Faye’s important book

I expect you’ve all heard about the late Guillaume Faye’s recent book, titled Ethnic Apocalypse. I haven’t read it as yet; I just read the review, by Andrew Joyce, on The Occidental Observer. I certainly plan to read it.

Ethnic Apocalypse should be considered essential for anybody in the West who values and loves their heritage, their folk, and their home. Faye, who died recently from cancer, showed a degree of bluntness in his writing from which he had previously refrained. Many of us, I think, including me, find ourselves doing a lot of self-censoring, as it seems we are being scrutinized more than ever, lest we indulge in reckless truth-telling. But Guillaume Fay, knowing his life would end soon, seemed to be emboldened by that fact — in that situation, you have nothing to lose, and he speaks frankly, not burdening himself with euphemisms in describing the real world.

It must be a exhilarating to realize that you are freer to state facts as they are, and according to Faye’s assessment of those facts, they are very stark. I think so many of us, whether in France or in this country, or any Western country have become far too accustomed to monitoring our thoughts and our speech. Too many of us have learned, maybe as a defensive behavior, to stifle any thought of what is going on before our eyes; we don’t want to believe the situation is as dire as Faye says in his book. Why is that? I ask myself (and any others I feel free enough to talk with about this) why our people are so passive and supine? Despite the dishonest media’s efforts to paint us as ”the problem”, and to label us as ”supremacist” — how can one be a supremacist when we can’t even speak freely , and when we’re laden a staggering load of guilt?

So Guillaume Faye, no longer fearing the censors and witch-hunters in the media and the ‘collaborationists’ (accurately described), predicts a descent into some sort of war, a three-sided war. Just as in most Western countries, the authorities almost always side against the native population in favor of the Others; it’s quite brazen and undisguised. So those who shamelessly favor the Others. The authories treat the indigenous French as the wrongdoers, even in the face of events like the incident, cited in the book, where a French priest was attacked in his church while saying Mass. The priest, as I recall, was over 80 years old; his throat was cut in front of his horrified parishioners. How much more of this kind of thing is to come? And it is far from being an isolated event, or a rarity. Andi it could have been avoided; could still be avoided. If.

Faye says things can only worsen until or unless the tide turns, he says, in the face of some kind of major event which would change the French people’s passivity or lack of response to these atrocities.

Although the book seems, from what I’ve read of it, to be quite stark and, for some people probably, too ‘harsh’ in tone. But the truth is the truth, and I believe Faye saw things clearly; without the denialism and the self-deception that has become so commonplace among the ‘normies’ or even some on the right.

It’s heartening to see Faye dispensing the truth, and doing so without hindrance from political correctness, without trying to soften his statements with PC disclaimers — such as the feeble phrase: ‘but they’re not all like that‘. No such appeasement is found in the quotes in Andrew Joyce’s review.

I haven’t read much of Faye’s work, though I’ve been aware of the Identitarian movement in Europe. I will frankly say I found Identitarianism to be too intellectual for the majority — but then again I’ve said that it never requires ”the masses” or a majority for a movement to become popular or dominant. The masses, the majority or the ‘normies’ are usually found sitting out any important changes or movements. Usually, as the familiar quote from Samuel Adams has it, it does not take a majority to prevail, but an ‘irate, tireless minority’ keen to set brushfires of freedom in the minds of the people. And Americans are apparently not even at the ‘irate’ stage. Nor, according to Faye, are the people in France. “How blind are my people.” It’s the same over most of the West.

Faye is ‘well out” of the situation in this troubled world, and I hope that his book, written when he knew his life was soon to end, was not written in vain, only to fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. I hope he will be rememberd not as a ‘voice in the wilderness’, championing a forlorn hope like Enoch Powell, who also made dire predictions, but who was shouted down.

I hope Faye’s book will be widely read and taken to heart. Americans tend to be blindly optimistic in some cases; some of the people I’ve discussed this with dismiss it with the reply that ‘oh, it won’t be bad; people will assimilate and marry-in with our people and that will solve it.’ Kalergi would like that response. And then there are those who act concerned but quickly go back to saying that ‘at least our president is on our side.’

