Corsican disturbances

The recent attacks by ”refugees” on firefighters on the island of Corsica led to reprisals by local people. They vandalized a mosque, and the usual denunciations by authorities followed. As everywhere in the West, the authorities side with the invaders and respond to the local citizenry’s concerns by warning them not to carry out any further action against the Moslem ”refugees”.

The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls called the vandalism in the mosque a ”desecration”, a choice of language that betrays bias, because it indicates that Valls considers a mosque ”sacred.” Only something sacred can be “desecrated.” In this country, when churches are vandalized (not an infrequent occurrence) the media always refer to such crimes as just vandalism, not desecration. Why are Mohammedan places and symbols given more respect and reverence than our native Christian places of worship and symbols? Language matters. And in their language, the authorities and their media mouthpieces betray that they don’t regard our religion as sacred or holy, only the Mohammedan cult. Their immediate reaction is to defend and protect the Mohammedans, and to warn the local people. This is the case in our country, as in Europe. Only we are warned not to act out against the Mahometans; they are never warned not to attack us.

The Corsicans, it must be remembered, are not French except in a political sense; their island is under French rule, but they consider themselves a different people, and there has been persistent nationalistic feeling and a Corsican independence movement. Considering their ethnonationalism/ethnopatriotism, it isn’t surprising that they would assert their rights in their own territory. The angry Corsican citizens shouted ”This is our home!”at the refugees they confronted. This may be seen as ”instigating hatred” by the politically correct French authorities but it is nothing more than a healthy response by a people who are asserting their right to exercise control over who lives on their small island. This has normally been assumed to be the right of every sovereign people, especially those whose ancestors have held the same land for thousands of years. It’s only in our insane postmodern world that we are being told that we have no such rights; that every invader or every stray with a hard-luck story and a claim to victimhood has just as much right on our land as we have — in fact, more right. It’s high time that people began to shout out that the politically correct emperor has no clothes. Since when does every human being have a ”right” to live anywhere he pleases, regardless of the wishes of the existing possessors of the land?

You and I have no right to go and live in any country we choose, unless the people of that country grant permission via visas or documentation of some sort. Most of us cannot even go to the lands our ancestors came from because those lands now accept only Third World basket cases. So once dispossessed in the lands in which we were born, we will have no refuge to take us in, as our ancestral countries will have been given away by the traitorous ”leadership” of those countries, and given away to people like these violent and ungrateful ”refugees” in Corsica.

Russia Today, that politically correct leftist media outlet curiously favored by many alt-right types, reports that the French government has banned any further protests by the Corsicans. So far the Corsicans seem ready to ignore this ban. Maybe this kind of thing will strengthen the Corsican independence movement, as they see that the French authorities are determined to ethnically cleanse them and essentially replace them.

Christmas in the Old South

The following, or excerpts therefrom, was posted on the old blog in years past at Christmastime. I hope that if any of you have previously read this, you won’t mind seeing it again. I like to evoke the past and our traditions and heritage in these troubled days, and Christmas is a time to recall memories from our past, both our individual memories and our collective memories. It’s not only good, but vital, to try to remember and preserve — or revive, where possible — what is good and true and pleasant from our heritage.

The piece below is credited to Col. J.O. Bledsoe of Mableton, Georgia.

Christmas in the Early South

“Many in the tidewater region of the Southern colonies enjoyed enough wealth and leisure to celebrate the ancient holiday of Christmas in grandest fashion. Largely English, French, and German, often aristocratic, and usually unencumbered by the stern moral earnestness that afflicted their Puritan cousins in the North, these first Southerners thoroughly enjoyed Christmas when they could.

For centuries their European ancestors had observed the 14-day-long season of Christmas-tide, which began on Christmas eve and continued through January 6th, the “Twelfth Day” after Christmas called Epiphany. The Christmas spirit sailed across the Atlantic with them and even during the harsh early years, they often managed to celebrate the Yuletide in the New World with traditional English merrymaking: visiting, music, fireworks, cannon shooting, bonfires, feasting, parties, hunts, games, dances and weddings all before an enormous glowing and blazing Yule log. It had been carefully selected and lighting it on Christmas eve signaled the beginning of holiday merriment. “Carefully selected” in this case meant that servants found the largest, most water-soaked log available since tradition held that the merry season of leisure would last as long as the Yule log burned.

