How has it all changed so much?

VDare has a piece by Harri Honkanen in which he writes about the apparent worrying situation in Denmark as immigration becomes more of a problem. The aggravating factor is accelerating mass immigration from the the Middle East and other disparate cultures.

As Honkanen points out in the article, there were some hopeful trends in Denmark, hinting that they might just be showing some common sense and a smidgen of healthy self-preservation instinct. This article, typical of many written a few months ago, praises her commitment to ‘cutting carbon emissions’ and the usual causes, but called her a ‘hard-liner’ on immigration; this raised the hopes of some on the right.

But those were false hopes, it seems. Mrs. Frederiksen, the Prime Minister, is singing the now-familiar refrains, the same tune that’s so popular among all the Western leadership.

It seems undeniable that female politicians and ‘leaders’ are softer when it comes to immigration or any ‘social justice’ issue. Maybe it’s the maternal instinct kicking in. Mrs Frederiksen is something of an anomaly among European female leaders in that she is not childless. She has two children so we can’t rationalize her political stance as being “maternal” towards the downtrodden at the expense of her own constituents and countrymen.

So why are all the Western countries seemingly moving leftward in recent years? It isn’t all due to the accession of a number of female leaders recently. When this subject is discussed, few people ever mention the factor of the ‘changing of the guard’ generationally. It seems to me that people overlook — or do they evade? — the part played by this factor.

People often say that recent elections have been affected by the increasing numbers of immigrants. No doubt that does play a part. But it’s generally been true that immigrants, according to polls and surveys, have less interest in voting and political action, outside ethnic activism.

But a bigger factor, it could well be, that as the older generations die then the remaining generations are much more left-leaning in their politics, even more so with the youngest new voters. And many of the youngest voters have very strong feelings about their politics.

I noticed some years back that the Silent Generation members, and ‘Greatest Generation’ people who used to be on the Internet were slowly disappearing. The result was the loss of many well-educated and articulate people, people with lots of life-experience. The discussions on the Internet, with the older people gone, became less well-informed, less civil and gentlemanly, more rancorous and given to use of foul language and name-calling.

I miss some of those individuals I used to ”see” around the Internet — and those in real life too; we won’t see their likes again.

The loss of those people means, politically, that there is less support for right-wing or even right-leaning policies. And, just as important if not more so, the culture has become so degraded and corrupt that the oldest generations could scarcely have imagined the shocking headlines we are seeing today, with no change toward sanity in sight.

I know someone will inevitably insist that those older generations were ‘dumber’ than today’s people, which is not supported by any data that I’ve seen, even allowing for some cognitive slowing-down in older age. It’s not even supported by simple observation. Those older people,our grandparents and even our parents, were better-educated; schools were better, and people were not as addicted to mind-numbing TV. Porn was not mainstream then; it was not everywhere
as it is now. The propaganda machine was not running 24/7 back then; people were better able to think for themselves. And they did, more so than today.

Personally I miss the older generations. I’ve always said the people make the place, well, the people make the era, too. The kinds of people who make up the population produce a society that is good, bad, or indifferent, according to the aggregate of individual character.

But as they say, ”you can’t turn the clock back’ so I expect we won’t have such a society ever again; we can only try to salvage what’s left of the one that was left to us. Whether that statement implies hope or lack thereof is up to us.

Changes to the look of the blog

I don’t know if any of you noticed that the blog may have gone through a few different looks over the last few hours, as I’ve again changed the visuals of the blog. The theme I was using had interfered with the blog links’ displaying correctly, so I’ve been trying to fix that, and the legibility of the blog, what with the different colors. I’ve been working at this for hours now, so I hope it is finally displaying as it should, and that it’s readable.

O’Rourke on the 2nd Amendment

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is now openly speaking against Second Amendment rights of citizens. I suspect he hasn’t had a change of heart, but has always held these views; the left has seldom upheld the ideas inherent in the Second Amendment. He basically says that it’s useless, and implicitly wrong, even theoretically, to consider opposing a tyrannical regime; after all, you have no chance of prevailing, even though you may be in the right, so don’t even think of defending yourself, your family, or your rights.

