From 2013

I’ve spent more time than usual, this past week, in searching through many blogs looking for something elusive; I suppose I am looking for other views that are somewhat on my wavelength, and seeming not to find them. I think that of the blogs I used to read, which are no longer there, I miss the Bad Eagle blog the most. Why? I didn’t always agree with all that he wrote, as I rarely agree 100 per cent with anyone. Some of the subjects on which he wrote were a little esoteric for me, but when he wrote as an ethnopatriot he wrote some very good pieces.

[Maybe it’s not ‘the thing’ to praise an American Indian, but if many on the ‘pro-White’ side can laud Thomas Sowell or certain (((other))) bloggers, then I can cite Bad Eagle.]

Those of you who remember the late Dr. David Yeagley, aka ‘Bad Eagle’, know that he was a Comanche Indian (though his father was White) and he was not in any way hostile to White Americans, not given to striking the ‘victim’ pose. He was very friendly to White ethnopatriotism/ethnonationalism. Most Americans are only familiar with the grandstanding ‘professional Indians’, the ones who denounce Columbus as a ‘genocidalist’ every October. Yeagley called these ‘campus Indians’, because in general it is only the university-educated Indians who become radicalized and militant. Yeagley was an academic by profession, yet he was that rare exception, a non-liberal academic.

I came across this article of his from 2013; in it he asks the pertinent question:

Has the White Man Gone Soft?

He is not asking the question in a hostile way; quite the contrary. He is exhorting Whites and trying to encourage a resolute response to what is happening to our country and to the West. I recommend reading it, and the comments — though I will warn that the first comment may not be palatable to some (because of the link  it contains).

Nevertheless we need a little exhortation now.

Sam Francis on globalism, and…

From The Social Pathologist, a very good quote from the late Sam Francis on the subject of globalism. I’ve long admired Sam Francis, and consider him one of the most lucid and sound thinkers on our side.

However, read the comment below the quote at Social Pathologist. The commenter ‘refutes’ Francis by an extensive quote from Mencius Moldbug, and the seeming gist of Moldbug’s words, quoted as gospel apparently, are that Puritans/”Brahmins” and ultimately Christians are the real ‘elites’, not those considered elites by most of us.

Really? Who are these ”Brahmins”? That word was traditionally used to refer to primarily Bostonians, old-stock Anglo-Saxons, usually ‘Mayflower descendants’ or at least the most prominent families in the Boston Social Register. Famous people like the Lowells, the Cabots, and related families.  Read this PBS piece on the ”Brahmins” and you get very much the same jaundiced view of them as the one advanced by Moldbug.

In my earlier days of blogging someone mentioned my blog in the same sentence with Moldbug’s Unqualified Reservations blog, somehow likening us. Some people criticized Moldbug’s tendency to verbosity, thus compared me to him. In any case, though I looked in on his blog I never read it habitually. Maybe it was his manner of expression that was a little opaque and hard to follow, but from reading others’ analyses of his work, I gathered that he had a very idiosyncratic view of the world which I found hard to relate to. For one thing, his constant references to ‘The Cathedral‘, a term which to me seems a very Christian reference, and it seems that ultimately he blamed Christianity, or ‘Puritanism’ in particular for all that has gone wrong in the West. Now of course there are all those influenced heavily by him who perpetuate this meme. Personally I object to the references to ‘The Cathedral’ and I think his idea that these shadowy ‘Brahmins’ are controlling the world behind the scenes is ridiculous.

Some people like this bizarre idea that there are all these Anglo-Saxon Mayflower descendants, all obscenely wealthy, who are somehow, somewhere, exerting all kinds of power. Who and where are these all-powerful Brahmins who have managed to survive the centuries? Some think they are still living in Boston, but have any of these people been to Boston lately? Most of the old stock Anglo-Saxon Puritan descendants (having lost their Christian faith and became Unitarians or agnostics) are moved to happier climes, having gone to the Midwest and the Far West long ago, ethnically cleansed by the immigrants who came in waves, starting before the War Between the States. My own ‘Puritan Yankee Brahmin’ great-grandfather came to the far West long ago, as did many cousins. So where are these elusive ‘Brahmins’ and ‘Puritans’?

It seems to me that for Moldbug, the Brahmins are invoked as a way of deflecting blame from the Jews, and that is their function for many people looking to redirect the criticism of Jews.