Another tradition was to save a small portion to kindle next year’s Christmas log.

In New England, the Puritan fathers looked with grim disdain on Christmas. To them, this holiday was a notorious occasion for celebrations in Catholic Europe, and they thus strictly forbade its observance. Work continued on this day unless it fell on Sunday. “Anybody,” so ran the enactment by the General Court of Massachusetts, “who is found observing by abstinence from labor, feasting, or any other way, any such day as Christmas day, shall pay for every such offence five shillings.” Elders also found it necessary to “Forbid all traffic in plum puddings and the like.” For some reason the plum pudding was viewed as a symbol of the whole evil affair. The settlers of the middle colonies held somewhat less dreary views and were not so much bothered by feelings of religious guilt. Many of them enjoyed Christmas with the merriment of their “old country” traditions.

The wealth of our Christmas customs, however, came from the Southern colonies. As the years went by and colonists there increased in wealth, so did their celebrations increase in elaborateness. By the last half of the 18th century Christmas time had become the social as well as religious season for Southerners. Many Southern settlers during early colonial days considered Christmas primarily a religious festival; and although the religious meaning of the season was never neglected the observances leading up to “Twelfth Night” or Epiphany, which commemorates the visit of the Three Wise Men to the Christ Child, were often the most popular and written-about times of the season, even outshining Christmas Day toward the end of that period all the traditional English merrymaking customs and revelry were widely and heartily observed.

The Christmas tree was soon borrowed from German Moravian and Lutheran colonists; but from the beginning Southerners gathered evergreens such as holly, smilax, pine, cedar, laurels, magnolia, and mistletoe to “deck the halls.” Wreaths were woven and mantelpieces and pictures festooned. Tidewater Christmases were rarely white, but always green. Juniper or incense might have been burned to protect the household from harm. Another aroma of the season came from the kitchen where Christmas cakes and cookies were baked from long-standing “recipes” passed down from mother to daughter. Gifts were exchanged and carols sung; and specially made huge “Christmas candles” illuminated the whole house.

At the center of all the celebrating was “Father Christmas,” from earliest times called “The Lord of Christmas.” In tidewater Carolina, his flowing hair and beard were made of Spanish moss. In one hand he carried mistletoe, in the other a black wand or staff with a silver crook at its top, and with which he delivered his gifts to all. Southerners did not take readily to what they called “the dapper little Manhattan goblin called Santa Claus.” Father Christmas was large and regal, with features bold and expressive, yet gentle. He was, all in all, the emblematic representative of the classic Jupiter, rather than the quick, merry, and elfish figure Santa Claus has come to be.

Christmas tippling was widespread. Servants’ employment contracts stipulated a bonus for Christmas drinking. Slaves had leisure time for dancing and singing around holiday-long bonfires. Usually, new clothes and extra food were furnished them during this season. “Christmas gift” was a cry heard on every plantation as servants claimed their yearly tip. The old English “Boxing Day” custom of bringing “Christmas boxes” to the master to collect gifts had been transplanted to the South and it thrived even though gifts here were less often money than was usual in England.

The main event on Christmas day, of course, was Christmas dinner. It was a board as festive as could be managed, set before a roaring fire. On this much-anticipated, once-a-year occasion, Southern cooking reached the heights of early American quality and quantity.

Traditions in Christmas fare varied from house to house, but a large colonial plantation Christmas feast that required days or weeks to assemble and prepare might include: eggnog, oysters on the half shell, scalloped oysters, clear soup, roast stuffed goose with sauce, baked country ham with mustard sauce, lamb, roast wild turkey with cornbread stuffing, venison, and several other wild game dishes, including, perhaps a grand “Christmas pie.” The recipe for this special treat called for a turkey stuffed with goose and chicken and pigeon and seasonings, with rabbit and quail set around, all inside a heavy crust. There were brown and white breads, Brussels sprouts with chestnuts, turnips and greens, baked sweet potatoes and apples, beans and peas, Mary Randolph’s salad, fig and plum puddings, orange tarts, bourbon pecan cake, fresh fruit, walnuts and pecans, cider, Port wine, and syllabub.

