The ‘refugee’ crisis

The following e-mail, from a doctor in Germany, was transcribed by a Czech television host and read aloud to the viewers. The subject is the ‘refugee’ flood which is now engulfing parts of Europe:

Eyewitness from a Munich hospital:

    A friend in Prague has a friend, who, as a retired physician, had returned to work at a Munich area hospital where they needed an anaesthesiologist. I correspond with her and she forwarded me her email. Yesterday, at the hospital we had a meeting about how the situation here and at the other Munich hospitals is unsustainable. Clinics cannot handle emergencies, so they are starting to send everything to the hospitals.

    Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff and, we, women, are refusing to go among those animals, especially from Africa. Relations between the staff and migrants are going from bad to worse. Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9 units.

    Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we, in Europe, do not know how to treat them. If they receive a prescription in the pharmacy, they learn they have to pay cash. This leads to unbelievable outbursts, especially when it is about drugs for the children. They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words: “So, cure them here yourselves!” So the police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also large pharmacies.

    Truly we said openly: Where are all those who had welcomed in front of TV cameras, with signs at train stations?! Yes, for now, the border has been closed, but a million of them are already here and we will definitely not be able to get rid of them.

    Until now, the number of unemployed in Germany was 2.2 million. Now it will be at least 3.5 million. Most of these people are completely unemployable. A bare minimum of them have any education. What is more, their women usually do not work at all. I estimate that one in ten is pregnant. Hundreds of thousands of them have brought along infants and little kids under six, many emaciated and neglected. If this continues and German re-opens its borders, I’m going home to the Czech Republic. Nobody can keep me here in this situation, not even double the salary than at home. I went to Germany, not to Africa or the Middle East.

    Even the professor who heads our department told us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who for 800 Euros cleans every day for years, and then meets young men in the hallways who just wait with their hand outstretched, want everything for free, and when they don’t get it they throw a fit.

    I really don’t need this! But I’m afraid that if I return, that at some point it will be the same in the Czech Republic. If the Germans, with their nature cannot handle this, there in Czechia it would be total chaos. Nobody who has not come in contact with them has no idea what kind of animals they are, especially the ones from Africa, and how Muslims act superior to our staff, regarding their religious accommodation.

    For now, the local hospital staff has not come down with the diseases they brought here, but, with so many hundreds of patients every day – this is just a question of time.

    In a hospital near the Rhine, migrants attacked the staff with knives after they had handed over an 8-month-old on the brink of death, which they had dragged across half of Europe for three months. The child died in two days, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany. The physician had to undergo surgery and two nurses are laid up in the ICU. Nobody has been punished.

    The local press is forbidden to write about it, so we know about it through email. What would have happened to a German if he had stabbed a doctor and nurses with a knife? Or if he had flung his own syphilis-infected urine into a nurse’s face and so threatened her with infection? At a minimum he’d go straight to jail and later to court. With these people – so far, nothing has happened.

    And so I ask, where are all those greeters and receivers from the train stations? Sitting pretty at home, enjoying their non-profits and looking forward to more trains and their next batch of cash from acting like greeters at the stations. If it were up to me I would round up all these greeters and bring them here first to our hospital’s emergency ward, as attendants. Then, into one building with the migrants so they can look after them there themselves, without armed police, without police dogs who today are in every hospital here in Bavaria, and without medical help.”

The e-mail speaks for itself, and the facts in it are not surprising. In fact, my first thought upon reading the first few paragraphs was that it sounds not unlike what the border states in our country have been experiencing for years, including the appearance and spread of diseases not known previously, or diseases which had been thought to be extinct here.

And I see that post #20 by ‘Jourdan’ on this Vox Day blog thread says something very similar to my thoughts.

Yet so many Americans who can clearly see the dangers to Europe from mass influxes of ‘refugees’ or ‘migrants’ think that we, here in the States, are sitting pretty because ‘at least the Mexicans are Christian’, and somebody on Free Republic reassures us that ‘at least most Mexicans are White.’

Europe is in more immediate peril because of its relatively small geographical area and the fact that they are geographically nearer to the ‘feeder’ countries of Africa and the Middle East. But we are not any less threatened by this forced demographic/racial transformation than the Europeans.

Some of the best writing on the immigration crisis and the coerced ‘diversifying’ of the countries of former Christendom is found at the Council of European Canadians. This piece by Clare Ellis is highly recommended.

A coat of Whitewash

There are accusations that CNN has displayed a photoshopped or otherwise doctored photo of the Umpqua Community College killer, showing him looking very ‘Caucasian.’ And there are the skeptics on the right who say that there’s no evidence CNN published such a photo, or displayed it on a newscast, citing lack of evidence.

If they had used such a photo, surely it could have been scrubbed when necessary, just as with the online social media presence of the shooter appears to have been? And if someone out there had screen-capped the photo would that constitute credible proof for the skeptics?

The indisputable fact is that if the ”mainstream” media did such a thing, it would hardly be the first time, nor would it be the last.

I don’t know who captioned the above shot of CNN’s Anderson Cooper, but the caption is dead on. CNN, the accused in this episode of apparent manipulation, is one of the most biased of a very biased bunch of  ‘journalistic’ outlets, surpassed possibly by MSNBC.