Moldbug, whose name is Curtis Yarvin, is Jewish by ancestry though probably an atheist or agnostic. But then one can be an ethnic and cultural Jew though one professes no belief in God.

Yarvin, I think, is a pied piper, and I find that a great many people quote his words as if he were an infallible source, the last word. And most oddly, these are often people who profess awareness of the Jewish influence in the anti-White, anti-nationalist tyrannies with which we have to deal today. I can name at least one other Jewish blogger who also has a loyal and almost reverential set of followers among Alt-right or ‘pro-White’ readers and bloggers on the internet.

This is one of those paradoxes which always keep me shaking my head. Is it not wise to treat such writers as at least potentially working an agenda which is against our interests? I don’t understand this uncritical embrace of those who probably have some anti-White, anti-Christian axe to grind.

The new Ireland

Many Irish-Americans, provided they haven’t actually visited Ireland lately, still think of Ireland as a country which is religious and socially conservative, safe, and above all, populated by Irish (mostly Catholic).

Meanwhile, in the real Ireland of 2016, the Minister of Social Protection is surnamed Varadkar, and he is ‘out’ as a homosexual. I can just hear someone say ‘Ireland is a nation of immigrants’ — oh, wait, that’s what they say about our country. They say it also about Britain or any historically White country these days. Whatever. By their constant use of that refrain to pummel immigration skeptics into submission, they succeed in making it true, as propagandized populations begin to believe the lies over time.

Varadkar, in case you are wondering, has a father from India and an Irish-born mother.

But all the same, no doubt, he is more Irish than the Irish themselves.

However he does not seem to share the same set of ethics as most Irish people, who, despite the social changes accompanying the transition to post-Christianity, are probably still more pro-life than many other Western nations.

An Ireland with African mayors, an Ireland where a native-born mayor is driven to quit following a controversy over his remarks about African migrants — where are the ethnopatriots in Ireland? I know there are a few but it seems the Irish are in the throes of xenophilia or more properly xenomania. It seems they have so identified with the ‘immigrant’ because their folk have so often immigrated to other countries for economic reasons, and because of the famine and colonialism, they see Africans as fellow oppressed folk.

It appears that much of the nationalist fervor that led to past rebellions against the much-hated Brits was not motivated mainly by ethnopatriotism but enmity towards, and envy of, the British. The result we see in these news stories out of Ireland is what happens when nationalism is not so much based on love, or above all, on loyalty to one’s kinsmen, but on hatred of some outside group.

Several years ago I wrote a post addressing this in an American context. We are very united in dislike for ‘the elites’ or some other group — everyone has their favorite minority, it seems, and many have their favorite enemy as well. But do we love our own folk, do we have enough loyalty to our own, to attain some kind of solidarity? I believe that love for folk and family and Faith have to animate our desire to prevail; animus cannot take us that far, especially when we can’t always agree on exactly who or what is ultimately responsible for our predicament.

Time will tell. I hope Ireland wakes up, and I hope the same for the American majority.

And I repudiate them

According to this news story the Southern Baptist Convention has repudiated the Confederate Battle Flag. This is no surprise as they’ve been ”virtue signalling” for some time now, with apologies to blacks for slavery then electing a black man as President of their group. That action in itself was simply an extension of the apology for having ‘condoned’ slavery in earlier times. That’s the basic purpose of ”affirmative action.”

Russell Moore, who is the head of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission refers to the ‘sin of slavery.’ I would like to see him quote chapter and verse of where the Bible says it is a sin. Chapter and verse, otherwise he is ‘adding to’ the Bible, putting words in God’s mouth. And the Bible does explicitly warn against doing that: Deuteronomy 4:2,  Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:6. There are more, but liberal Christians (which now definitely describes Southern Baptists) don’t want to hear those scriptures. Like all liberals they will cherry-pick verses that fit the current PC worldview and ignore or rationalize away anything that conflicts.

Of course nobody wants to bring back slavery, but that long-ago issue has been used as a cudgel to beat Southern people and all Whites for that matter for a century and a half, at least. Most of the time the person beaten with that cudgel will agree that yes, slavery was a ‘sin’ or in fact an ‘abomination.’ Having agreed with that (which is not supported by Scripture) the accusee has conceded guilt and defeat.

No, I’m not a member of the Southern Baptist denomination, but some of my relatives are. I hope they have the discernment to ‘come out of her’ if they haven’t already decided to.