Christmas was also celebrated with the Wassail bowl, another English tradition familiar to all of us because of the popular verses in the old carol “Here We Come A Wassailing.” Wassail, or wes hael (be whole) in Anglo-Saxon, was a toast or greeting which is associated with celebrations of Christmas and New Years from the earliest days. According to tradition, the head of the household invited his family to gather around the bowl of hot spiced ale with roasted apples floating on it. After drinking to their health and prosperity in the coming year, the bowl was passed around to each member of the family who returned toasts to joy and happiness for all. Gradually, this ale became known as wassail; and the Wassail bowl, usually decorated with garlands of greenery, particularly holly, was a popular custom in America from the beginning. Eggnog was widely substituted for spiced ale in the colonies by the time of the Revolution.

There was much drinking of these and other cheering and warming potions at the homes of friends and neighbors over the holidays.

Our observances of Christmas represent a rich mosaic of customs based on the winter festivals of many ancient cultures merged with Christian tradition. The lion’s share of the credit for preserving and enhancing
this universal holiday in America, like so many of the other good things in our unique cultural inheritance belongs to the traditional Old South.” 

Darwinism, HBD, egalitarianism

Add Christianity to the above list of subjects and you have a recent post at Faith and Heritage. I find these subjects compelling but also very vexing for a Christian and a non-egalitarian. It seems that almost all those who self-identify as Christian also accept Darwinism and the idea of ”evolution”, to some degree or another.
It’s troubling to me that so very, very few Christians are able or even willing to defend the Biblical point of view, or God’s word, instead choosing to meet ”science” (falsely so-called) halfway, and concede some points to the evolution cult members.

For example most Christians say they believe that God created humans but that since Adam and Eve, the various races have ‘developed’ from our original parents; in other words, two people created the same (Eve was created from Adam, remember) somehow produced offspring of multiple races. People seem honestly to accept this implausible idea because ”science proves it.”

I suppose you might say that those who say they are Christians believe that evolution did not produce the original human beings (Adam and Eve) but evolution took over when Adam and Eve had offspring and this resulted in the development of widely differing races.

So they do believe in ”evolution” within the Adamic line, just not in apes evolving into humans spontaneously, or life evolving from nothing randomly.

My background is not in the sciences though I did study a lot of anthropology in college (and argued with my teachers about Darwin’s Conjecture, even though I was not a Christian back then); I just did not see any solid proof of Darwin’s hypothesis or speculation, and nothing has come along since then to alter that.

A Theory is just that; it’s not proof, certainly not incontrovertible proof.

But I can’t argue HBDers who are scholars in this particular field, or even avid lay followers of developments in that field; I am not a specialist, yet most of us aren’t, nor can we be. Only a relative few are educated in that area, but common sense should count for something.

Science, as we all know, is not infallible (just witness the travesty of ‘scientists’ selling out on “Climate change’ or global warming, warble gloaming, whatever it’s called). Science is heavily under the influence of the Marxist egalitarian politically correct worldview, and even if it were not, the fact remains that science is nothing more nor less than just the sum total of human observation and ‘knowledge.’ I put the term ‘knowledge’ in scare quotes for a reason. Science once “knew”, back in the 19th century, that meteorites could not have fallen from the skies because science ”knew” that there were no stones in the skies.  Just as it was once declared impossible for a heavier-than-air craft to fly. Bumblebee flight was declared aerodynamically impossible.

Lots of things that were beyond question, according to science, are now accepted. But science never has the last word, and never will, because it is impossible for us to know all that could be known of the universe. Science is just accumulated human observation and speculation, much of which has been or will be discarded when newer ”knowledge” supplants it.

Science can’t be infallible because it’s a product of flawed and limited humans.

