Foretold in 1932

Towardssovietamerica -Money quote - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0315


Towarssovietamerica - money quote 2 - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0316a

The above is from a book by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster. The book was titled Towards Soviet America, published in 1932. The writer goes on to describe what the Communist Party planned for America, and for the most part the predictions came true. The feminist movement was part of the agenda, along with the ‘sexual revolution’ which supposedly would ‘free’ women, and allow them a less inhibited sex life, while on the racial front, Foster said that all laws against interracial marriage would be abolished, with racial amalgamation being the goal. Overthrowing traditional attitudes took a few decades to accomplish from the time Foster wrote this book, but they did succeed in making interrracial unions legal. Likewise with their destruction of traditional sexual morality, and they succeeded probably beyond their wildest imaginations there.

However, either Foster was lying or just inaccurate in his predictions about other matters, as when he says that the media will be ‘taken over by the government’ (well, that was probably accomplished as the media appear to be an arm of the leftist establishment) but he further says that the media would then be ‘cleansed of their present trash of sex, crime, sensationalism, and general babbitry‘. On the contrary, the leftist triumph has meant ever more ‘trash of sex, crime, and sensationalism’; they revel in this kind of thing. They have sold it as ‘liberation’ and the ultimate freedom.

Foster seems not to have mentioned one of the fruits of the ‘sexual revolution’, namely the ‘gay rights’ agenda. Did Foster and his generation foresee this part of their plan, or was it just an inevitable result of their destruction of traditional Christian morality and their enshrining ‘personal freedom’ and individual autonomy as a great good?


Whose agenda is being served

The controversy around Milo continues to grow, and it looks as though the ‘right’, whoever that term includes at any given moment, is becoming more polarized around it. Some are saying that ‘the left’ is causing the division, and maybe the leftists are exacerbating it, as that serves their interest. So is the answer to just dig in our heels and defend Milo et al , in knee-jerk fashion, just because the left attacks him? Maybe they are trying to use simple reverse psychology to get the younger right-wing to rush to Milo’s defense, and in so doing ultimately legitimize the presence of flagrant homosexuality and even (through association) with alleged pedophilia. I mean, how can anyone on the right credibly reject pedophilia and pretend that Milo is not in any way associated with it? It destroys all credibility on this issue on the right. The left would like the right to shut up about ‘Pizzagate’ and yes, they would also like to lower the age of consent and decriminalize certain taboo behaviors. It would suit them fine if the right began to go soft on all these issues — which it seems is the direction the younger ‘right’ is heading.

Whose agenda is being helped by this defense of Milo? What is also happening is that anyone on the right, whether through religious/moral scruples or other concerns, criticizing Milo is being branded a ‘concern troll’ or a Bible-thumping fogey. Either way these defenders are sounding more and more like lefties every day, both in their socially libertarian mores and in their tendency to call names and hurl ad hominems at those who differ with them. There will either be no place for Biblically-faithful Christians on the new right, or the Christians who are not driven away will succumb to peer pressure and go along with this new-found ‘right-wing’ tolerance. Either way, this is not a ‘win’ for our side; the left will win ultimately, as they’ve done so far, with their insidious tactics.

And does the presence of Milo, even as an ‘outside ally’ benefit ethnonationalism or the pro-White cause? Championing a half-Jewish and pro-miscegenist personality helps the racially-aware right how, again? If anything it undermines the side.

‘Desensitize, jam, and convert’

The phrase above describes the strategy outlined by a pair of ‘gay’ activists back in 1988. These two activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, co-wrote a book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.

As of the 1990s, I think we could safely say their goal was pretty much realized. Think back to the late 1980s, those of you whose memories extend back that far: America’s ”fear and hatred”, or at least suspicion or disdain, of homosexuals was mostly neutralized by the 90s, with more and more people saying that ‘whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, between consenting adults, is nobody else’s business.’ Or they became sympathetic to gays because of AIDS. Or else they believed the media propaganda that homosexuals were persecuted, bashed, even killed, just because of their (supposedly) inborn sexual orientation.

Just as the activist/writers Hunter and Madsen suggested, the media played a huge part in the growing acceptance of the homosexual ‘lifestyle’; TV series and movies featured more and more sympathetic gay and lesbian characters, and portrayed anyone who objected to this change as a narrow-minded, hateful fanatic.

According to marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, the plan was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.” In Rondeau’s words, from his book Selling Homosexuality to America:

The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in “1984.”

I’d say they mostly succeeded. Up until quite recently, though, there has been a core of resistance to gay acceptance, and that core was made up of the few remaining conservative Christians, along with a few others on the ‘old right’. There is also a considerable generational divide, with each new generation becoming more accepting of homosexuality. The millennials are the most pro-homosexual of all the generations.