We need optimism, but not the blind and pollyannaish kind. I heard a term ‘hardboiled optimism’, and I think that’s what is essential: not to become cynical and fatalistic, which many of us have done, but to be realistic and strong-minded, determined, without succumbing to the fatalism. We also need fearless men like Guillaume Faye, and is there any such likely advocate here in our country?

Forgiveness vs. justice

Remember the shocking incident that happened in April of this year at the Mall of America? The one in which a 5-year-old child was thrown off a balcony? The boy survived despite his injuries, thank God.

Now, the man who threw the boy off the balcony has been sentenced to 19 years in prison, seemingly a very light sentence, all things considered.

The aspect of this situation that seems to have become de rigueur is for the family of the victim to publicly announce their forgiveness of the one who harmed or killed their loved one.

And then there is the usual arguing online where some denounce the virtue-signaling that has become the expected reaction from the families of the victim. Is it virtue-signaling? Or is it just a plain-and-simple misunderstanding or misapplication of Christian morality? Or — the other option — are we who find fault with the families’ action lacking in Christian forgiveness and charity ourselves, while the families are right?

To begin with, I don’t think it’s up to us, the public, to forgive something like this; we are not the ones to suffer when someone is harmed or killed —except for the small detail that our society is damaged: our faith in other people, and our ability to be trusting, are damaged if not destroyed.

But it’s not for us, the public, to ‘forgive’ someone who commits a crime like this, or to offer them something like ‘absolution’ for their crimes.

A true ‘justice’ system would have the punishment fit the crime, and in most cases, what with plea bargains, with shyster ‘defense attorneys’ who play for sympathy towards their defendant, and with many notoriously lenient judges who give a slap on the wrist to violent offenders, justice is not being served in many cases. And yet, even with a lack of appropriate punishment for the crime in question, there should be no reason for us to expend so much pity and sympathy on criminals, especially for anyone who has exactly zero sympathy or mercy towards an innocent child — or anyone else, for that matter.

Then there are those inevitable comments that we have to ”hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

Next time someone says this in my presence I will be sure to ask them for the Biblical chapter and verse. If it’s a Biblical command, as many people believe it is, let’s ask them to cite the place where it is found in the Bible.

I believe my readers know it isn’t in the Bible, and it wasn’t said by Jesus Christ. Some authorities cite Mohandas Gandhi as the one who taught it. But his words are not binding on Christians, and that saying is not consistent with Christian teaching.

Speaking for myself, I don’t think it’s humanly possible to ”love” a criminal who has seriously harmed or killed a beloved relative, especially a helpless child. Not all of us have lost a relative in that way, but I don’t think it’s possible for us to “love” the guilty person as we love others, and I think it’s a hard burden to ask a grieving relative to carry.

Another little detail: sins don’t exist without a sinner, a person who is a moral agent who chooses to do wrong. Sins don’t exist without a sinner.

And in loving the sinner, as is the case with the relatives of a criminal, the tendency is to minimize the seriousness of what that person did, to rationalize it and make excuses. ‘Love’ which loves only the wrongdoer and shows indifference to their wrongdoing is a very narrow and selfish thing.

The psychological worldview seems to cast people as merely ‘evolved’ apes, and to make excuses for sins or crimes, demanding that we see the victimizer as just another victim.

But a wrongdoer chooses to do what he does. So how is it possible to love someone who harms a child, especially our own child? At best it might be possible to feel some kind of reluctant sympathy, depending. But love?

Perhaps God can love such people but the Bible indicates that God loves selectively. Some believe, however, that God loves even the worst human beings, or so they say, but what about Malachi 1:3? Naturally I am not going to try to argue theology here, just basic common sense, and a Biblical worldview, not one colored by psychology, psychiatry, and New-Age fluff.

In any case, I am not condemning the parents, who must have gone through great agonies after what happened to their child; I know everybody is being taught and conditioned to appear ‘nonjudgmental’, even in situations like this one, and everybody seems to feel compelled to ”virtue-signal”, to indicate that they are not guilty of the sin of ”judgmentalism” or that greatest-of-all-evils, the ”r-word.” Almost everyone adopts the worldview that the media and the educational system inculcates in us. Few people are learning Biblical Christianity. According to recent polls most Christians hold many New Age beliefs, and do not have a traditional Christian worldview. We can’t hold both simultaneously; they are not compatible.