Just about every major denomination is sold out to the ‘world’ system now; the faithful old-time Christian is better off in an independent church, even if it is “only” a house church with a few faithful Christian believers. We knew there would be a major defection from Biblical truth in these times so this is all expected.

Orlando nightclub shootings

One would think that last night’s massacre at an Orlando nightclub, with gay (mostly Hispanic) victims and a Moslem immigrant shooter would pose serious conflicts for the leftist multicultists and their media arm. You would think that they would have to choose between sympathy for their gay heroes and their Moslem mascots, but no, like all good leftists, they have no problem with holding two contradictory positions at the same time. Gays are the victims and Moslems are victims. Both are victims of Whites, especially White Christian males, according to the alternate-reality delusions of the left. So somehow the leftists are championing both the murdered nightclub customers AND the fiend who killed them.

What else could we expect of ‘psychotic’ leftists?

Somehow the media are spinning this to make it the fault of Whites, especially White Christians, and of course guns are likewise culprits.

Who benefits from this kind of thing? The left. Their narrative manages to get reinforced because they control the media and through it, most gullible people’s minds. Both gays and Moslems will gain more sympathy, at least from the unthinking portion of the masses. The Moslems will be loudly defended by their media friends and their ‘advocacy’ (read: propaganda) groups like CAIR; they will be painted as just good people who are unfortunately being profiled and persecuted for no good reason, and gays will gain more outpourings of sympathy from the media and the kinds of people who eat up all the media swill. Expect a massive outpouring of defenses of both Moslems and gays, and expect to hear the terms ‘homophobia/transphobia’ and ‘Xenophobia/Islamophobia’ slung around like never before.

Donald Trump, needless to say, will somehow be blamed by the usual propagandists.

One last thing to note: the shooter was an immigrant. A LEGAL immigrant. A naturalized citizen, in fact, just as American as you or me in this proposition nation.

And his parents were ‘refugees’. Imagine.

I can’t refrain

My Bible doesn’t tell me not to judge anyone, ever. So I will go ahead and judge those who say that judging is wrong, mean-spirited, un-Christian.

Really, this whole idea of “non-judgmentalism” is doing great harm to the world at large; it keeps people silent in the face of various kinds of sin, evil, and injustice, and it also makes the non-believing world view Christians as namby-pambies, as practitioners of the religion of Being Nice as opposed to a religion of active goodness.

And the Bible does not forbid judging.

I actually began typing a comment on the blog piece I linked above, but I saw that such a comment would not be well-received as the comments were unanimous in their agreement with the blogger. And I’ve learned that it usually is profitless to debate with liberals, whether they wear a Christian label or an atheist label. To a liberal, those who disagree are just wrong, no matter what arguments they marshal in support of their dissenting opinion.

My intent was to ask the blogger whether she was not herself performing an act of judgement, in warning Christians not to judge.  There is no getting around this; if a Christian maintains that judging is wrong and un-Christian, then he or she should not feel free to judge others for an act that he or she is obviously performing. Isn’t that hypocrisy as well as the ”sin” of judging?

The modern liberal pop-psychology-oriented Christian thinks that it is unloving to ”judge” someone, but if they are habitually sinning, the Bible counsels us to correct or reprove that person. That is part of the role of Christians, to offer reproof and correction to our brothers and sisters, and in several places the Bible tells us that the righteous man will receive correction gladly. Proverbs 12:1 is a passage which teaches this, and there are many other examples.

Another favorite argument of the ‘do not judge’ faction is the old ”hate the sin, love the sinner.” Some quote this as Scripture or tantamount to Holy Writ. It is not.

It is not in the Bible. Anywhere. Nor is anything like it.

It did not come from Jesus, nor from any of the Apostles, and it definitely is not from the Old Testament.

Where is it from? Apparently from Gandhi, who, last I checked, was a polytheistic Hindu, though many postmoderns elevate him to near-sainthood or demi-god status. But can’t a Hindu speak a truth that we can respect? Secular people can honor whoever they please but Christians should not make nonbelievers their spiritual authorities or guides.

In any case, I’ve thought this through over the years, this issue of being able to ‘hate the sin while loving the sinner.” It is not doable, not feasible for anyone who is honest.

