide range of estimates, from 50 million to 100 million. That’s a lot of variation, a lot of uncertainty and guesstimating, it seems. I don’t think that in those times a precise number could be calculated, given that there were so many isolated corners of the world, in that (blessed) day before globalism and the ”small world” of today. In 1918 people could still isolate themselves, unlike today in which cheap, easy, frequent, and often needless world travel is rife, and widespread disease is an often unacknowledged result.

The BBC has an interesting article about how the 1918 flu was far from universal in its reach; there were actually towns, schools, or islands with populations who escaped the illness altogether.

How did they do it? The obvious way. They practiced what they called ‘Protective Sequestration’, which is just a more pleasant way of saying ”quarantine”. Compare today’s careless habits, with reports of ‘quarantine breakers’, infected or possibly infected people who refuse to isolate themselves, choosing to go out and share their germs with all and sundry — with few consequences, it seems. Back in 1918 people were more responsible and less selfish. Today it seems it’s all about ‘me’ — or me, myself, and I, and to those with this mindset, nobody has any right to ask an ill and contagious person to stay at home and refrain from infecting others. And too many people in authority seem willing to impose penalties on those breaking quarantine and acting like Typhoid Mary.

The Spanish flu did not spread uniformly; some communities, not many, escaped the epidemic, but some places were depopulated, as in some Alaskan villages of mostly Alaskan Natives. That group seemed especially susceptible to severe infection in the flu epidemic, apparently due to lack of antibodies from previous epidemics of similar flus.

The BBC article, though interesting and informative in its facts, still stays true to its political ideology, as the article tells us that isolation saved lives, and that widespread travel carries diseasse (of course it does; do we need to be told?) — but then the BBC article reminds us that we live in the small world, the global village they tell us about, and that we can’t just up and close borders or close off our towns or villages. It would disrupt too much. So, implicitly they are saying we must leave ourselves open to whatever diseases and epidemics for the sake of Openness and One-Worldism. I find this attitude too fatalistic to be acceptable, but yet it is a common attitude.

One thing I find puzzling: the older generations of both sides of my family always had stories about the Big Events of the past, whether first-hand of second-hand from parents or grandparents. In the days before TV and movies and even before radio, storytelling was the big pastime of an evening, and people usually had true-life stories to tell, and they had long (and accurate) memories.

Neither side of my family had any stories about the 1918 flu, and nobody, even in my large extended family was said to have died of the flu. There were no dramatic stories, as in movies or TV series about WWI, of anyone dropping dead on a crowded street from the flu. As far as I know nobody on either side contracted the 1918 flu. Maybe it helped that, on my paternal side, most people were robust and hardy, and lived mostly in rural areas, far from the overcrowded cities which usually harbor the diseases.

Meanwhile in the area where I live, there have been some cases a couple of counties away (lots of immigrants there, many recently back from their regular visits to their homeland) and many people are starting to hoard, emptying grocery store shelves of necessary items. That doesn’t bode well, if people start hoarding and scarcities are created. I think there is some profiteering going on, and some people may suffer because of the inability to get what they need. It probably wasn’t like this in my grandparents’ time.

Is this epidemic being over-hyped? I think there are too few hard facts known for certain. It’s not possible to say. But it’s not something we should take lightly.

I may be thinking wishfully, because of my own vulnerability to this threat; But we can hope and pray that this will not be the mega-disaster some seem to believe.

Oddly it seems as though some people want this to be The Big One. Why? I can’t explain that mentality; it’s foreign to me. I hope that we all come through this safely and none the worse for it. And it would help if it seemed that somebody in authority made the correct choices as to how to deal with it.

‘Psychology of revolution’ doesn’t change

Over a century ago, the French thinker Gustave Le Bon wrote a book called The Psychology of Revolution. It’s stunning how little the mentality of the world’s ‘revolutionary’ ideologues has changed since 1913. But then they never learn anything from the real world.