This seems to account in some part for the lionizing of Milo Yiannopoulos, and the bizarre decision by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to make him the keynote speaker at their upcoming conference. [Note: I now see that Milo has been ‘disinvited’, following the release of some Milo tapes in which pedophilia is spoken of favorably. But the substance of my comments are still relevant, re: Milo’s role.]

Twenty, or even ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable to present as keynote speaker at a conservative conference a flamboyantly homosexual figure, notorious for his outrageous persona and the lewd content of his videos and self-publicity. He makes it known that he is pro-miscegenation, (his preference for black male ‘company’) which makes it doubly baffling why supposedly pro-White ethnonationalists are among his most ardent defenders. In addition, Milo is half-Jewish (his Greek surname confuses the issue) while those who are part of his following are supposedly ‘Jew-wise.’ Makes no sense.

Oh, I’ve heard the usual arguments: his ‘gayness’ supposedly insulates him from the usual insults from the left; how can they attack someone of a victim group, especially since he actually prefers men ‘of color’? The fact is, though, that he is being attacked just as fiercely from the left, so he is not insulated or immune to the usual assaults.

The fact that the younger dissident right loves Milo is understandable when one considers that this is the ‘South Park’ generation, a generation which is, after all, just as post-modern and libertine in their ‘thinking’ as are the predominant lefties in the same age group. They are of one mind, left and right, on social and cultural issues except for race and nation, perhaps. And granted, those things are of paramount importance now, as they are being used to destroy the West, and Whites in particular.

So is Milo an ally with whom we should make common cause because he is an effective weapon against the left? Or is he being used, whether he knows it or not, as a battering ram with which to allow the gay cause to get a foothold within the right?

We can look at the FReepers as an example: many on the dissident right would call FReepers either ‘cuckservatives’ or ‘normies’, yet look at how they defend Milo here, and welcome his ‘joining’ our side. This post, for example:

So glad to see so much support for an ally on this thread.Beware though, the “Milo is a sodomite!” crowd will show up soon and start trolling.’

So, traditional rightists and Christians will now be considered’trolls’ and ultimately, if this trend continues, will be unwelcome, while the Milos and whoever follows him as the next ‘conservative gay’ are embraced wholeheartedly. Voila, both major parties will be gay-friendly, and pursue pro-gay policies as the ‘homophobic’ old guard will be shown the door.

This is a case in point as to how the left has succeeded in pulling both parties to the left, and how they have met with only feeble and dwindling opposition to their cultural Marxist agenda over the years. It illustrates the ‘long march through the institutions.’

It also calls to mind the familiar list of Communist goals, as outlined in the book The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen. Just to jog your memory, goals # 25 and #26:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

The right may think they are just being pragmatic and ‘using’ people like Milo to slap the left in the face, but the right should beware lest they end up being used and manipulated.

‘Chronic kinglessness’

The term ‘chronic kinglessness‘ is apparently a coinage of Curtis Yarvin, better known as the NeoRx guru, Mencius Moldbug.  In this thought-provoking post from Free Northerner, we are told that the idea of ‘chronic kinglessness’ comes from Thomas Carlyle, though I haven’t found that exact term attributed to him, but whatever its source, the subject is an interesting one, and very apposite to our time.

The blog piece quotes from a British MP, Rory Stuart, in an interview from 2014, in which Stuart says that the dire political situation in his country (and the rest of the world, apparently) is due to the fact that no one has any real power.

“But in our situation we’re all powerless. I mean, we pretend we’re run by people. We’re not run by anybody. The secret of modern Britain is there is no power anywhere.” Some commentators, he says, think we’re run by an oligarchy. “But we’re not. I mean, nobody can see power in Britain. The politicians think journalists have power. The journalists know they don’t have any. Then they think the bankers have power. The bankers know they don’t have any. None of them have any power.

[…]It’s like the wizard of Oz. This is the age of the wizard of Oz, you know. In the end you get behind the curtain and you finally meet the wizard and there’s this tiny, frightened figure. I think every prime minister has sort of said this since Blair. You get there and you pull the lever, and nothing happens.”

This, says the blog piece, is chronic kinglessness.

The blogger postulates that there really is no one in effective charge. The problem, he says, is not one of a world run by a cabal or an oligarchy of faceless men, a huge far-reaching conspiracy, as many of us believe, but of there being a vacuum at the center — insofar as there is a center.

It’s an interesting thought, especially for those of us who have spent so much time and who have written so many words over the years analyzing or opining or speculating about the cause of the rampant madness in the world.

It would be an almost comforting thought, in a way, to believe that to be the case. And I am willing to entertain that possibility if only because it would be preferable to believe that it is a ‘Wizard of Oz’ scenario, in which whoever is at the center is just a big humbug (as ‘Oz the Great’ said he was) or just an inept and insecure little man (or group of men) hiding behind a show of power and bluster. If only that were known to be the case.

