‘Germany is going down’

From a German citizen, (via Irish Savant and commenter Flanders) read how the ‘refugee’ situation is worse than many people realize. Most of us know of the dire situation in Europe, especially Germany, but I believe many may still be unaware of the seriousness of the situation. And while this blog is obscure and the piece won’t likely get many views from this posting, someone just may re-post where it will garner more attention.

Please read it and re-post where possible.

The thought that came to my mind is that in a sense we are in greater danger of ignoring the problem, which is also present here: the influx of ‘refugees’ and others, about which we are given no say whatsoever, and the attempts to stifle and silence all dissent or criticism. How far are we from that scenario here? Europe is being subjected to a sudden shock with a great influx, in a smaller geographical area. That tends to get people’s attention. We, however, have been lulled into a sense of complacency; our country is so large, and we have become inured through long experience with immigration to having aliens introduced into our midst. Many Americans have been inoculated, you might say, against any sense of apprehension about it: after all, this was always a nation of immigrants, and we’ve always assimilated the newcomers. Give them time, and they’ll fit right in, and be as American as apple pie. We’ve heard others say that ‘oh, I have Moslem co-workers and they’re nice people’ or ‘My new Hindu neighbors are friendly’ or ‘Mexicans have lived here for centuries; they’re not as bad as people say’. We’re entirely too smug or too resigned, in some cases.

Maybe the sudden shock to Europe may produce a quicker reaction, as we here lull ourselves and each other to sleep. But let’s hope we also wake up.

‘Come and take it’

The following is a reworking of a post I made about 9 years ago on the old blog:

This time ever year, the ‘Come and Take It!’ festival, in Gonzales, Texas, is held. Gonzales County is where six generations of my kin have lived and died.

Gonzales, as it happens,  was the site of the first shot fired in the Texas Revolution, on October 2, 1835. For this reason, Gonzales has been called the ‘Lexington of Texas,’ and ‘the Birthplace of Texas Independence.’

The ‘Come and Take It’ festivities include a battle re-enactment at Pioneer Village, races, a historical presentation, parades, food booths, and music.

From Wikipedia:

“Gonzales is one of the earliest Anglo-American settlements in Texas, the first west of the Colorado River. It was established by Empresario Green DeWitt as the capital of his colony in August 1825. DeWitt named the community for Rafael Gonzáles, governor of Coahuila y Tejas.

[…]Gonzales is referred to as the “Lexington of Texas” because it was the site of the first skirmish of the Texas Revolution. In 1831, the Mexican government had granted Green DeWitt’s request for a small cannon for protection against Indian attacks. At the outbreak of disputes between the Anglo settlers and the Mexican authorities in 1835, a contingent of more than 100 Mexican soldiers was sent from San Antonio to retrieve the cannon.

When the soldiers arrived, there were only 18 men in Gonzales, but they refused to return the cannon, and soon men from the surrounding area joined them. Texians under the command of John H. Moore confronted them. Sarah DeWitt and her daughter sewed a flag bearing the likeness of the cannon and the words “Come and Take It,” which was flown when the first shots of Texan independence were fired on October 2, 1835. The Texians successfully resisted the Mexican troops in what became known as the Battle of Gonzales.”

After this opening shot in the Texas revolution was fired, a number of dramatic events led the way to the independence of Texas. Along the way were decisive events, such as the Alamo, and the terrible massacre at Goliad, and the victory at San Jacinto.

These events are part of my family history, as they are for many old-stock Texas families; they are real events to me, not just dry dates and facts in a history textbook. There are family names on those memorials, citing the names of my kin who died there. The Goliad massacre is especially heart-wrenching:

“Boys, they are going to kill us—die with your faces to them, like men!”……two other young men, flourishing their caps over their heads, shouted at the top of their voices: ‘Hurra for Texas!’

Can Texas cease to cherish the memory of those, whose dying words gave a pledge of their devotion to her cause? — Capt. Jack Shackelford, Survivor of the Massacre”

It’s surprising how few people outside Texas are aware that Texas actually won its independence from Mexico. There is a kind of tragic irony to the fact that at this time, there is talk of a merger between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I have to wonder what my Texan colonist ancestors would think had they known that only a few generations after their heroic efforts to win Texas’ independence, that Mexico would seemingly be taking Texas by stealth colonization and by demographic conquest. I can only believe my steadfast forefathers would be astounded at the actions of our present-day leaders and their kowtowing to a failed third-world country to our south, and at our submissive posture.

