The ‘Galileo Gambit’

A former reader, ‘Flanders’, commenting on Savant’s blog, points out a logical fallacy called ‘The Galileo Gambit‘, which coincidentally ties in with my previous post.

In that post, expressing disagreement with the President’s sudden call for a large increase in legal immigration, I was inwardly pondering whether this change in direction was some kind of sudden decision or whether it was planned all along.

In posts during or just after the 2016 election I had questions as to whether Trump’s election was in fact intended to co-opt the dissident right all along.

I wondered the same about the election of G.W. Bush. Why? Because the left ramped up the insane anti-Bush rhetoric to previously unknown levels, even in the days of Nixon, when the left made Nixon out to be the biggest monster and villain in our history. It all seemed over-the-top and disconnected from reality. But then with the election of ‘W’ in 2000, along with the crazy antics of the left during the long election dispute, the left outdid themselves in histrionics and rabid rhetoric. But even that was mild compared to the 2016 election, when the millennials were all grieving and rending their garments about the ‘fear’ felt by their ‘Muslim and gay friends’  who feared for their lives — supposedly. I found this too absurd to be believed — but these young ‘snowflakes’ seemingly believed, silly as it seems. But did the Democrat party apparatchiks actually believe their own hysterical statements about Trump being ‘literally Hitler’? Or the rumors of roaming gangs of MAGA thugs attacking innocent people? Or was it a kind of calculated reverse psychology — a ‘Galileo Gambit’ plan?

So what is the Galileo Gambit fallacy? I admit I wasn’t familiar with that one:

“The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially “Galileo wannabes”. This logic is obviously flawed. For example, consider a horribly-oppressed ideology: Wahhabism. Western governments seek to persecute and censor Wahhabists at every opportunity. Does this mean that Wahhabism is correct?”

Obviously not; the fact that an idea or policy draws strong opposition or vilification — or to use the left’s favorite term, causes the proponent to be ‘demonized’ — does not necessarily prove that the idea is right or true, or that the proponent must be one of the good guys.

But we’ve all been conditioned to think that if the left opposes something, whatever they oppose must of necessity be true and sane and desirable — just because our foes are almost always found on the wrong side of every debate and dispute. They champion everything that is immoral, unnatural, destructive, and just deranged. (See their recent support of infanticide, as the most vivid example to date).

It’s normally safe to assume that the far left are likely to oppose anything and everything that’s good and wholesome and normal and true. But what if their excessive and exaggerated opposition to G.W. Bush, for example, was meant to induce the Republican party to champion and defend Bush — even when he was wrong on some issues, as he usually was? Things like the Iraq war, which many Republicans embraced all the more stubbornly because they thought Bush must be right if the left hated him so much. And it seems as if the Republicans stood by Bush and his open borders policy because they saw him as unfairly under attack by the scoundrels on the other side.

Suppose Donald Trump was the globalists’ preferred Republican opponent in the 2016 election, and the sudden rallying of the right to his cause was just the ‘briar patch’ that the Democrat globalists wanted to be thrown into. Whichever candidate won, the globalist, one-world cause would win. And yes, before anybody asks the rhetorical question ”would you rather have Hillary as President’? my response is no, I would not. But on the other hand, have we all been manipulated and ‘played’ by the ridiculous leftist attacks on Trump and on Trump voters?

The unrelenting attacks on the President elicited an automatic knee-jerk response from me, though I was ambivalent at best, harboring considerable doubts (expressed on this blog, if you remember) about whether Trump was the real thing. I had serious reservations, given his lavish praise of Hispanic immigrants as “wonderful, wonderful people” — even as he lamented Kate Steinle’s death at the hands of a many-times-deported Jose Zarate, one of those ‘wonderful, wonderful people.’ Was Trump channeling Jeb Bush, (remember Jeb’s ‘immigration is an act of love‘ drivel?) And after all the promises about a wall, why coddle the so-called ‘Dreamers’ and why invite millions more immigrants, even if they are ‘legal’?

Before the 2016 election many populists/dissident rightists held to the consensus that both parties were complicit in the destruction of legacy America; neither side was to be trusted, both parties, despite the fake ‘pro wrestling’ rhetoric were working towards the same ends, ultimately. I hate to return to that cynical assessment because I am not by nature a cynical person, but I am rethinking that.

I, at least, was probably fooled by the ‘Galileo Gambit’ fallacy.

Begging and choosing

True to form, the ‘migrants’ from Central America who are massing at our Southern “borders” are making the usual demands.

These people are at worst, invaders and thus by definition criminals, or at best, they are beggars and chancers, with an arrogance that doesn’t befit their status. When you are trying to force your way into someone’s home, you are in no moral position to issue ”demands” to those whose hospitality and wordly goods you crave.

This situation need never have developed, if only our folk — I mean, everyday people, not our so-called leaders — had not been too willing to look for the best in everyone, even those whose intentions are not good.

These too-trusting, too ‘nice’ people may not be the majority amongst White Americans, but they seem to typify the response of a lot of us towards Hispanic people in general. Think of it: our history records that we have for a long time had a mutually hostile relationship with many of our neighbors in Latin America, most especially Mexico. Yet we’ve stood by ineffectually as increasing numbers of Latin Americans have come here, legally or otherwise, ostensibly to ‘help’ us with picking crops or doing other such manual labor.

