The ‘right side’?

Fox News’ Shep Smith gets in a little dig at the South when he mentions same-sex “marriage”:

“Not in every case, but in most cases, the same states which were fighting integration are fighting this as well,” Smith said. “Those states which always seem to be behind the curve for reasons which are explainable and understandable.’

 Notice he uses the term ‘behind the curve‘, that is, ‘backward; behind the times’, or ”on the wrong side of History” as Shep’s fellow-travelling lefties like to put it. And of course their side, always the radical, anti-traditional, anti-Christian side, is on the ”right side of history.” Shep mentions ‘inclusion’ and anti-discrimination as being the evolved and enlightened ‘right (read: left) side of history.’

The Supreme Court decision which ended the several states’ bans on interracial marriage, ‘Loving v. Virginia’ in 1967 paved the way, in fact, for the current crusade to end all state laws against same-sex “marriage.” Shep Smith’s viewpoint is that it is good and right that the states were no longer allowed to set their own laws on interracial marriage, based on the majority opinion of the citizens of those sovereign states. That this diminishes the power of the states (and ultimately of their citizenry) in favor of the power of a centralized federal machine is a good thing in the eyes of Shep and his leftist comrades.

One thing Shep (who is apparently Southern by birth and upbringing) should know is that even most citizens of Northern states once believed interracial marriage was wrong. It was not just the ‘backward’ Southrons who believed such things. Shep probably knows this, but he seems to be one of those Southrons by birth who are ashamed of traditional Southrons, embarrassed by them, and just like all anti-White Whites, he is ashamed of his roots. Many of the younger (although Shep isn’t that young) Southerners are like that; they not only shed their natural accents but choose to reject their heritage and the ways of the older generations of their families. Sad. This kind of  ‘White’ person tsk-tsks about ‘self-hating minorities’ who are not militantly proud of their heritage but they hate their own roots. Ironic.

I read of a recent TV documentary out of Europe which presents a real-life pedophile in a sympathetic manner — which should shock and outrage us, though I am afraid most of us have become shock-proof lately. But this documentary (which I have no desire to see) will probably, in ten years time, be hailed by the left as a ‘groundbreaking’ piece of art which advanced the cause of human rights. After all, nobody can help who he or she loves, right? There’s a gene or something that creates homosexuality, say homosexuals and their heterosexual fanboys and fangirls. ‘How can we judge them for something they can’t help? And if it’s true love, if it’s loving and consensual, how can we say it’s wrong?‘ Yes, that’s how Loving (!) v. Virginia was presented to the politically incorrect American citizenry, and now most people agree with that thin argument. So we now think that interracial marriage is OK, even good, even superior, even desirable, according to Nicolas Sarkozy and millions of other leftists, and now we think homosexuality is an act of ‘courage and bravery’ — as the congregation in Ireland who stood up and applauded their priest for announcing his homosexuality.  So what will be the next frontier? Polygamy? My money is on that one; we’ve got the Mormon precedent, plus Islam, which is feeling its oats, in favor of it, as well as many men who say that men are not meant to be monogamous. So it will be legal next. Then what? Marriage between close relatives. And then? I shudder to think.

But if we accepted Loving v. Virginia, then the current ‘gay marriage’ legalization, then we have left ourselves no grounds on which to oppose the next ‘frontier’ wherein the left pushes the envelope.  Slippery slopes are, well, slippery.

H/T : Countenance Blog

How many categories do you fit into?

The way this list of criteria for ‘extremism’ is designed, people like me fit into a number of the cherry-picked categories. I remember this list, or some variation thereof, was on the Internet a few years ago, and at that time I saw (to no surprise) that I was in several, or several dozen, of the ‘doubleplusungood’ classifications.

6 Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians” 

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

I notice that some of the items on the list are redundant, like numbers 10 and 14. I guess they want to be sure that everyone knows that approving of homosexuality is a must, and no dissent is to be brooked.