My ancestors, along with other DeWitt colonists, were there by invitation of the Mexican government. Those colonists were productive, industrious, can-do people; they created Texas in what was an untamed wilderness. There was no Mexican settlement there of any note; the Mexicans could not establish flourishing colonies therem because they were not able to subdue the fractious Indian tribes. So they brought in Americans to do that.

The colonists were not needy, not coming hat in hand, to ask for employment or help from Mexico. They were self-reliant, unlike the colonists who are coming north now into the United States. Despite their recently-coined reputation for ‘hard work’, today’s Mexican colonizers are in no way comparable to those Americans who came and built Texas.

Now the situation is reversed, with Mexicans colonizing Texas, largely by stealth, although most of our politicians are giving the Mexican colonists tacit approval and a covert invitation. Inviting them, it appears,  to come and to take Texas, which it seems they are enthusiastically doing.

gonzls

Our Texas forefathers, when they flew the ‘Come and Take It’ flag, used that phrase in defiance of the Mexican authorities, in refusing to surrender their cannon. When they used these words, they were knowingly echoing the defiant taunt ‘Molon Labe‘ – or ‘come and take them’  by Spartan King Leonidas, directed at the Persian King Xerxes at Thermopylae . Xerxes offered to spare Leonidas and his men if they gave up their weapons and surrendered. Xerxes refused, knowing they were vastly outnumbered. ‘Molon labe’ — ‘come and take them’, was the defiant answer of the Spartans, despite the fact that they  numbered only three hundred. Still, they held off the much larger force of 600,000 Persians for seven days. They fought to the last man. Although they were crushed by the Persians, their brave example inspired the Greeks to resist the Persians and later defeat them at Salamis, which was a momentous and decisive victory, affecting the whole course of Western history.

Interestingly, many liken Thermopylae to the Alamo:

“There are times when a defeat can become a triumph. Just as the heroic death of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae gave courage to the rest of Greece; so the last stand of a handful of brave Texians in a fortified Mission became a rallying cry for Texas’ independence: Remember the Alamo!”

Like the roll call of the defenders of the Alamo, the name of every individual Spartan who died at Thermopylae was remembered for as long as ancient Sparta endured. They were engraved on a stone tablet in Sparta that could still be read over seven centuries later. Will the Alamo still stand in 700 years? Would it matter? It is what the Alamo represents that is immortal, not the tangible remains of the buildings. Heroism, once achieved and honored, is never forgotten entirely.”

In paying tribute to those massacred at Goliad, Gen. Thomas Rusk, in his poignant speech at the site, said

“FELLOW SOLDIERS: In the order of Providence we are this day called upon to pay the last sad offices of respect to the remains of the noble and heroic band, who, battling for our sacred rights, have fallen beneath the ruthless hand of a tyrant. Their chivalrous conduct entitles them to the heartfelt gratitude of the people of Texas. Without any further interest in the country than that which all noble hearts feel at the bare mention of liberty, they rallied to our standard. Relinquishing the ease, peace, and comforts of their homes, leaving behind them all they held dear, their mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives, they subjected themselves to fatigue and privation, and nobly threw themselves between the people of Texas and the legions of Santa Anna.

There, unaided by re-inforcements and far from help and hope, they battled bravely with the minions of a tyrant, ten to one. Surrounded in the open prairie by this fearful odds, cut off from provisions and even water, they were induced, under the sacred promise of receiving the treatment usual to prisoners of war, to surrender. They were marched back, and for a week treated with the utmost inhumanity and barbarity. They were marched out of yonder fort under the pretense of getting provisions, and it was not until the firing of musketry did the shrieks of the dying, that they were satisfied of their approaching fate. Some endeavored to make their escape, but they were pursued by the ruthless cavalry and most of them cut down with their swords. A small number of them stand by the grave – a bare remnant of that noble band. Our tribute of respect is due to them; it is due to the mothers, sisters, and wives who weep their untimely end, that we should mingle our tears with theirs. In that mass of remains and fragments of bones, many a mother might see her son…
[…]while liberty has a habitation and a name, their chivalrous deeds will be handed down upon the bright pages of history.”