Since the reign of political correctness has been established, more and more Americans have been taught lies and feel-good ‘brotherhood’ platitudes while back in the realm of reality, Latin Americans continue to show animosity towards us, while many well-intentioned White Americans still believe in the ‘hard-working, family-oriented’ stereotype promoted by George W. Bush and his ilk. Due to this pollyannaish, inclusive tendency of many White Americans, intermarriage between Hispanics and Whites have become more common in recent years, most often between White men and Hispanic women. Our folk have become more accepting of this in part because of the relentless propaganda preaching ‘colorblindness’ and the usual ”all one race, the human race.”

With the huge influx of Latino immigrants, many of us have gradually become more complacent about it through sheer familiarity, even in places which until fairly recently had few to no Latinos resident there.

Exposure to ”diversity” does inure people to the presence of many different ethnicities, and thus our innate wariness of outsiders is weakened, and because people can find some trivial way in which outsiders are ‘really just like us’ under the skin, we have become much more tolerant, to the point of being complacent and jaded about being increasingly surrounded in our country.

There is a somewhat heightened sentiment lately against this perpetual influx of Latin Americans, but for many White Americans, the only objection they can muster up is that the immigrants are mostly illegal. Somehow many people can’t get the message that the problem is immigration per se, not ”legal vs. illegal.” If someone had told me, some 12 years ago when I first began blogging, that in 2018 so many White Americans would still not get it, and would still be harping on the ‘legal vs. illegal’ red herring, I would not have believed it. Why is it that so many Americans are still stuck on that point, repeating it ad nausaeum, like parrots? Media lies and propaganda are a large part of the reason, but maybe it’s something in Americans, whether in our natures or in our upbringing and culture, that predisposes us to be pushovers for ‘victims’ or underdogs, or to think that learning to speak English will erase any significant differences between us and Hispanics, or any other immigrant groups.

We see similar processes taking place throughout all European and European-descendant countries, not just our own.

If I say that we are too trusting, too nice, too eager to ‘get along’ with everyone, can it be innate in us, this behavior? Certainly our forefathers, even up until mid-20th century, were not so ‘welcoming’ and passive, so it can’t be a genetic thing.

Regardless of the cause of this enfeebling of our society, and our inability to envision simply ‘sending the migrants home’, we will have to recover our forefathers’ strength and their determination to put their folk and their land ahead of the supposed obligation to foreign peoples who brazenly demand we surrender our land and our children’s future. The moment of truth is now; do we submit to the demanding, hostile beggars at our borders or will we choose our own people, putting them and posterity first?

The last taboo?

I was somewhat surprised to find at the Faith and Heritage blog a piece by David Carlton which dares to bring up the issue of the genetic origins of modern-day Jews. This question is one which seems to be deliberately avoided, not confronted. Why?

A recent genetic study reported in the mainstream media indicates that the Biblical Canaanites were apparently the ancestors of today’s Lebanese. But why are the media, as well as mainstream Christians, and even the so-called ”right-wing extremists”, who are not normally afraid to ‘name the Jew’ wary of raising the question of the origins of today’s Jews?  I raised this question before, and it apparently was of no interest to my readers.

I say I was surprised to find a Kinist raising the question of Jewish origins, because on the Faith and Heritage blog, I’ve seen unfavorable comments from readers about ‘CI’ or ‘Christian Identity’; the CI believers seem to be counted as ‘deplorables’ by some Kinists as well as by ‘mainstream’ or Judeo-Christians. And the kinists the are deplored by the politically correct Christians, as the blog article tells us.

The writer of the blog piece says in a footnote:

“The topic of Jewish genetics and descent is a fascinating one. Several different proposals exist for the origin of the Jewish ethnicity. Regardless of one’s opinion on the subject (and my mind is not yet made up), this doesn’t change the fact that Jews have no special status or covenant with God apart from faith in Christ.”

Yet I don’t see that the question of Jewish genetics is still up in the air. I know of no study that definitely establishes Jews as descendants of Biblical Israel.  The Infogalatic article seems only to cloud the issue further. However I’ve read widely on this subject off and on for some years, and I fail to see why scientists can trace the Lebanese to their Canaanite ancestry but we can’t find out who the Jews are with any certitude. Many studies have shown mixed origins for today’s Jews, and Biblically, Israel (all the tribes, not just Judah, that is, ‘Jews’) were not to mix with other peoples,  but to preserve their bloodline. So how can a mixed people be any more legitimately Israel than say, the mixed Samaritans, who were the pariahs in Jesus’ lifetime?

I don’t see why this study, from reputable Johns Hopkins, generated so very little discussion, or why so many have glibly dismissed it if they addressed it at all.

This website treats the study’s findings as accurate, stating that, according to the study’s author, the Jews are descendants, mostly, of the Khazars. Yet he concludes that Abraham’s descendants, wherever they may be, are not relevant, and that there is only ‘spiritual Israel’ now. Yet that does not line up with what the Bible has to say about the scattered ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ being found in due time.

What we are left with, as far as the origins of the Jews, is strictly their word that they are the Israel of the Bible. How do they know this? Word of mouth, through generations? Remember that the Gypsies claimed for centuries (until genetic testing was possible) that they were of Egyptian origin. Now we know they originated in the Indian subcontinent, far from Egypt.