One more thing: forgiveness has to be preceded by repentance, and there’s no evidence that the guilty party in this story has repented, or has even gone through the motions of pretending to repent. Some people say it’s essential to the families to forgive, just so they can ‘feel better’ or ”attain closure” or something. That may be so, but is it necessary to make a public announcement of forgiveness? Better to do so privately and quietly. Doing it publicly and without repentance from the wrongdoer can just trivialize the crime itself, making it look like a minor transgression that can easily be ‘forgiven and forgotten’.

Cthulhu and ‘wokeness’

Those who read H.P. Lovecraft will want to read Thomas Bertonneau’s piece at The Orthosphere. It’s titled Woke: Cthulhu Awakens. The whole society does seem to be moving in the direction of the sort of weird, sinister milieu that Lovecraft depicted in his stories, especially the Cthulhu mythos stories.

Bertonneau ties it all up in a convincing package. It’s a good read and it’s thought-provoking.

American Reconstruction — circa 1919

When we hear or read the term ‘Reconstruction’, those of us from the South at least, tend to think of the process that was inflicted on the former CSA, but in 1919 or so, the R-word of that day was more likely to refer to the planned process of re-making not just the world map post WWI, but remaking the minds and hearts of the former combatant nations, specifically the Western/European world.

Nowadays many people, lacking a good education in 20th century history, think that the Left’s current offensive is peculiar to our day, whereas when we look at books of the early 20th century we find that the Left was already barking mad back then. For example; there were leftist parties in America which were very much active , and in the wake of WWI there were violent episodes, such as incidents involving the out-of-control Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, also known as ‘Wobblies’). In a shocking episode, IWW members lynched and castrated a military veteran, and killed four other men in a separate shooting episode, in Centralia, Washington. The Pacific Northwest has long been a hotbed of this kind of fanaticism. Of course current sources say that IWW violence is a ”myth” but then myths don’t kill people.

The antifas, aggressive and brutish as they are, are kiddies compared to their counterparts of a hundred years ago. This is not to downplay the malice of the antifas but to remind us that the violence and unrest are not peculiar to our troubled time, but another instance of a recurrent, chronic phenomenon.

The unrest of the post-WWI era also manifested in the form of — well, manifestos. Lost of rhetoric appeared involving how humanity must learn to live together in harmony, or else — or else humanity would destroy itself in rampant senseless wars. The answer, according to our betters, who were writing book upon book urging peace at all costs, was for us all to transcend nationalism and learn to join together.

A few examples of the many books that appeared circa 1919 were: Reconstructing America (subtitle: Sociologically and Economically) by one Benjamin J. Rosenthal, and another tome, also called Reconstructing America, subtitled ‘Our Next Big Job‘. It was a compilation of essays by ‘respected’ invidivuals including Woodrow Wilson, Paul Warburg, and John D. Rockefeller Jr., From the introduction:

“We are in the throes of a new order, conscious of a new spirit of toleration and mutual interest…

Yet another book, by Cecil Fairfield Lavell, also printed in 1919, also used the word ‘Reconstruction’ in its title – (Reconstruction and National Life). Among the ideas promoted in that book were the ‘fusion’ of different ethnic and racial groups, suggesting that this would be the best answer, a sure deterrent to future conflicts. Another odd idea there: that intensified nationalism, though feared by the intelligentsia, might in fact fuel internationalism. I suppose this meant that they thought people were so war-weary (understandably so, after the horrors of WWI) that they would reject nationalism. Or were they intending to try a kind of aversion therapy by allowing nationalism to go to such excesses that people would reject it in favor of the ‘One World’ nostrum?

Shades of the Kalergists.

In all my reading of old books in the last year or two, focusing on the WWI era and earlier, it becomes obvious that the situation in which we find ourselves is not of recent origin; it’s been brewing for at least the better part of a century, and much longer than that if you go back at least to the era of the rise of the Jacobins. Yet we can only seem to see causes in much more recent times.