And will their chivalrous deeds be remembered, when Texas is de facto Mexican territory, a Spanish-speaking province, which will no doubt see this history very differently than we, the posterity of those massacred there? Are we honoring their memory by meekly giving back what they bought with their blood?

These are questions I ponder when I think of those fateful events in Texas. Will the Alamo still stand in 700 years, the Alamo Journal writer cited earlier asks. Given current trends, will the Alamo still stand in 70 years, much less 700? Will the Lone Star flag still fly over it then, or the Stars and Stripes? Or will the Mexican flag with its bird of prey be flying there? If anyone remembers the Alamo, will they remember that small group of valiant defenders, or will they be honoring Santa Anna?

I hope the writer is right; that the heroism of those Texas patriots at the Alamo and at Goliad and all the rest,  will be remembered and honored; I hope that what they fought and died for will not be overturned by our supine tolerance of the slow-motion invasion which threatens now to undo all that our forefathers shed their blood to establish.

In praise of narrowness

On another dissident-right blog, a commenter is taken to task by several others; the charge is that he (or she?) is ‘too negative‘, especially towards other White ethnic groups or nationalities. I know that this attitude, this idea that one must not speak critically of other White ethnicities, is often de rigueur among WNs, because their belief system  holds that our White skin is our identity, not our specific ethnic group or tribe. By this particular tenet (which seems to place me outside the WN camp) ethnicity is too narrow an identification; survival necessitates that we identify with all people of European descent or else perish, because we cannot allow the petty divisiveness of ethnic identities; doing so is inviting our obliteration as a race.

However there are some quibbles here; some WNs define the White race more narrowly, excluding Mediterraneans, broadly speaking. The writer H.P. Lovecraft would probably have fallen into this camp, although I believe no one used the term ‘White Nationalist’ in his day, to my knowledge. I believe he called himself an Anglo-Saxonist, identifying most with his particular ethnic group, though he acknowledged he didn’t fit the stereotype of the blond, Viking-looking Northman which is important to some Nordicists, who believe very much in going by phenotypes. (And yes, phenotypes are useful).

However, though Lovecraft was Anglo-Saxonist by his own description, he embraced Northwestern/Northern Europeans generally as being his kinsmen. This is expressed in his personal writings. He did not think that all Europeans were his kinsmen in the same way that Northern Europeans were, and especially Englishmen.

Lovecraft, then, is often criticized by those who think that Lovecraft was excluding them or their ancestors from his kin group; they see his opinions as being bigoted or lacking in solidarity with all Europeans, which is now becoming the correct position amongst many on the pro-White or WN or Alt-Right side.

To be accused of being too narrow in one’s loyalties or identifications carries with it the implicit, or sometimes explicit, charge of jeopardizing White survival by refusing to embrace a pan-European identity in preference to narrow loyalty to one’s nearer kin. The rhetoric goes that only by uniting as one White race, irrespective of any genetic, linguistic, religious, or cultural distinctions, can Whites/European-descended people survive. Unite, by putting aside your petty ethnic loyalty, or die, your race forever extinct.

But is this the only choice? Is this the one option for Whites or European peoples?

History shows us many examples of genetically similar peoples, closely akin, who were frequently at war with each other. To the outsider, the differences between such clashing peoples is often not detectable. Ukrainians and Russians appear similar to most casual outside observers, and they are at odds. Also, many people cannot see why the Protestant Northern Irish (Ulstermen) and the Catholic Irish of the North have a long history of bloodshed between them. No, it is not just about religion, but about ethnicity and different cultures as well. Granted, though, the ethnic differences are not all that great, as DNA shows. Likewise with the Irish and the English; all the British Isles peoples are fairly close genetically, but to each people, especially those identifying as ‘Celtic’, the differences are all-important.

If these closely-related peoples cannot get along, how can we expect peoples as dissimilar as Greeks and Scandinavians, or Finns and Portuguese, or Icelandic people and Corsicans, to think of one another as equally brothers, except in the most abstract sense?

We’ve seen how well that has worked out in America where we are all officially ‘one people’ and yet many ethnicities still have frictions between them despite long-time contact and the ‘unifying’ factor of Americanized culture. Yes, even people of differing European ethnicities have clashed and prefer to maintain their own cultures and enclaves.