Many Americans maintain stubbornly that they are of American Indian blood, and have told their children for generations that they are of Indian blood — and often were sorely disappointed when DNA testing showed all European blood.

‘Oral traditions’ are not very reliable, in many cases, especially where very long time spans are involved. That’s simple common sense.

Few if any people can account for their ancestry back thousands of years. Yet we accept that Jews somehow know with certainty who their ancestors were. And the fact that Jews do in fact claim to be the people of the Bible, God’s chosen, insulates them from any challenges or criticism, especially with Christians of today. We are not to doubt, much less criticize them because they are God’s people, the people of the Bible. But how can we know that? Don’t ask questions; they’re God’s chosen –and they are at the pinnacle of the pyramid of victimhood.

In the absence of real proof, and with much evidence to the contrary, why do we automatically accept, if only tacitly, claims like this? Should not the onus be on them to supply some evidence of their claim?

Why is the Johns Hopkins study ignored or scoffed at? I can only guess it’s for political reasons; most people don’t want to touch it. And who profits by this discreet turning of blind eyes?

To return to David Carlton’s piece, he mentions a John Weaver, of Freedom Ministries, and though I hadn’t heard of him previously it sounds like he has a great deal more sense and honesty in him than many of today’s Christian teachers, who just seek to ‘tickle people’s ears’ or speak smooth words. I plan to listen to Weaver’s podcasts or read what he has written.

And speaking of Christian teachers and preachers, the late Wesley Swift would be considered a religious ‘deplorable’ by most of today’s timid Christians and churchian SJWs.  Yet his sermons and talks, most of them from the 1950s and 60s, accurately foresaw what is going on in our world in 2017. It is uncanny to read or hear his words and note how relevant and current they are half a century or more later. Say what you will about him, but he seemed to know what was coming.

Many of today’s Christians prefer to forget, if they even know, that our forefathers had views much closer to Wesley Swift’s (or probably John Weaver’s) than to today’s politically correct eunuchs. Most of our forefathers were ‘deplorables’ by today’s standards, backward, extremist, bigoted. So today’s wisdom says.

And so we go on, intimidated into avoiding the taboos.

 

 

 

‘Rating’ ethnic groups

About a hundred years ago, a sociologist did a study of ten ethnic groups in America and rated their ‘relative social worth.’ This was during one of the peak periods of immigration, and nativist tendencies were very much alive then, despite the already-ongoing efforts to promote the ‘melting pot’ and the ‘all one happy family’ sentiment.

Today such a study would be unlikely to be done, unless it was commissioned specifically to paint immigrants in the most favorable light and to convince any skeptics out there to get with the program and celebrate diversity. After all, Latinos are hard workers with good family values, just doing the jobs that you lazy White folks won’t do.

As to the study, done by H. B. Woolston, the ratings of ten ethnic groups went as follows:

  1. Native-born White Americans
  2. Germans
  3. English
  4. “Polish and Russian Hebrews”
  5. Scandinavians
  6. Irish
  7. French-Canadians
  8. Austrian Slavs
  9. South Italians
  10. Negroes

The term “Polish and Russian Hebrews” is the language used in the study.

The sociologist who did this study notes the results with some dismay, remarking that there was, to use today’s lingo not enough ‘diversity’, a “lack of Negroes, Slavs, or Latins” among the study’s observers, so there may have been some ‘Anglo-Saxon prejudice’ at work there, according to the author.  Obviously Woolston was a relativist who thought that applying our standards measured only conformity to our standards of excellence. But wouldn’t the ‘Hebrews’ who rated #4 also have suffered from being judged by alien ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or Teutonic standards?

Obviously those who succeeded in our society were likely to be those from cultures closest to us, and their cultures would be similar because we are genetically similar. The top three ethnicities are more closely related, after all.

Can a study like this be truly objective? Everybody brings some degree of bias to making assessments like this; I’ve noted with some impatience that most White Americans have ‘favorite minorities’ for whom they plead, arguing that this or that group ‘make good Americans’, or ‘they are hard workers’, or in the case of East Asians, the argument is always that ‘they have high IQs and are not crime-prone’.

And then of course there is the more natural bias towards believing our own ethnicity to be preferable to all others, or to have accomplished more, or whatever. Some peoples have pride, apparently,  in claiming victimhood, recognizing the value and the power of victimhood in our ‘oppressor-vs.-victim’ hierarchy.

A study like this one, judging “relative social worth” of various immigrant groups is just too politically incorrect, and even apart from the open-borders, ‘we’re all one race, the human race’ crowd, many people on the right would be irate if their particular ethnic group (or groups) were not at the top of the list.

On a side note, I was reading a thread at Steve Sailer’s blog about ethnic cleansing or ‘White flight’, and someone mentioned the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Whites from Vancouver, B.C., while someone countered that Whites weren’t fleeing their Chinese replacements in Vancouver; after all nobody fears the Chinese because they are not a danger. I would disagree with that. Regardless of whether a group of people is a direct physical threat, the fact that they have a drastically different way of life, and that they change your familiar hometown surroundings beyond recognition, is significant. Nobody, at least nobody with normal feelings, wants to live in a neighborhood where an utterly foreign language is spoken, and people have different customs, habits, and etiquette. I don’t think the most ardent xenophiliac would want to be the ‘only White’ left in his former neighborhood.

