Hiding our political views

According to a Cato Institute survey, many Americans are fearful of discussing their political views with others.

This is understandable, given how insane the political situation is at the moment. Many news articles discussing this issue are fairly biased, with many comments implying that it’s the fault of the ‘extreme’ right.

Years ago a fellow blogger (right-wing, of course) asked why it is that it’s almost always leftists who start contentious conversations about politics in a roomful of people. My opinion was that such people are always looking to start an argument; they love to get the better of opponents by being loud and belligerent. Another factor is that they like to ‘flush out’ any potential enemies; they want to expose anybody on the ”wrong” side and gang up on them when possible: “out” them, shout them down, shut them down.

This happens at family gatherings as well as groups of friends or colleagues.

As it’s a hopeless cause to try to reason with an unreasoning, ill-informed, mendacious leftist, I try not to engage in any kind of political discourse with them. I’m sorry to say that I have some liberal/left relatives who will do their best or worst to try to start a quarrel, knowing how strongly I believe as I do; it’s as though they can’t help themselves, so driven are they to want to verbally assail their opponents.

As long as the left remain in some kind of frenzy over their imaginary bogeymen, there won’t be any sort of relaxing of tensions over politics. I think the left have worked themselves up, or been incited by the malicious media, into a delusional state. So as of now we cannot rationally discuss politics, and that, to me, looks fatal to any kind of reasonable discussion or exchange of ideas, which should be part of living in a civilized country. But clearly we do not live in such a country any more.

Portland protests

In recent years we’ve seen lots of protests by leftists; not so long ago there were critical remarks by some writers about children, even toddlers, being brought to protests and demos.

Now, we’ve got the ‘Wall of Moms’ in Portland, Oregon. This is a new twist, an attention-getter, but it sets a bad example.

It’s hard to find objective news in our controlled media, so obviously the media coverage is favorable towards these mothers who are acting as sort of human shields for their out-of-control, over-aged adolescents. I don’t know the average age of the antifas who are perpetrating these protests, but they seem mostly old enough to know better — and old enough to function without Mommy acting as their keeper or bodyguard.

In an earlier, and saner, time, this whole sideshow would be seen as an example of “hiding behind Mommy’s skirts”; young men would be humiliated. But with this generation of ‘snowflakes’ who are shielded and coddled and humored in their strange notions, there is no shame (or honor) there.

Over these last few chaotic weeks, it seems every day brings new craziness, and I have a feeling there is still more to come.

I can’t understand why these pointless riots, chaos and mayhem for its own sake, have been allowed to go on for 50-something days. It seems no adults are in charge; these Moms are not acting like adults, but attempting to join as peers in their ‘children’s’ antics. Someone has to hold these people responsible for their actions. The “kids” are probably all old enough to be dealt with as the adults they are, and the Moms ought to be subject to penalties of law likewise. And the Moms are too old to be acting out alongside their ‘children’.

But where are the adults who are ready to take charge?

Some people liken these days of disorder to the ‘student unrest’ of the Vietnam War days, and ‘1968.’ I don’t think anything like this happened even then; unless you lived in the Big City or near a major university where the protests happened, you weren’t likely to see a spectacle such as Portland, Oregon is putting on.

Compulsory activism

The following story, by William A Jacobson, out of Cornell University is an example of something I wrote about immediately after the early BLM ‘activism’ Remember the people who were forced by ‘activists’ to kneel or genuflect, or to repeat some shibboleth? I wrote that I thought we would be entering a new phase of this conflict, in which, in order to prove our obedience or ‘loyalty’ to the regime, we would not be allowed merely ‘lip service’ but would have to actively participate in ‘actions.’

I referenced the Book of Daniel, where compulsory worship of the golden image was decreed. Everyone was required to fall down and worship the idol at the sound of the musical cue. It looks like Cornell University is following that example. It seems it isn’t enough to indoctrinate gullible college students into an all-encompassing Leftist, antiwhite worldview. No; they have to actively participate, participating in some kind of action.

This is what I said; it may eventually required of all of us. It has happened in various totalitarian systems. One had to prove one’s loyalty and commitment or be suspected of disloyalty or heresy. I suppose this is a way of weeding out those who are the undesirables.

I encounter young people online who ask how they can ‘help’ the Cause, how they can contribute money from their countries (in Europe, Australia, etc.). The young people are being conditioned to look at this movement as heroic or as a ‘freedom’ movement. Those in other countries have little clue as to what goes on in this country, and it seems that even many of our home-grown young have little idea of reality. If you have college-age children be aware of these things, and of the mental conditioning that they are experiencing.

And it is not just limited to the students and young people. It affects anybody who watches the ‘news’ media or takes in toxic pop culture.