I can’t say it might not be true. But let’s just suppose for the moment that it is true. What then? How do we rectify the situation, as we are about to careen off the cliff in a driverless, brakeless vehicle?

I can’t do justice to the essay here but I encourage you to read it in its entirety.

I will say that I agree with many points made by the writer, but I tend to agree with the commenter NZT, who says, among other things, that this apparent lack of power is often just a cover for lack of will to do certain things, whether for political or ideological reasons — or just for reasons of sloth and ineptitude, or even malice. The question raised about lack of action by the administration on behalf of the kidnapped girls in Africa, taken captive by Boko Haram, was probably an example of a show of concern being made for political (PC) reasons, but lack of real commitment to do anything. In our corrupt world, showing ‘good intentions’, or virtue signalling, too often stand in for actual caring and ‘compassion.’ What one does means less than saying the ‘right’ things, or the politically correct things. Even for presidents.

And in connection with this question of ‘who is in charge’, who holds the real power, and how does one obtain legitimacy to exercise power, I immediately thought of the writings of Étienne de La Boétie, whose work Discourse on Voluntary Servitude I excerpted years ago on the old blog. Among the main points of that work was that tyranny was always made possible by the acquiescence of the populace. Of the tyrant, he wrote:

“[H]e has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves?

[…](Y)ou can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”

It may be that Rory Stuart, the Tory MP who was quoted at the beginning of this post, is engaging in some deceit himself, attempting to deflate all the ‘tinfoil hat conspiracy theories’ that are out there, attempting — as we’ve read of paid operatives doing on the Internet — to discredit those who point to what is going on under our noses, and those who see patterns at work.

Who knows? It is certainly something to ponder, though it seems as if there is little time to philosophize, as things rapidly build to — what?

Are police to blame?

In the wake of the Dallas murders of policemen, there is a lot of discussion of whether police officers are ‘our enemy’. A significant number of people on alt-right or pro-White blogs declare that they are.

Have so many people had unpleasant encounters with police officers? Is it really that bad out there? I understand the feeling that the police are being made to conform to political correctness, to ‘stand down’ when the ‘protected groups’ are involved in some kind of disturbance — at the expense of innocent White people — Kris Kime comes to mind, as the late Sam Francis describes in a piece from some years ago.

Police departments all over the country have been actively seeking to add more nonwhites (alias ‘Diversity’) to their numbers, for some years now, ever since the Civil Rights uprisings of the late 60s. As is often noted by those with an ounce of awareness, “diversity” in effect means ”fewer Whites.” So most police forces in this country have fewer Whites, and they have also lowered standards for recruits in an effort to find ‘qualified’ nonwhites, because having the correct threshold levels of ”diversity” trumps standards.

So there are fewer White police officers, and yet complaints come in from nonwhites that there are too many Whites, not only in law enforcement but at higher levels.

I’ve personally noticed that there are more female police chiefs in big cities, and that they are usually, as the Canadians put it, ‘visible minorities’, like Heather Fong, the former police chief of San Francisco. A ‘twofer’. And if the female happens to be a lesbian, so much the better, though I don’t know Fong’s sexual orientation, in some cases women in similar positions appear to be lesbian, openly or not.

So political correctness is driving some of the changes in police departments. The idea is always that supposedly a ‘diverse’ police force reflects ‘the community’ and therefore can be appropriately ‘sensitive’ to the various ‘communities’ concerns and above all can win the trust of the people they supposedly protect. We might also say that minorities, in particular blacks, are suspicious of White police officers, believing that Whites are always out to get them, to keep them down, and to outright kill them in cold blood for absolutely no reason. This last is an article of faith for many black people.

Maybe in light of that exaggerated fear of Whites, blacks should in fact have only black police officers patrolling ‘their’ neighborhoods, but the boundary lines between neighborhoods is not always clear-cut, so how would that be accomplished?

The fact that many blacks have a fear and loathing for Whites would indicate that they would welcome separation — but that separation was what the ‘Freedom Riders’ and the orchestrated ‘sit-ins’ in the 60s were meant to abolish, at gunpoint. 

The protesters got what they wanted — and now they object to the result.

Liberia was created so that blacks could have self-rule in a country of their own.

They declined. They stayed, and yet they hate living amongst us. And it’s our fault.

Meanwhile, as policemen have had to become more militarized in response to heightened violence (amongst which segments of the population?) and as they have become more hardened and cynical as a result of our society becoming more corrupt, they are no longer the ‘Officer Friendly’ we were taught was our friend back in grade school. This should not surprise anyone; it is unavoidable in our current society.