How many Europeans and European-descended people on this planet are there? We are scattered widely from South America to Australia/New Zealand to Iceland and Greenland to North America, Southern Africa, and to Europe proper. How can we come to think of such a dispersed and disparate collection of peoples as equally our brethren, having an equal claim to our loyalty and support? I say it’s not practicable. Just as with the ‘One World’ mentality, our loyalties and attachments cannot be stretched that far without being so attenuated as to be nonexistent. We are built for concentric circles of loyalties, with those of our nearest genetic connections, our immediate families, being the strongest bonds, and as the circle of loyalties go outward, the bonds necessarily grow weaker. Those who are most distant not only geographically but genetically command the least claim on our obligations and affections.

It’s all but impossible for mere humans to love something distant and abstract. This is the weakness of the ‘One planet, one people’ nonsense, which is the globalist mantra. Brainwashed churchians and lefties notwithstanding, we just can’t love the distant and the unseen in the same way that we love those nearest to us and closest to us by blood bonds.

So if it’s sin in the pro-White world to prefer one’s own close kinsmen over far-distant relatives, then I plead guilty. No doubt I would be eighty-sixed from the blog I refer to in the opening paragraph of this post for being ”divisive” and “negative” towards my brothers from countries on the other side of the globe, and so be it. After all, in this increasingly New-Age, pop-psychology oriented world we live in, being “negative” is Sin Number One. Thou Shalt Not Be Negative, saith the feel-good law as expounded by people like Oprah and Dr. Phil and probably Joel Osteen. And especially shalt thou not be negative towards The Other, the Sacred Other. For most people, the Sacred Other about whom we must not be negative means specifically People of Color, or Immigrants of whatever color.But what if the truth is negative?

For the Pan-Europeanist, we must not be negative towards the Other European, even if they do in fact have bad cultural habits or at least, if you shrink from making ‘value judgments’  then let’s say some Others have traits that are just not compatible with our own ways of doing things.

For example, when I was in the New York City area, I quickly learned that having to ‘grease people’s palms’ was a necessary part of getting things done. You will be told that something can’t be done until you slip someone some money and suddenly it can be done. You’ve heard of the ‘baksheesh’ system; it’s not just in the Middle East. In Mexico it’s called ‘mordida.’ This kind of thing seems most common in Mediterranean countries or peoples, or those derived from that area. It isn’t generally an Anglo-Saxon thing.

So yes, in order for us to accommodate peoples from different cultures we end up absorbing some corrupt practices and habits. We compromised who we were, when we decided that we are all brothers under the skin.

Something has to give when disparate peoples are blended together. Most importantly of all, to be told that all Europeans are as brothers despite strong differences is just one step away from the multicult worldview that ‘we are all one race, the human race’, and that we all bleed red. We end by acquiescing in falsehoods, these denials of difference, and we live a lie. Christians cannot do this, not if they wish to live up to their faith.

Now we live under a tyranny of lies in which people are being punished, even prosecuted and jailed, for speaking ‘ill’ of some protected group, because noticing differences and speaking unpleasant truths offends. So we have let truth be suppressed in many instances. Are we not to note the drawbacks of having those unlike ourselves living amongst us? Shall we choose, if we ever get out from under the globalist tyranny, to live in multicultural societies made up of disparate Europeans? It would be preferable to the Coudenhove-Kalergi nightmare, but it would still be fraught with problems. A European mega-nation would also be polyglot, multicultural, and multilingual, unless we want to impose one language and one culture.

To want to preserve our own peoples, languages, cultures, and traditions does not mean ‘hating’ our fellow Europeans/Whites. To say that ethnoloyalty is hatred of outsiders is the kind of cheap rhetoric that the leftist/multi-cultist uses towards us now. It should be beneath WNs or any pro-Whites to use such manipulation.

We can surely make common cause, offer moral and other support to our counterparts in Europe and elsewhere without trying to invent some pro-White version of the EU, which itself is proto-globalist. We can be allies with our kinsmen without putting them on a par with our more immediate kin, or without giving them all free rein to enter our countries at will. To imply otherwise is dishonest or foolish.

Personally I have always enjoyed other cultures at an arm’s length, and I am not in the habit of being hostile to people because of their different ethnic origins or even racial origins. But I still maintain that good fences make good neighbors. We all have relatives that, though they are our kin, we would not welcome as permanent guests in our homes. Why, then, should we be expected to welcome distantly-related strangers into our countries? Remember our countries are also our homes. Just as in English tradition, every man’s home is his castle, so our countries are our homes, our castles. They are our birthright and our rightful inheritance. Though the pan-Europeanist thinks that I must share my country with any White person who stakes a claim here, would those people reciprocate and give me the right to enter their country, and bring my extended clan with me? To impose this ideal on us all is depriving us of our sovereignty and our birthright, our homes, regardless of who the usurpers are.