(By the way, O’Rourke’s name is Robert, so why again do we call him ‘Beto’? Is this not what the ”woke” left call ‘cultural appropriation’? His name is Robert, so why is he not called Bob, or in more appropriate Texas fashion, ‘Bobby’? Is he not a born Texan? He has no discernible Texan or Southern accent, but then that’s typical of his generation (since judging people by generation is somehow the ”done thing”, then let’s label him too; he’s a Gen X-er). And he is also one of those deracinated, cosmopolitan types, hence the affected ‘Beto’ nickname; I guess that explains it. He wants to show he is ‘down’ with the diversity thing; no ‘White-bread’ Texan or Southron, he.

In times past, someone like him would never have been elected; the Democrat Party. which dominated all of the South until what, the 1980s, would never have nominated him. Even the Democrat Party did not present such far-left candidates back in the time of the Solid South.

But the way in which he brushes aside any consideration of the Second Amendment, which the Founding Fathers thought crucial to preserving the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is just astounding, but then it’s typical of today’s left, who no longer pretend to honor our Founding principles.

Yes, I know it’s the thing now for even the right to deride the Founding Fathers, flippantly declaring that they didn’t know what they were doing, and that ‘muh Constitution’ is worthless, echoing G.W. Bush who reportedly said ‘it’s just a G–D—-d piece of paper‘ — but with what would you replace it? Of course no rights exist if we no longer believe in them, and dismiss the writers of our Constitution as clueless blunderers who should have somehow magically divined the ways in which future politicians would deliberately twist and warp the words and intentions of the Founders, or just blatantly ignore or defy the rights delineated in our founding documents. How could they have anticipated the developments which led to our present dire predicament? Could they have anticipated a world in which literally millions of people from the ‘have-not’ countries could somehow find the means (cheap air travel, money given by NGOs, etc.) to come en masse to our country?

And critics usually forget that our system of government was explicitly intended for a ”moral and God-fearing people’, and it was not suited to any other. Little wonder that it’s fallen to pieces; the more we forsook our traditions and became disconnected from our roots, including our religious roots, the more this country fell prey to subversion and decay. We can’t blame the Founding Fathers, who could hardly envision today’s world, nor can even the Boomers be blamed — sorry, Boomer-phobics. I won’t even blame Gen-Xers, except for the likes of ”Beto” Robert O’Rourke, though I will fault him for either his ignorance of or disregard for our inherent right to defend ourselves. It appears he thinks we should just cower in our houses if bad guys are breaking in, and give in to their demands.

Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” – Aristotle

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone’s Commentaries)

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” — Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason

Children suing countries over climate issue

How does that work? How can under-age children sue countries over the climate controversy? I read that Greta Thunberg and 15 other children are suing the countries which are supposedly obstructing the progress of the effort to ‘fix’ climate change.

Emmanuel Macron spoke about his country being sued, and he was oddly noncommittal about this situation, not exactly enthusiastic, but still he emphasized that he and France are not opposing this effort. He did, though, called Greta and her ‘children’s crusade’ against nature ‘very radical’ and possibly antagonistic towards some of the nations being sued.

It seems surprising that Macron would say this, given his own leftist and globalist politics. But still it’s odder for children (or more accurately, teen-agers like Greta) to be traveling the world, being made the face of a movement like this, at such a young age. Let’s be honest: these young people are not children; they are being called that in order to make them more sympathetic. Children, it’s said, are innocent (though few are that, these days) and they are supposedly naive and trusting, and ‘honest’ in the same guileless way that only the very young can be. But how old is this Greta? I believe she is 16, nearly 17. That’s not a child, though Greta looks strangely childlike for her age, as though she may have a growth problem; she looks more like 11 or 12, and it isn’t just her short stature. But her short stature and childlike looks probably garner more sympathy from adults.

This looks like exploitation, cashing in on the youth and vulnerability of those who are being made the public face of this movement.

Any sympathy or protective instinct the movement has stirred up in parents or other adults may be counteracted by the angry, contorted face and words of little Greta, berating the adults, the guilty ones:

You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now, is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming whether you like it or not.

This is pretty harsh and dictatorial language coming from what appears to be a young, pigtailed girl. Whose words is she reading? Or does anyone believe she writes her own speeches? Who is backing this whole sideshow?

Since when do young, callow, inexperienced, and overemotional young people get to dictate to adults? Children can be useful to political movements; some unprincipled people have used children as human shields. In this case, it’s more like manipulation and an effort at manipulating the public.