Sin implies a human sinner; a person is doing the sin. The sin does not exist on its own. If we attempt to ”love the sinner” we end up either turning a blind eye to the sin or actually arguing for it, attempting to minimize its importance or seriousness, in our attempt to preserve our love for the sinner. If it is a sinful child of ours, or a sibling, a parent, anyone close to us, we tend to want to gloss over the import of the sin, and especially to defend our loved one if someone criticizes their behavior or ‘lifestyle’. In some cases, parents in particular will end by saying that the sin really is no sin at all, and there are cases in which some people have abandoned their faith, which to them is preferable to believing, as with homosexuality, that the sin is an ‘abomination’ as the Bible says. There are people who have lost their faith in the attempt follow Gandhi’s command to love the sinner.

If we really love someone we don’t want to see them lost to a sinful way of life, such as addiction, sexual deviancy, or criminal behavior. Is that being too judgmental or unloving? How much more uncaring it is to turn a blind eye, or worse, to ‘enable’ someone and to give them the false comfort of saying that they aren’t really bad people after all, they are just fine as they are, God loves them unconditionally. The Bible says otherwise, however much we may not like that. [Psalm 5:4-5]

Does this mean we have to ‘hate’ sinners? No, but we are to avoid their company. No, that does not mean we don’t try to ‘witness’ or to reach out but we are to avoid ungodly associates.

One more last thing: the blog I linked above says that the Bible condemns gluttony more than homosexuality — that’s a new one on me. Gluttony is mentioned in the Bible as a sin, but I guess I missed the part in Leviticus where it’s called an abomination or where it is a stoning offense, a capital crime. The commenters think that fatties are more under God’s condemnation than sexual deviants. Apparently they read a different Bible than mine.

Besides, there are thin gluttons. I know of bulimics and bulimarexics who eat gluttonously then purge, like the old Romans did in their vomitoria. We thought the ancient Romans were so decadent with their gorging and purging so that they could gorge some more — yet how are bulimics who binge-eat considered sick people rather than just gluttonous or decadent?

Incidentally the word decadent, you’ll notice, is used only in connection with food nowadays, not with sexual deviancy. Sexual deviants need to be loved and to be told they are ‘God’s children’ while only those who judge can be judged with impunity.

Paradoxical, isn’t it?

Update: There is a somewhat related post on Vox Day’s blog, having to do with the war on ‘hate speech’, and on the issue of ‘hate’ in a Biblical context. Someone references the Gandhi commandment about loving the sinner, hating the sin, etc. Read the piece and the comments here. It’s worth reading.

The Alt-right and Christians

Over at Faith and Heritage, Ehud Would has a piece titled The Top 10 Reasons the Secular Alt-Right Is Not The Answer. He outlines the problems posed by the Secular Alt-Right for Christians in particular, and specifically for the tradition-minded Christians who are the core readership of Faith and Heritage.

[An aside: I notice now that the F & H blog is described as being ‘from a traditionalist perspective’. Maybe I am mistaken but I thought that it originally was described as being from a Kinist perspective. And by the way, what became of Kinism as a distinct movement, or is it now officially dead? Was it thought to have too much ‘baggage’? To my mind, Kinism (small-k or capital-k) was one of the few signs of life among Christians, as most of Christendom has gone apostate and embraces the Babylon world system, multiculturalism, and racial cuckoldry. But I digress.]

The top of the list, the Number One reason why the secular Alt-Right is not the answer (for Christian ethnonationalists presumably) is the homosexual issue.

Attempting to woo Whites means, foremost, disaffected GOP voters. Doing so by adding White Nationalism to the big-state, progressive sodomite/catamite movement already extant in the GOP is effectively an invitation only to the Log Cabin wing of that party.”

Yes. this is something I was trying to get across in my recent post. To become ‘gay-friendly’ in the name of forging alliances or accepting all who are ‘on our side’ regardless of their obviously clashing interests is to follow in the path of the GOPe and their ‘big tent’ policy. As long as they profess what the Repubs call ‘conservative ideology’ they are welcome, and if we have to give a little, compromise in order to make our big tent more comfortable for them, then why not? We can’t afford to turn away allies, and besides why be mean-spirited and intolerant? The left calls us that, and here’s our big chance to show how not mean-spirited and how very tolerant and inclusive we can be.

In a reply I wrote in the comment box to reader and commenter Nick, I mentioned how gay activists, in the tradition of the Gramscian long march, set out to establish a base in the Republican Party as well, so that they have ‘friends’ and supporters on both sides, or all sides. No wonder the gay agenda makes such strides and meets with so little opposition from either of the two major parties. It only makes sense that they would be sure to get established in the Alt-Right too, so that their agenda always has its proponents from whichever quarter. Am I saying that there is a ”conspiracy”? I know there are always people who somehow doubt conspiracies ever happen — though to believe that, you have to explain away a lot of historical events — many of which are known to have been the result of conspiracies.