And what I see as being “pro”, such as loyalty to my own folk and heritage they choose to depict as being ”anti’‘, against certain groups of people, which is, as we know, ”hate”, no matter what one’s motivation for opposition to a group or to an agenda.

They certainly intend to keep dictating the agenda, controlling the language and framing the debate in ways that automatically disqualify any differing views — not only disqualify such views, but ultimately the intent is, I think to criminalize all opposition or dissension.

I notice that one of the items on the list involves believing in ‘conspiracy theories’ or discussing them. Interesting that the powers-that-be have discussed tactics for influencing people on the Internet away from such theories:

[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.

And then they wonder why people are wary of the possibility of paid operatives positioning themselves as random commenters in Internet discussions. Proposals to try to ‘influence’ people’s opinions covertly tend to make us all distrustful of those in power, those who are not content to let people speak freely, and to ”let all sides be heard” to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson.

Lists like the ‘extremist’ criteria above are meant to try to marginalize a great number of people, and to create a climate which is inimical to opinions that are not politically correct — opinions which were, in fact, mainstream and perfectly sensible and acceptable to a great majority, throughout the history of this country. What the list does is re-define what is right and wrong, who is mainstream and who is ‘extreme’ or even dangerous. Illegal immigrants of unknown background and connections? Not extreme. Followers of Islam? Not extreme, even when known to be involved in militant groups. Christians who believe in the Bible? Extremists, and probably dangerous. This is turning reality and common sense on its head. And the worst of it is, most people are accepting this re-definition of reality.

Solidarity? With what?

It should be heartening to read that some 1.5 million turned out in Paris for the march on Sunday — but what was the march for? Or against? Was it against open borders? Promiscuous immigration policies? Multiculturalism, with its destruction of the West’s culture(s)?

Or shall we ask what the march was for: was it for the native, genuine French, or for other indigenous European peoples whose lands are being given away by the totalitarians in seats of power?

Whatever may have been the original intent of the march, as it was conceived by whoever planned it, it was turned into a grotesque “unity” carnival, with signs denouncing something called ‘racism’. And it purportedly stood for ‘free speech’, which apparently means obscene and blasphemous anti-Christian cartoons such as those created by the Charlie Hebdo staff, and possibly a few irreverent cartoons of Mohammed for some ‘balance’. But most of the politicians marching are outright enemies of real ‘free speech’, as most of the countries they represent jail people for dissenting opinions. Look at poor Emma West in England, jailed and separated from her child because she told immigrants on a bus they didn’t belong in Britain. Did she threaten them? Attack them? No. She only spoke rudely to them, saying things that no doubt million of others in the colonized West have thought and felt, but did not dare to say. And plain old rudeness is not a crime; if it were, the jails would not be able to house all the offenders.

The fact is that immigrants (especially the illegal ones) do not belong in the countries they now occupy, and this includes the Charlie Hebdo shooters. Emma West just made an observation that was common sense up until a generation ago, at most. And if the Emma Wests had their way, there would not be random terror attacks in Western countries. But it’s  because the politicians of the ilk of David Cameron and Francois Hollande and that Merkel woman hold power that these attacks are made possible. And those quisling politicians are as ready as any old-time Cold War Communists to make sure that nobody can criticize the Powers-that-be without consequences. Free Speech? Those politicians should be ashamed of their rank hypocrisy.  Imagine the sheer gall of pretending that they are champions of ‘free speech’.

The sad fact is, it appears that the march, if it was intended to be pro-French and anti-multiculturalism, was co-opted and made into another politically correct propaganda-fest. The left/globalists/multicultists were unwilling to let any ethnopatriots or ethnoloyalists be included; the passive masses must be steered away from anybody who does not conform to the ‘official narrative,’ and above all, nobody must be allowed to form any forbidden sympathies, such as identifying with their own kindred group, and supporting their own national and cultural interests against those who are openly hostile to those interests. When outsiders are killing your people and defacing your homeland, the natural response is to close ranks and oppose the threatening outsiders. This is human nature; it’s instinctive. It’s healthy. It’s conducive to survival. And we can’t have that. We must get the people back on the reservation, and avoid their being exposed to any dangerous, politically incorrect ideas.