But these young people have themselves been manipulated by the ”educational” establishment which has conditioned them to believe what the orthodox establishment tells them, and has taught them that only one legitimate viewpoint exists, and that is the political establishment’s.

Power is no longer vested in the citizenry, though in our country the Founding Fathers insisted that the will of the majority was always to be respected. Of course Greta’s country, and I suspect the countries of many of these other activist ‘children’ do not accept the same principles, and at the moment it appears as if our own government is following some other law than the traditions and laws of our forefathers. But as of now, the United ‘Nations’ (funny, a globalist organization referring to ‘nations’, which they want to abolish) is apparently the highest authority. Will we have the third world dictating to us, via their organization, the UN? We are decidedly outnumbered in that organization, and yet we seem to be making obeisance to them. Will Greta and her teen-age ‘sages’ be laying down the law to us? Are they grooming those children to be our future leaders?

An internet commenter the other day quoted this passage from the Bible, which had also sprung into my own mind:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:12

Apology for infrequent posts

I’d like to apologize for my irregular posting habits lately.

I don’t usually like to discuss my personal business here (a reader warned me that it isn’t a good idea for obvious reasons) but I am still dealing with some fairly troublesome health issues, which will be a long-term thing. So it’s hard to keep up regular habits under the circumstances.

I have to say in all honesty that it’s hard not to feel demoralized and discouraged what with the state of the world these days. The infighting on the various blogs is out of hand in some cases. There seem to be so many provocateurs and shills, people who seem to be there just to disrupt and derail any constructive conversation.

And it’s disturbing to see that ideas are now being criminalized, and how strange that the ideas that are being criminalized are basically the traditional American points-of-view that were held by a large majority of our population up until a couple of decades ago. Our ancestors would be guilty of all kinds of ‘offenses’ by today’s new code of ”morality.”

So we who put our thoughts and ideas out there have to learn to be very careful not to inadvertently say the ‘wrong’ thing according to the arbiters of the ever-changing PC codes. That’s not conducive to honesty in self-expression, and the blogger or commenter has to be careful not to veer too close to the proscribed Truth.

It’s hard to maintain morale under these circumstances. But I try to rally my spirits and keep on going, though things don’t exactly look bright.

Regardless, I appreciate anyone who stops by this blog and reads, despite my lack of inspiration and energy lately.

Where did it start?

While going through some files I saved from the Internet, I came across a blog comment left by a pseudonymous poster, referring to a certain controversial blogger. The date of the comment is not noted, but the comment was from at least a year ago.

The commenter says this controversial blogger is “at it again. Apparently it’s not the (((YKW))), it’s the boomers who are “to blame for all the ills of Western Civilisation.”

The comment says that “Paxman”, apparently British TV presenter Jeremy Paxman, had ‘pushed’ the narrative slamming the postwar “boomer” generation as the “most selfish generation”. Paxman even wrote a book on the subject and has gotten a lot of mileage from that trope. Others, seeing the money being made by such books, have piled on to make some of that filthy lucre for themselves .

Paxman is himself of the hated generation; is he just trying to fend off any attacks on himself by pointing the first finger at his own generation, signalling that he is not one of the evil, sociopathic boomers, but one of the good guys, by joining in the attack?

So Paxman was one of the first to kick off this generational war. But the blog commenter writing the comments that provoked this piece implies that Andrew Anglin was the one who has popularized the meme among the young male right, or the Alt-Right as it was, on the Internet. There’s always been talk that Anglin was a shill or a provocateur, and now there has been considerable discussion in some quarters of some new facts that have come to light, and it seems the consensus is that he is/was a shill or provocateur.
The over-the-top rhetoric and behavior seems to lend validity to that idea, and now his own words seem to confirm it.

Anglin and company aside, it seems this whole boomer-bashing meme was meant as a divide-and-conquer tactic, just as the commenter notes. He said that the meme became much more popular about 5 years ago, when various media (and Internet figures, too, by the way) people ‘began running with it.” And again, as I keep asking, who benefits? Who would benefit?

So here we are: mainstream [leftist] media people like Paxman, along with people who have popular and influential blogs, launched this meme. So its origins are suspect, as being ‘astroturfed’, sown by people with an agenda. And it seems to have been popularized, by lefty media personalities (aren’t they all leftist?) and Internet personalities with dubious backgrounds.