We can’t blame police for that.

Personally I trust the police in my town, but then I am blessed to live in a town which is (for now, at least) homogeneous except for the increasing Latino presence. For now, my town has little violent crime. Until recently many people did not lock their doors. Truly. This town has a mostly Northern/Western European-stock population and the police force reflects the demographics. No ‘diversity’, and there is mutual respect between townsfolk and the police. I do sympathize with urban White folk because for years I lived in urban areas including the big, bad NYC area itself. I have not lived a sheltered life. I have seen both sides.  I’ve lived in the North and the South.

Personally? It seems to me that much of the cop-hating sentiment among Whites originates with libertarians or those who have been influenced by libertarian ideas — as have most young people and these days, most ‘conservatives’ who are more libertarian than conservative. Most such people I’ve known were recreational drug users who see ‘the Law’ as at least potential enemies because they know they might be arrested for their drug use or possession. And there is more of an anti-authority feeling on the ”right” than there used to be in the days of the old ‘law-and-order’ kind of right-winger.

A disclosure: I do have one person in my extended family, a second cousin, who is in law enforcement. So maybe I am not impartial here, but I notice that fewer people now are willing to give the police a fair shake. However, if things become more chaotic and out-of-control, some of us may find that that ‘thin blue line’ might be a necessary presence, and we might find that we have some like-minded allies, people who, like us, value our kinsmen and our families first and foremost. Treating them as our enemies won’t help us.

“What you mean, ‘we’?”

For those of you who may be too young to get the reference in the title, it’s from the punch line of an old, pre-PC joke. It went something like this:

The Lone Ranger says “Looks like we’re surrounded by hostile Indians, Tonto.”

Tonto replies: ”What you mean ‘we’, White Man?

In this latest from Fred Reed, he uses the word ‘we’ in a similarly questionable way. Writing about the recent political/racial violence directed at Trump supporters, and looking at the overall context — illegal and legal immigration out of control, warring ethnic/religious/racial groups, Reed says:

Somebody needs to take command to end this nonsense before it becomes irremediable. But is it possible? There is no nice way to do it. The scum will ignore niceness. The police would have to beat the living dog-snot out of rioters, charge them with assault, and put them in slam for the maximum. Controlling them would require martial law in cities in insurrection and the shooting of arsonists and looters. Universities would have to expel without recourse of misbehaving college children. These would take stomach, which we do not have.”

While I can find little with which I can disagree there, I can’t help questioning the word ‘we’ as he uses it. What you mean ‘we‘, Fred? Most of your readers are still in this country, while you are ensconced in Mexico — the land from which many of our enemies are coming — and you are married to a Mexican and raising Mexican children. So who is this ‘we’?

Maybe my patience has long since worn too thin but I consider that anybody who appears to have thrown in his lot with Mexico and the Mexican people is no longer part of the American ‘we’, or the White ‘we.’

Most pro-White men condemn White women who marry outside our folk and who bear children of another race, and rightly so. But strangely few people mention the irony of Reed implicitly including himself in the American ‘we’ or the White, Anglo ‘we’ when his choices say that he prefers Mexicans over his own folk.

Actions speak louder than words. Marrying and producing children with a genetically distant mate says that you have no real loyalty to, or even real regard for the future of your own folk. I suspect at heart, despite Reed’s blunt way of writing, he is more of a libertarian — even a ‘colorblind’ libertarian than a nationalist: you know, the right of the individual over the duty to the kin-group, the people to whom you belong by blood.

Deny it though we might, we’re part of an unbroken chain: we are part of our ancestors and we owe them allegiance. We owe it to them to follow their example and carry on the heritage, to keep faith with the past. We are not ‘islands’, entire of ourselves.

And we owe our posterity something. We owe a future to the unborn generations. We have no right to let their future be stolen.

Reed’s children, Mexican as they are (by birth, genetics, and very much by phenotype) have a home and a people in Mexico. Will our progeny have a national home at all? Will their children be absorbed into the ‘huddled masses’ eventually, or be despised in the country their ancestors founded?

Loyalty to our own folk is something that must be rediscovered. In these times we will see testing of this loyalty, and find out who is ‘of’ us and who is not.

Canonizing and demonizing

At SBPDL, there is a post about the recent media canonization of celebrities who have died in recent years, namely Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Prince, and now Cassius Marcellus Clay (better known by his Moslem name, Muhammad Ali.) Incidentally, how many are aware that Cassius Clay/’Muhammad Ali’ was named after another Cassius Clay, a White Southron politician? I would suspect very few. I suppose one motive for the name change was the fact that it was seen as servile for a black to be named after a White politician, even though that politician “saw the light” and became an abolitionist.