So we don’t know, with 100 percent certainty if this doctored photo of Harper-Mercer (or Mercer or Harper or whatever) is CNN’s work:

 If the photo is a hoax, as some on the right say, what would be the motive? To damage the credibility of CNN or the ”mainstream” media? To impugn their integrity? Really? What integrity? What credibility?
The ”mainstream” media, we know, deliberately deceives when it comes to matters racial. I’ve already mentioned the egregious George Zimmerman case, in which they kept telling us he was ”White”, despite having Latino (Indio) ancestry as well as some African ancestry some generations back, per reports. The photos of Zimmerman the media kept using either were given a reddish saturation to give him a very unconvincing ruddy complexion, or they were lightened to give him a White-ish look. The doctored photo on the right, above, is scarcely more convincing than the Zimmerman bleach job; the photo portrays someone who looks more albino, like some albino blacks I have met. Despite the deliberate narrowing of the nose and nostrils (and lips) on the photo to the right. the features suggest African ancestry to me, especially the prognathic look of the jaw.

Contrary to what the official orthodoxy tells us, race is not just about skin color. It is more than skin deep. It goes to skeletal structure, head shape, length of arm and leg bones, shape of the pelvis, shape of the feet, and more. That’s why forensic pathologists or anthropologists can assign a race to skeletal remains.

How stupid do the media deceivers take us for?
Very stupid, apparently. But they will need more than crude Photoshop skills to misrepresent someone’s race. It is not a social construct, but a construct of nature — or God. And yet they work (with some success, I’m afraid to say) at blurring racial categories, making the average White American very confused as to race and ethnicity. They’ve got a good percentage of people believing that race “does not exist.”

Hoax or genuine? CNN guilty of visual deception (or an attempt, at least, to deceive), or innocent, and framed? I don’t know.

But here are just a few things we all know:

1. The media, perhaps under orders from, or in concert with, the authorities, deliberately omit race in descriptions of crime suspects being sought by police. They risk public safety in favor of political correctness.

2. The media, verbally and visually, made obvious attempts to deceive the public about race in the George Zimmerman story. They never recanted their lies and admitted their deceptions.

3. The media deliberately stack the deck on racial issues, presenting only one side of the story, never the White side. They deliberately hire disproportionate numbers of racial and ethnic minorities to report the news, and present the biased and often outright false ‘reporting’ as indisputable fact, allowing no counter-argument or refutation.

4. The media/powers-that-be hound and harass those who stray from the approved party line on race and all matters touching on race — mass immigration, for example, and exclude such dissenters from any discussion.

Maybe we’ll learn in the next day or so whether CNN doctored that clumsily Whitewashed photo above or maybe we won’t. We do know that CNN and its counterparts (including Fox) are dishonest to the core when it comes to race. We know that they have deceived the gullible masses — but as the saying goes, ‘fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.’ And the media have a long history of obfuscating, concealing, misleading, deceiving, and out-and-out, barefaced lying to us. So if they are proven ‘innocent’ in this particular case, that does not make them credible or trustworthy.

The edifice of lies

The Umpqua Community College killings are getting everyone’s attention at the moment, it seems.

The first reports I heard — from a friend, actually, rather than from the Mendacious Media, had the shooter assumed to be a White male — of course. And someone said that the location of the incident — in small-town Oregon — would almost rule out a non-white perpetrator. This is absurd, as Oregon is now a very “diverse and vibrant” state, what with massive illegal immigration of Latinos, and then there’s the fact that in whatever college, no matter how small or obscure it may be, there are the inevitable foreign students, either children of immigrants or recent arrivals as ‘refugees’ or whatever from Moslem countries. In the past, immigrants tended to concentrate in urban areas, and mostly near the coasts. Seldom did they exist in any numbers in small towns. Now this is no longer the case. Even small towns, in heartland America, are ”blessed” with diversity.

And of course the killer was not a ‘White guy’, nor is he even American-born, apparently.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/general-news/20151001/oregon-gunman-chris-harper-mercer-lived-in-torrance-graduated-from-switzer-center

The media narrative is that it’s about guns, or about the poor shooter’s mental health ”issues”. For the Free Republic crowd, the thing that matters above all is his apparent Islamic background. But nobody in the media will address the apparent anti-Christian motive he had — asking his victims their religion, then shooting in the head those who said ‘Christian’. And nobody will mention the factor (almost always present in these mass  shooting) of psychoactive drugs. Why? Maybe because psychology and psychiatry and their pharmaceutical panaceas are sacred cows in our post-Christian society. Psychiatrists and psychologists are our high priests now, and there will be an army of such ‘experts’ all over the 24-hour propaganda news channels over the next few days. And they will spout the usual drivel about his childhood, his rootlessness, his ‘broken home’, and given his mixed racial background, probably ‘racism’ will be the main culprit for the way he turned out. It was not his fault. He was ‘hurting inside’. The common wisdom says that anyone who commits a heinous act of violence must be ‘hurting inside’, poor baby.

The regular conservatives will say he was a mixed-up kid who was radicalized by Islam. And maybe there is some truth in that. But above all few people will note the racial angle, unless there are claims that he was a victim of ‘racist’ Whites.

These shootings always follow a predictable pattern. And yet nothing seems to be learned from them. All that results is more clamor from the left for the banning of private gun ownership, repealing the Second Amendment.