But these things, having deeper roots than we have imagined, will be harder to deal with if we don’t consider their long-established presence in our country and in Europe.

Sticks and stones

Thanks to the perpetual propaganda machine that is the media, we’ve heard a constant barrage of rhetoric, the most popular being the term ‘supremacist’. Needless to say, the term ‘supremacist’ is always paired with the word ‘White.’

The media and their masters are intent on playing ‘pin the tail on the supremacist’, and they are relentless when it comes to perpetrating these slanders.

But what does the word ‘supremacist’ mean? According to Merriam-Webster, it means, in simple language for English learners, “a person who believes that one group of people is better than all other groups and should have control over them.”

So, a so-called ‘White supremacist‘ would wish to rule over all other groups in their society, because they believe themselves and their people superior.

Incidentally, I’ve used the term ‘female supremacist‘ to refer to feminists, because the label fits there; most feminists believe women should run the world, because they make better rulers, supposedly. So they are actual supremacists — but there is no stigma associated with that viewpoint.

I think if White people were asked, and if they felt free to give honest answers, few would want to rule over other groups. I certainly have no such wish. The dictionary definition, when applied to ‘White supremacists’, would have them trying to assume rulership over all other ethnic groups, and that’s not what most Whites would want, in my opinion. The media people who are pushing this ‘White supremacy‘ accusation are, as usual, being disingenuous or outright dishonest. Likely the latter.

The media are purposely confusing ‘White nationalism’, which is in bad repute with some on the dissident right these days, with ‘supremacy.’ They are not the same. The idea of White nationalism is that Whites should have control of their own societies, being independent and sovereign. Up until the ‘Civil Rights’ revolution of the 1950s and after, White people, being a solid majority, were the dominant group, culturally, socially, and politically. This was merely the natural situation, in a country in which a large majority were White Americans. However the devious media have twisted those facts into ”oppression” by Whites toward minorities — ”keeping non-Whites down”, as the mantra has it.

Most people, if asked, would probably say that every people has a right to self-rule and autonomy. However the current overheated rhetoric from the media and the reigning far left has it that Whites should be put away, silenced, prosecuted for their ‘deviant’ views. Some media personality suggested that White people should be ”destroyed.” And yet it is White people who are being de-platformed, shadowbanned, and so on. The situation is upside down.

The media have created a bogeyman in ‘White supremacists’. Such people are very rare, all but non-existent. But the media need to keep directing anger and rage from the disturbed left in some direction, and they choose to stoke the irrational rage of the left and point these people toward the mythical ‘White supremacists’ who supposedly lurk everywhere.

To think: the left used to jeer and laugh at the right’s anti-Communism, calling their suspicion of Communists ”the Red scare” or the ”Witch-hunt.”

But what if there were ‘witches’? There certainly were Communists aplenty, as evidenced not just by Joe McCarthy (who was unjustly discredited) but by the proof of the Venona Papers, which have been released by the government, verifying the fears of the right. There were Communists in high places, and many in Hollywood. Now Communism calls itself by other names but the same old totalitarian, tyrannical leanings are still there, and fiercer than ever.

White people, who for now are still a majority in this country, are being scapegoated with this ‘Supremacist’ nonsense.

Every ethnic group, if they are honest, will admit to preferring the society of people of their own folk, people like them, with similar habits and customs, similar ways of expressing themselves. Everyone feels most at home with those more like themselves. That allows us to speak freely, to relax, with no fear of ‘offending’ someone by some offhand comment.

The fact that blacks, Hispanics, et al seem to separate themselves, preferring their own ethnic group and its ways is evidence that it’s natural for people to congregate with those like themselves. It is not ”racism”, whatever that may mean on this particular day. It is nothing to do with ”supremacy”. It is everything to do with human nature, or even animal life, where, as the saying goes, ‘birds of a feather flock together.’ Did you ever see a ‘diverse’ flock of birds, with various species grouping together? Nature does not ”celebrate diversity.” All forms of life form like groups.