However it caught on like wildfire, despite its being ginned up by the dishonest media and other on the Internet with agendas.

But doesn’t its popularity and persistence show that it struck a nerve, or rang true for many young people, who are deeply in debt, usually student loan debt?

Not necessarily. Envy is unfortunately a tendency we fallen humans are prey to. I know people who incurred huge student loan debts in pursuing a fairly useless degree. I know some who went to 4 different colleges and spent about 10 consecutive years being professional students. I don’t think boomers or anyone else is responsible for that. But it’s nice to have a scapegoat and an excuse to be envious of the loathsome boomers and their contriving to be born in an easier and bettter time.

Scapegoats are a necessity for a lot of people in this present darkness. And a victimhood mentality, accompanied by the chip on the shoulder, is very popular these days, popularized by the left and their various clients.

No surprise, then, that the left and various (((shills))) on the faux right are involved in this particular smear campaign.

Another interesting fact: the baby-boom generation is the largest cohort of White people, by generation, in the West. When they are gone, following the older Silent Generation, the bashers will cheer their disappearance. But then the younger generations will be further isolated, and probably greatly outnumbered. Something to remember.

The rhetoric is very ugly at times, wishing death on ”boomers” and implying the need for ‘culling.’ It’s all out there in various sources if you doubt me.

The commenter I’ve alluded to above noted that the people who created this meme were ‘setting up an intergenerational conflict’ , setting our folk against each other.

It’s just one more sad chapter of our susceptibility to media influence — even among people who insist they do not trust the ‘lying media.’ They are being played by the media now, if they only realized it. But people don’t want to face it. The envy and resentment feel too good, for those who are caught up in it.

This is a topic I wish I didn’t have to address at all. But this division and the internal fractures are so self-destructive. And no one wants to talk about it except those who are keeping the conflict going. Everyone else is silent on it.

N.B.: I haven’t reproduced the comment I allude to because some blogs copyright even the comments, and readers are sometimes warned not to quote without full permisson from the blogg owner and the commenter. I am not sure from which blog the comment came, but it is genuine.

What about the American dream?

In the early days of blogging I remember writing about the ‘American dream’, and how the idea of it became somehow confused with immigration. There were many articles in the controlled media about how immigrants were compelled to come here because of their lack of material goods, compared to our excess. And the idea was emphasized that the ‘American Dream’, immigrant-style, was about acquiring ”stuff” and owning a house with a yard.

Now? It seems many Americans are supposed to consider themselves lucky to live in a barracks-style facility, with an open plan, and little privacy. In the staggeringly expensive cities, housing is scarce and many people work for low wages, as rentals become increasingly expensive. It’s hard to make ends meet on a barista’s earnings, or a less-than-full-time office drone job.

Take a look at this example of housing in San Francisco’s Tenderloin, at $60 a night, or $1,200 a month. The most obvious question is: with an open plan, how can this be a co-ed facility? What about privacy? How many of us would be comfortable with sleeping in close proximity to strangers, minus barriers or enclosures? What with the prevalence of, say, bedbugs in even four-star hotels (so we read, or hear) how will that kind of problem be prevented or dealt with? And what with the return of communicable diseases that were once eradicated, is communal housing hygienically desirable?

However, the definite scarcity of housing compels a lot of Americans to make choices they would not have made, not so long ago. Now there’s a lack of housing — a lack of housing for the low-wage or medium-income worker can afford. This forces a lot of people to settle for the lack of amenities, and the cramped quarters.

I notice that some people believe the housing issue is a problem only for people in the overcrowded cities, but in smaller communities there is a market, apparently, for those tiny little sheds that are being sold as actual homes, though they appear hardly large enough for a bed and a table, and what about indoor plumbing? About four miles away from me is a ‘community’ of little cabins, very roughly put together, apparently built by or for people who have been priced out of the rental market.

Are people now going to become inured to a much lower standard of living, to be housed either in rabbit warrens, or ‘pod’ dwellings, or in those ‘capsule’ style high-rises as in Japan? Will single people without the means for a real dwelling be content to live in shed-like houses, such as those being offered by the roadside now?