Whether the powers-that-be, including their Media mouthpieces, just opportunistically exploit these shootings to eat away at support for the Second Amendment, or whether these incidents are somehow engineered-to-order, as some people assert, the fact is, the System
benefits from such atrocities. They are viewed mostly as opportunities by the left, in order to frighten the easily panicked portion of the population or to wear down the uninformed middle-of-the-road types whose support for their Constitutional rights is lukewarm.

Anyway I expect the news to report that this Harper-Mercer guy was on some kind of antidepressants or other prescription meds, but no one will dare suggest a cause-and-effect relation, despite the multitude of such incidents in which psychoactive drugs were involved. Far too many Americans are themselves being dosed by their kindly family doctors and psychiatrists with various drugs — anti-depressants, drugs for ‘ADHD’ and so on. As long as so many Americans are using these things, nobody wants to question the safety or wisdom of taking them. And why are so many Americans so medicated? Perhaps because they have bought the post-Christian worldview in which life’s problems are due to ‘personality disorders’ or ‘mental issues’ which can be medicated out of existence.

That, again, leads to the question of why so many of us are so unhappy. Perhaps because our once-very-liveable society is breaking down. Incivility is everywhere, even in my small, mostly Christian town. Standards and morals have fallen by the wayside. Our country has been divided every which way: politically, ethnically, religiously, generationally, and by sex. Our country has been sold out from under us, as tens of millions of immigrants (legal, illegal, it matters not) and now ‘refugees’ are being seeded even in our rural areas and small backwater towns. Unemployment is high, and our ‘experts’ and officials lie to us about it.

Of course we are not a happy, contented nation. Medications keep many people zombie-like, stifling their normal feelings, flattening their emotions and responses, so I’ve been told by people who are chronic users of anti-depressants. This suits the powers-that-be, I’m sure. It’s made us a passive, though discontented, people.

And if there is such a thing as ‘illness of the mind’ (mental illness) it is that mindset called ‘liberalism’ or ‘progressvisim’ or whatever you may call it, which causes people to live within a lie, an elaborate false world, in which all people are the same; race does not exist. A world in which everybody can and must live in multiracial communities and pretend their differences don’t exist. A world in which women are just as good as men at being warriors, police officers, firefighters, and even prison guards. A world in which ‘male’ and ‘female’ are social constructs, along with race, and anyone can decide he/she is of the opposite sex and force the rest of us to affirm their delusion.

Because the ideologues who are in control in this country is so insane, there is no chance that they can solve the insoluble problems which they themselves have created. The ‘mental illness’ called egalitarianism/liberalism/progressivism led us to this situation with the Chris Harper-Mercers running amok, (and the Chris Monforts, the Colin Fergusons, and all the rest). Banning guns will not help. Apparently the ‘surveillance state’ couldn’t even use their mountains of data to stop the Tsarnaev brothers, or the Fort Hood killer, though they had enough information to do so.

So what good is all that data they gather on all of us? How does it make us safer?

Above all there is this ever-present racial issue which touches on all the important problems of our time: not just black/White conflicts, but mass immigration and the ‘refugee’ Camp-of-the-Saints scenario in Europe.

And it cannot, and will not, be addressed honestly as long as those who control the narrative stay in control.

When will the whole edifice of lies come down?

To friends and well-wishers

A belated explanation — and maybe I should offer an apology — to friends of this blog who may somehow still be out there: if any of you e-mailed me and had your e-mail bounce back, it’s because the e-mail account I used to use in connection with this blog was closed due to inactivity. Also, Google deleted a g-mail account because they said I violated the Terms of Service in some unidentified way. I had not used that e-mail in some time so I don’t know what I supposedly did.

In any case I did not intend to ignore any e-mails that may have been sent, but if some of you tried contacting me and couldn’t, I just wanted to say I was not intentionally ignoring or slighting anyone. I appreciated the e-mail exchanges that I had with some of you. When I get my e-mail situation straightened out, I will possibly e-mail some of you whose addies I have.

A’ brutal and unholy war’ continues

General Patrick Cleburne:

“Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.

If this cause, that is dear to my heart, is doomed to fail, I pray Heaven may let me fail with it, while my face is toward the enemy and my arm battling for that which I know is right.

I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of the government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed.”

President Jefferson Davis:
“I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”

John C Calhoun:
“The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government… If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot.”

Where are the Southern people who once had a near-universal pride in, and consciousness of, their distinct heritage? Dead and gone, mostly, with the younger generations fully indoctrinated to cultural Marxism, and ashamed of their ancestors.

Nearly 20 years ago, the late Dennis Wheeler wrote this optimistic statement:

”Dear fellow Southerner man,

You may never have heard, or it may have just slipped your mind, but you belong to something great. You are a vital part of the Southern people. We are a vast people, numbering in the tens of millions, born to a noble pedigree, possessed of a glorious past, witnessing a present re-emergence, and, I’m convinced, destined to a still more glorious future.

You see, between the years 1725 and 1775, nearly 250,000 Scotch-Irish immigrants came to the shores of the Carolinas. And a little earlier, 40,000 Cavaliers had landed in Virginia. Virtually all Southerners can trace their lineage back to these two groups of people. And you are a part of it all. You are not alone.

No other people in the United States holds a familial tie to so many others in America. There are nearly 40 million of us today. We need to work together. We need to frequent each other’s businesses. We need to promote our own interests as no one else will look after us, and, indeed, other groups are promoting their own interests at our expense.