In my recent post on the other blog, I wrote a rather hurried question about the viability of ”democracy” in today’s world, and I had been thinking about all these issues which Le Bon addresses in his book. There are reasons why the French revolutionary ideals still linger on, despite their having been discredited by reality time and time again. And let’s be honest, the three ‘pillars’ of the French revolution have succeeded in infecting much of our own political discourse and thought, especially that political Idol of the American people, ”equality”. That, and the magic word, ”democracy.”

Of the ‘three pillars’, Liberty used to be the most often mentioned, and it too is a favored shibboleth of Americans, although its presence in our society these days is dwindling. Back during the early days of the Iraq war, at least among those of us who opposed that war, the idea of ‘democracy’ being the goal for Iraq and for the world, actually — many sane people pointed out that the people in far-flung countries may not have the same conception of ‘liberty’ or ‘democracy’ than we, here in the U.S.A. If it comes to that, even our different generations have different notions of what those idealistic words mean. For a lot of people, ‘liberty’ means ‘license’. Libertarians have their own ideas of what it means, and their definition does not always jibe with that of the Founding generation, much less the ‘Framers’ of our system.

It’s obvious to people with the ability to discern that Thomas Jefferson and the designers of our system stating ”all men are created equal’ meant ‘equal before the Law‘, not that all are born with equal capacities, character, and physical abilities. But the manipulative members of the ”leadership” class insist on presenting it that way as a lure for the simple-minded. Le Bon, in his book, points out this flexible and tricky interpretation of those key words and ideas as an obvious problem. He points to the idiosyncratic definitions:

Le Bon says ‘to the young modern “intellectual” [I like the scare quotes around the word intellectual there] it means only ‘a general release from everything irksome: tradition, law, superiority, &c. To the modern Jacobin liberty consists especially in the right to persecute his adversaries.

Is that statement ever true today. The left do consider that they have not only a right but a duty to persecute those who disagree with them, even only tacitly.

Liberty is sometimes still invoked in political orators’ speeches but according to Le Bon (and I agree) they generally don’t mention ‘fraternity’ anymore.

“It is the conflict of the different classes and not their alliance that they teach today. Never did a more profound hatred divide the various strata of society and the political parties which lead them.’

Yes, and again, we follow in the same pathway, the same pattern. There is profound hatred in this country not only of the 21st century Jacobins vs. the rest of us, but of various other groups whose members clash: the North vs. the South, the urban vs. the rural, men vs. women and vice-versa, and then there is that small matter of ”ethnic group vs. ethnic group’, to use the literal translation of the Bible’s words.

So liberty is in ever shorter supply, as our First and Second Amendment rights are under attack, not to mention our Fourth Amendment rights having been destroyed. The ‘revolutionary mentality’ mob don’t even promise greater liberty or freedom, nor does anybody else.

Liberty is not looking so healthy and Fraternity is all but gone, as it’s all against all. And with ‘equality’ being the last survivor of that trio of ‘principles’, there’s more demand than ever for equality — the thing which is not naturally present in this world. Of this insistent demand, Le Bon says:

This craving is so powerful that it is spreading in all directions, though in contradiction with all biological laws. It is a new phase of the interrupted struggle of the sentiments against reason, in which reason so rarely triumphs.’

Le Bon describes how an idea like democracy or equality has different meanings to different men, and that when an idea like this is transmitted from one cultural context (a people, for example) to another it undergoes transformations. The same thing affects religious beliefs, according to Le Bon, when they pass from one people to another.


“Unhappily the democracy of the “intellectuals” would simply lead to the substitution of the Divine right of kings by the Divine right of a petty oligarchy, which is too often narrow and tyrannical. Liberty cannot be created by replacing a tyranny.”

Le Bon writes of the natural differences which are inevitably in conflict with the popular ideas of ‘equality’.

‘The democratic ideas which have so often shaken the world from the heroic ages of Greece to modern times are always clashing with natural inequalities. Some observers have held, with Helvetius, thato the inequality between men is created by education.

As a matter of fact, Nature does not know such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly genius, beauty, health, vigour, intelligence, and all the qualities which confer on their possessors a superiority over their fellows.

No theory can alter these discrepancies, so that democratic doctrines will remain confined to words until the laws of heredity consent to unify the capacities of men.”