The city denizens excepted, many of us grew up with a concept of the wide-open spaces, and a horizon that stretched on forever. Does anyone remember an old song called ‘Don’t Fence Me In’? The lyrics speak of “land, lots of land, ‘neath the starry skies above….”

Now what with the ever-decreasing wages for many working Americans, and the skyrocketing housing costs, the old American dream of a roomy house with a nice yard, and two (at least) cars in the garage is receding into the long-ago past. If present trends continue our standard of living will decline as we have no choice but to downsize and lower our hopes and expectations. Are we “too spoiled”, as our moral betters keep telling us, and are we expected to atone for our past sins as a ‘spoiled people’?

I am sure there will always be those who prosper. It’s “an ill wind that blows nobody any good,” as the old proverb says. But it would seem that the standard of living, for the common people, will likely decline in the near term. And our quality of life is already diminishing.

And I need not explain just why our standard of living is suffering.

I do hope I’m wrong. I don’t want to see people living in modified dog houses, or crammed into high-priced tenement houses in cities; what a contrast to the life we knew not so very long ago. Material things are not the be-all and the end-all; we can only hope that we learn to appreciate the non-material good things of life.

Trudeau’s ‘Grand Remplacement’

” ‘The very concept of a nation founded by European settlers is offensive to me. Old stock White Canadians are an unpleasant relic, and quite frankly, replaceable, and we will replace them.’

The above quote is attributed to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. I first saw it when it was posted in the comments box at The Occidental Observer.

It seems Trudeau said this back in April of 2019. The Canadian Cultural Action Party reported this, as did other websites.

It’s well known that Trudeau himself and Canada are devoutly ‘multicultural’, that ideology being their de facto religion, which brooks no dissent. But even knowing that, I was stunned that Trudeau was so blunt in declaring Old Stock White Canadians obsolete, and ”an unpleasant relic.”

His open declaration that they are, in his view, replaceable and destined to be replaced. “We will replace them’‘, he said outright. But even though most of our ‘leaders’ are refraining from statements like that, it seems that ‘Old Stock Americans”, meaning mostly Anglo-Saxons, are also relegated to oblivion. As I said years ago, we are being written out of the script, though those who have determined this are not yet brazen enough to speak as Trudeau did.

It also occurred to me that Trudeau himself is a descendant of ‘Old Stock’ Canadians,’ that is, through his Scottish ancestors as well as his French-Canadian forebears. Isn’t it odd that he, and so many others with like opinions, denounce and disparage their own blood kin?

According to the sources I found, Trudeau is predominantly Scottish And French Canadian. However he had a distant (fourth generation) maternal ancestor who was half-Malaccan. So I suppose that, along with Elizabeth Warren, he chooses to identify with that one Exotic ancestor, considering himself not one of those ‘Old Stock White’ Canadians who are ‘unpleasant’ and offensive to him.

Surprisingly the news stories I read show that Trudeau aroused some anger from White Canadians, one of whom, a woman, clashed verbally with him, challenging his remarks about those disowned and ‘replaceable’ White Canadians. We tend to think of the Canadians as a meek and passive people who have, up until now, seem to have been quietly acquiescing in what is happening to their country, but it seems they still have the gumption to object, which is more than our folk seem to be showing. And I think Canada has harsher penalties for those White Canadians who speak up.

Speaking of Trudeau’s promised replacement of those offensive White Old Stock people, it’s funny that Wikipedia, which is of course a biased source, states outright that the Grand Remplacement is a ”right-wing conspiracy theory.’‘ Well, it looks like Trudeau has let the cat out of the bag, and made it official that there is a replacement underway, and it is to continue for however long it takes until they achieve their multicult Utopia, and make Canada more ‘diverse’, despite outright renouncing their own original settler stock, the people who actually made Canada.

As the handwriting on the wall has been made so starkly obvious, maybe there will be people with the ‘old stock’ pioneer spirit, those ‘fossils’ who may not ‘go gently into that good night.’

Faye’s important book

I expect you’ve all heard about the late Guillaume Faye’s recent book, titled Ethnic Apocalypse. I haven’t read it as yet; I just read the review, by Andrew Joyce, on The Occidental Observer. I certainly plan to read it.