A surprisingly strong piece

Steve Sailer’s piece on Takimag about the “new religion” surprised me in its bluntness in describing the New Order of things. It does have the characteristics of a religion in that it has a system of ‘morality’ of sorts though that morality is inverted, and just as the demands for obeisance (kneeling or genuflecting, and otherwise submitting —isn’t the latter the meaning of the name of a certain Levantine religion?) — and the new religion forbids taking certain names in vain, does it not?

And hasn’t Cambria Will Not Yield used the term ‘worship’ when describing this reverential attitude? He has, for years, and I think some people considered his choice of words to be hyperbole, but here in the Takimag piece, Steve Sailer, who to my mind usually avoids hyperbole, employs the same word as Cambria.

Just as Steve Sailer says, we are now, it seems, filling the role of the lower caste, or the villains. And this is not a new role; we are always assumed to be in the wrong, always the ones to blame — while others are perpetually wronged, never in the wrong.

Nothing good can come of this. If anyone believes (or believed at any time) that a new Golden Age of Harmony is ahead, they are deluded. Ethnic and racial antagonism is at an all-time high, and this at a time when we and our folk are placating and accommodating and appeasing like never before. Things only ever escalate; the tensions never wind down.

And yet it seems that Political Correctness, which amounts to a psychological disarmament, is intensifying and its preachers, including many Republicans, are more insistent than ever about how we have to learn to ‘Unite’ via the melting pot and Civic Nationalism.

If that hasn’t worked for the past 70 years or so, what makes anyone think it can work now? Unless things change greatly things can only deteriorate.

In case you hadn’t heard

For those who might not have heard the sad news, ‘Remus’ of the blog Woodpile Report has passed on, as of July 8. The cause of death was cancer.

I became acquainted with Remus’s inimitable blog back in the 2000s I think, when he left a comment on my then-blog. His particular brand of wit and wisdom was one-of-a-kind. Just take a look at a few of the short tributes to him at this link. He was irreplaceable.

Some of his posts have been archived by a reader, apparently, so if you haven’t had the pleasure you can read some of his work here.

R.I.P., Remus.

Another day, another accusation

So now someone wants to change the name of the Texas Rangers. That is the baseball team. This time the accuser is one Karen (!) Attiah, who is employed by the Washington Post, a paper not known for impartiality.

And Ms Attiah is not really accusing anyone (of what else? Racism, of course); shes just making a bald assertion that the Texas Rangers of legend were guilty. After all, nowadays the accusation is all that’s needed to convict someone. So Ms Attiah, who is from Africa, apparently found some information (sources?) that made the Rangers out to be “cruel” and “racist”, “oppressing black people”. And did she look at other sources which might provide another side to the story? She found what she wanted and probably stopped looking.

It strains credulity to think that MsAttiah and her family never suspected that White people might not have had modern-day Politically Correct attitudes back in the era after the War for Southern Independence. I doubt she was that ingenuous that she never heard of the Rangers having to subdue the very warlike Comanches. That was why and how the White settlers came to Texas. There was a lot of bloodshed. Had the Rangers and the Texas colonists had submissive attitudes like today’s, there would now be no Texas; it would be still a part of Mexico. But then most immigrants don’t learn history. They learn only about how ‘racist’ America is, and how easily most of us ‘take a knee’ when accused or intimidated.

The idea that Texans, after the War, mistreated nonwhites with impunity is just false. Texans, that is, White Texans, were under Occupation during the Reconstruction era, about which I’ve written now and then. Texans, White Texans, were not ‘free’ people really, during that era. Few Americans know anything about that time and the Reconstruction regime. So I don’t expect non-Americans or paper Americans to know about it, though they should.

Just for disclosure’s sake, I am not impartial here either; one of my great-grandfathers was a Ranger in the days of Sul Ross, a name recognizable to most Texans. Sad to say, Sul Ross, a great man, has also been ‘controversial’, being attacked for not having the present-day attitudes demanded of us all.

Incidentally, the black slaves in Texas were mostly concentrated in East Texas. They were not exactly omnipresent in the state. I don’t think my great-grandad had much contact with black slaves nor did many Rangers.

How many more of these scripted denunciations and accusations are there to come? Infinite? It just goes on and on, and the ‘R-word’ is the most overused, worn-out word in the English language. And to think, the word wasn’t widely known until post-WWII, though it was supposedly made up by leftists in the 1930s.

But that word may ultimately bring the demise of our civilization, by death of a thousand cuts, since we seem to be rendered powerless when someone wields that word. It’s the magic weapon; it seems to hit home every time. Guilty.

“And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight:…”

King James Bible, Leviticus, 26:8

Now, it seems to be the reverse; one person, armed with ‘that word’ and that accusation, can put a hundred — or ten thousand — of us to flight. So another name will be made taboo on the strength of one person’s complaint. Again our folk are adjudged guilty. Is there no breaking the pattern?