Le Bon then suggests that the usual result of trying to bring about intellectual equality is ‘the creation of an intellectual aristocracy’ — to the dismay of the would-be levellers, because their desire is not to raise anyone up, but to ”beat down the superior elements of society to the level of the inferior elements.” Which is what we have seen happening, not inadvertently, but by design in Western countries.

Is the CBC guilty of hate speech?

The Students for Western Civilization are charging the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with hate speech. Watch the video at the Council of European Canadians blog.

The second comment on the video provides a relevant quote from some Communist official, advising party members to label ‘obstructionists’ with names like fascist, etc., with the expectation that the public would soon accept these detrimental labels as being accurate. It seems as though they have followed that plan closely and the public accept that the people being so labeled are in fact being classified as bad people, as enemies of all that is good.

I think it’s good for this to be contested, and not to let the left and their media lackeys go on destroying people’s character and reputation by means of their condemnatory labels.

‘Wrongthink’ = capital crime in UK

Those in authority in former Christendom seem to have become completely unhinged. I think this subject has come up before: the National Health Service in the UK has said they will withhold medical treatment from patients they deem ‘sexist’ or ‘racist’ or whatever-phobic. Is this not the same as saying such people (as judged by other flawed human beings) do not deserve life or humane treatment?

Why are people not outraged about this? I think it’s easy for people to ignore heinous policies like this as long as they are safe and feel that it’s someone else that will have to suffer, perhaps die, because of a policy like this.

While the Health Secretary quoted here, Matt Hancock, is arguing that he is protecting his staff from ”abuse and mistreatment” is it not greater abuse and mistreatment to refuse medical treatment to someone who needs it?

And who made these NHS people gods, that they have the right to decide that someone does not deserve medical help because of the opinions or feelings they have?

It seems to me that I’ve read of far more cases of health workers in hospitals mistreating, even fatally neglecting, patients who were in the hospitals. An example from a couple of years ago is Whorlton Hall, part of the NHS system.

Police today arrested ten members of staff at a scandal-hit NHS-funded hospital following a documentary which showed staff members allegedly abusing vulnerable patients by appearing to mock, taunt, intimidate and repeatedly restrain them.

Durham Police said its investigation included allegations of physical and psychological abuse of patients at Whorlton Hall hospital near Barnard Castle.”

There’s more. That’s no isolated incident. This report from the Independent (UK) says that abuse of mentally ill patients has increased dramatically.

An analysis of NHS figures obtained by The Times through Freedom of Information requests, found abuse incidents recorded by mental health trusts had risen from 106 in 2013/14 to 199 in 2015/16.

Inquiries into reports of abuse of child patients jumped from nine to 39 in a single year.”

Sky News has similar reports about abuse of mental patients, including many children.

So who is doing the abusing here? Who has most of the power? It seems the ‘system’, the NHS bureaucracy, is doing more to protect its staff than its vulnerable patients. Or it seems that they are trying to protect themselves, to deflect the claims of real physical abuse.

And what kind of ‘abuse’ are the NHS workers subject to? What can children do to a staff member? I suspect at least some of it amounts to ”racial epithets” or some other kind of verbal hostility, that is, people using politically incorrect language which is somehow now interpreted as ‘traumatic’ to the person on the receiving end.

And I don’t for a moment think that these ‘verbal abuses are uttered only against POCs: people of European descent are also called names and harassed verbally, especially in situations where they are outnumbered. It happens. But the media cover up for it.

Yet these situations are not dealt with even-handedly or without bias and partiality. Only POCs and other designated “protected groups” (yes, that’s the System’s designation for them) are treated as traumatized victims if a politically incorrect word falls on their ears.

The people in authority in most institutions now are unquestioning in their obedience to these PC edicts; they follow policy to the letter even though somehow deep down they know the deck is stacked against one side, and the other side of course can never be in the wrong.

As an example; a worker in a medical facility used the word ”spook” when joking about a hypothetical ghost. Another worker heard the word ‘spook’ and reported the woman who said it. The “offender” was told that the word was not to be used because it was a hurtful racial epithet, and she then got a formal reprimand on her record. This is the kind of stupidity that reigns now.

it appears as if no one in authority in the UK will oppose this policy of denying care to people based on their thoughts or feelings. Does nobody have a conscience or a moral compass? Does Christian morality die so easily after a couple of millennia in once- Christian England?