Human reason is imperfect. Human beings are fallen, and pride and self-deception are endemic to human nature. That last sentence, of course, might not be accepted by non-Christians but Christians believe it to be so, and the real world demonstrates evidence of flawed and warped human nature.

But for the Christian who is inclined to accept some facet or form of Darwinism, I put this question out there in hopes of provoking some thought or questioning of the generally accepted quasi-Darwinistic beliefs: were Adam and Eve the progenitors of every being called ‘homo sapiens’ on earth? Why are Adam and Eve created later, chronologically, per the Genesis account?  ‘Man’ is created earlier, before Adam and then Eve. Adam is given a special mission or purpose: to till the ground, and to be a steward of all Creation. Of course that’s just part of it.

And if Adam and Eve were the parents of all mankind, how did their son Cain leave to go live amongst other people, and how would there have been cities ‘out there’ when Cain is sentenced to wander after his crime? Who were the ”other people” he expressed fear of?

I know that mainstream egalitarian Christianity has its facile ”answers” to these questions, which I have not found convicincing.

But if you believe that Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans, then you end up believing that ”there is only one race: the human race” and ”we are all brothers under the skin” etc., though Christians did not always believe this stuff. We are not automatically ‘God’s Children’, no matter what Churchians say in this 21st century.

Regardless of how a Christian explains the discrepancies on the above questions, I don’t see how one can be a Christian who believes in the truth of the Bible and be at the same time accepting of Darwinism and its implausibilities. The two worldviews are in conflict. Darwinists ridicule Christians credulity on ‘silly things’ like Creation or the Virgin Birth yet they believe nothingness just decided to become life, and that Adam and Eve gave birth to Diversity.

I keep wishing for some Christian(s) to really champion Biblical faith vs. Darwin, and there’s far too little engaging going on. I am not the one to do that, but I just hope to plant some seeds of questions for Christians to ponder, so that Christians will not just by degrees, fall prey to scientism.

Jeff Sessions stands alone

Most of the other Republicans (including the mainstream Republicans’ darlling, Ted Cruz) lined up on the opposite side from Jeff Sessions when it came to voting on Sessions’ proposal to limit legal immigration.

Alabama should be proud of Jeff Sessions. Texas’ Congressmen seem sold out to ”multiculti Texas” and the modern myth that Hispanics ”fought right alongside us at the Alamo” and other such twaddle.

It’s rather disheartening to see the way the Cruz cult followers defend his contradictory statements on immigration. It’s clear that he has supported increasing legal immigration, despite his trying to ‘crawfish’ and say he hasn’t done so, or using legalese evasions about whether he would support more legal immigration.

Legal, illegal, except for the paperwork, it’s all the same. It all changes our country. Legal, illegal, that’s all a distraction. Whoever thought up the strategy of convincing people that ”legal is good, it’s only the illegal kind that’s bad” was diabolically clever. Lo, these many years later the Republicans parrot the same nonsense, thinking they’re being patriotic and yet fair-minded towards the ”hardworking immigrants who just want a better life, and who play by the rules”, etc.

I honestly despair of these people. They just can’t get it through their thick heads. Nothing penetrates through the propaganda. The lights are on but nobody’s home. In their way, they are as bad as the useful idiots on the real left.

Even the Dutch may be getting fed up

We haven’t heard much about the Netherlands in all these stories of resistance in Europe. From all I have read and heard, the Netherlands have been ”diverse” and multicultural for some years now, and the post-Christian Dutch seem to have accepted the ”new” diverse-and-inclusive society that has been thrust on them. I heard from people in the Netherlands many years ago that Amsterdam at that time was full of Middle Easterners, both Moslems and some Sephardim from the Middle East. The Dutch also have the “Indos’, mixed Dutch and Indonesian people who came to the Netherlands when the Dutch were expelled from Indonesia post-World War II. During the days of the Dutch colonies in the ‘East Indies’ there was considerable mixture on the part of the Dutch with the native people, particularly Dutch men with Native wives and concubines, hence the numbers of mixed-race people. The Dutch and the mixed offspring were sent back to Holland when Indonesia became independent, a fact that is often forgotten when people bemoan the impossibility of sending people back where they came from. Many of the Dutch repatriated after the war were born in Indonesia and had never seen Holland — but nonetheless, back to their ancestral country they went. Some came to America, ultimately, by the way.