The ‘descendants’ speak

I see that Ann Coulter has written a piece about the Jefferson descendant who was quoted in the New York Times as saying his ancestor’s memorial should be removed.

Lest anybody think this is a ”me-too” article, written to compete with Ann Coulter’s piece, I had already planned to write this because I was so exasperated with the Times interview with Mr. Truscott. I remembered a previous such interview with some other self-identified descendant of a Southron hero; it may even have been a descendant of General Lee, who likewise spoke against his illustrious ancestor.

First, before that previous article attempting to tarnish the memory of a good (and great) man, I never considered the possibility of a reputable newspaper trolling for someone willing to condemn his ancestor’s character. In times past this would have been considered low and shameful.

Having ancestors who were people of character and accomplishment is in a way a great burden to carry; hoping to match their levels of success and renown can be daunting and discouraging. Do some people cope with that by disparaging their ancestors’ accomplishments as Truscott or the other ‘Founding Father’ descendants have done? If so it is a poor way to react.

How many descendants could Thomas Jefferson have today? Thousands? Potentially, he could, but he was left with only one child to carry on his line, so there many not be many. But I am a Jefferson descendant (my readers have no doubt heard it enough times) and I get incensed when anyone defames my progenitor. I think that’s the natural reaction.

But the Times think they scored some kind of victory by finding one man (out of potentially thousands) to help smear his ancestor’s character. One man’s opinion is hardly the definitive word on the life and accomplishments of Thomas Jefferson.

So suppose Truscott is an actual descendant; is he a direct, lineal descendant? On which side? As far as I know he is not kin to me, and if he were I would not be proud to claim that kinship, seeing that he seems to have decided to side with the slanderers of his own forefather.

I thank Ann Coulter (though she will not see this post on an obscure, low-traffic blog) for reiterating the evidence that gives to lie to the Hemings side’s allegations. All too often those slanders are given as gospel in the media (as the original CNN story about Truscott). All too often people repeat those unfounded lies. Thanks to Ann for her refutation of the lies.

DACA again

I thought that DACA (the anchor babies ‘Dream Act) was over and done with. From what I can recall it seemed that Trump promised his ‘Hispanic base’ that he was going to do it, to help the ‘Dreamers’ get their college degrees, then he wasn’t going to do it, and now he says he will sign an Executive Order involving the ‘Pathway to Citizenship’ promised by George W. Bush. It was his phrase wasn’t it? Or did good old Karl Rove coin that oft-heard phrase?

Whoever thought up that phrase, it’s being heard again. And to my surprise, even the Freepers, who were mostly Trump loyalists, are dismayed at the prospect of this idea being brought back to life. However among the Q faithful, nobody wants to believe it’s true, so they have some convoluted theories about Trump’s’ Cunning Plan; all is not what it seems, and the President must have some clever ruse to fool the Democrats with this DACA business.

I take it at face value. However I would rather be wrong. But I suppose it’s too late to worry about it; demographically, the die is cast. We are still allowing a great many immigrants (legal, illegal, or whatever; it’s all the same), and ‘refugees’. Can America ever recover from that kind of demographic tsunami?

It would seem that maybe Trump is in fact under the influence of his son-in-law or other family members. Otherwise why the chopping-and-changing?

Discussion at the OD blog

At his blog, Hunter Wallace has been having a very intense discussion with a leftist who responded to a post of Hunter’s, centering on the differences between the left and the (alt)-right, or the alt-right as was. I think it’s one of the most in-depth discussions of the respective belief systems or outlooks, and worth reading. As of now it looks like Hunter and his interlocutor are on part 3 of the exchange. I found it very thought-provoking. Hunter has certainly done his homework with respect to history, especially Southern vs. Northern viewpoints.

I think this series of posts is one of the best I’ve seen on the OD blog. This is the kind of thing that should be done more. It’s always good to put the truth out there even though the left seems incapable or unwilling to hear or accept it.

The uniformed ‘protesters’ at Stone Mountain, Georgia?

In my previous post I linked to a Reuters story about apparently armed black men (and at least one woman) who were photographed marching in the Stone Mountain area. I wondered about their purpose in being there. Well, it’s come to light through an eagle-eyed Twitter ‘activist’ that the people who were photographed were actors.

The AJC calls them ‘charismatic young people.’ Would they be described so flatteringly if they had less than the requisite amount of melanin?

Their role and purpose is being treated as just a matter of representing a ‘vision of hope’ for their people. Again, would others be treated with equivalent tolerance if they acted a similar role?

The questions are rhetorical, of course, as always we know what the answers are.