You need to see yourself, not as a rootless individual, but as part of one of the great peoples of the earth, who, though down right now, are certainly not out.
[…]
The noble blood of great men and women courses through our veins today. We do them a great dishonor by living the way we as a people live today!

There are those who despise us, who wish to stamp us out, or worse still, to use us as a milk cow so they can live lives of ease. There are those who believe us to be evil, and demand we repent at the altar of the damned while they sup at the table of the blessed. There are those who fear us, and so continually try to strip away all reminders of what we once were.

But we are still here, still living in our land, the land of our forefathers, more numerous than ever and though tyrannized, abused, and dispirited, poised to renounce our oppressors and reclaim what is rightfully ours.

For nearly 200 years, from George Washington to George Wallace, our people acted with a singleness of purpose. Even though defeated in a great war in 1865, we stood as one people to the outside world, defending our lives, land, homes, and inalienable rights with remarkable solidarity. But since our defeat in the Civil Rights War of 1965, we have been betrayed by many of our natural leaders in government, in the church, in business, and in the university.
[…]This paper has two purposes: (1) to press upon you the fact that you are not a solitary individual wandering aimlessly through the maze of life but are part and parcel of a vibrant people. (2) to define for you what a true Southerner is.

Just these two ideas will instill enthusiasm and vibrancy into your life. You are not just a cog in a wheel, but are a necessary part of a living organism, the Southern people. You are not alone; there are plenty of us who share your struggle, your ideals, and desire to see you live a life of peace, security, and justice.” – Dennis Wheeler, from ‘An appeal to Southern men for Southern solidarity’

The past week’s events have compelled me to come out of ‘retirement’ for now, though I had decided to stay away.

Blogger: please stop altering my post. My words are being deleted as I type.

Of victimhood

Tomislav Sunic’s article The Curse of Victimhood and Negative Identity has some important things to say about this 21st century plague of victimolatry.

Among other things, he makes the point that with so many ethnocentric commemorations of victimhood, and the attempts to elicit some kind of confessions of guilt on the part of others, more conflict is generated.

”Any day of atonement or, for that matter, any day of repentance on behalf of a victimized group, is highly conflictual, if not warmongering by its nature.”.

Yes. Where there is a ‘victim’, there is a victimizer. If some innocent is wronged, then there is a guilty villain. This is what is so vexing about the annual MLK memorials and ‘Black History Month’. It’s not just about black culture or blacks honoring black heroes, but it’s about inciting guilt on the part of Whites, and implicitly or explicitly calling for atonement to be made, in this case, monetary reparations or other concessions: more social service dollars spent, more affirmative action, more special privileges and more groveling.

Ultimately this whole dynamic leads to Fergusons and Liberty City riots (anyone remember that?) more Reginald Denny outrages, and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows.

And why shouldn’t nationalists be able to foster a healthy ethnonationalism — if they insist on living in a mixed culture, or have no choice — without having to base it on resentment and hostility for ‘wrongs’ done centuries ago, many generations ago, by people long dead and gone to dust? I’m thinking here of the Irish as well as other ‘victim’ groups. Now, lest somebody get offended, this kind of negative nationalism based on hating some specific group is more common among Irish-Americans than the people actually born in Ireland, though this may have changed in recent times as Ireland has moved so far left, socially and politically. There is enough to focus on culturally and historically without having to constantly hang the English in effigy over and over again.

There are some on our side saying that we should begin capitalizing on our own victimhood — however I disagree with this approach. First, few people among Whites, let alone among nonwhites, will admit that Whites are victims. To many if not most, Whites are incapable of being victims; if we are under siege, it’s becaused we brought it on ourselves because of our past (and present) evildoing and oppressing. It’s just ‘negative karma’ that we earned; what goes around comes around, as my (black) sociology teacher in college said bitterly. And in most people’s picture of the world, Whites are and will always be the big bad guy; the one who holds all the power and money and influence. We can’t be seen as victims.

And yet is that all bad? It can work to our advantage. Much of the animus towards Whites is based on envy and an unacknowledged fear. We are actually seen as being stronger than we may be. Perhaps those who hate us think we are actually the tough pioneers our ancestors were; the conquerors and rulers we used to be. Whether we really are is yet to be seen. I have doubts myself; the strength may be hidden, waiting to reassert itself when our backs are truly to the wall, or we may fold, having lost whatever it was that made our forefathers great.

Regardless of which is true, it does not become us, as children of those forefathers, to take on the ‘victim’ role, complaining of how somebody has oppressed us. Nietszche was not wrong about everything, though I believe many of his ideas to be poisonous. He despised the ‘victim’ mentality. It does demean and degrade those who hold it, even if they are truly victims. There is such a thing as pride and courage and honor, and it will not be a good thing to adopt a kind of ethnocentrism based on our common victimhood, which is just a way of acknowledging that we are just another group of life’s losers.

It’s true that the good guys don’t always win. Right now the good guys seem to be on the ropes. But it is false to say that the winners are never good guys, and it is a lie that winning itself means one is an oppressor, a bully, or a tyrant. Power itself is not bad, per se; it depends on how it is wielded. It’s like fire, and must be used carefully. It can corrupt, as Acton said.