And just who is sitting in judgment on the people who will be denied the care they need? Who has power over life and death? Someone with a grudge or a vendetta against someone can simply report that the person abused them with words and thus that person can be denied medical help. I would not want that on my conscience.

Anyone can allege anything. It used to be, in English common law, that there had to be two witnesses, just as the Bible requires. One single person’s word should never be enough to condemn someone or make someone officially guilty.

And we all know how often alleged ‘hate crimes’ are hoaxes; usually the alleged victim stages any evidence, for example all those self-painted symbols and homemade nooses, and so on. Political correctness requires that the accused be treated as guilty, without question. We’ve all seen it happen.

I only hope this insanity doesn’t metastasize to this country as too often happens.

First, the good news

By now everyone knows the Virginia gun ban bill was defeated — for now. That’s good even though we know they won’t give up on their plans to try to destroy the Second Amendment, or the whole Bill of Rights. But for now it offers a chance to regroup.

Lately it’s impossible not to notice the frenzied state of the left, as they introduce one extreme and totalitarian measure after another. One gets defeated (or wins) and they rush to introduce some other deranged and desperate idea. With their hyperactive scattershot approach to ”change” (that is, destroying the America that was) they are bound to succeed here and there despite their demented behavior.

But the latest craziness they’ve presented is a proposal for mandatory vasectomies for all men over age 50. This is being proposed in Alabama, incidentally, by a female lawmaker, Rolanda Hollis.

Why men over 50? How many children do men over 50 father? Apparently more than the controlling left likes. I do notice that when I search on the subject, a lot of hits come up which assert that older fathers produce unhealthy children, and unhealthy children cost $$$ and we can’t have that — unless the over-50 dads and their large families are, say, families of Dreamers or anchor baby families. Then of course it would be discrimination to force vasectomies on the fathers and genocide to prevent the potential children to be born — wouldn’t it? I’d be so disillusioned if those news anchors and reporters on CNN would lie to me about that.

I don’t know what the left is thinking of with this idea, but then if I started to understand how they think, I might be as delusional as they are, so for now I am content to accept that they are irrational.

The only reason I can think of for preventing older men from reproducing is that they are more likely to be right-wing and traditional than the younger men — they are, in fact; there are statistics. They are more likely on average to be ”right-wing” and to vote ”the wrong way.” They might also be more likely to be religious, that is, Christian. The younger men seem less likely, statistically, to have fathered children, and what with the woman-vs.-man rift in our society, marriage and family are far rarer among the younger generations.

Also, demographically speaking, the over-50s age group is less likely to be ”diverse” enough to be desirable as fathers, at least by our current criteria.

Apparently Ms Hollis is trying to make a political point by this extreme measure, actually, but it seems a very backward way to do so. How does preventing men (especially older men) from fathering babies equate to preventing women from aborting their babies? I fail to get the point of it other than just another bit of leftist shock-politics to shake up the remaining normal members of the population. If only it would shake people out of their lethargy.

Losing the will to action

It’s interesting that just about the time I wrote a post here commending what I saw as Canadian outspokenness about their situation, there was a thread posted at the Council for European Canadians, which took the opposite position. The counter-opinion, which just happened to appear at around the same time as my own post, came from a Hungarian-born Canadian, who had apparently come to Canada after the Hungarian revolution of the late 50s.

The thread became a little contentious as some people, especially those who had immigrated to Canada decades ago, perceived that Canadians has become, in their view, more passive or fatalistic about being demographically displaced, or replaced, to use the Trudeau verbiage.

So from another point of view, Canadians, rather than becoming emboldened to speak out against their dispossession, were becoming more passive.

It is probably true that, not having the historical perspective of these past refugees to Canada, that is, those who came as legitimate refugees from a Communist country, my context was lacking.