As to the Chinese and other Asians having low-crime culture, well, there is crime, and there is crime. They may not be prone to violence (however,  see the story of the Wah Mee Social Club), and then there are Asians, and Asians. East Asians, or Northeast Asians, are not the same as South Asians or Southeast Asians, or West Asians. We too often think of the model minority in connection with all Asians, though the stereotype was based on the behavior of Japanese-Americans specifically.

Returning to the list of ethnic rankings, we might think that the America of 100 years ago was lucky in that most of the immigrants of that day were European at least, but the increasingly diverse European immigrants were getting us accustomed to more exotic cultures and peoples. I am convinced that it was always the plan to open the country to people from every continent and people; they just ‘warmed up’ with European groups, and actually by the turn of the 20th century there were waves of Asian immigration, especially to the West Coast. I think the idea was to do all this by degrees, gradually conditioning us to the idea that America was a place where anybody and everybody seeking ‘Freedom’ or a ‘better life’ could rightfully come.

Now, ‘relative social worth’ seems to have been thrown out the window, and the more dysfunctional and divergent from our culture a group is, the more they seem to be sought out by those who make policy for our country.

Transforming America

A certain political candidate several years ago spoke (ominously, in my opinion) about ‘fundamentally transforming America.” The audience, as I recall, cheered this phrase.

Any sane person should be afraid when someone offers to ‘fundamentally transform’ the world or society, especially when it’s to be an open-ended process, constant change, or what was it Chairman Mao said? “Perpetual revolution”? There’s no end to trying to ‘transform the world’; the people who want to engineer these changes are never happy or satisfied with their work; the revolution must go on. There’s still so much more ‘work that needs to be done.’

And the social engineers, as we know, are not always politicians.

Look in on Vox Day’s blog, here.  Read the excerpts from a Hollywood story conference which included Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Larry Kasdan.

The year was 1978, and the story being discussed was “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Spielberg et al discuss the idea that the character Indiana Jones and his ‘love interest’ in that movie had a relationship starting when the ex-lover was very much underage. Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan ‘negotiate’ over just how early this relationship started; the age of eleven is suggested by Lucas, (!) and eventually they settle on a compromise: fifteen is settled on. Sixteen or seventeen? “Not interesting anymore.”

Surely they knew they couldn’t get this kind of thing accepted by the mainstream movie audiences — yet — but these people take the long view; it may take decades of slowly pushing the boundaries back, but they do it relentlessly.

The metaphor of slowly boiling the frog, though overused now, is very appropriate here.

Most people would probably classify Spielberg, Lucas, and company as being purveyors of ”family” movies, of wholesome good old-fashioned entertainment. But as someone commenting on the Vox Day thread says, Spielberg was “pushing the envelope” with his ”wholesome” movies like ET, with the foul-mouthed kids in that film. I remember some parents being shocked by the crude talk from the children in the movie, but most were willing to let it go because the movie was “cute”. This is how we’ve gotten to where we are culturally, what with increasingly vile movies being accepted by mass audiences, and our culture reflects what the movies promote: children who are ‘worldly-wise’ at a very young age, and young adults who are very much jaded and experienced before they are out of their teens.

The older generations don’t escape blame; many who grew up in a more civilized society have gradually come to accept the corrupted world that we live in now, and made their peace with it. Few people are willing to reject the values of Hollywood and the entertainment/propaganda business; people love their pop culture and their distractions.

Recently in another blog post here I referred to the fascination many young people seem to have with ‘Pre-Code’ movies, that is, movies that were made in the early talkie days, before the Hays Office began to restrict the content of movies. The Pre-Code movie devotees never get enough of railing against the Hays Office and its namesake, Will Hays. They are, to the leftist post-modern movie fan, the equivalent of the hated Joe McCarthy of the political world. The Hays Office and the McCarthy ‘witch hunts’, so-called, are a favorite bete noire of the left.

The ‘Hays Code’ or the Motion Picture Production Code is often denounced as a heavy-handed, prudish censorship which infringed on people’s ”freedoms” and stifled artistic endeavors, and thwarted creativity. It does seem odd, if these criticisms were valid, that so many of Hollywood’s best efforts were movies made during the era of the Hays Code. It’s also strange that since the rules were first, loosened, then abandoned, movies have declined, becoming ever darker and more nihilistic as well as cruder and more profane.

For years I’ve been saying, when hearing of Hollywood’s latest over-hyped sleaze, ”how much worse can it get”? And I keep being surprised at how the movie moguls seem to outdo themselves in producing something worse, because that seems to be their mission: to drag society down to the gutter level at which the movie industry seems to operate. They are succeeding, and it seems to me that even the fact that movie attendance seems to be declining for some years does not discourage them. They are on a mission, and even shrinking profits don’t seem to daunt them.

The Hays Office and the Code, far from being villains as most movie fans seem to believe, served a good purpose for as long as it lasted. America — and the post-Christian West generally, was already in a moral crisis after World War I in particular. The ‘Roaring 20s’ are an example of how sexual morals became lax; drug and alcohol abuse and all the accompanying problems weakened us in many ways. Societies which are hedonistic and libertine are rarely, if ever, strong and powerful. Dissolute societies are always prey for invasion and conquest.