Still, weakness is not in itself a virtue to be boasted of. Sometimes weakness cannot be helped. Still, sometimes people become losers or ‘victims’ because of faults or deficits. Being a victim does not make one admirable, much less a saint. Some people bring victimhood on themselves by improvidence, foolishness, lack of integrity, or lack of courage. We seem to have forgotten this, accepting the left’s notion that victims wear haloes just because  someone else got the better of them, even if the one who prevailed did so honorably and honestly. The late Comanche patriot David Yeagley, who was an ethnopatriot towards his Comanche tribe, also acknowledged that their White foes won honorably. The two sides fought, and Whites prevailed. He was an exception, probably one of a kind, to take this attitude. It’s so much more profitable to whine about how one’s ancestors were wronged and oppressed by evil Whitey than to acknowledge that they simply were outmatched. It saves ‘face’, I suppose, to claim that the other side ‘cheated’ or ‘stole’ or ‘oppressed’ than to say that one’s side lost in a fair fight. There is always a winner and a loser. But the left has subverted this; it has almost made winning a mark of disgrace and infamy.

This is where the ‘narrative’ becomes unhealthy: this exaltation of weakness and ‘victimhood.’ It encourages people to don the ‘victim’ mantle to manipulate and gain power by insidious and dishonest means. It promotes deception and dishonesty. It is not a healthy thing.

‘What’s the opposite of ethnic cleansing?’

Asks Renaud Camus in an article at Boulevard Voltaire. I link to it rather than excerpt from it, as my translation skills are not the best; it is in French.

The title of the piece is ‘France: victim of a forced marriage’, and the message is that ‘metissage’ or the mixing that Sarkozy spoke of as an imperative a few years ago, amounts to “eugenics.” Well, it definitely is an attempt to alter the actual genetics of the people of France, whether they agree or not. Take a look at the article.

Regarding the Truth

I’m sure most of us have heard the saying, something like this: ”a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.” I don’t know the origin of that, by the way, but it’s commonly repeated in some form or other on the Internet. And the gist of the saying is true. It does seem that lies or half-truths have some kind of built-in advantage, because lies do seem to spread quickly,  and they have a stubborn longevity. By contrast it seems that the truth (small ‘t’ or capital ‘T’) is often rejected or resisted, disregarded, or just drowned out by the lies and the liars who perpetuate them, knowingly or not.

The Internet itself, with its worldwide reach and its rapidity of transmitting messages has helped the propagation of lies more than truth, I would think, though I can’t prove that. Occasionally somebody says on one of the ‘realist’ blogs or forums that the Internet will be the defeat of the propaganda machine of the Powers That Be. I wish that would be true; I wish that more truth would be disseminated by the Internet, but it seems that even among ‘those who can see’ there is often a lack of discernment or a widespread disregard for the truth.

Are we all postmodernists now, who no longer believe in an objective truth, and a truth that matters? Can we just make up a ‘narrative’ that suits us personally and stick with that, regardless of reality? It seems a lot of people think so, and that’s what is being taught, explicitly or implicitly, by today’s schools and media.

One small example that I happened across today was yet another instance of someone quoting an apparently non-existent speech, attributed to Vladimir Putin. This supposed statement has been picked up by many on the right, and though I have tried to draw attention to the apocryphal nature of the speech, it lives on.  It seems that it’s important to many on ‘our side’ to have a hero, and Putin fits the bill for many, so they latch onto these remarks he supposedly made about immigration as the kind of thing they wish Western leaders would say, and they really don’t care if he in fact never said those words at all; the point is that they would like their hero to express such sentiments, and so they run with this quote, which refuses to die.

For contrast, here’s a piece from Russia Today, not my favorite news source, but it illustrates the nature of Putin’s actual thoughts on immigration, multiculturalism and nationalism. Hardly consistent with the speech which is so often quoted.

Russia is a state with hundreds of ethnicities, living on their land together and near Russians, he explained.

Putin went on to quote the philosopher and writer, Ivan Ilyin, in a passage that is meant to underscore Russia’s historical respect for all creeds and colors: “Not to eliminate, not to suppress, not to enslave other people’s blood, not to stifle the life of different tribes and religions – but to give everyone breath and the great Russia…to honor all, to reconcile all, to allow everyone to pray in their own way, to work in their own way, and to engage the best in public and cultural development.”

And the money quote:

Putin goes on to warn that “various instigators and our opponents will make every effort to tear out of Russia – with false assertions about the Russians’ right to self-determination, ‘racial purity,’ and the need to ‘finish the job of 1991 and complete the destruction of the empire, sitting on the necks of the Russian people’ – in order to ultimately force people to destroy their Motherland with their own hands.”
­Putin performs a delicate balancing act in his article by celebrating Russia’s “cultural dominance” on the one hand, while warning against the “bacilli of nationalism” on the other.

And nevertheless I expect I will one day click onto someone’s blog which quotes the apocryphal speech yet again — why? Because people don’t discern, often don’t seek to verify the source, and because they just plain like to believe certain things about those they admire, and will disbelieve anything which conflicts with their admiration for some public figure.

And there are other apocryphal quotes that float around the Internet. One other example which some of you have probably found in your e-mail inbox would be the fake George Carlin quotes, most likely the one called ‘I am a bad American.’ These Carlin misquotes live on. Many people like the sentiments expressed and they probably liked Carlin so they feel good attributing something they agree with to someone they admire.
Some of the false quotes, the more sentimental ones, are very unlike the libertarian atheist that was true Carlin, but still some believed them. Why?