It’s probably also true, sad to say, that all the Western countries, all those who are being subjected to demographic replacement or displacement have become fatalistic about the chances of reversing the situation. How is anything to change when, behind all this drama, you have the U.N. engineering this whole scenario, knowingly, and you have all these unseen, unidentified movers and shakers, people who have deep pockets and huge influence, and yet who are mostly unknown by name or by face to most people. Yes, we do know who some of them are; but the politicians involved, those who are ”elected” to ”represent” us, are errand boys and front men, as seems obvious. To whom can we appeal? No one, because this has been decided over our heads, as I’ve said for some years now. We are not given any say in this. We’ve been written into the script as the villains and the ‘out’ group, and thus deserve no say.

Oh, but am I ”conspiracy” theorizing? Everything the left and their unthinking followers dislike or object to discussing is deemed a ”conspiracy theory” and thus a product of paranoia. Implicit (or in some cases explicit) is the risible idea that conspiracies don’t happen. Thus anyone who believes in so obviously false an idea is crazy, imagining things, living in a fevered dream, probably in need of ‘re-education’ or ‘psychiatric help.’ They’ve really got this sewed up so that there’s no way to even discuss this with the True Believers. Or are they ‘true believers’ or just fast-talking, slick liars? They are not honest, and they don’t argue in good faith, ever, on any subject.

I always said that I was at heart an optimist, yet how is it possible to maintain a shred of optimism when we are up against people who are so devious and so absolutely closed-minded? Believe it or not I still don’t believe in giving up. I said that should I ever become a cynical pessimist and doomsayer I would give up blogging because there could be no point.

It often does seem, most days, as if I have nothing positive to contribute and if I had, it would go unheeded as I seem to be out of step with the majority on ‘our side’, as pessimism seems to have won the day, hands down.

Yet there is a God in heaven and He will have the last word. If I did not believe that (which I do, firmly) there would be no point. So though I have to contend with illness and discouragement I am not of a mind to give up and conceded that the battle is lost.

Say not the struggle nought availeth.” We can’t see what’s going on behind the scenes. There are ‘principalities and powers’, and yet even they are not as powerful as they — and some of us — may think. They merely try to project a powerful image but we must not be fooled by appearances, and be ‘psyched’ into giving up. It’s hard to tell people to take heart when all seems (almost) lost. I think we are letting ourselves be spiritually defeated, and ‘demoralized’ in the true sense of the term by these relentless forces. But we have to stand for something, not merely against something.

Divisiveness

Generally it isn’t good policy to explain or apologize for an honest opinion, even when someone is offended. This seems especially true in our age of politically correct tiptoeing, trying to avoid ‘offending’ or ‘triggering’ some hypersensitive person. Some of the ”offense” is faked and staged in order to extract some kind of apology or concession. Still, I will admit my previous post may have been written in a peevish mood, though my opinions were honest. I genuinely don’t like to direct those thoughts at people on our side, so in that respect I hope I may be given leeway to get a little cranky sometimes. I don’t like family misunderstandings and I feel as though my readers are my extended kin.

I keep reading these tropes in various opinion articles about the division in our country. The QAnon posts say that ‘they’ (TPTB?) want us divided every which way. It does seem to be the case that they certainly want to exacerbate the issues that divide us. They want the divisions worsened and deepened, but it does seem that most of the divisions exist naturally and can’t be avoided. The “Democrats are the Real Racists” (DR3) according to the liberal Republican crowd and now are the Democrats are the Real Dividers, meaning that without them we would not have any dissension in our midst in this country? It seems some people believe that.

There are liberal Republicans who honestly think that things were fine between the races until the agitators came along and created trouble where there was none. This is not true; history books (and the long memories of some older citizens who are still with us) inform us that there were serious disturbances in the not-so-distant past. The riots in Detroit, for example. And there were earlier serious riots in Tulsa, I believe. Crime did exist; not everyone lived in a stable ‘monogamous nuclear family’as the pollyannas think was the case. There is a mistaken belief that the Democrats caused the sociological problems such as unstable homes, illegitimacy, poverty, crime, and so on. Yes, the social programs may have made things worse but the problems existed independently of, and before, all the programs like EBT, Medicaid, welfare, etc. There has always been a rift between certain groups of people because of essential differences. HBD, anyone?