If not for the Hays Code, Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan would not have been having their discussion about how young the ‘love interest’ of Indiana Jones could have been — because by that time, had not the movie moguls been compelled to ‘clean up their act’, we would long since have had movies featuring “inter-generational love” or ”zoophilia” or whatever other euphemisms they’ve dreamed up for these various deviancies. The Hays Office was fighting a sort of rearguard action against the trends, which were already present in 1930s America. They at least bought us some time in which the worst tendencies of Hollywood were kept restrained to some extent, imperfectly. But that was better than nothing, better than just letting Hollywood and the rest of the ”entertainment” world run amok, as now, transforming our society at will, with our complicity.

What’s in a name?

I’m glad someone addressed this issue, though it seems to be a hopeless cause to change the politically correct terminology that dominates our language.

Jmsmith at The Orthosphere blog writes about the varying names given to followers of Islam, with ‘Muslim’ being the politically correct usage employed by the media, the educational establishment, the lefties — by everybody, in fact, left or right, except for a few ornery people who say ‘Mohammedan’ or ‘muzzie’ or some other less-than-reverential term.

A Mohammedan is not a Christian or Jew because he is: “one who accepts the proposition that an Arab named Mohammed or Ahmad, son of Abdallah, of the city of Mecca, in Central Arabia, who died in A.D. 632 is the main and indeed ultimate channel whereby the will of the Creator of the world has been revealed to mankind.”*

If you accede to calling this man a Moslem (i.e. Truly Religious), I believe that you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. If you accede to calling his religion Islam (i.e. True Religion), I believe you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. To draw this to its sharpest possible point, a Christian who accedes to using the words Moslem or Islam is at least flirting with apostasy.**

Well, then as a Christian I might be apostate because I have held to using ‘Moslem‘. However I have a different recollection as to which term was considered ‘offensive’ to Moslems, besides ‘Mohammedan,’, that is. I was not sure if my memory was accurate so after a little searching I came across this:

“According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,”Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word.” But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means”one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means”one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

[…]Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.”

From what I recall, that pressure came from the militant ‘Black Muslim’ sect back in the late 1960s when the ‘establishment’ was leaning over backwards (as now) to placate minorities, especially militant blacks. I doubt that many people today are aware of the origins of that sect, and how outré their belief system was/is. To think that we automatically kowtowed to them on the issue of what we are “allowed” to call them or their faith is pretty shameful for us. It shows how ‘cucked’ we were, even back in the late 60s when all this nonsense began.

“But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP–the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World–published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut–is still The Moslem World.”

Interesting; I didn’t know anybody officially still used ‘Moslem’, apart from me and a few others. Incidentally a friend of mine began using ‘Moslem’ after hearing me use it only to be scolded by her leftist millennial offspring, who, of course, know everything since attending college (and a Christian college, at that).

I am not looking to be contentious here or to argue with Jmsmith; I am in agreement  that we should not simply give in to pressure from those of a religion which is contradicts with our own Christian beliefs, a group which is essentially at war with us, and has been since its inception. We should not accede automatically and go along with their terminology and definitions. In doing that we are being less than true to our Christian beliefs.

There are lots of terms for followers of Mohammed: Musulman, Mahometan, Moslem, Mohammedan. They served us well for many centuries. Why change just to placate those who are never going to be appeased by anything less than total submission? Because that is what Islam means: submission.

Who are the ‘real’ deplorables?

In a recent blog post, I used a variation on the “14 words”, paraphrasing that formula with something to the effect of ‘if we can secure the existence of our people and a future for our children.”

I suppose that would make me a White Nationalist, according to the consensus? Donald Trump supposedly came close to using the ”14 words” in a recent public speech, though apparently his words were much more vague. But even a hint of a resemblance is enough to send his detractors into hissy fits and his supporters into transports of bliss because he sort of said something similar to the “14 words.” But Trump is hardly a ‘White nationalist”, much less a “White supremacist”, the name the lefties are applying to everybody who is even mildly pro-White or even just politically incorrect.

As for myself, about ten years ago when I was still relatively new at blogging I saw, via Lawrence Auster’s blog, that I was among the right-wing bloggers classified as ‘White Nationalists’ by Mencius Moldbug. At that point I had never heard of nor read Moldbug, and I had no clue, still have no clue, how he decided I was one of the White Nationalists. I have never been a doctrinaire type, never been one to go all-in for ”isms” of whatever kind, especially political ‘isms’. I considered myself just an old-fashioned American, following in the footsteps of my elders, of the Southron generations who had very realist attitudes on race and ethnicity. I still consider that Christian, Southern cultural grounding to be the basis of what I believe. However I do consider myself a ‘nationalist’, an ethnonationalist, rather than a White Nationalist.

I’ve expounded on why I find White Nationalism unsatisfactory as I understand it, and the gist of it is that I find White Nationalism to be a form of White multiculturalism, or White internationalism, and it is based on the erroneous idea that all White ethnicities are equal. In other words egalitarianism is part of the belief system, but it is limited to White ethnicities only. It is fine to deny equality amongst the different races but all Whites (however one defines ‘Whites’; definitions vary) are absolutely equal, none superior to another in any way whatsoever. As egalitarianism is a false ideology I have to reject any form of it.