Marine Le Pen and her Front National party were disinvited from this propaganda-fest. She has been making statements to the effect that France must ‘declare war on Islamic fundamentalism.’ Now she may just be choosing her words carefully but this phrasing is reminiscent of what our American mealy-mouthed political classes have been saying since 9/11. These politicians tell us that we are not at war with the Moslem people; oh no, that would never do. And we are not at war with Islam, because it is (at heart) a ”religion of peace”. But we are at war with an ideology; a political idea. Islamic fundamentalism, some call it; other say ”Islam-ism” to differentiate it from ‘true Islam.’ Or some say we are at war with a more generic ideology: extremism or fundamentalism, which absolves Islam of any real blame. It’s just extremism, which after all includes the ”extreme right-wing” or ”extremist Christians”, so it’s safe to declare war on such an amorphous and — dare I say it? — inclusive target.

So with due respect to Marine Le Pen, I would say the enemy is not an ideology. It’s not an -ism, though it might be handy to pick a target that is impersonalized. But the fact is, ideologies don’t kill people — people kill people. 

And the ideology called multiculturalism, or cultural Marxism, has racked up quite a body count, for a system that claims to represent ‘peace, love, and unity’. Islam+multiculturalism — a very unhealthy combination.

The Fallaci spirit

I see that Enza Ferreri has a piece remembering the late Italian journalist and ethnopatriot Oriana Fallaci.
That’s a coincidence; I was about to post some quotes from Fallaci, because in the wake of the events in Paris I thought of Miss Fallaci and her fiery spirit, her outspoken warnings about the dangerous course Europe was pursuing. As Enza Ferreri says, Fallaci’s words seem especially apropos now.

“The canard of “moderate” Islam, the comedy of tolerance, the lie of the integration, the farce of multiculturalism continue. And with that, the attempt to make us believe that the enemy consists of a small minority and that small minority lives in distant countries. Well, the enemy is not a small minority. And he’s in our home.”

Fallaci was an inspiration to me back in the days when I had just begun blogging, and Islam was very much in the forefront of our concerns. I was drawn to Fallaci because she displayed the passionate spirit that is so essential on our part in these times. Her words were a breath of fresh air, and I admired the boldness with which she expressed herself. Was she perfect? No; she started out as a leftist, and her experiences led her away from some of her earlier views. (I mention this pre-emptively, lest someone say ”but, but, she was a Communist”). But she was capable of learning by life experience — a rare thing amongst leftists. Few people of any political mindset seem capable of re-thinking their habitual views, but she did.

J. R. Nyquist, back in 2006, in an article about Fallaci, said:

Fear is the determining factor in the decline of democracy, Fallaci claims. And therefore courage is the antidote. Tried in Paris for writing that Muslims “breed like rats” (“Ils se multiplient comme les rats”), Fallaci denounces Europe’s intellectuals as “the oblivious ones.” Her analysis is precise. She identifies a mortal threat to Western Civilization. It is the mortal threat of our own cowardice before the truth. The Muslims are flooding into Europe, building mosques and having babies. Europe is being inundated by this invasion, and soon it will cease to exist as Europe. Already, she explains, it is too late because Europe has been poisoned by socialism and enslaved by a comfortable and false conservatism. Caught between the two there is no manhood left, no freedom for reason, and no chance for reemergence. Europe has fallen to the “gurus of Political Correctness and the agitprops of victimism … wailing in the name of Human-Rights.”
Decades ago Europe bought into the nonsense that “peace” is a choice if only we set aside our belligerent instincts. And so, Europe sees no enemy in Islam. Instead, Europe protects and incubates the Islamic serpent’s egg held fast to its bosom. Any other course is viewed as “racism.” The very act of protecting one’s culture, of defending the boundary that separates “them” from “us,” is considered illegitimate. The Muslim response to European tolerance is simple: They defend their cultural identity, threatening death to anyone who criticizes the Prophet Mohammed. At the same time, Western Europe sacrifices freedom of speech in order to placate Muslim immigrants. Islam can defend its “rights” while European culture must give way.