Conspiracy or not, obviously homosexuals feel they must have society’s approval and that they must be able to lobby openly for greater gains. Recent history shows how successful their efforts have been. Look how quickly the ”gay marriage” thing happened, and now the ‘transgender’ bathroom craziness. What next? We can only be sure that the activists will never be satisfied to stop where they are, but must push relentlessly on to some new conquest over oppressive straight America.

I’ve heard allegations that Soros and other ‘progressive’ sugar-daddies and outside agitator groups are funding the efforts of some of the more prominent homosexual ‘activists’ who are now established on the Alt-Right scene. Are those allegations proven? No. They can’t be easily proven or disproven. But the possibility can’t be denied out of hand.

I thought it worthwhile to re-post this link to a 2005 story on how homosexual activists planned to mainstream homosexuality by a systematic campaign to manipulate public attitudes. Some will say that WND is not a reliable source, but even if you don’t like WND (and even I don’t, particularly) the book these activists wrote, outlining their strategy,  can be found to verify what the article claims.  And the efforts continue, reaching to every corner of society, including organized Christianity, and also the secular Alt-Right.

Now, the Alt-Right has since its inception not been very friendly to Christianity, with many of its most prominent voices being those of atheists or pagans. So I don’t expect the Alt-Right to be a good fit for the believing Christian, though I tend to view them as allies, even though a Christian is not supposed to be ‘yoked together’ with rank unbelievers or those who are expressly hostile to our faith. But all the same it is troubling to see so many professed Christians arguing in favor of Milo against their brothers in Christ, even directing vitriol at their Christian brethren for taking a Biblical stand against homosexuality — spouting the usual liberal lines about ‘not judging’, or worse, professing the liberal doctrine of moral equivalency (“we’re all sinners, and you or I are no better than the homosexual” or ”you’re worse than the homosexual because you are hypocritical and judgmental”).

If for no other reason, those who want to make the Alt-Right (or especially the small Christian segment thereof) gay-friendly are dividing Christians. They are promoting polarization and division. And from a Christian perspective, they divide Christians amongst themselves in going on the offensive against other Christians — in the name of being more accepting of nonbelievers.

Then again — this may be a necessary sifting, a winnowing. We’ll see what the result is, and who is on which side.

If the Alt-Right is successful, will they just be another product of the corrupt social order that the Left has spearheaded, or will they uphold any kind of traditional morality and ethics? They must not fall prey to the same corruption that is the distinguishing mark of the secular left — if they want to reverse the rot. If.

Polarizing and sifting

The alt-right is a small movement; apparently it’s growing, but it’s still, in the context of the larger society, a small grouping of people. Maybe its aspirations toward gaining more widespread acceptance will lead it towards something like the GOPe’s ”big tent” approach: we have to curry favor with everyone and we can’t afford to exclude whoever seems to be ‘on our side.’

This ‘inclusive’ urge seems not to extend to social conservatives (oh, I momentarily forgot that ”conservative” is a dirty word in the eyes of many today, and it has no doubt been tainted) and traditionalists who hold to conservative versions of Christianity. Why? Because the alt-right has found a new darling in Milo Yiannopolous and a couple of others who are openly homosexual. So, forced to choose between homosexuals and more traditional normal people, the former will be preferred.

From what I am reading, it seems that Milo being assailed by the BLM and other riff-raff at DePaul University has given him a sort of hero status as of now. Before that I got the impression that he was, at best, a controversial figure on the alt-right scene.

I wrote just the other day about the disgusting spectacle of the lefties attacking Milo and denying his right to be heard. I stand by that; I think he has a right to be heard and those who attacked him are thugs and would-be tyrants. However, Milo is not alone in having been treated this way; think back to Ann Coulter, Jared Taylor, even the mild Tom Tancredo; all were attacked on stage by the usual rabble. I am sure there are many others if we bother to search online for such stories. Yet Milo is singular in being hailed as some new icon for the right (the alt-right, at least) after this incident. Why?

I am reading that he is a ‘fighter; he’s fighting for us’ and so on. But so are all the others who’ve been abused an attacked. Why is Milo suddenly so important that people are flaming each other on certain blogs and, in the case of at least one Christian blogger, rushing to Milo’s defense, while castigating his Christian critics?