But back to the main point: the people we are being encouraged (almost required) to honor and speak reverently of, now that they are dead, were people that in previous times would not have earned public respect and approval; quite the opposite. I agree fully with Paul Kersey on that point.

I would include David Bowie in the list of people who are being unjustly praised as some kind of heroes, though he was a White Englishman, but he too is being canonized for his ‘service’ in advancing the cause of transgenderism/androgyny and general subversion of traditional morality. In a way, too, I wonder if he is not being given the same adulation as the black celebrities because he, after all, was married to a black woman, so he was an early poster boy for the miscegeny agenda, which is now being very blatantly and obviously pushed on the White population.

Bowie’s ‘race-realist’ fans insist that his interracial marriage ‘doesn’t count’ because the children he fathered were White. Whatever. I do notice that the alt-right/pro-Whites who join in the praise for these people are quick to find ways to rationalize to themselves their admiration for these people, and to defend that loyalty against fellow Whites who challenge it. It’s amazing how adept people can be at rationalizing and compartmentalizing — but “a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways” as a certain Book says.

Though I agree with the overall message of Kersey’s post, I am disappointed to note that he is of the growing body of alt-right/pro-White bloggers who blame the post-war Baby Boom generation for everything that is wrong.

“It’s becoming increasingly obvious the Baby Boomer generation offered absolutely nothing of value save their slavish devotion to their own racial dispossession.”

All right, but what, exactly have succeeding generations offered? All the statistics I’ve seen on racial attitudes, immigration, and general political orientation show that each generation is more liberal in every way, especially on race and immigration matters, more politically correct, and yes, more ‘cucked’ than their Baby Boom elders (parents or grandparents).

The polling finds that older generations – Boomers and especially Silents – do not fully embrace diversity. Fewer in these groups see the increasing populations of Latinos and Asians, as well as more racial intermarriage, as changes for the better. For many Silents in particular, Obama himself may represent an unwelcome indicator of the way the face of America has changed. Feelings of “unease” with Obama, along with higher levels of anger, are the emotions that most differentiate the attitudes of Silents from those of the youngest generation.

Critics of boomers, from what I’ve been witnessing, don’t offer any statistics or facts to back up their sweeping assertions and broad-brush generalizations. I have never yet once seen any facts or data to back these assertions, which a lot of people make. I’ve written blog posts asking for some specifics, and though people on the right pride themselves on dealing with facts and reality rather than emotion, no facts have been brought out to support the ‘boomers are guilty’ claims.

I always wonder just why, exactly, the Baby Boom generation is despised by the later generations. Is it because of their hedonistic, juvenile lifestyle? If so, why do the succeeding generations appear to be outdoing the boomers in hedonism and extreme behavior?

Were boomers more liberal than the Gen X, Gen Y/Millennials on racial matters? Not if you go by the numbers of people who marry outside their race and who have children who are racially mixed. The younger generations far surpass the older people this way.

Or was it the boomers’ opposition to the Vietnam war? I’ve noticed that today’s alt-right is more anti-war than even the boomers were, so that can’t be the cause of the animus.

As to who passed all the laws which led to today’s civilizational train wreck, the ‘Civil Rights’ act, Brown vs. Board of Education, the Hart-Celler immigration travesty of 1965, Roe v. Wade in the 70s, and feminism — those were the work  of earlier generations; the post-war baby boomers were not of age and did not control Congress or government, not by a long shot, when those things were inflicted on us.

Even the ‘counterculture’, whose principles still guide the younger generations (recreational drug use, legalizing drugs, ‘free love’, easy abortion, idolizing the Third World, tattooing, body piercing, the general vulgarity of our culture today) can’t be called the work of the sixties youth; it was originated by older generation members, people like Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsburg, the so-called ‘Beats’, Owsley the LSD apostle — all of them well past their youth in the 1960s. Some of these people are known to have connections to Intelligence, and the whole counterculture was likely conceived by people in high places; it was a great vehicle for subverting everything good in America.

I would applaud the Gen X, Gen Y, and all the younger people for loathing boomers — IF they by doing that repudiate and shun all the destructive aspects of the Counterculture, all of the things I listed above. But that doesn’t seem to be happening; the younger generations seem to carry on the worst traditions of the worst of the boomers.

Finally I do find it most ironic that many people who detest boomers are looking to a baby boomer — Donald Trump — as the only possible hope for extricating us from this mess.  And Trump is not that atypical; the ‘hippies’ were a smallish segment of that age group who were hyped and publicized to excess by the media, magnifying their actual numbers and influence. The influence they did have, as a small group, was created by the media, and apparently used by the Powers that Be.



Anti-whites ‘fuel nationalism’

…Specifically White nationalism, which someone named David Marcus thinks is a bad thing, a uniquely undesirable form of nationalism. David Marcus says Whites must not tribalize, like every other group of people on the planet do; we must look at others only as individuals, not as members of a group.