And further, this all-important passage:

We forget that the boundary of our collective self was established through centuries of bloodshed. Do we imagine our ancestors were so stupid that they would risk life and limb sacrificing for something that need not exist? The geographical separation of peoples is a necessary precondition for preserving national identity and culture. Without boundaries there can be no people, no culture and no context for peace. And today, as the boundary between Christendom and Islam is erased, we find what Fallaci calls “the most terrible thing of all.” A community based on intolerance and terror begins to integrate with a community based on tolerance and freedom with the result that our journalists, teachers and intellectuals are turning against freedom because they are afraid to oppose the oppression and intolerance of Islam. And therefore they announce that Islam is a “religion of peace.”

[Emphasis above is mine.]
How much has changed since 2006? Has all this tolerance and appeasement improved our situation?

Fallaci is no longer with us, sadly, and there are few who are as bold as she was and as intense, and so obviously a patriot towards her region, Tuscany, and her people, the Italian people, or Western Christendom.
Where is her successor? I say there is no obvious successor. Politicians, trying to be all things to all people, and choosing their words carefully, cannot or dare not speak as much truth as Fallaci did. Yet we need someone to speak with the enthusiasm and genuine love — yes, love, because behind her ire towards Islam was a love for her home, her people, and the heritage of the European people generally. Such love is never inspired by dry principles and ideologies; it can’t be. No one can love an abstract proposition. Love is inspired by tangible, real things, not theories: by blood-connection:  kin and kind, and there is also love for one’s native soil, and all the associations thereof.

We have our spokesmen and even a few women who express the ethnonationalist, ethnopatriot point of view, but do we have people who are motivated by ”excess of love” as Yeats said in another poem? We need more such people. Passion and zeal are needed; they are contagious and they alone can animate a group which seeks to inspire and move others, to reawaken their fellow-feeling and their group-consciousness.

Charlie Hebdo shooters cornered?

Tiberge at Gallia Watch is now writing that there is some kind of ongoing hostage situation involving the suspects in the Charlie Hebdo murders. This may get resolved quickly so by the time some of you read this, it will not be ‘new news.’

It is a strange story overall. For an interesting take and some questions regarding the situation, check out Old Atlantic’s post here.

The public reaction to the murders includes the expected emotional displays and public theater by the left,  such as the ‘Je suis Charlie‘ phenomenon and the makeshift shrines with flowers and teddy bears. Now, I know that the latter is meant as a gesture of mourning or respect on the part of some, but it is very much a recent phenomenon in Western culture; our displays of mourning in past eras were usually more private and less emotional. Or maybe that applies only to those of us in the Anglosphere. But somehow it always seems very liberal, very feminine, and rather adolescent, this public grieving over strangers. Of course we feel bad for the people who have lost their friends and loved ones, but can we really feel the same depth of grief for strangers as for real life friends and family? It all seems rather artificial to me.

A commenter on Vox Day’s blog said something like ‘don’t bring a candlelight vigil to a gunfight’, and that seems an apposite (and witty) comment, in my opinion.

It seems that in the aftermath of these attacks, there is a conspicuous lack of anger, or even righteous indignation. The political classes, of course, have to tread carefully not to offend some minority constituency, so they are oh-so-politically correct, and try to please everyone with bland platitudes, and talk of ‘coming together’ and so on. But there should, in a healthy people, also be a modicum of righteous anger. And yes, there is an anger that is righteous and just, regardless of what the liberal Christians-who-quote-Gandhi might say. Anger is not a sin per se; the Bible tells us, ”be angry, and sin not”, in other words, not all anger is sin, though some may be. And the PC therapeutic culture we live in would have us disown all ”negative” human emotions in favor of bland niceness. This is producing a very unhealthy dynamic in Western countries, in my opinion. People are taught to deny and suppress natural emotions, and emotions (”hate”, for example) are now being criminalized in some countries — very nearly so in our country, but not quite yet.