Another misquote we read or hear frequently is the ‘love the sinner, but hate the sin’ quote, attributed vaguely to The Bible, or worse, to Jesus himself. For those of us who call ourselves Christian, it’s a serious thing to put words into our Lord’s mouth, to add to (or take away) from God’s word. But each day, numberless Christians quote ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’, usually in the service of some liberal cause — like the current news story in which the mother of a murder victim publicly ‘forgave’ her son’s killer, even as he expressed regret — for not killing more Whites.

And people believe that the Bible commands us to ‘love the sinner’ while hating the sin. Now, we might argue that there are other Scriptures which support the idea of ‘loving the sinner’ while ‘hating the sin’, but I can find counter-arguments made by better Bible scholars than myself.  And is it possible to hate the sin but love the one perpetrating it? But as we have to agree, at least, that the phrase does not appear in the Bible, who did say it? Apparently Mohandas Gandhi said it. Yet tomorrow countless more Christians will piously repeat that phrase, oblivious to the fact that it is not Biblical, not in the Bible.

Why such carelessness with the truth, even among Christians?

Mohandas Gandhi himself is apparently ‘credited’ with words he never said, or at least, which have never been traced to a credible source quoting him. One such quote is one I’ve heard: When someone asked Gandhi what he thought of Western Civilization, he supposedly answered ‘I think it would be a good idea.’

That’s a favorite among those who believe Western Civilization is evil, or not a civilization at all — in contrast to the utopian Indian civilization, I am sure, where suttee, infanticide, and countless other evils flourished until the ‘uncivilized’ British put a stop to them — temporarily anyway.

We live in the Age of Lies, and it seems the politically correct propaganda machine keeps piling lies upon lies, until the whole tottering edifice appears to be ready to fall of its own weight. Or so we can hope. But whether we can one day live in a PC-free world depends on whether we are willing to be truth-seekers or whether we are indifferent to truth, or worse, look to replace the present system of lies with another of our own devising — like the libertarian/libertine utopian ideology, or some man-made philosophy which seeks to bring about its own version of the ‘New Man.’

Truth matters.

Those Puritans: popular misconceptions and lies

From someone whose origins and sympathies would be (and are being) vilified in 2015.
The words are from an address given by George Cheever in 1842. The title of the address was The Elements of National Greatness. Since our national greatness is now apparently a thing of the past, it might be helpful to read some words on what led to our former greatness.

We all recognise and venerate the New England privilege of speaking one’s mind. Sentire quid velis, et quod sentials dicere, to think what you please, and to speak what you think, we hope will ever be an element in the civil, social, and religious atmosphere of that beloved native region of ours[…]

Suffer me to close with the memory of our Pilgrim Fathers, and with the grateful recognition of the truth, that as they did what never had been done in Europe, founded an Empire in self-denial, suffering, and the most unwavering trust in God, so we, more than any other nation in the world, two hundred years after the landing of the Pilgrims, are thrown entirely upon the Spirit of God for the success and stability of our institutions. A Despotism may stand by the very misery of its subjects; a free and happy Republic can stand only by the blessing and help of God.”

Were Mr. Cheever alive today (lucky man; he lived in better times) he would be shocked at how the name of our ‘Pilgrim Fathers’ is being taken in vain, vilified, cursed. He would be dumbfounded to see that there are people on right and left who lay the blame for our cesspool of a society at the feet of the Puritan and/or Pilgrim forefathers. This libertine, antinomian, standards-rejecting mess of a society is the way it is because of the rigid moralism and ‘legalism’ of those old prudes, the Puritans. There’s been a long tradition of slandering Puritans, one earlier example being H.L. Mencken, a bitter, misanthropic man who loathed Puritans. This type generally does. People of a libertine disposition resent anyone to adheres to standards of any kind.
As C.S. Lewis wrote somewhere that that each age tends to warn against the very sins which it is least in danger. For instance, callous and cruel ages warn against sentimentality; dissipated and libertine ages are full of people denouncing the dangers of ‘puritanism’. As if we are under imminent threat of hordes of moralists putting an end to prostitution or sleazy entertainment.

Obviously there are no Puritans nowadays, but several bloggers have taken up a mantra that today’s leftist fanatics (or ‘SJWs’, if you insist on using newly-coined acronyms for everything) ARE the Puritans of old. There is apparently something called ‘Cultural DNA’ and apparently those who inhabit New England now, though they are in most cases no kin at all to the English Puritan founders of New England, somehow have picked up the ‘Puritan cultural DNA’ of those old-time Puritans and that is what made them deranged with their egalitarian, universalist, feminist, anti-White ideas. What? As if the Puritans of old were feminists, universalists, and Jacobin-style egalitarians. They were none of the above. Far from being ‘universalists’ in a Christian sense (meaning that all are children of God, all are equally loved of God and destined for heaven) they were particularists. Strait is the gate, narrow the way, few there be that find it. Does that sound universal? Whoever says otherwise is denying the plain sense of those words.