I guess that is to be expected coming from someone named David Marcus; there is a definite pattern of Jews discouraging ethnocentrism or ethnopatriotism on the part of White ‘gentiles’, especially Christians, while claiming the right for their own people to be the most ethnocentric and nepotistic people on planet Earth.

As some of you reading this know to be true, I was a latecomer to acknowledging the Jewish role in what is happening to White countries. Maybe I was just unwilling to touch such a radioactive subject, seeing how anyone who criticizes or even notices patterns among Jews is slapped down as an ”anti-Semite” who is thereby discredited.

But at a certain point I could not avoid noticing the part played by Jews in promoting multiculturalism, and cultural Marxism in all its forms, as well as opposing the influence of Christianity in our society. And it is obvious that Jews have, because of the victim culture, been placed above scrutiny heretofore — which is the ultimate form of political correctness.

The Jewish question aside, it is indefensible to deny Whites the simple right to secure and promote their own ethnic/genetic interests, especially in a world in which everyone else asserts their own tribal/ethnic/racial/religious identities, often in the most militant and aggressive ways. And yet we, and we alone, are carefully monitored and censured if we dare to think of ourselves as a discrete group with ethnic interests of our own, or heaven forbid, to assert our identity.

And it is hardly possible for anyone to deny that the percentage of Whites is fast diminishing in this upside-down world in which the most backward countries are seeing their populations explode, hence the spillover into Europe and North America as well as Australia and New Zealand. Wherever White people live, their relative numbers are shrinking in proportion to the population of the undeveloped nations. White people are a small minority of the total world population, and getting smaller. Yet paradoxically only Whites have been hectored about limiting family size or foregoing having children at all. Mother Earth can’t support more people — at least White people, apparently.

We are under an existential threat. And yet we are being told to think of ourselves only as isolated individuals with no kinship ties, cultural heritage, or history. We are just two-legged, tool-using mammals and that’s all the identity we need.

I would love to see this Marcus write the same piece addressed to the people of Israel and see how well it sells there. Or the diaspora Jewish community; are they willing to give up their group identity in favor of being ‘just individuals’?

And let’s not single out Jews; blacks are extremely ethnocentric. Think of the O.J. Simpson verdict; blacks cheered the verdict because one of their ‘own’ was getting off Scot-free, and they thought that was ‘justice.’ Blacks see everything through the prism of their race. Mexicans are nationalistic/ethnocentric to an extreme degree also; let’s see Mr. Marcus preach ‘individualism’ to Latinos, and warn against the extremists in La Raza or MeCha or any other nationalistic extremist organization.

This passe libertarian idea of ‘just individuals’ is inimical to our survival in today’s tribalistic world. Why should we alone be expected to give up our identity (which we have always had; it is not artificially created) and make ourselves vulnerable to the multitude of aggressive ethnic groups who have been introduced without our consent into our national home, our living space?

Mr. Marcus, like many of the deracinated ”right”, tries to make ”nationalism” a dirty word. “White” nationalism is a doubly-dirty term in the minds of such people because to them Whites are congenitally guilty of something. These same people use terms like ‘White nationalism’ promiscuously and inaccurately. They also conflate WNism with ‘Supremacy’, and that is dishonest or ignorant. Scarcely anyone wants ‘supremacy’ in the sense of ruling over other races. We simply want what all peoples have wanted: a place to be ourselves, amongst our own, in a land that is our homeland, our secure place. And the evil ”14 words” are about nothing more than the right to live unmolested amongst our own ethnic kin, the right to live and to ensure a future for our children, our progeny.

That is, after all, what brought our forefathers to this country. And when they established an independent nation here, they said explicitly that it was for themselves and their progeny. Not for the whole world, and most certainly not for those who were openly hostile or incompatible with this nation’s people, or for anyone who openly worked against the interests of the people of this nation.

Below the title of this blog, you will see the words ‘Ourselves and our posterity.’

From the beginning, this country was about securing the existence of our people and a future for their/our children.

Where is the evil in that? And why should we willingly renounce that?

Creating ourselves?

Most of you have probably come across this video showing college students giving their views on identity. The students in the video are obviously extremely deluded about the nature of identity. I know that many millennials have been spoon-fed this idea that we are all in the business of ‘creating ourselves’, and that there are absolutely no limitations on who or what we might become if we decide that is what we want to be.

The man who, like Bruce Jenner, believes he is a woman (or simply pretends to believe it) is entitled to be treated as a woman, no matter how grotesque the masquerade may be; any refusal by others to go along with his self-delusion is now practically a “hate crime”, if it is not already so in some places. There are those on the right (usually the libertarians) who insist that the social issues don’t matter; worrying about restrooms or ‘trans-genderism’ is just driving potential allies or converts away. No; it all matters. It goes to very basic issues about reality. How can anyone claim to be sane and sensible if they are willing to humor delusional people who imagine they are something they are not? What does it do to our society and to our consciences and our sanity if we do?