But we are being conditioned to suppress these so-called ”negative” emotions, which are, for the most part, the more masculine, harder emotions. It’s all part of the feminizing of our culture. But there is a rightful place for these ‘masculine’ feelings, and it’s an injustice to try to strip people of what are honest feelings, especially those which conduce to our acting in self-defense, or which enable us to act against evil-doers. We are in effect being disarmed and neutered, as a people. This has to change; nature will not be denied, and God-given emotions should not be conditioned out of us.

I do see some righteous anger among many of us in the West, but the media continue to preach their treacly gospel of  ”tolerance” and ”inclusion” and they continue to warn against ‘backlashes’ and ‘hate.’ The first backlash, if and when it comes, will be a backlash against ”liberals” and those who have preached and inspired the liberal madness that led us to the current state of affairs.

Murders in Paris: what next?

My sympathies go out to the family members and friends of those murdered by Islamic
attackers in Paris. Though the murders are shocking they can hardly be surprising. Anyone with a brain and common sense knows that with many Moslems living in the heart of our home countries, former Christendom, there will be attacks and atrocities like this. Guaranteed.

The people who rule over us are insistent, adamant, that we must allow these hostile and volatile people, people who are millennia-long enemies of ours and our ancestors, to live freely amongst us, according to their whim. We, however, are to have no say about their ”right” to come here and live amongst us. We would never be allowed, in our vaunted ‘democracy’, the democratic right to a referendum on immigration; no, we must accept the rulings passed down from on high, from our ”elected” leaders, and from the un-elected ‘United Nations.’ So Moslems are allowed, no, encouraged, no, welcomed to come and live amongst us, and if we have an objection to that, we are not allowed to freely express those objections. In some Western countries it is now a crime to criticize immigration and though it is not yet criminal here, it can’t be spoken in ‘respectable’ circles without being drowned with cries of ‘racism’, ‘hate’, and ‘xenophobia.’

So, we are unwillingly being made targets of those Moslems who act as surrogates for the others in attacking critics of the Moslem founder Mohammed, as with the leftist journalists and cartoonists who were the targets of the attacks in Paris. And this is with the tacit approval of our ”leaders”, who invariably mouth appeasing statements toward the ”islamic community” and pleas for ‘tolerance’ on the part of the native population. Then comes the inevitable wave of articles sympathetically reporting that there is a ‘fear of a backlash against innocent Muslims’, fear of ‘hate crimes’ from the general population. Never mind that there has never been a significant backlash on the part of the majority after any of the numerous ‘isolated incidents’ of Moslems killing non-Moslems.

Some bloggers wrote that they expected these murders in Paris to cause a change in attitudes in Europe, not just in France. Supposedly the native European population will be galvanized or harden their attitudes toward Islam, or that they will oppose the worrying tide of immigrants from the Third World, a tide that never seems to stop, only to grow.

Will this expected change occur? For the good of the people of France and for all the European peoples, we should hope so. But will it? My hopes aren’t high. Look at what happened following the recent hostage murders in Sydney. Granted, Australia is not France; we are not all the same, even among people of European descent. But in all Western countries, the politically correct indoctrination is so deeply and firmly entrenched, even among the more traditional segments of society, that there are more people who, (perhaps led by the PC media) rush to show their sympathy for their ‘moderate Moslem’ neighbors or co-workers or that nice man who owns the convenience store. Lefties are out in full force decrying ‘hate’ and asking why can’t we all just love each other and be a ‘welcoming and inclusive society’. Will this event, then, break the conditioning and pave the way for the natural and healthy response to such attacks — the instinct to show solidarity with one’s own, one’s home and family, one’s neighbors? Self-defense and the instinct to survive as a people — those are natural and healthy responses. People without them don’t last. Now we’ve had it beaten into our heads by media, by ‘government leaders’, and by the schools, that it’s bad to care for our own: our kin and kind, our heritage, our way of life. Our territory; ‘land where my fathers died,’ as we used to sing in our schoolrooms.