And I ask this: what normal person, given that our Western countries are all being flooded with immigrants, thinks that it should be wrong to criticize these uninvited guests? I would say there is something off about people who still think that it is some kind of sin to object to more foreign neighbors, given the way in which our countries are being overwhelmed by strangers.

Are honest, factual, criticisms of other European peoples now ‘hatefacts’ as with racial Other groups? Is that acceptable?

I honestly suspect the motives of anyone who would chastise a kinsman for his honest feelings, while rushing to the defense of the poor immigrant, whoever he is. Loyalty is still a virtue, and loyalty to kin and kind comes first.

And real loyalties and loves must necessarily be narrow. We cannot be loyal to all things and all peoples, else it is not loyalty but promiscuity. Love by nature is exclusive, reserved for the closest and deepest bonds, else it is not love.

Yet another incident

Another incident involving a ‘refugee’, in news from El Cajon, California. A man, shot by the police while behaving ‘erratically’, has since died at a local hospital.

The inevitable unrest, protests, and agitprop from the media follow in the wake.

“A black man was shot in an encounter with El Cajon Police Tuesday, multiple witnesses said, while a woman wailed nearby, demanding to know why police shot her brother.

Hours later, police officers told NBC 7 San Diego the man, now identified as Alfred Olango, was acting erratically and failed to comply, although they did not release details on the specific threat he presented to officers.”

The man is said to be a refugee, ‘with mental problems’, from Uganda. The news stories I’ve seen don’t indicate whether he is one of the latest wave of ‘refugees’ from African coming across the Southern border, or whether he arrived earlier.

Somewhat amusingly, CNN’s news story referred to the Ugandan man as ‘African-American.’ If he is a refugee, obviously he’s not an ‘African-American’ nor any kind of American at all, simply Ugandan or African. But political correctness results in just such kinds of absurdities.

Speaking of incidents involving refugees, someone in the comments section at Refugee Resettlement watch asked the other day if Arcan Cetin, the Turkish shooter at the mall in Washington State was a refugee. That question immediately occurred to me when his identity was disclosed — not that it is ultimately relevant whether a homicidal foreign person arrived as a refugee or as an immigrant. The fact is such people need not be here, and should not be here, as our promiscuous ‘immigration’ and refugee policies are a disaster. And even less does it matter whether an immigrant was illegal or legal; both kinds have proven to be a problem in too many cases. Major Hasan, the notorious Fort Hood killer, was the child of parents who came here legally, as were the Tsarnaevs.

Legal or illegal, it’s irrelevant ultimately. Being legal does not make someone a good choice for American residence or citizenship.

But was Arcan Cetin a refugee or the son of refugees? Neither, it appears. I had read from a comment online, ostensibly from somebody who knew the family, that his mother had married an American who was in the miltary over in Turkey, and he brought mother and son to this country — legally, of course, and I’d bet that there are probably a number of other relatives who are now here via chain migration.

This story verifies some of those details.  It also mentions his blog postings in connection with his religion:

“One post on Cetin’s Tumblr page urged readers to repeat the phrase “Subhan Allah” (“Glory to God”) 10 times “and then reblog this, do not stop reblogging it.”

But of course according to the media, his motives are unknown.

The Cetin story has all but vanished from the media, and I expect we’ll hear little about it as it can’t easily be turned to good use by the media propagandists. But it is necessary, it seems to me, to mention these facts because there is still some talk on the Internet that he was just a disgruntled ‘beta male’ who was spurned by some girl, and that she was the intended target of his shooting spree. Not true, or at least that does not appear to be his main motivation.

It’s also assumed by quite a few that the supposed ex-girlfriend was one of those killed at the mall, and this is evidently incorrect; the victims were apparently unknown to him. He was just seething with resentments and went after random targets — probably White people, though one of his victims had a possibly Hispanic name.