We’ve all seen the ‘slippery slope’ in action over the last several decades. Most people did not react much when the left began their socio-sexual revolution a few decades ago. Nobody thought it was so bad when we began to be more ”accepting” of homosexuality; after all, if it was between consenting adults, behind closed doors, who are we to judge? And so on. Now there is open advocacy for pedophilia, and those closed doors behind which people’s sexuality was to have stayed are now wide open. Now we have ‘gay pride’ parades on public streets, flaunting what until recently was considered shocking and obscene. Sexuality is no longer private; the younger generations in particular see nothing wrong with public sexuality, nor do they even think of anything much as obscene — judging by what one sees on Tumblr.

So now we have this public official telling us that states can’t legislate identity, as she put it. If a man insists he is a woman, he is a woman, although isn’t this ”legislating identity”? Of course it is. And more than that, it is declaring that a falsehood is true, because the almighty State (federal government) says it is true. Never mind the man’s Y chromosome; the State is the arbiter of identity, not Nature, not DNA, not chromosomes, and above all, not our Creator-God.

I’ve mentioned before this odd phenomenon of young people declaring themselves to be ‘gender-fluid’, and what’s even more bizarre, this notion of Otherkins, or people who insist they are something other than human, or perhaps an inanimate object. Some may dismiss this as a kind of freakish phenomenon (which it is) which will be a brief fad (it may not). Considering the other forms of identity-insanity which are now accepted, at least by the young and the delusional Left, we can’t rule out anything as a potential new popular form of madness.

It might not be so unsettling if all this did not have the force of government behind it, telling us that we must be complicit in pretending all this craziness is legitimate, and true — just because the individual in question declares it so. Is Truth that elastic and that subjective?

We know that the postmodern influence has brought about this notion that there is no such thing as objective truth, only competing ”narratives.” My ”narrative” is true for me, and you cannot tell me that it is not. The interviewer in the video could not get the interviewees to deny him his ‘right’ to think he is a tall Asian woman, not a short White man.

Apparently the federal government agrees, and will compel us all to pretend along with the deranged people who think they are inanimate objects, or housecats — or ‘transgender.’

I wonder,though, if this Ms. Lynch would agree with some ‘transracial’ White who, like many young White people, wants to be black? Would, say, Elizabeth Warren, the pretend ‘Native American’ politician be declared legally an Indian simply because she wants to be one, or has delusions that she is? If leftist were logical (and they’re not) then people could assign themselves a race. I think that lots of liberals would decide they are black or Native American. Anime and manga fans might decide they are Japanese. Being White is not very desirable for a lot of mind-conditioned White Americans. Maybe this is why a surprisingly large number of White Americans claim they have ‘Cherokee’ ancestry, even absent any proof. I went to grad school with such a woman, who looked 100 percent European by ancestry, but whose family had an ‘oral tradition’ of some Cherokee blood. She made a pilgrimage to visit the Cherokee tribal headquarters in search of proof of her ancestry — which she never found, but she refused to give up her story of Native American blood. White people often cherish that; why? Why do people identify themselves by a small part of their ancestry which is very diluted — say 1/16th or 1/32? Isn’t that yet another form of delusional wishful thinking? Why not identify with the other 15/16th of your ancestry? Anyone know the answer to that one?

We are what we are born; we don’t ”create ourselves”. We can’t be another ethnicity or race than what we are; genetics are a given. So-called transgenders can’t change their x or y chromosome, no matter how many surgical mutilations they undergo. White women can’t become Native American. Nor can they become black.

Those of us who are Christians should remind ourselves that we can’t be party to a lie, or give assent (or pretend to give assent) to a lie. Those who ‘love and make a lie’ will not enter the Kingdom. The Truth matters. We can’t be complicit in this web of lies.

Of bad girls and bad societies

RamZPaul discusses whether or not feminism has anything to do with the ‘bad girl’ epidemic of today, and how, if at all, it affects the ”AltRight.” I offer my thoughts here rather than in his comment box because for some reason I cannot always get a comment to post on Blogger. The issue requires more than a couple of sentences in response, anyway.