However it seems that many of those on the alt-Right for example reject WNism because it is considered déclassé, an embarrassment, a stumbling-block for the ‘respectables’ who tar all on the so-called ‘far right’ as ‘neo-Nazis,’ ‘supremacists’, NS, or some other socially unacceptable label. WNs are the group looked down on by others on the right; nobody wants to be associated with them.

Segments of the right are now very occupied with ‘punching right’, denouncing this group or that for their political and social views. Some of the Alt-Right criticisms of WNs are simply rote repetitions of the slurs made by lefties and SJWs. Is that because the slurs are true, or is it because the motives behind those doing the slurring are the same, that is, to distance themselves from the group that is lowest on the totem pole?

The Stormfront forum is usually used as an example of a White Nationalist forum, and it is often described as filled with ignorant and hateful people. I’m not a member there, nor have I read there lately — but I have read the forum enough to be familiar with the kinds of people who post there. The level of discourse is hardly any more ‘ignorant’ or bigoted than that on the average Alt-Right blogs, though the Alt-Right includes a disparate collection of people with varying levels of education and intelligence. Some commenters are obviously intelligent, informed and civil, other blogs reveal a lot of vulgar language and blunt discourse and little substantive discussion. So it’s unfair to say that a place like Stormfront, (which, last time I looked, banned foul language and racial slurs), is any more uncivil or ignorant than other blogs on the right. At least it’s free of the vile language and discourse that plagues some blogs, and there are more socially conservative ideas on Stormfront, paradoxically.

I could name other ‘WN’-oriented forums that are far worse for rude manners, foul language and flame wars, but that would not be useful. I don’t see the need for trying to make examples of those who are considered by many to be fair game.

Truth be told, I think WNs could and should be allies with the Alt-Right, though the Alt-Right is oddly becoming more of a ‘big tent’, becoming more homosexual-friendly due to certain personalities being lionized, and also more welcoming of other ethnicities who are not usually welcomed by the WN faction.

Both the White Nationalists and the Alt-Right tend to lean towards an anti-Christian viewpoint, with Christianity often denounced as an emasculating influence for White society, and both WNs and the Alt-Right lean toward some degree of admiration for Germany, a willingness to see Hitler in a positive light  (this sentiment is expressed on some Alt-Right blogs, coupled with some degree of anti-American feeling: ‘we were the bad guys in both the world wars’,or ‘our fathers and grandfathers fought on the wrong side‘, etc.)

There is not that much outward difference philosophically between the two groups, in my observation.

And when it comes to my objections to White Nationalism, it seems the Alt-Right also believes, for example, that White people should be able to freely immigrate to any White country, believing that Whiteness supersedes nationality or ethnicity. Many Alt-Righters, as well as WNs, say they would emigrate to some Eastern European country if they could, and some seek out foreign women to marry, thereby making it clear that their own ethnicity is not considered important enough to preserve.

Ethnonationalism isn’t just a statement that one’s own ethnicity is of importance, and should command loyalty, it’s an identity, a felt kinship and affection and bond with kinsmen, those who look most like us, share our history, our language, our manners and customs. Our ethnicity is family writ large. As Steve Sailer said, ethnicity is a slightly-inbred extended family, (I am paraphrasing there).

So how many real ethnonationalists are there? Too often I see expressions of contempt on the part of Americans toward their own folk; Americans (Murkans, so-called) are fat, stupid, lazy, and worthless, if one believes the talk on a lot of forums.

I am sure we all have, in our own families, some stupid people, some whose politics we abhor, some who are lazy, and yes, some who are fat. I wonder if the anti-White Whites disown their family members because of flaws like that? Human nature would cause us, normally, to be more tolerant of the faults of family members as opposed to strangers; if we love only those of our kin who conform to our high expectations as regards their politics, their intelligence, their appearance, or their social prestige — or their generation, then we’d claim very few family members, I think. Shall we draw a circle that shuts our kinsmen out? Apparently so, but we isolate ourselves in doing that. Are we then embracing this toxic ‘individualism’ that is the plague of our time and our country?

So shall we have ideological litmus tests to determine the desirability of allying with anyone? There are few enough of us that we can’t afford that kind of exclusivism. Many of us have had political views that have changed with experience and with maturity. Only very small-minded and rigid people never change their thinking. There may be hope for some of those we have written off, given time and given a chance to be de-programmed from the brainwashing.

During the recent presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton famously called the newly-discovered Alt-Right a ‘basket of deplorables’, and the Alt-Right, along with even the ‘Respectable Republicans’ and cuckservatives, embraced the label. But yet some segments of the right are intent on using Hillary’s labelling criteria, calling those to their right ‘deplorable’ or other pejorative words. Is this productive or helpful? Everybody has somebody they deem ‘deplorable’ or beneath them, and sad to say, both left, right, and center seem to find the ‘White trash’ deplorable. To many people, even on the right, the White Nationalist is the ‘White trash’ everyone seems to look down on. From what I’ve seen, I think this blanket condemnation is not necessarily accurate, and this mentality makes strange bedfellows, with some on the Alt-Right joining the chorus of the likes of the $PLC and that ilk, along with the cuckservative crowd.

I still think that in the cause to which we are supposed to be loyal, we could and should be allies, at least call a cease-fire.  The Fourteen Words, after all.