And they were not egalitarians. For some perspective, read some modern leftist textbook (is there any other kind?) on the subject of Anne Hutchinson, or read what the lefties at Wikipedia say about her.  She is now a feminist and leftist heroine because she stirred things up among the Puritans, preaching some sort of proto-New Age mysticism, thus defying the accepted teachings and promoting her proto-feminist ideas. She was exiled with her family and sympathizers, which of course outrages lefties because it shows how ‘misogynistic’ and intolerant the community fathers were. The Puritan fathers were not egalitarians, and we could argue about the rightness of their actions in expelling Hutchinson and other dissenters and pot-stirrers like here. I blogged about that some years ago, and I won’t rehash that here. The point is, if the people of New England had the ”cultural DNA” (whatever that is) of the Puritans, their part of the country would not be so far left.

This whole notion of cultural DNA being passed on from long-ago departed former inhabitants of a place sounds a bit like the popular superstition that ghosts of long-past eras hang around their former home and ”possess” the people who later inhabit their haunted territory. So if I understand it right, the WASPs and Puritans of old New England are now possessing the bodies of all the diversities who live in Boston and New Haven or Manchester, N.H., and  maybe even those Somalis that live in Lewiston, Maine. I suppose if that’s how it works, the Somalis in Minneapolis will be possessed by the spirits of all the left-wing Scandinavians who settled that place, or perhaps some will get the cultural DNA of all the German anarchists who lived in the Midwest and Great Plains. Now I get the hang of it: the people in Seattle are liberal because there were WASP descendants of Puritans who first pioneered in the Northwest. And Scandinavians too.

Honestly, though, if you honestly desire to explain the egalitarianism that ultimately led to the War Between the States and the racial strife that persists to this day, look across the ocean to the European continent, and the ‘Enlightenment’. Those few intellectual New Englanders like Emerson, Thoreau, Lowell, and their ilk were not harking back to their fairly recent Puritan ancestors, nor were they drawing on their own (by then liberal) Christian culture. No; as cosmopolitan-minded intellectuals they slighted their spartan Puritan roots and looked to sophisticated Europe for their inspiration. Europe, jaded Europe, had already seen the Jacobin revolution in Europe, and had lost faith in the veracity of the Bible. Man is the measure of all things, said the Enlightenment mantra, and they looked to agnostic and atheistic ‘philosophers’ in Europe as their guides. And that not satisfying their urge for new ideas, they began to look, by the 19th century, to the supposed ‘ancient wisdom of the Orient’, to Hindu ‘gurus’ and other Eastern religions, which promoted monism and animism, or the ‘god within’. This mish-mash of ideas, plus Quakerism, made up much  of the New England Transcendentalist movement, which was the most influential among the New England ‘intellectual elite.’ It was these people who spearheaded abolitionism, stirred mostly by one of their own, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and her fictional book about slavery, meant to stir gullible readers to a pitch of outrage.

It’s wrong to blame WASPs as such, or to blame Anglo-Saxon ‘altruism’ or Puritan ‘cultural DNA’ for the present political leanings of New England or of the North or of America in general.

So where did all this Puritan-blaming get started? From what I can ascertain, it’s mainly the work of a few influential bloggers who have been belaboring this subject for some time, and who have managed to convince much of the ethnonationalist right that WASPs, specifically ‘Puritans’ are to blame for most if not all of what is wrong with our world. I can think of a couple of Jewish writers who are part of the paleo-right intelligentsia who have also tried to deflect blame onto WASPs, saying that if there is undue Jewish influence, it is somehow the fault of the WASP elites for ‘letting this happen.’ So WASPs are to blame for being too yielding, and also for being xenophobic and unwelcoming. My observation is that Jews generally resent WASPs as those who kept them out of the exclusive country clubs and who were their main competition and rivals, quite honestly. So they saw WASPs, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, as the Enemy to be neutralized.

I wonder how much of Puritan-obsession is in fact the result of an effort to make Anglo-Saxon Americans the primary scapegoat; one can’t get into trouble for vilifying WASPs. It’s popular and it’s politically correct, and virtually no one will oppose you if you lambaste WASPs. No one wants to come to the defense of the Anglo-Saxon. So it takes no courage to go after WASPs; there is no price to be paid. Nobody will doxx you, or try to get you fired from your job, or call you a name if you profess to loathe WASPs. And as Puritans are all dead these many years, you can safely blame them for everything; they can’t answer you back or take a poke at you. Insulting and maligning Anglo-Saxons is a sport now, not a hate crime.

My longtime readers know that I have New England ancestry on one side, and Southron on the other. My identification and allegiance is with the South, where I have roots going back to the founding of Jamestown.
And though there are just as many misconceptions about the South, as compared to the North, I won’t address those here. Suffice it to say that the South, contrary to what some say, was not ‘secular’; the original colonists were mostly Christian and definitely not godless or libertine. So it is creating a false contrast to say that the South was easygoing where morality was concerned, unlike the prudish, uptight Puritanical North. Southern society didn’t hold with people who lived openly immoral lives (adultery, fornication, buggery). It was not like today’s anything-goes America, though it was not Puritanical in religious terms.

And yes, it is possible to be pro-South without having to drag the old Puritans out of their graves and hanging them in effigy over and over again — somewhat like the real-life fate of Oliver Cromwell after his enemies regained control.

And P.S.: the Yankee soldiers who killed my great-great-grandfather and other kin were not more likely to be New England men than they were to be Irish or German immigrants who filled out the ranks of the Union Army and who were glad to kill men with whom they had no real quarrel or dispute.  It’s those soldiers, essentially mercenaries, who get the least respect from me.