First, I will agree with RamZPaul that ‘bad girls’ have always existed, because human nature has always contained the potential for bad behaviors. However, I disagree that things were ‘no better in the old days.’ This is an often-heard sentiment these days, though it’s most often to be heard from liberals, who believe the old days to be worthy only of condemnation. After all, the ‘old days’ is where all the sexists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, bigots, prudes, and hypocrites resided, and therefore the old days have to be spat on at every turn. Popular culture constantly depicts the old days in a sneering fashion, or didactic tones. One example: the movie ‘Pleasantville’, which was apparently a critical success but was nonetheless a blatant piece of propaganda, meant to deride sexual restraint and morality as ‘repression’, something that robbed life of color and fulfillment. The answer was for everybody to learn to break the rules with gusto, and really live. The past of Pleasantville was a heavy-handed caricature of what real 1950s America was, but then when most movie viewers of today have no first-hand knowledge of life before cultural Marxism destroyed everything, few question this negative view of the past.

Feminism is, in fact, in large part responsible for much of the sluttishness which is prevalent among women today. It isn’t just the younger women; it’s across age groups. Even ‘Christian’ girls and women of my acquaintance are almost as casual about sex and as lacking in modesty as are the non-believing ones. The Church (by which I mean all organized Christianity) has failed to teach young people about sexual restraint or modesty — but then, even if they tried, the siren call of the media and of course the wide-open public square ‘educate’ young people about hedonism and so-called ‘sexual freedom’ at a very young age. Children in grade school are more sexually savvy than most high-school students were in the 1950s.

Does that mean that there was no bad behavior and no ‘bad girls’ back in that pre-feminist era? Of course not; I concede that. But as with any generalizations, it’s a question of percentages or proportions. The ‘bad girls’ in the 1930s, for example (RamZPaul uses an image of female outlaw Bonnie Parker as an illustration of the presence of bad girls in that era) were a smaller subset of girls then, and what is more important, there was a strong social stigma attached to the behavior of such girls and women. Bonnie Parker no doubt was already considered beyond the pale when she took up with her partner-in-crime Clyde Barrow. Women and girls knew then that when they adopted a certain kind of persona and lifestyle, they forfeited social respect. Nowadays, no stigma attaches to the worst behaviors among women and young girls. Look at the female celebrities who are most popular. Sluttish behavior is described as ”empowering”, and women who flaunt such attitudes are admired and rewarded. This is all the fruit of feminism, and feminists have made being a ‘slut’ a good thing.

The act of admiring and rewarding any behavior will reinforce it and produce more of it.
Young girls today don’t see anything demeaning about, say, becoming a stripper. A young ‘Christian’ woman I know said that she saw nothing wrong or immoral about stripping, and that it’s ”just another way of making a living, and it pays better than most jobs.” Even prostitution is now labeled euphemistically as ”the sex industry.” How is that for removing the element of morality from the equation?

Back in the old days (or the ‘not-so-good-old-days’, depending on your point of view) most people would have agreed with what I am writing here, where morality is concerned. Now, thanks to leftist social engineering and propaganda, of which feminism was a big part, views like those I’m expressing are judged as ‘prudish’ or ‘old-fashioned.’ Almost everybody now believes that it’s better to be without any restraints at all than to be ”repressed”, as they insist people of the past were.

Society is decidedly worse today by all objective measures, such as prevalence of STDs, infertility resulting directly from those STDs, marriage and divorce rates, low birth rates amongst our folk, teen pregnancy and abortion, and ‘mental illness’ rates. Just count the number of people you know who are on some kind of psychoactive drug. None of this reflects improvement in society over the decades; quite the opposite.

In the past, too, there was no such mass phenomenon as ‘self-hating’ Whites, wiggerized teens and young people, or out-of-control immigration, tolerated by a passive population. This doesn’t indicate a healthier society, in comparison with the past. With all the talk about ‘personal self-esteem’, why don’t we as a people think more of ourselves? What’s needed is not phony self-esteem, but self-respect, which is a different thing. Being worthy of respect leads to respecting oneself and one’s own. And women should be at the heart of raising children with the right attitudes to life and themselves. I wonder, too, if young people raised without any personal boundaries — for example, girls who are promiscuous, who let their private space be invaded so easily, grow up to be people who think there should be no boundaries in the wider world — that we should tolerate anything and anyone, in the name of ‘openness.’ Isn’t promiscuity just a personal and unhealthy kind of ‘openness’? It reflects our society.

I think the left has done a spectacular job of getting most Americans, especially those too young to remember, to believe the past was a dystopian place, not fit for today’s ”enlightened” people to live in. Above all, they don’t want anyone to respect the past or the people of past eras. Tearing down the past, comparing it unfavorably to today’s chaotic world, is part of their plan. If we have nothing left worth reviving from the past, much less preserving what remnants are left, then the social engineers can go on remaking the world in their ugly image.

If the AltRight considers it desirable to incorporate a lot of the left’s social attitudes in order to succeed amongst the younger generations, then they’ve already compromised themselves to the extent that they cannot provide a healthy alternative to this unacceptable mess we find ourselves in.