 

 

 

 

The ‘racism’ scare and other scares

There’s an interesting piece at TakiMag, called Skeered o’ the Racisms. The writer points out the way in which lefties/SJWs gin up a fear of this mysterious entity, ‘racism’, which is said to exist everywhere, at least everywhere White people (including White babies, according to Time magazine) exist.

And just in case there isn’t enough of this mysterious force everywhere, it has to be conjured, or hoaxed into existence, as the ‘demand for racism exceeds the supply‘ as I think Steve Sailer said. It seems Whitey is slacking off on the job, not committing the requisite number of ‘racist’ acts, so somebody’s got to do it.

Just an aside: there are a shocking number of politically correct commenters at TakiMag; are they ‘cuckservatives’ or SJWs? It’s getting hard to tell them apart these days.

But back to the need for a good ‘scare’ to motivate the Left and their mascots/pets: it’s ironic that the left is very fond of referring to legitimate threats as ‘scares’ or ‘witch hunts’. I read the IMDB website a lot because I watch many old movies, and maybe it’s masochistic on my part to read the reviews there but I do read them. It’s disturbing how very many commenters cannot watch an old movie without scrutinizing a film for the ‘racisms’ and all the other naughty ‘isms’ like ‘sexism’, as well as all the ‘phobias’ like homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia — have I left any of them out?  The IMDB commenters are also unhealthily obsessed with ‘pre-code’ films, which they prize very highly because, as one commenter said, it’s ”delightful” to find salaciousness and ‘corruption’ in old movies. Now, why this should evoke delight in a movie viewer is somewhat baffling to me, but I gather that it is because it confirms the lefty’s ‘faith’ that the popular image of the wholesome past is in fact false; that people were really hypocrites sinning it up behind closed doors, while putting up a false front of respectability. Human nature being what it is, certainly there were people who feigned innocence in public while being perverts, drunks, or druggies in private. But to say that ‘everyone’ was a liar and a hypocrite back then is just not true — still, it’s what the left believes. So they do love to see the pre-code movies in which we see drug usage (movies like ‘Three on a Match’) or other perversions (‘Wonderbar’).

Most of all, though, the left loves to uncover ‘racism’ in old movies, for example, a black character playing the role of a butler, maid, or janitor. And the SJWs are beside themselves with satisfaction if they spot an Oriental character (yes, I did say ‘Oriental’; it’s a perfectly good word) speaking pidgin English. One commenter on IMDB was shocked and troubled by the ‘‘degrading Chinese music‘ played in some movie with scenes of Chinese people or the Orient. I wasn’t aware that a musical score could be ‘degrading’ in and of itself. I actually found that complaint amusing.

Really, these obsessed lefties, these self-appointed advocates and ‘champions’ of their poor downtrodden minority clients/mascots, seem to need some evidence that their feared bogeyman, the spirit of ‘racism’, does exist now as then. It vindicates, for them at least, the enormous amounts of time and energy they devote to thinking and talking about it — and condemning it.

I think, personally, it’s a very appropriate use of the noun ‘scare‘ to describe their fixation with ‘racism’ as a scare. Interestingly, they almost always use the noun ‘scare’ to designate something they say is nonexistent: like the ‘Red scare’, as they call it, of the 1950s. There was no Communist threat in that era, so they say; it was all in the minds of the ‘far right’, people like Joe McCarthy and any number of others who warned of the presence of Communists in high places.  So it was just a ‘Red scare’, a mythical bogeyman created by the right.

They also favor the term ‘witch hunt’ in describing things like the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) hearings. Just as they say there were no real witches in Salem or elsewhere, they say there were no Communists, the Venona papers notwithstanding.

So it was all a witch hunt, an attempt to harass and punish perfectly innocent people, for their political views. If it was a real ‘witch hunt’ the hunters were pretty inept, because despite the much-hyped ‘blacklists’ and other such measures, the Communist cabal went from strength to strength and they have pretty much enacted all their stated goals from the 1940s-50s. So who was paranoid?

Actually now the shoe is on the other foot; the lefties, despite having the whip hand, and having the media fully in their service, claim that the ‘far right’ is a threat to them.

I think it’s fitting to deploy their own terminology and rhetoric against them; yes, call the racism thing a ‘racism scare‘, in the spirit of their ‘Red scare’ propaganda. Call the racist hunt a ‘witch hunt’ because that, in truth, is what it is. Except that unlike in the past, there are no ‘witches’ on the White right working evil voodoo against the army of ‘victims’ the left has in tow.

I don’t know if the left really believes in their own hysterical rhetoric; some are utterly cynical and habitual liars, who lie to themselves, but it may be that some actually believe in their increasingly bizarre view of the world, especially the past. In any case, the SJWs are the ones who imagine, or pretend to imagine, threats and evil intentions around every corner.

If we’re lucky, in some saner time we will be able to read in honest history books about the ‘hysterical racism scare‘ of this era.

‘National suicide’

Integrity of Home_safeguardOfNationalStability_vitalogy

The above was written in 1899, and the book which is the source of the quote has been subject to ridicule from the usual crowd in this cynical and “know-it-all” age. Nevertheless there is a lot of truth in that little quote. We can see it playing out now as the author predicted.