Whether these problem ‘refugees/immigrants’ arrive by one means or another, or whether they are here legally or otherwise is not the main concern; it’s that our policy of admitting just anybody, especially people from hostile countries and cultures, is costing us many lives, as well as destroying our cultural fabric and our social cohesion. It is not in any way beneficial to us; it serves interests other than those of the people of this country. It’s in fact killing us, quickly or slowly.

Suspect descriptions: problems

For about 10 years, perhaps more, law enforcement officials along with news media have made a conspicuous effort to avoid too-specific descriptions of criminal suspects or fugitives.  I first began to notice it when there were alerts out for local suspects  and the descriptions said something like ‘suspect is a male about 30 years old wearing dark clothing, driving such-and-such a vehicle.’ No mention of race or ethnicity or complexion, which, let’s face it, are some of the first things we notice about people.

Then there was the Brian Nichols case in Atlanta, wherein Nichols, a black man being escorted to the courtroom by a ‘guard’ who was a female (and a grandmother), overpowered her and escaped, killing a total of four people before being recaptured.

When I first heard the ‘breaking news’ about the escape, the description of Nichols told his height, his age, and the fact that he had a ‘medium complexion.’  I thought the omission of race was odd, as that was not yet standard practice, and I thought to myself he must be White, because of his complexion description and his White-sounding name. Blacks these days don’t tend to be named ‘boring’ white-bread names like Brian.

Imagine my surprise when I learned he was black. Soon every criminal suspect was given a vague, non-ethnic/non-racial description, and we were left to guess, though the guesswork is simplified if we know the suspect’s name. Nobody named DeQuantavious is going to be White. Also the nature of the crime often tells us who the suspect is, racially or ethnically. Shooting or stabbing at a girl’s 15th birthday party? Hispanics. Quinceanera. If you are not familiar with that word (and is there anybody in America that is not?) look it up, and for more interesting info, just look up ‘quinceanera stabbing’ (or shooting).  Riot at a pizza parlor or children’s birthday party? Black, usually involving many mothers.

So the shooting at the Washington state mall in Burlington immediately suggested ‘random jihad’ or ‘immigrant derangement syndrome’, so most people correctly guessed that the perpetrator was from an Islamic background, Middle Easterner most likely. The official description mentioned ‘Hispanic male’, and from the security camera picture, there could be some ambiguity there. Understandable. And the police officials in the area probably figured that because of the high percentage of Hispanics in the county that the odds were more in favor of the shooter being Hispanic. I mean, it’s not as though Hispanics are nonviolent, and always law-abiding. They are not the Amish, (I mean the real Amish, not those who are wryly described as Amish).

So why in heaven’s name are so many apparent White people, even ”conservatives” online getting all outraged and sputtering about the outrage of Hispanics being horribly wronged by this shooter suspect being described as Hispanic? Why not save their outrage for the many, many times that Whites are slandered by having nonwhite suspects called ‘White’, or Hispanics and Middle Easterners on ‘Most Wanted’ lists described, for the record, as ‘White’ — even when their names and photos scream that they are in no way White, nor could anyone honestly mistake them for White? No, these fools are working themselves up into a lather with this kind of nonsense:

Why are Hispanics not SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER at being smeared by the media?”

Don’t give them ideas! Next thing you know, LaRaza or MECha or somebody will be suing everybody for this slander against their law-abiding and pacifistic folk.

The question that this probably White person asks should rightly be about why Whites are slandered, being made to bear the burden, statistically, of nonwhite criminals identified as ours? People should be wondering why we aren’t ‘screaming bloody murder’ about our own folk being smeared.

I’ve said I judged this mall shooter, Cetin, to be Middle Eastern by the pictures shown. But in some cases there can be confusion. Just look at these photos of fugitives. Most are Hispanic, some Middle Eastern/Caucasus origin. Some could honestly be confused, one for the other. Some Hispanics do have more olive skin than brown, and some do have heavier eyebrows like Middle Easterners. The differences are not always clear-cut.

What with so many different ethnicities being thrown into the melting pot, how on earth can all of us become experts in distinguishing someone’s origins, out of so many hundreds of ethnicities?

Maybe the official policy of withholding information on race/ethnicity of suspects is preferable if people are going to get all incensed on behalf of some poor innocent minority group when an incorrect description is made.

What is to be done about these many brainwashed Whites, who instantly go into their defense mode when it comes to being ‘White Knights’ for their favorite minority group?