But I suppose since one can’t mention certain enemies of our folk, it’s better to go after people of our own blood, people who are the least likely to complain. Especially if we tell ourselves that North and South were not fellow Englishmen but ‘two different peoples.’  Rationalizing works pretty well if we don’t think too much about it.

Respectable Republican favorite favors more immigration

I could never buy into all the hype among Republicans about Ted Cruz. The same crowd of ‘respectables’ who were gaga over Cain or Allen West are now going on about Cruz being the savior of ‘conservatives’ and the GOP.

But maybe not.
His press office released this news:

“U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today presented an amendment to the Gang of Eight immigration bill that would improve our nation’s legal immigration system by increasing high-skilled temporary worker visas, called H-1B visas, by 500 percent. The measure would effectively address the needs of our nation’s high-skilled workforce by helping meet the growing demand for workers in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. It will also make block grants available to states to promote STEM education efforts and increase domestic STEM professionals. The committee voted against the amendment 4 to 14 with every Democrat voting against it on a party-line vote. “I strongly support legal immigration. Legal immigration is a fundamental pillar of our nation’s heritage, and I was pleased today to offer legislation that would have improved and expanded legal immigration by dramatically increasing the cap for high-tech temporary worker visas. This amendment would not only improve the current system, but would also encourage economic growth and create new jobs in America. There is currently a serious shortage of workers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math, yet every year we send thousands of high-tech graduate students back to their home countries to start businesses and create jobs. This makes no sense.”

No, what ‘makes no sense‘ is to add yet more immigrants to a country that has already been dramatically changed by the presence of tens of millions of immigrants, virtually all of whom come from Third World countries, and from cultures which could not be more incompatible with our own.

It’s a given that most of the H-1B visas would go to people from India or that region of the world, and we have far too many native-born, intelligent Americans who have lost jobs in the IT industry ever since this craze for importing help from the Subcontinent began. I know of several individuals who have had this happen — this replacement by Hindu workers, who, I am told, are not as good at their jobs as were the Americans they replaced. Yet it still goes on. And here is Sen. Cruz, having been set up as the only real ‘conservative’ candidate, proposing it.

If you are not conservative on immigration, then you’re not ‘conservative.’ Period. Full stop. End of.
What is there to ‘conserve’ once we’ve overturned the demographics of this country, and replaced the core population with people from a dramatically different origin and culture and religion?

Whoever programs the ‘average Republican‘ with their parroted talking points has done a good job. Now the average self-described ‘conservative’ rattles on  about ‘culture’ and ‘assimilation’, as if a few citizenship classes or a half-hearted stab at learning English in an ESL class can make an ‘American.’

And there are still, honest to gosh, Republicans who go on and on about how ”legal immigrants are good. I’m in favor of immigration as long as they do it the legal way, the right way. Illegal immigration is bad but legal is good; those people stand in line and work hard and want to become real Americans, just like our immigrant ancestors did”. Ad nausaeum. And if you read Cruz’s statement in the quote above, you will see he trots out this old smokescreen of ‘legal vs. illegal’ when it’s a mostly irrelevant distinction. It’s important only if you have hairsplitting legalistic concerns about ‘doing it the legal way.’ If I remember correctly, some if not all of the 9/11 hijackers were here legally. The Tsarnaev brothers were here legally, and according to this Business Insider article, fit the description of the kind of ‘skilled immigrants’ sought by the immigration-pimps in Silicon Valley.

And then, we mustn’t forget the American-born ‘Dr.’ Nidal Hasan, the perpetrator of the ‘workplace violence’ at Fort Hood, Texas. Apparently his parents’ were legal immigrants, and were welcomed with open arms. So whether immigrants have all their papers in order does not tell us much about their potential desirability.

And in a country of 320 million or so, and counting, with immigrants coming in their millions, why on earth does any politician need to be promoting and agitating for more immigration? Why?

It might be interesting to see who the big donors are to Cruz’ campaign. Or to look honestly at how having recent immigrant ancestors causes bias, conscious or not, in favor of immigrants and immigration. Jeb Bush and his Hispanic family obviously bias him (and the whole Bush clan) in favor of immigration, most especially Hispanic immigration. George W. Bush, too, made that amply clear during his time in office.

Our founding fathers and later generations of Americans, before the era of mass promiscuous immigration, made it explicit that a foreigner must not hold high office in this country, and I think it should be stated that anyone who is a first-generation immigrant at least might also be naturally biased toward immigrants and especially those of one’s own blood. Recent immigrant ancestry brings mixed allegiances.

This country has gone so far away from its founding ideas, and has gone so far off the deep end in embracing immigration — indiscriminately, if we look at the statistics — that we absolutely must see a swing of the pendulum back in the other direction.

But if the very people who are supposed to stand for preservation, ‘conserving’ and continuity in the nation are as indoctrinated as the ‘liberal’ portion of the country, then the future for this country looks bleak.  A ”nation of nations”, as some starry-eyed melting-pot enthusiasts like to call it, is no nation at all. It is a Tower of Babel, a ‘polyglot boarding house’ as Pat Buchanan, I think, said. And it’s ultimately a ‘house divided against itself’, which cannot stand.