Nature created differences. The differences are innate.

There was less friction between or among the various races in some cases but that does not mean that everyone ‘got along’ just fine. That idea is fallacious.

Regional differences existed to a lesser extent. I remember school textbooks treated Southron heroes with respect, people like Robert E. Lee and General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson . The Confederate dead were spoken of as men who were defending their country, though people were still taught that slavery was a great evil. The South itself was not ”demonized” as it is now. So that division has worsened greatly, and we can thank the Left for that escalation of hostility. They have equated the South with Nazi Germany, and that, in their minds, makes the Southern cause irreparably evil in the minds of the Left and of the sheeplike people who absorb every lie of the left unthinkingly. The traitorous media have become nothing but tale-bearers, blood-libelers, wormtongues, bearers of false witness against the Right, against the founding generations of this country and especially the South, with White people generally seen as the pinnacle of evil. The media are essentially agitators and trouble-stirrers, passing on false accusations and allowing no defense or response from those they accuse continually.

Women and men are also much, much more at odds than ever, thanks in great part to the Left/Media and their feeding a constant diet of lies to both women and men so that both misandry and misogyny are rife. It’s no wonder our birth rate is collapsing and families are broken.

Ethnic divisions are increasing within the White fold; there never used to be such animosity on the part of so many towards Anglo-Saxons (“WASPs”) in particular. Christians are now being essentially persecuted in some places as we see Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, forbidden to speak publicly in the UK.

I don’t want to criticize blogs which are essentially on our side, but one prominent blog which is meant to be pro-South is frequented by more avid anti-Christians, who offer only condemnation and false statements about Christianity. Those far outnumber Christians on a blog which is pro-South.

The South has historically been the most Christian part of this country, as well as the most traditional. Paganism has nothing to do with the South or its history or its culture or its people. I know there are colonies of pagans in places like Asheville, N.C. but such is not the traditional South; it is alien to the South; it is people who hope to undermine and subvert and change the South. I would not be surprised if this is part of a studied effort to de-Christianize and de-culture the South. Likewise with Internet agitators who do nothing but attack Christianity. I don’t know why that is even tolerated on a blog meant to be about the South and its history and future.

Another such blog is also similarly inclined. Why? The South, despite the presence of so many who don’t belong to the South, is still Christian, at least for now. The South and Christianity cannot be separated without taking away the very spirit and soul of the South.

Where are the people who love the South, or who still love this country, who will speak up against all the dividers all the subverters who are, if not creating the divisions, at least exacerbating them? Have so many people learned to hate their own country that they really don’t object to the obliteration of our country, its people, its history and its future? Does nobody want to help mend the division, and if they can’t be mended, at least try to stop the bleeding?

I think that this constant ‘culture of critique’ has eaten away at any positive feelings we have about our country; it seems the leftist loathing of our folk, our history, our traditions, has infected much of the right as well until many people can’t muster up a little loyalty or affection for this country which gave us birth. ‘Patriotism’ has gotten a bad name, and is become a term of derision. Without some kindred feeling or some ‘pietas’ amongst us, without some feeling of pride in who we are and what our forefathers accomplished — despite all the destruction that others have wrought — we seem to have given up on this country and each other.

Breathes there the man with soul so dead…?” Or is the soul of our country itself dead now? Can it be revived, without a spiritual re-awakening?

Our country, Our business

One of the vexing things about living in this “global” “community” is that when you either go outside your country — wait: do countries really exist anymore, outside our imaginations? When I say ‘our’, I mean, those of us who still believe America is a country, much less our country? But when we go to other places on the globe, or even when we go on the Internet, which is a global phenomenon, we find ourselves reading all sorts of unsolicited advice and criticism of our country, and of ourselves. It seems to most people on this globe we are the ultimate bad guys. The world’s problems are caused by us somehow, and it is always up to us to fix everything, no matter how far away the problem is in physical distance or in our distance genetically from the people whose problem it really is.