The recent terror attacks

It’s been my pattern generally to blog about the various terror attacks in our country and in Europe. It appears that quite a few bloggers are writing about the recent spate of attacks in New York and New Jersey, while I’ve been silent on that, while in the past it was the other way around.

The fact is, I seem to find little to say as these things become frequent. Not long ago some French official arrogantly told his countrymen that they would just have to ‘get used to’ the acts of terror. And sadly I think it’s easy to become hardened and blase about these things, horrible though they may be. Ever since 9/11 and the ensuing acts of violence against us, there has been talk of how this state of  things would become ‘the new normal’, and we would just adapt to it, ceasing to be troubled or outraged, unable to even feel reasonable fear.

I certainly haven’t become callous about this state of things. I do know people in the areas which were hit by the recent bombings, both in northern New Jersey and in Manhattan, Chelsea to be precise. I know people who knew relatives of 9/11 victims.

It is hard to find anything new to say about these things, something that has not been said hundreds of times before by me and by numerous others. We can wryly observe how the Lying Press rolls out the cliche stories with headlines like ‘Local Muslims fear backlash.‘ And they never disappoint, these media whores: there was an article from the Minnesota press titled something like ‘Local Somali community fears backlash.

All they do is change a few names and dates and they just use the well-worn template for these insulting stories — insulting in that they imply that American White Christians are bloodthirsty, violent people who attack innocents at every opportunity, and that Moslems are helpless, blameless victims. Lying Press, Luegenpresse, what an apt term.

For the moment I seem to be burnt out on writing about the terrorism/open borders syndrome, because there is nobody in positions of power who will care or heed us at all.

‘Immigration…will go on’

Tiberge at Gallia Watch posted a video of one Federica Mogherini, whose title is High Representative on Foreign Affairs of the European Union, speaking on immigration. Tiberge introduces the video by saying ‘This will cheer you up.’ Now, I have been in dire need of cheering up lately; I’ve been unusually dispirited, hence the sparse posting here. But obviously the content of the video is not likely to cheer any sane person up; Tiberge was obviously being wry and ironic.

From the speech by Miss Mogherini:

I know it’s something some of you don’t want to hear but it’s a reality. There are seven billion people on the earth and more and more inequalities. If immigration is well-managed it can bring incredible opportunities for those who leave their country and for those who welcome them. Let’s be realistic. You can see the democratic tendencies in Europe.

So it is not a phenomenon that needs to be stemmed, on the contrary. We will continue to manage immigration in an efficient manner all the while respecting human rights. It must be beneficial to everyone.”

Well, obviously, Signorina Mogherini, no, we don’t want to hear this. And no, immigration is not beneficial in any way to ‘your‘ country or to any of the rightful inhabitants of Western/once-White countries.To the contrary, it is destructive, dangerous, and a blight on our countries. It benefits only those greedy business owners with an insatiable lust for more profits (via cheap labor, and selling their products or services to the ‘immigrants) or possibly to politicians who are on the take.

I never heard of this Mogherini female, though apparently her father was a movie director. No doubt she has not lived in the world inhabited by ordinary people, likely having been brought up in a very rarefied atmosphere. In any case she was involved in Communist activities from a young age (she is a Gen-Xer, by the way, for the generational warfare fans out there). She has also been very pro-Islam.

Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and-what matters most-in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not, this is the reality.

Further, the Wikipedia entry says that

According to columnist Llaus Jurgens, Mogherini believes that “political Islam should be part of the equation in fighting terror and in particular the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” and “she did not say that political Islam should become Europe’s new masterplan”

Speaking of Europe’s ‘new masterplan,’ I blogged a while back about an alleged plan afoot in Europe which involves the Powers-that-Be basically making a covert surrender to Islam, in exchange for their retaining their privileged positions. Mogherini’s words, plus the actions of Western leaders generally, makes me more and more inclined to lend some credence to that talk of some kind of deal struck between Western ‘leaders’ and Islam.

9/11: Fifteen years on

I remember 9/11/2001 vividly, as do all of us who were old enough to realize the import of what happened then.

Who ever would have imagined, looking back to that day, that fifteen years later we would have a much larger Moslem population in the aftermath of that horrible attack on our country?

In the years since 9/11/2001, the whole subject of the destruction of the ‘Twin Towers’ of the World Trade Center has become very controversial, thanks to the fact that there is now a sizeable percentage of people who reject the official version of what happened that day. Those who believe the official version are often reviled as fools and dupes, as ‘patriotards’. But those who reject all the details of the official story disagree amongst themselves as to just what did happen, and who was responsible.