But if the Dutch could be sent ‘home’ after their families had been in South Asia for generations, why can’t the non-Europeans be repatriated? Just a rhetorical question.

Now if even the tolerant Dutch are reacting against the colonizing of Europe by countless ‘refugees’, you can bet things must be getting bad. You’d think the overlords would get a clue, but it seems unlikely that they will rethink their mad plan to ethnically cleanse Europe.

Chaos in Germany’s refugee camps

This story, which is one of a number of such stories, surely gives the lie to the motto that ‘‘diversity is our strength.” Diversity, especially amongst widely disparate groups of people, leads inexorably to conflict. That conflict may end up in violence, as we are seeing in these refugee riot stories.

This particular incident involved Syrians and Eritreans. Another incident involved Senegalese. Again, we were lied to when we were led to think that the majority of the ‘refugees’ were Syrians fleeing a war-torn country, ”widows and orphans.” They are mostly young males of military service age, not widows and three-year-old children.

“In the town of Karlsfeld, just north of the Bavarian capital, a group of invaders attacked security personnel after they were asked to stop playing football in the middle of a living area.

The invaders immediately set upon the security personnel with sticks, stones, and other items.
Over 40 policemen had to be deployed to halt the unprovoked attack, and two invaders, both from Senegal, were arrested, although later released, the police said.  A total of three invaders and four security personnel had to be treated at a local hospital for wounds suffered in the incident.”
I expressed the thought that maybe this tidal wave of ‘refugees’ were just the 21st century Marielitos.
“In the Spring of 1980, Fidel Castro opened the Cuban port of Mariel to those wishing to leave. Among the 125,000 who took advantage of this opportunity to migrate to the United States were thousands of criminals, sex offenders, and mental patients. Police officials and fellow refugees place the number of undesirables at 40,000. The Marielitos brought no records with them. U.S. authorities could not even verify their names.”
Many believe Castro purposely sent his undesirables to our shores. Why not, if we were so eager to prove our ”moral superiority” by opening our arms to any Cuban who wanted to flee here? Our naive (or disingenuous) politicians, especially on the ”right”, believed that the Cuban ”refugees” were conservative people who wanted to breathe free and participate in our wonderful free-market system. It was a propaganda coup, so our politicians thought, but Castro had the last laugh. 
Whoever is engineering this ‘refugee’ influx into Europe and the West is probably laughing at us now. 
I do feel for the citizens of Europe who had no say in this matter.
And speaking of having no say, how about this news of the social media, including FB, Twitter, and yes, Google, teaming up with Frau Merkel’s regime to censor speech critical of the ”wave of Syrian [sic] immigration”?  How long before that ban on free expression spills over into our country, and blog posts like this one will no longer be allowed? The apostles of ‘tolerance’ don’t practice what they preach. 
Free speech: use it (while you still can) or lose it.

Clerics meddling, so where’s the ACLU now?

Or that group headed by left-wing cleric Barry Lynn, something like Americans for Separation of Church and State? Oh that’s right; they only want church and state separated when the church involved is traditional and Bible-based. Left-wing ‘churches’ get free rein to meddle in politics. I seem to remember those pro-separation types going after people like James Dobson (who is not even that conservative, really) when they endorsed candidates or otherwise dabbled in politics. But now we have a Catholic archbishop telling Catholics that they shouldn’t support Donald Trump’s policies regarding excluding Mohammedans from immigrating.

In addition to that, we read of the Antiochan Orthodox Christian Archdiocese spokesman saying that all “hateful speech and actions” directed against Moslems by Christians must be stopped.

So why don’t the ACLU and Barry Lynn et al speak out against these men making political pronouncements or injecting their private Christian faith into the public square? It appears religion in public life is bad only when it violates the Official State Religion of Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism. This is the Church to which Lynn as well as the Catholic archbishop and the Antiochan Orthodox cleric also worship, it appears.