As far as the criticism of us, as a nation and people, goes, the subject of guns and the control (or confiscation) of is the main subject of the carping and condemnation. It seems as if the prattling Tumblr teenagers (and some of them are in their 30s) have all the answers, and feel that they have the right to proclaim their wisdom to their elders and moral betters. Taking guns away is their only solution. It never occurs to them that they are all wet behind the ears and lacking in life experience, or the wisdom that comes with real experience of this world. They have been deluded into thinking they know more than their elders and more than the wisest men of past generations, including the Founding generations of this country. I suppose I can’t blame the youth of other countries as much because they probably learn little about the history of our country, still , no one has an excuse for not seeking the truth, or not knowing. Suffice it to say they are dumb enough to suppose that they have a right to judge the people who founded this country and of course the generations still living.

However even the older generations (and please, this is not about boomers or the ‘boomer’ bogeymen who are so popular now) in other countries are just as clueless and thick-skulled on these issues. When Australia passed their gun control legislation some years back I asked an older ex-LEO there what he thought. I thought surely he would have a more rational or studied opinion, but instead he spouted forth the usual: he saw no problem with the anti-gun measures, saw no reason why people could have a need to defend themselves, their families and property. Typical mind-conditioned leftist stuff, from a former policeman.

And there should be no excuse for people in the Anglosphere countries, as we all came from a background in which the ‘Castle Doctrine’ was part of the legal system (still is, in some American states) and in which the right of people to bear arms was considered necessary. You can look back in English history to see that this is true.

On certain right-wing websites with a lot of European visitors, some of the most ardent opponents of the right to bear arms were some of the English commenters, who obstinately think that they hold some kind of moral superiority on the issue of citizens bearing arms. I am sorry to say this about my English kin but it’s true. Still it’s not limited to the English or British. It’s almost universal outside America.

It’s hard to maintain amicable feelings towards people who are inclined to look down on you and to judge from on high. I would say, somewhat reluctantly now, that people of other countries have a right to their opinions about what we do here, though most of them have not been here, except perhaps for a vacation, and most don’t know the history of our country nor our culture, outside the distorted and uglifying lens of Hollywood movies or CNN. Still they feel free to tell us what we should do or what we ”have to” do, in their opinions, and this is crossing a line, in my opinion. I certainly have my opinions on what is happening in Europe and in the Anglosphere. But I don’t have the gall to condemn or castigate people in other countries because of what I think of their policies, their culture, their way of life, their political system. In this ‘global’ so-called village of ours, since the PTB have taken it on themselves to go over our heads and give away our countries, it seems some people think that they also ‘own’ our country and that they have a right to make pronouncements about what is essentially our business, and not that of our neighbors, however near or distant they may be.

Just as we would not put up with our next-door neighbors sticking their noses in our family business, the excuse of ‘global community’, which does not exist anyway, is not a valid pretext for meddling and offering unwanted advice to us. Neither should we be forced to put up with their sometimes nasty criticisms of us. I could express — I could, but I won’t — negative opinions of their countries, but in my book, unrequested advice, much less outright attack, is not done; it’s gauche, rude, crude, presumptuous (pot calling the kettle black, anyone?). The best people don’t do it.

For now, as far as I’m concerned, we still have the right to be left to ourselves to run our country and live as we see fit. Live and let live. Meddlesome behavior or opinions should be kept at home. And kindred peoples should not want to cultivate division and animus.

Dixie defamed again

The governor of what was once the state of Virginia, a state founded by my own ancestors (and yours, probably, if you are an original Southron), has now ended the holiday which honored Generals Lee and Jackson.

This, according to the governor, makes his People’s Republic of Virginia “a more representative and inclusive Commonwealth”. Representative and inclusive of what, or whom? Certainly not the oldest inhabitants of the Old Dominion. And by what rights can it now be called ”The Old Dominion”? You can read the history of that nickname here, but clearly it has to do with the origins of the state of Virginia, its founders, and its population, its history and heritage, in short.

The people who ‘elected’ the present governor of the current ‘state of Virginia’ constitute a group of people very unlike those who have populated Virginia since the English colonists first arrived, some 400+ years ago. This is not by happenstance; it’s by design. It’s an agenda, like Trudeau’s Grand Remplacement. The great ‘god’ diversity must be served.