Those of us who are Christians are instructed by the Bible, in Deuteronomy 17:15, to choose a leader from among our own people, not a ‘stranger’, but one of our own folk.

In simple English, from the New American Standard Bible,
“…you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.”

I grant you, most White Americans are no longer Christian in the old sense, but I think most would agree that this is the ‘American way’, to have our own folk leading us. I would think other ethnic groups would prefer to be governed by their own, but for some peculiar reason they want to have their cake and penny too, and have their own folk ruling in our country.

And is being a ‘White nationalist’ a bad thing in and of itself? I don’t believe so, despite WN-ism being in disfavor with many on the dissident right; my only objection to it is that it tends to deny differences between White ethnic groups, and in some cases, its followers advocate some kind of pan-Europeanism, where Whites may live in any European country simply by virtue of European ancestry. But what if other Whites choose to keep their ethnic integrity? Still, there is no reason to criminalize anybody who has nationalist beliefs. White Americans were, for the most part, all nationalists up until recent years, and contrary to the horror stories of the left about the Bad Old Days, this country was a good place to live, almost a paradise by comparison with today. And that’s when nationalism was the norm, not a crime.

Some commenters online seem to think that the labelling of Whites as ‘supremacists’ or ‘White nationalists’ will take away some of the stigma associated with those words. It may, or it may be that the left’s hysterical rhetoric will escalate beyond even the excessive levels of today, and Whites may be further scapegoated and hounded by the likes of the masked Antifa, who are surely more of a menace than the extremely rare White who commits some politically-motivated violence.

For years I’ve said that Whites are being deliberately baited and goaded, with all this vitrolic talk from the far left, into acting out, and it is a miracle or a testament to the restraint of White people that so few have in fact acted out. Yet the left keeps on with their incendiary ranting, taunting and slandering and provoking. They are intent, it seems on inciting violence.

I hope and pray that our folk will continue to show restraint but at some point someone on the left should rein in the fulminating far-left, but unfortunately many of the worst offenders are in the media, with their big megaphone, to broadcast their militant rhetoric everywhere. And there seem to be no adults on the left to keep things sane.

Should we be afraid of the labels placed on us? We will be labeled, regardless of whether those labels are accurate or deserved. But just as with the ‘r-word’, we have to slough off the attacks and go on about our lives, despite those who are spoiling for a battle, and despite those who want to silence us.

Uncharted waters

Does it seem as though the world is getting darker and darker? I mean, in the sense of becoming murkier, more uncertain, more unsettled. I’ve been saying this to people for some years now. It’s just something that’s palpable to me, and it’s distressing.

It seems so many recent events are odd, unprecedented, and things are spiralling out of control. Maybe some few don’t feel it, and think I am exaggerating or magnifying things.

The line from Yeats, ‘Things fall apart; the center cannot hold‘ comes to mind. Well, for years I’ve been quoting the rest of that poem, especially the part about ‘the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Was Yeats prophetic? I ask rhetorically, though Yeats was unlikely to have been divinely inspired; he was a dabbler in the occult — more than a dabbler, actually; he was involved with the Aleister Crowley cult, Crowley touting himself as the world’s most evil man, or something of the sort.

At this point, it’s people who dissent from the present day’s orthodoxy who are considered ‘evil’ — people who question the leftist, PC consensus. It’s they and their subservient media who control the narrative and the dialectic.

Thinking back to when I began blogging — that was 13 years ago, I think — there still seemed to be reason to hope that America might wake up from its stupor and see what was transpiring, but no; it seems in retrospect that people were reluctant to open their eyes, and wanted to remain in the dark.

But when I began, I thought there was hope in trying to awaken our folk to our history, our heritage, our traditions — and yes, we did and do have a culture. I hoped to exhort people to some kind of healthy pride and awareness of where we came from, and what we had in our way of life and our very identity. But as time went on, and with the changing of the guard — the passing of the older generations and the new ‘young adult’ generations — there no longer seemed to be a receptive audience to the message I tried to convey. Cynicism is the order of the day, and to be honest it’s partly the fact that some of the younger ones never learned the history of their folk or of this country. History and heritage don’t sell. There is no demand for that it seems.