From the Antiochan Orthodox Christian website:

As Orthodox Christians, we take to heart the commandments of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, especially the commandment that He has told us is the greatest, that is “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39).
We have watched with dismay as several public figures have played on the fear which they assume has swept over this country. Specifically, a recent news release from the Trump campaign has called for “a total and complete shutdown of all Muslims entering the United States”. We reject in the strongest possible terms both this specific call, and all speech and actions which would encourage hate and persecution against any group of people.”

Is it ‘hate and persecution’ not to let someone into our country? There are people in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and especially South Africa and Zimbabwe who would like to immigrate here, but they would likely be, and have in some cases been, turned down flat, and sent home. We’ve seen a German Christian family deported back to Germany, from which they fled because the German government wanted to remove their children from the home. Why? Because they homeschooled their children, on which practice the German government frowned. I call that inhumane and discriminatory, especially when we promiscuously let in millions of Third World people from hostile and backward countries. We are seeing the toxic fruits of that promiscuity now.

And it is inhuman to deny entry to the South Africans and Rhodesians (yes, I know it’s now Zimbabwe, but it’s a travesty of a country) whose very lives are in danger. And these are mostly Christian people. Why discriminate against them? Perhaps because of the lack of melanin in their skin?

The Antiochan Orthodox clergyman, lecturing us Christians about loving our neighbor, should also realize that as Christians we have a moral right to prefer our Christian brethren whose lives (or at least family intactness, in the case of the German family) are in jeopardy.

We know, statistically, that the vast majority of the Syrians and assorted refugees of unknown nationality are NOT Christian but Mohammedan, and we’ve seen that an undetermined number are hostile to us and are proving to be a danger to life and safety for both Europeans and our folk. And yet we are supposed to open our doors wider to them? The Bible does not enjoin us to lay down our lives willy-nilly rather than be seen as ‘not nice’ or ‘unfair’ or ‘discriminatory.’ Discrimination means the same as discernment, a quality which every Christian is taught to cultivate, to sharpen to a keen edge, and to use in making ‘righteous judgment.’ We are not called to ”tolerate” anything and everything. We in the West are not given a divine mission to be responsible for the entire world, especially the Moslem world. Mohammedans make up a much, much bigger percentage of the world than we of European descent and Christian faith. They are to look out for their own, as we are for ours. We cannot, practically speaking, care for everybody. We are few; they are many, in proportion.

One more thought that occurs to me, regarding the Antiochan Orthodox denomination. I know that its roots are in the Middle East, and the names of the clergymen quoted sound Middle Eastern. So their protectiveness towards Moslems would appear to be rooted in cultural/ethnic/racial solidarity, because otherwise we are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. I’ve noted before that some Arab nationalist activists in the Middle East are of Christian background; they appear to have sympathies towards Islam for cultural reasons or because of blood kinship, in some cases.

And I’ve noticed that some on the ethnonationalist right, because of the extreme leftwing trend among American Christian churches, have actually converted to some version of the Orthodox faith because, they say, it’s more favorable to ethnocentrism. But then since that branch of the Christian faith is more rooted in Eastern and Southern Europe and the Middle East, how can an Anglo-American or Anglo-Celtic or Germanic American find a home in those denominations, which are culturally particularistic?

It appears to me that all the denominations are going equally astray; maybe only a few independent churches or home-churches are managing to avoid being caught up in the leftist, universalist, globalist Church of Political Correctness. Pretty soon the Americans for the Separation of Church and State can close up shop, because the few churches which don’t follow the secular one-world zeitgeist are dwindling away. There will be no danger of  the ”right-wing theocracy” the left has been shrieking about. The Church has capitulated to the omnipresent One World System.

The Founding Fathers on immigration

“My opinion with respect to immigration,” said Washington, “is that, except for mechanics and particular description of men and professions, there is no use in its encouragement.” Alexander Hamilton stated: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.” Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and other Founders expressed similar sentiments.” – from William F. Jasper, “The New American’,V. 2, No. 4 “The Nation State is Finished”