I don’t want to dive into that controversy today, on this fifteenth anniversary of that horrible day. Suffice it to say that I’ve become something of an agnostic about what happened, and about who was ultimately responsible. I don’t have my own theories of what happened; I am no expert. I am not an engineer, or in any  way qualified to argue about whether the tower could collapse from the heat of the fires caused by burning jet fuel. Few of us are qualified to do that, and we have to rely on conflicting opinions of those who are experts.

The most I can say is that it seems as though the event was at least allowed to happen, just as Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen.

Beyond that, it seems to me to be futile to try to theorize about the details of what happened. I think it seems obvious that we will never know for sure.

And above all, I think it fitting that we take some time to remember the 3,000 or so people who were killed on that day. On the five year anniversary, during my first year as a blogger in 2006, some 2,996 volunteer bloggers each wrote tributes to one victim of the attacks. I was assigned to write a tribute for a couple who were on one of the planes out of Boston. Doing that simple act somewhat personalized things for me; learning something of the people I was assigned to memorialize made them real to me, more than just a statistic.

We do know, if we know nothing else, that thousands of our fellow Americans were needlessly killed on that day, and we know, sadly, that their deaths were preventable, avoidable. And we know how those many deaths could have been prevented. But “our” government refused to take the obvious measures to prevent the attacks and the deaths, and they still refuse to do what they should and must do. Instead they choose to knowingly increase the odds of another such attack sooner or later. It’s only God’s grace that has kept another such attack from happening so far. But for how long?

May those lost on 9/11/01  rest in peace and may God continue to have mercy on us.

Immigration: planned or coincidence?

Steve Sailer posted the same video of Bill Clinton which I posted in my previous entry, asking the question ‘Is it too late for Hillary to stop being so extremist on borders?’ Commenters discuss how back in the 1990s it was not unheard of for even Democrats to express immigration restrictionist views, albeit more middle-of-the-road ones.

Nonetheless, I think Bill Clinton’s words were meant mostly for effect, not as a sincere intent to restrict immigration, legal or illegal. I think the fix was in even then, and when G.W. Bush came into office, his plan was to accelerate the demographic change. Maybe he was chosen to push for amnesty for the millions of illegals who had already entered our country because his being a Republican would make it easier for pro-border enforcement Republicans and conservatives to accept an amnesty bill. Just as ‘only Nixon could go to China.’

Still there remain lots of immigration skeptics who doubt that there was a plan to flood this country and all Western, historically White countries with millions upon millions of immigrants, legal or not. Why there is such stubborn resistance to this idea baffles me, except that there seem to be a great many Americans who are skeptical to a fault, shunning anything that smacks of ‘conspiracy theories’, preferring to believe that most things are coincidences, random events. As if those in high places, those with great power and wealth and ambition, are content to sit around and hope things go their way accidentally.

Despite the evidence of the reality of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan (which some doubt) there is also this piece, from 2006, which I posted way back then on the blog, by Fredo Arias-King. He was a Mexican national who was an aide to Mexican president Vicente Fox in 1999-2000. I post the link again in case that there may, just may be someone looking in on this blog who is not familiar with the piece.

The article is titled Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will. It is just as timely now as it was then.

In that article, Arias-King discusses possible reasons why American politicians were willing to go against the will of their constituents in supporting mass immigration and demographic transformation of America.

“While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.”

He also noted that Republicans saw this engineered demographic change as a means to enabling them to escape from the constraints of the existing political system as planned by the Founding Fathers, and to further enlarge their own power at the expense of the people. It’s also telling that these same politicians and elected officials seemed to actually cheer on the demographic transformation of this country by the influx of Mexicans and other third-worlders.

“While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.”

This seems to me to be a very accurate and plausible picture of how “our” representatives regard us behind our backs, while, like Bill Clinton and so many others of both parties, they stand before the cameras and mikes lying about their intentions to enforce our laws. Behind our backs they are metaphorically or actually high-fiving our supplanters and apologizing for our ‘redneck’ ways.

Since Arias-King wrote his piece over a decade ago, things have worsened appreciably — and yet there are still those who refuse to believe that there is intent behind this situation, and there is still intent to thwart the will of the people.

The people: that’s us, the Founders’ posterity.