Our age has produced generations of people who think that our era symbolizes some kind of pinnacle of human knowledge and wisdom. Yet we are not wise enough to admit or even to see, in many cases, that today’s philosophy of life has brought a lot of misery and unhappiness, and may end in our disappearance as a people. Speaking for  myself, I don’t find the past worthy of derision; my grandparents and their generation were far wiser, though perhaps less ‘educated’ than today’s self-absorbed perpetual adolescents of all ages. It’s too bad we chose to abandon the rules and standards by which we lived in their day, which produced stability and a legacy they passed on to posterity. Is it too late to restore that?

 

Our ‘lost’ faith

For some years now there has been ongoing debate about the role of Christianity in the demise of the ‘West’, which might more properly bed called ‘former Christendom.’

So is Christianity to blame, as some non-Christians continually assert, for what is happening to our countries now? Obviously I say no, as I’ve said all along, and the self-evident fact that our countries were not under siege when Christianity was in full flower and at its height of influence, whereas ever since our Christian faith began to wane and weaken, our countries and our peoples have been in deep trouble, and we now face a real existential threat.

Nowadays, though, Christianity itself has become so compromised and corrupted by ‘the world’ that Christians — or more properly, Churchians, make it all but impossible to effectively exonerate our faith from the charge of having destroyed the West. Non-believers see this impostor ‘Christianity’ and find it hard to believe that it could have sustained us so well, or been such a major influence in making us strong as nations and as individuals.

There are fewer faithful churches or denominations left, and those that appear to prosper are often not as strong inwardly as they appear on the outside. Many of the megachurches are interested mainly in growth for its own sake, and have compromised their beliefs beyond recognition.

Some of the ‘Christian’ podcasts and programs that can be found on YouTube or on Roku, and especially on television, shows how lost we are, and how bereft of good leadership and sound teaching. And as much as these weak churches aim at being ‘relevant’ for the sake of the young people they hope to draw in, by means of rap and hip-hop music, casual dress codes, and other such trappings of the 21st century, they usually avoid any truly relevant commentary on what is going on in the world, such as the refugee invasion of Europe and all its appalling ramifications, as well as the more general subject of the ‘One World’ globalist agenda which is being pushed so relentlessly. If the Church in any of its guises really wanted to be ‘relevant’ they would be discussing these things, the same things that many of us are talking about on the dissident, anti-globalist right. Instead they studiously avoid those subjects, just as their secular counterparts in the controlled media do.

However those few half-brave souls in the Christian media who do address the globalist menace do so only very gingerly, trying to stay politically correct. Just how someone can claim to be anti-globalist and not discuss mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the race issue is a mystery to me.

And then there is the ‘JQ’, which finds far too many Christians kowtowing to Jews as ‘our elder brothers in faith’. I’ve noticed a trend with many Christian media outlets having sort of resident Jewish ‘advisors’ or gurus, as I call them, interpreting events for us, explaining the Bible to us. These personalities are often treated as sages and as authorities, as if we need Jewish interpreters to intercede for us or to tell us what Jesus meant. This is something of a new trend; I don’t remember an earlier era in which Jews were treated as spiritual advisers to Christians; yes, there was the mid-20th century invention of ‘ecumenism’, which devised the concept of ‘Judeo-Christianity’, but even then, that was more of an attempt to try to push ‘tolerance’ via understanding — but now it’s as though Christians are being taught we need Jews to validate our faith or tell us what to believe. Maybe some younger people or new Christians don’t know that it wasn’t always this way. Our parents and grandparents were very skeptical of Jews to say the least. I am sure the usual suspects at the $PLC would say the older generations were anti-Semites and bigots, but the fact is the older generations knew that Judaism was not Christianity, and they never heard of something called ‘Judeo-Christianity.’ Somehow most Christians have been turned into Zionists and some have even gone in for things like the ‘Hebrew Roots’ movement which has some confused Christians adopting Jewish holiday celebrations, Jewish accoutrements (prayer-shawls, fringes, etc.) and kosher foods. This is not the Christianity of our parents and our forefathers.

It’s all an indication of the confusion and lost-ness of Christianity in the 21st century.

Some of our ministers and preachers and teachers believe we are in the End Times, citing the ‘One World’ agenda as a fulfillment of prophecy. However they curiously avoid quoting any of the Scriptures that seem to speak  to our times, especially the immigrant invasions and the Mohammedan presence in our countries.

How many Christian teachers or pastors quote any of the following Scriptures?

‘The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.’ (Deuteronomy 28:43-44)

Or:

1 Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach.
2 Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens.
3 We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows.
4 We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us.
5 Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest.
6 We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread.
7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.
8 Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand.” (Lamentations 5).

Instead they want to lecture us about the Good Samaritan (welcome the refugees) or about ‘hospitality to the stranger’ and turning the other cheek. They are wrenching those scriptures out of their context. Apropos here is Hosea 4:6: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

How many Christians are aware of the origin of the title ‘Camp of the Saints’? It’s Revelation 20:9

”And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about…”

The Churches, for the most part, are silent on all this, and they should be teaching on these things, instead of acting as lap dogs to the powers-that-be by carefully obeying political correctness and the world’s fake morality.

Our church officials and Christian leaders should be seeing the signs of the times; instead they are dumb ‘watchdogs’ who don’t bark. In this sense they are accountable for refusing to address the pressing issues of our time.