No doubt even my questioning this situation as mildly as I am doing here will raise some hackles, given that Milo is now the new star and celebrity. But then I generally don’t understand when some people, whoever they are, are put on pedestals. I don’t ‘get’ the celebrity thing, or the effect that some people have on others which causes their followers or admirers to defend them to the extent of attacking known allies and even their friends who don’t share their adulation of said figure.

What this situation makes me think of is the ‘black conservative’ phenomenon among mainstream conservatives. We all know how Republicans and mainstream conservatives will run after every black personality who says some semi-conservative things. We saw it play out with Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Bill Cosby (who has proven to have feet of clay, though some still claim he was ‘framed’), Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and so many others. These ‘conservative black icons’ are hailed as being a way to ‘bring other blacks on board; if only they could see that all they need is conservative values’. They are seen as being a way to signal our ‘inclusive and welcoming’ philosophy. “See? We’re not racist, really, we’re not! Please believe us!” This may be because deep down, some, apparently many, on the right feel guilty about their supposed ‘bigotry’, and perhaps they need to prove to themselves that they are not ‘haters’. So when they think they have found a kindred soul in a black politician or candidate, they are thrilled; ”maybe I’m not really a bigot after all! I really like this guy!” I suspect they breathe a sigh of relief when they find blacks they admire. And it seems to really disturb them when their former idols prove to be less ”conservative” than they thought — and actually more faithful to their race than to ”conservative values”.

Time will tell whether Milo will be the gay counterpart of the ‘conservative black hope’ or whether he will continue to be a rising star on the alt-right — and possibly lead the already socially-liberal/libertarian alt-right towards general ‘gay acceptance’. After that? LGBT-friendly stances? After all, what was the saying? ”any group that is not consciously conservative becomes more liberal over time’?  Inertia always takes us towards the left.

And especially so if it sifts out those whose views are ”too” right-wing.

‘For whom the bell tolls…’

From Cambria Will Not Yield:

‘And if you think that it is only the white Britons who have succumbed to Satan and that you need not concern yourself with them you are mistaken. Every white nation is facing the same crisis as Britain. There is a cadre of American white nationalists who seem to delight in what they call the ‘death of Britain.’ We’ve all known such individuals: They say they hate to tell you a certain piece of bad news, but the gleeful smile on their face as they tell you the bad news gives the lie to their false words of regret. What does an American white nationalist have to boast about? Our major cities are even more crime-ridden than London, and we have placed a negro on our Presidential throne. We need, within the ranks of white Europeans, more of an ‘every man’s death diminishes me’ attitude toward the satanic overthrow of white governments and white cultures. All whites are in the same boat, and we are all tempest-tossed. Why not leave it at that and give our sympathy and support to our fellow white brethren instead of kicking them when they are down?”

The above words express my sentiments too. I am glad to see at least one person say the same thing, especially someone I so respect, as against the legions who are gloating or reveling in Schadenfreude over the alleged ‘death’ of Britain.

The title of this post is from the words of John Donne, though in the poem which most of us learned in school, the words are altered from Donne’s original rendering. The sense remains the same, whichever way the words read.

‘No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”

[All emphasis above is mine.]

CWNY is right; we are all in the same boat. The English are not more ‘passive’ and ‘stupid’ than we are, though they have been more heavily propagandized and for a longer period of time.  What they have in their favor, among other things, is the fact that the English (and the other peoples of the British Isles) have existed as a distinct and identifiable people, a nation, far longer than we in the United States, we of the Proposition Nation Melting Pot. There are those who falsely say the English were always a ‘mongrel island’ people, as if the various strains which made the English people centuries ago are as disparate as the ”allsorts” immigrants who are said to have ‘built America.’ The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Vikings, and their Frenchified kinsmen the Normans were closely-related peoples.

“Tribe after tribe, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, poured across the sea to make new homes in the Isle of Britain. Thus grew up the English nation – a nation formed by union of various tribes of the same stock. The Dane hardly needed assimilation. He was another kindred tribe, coming later than the others. Even the Norman was a kinsman”.

The English have a long history as a people, a fairly homogeneous people, unlike America. I don’t know what it will take to wake them up from the spell which they are under, but then what will it take to wake our country up? Despite the Trump phenomenon, things go on much as they have for the last several stupefied decades for many, all too many, Americans. We have a long way to go to find our way out of the maze in which we find ourselves imprisoned.