The pietas to which Cambria Will Not Yield often alludes must be found and restored. But are we ready to do that?

If I had my wish, I would focus on our history, and on our fellow-feeling, our love for our own, for our folk. That, to me, is of value; the political situation is very worrying and maddening at times. I don’t believe there will be a political solution to our crisis.

It seems we’re far from home, without a compass or a map.

Acknowledging we are lost is hard in times like these, at least for those who, like me, tend to be optimistic — though cautiously, much more cautiously so, in these times. We have to be honest and acknowledge that we are in uncharted waters. But then we can’t lose heart and lose hope.

Having just read CWNY’s latest post, his last paragraph says some of what I am thinking:

There are no supports left for the Christian European. Everything Christian and European has been torn asunder. Only our hearts are left. Inside His Kingdom of the heart, we must find the strength to resist liberalism and cling to our European hearth fire. All is indeed cheerless, dark, and deadly – we have only our “trembling faith,” and His promise that He will be with us “alway, even unto the ending of the world.” +

Banishing reality

Now the left is proclaiming that anyone who uses the term ”illegal alien” must be condemned.

Of course this was the panel on ”Meet the Press”, indicating the usual leftist bigotry. I would like to think that the average citizen is more reasonable and not as radically left as is the “Meet the Press” panel.

Why do these people demand ‘condemnation’ of anyone using a factual term? They say that the phrase “illegal alien” is an invitation to violence, that it is ‘dehumanizing’ and lacking in empathy.

Speaking for myself, I have plenty of empathy; I’ve never been accused of a deficiency of that quality — but it’s hard to empathize with people who knowingly flout laws and violate boundaries. I would not empathize with someone breaking into my home, or my neighbors’ homes. Why would I? I’ve never felt an urge to let myself into someone’s home, to sneak in through a window or to break in. The left, who are prone to “empathize” excessively with lawbreakers, inevitably claim that the illegals poor dears are ”forced” to come here lest they die of starvation or fall victim to violence in their own countries. I know of no famine in their home countries, nor are they in fear of their lives from some kind of murderous pursuers. Yet I am still expected to ”empathize” with those millions who ‘let themselves in’ to this country, in violation of laws.

I keep reading about the many leftists who are fleeing to Canada because they so abhor our country and our current political situation. Do those fleeing leftists just saunter across into Canada as the spirit moves them? Do they tunnel across in the dead of night — there are tunnels found on the U.S.-Canada border. But somehow I suspect even the leftists don’t defy the Canadian laws and sneak across in violation of Canadian laws. I would bet they observe the rules and get the necessary paperwork. Funny, that. Why not follow the example of their mascot illegals undocumented pre-Americans? If this world is naturally borderless, and borders are just a socio-political construct, why not just rush the Canadian border and demand your free health care, education, and housing? Seems like a good plan for millions of illegal aliens Americans-to-be; it works for them, as witnessed by the fact that upwards of 30 million have successfully arrived.

By the way, I am not recommending this course of action to anyone, lest anyone twist my words. It’s meant as irony, for anyone who is in doubt.

In any case the Canadians seem to control their borders more closely than we do.

But back to this condemnation business: American citizens, in theory covered by First Amendment freedom of speech, are to be ‘condemned’ for the words they choose to express themselves. Certain words merit condemnation in the left’s eyes, but illegal unlawful entry of another country is something which deserves ’empathy’ and support. What next?

Next? I wouldn’t be surprised to see more de-platforming, more people banned from Twitter and more blogs taken down because of of using speech that the all-powerful left ‘condemns.’ And who gave anyone on the left power to nullify the First Amendment? Who made them gods over the rest of us, to control what we can say and what we can’t say?

Another edict of the left: any mention of ‘conspiracy theories‘, so-called, will possibly bring on more de-platforming and more disappeared blogs — but only one side, the right, is ever targeted for this sort of thing. Funny.

Never mind the fact that conspiracies have happened throughout human history — anytime two or more people collude or cooperate in some sort of plan, that’s a conspiracy. But the left, including those who control which views are heard and which are silenced, thinks they can ban something which undoubtedly is factual.