After 9/11 I naively thought that our leaders would close the borders to people from hostile countries, and start to halt mass immigration. But while the ashes of the victims still smoldered, we had George Bush telling us ‘Islam is a religion of peace.’ So much for our leaders’ loyalty to us. So much for ”conservatives” being patriotic or ethno-loyalist. And what happened after the attacks in Britain on 7/7/2005? Or after the train attacks in Spain on the eve of an election? Or after the deaths of Theo Van Gogh or Pim
Fortuyn? Or after the Fort Hood attacks in which disarmed soldiers, on an army base, were killed by a uniformed military officer, a ‘doctor’ of Middle Eastern origin and Moslem faith? In the last case, a General Casey had the colossal gall to say that the deaths were tragic but if the army’s ”diversity” were to suffer, that would be even worse.

And I haven’t even mentioned so many other attacks, including the atrocity of Lee Rigby’s murder in London.

How much of this must we accept? How many times must we foolishly pretend that these are ‘isolated exceptions’ carried out by ‘a few bad apples’ or ‘a few radical extremists, who don’t represent their faith’? I asked after 9/11 and I ask now: where are all these ‘moderate moslems’? Fox News likes to trot out their hired ‘good Moslems‘ or converts who speak out against their faith or former faith, just to keep us reassured that ”they’re not all like that”. The truth is that these people serve their faith and their co-religionists ultimately, whether they intend it or not, by lulling us into trusting that we can trust some moslems, maybe even most of them, because it’s just the few making the many look bad.

We can no longer afford this naïve wishful thinking, if indeed we ever could.

I honestly hope that there will be a sea change in Europe; I hope that they might show us the way. Truth be told I think most Americans, at least today’s ‘melting pot Americans’ who are not the same as the founding stock, are followers, not leaders. Europe will have to show us the way, rather than vice-versa. Maybe they can inspire us by example, and our sheeplike conformity will give way to something sterner. If not, then the future doesn’t look good for us; we will possibly end up as a northern Brazil, speaking some corrupted latinized form of English, but otherwise unrecognizable to our forefathers. I don’t like to think of our European cousins, especially the French, being part of an Islamic caliphate in Europe, and the whole continent subsumed into the Third World.

Will any incipient ethnonationalist/ethnopatriot movement be crushed by the totalitarian left, or co-opted by some kind of ‘inclusivist’ proposition-nationalism? We’ve seen that with some of the ‘nationalist’ groups in the UK which want to be multicultural, as well as the Scottish ‘Nationalists’ and the Sinn Feiners in Ireland. I think this is a strategy that is being employed to neuter and render useless all ethnonationalists, and it’s happening somewhat with the Front National in France; witness the many photos of Marine Le Pen with Moslem party members. In this country it’s called the ‘Big Tent’ strategy, beloved of the Republican Party. Big tents, however, usually house freak shows, and this kind of thing is to be avoided. This bow to multiculturalism is always done in the name of appealing to the ‘masses’ and getting more warm bodies on board, while quality should never be sacrificed for quantity, or just for sheer numbers.

It does not take a majority to bring about significant change; it takes a dedicated and determined minority, as our ancestors knew. The majority will be brought along when the time is right, andn these attacks may — or may not — lead the people to follow the ethnopatriot path rather than the path off the cliff to oblivion.

This is Christianity?

From the founts of wisdom over at Free Republic:

“To: Oliviaforever
Jesus is black, white, male, female, every ethnicity, every language, every stature in life because He indwells His Church through the Holy Spirit. And the church, the body of Christ, is made up of all of these. Note that the Bible says Christ “is all” of these things:
Colossians 3:11
where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Contextually, it is saying that these distinctions no longer matter because they no longer separate those who are in Christ and in whom Christ dwells.
The world offers a cheap imitation of the unity of the body of Christ. Overcoming racism and the war of the sexes is only truly possible in Christ.
44posted on Sunday, January 04, 2015 6:10:28 PMby unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)”
The above sounds more like pantheism than Christianity. I mean, read the first sentence of the quote.
God is not the author of confusion.
The second Scripture that the Freeper above quotes, Galatians 3:28, is the one most frequently trotted out by universalist ‘Christians’, or unbelieving “anti-racists”/anti-Whites who have learned a few scraps of Scripture to pull out like a worn coin from a purse. I will quote what Harry Seabrook wrote a few years ago about the deployment of that particular Scripture:

“[S]adly, politically correct Christians are willfully ignorant of race. Sam Francis writes: “Almost literally every time I have argued or debated about race in a public forum, I get a response from whites of quoting the Bible verse of Galatians 3:28 — ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ This verse apparently has become the basic text for Christian universalism and race denial, although if it were interpreted as literally as those who use it for that purpose do, it would also deny the existence of sexual differences, a conclusion that is not only absurd but would appear to gut the Christian argument against gay marriage.” And this is exactly correct. The very same interpretation that denies racial distinction also logically undercuts rejection of feminism and sodomy.”

It’s necessary to be ready with some response to this ‘argument’ used by the politically correct, because it will be used whenever possible to promote the idea of race (and sex) being irrelevant if not actually non-existent. This skates very close to the ‘race is a social construct’ twaddle so beloved of the anti-Whites.
But even more than that, it promotes the essentially New Age/Eastern religion idea that God is all, and all is God. I am he and you are he and you are me and we are all together. That’s not Christianity, no matter how ”profound” some people think it to be.
 This is one reason why we are in such dire straits: people cannot discern true from false. They are easily taken in by sophistry and glib nonsense of any old kind, if it is delivered by someone who purports to be ‘Christian’ or ‘conservative.’ It’s hard to know who is who anymore when no one thinks clearly or consistently anymore. Liberals believe themselves to be ‘conservative’ and New Age pantheists/polytheists think they are ‘Christians’, just as boys think they are girls and vice-versa. We can’t take anyone at face value anymore. Discernment and common sense are needed as never before.
And the Freeper quoted at the top of this post needs to read and take to heart his own tagline.

Enough apologies

I don’t know who this woman is; I gather she is an actress, and this Redbook statement of hers has gotten her into trouble with the totalitarians who police the media for thought-crimes. Her ‘crime’ is to say that she enjoys serving her husband and doing domestic things. And this is enough to have the the PC vigilantes hunting her down, demanding apologies?

And to make things worse, she obliged them. How is it that nobody will stand behind what they say anymore? Why do people who say politically incorrect things simply crumble at the slightest complaint or the first demand from the PC mobs? This is what gives them the power they wield: this willingness to give in easily on the part of anyone who dares speak out of turn.

This young woman’s apology is like so many politically-corrected statements: a waffling statement that denies the intent of the original ‘offensive’ statement, and an appeasing tone meant to invoke some mercy from one’s accusers. For once, I’d love to see someone stand by their original statement and refuse to bow down and ask for mercy.

P.G. Wodehouse is quoted as having said  

“It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.”

Yes, the politically correct crowd, in this case feminists, are taking a mean advantage of all the apologies being offered up by their intimidated targets. Let’s stop giving that kind of power over to the PC thought-police. They have far too much power over the rest of us already — power which we’ve allowed them. We far outnumber them, and our voices surely can drown theirs out if we simply united to denounce this kind of badgering and bullying.

New Year Wishes, 2015

I’d like to say I wish whoever is reading this a happy and prosperous New Year in 2015. Thank you, whoever may be reading this, for visiting this blog. I know there are a few of you out there somewhere.

I hope this blog will find its voice in the months to come; it’s been hard getting back in stride after a long break from blogging. I don’t know where I fit in, if at all, in this ‘new world’ of the ethnopatriot/WN/ethnonationalist blogging world. I don’t know that I am on the same page with many of the neo-reactionaries, as they seem a much different group of people. But I will go on my usual way, writing what I write from the heart as well as the head, and hope that what I write resonates with someone, be it ever so few, or that someone finds what I write helpful or useful in some way.