Looking at a website which is supposed to be a biographical site for Northam, the only “memorable quote” attributed to him is the following, which I could have guessed at without knowing anything more about him than I do:

We live in a very diverse society — it is getting more diverse every day. It is that diverse society that makes this country great.”

quoted here

Now, if that’s not an original quote or thought. Imagine.

We’re additionally told that he was voted ‘most likely to succeed’ in high school or college or somewhere. Again, how predictable. But likely to succeed at what, exactly? Being the first to suggest legalizing post-natal infanticide? To succeed at pushing for demographic change in your own state, so that the original founding-stock are pushed out, or outnumbered at the polls? Or to make a run at abolishing the historical memories of Virginia’s greatest men? His ‘success’ is at the expense of history, heritage, tradition, memory. A country and a folk cannot thrive without those things.

Northam’s changeling Virginia (how long until the original name has to go?) is made up of a congeries of vastly disparate peoples who have little to nothing in common, except for an envy and covetousness that motivates the purposeful demographic changes which have transmuted Virginia to another mini-Babel. This kind of cobbled-together ‘state’ cannot thrive.

For those diversity-bots who go around parroting ‘diversity makes us strong’ or ‘diversity is our strength’ — prove it. Just saying it does not make it true. Just repeating nonsense does not make it sensible, much less factual. Yet we let every two-bit charlatan who gets behind a microphone or in front of a camera get away with uttering this tiresome drivel. Why, in heaven’s name, do we let them go unchallenged or unquestioned?

It’s a tragedy for us that we no longer seem to produce leaders of any calibre to challenge the demagogues and fakes. Where are our men of the talent of Thomas Jefferson, or any General Lee, or Rev. Dabney or any of the great orators or thinkers of our past? None of today’s leaders can hold a candle to any of them.

Still, it goes on: our country is being subjected to a ‘great replacement’, as are all of the countries of former Christendom. And to our shame, it’s people who are nominally of our own folk who are facilitating this compulsory transformation.

Worst, the ‘state of Virginia’ was trying to pass laws forbidding criticism of elected officials. How shameful and how very — shall I say it? — un-American. Yes, it is against the very principles laid down by our forefathers who created this country, but then few people seem to know those principles, much less to care to preserve them.

Theoretically my opinions would make me ‘guilty’ of refusing to bow down to the self-declared godlets who sit in legislatures or inhabit some public office. And that in itself is wrong. If such becomes law then America will well and truly be done.

Consequences of careless policy

The Canadian press is reporting that there are 176 passengers coming to Vancouver on a flight from Wuhan, China. They are being ‘evacuated’ as a precaution against catching the Coronavirus. These people, who are said to be ‘Canadian citizens’ will be under quarantine for 14 days.

Do the medical experts even know how long this virus is contagious? Or are they guessing? They have no experience of this sickness and just how it acts.

The same news source says that ‘several dozen‘ more passengers are arriving on a later flight. I gather these passengers are Canadian by paperwork but not by birth. The problem with this kind of thing, with people having a foot in two countries, is the apparent need to go back and forth from the home country to the host country. From a health standpoint this is favorable to the spread of any such epidemic. Do our feckless leaders ever think of this obvious fact? Or is this part of their ‘plan’?

And by the way, I wonder how many people is ‘several dozen’? That’s rather a vague number.

In the past, was it common practice to transport people who were possible carriers of a disease back to their ‘home’ countries rather than treating or examining them where they were? Of course today common sense and the public good are not even on the table.

Coincidentally there is an article at the Council of European Canadians about the history of the 1918 ‘Spanish’ flu, which actually did not originate in Spain. The piece tells how the flu spread widely despite the lack of the incessant and cheap air travel which now scatters people throughout the world so easily. Of course the World War and the mass movement of peoples played a part in the spread of that 1918 flu. You can read the story at the link.

I hope that the Coronavirus is somehow stopped from becoming a worldwide danger to people But at this point I think it’s mostly unknown which course this will take.