The left can ban and banish and de-platform all they like, but they cannot erase Truth itself. Truth always wins, ultimately. But the left keeps on working tirelessly to nullify reality.

Needed: return to common sense

I recently read a comment from another blog in which the commenter remarked on the young right’s tendency to indulge in disparaging the Founding Fathers and the original basis of this country. The writer ascribed this popular tendency amongst the young right to the fact that they grew up steeped in the leftism and anti-Americanism that is the reigning orthodoxy in what we term ”schools” and ”universities” these days.

The blog comment caught my attention because it rang true, and I find it disturbing that the right, the young right in particular seems to disdain this country and our past as much as the Left does. Like the commenter whose post I refer to, I don’t see how this viewpoint can be useful in offering an alternative to the present corrupt state of things; it is essentially a cynical and bitter viewpoint which does not embody anything positive. It’s merely another take on the leftist worldview. America is always wrong, has always been wrong, and we have no country, no culture, nothing worth saving, etc.

How did this come about? Obviously the indoctrination educational system sets out to create cynicism and loathing for our traditions, our past, our history, and this effort seems to have succeeded in creating generations of embittered, disconnected people who think that tearing the system down and replacing it with some unknown substitute is the answer. Somewhere along the line, regard for facts and for reality itself has fallen by the wayside. How can we recover it, or can we?

Part of the cynicism which has been engendered by the leftist system is a generational animosity on an unprecedented scale. Do I exaggerate? I don’t think so; it’s hardly possible to read a single thread on most blogs without encountering vitrolic rhetoric about ”boomers”, which term seems to include anyone over a certain age, boomer or not. For example: octogenarian Nancy Pelosi is called a ”boomer” although she is old enough to be a mother to ”boomers.” She is a ‘silent’ generation member, if that means anything (except the obvious fact that she is old).

But the term ”boomer” is an all-purpose insult directed at anyone considered over the hill, and it usually implies unpleasant traits such as ‘fat‘ or ‘stupid‘ just for extra insult value. There is little logic or factual basis for accusing older generations of stupidity, greed, or selfishness, as is currently ascribed to the older age groups. The idea that ”boomers” somehow “ruined’ our country, with no help from anyone else, is absurd on the face of it, presuming some kind of near-supernatural power on the part of a whole generation. By the way, have the elder-haters noticed the obvious fact that the older generations are ailing and dying at quite a rapid rate? Maybe the evil oldsters will continue to exert their baleful influence even from the grave, seeing as how they hold such preternatural power to do evil. Perhaps their ghosts will walk the earth, after death, continuing to work their powerful curse on the hapless Millennials and X-ers who fear them so. Honestly, it would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

I do believe the ‘hate-watch’ groups can stop worrying about their clients being blamed for all the ills of the world, because the Boomers and the Silents have taken over the role of that certain population who were formerly believed to wield such excessive influence. Move over; the Boomers and aged Silent generations are the new villains.

Really, though, believing that the year or decade of one’s birth makes people who they are is just another form of the pseudo-science Astrology; being born in a certain year or era does not make us who we are; what ignorance.

However, having grown up in a time in which the Frankfurt School and Political Correctness is ascendant does affect one’s ability to think clearly and objectively; sadly from Gen-X downward the effect of the propaganda machine is evident.

The generational warfare is just another form of manipulation meant to divide us, our folk, even more than we already are. I believe certain specific bloggers have seeded these nonsense ideas, going back a few years when it all began, and those same bloggers continue to foster these absurd tropes about the generations. Why? Obviously there’s an agenda at work here. Who benefits?

Raspail interview

There’s a very interesting interview with Jean Raspail, author of Camp of the Saints, at Gallia Watch, with an English translation. Of course if you read French the original interview is at Nous Sommes Partout, here.

It’s well worth reading, in my opinion; Raspail, at 94, seems still very lucid and he has some ideas to offer about our current situation in the West. He speaks of ‘islands of survival’, which is something to ponder.

I recommend reading the interview, and I’m interested in any thoughts it might stimulate.