Ethnic Apocalypse should be considered essential for anybody in the West who values and loves their heritage, their folk, and their home. Faye, who died recently from cancer, showed a degree of bluntness in his writing from which he had previously refrained. Many of us, I think, including me, find ourselves doing a lot of self-censoring, as it seems we are being scrutinized more than ever, lest we indulge in reckless truth-telling. But Guillaume Fay, knowing his life would end soon, seemed to be emboldened by that fact — in that situation, you have nothing to lose, and he speaks frankly, not burdening himself with euphemisms in describing the real world.

It must be a exhilarating to realize that you are freer to state facts as they are, and according to Faye’s assessment of those facts, they are very stark. I think so many of us, whether in France or in this country, or any Western country have become far too accustomed to monitoring our thoughts and our speech. Too many of us have learned, maybe as a defensive behavior, to stifle any thought of what is going on before our eyes; we don’t want to believe the situation is as dire as Faye says in his book. Why is that? I ask myself (and any others I feel free enough to talk with about this) why our people are so passive and supine? Despite the dishonest media’s efforts to paint us as ”the problem”, and to label us as ”supremacist” — how can one be a supremacist when we can’t even speak freely , and when we’re laden a staggering load of guilt?

So Guillaume Faye, no longer fearing the censors and witch-hunters in the media and the ‘collaborationists’ (accurately described), predicts a descent into some sort of war, a three-sided war. Just as in most Western countries, the authorities almost always side against the native population in favor of the Others; it’s quite brazen and undisguised. So those who shamelessly favor the Others. The authories treat the indigenous French as the wrongdoers, even in the face of events like the incident, cited in the book, where a French priest was attacked in his church while saying Mass. The priest, as I recall, was over 80 years old; his throat was cut in front of his horrified parishioners. How much more of this kind of thing is to come? And it is far from being an isolated event, or a rarity. Andi it could have been avoided; could still be avoided. If.

Faye says things can only worsen until or unless the tide turns, he says, in the face of some kind of major event which would change the French people’s passivity or lack of response to these atrocities.

Although the book seems, from what I’ve read of it, to be quite stark and, for some people probably, too ‘harsh’ in tone. But the truth is the truth, and I believe Faye saw things clearly; without the denialism and the self-deception that has become so commonplace among the ‘normies’ or even some on the right.

It’s heartening to see Faye dispensing the truth, and doing so without hindrance from political correctness, without trying to soften his statements with PC disclaimers — such as the feeble phrase: ‘but they’re not all like that‘. No such appeasement is found in the quotes in Andrew Joyce’s review.

I haven’t read much of Faye’s work, though I’ve been aware of the Identitarian movement in Europe. I will frankly say I found Identitarianism to be too intellectual for the majority — but then again I’ve said that it never requires ”the masses” or a majority for a movement to become popular or dominant. The masses, the majority or the ‘normies’ are usually found sitting out any important changes or movements. Usually, as the familiar quote from Samuel Adams has it, it does not take a majority to prevail, but an ‘irate, tireless minority’ keen to set brushfires of freedom in the minds of the people. And Americans are apparently not even at the ‘irate’ stage. Nor, according to Faye, are the people in France. “How blind are my people.” It’s the same over most of the West.

Faye is ‘well out” of the situation in this troubled world, and I hope that his book, written when he knew his life was soon to end, was not written in vain, only to fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. I hope he will be rememberd not as a ‘voice in the wilderness’, championing a forlorn hope like Enoch Powell, who also made dire predictions, but who was shouted down.

I hope Faye’s book will be widely read and taken to heart. Americans tend to be blindly optimistic in some cases; some of the people I’ve discussed this with dismiss it with the reply that ‘oh, it won’t be bad; people will assimilate and marry-in with our people and that will solve it.’ Kalergi would like that response. And then there are those who act concerned but quickly go back to saying that ‘at least our president is on our side.’

We need optimism, but not the blind and pollyannaish kind. I heard a term ‘hardboiled optimism’, and I think that’s what is essential: not to become cynical and fatalistic, which many of us have done, but to be realistic and strong-minded, determined, without succumbing to the fatalism. We also need fearless men like Guillaume Faye, and is there any such likely advocate here in our country?

Forgiveness vs. justice

Remember the shocking incident that happened in April of this year at the Mall of America? The one in which a 5-year-old child was thrown off a balcony? The boy survived despite his injuries, thank God.