I once held more hope for the Southron folk than for the rest of America but since they too have been invaded and PC-whipped, my faith begins to falter.

Like Cambria I believe that God will not let his remnant be destroyed, but we have to turn to him before he will turn to us and defend us.

“Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.” – Psalm 20:7

As we’ve hardened our hearts against him and relied on ourselves and our ‘horses’, our military strength, in our hubris, God has likewise turned away from us, leaving us to our vain trust in our own human strength or in our military power — and there is no political will to use our military might even to defend ourselves against the invasion. So we are in the same sinking boat as our unfortunate kinsmen in Britain and on the European continent.

For whom does the bell toll? For the so-called ‘dead island‘ called Britain? No, it tolls for me. And for thee.


Will this story be ignored too?

When this story came out in 2012, I was surprised that it received so very little comment from any quarter of the media, or the blogosphere. There was a deafening silence, curiously, from people who concentrate almost exclusively on the notorious ‘JQ.’

Now I could understand that if some obscure fly-by-night group was behind the study reported in that 2013 article. But the fact was that it was Johns Hopkins University , a respected institution, which did the study. And still there was little acknowledgement of the conclusions.

The fact that the Jewish media or the ‘community’ didn’t acknowledge it is not surprising, considering that they have publicly denied the early theories about Jewish genetics, as when Jewish writer Arthur Koestler wrote about the ‘Khazar’ hypothesis some decades back. The Jewish claim to a homeland in the Middle East hinges on the belief that they are THE Israelites of the Bible, so it makes sense that they would reject any idea of mixed/non-Middle Eastern origins of today’s Jews.

But why are people who are very critical of Jews and their role in Western society avoiding the discussion? Now, they have one more such report to pointedly ignore:

“Persian Jews converted Turks to Judaism to create the rump of what would become today’s Jewish population, DNA research has revealed.

The fascinating insight, which shows that most Ashkenazi Jews descend from Turkey, was made possible by state-of-the-art computer modelling and genetic techniques.”

It would seem that those who discuss the ‘Jewish Question’ would find this interesting and perhaps even helpful. I’ve often wondered why they don’t like to consider the viewpoint supported by these studies.

What comes to my mind is that many of those who decry the role played by Jews in the assault on Western civilization and our people also point a finger of blame at Christianity. This viewpoint claims that Christianity (per Nietzsche, I believe) is an “alien desert religion” not fit for us, or that it is a variation of Judaism meant to weaken and subvert the West. Those who believe that Judaism and Christianity are some kind of conjoined twins are, of course, very misinformed, but in some cases I don’t know if they honestly believe what they say or if they just want to take down Christianity along with Judaism. Many of these people are self-styled ‘pagans’ or heathens or outright atheists, people with longstanding resentments against Christianity as a religion that teaches restraint (which they find repellent) and holiness. And today’s hedonists abhor that kind of religion, choosing a make-it-up-as-you-go ”religion” of ‘do what thou wilt’, such as New Age or heathenism.

As long as this faction of people can attack Christianity by saying it is a “Jew religion”  they have to keep insisting that the people known as Jews today are one and the same with the people of the Bible — and incidentally, check your Bible to see how far you have to read to even encounter the word ‘Jews’ or ‘Jewish’. The word is not even there until 2 Kings, 16: 6. That’s quite a long time to wait for the word to be used.

In the meantime, a lot of people with differing agendas have an interest in keeping people confused and misinformed about this whole subject. So as long as these varying factions of people are ignoring this subject it will continue to perpetuate confusion.

But suppose what we’ve ”known” for all these years has been mistaken?

Some on ‘our’ side want the confusion to remain; they need to conflate Judaism with Christianity and to be able to discredit Christianity that way. They need to have Christianity associated with The Jews. Today’s uninformed Christians have also been led astray by ignorant preachers and ‘leaders’ who think there is something called ‘Judeo-Christian values’ which unites us to Jews and Judaism. The fact that our fathers and grandfathers knew of no such thing doesn’t deter them from believing it.

Those Jews who actively work against Christianity find it useful to associate Christians with themselves, paradoxically, knowing that those who oppose them will unwittingly (or even wittingly)  help their cause in opposing Christianity at the same time. Christianity becomes a target by association.

It’s time we were able to look at this subject honestly, but given the PC hierarchy, this subject is still radioactive. And yet truth should never be off limits.