Now, the man who threw the boy off the balcony has been sentenced to 19 years in prison, seemingly a very light sentence, all things considered.

The aspect of this situation that seems to have become de rigueur is for the family of the victim to publicly announce their forgiveness of the one who harmed or killed their loved one.

And then there is the usual arguing online where some denounce the virtue-signaling that has become the expected reaction from the families of the victim. Is it virtue-signaling? Or is it just a plain-and-simple misunderstanding or misapplication of Christian morality? Or — the other option — are we who find fault with the families’ action lacking in Christian forgiveness and charity ourselves, while the families are right?

To begin with, I don’t think it’s up to us, the public, to forgive something like this; we are not the ones to suffer when someone is harmed or killed —except for the small detail that our society is damaged: our faith in other people, and our ability to be trusting, are damaged if not destroyed.

But it’s not for us, the public, to ‘forgive’ someone who commits a crime like this, or to offer them something like ‘absolution’ for their crimes.

A true ‘justice’ system would have the punishment fit the crime, and in most cases, what with plea bargains, with shyster ‘defense attorneys’ who play for sympathy towards their defendant, and with many notoriously lenient judges who give a slap on the wrist to violent offenders, justice is not being served in many cases. And yet, even with a lack of appropriate punishment for the crime in question, there should be no reason for us to expend so much pity and sympathy on criminals, especially for anyone who has exactly zero sympathy or mercy towards an innocent child — or anyone else, for that matter.

Then there are those inevitable comments that we have to ”hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

Next time someone says this in my presence I will be sure to ask them for the Biblical chapter and verse. If it’s a Biblical command, as many people believe it is, let’s ask them to cite the place where it is found in the Bible.

I believe my readers know it isn’t in the Bible, and it wasn’t said by Jesus Christ. Some authorities cite Mohandas Gandhi as the one who taught it. But his words are not binding on Christians, and that saying is not consistent with Christian teaching.

Speaking for myself, I don’t think it’s humanly possible to ”love” a criminal who has seriously harmed or killed a beloved relative, especially a helpless child. Not all of us have lost a relative in that way, but I don’t think it’s possible for us to “love” the guilty person as we love others, and I think it’s a hard burden to ask a grieving relative to carry.

Another little detail: sins don’t exist without a sinner, a person who is a moral agent who chooses to do wrong. Sins don’t exist without a sinner.

And in loving the sinner, as is the case with the relatives of a criminal, the tendency is to minimize the seriousness of what that person did, to rationalize it and make excuses. ‘Love’ which loves only the wrongdoer and shows indifference to their wrongdoing is a very narrow and selfish thing.

The psychological worldview seems to cast people as merely ‘evolved’ apes, and to make excuses for sins or crimes, demanding that we see the victimizer as just another victim.

But a wrongdoer chooses to do what he does. So how is it possible to love someone who harms a child, especially our own child? At best it might be possible to feel some kind of reluctant sympathy, depending. But love?

Perhaps God can love such people but the Bible indicates that God loves selectively. Some believe, however, that God loves even the worst human beings, or so they say, but what about Malachi 1:3? Naturally I am not going to try to argue theology here, just basic common sense, and a Biblical worldview, not one colored by psychology, psychiatry, and New-Age fluff.

In any case, I am not condemning the parents, who must have gone through great agonies after what happened to their child; I know everybody is being taught and conditioned to appear ‘nonjudgmental’, even in situations like this one, and everybody seems to feel compelled to ”virtue-signal”, to indicate that they are not guilty of the sin of ”judgmentalism” or that greatest-of-all-evils, the ”r-word.” Almost everyone adopts the worldview that the media and the educational system inculcates in us. Few people are learning Biblical Christianity. According to recent polls most Christians hold many New Age beliefs, and do not have a traditional Christian worldview. We can’t hold both simultaneously; they are not compatible.

One more thing: forgiveness has to be preceded by repentance, and there’s no evidence that the guilty party in this story has repented, or has even gone through the motions of pretending to repent. Some people say it’s essential to the families to forgive, just so they can ‘feel better’ or ”attain closure” or something. That may be so, but is it necessary to make a public announcement of forgiveness? Better to do so privately and quietly. Doing it publicly and without repentance from the wrongdoer can just trivialize the crime itself, making it look like a minor transgression that can easily be ‘forgiven and forgotten’.