One out of many?

I happened to catch part of the ceremonies at West Point yesterday, with President Trump officiating.

I couldn’t help but notice the dominance of ”diversity.” It seemed to me, just scanning over the WP graduates that there were few Whites to be seen and that girls (I mean, women, or womyn, whatever) accounted for some of the slots obviously allotted to Whites, so that even fewer White males appeared.

Obviously they are continuing in the tradition of a predecessor:

A diverse Army gives us strength,” said General George Casey some years ago.

Remember the rest of his comments, and the context? In a memorial service for those killed at Fort Hood in Texas. In case anyone has forgotten, the shooter was Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan. Enough said.

Hassan’s presence surely ‘gave us strength’ according to Casey’s calculus.

Anyway the rest of his remarks:

“Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

General George Casey Jr.

West Point is following the Casey doctrine, evidently, as is the rest of our confused society. Diversity must be served, at all costs.

Then we have talk of ‘Unity’ being a must, because we can’t let “Them” divide us. A lot of people have bought this argument, that some outside forces (probably the ‘racist’ democrats, which many liberal Republicans devoutly believe) are sowing divisions — which would never exist if they weren’t being caused by some outside element — ‘Them’.

I realize many people alive now weren’t around to be aware that these things, these divisions and clashes and animosities have always been present, because different groups are — wait for it — different. Imagine that. People have somehow been persuaded, or persuaded themselves that we all once lived side-by-side in relative peace, while certain ethnic groups did not commit crimes. They all lived upstanding lives, got married (legally) and stayed married and raised families. We were all Americans, all melting-pot descendants of immigrants who became model citizens.

Believing this, people are expecting — should Q et al restore America after delivering all the malefactors to their just deserts — that we can all live in a state of Unity-in-Diversity, happily ever after. Because some things are just social constructs.

The Unity that is being touted is paradoxically Diversity, but it will, ideally, be a Diversity which does not divide; we will all just be flag-waving Americans. But the diversity that does not divide or set us against each other will not dissolve into some kind of fairyland Unity; it will corrode any possible unity.

I believe Donald Trump’s view of this imagined Unity is the same as that promoted by the Q movement; I’ve seen enough of their memes and of their channel which is on YouTube. Some of those who are regulars speak very harshly of anybody who they deem ‘racist’ (that is, too ethnocentric or ethnopatriotic); their programming is very heavy on the ‘rainbow’ view of America. The ‘Democrats Are the Real Racists’ meme, despite its uselessness as a political argument, is very much alive and well.

On the other hand, Vox Day in a recent post declared that Unity is not desirable; it is the problem. {I am paraphrasing}. If Unity somehow = Diversity, then he is certainly right. Of course Unity as envisioned by the pollyannas does imply that we have to create some artificial, non-organic unity, and that would be forced, just like things were forced back in 1957.

Unity has to be organic, from the ground up, not coerced and enforced by laws or government edicts, nor can it be forced by self-designated arbiters like the Antifa. It also should not be the result of peer-pressure from self-righteous liberals and lefties, or liberal Republicans who are little different from outright lefties now, with their bowing and genuflecting. Some do this physically, as we saw, but some do it in spirit, in words, and it’s just as bad.

Elusive unity

Reading Q’s latest messages on Anonymous Conservative’s blog, I’m noticing some things that I didn’t realize before. I haven’t followed Q consistently, just sporadically here and there.

It’s evident that Q, whoever he or ‘they’ may be, is more or less a civic ‘nationalist’ of sorts. The messages sometimes stress the idea that ‘we’re all in this together’, ‘WWG1WGA’, etc. Unity, union, solidarity seem to be persistent themes.

But in a country so sorely divided is it realistic to expect so many disparate and disconnected “Americans” to all pull together and behave as a family? Q says we are ”all children of God’; this sounds like it’s aimed at Christians who have rather casual beliefs. Most good old Bible teachers or preachers will tell you that not all are ‘children of God’; that only comes with committing one’s life to our Lord. It isn’t an automatic process.

Q emphasizes our ‘civic nationalist’ brotherhood; we’re all Americans and we must not be divided by anything, and we must not even notice race, as the latest message said.

But the differences that divide us are not differences that are chosen, nor can we just wave them away. Genetics and culture, language and religion, regional ties and loyalties, all these factors divide us. And then Scripture tells us that God sets the bounds of nations; he created dividing markers, in our external environment as well as in our minds and hearts — and DNA.

As I said, I haven’t read every word from Q et al, but I have noticed the recurring themes. Nevertheless, I am all for the idea of trying to retrieve and restore what is left of our society and our body politic after the Left and their globalist overlords have taken the wrecking ball to it. Yet I don’t see how the ‘swamp’ can be drained given the fact that the nation-wreckers seem so numerous and so deeply established in the system so that they can withstand any efforts on the part of Patriots. And suppose the ‘White Hats’, whoever they are, do succeed? Will a new agenda be promoted to reverse the damage done by the fanatics on the left?

Q is promoting ‘Free Thought’ which is, in my opinion, based in Scientism, secularism, and for many people who identify with it, atheism or libertarianism. In Q’s words, logic and reason should predominate over what he deems ‘groupthink.’ This is what we often hear from libertarians and atheists. And it may sound good; I think reason and logic should be valued, and adult people should be grounded in those things, and be fit to exercise those faculties in everyday life. Sad to say few people in this 21st century seem to have been educated to think logically or to even argue their point in a cogent way. Blame the school system and the media or society; whoever is to blame, they’ve succeeded in keeping people mal-educated and misinformed.

Q says that authority, tradition, dogma, or revelation should not play any part.

What kind of country would we be living in if the above elements are to be excluded?
Whatever it would be, it would bear little resemblance to the country that our forebears created.

Along about this time someone will say that the Founding Fathers were mostly atheists or ‘Freethinkers’ or Masons or Rosicrucians. Some of them were to an extent ‘Freethinkers’ of some sort, but it can be said that they were not anti-Christian, and they were not trying to remove Christianity from our society.

But without the tradition, authority, and revelation it would seem that Q’s ideal society would be a secularist and sterile kind of society in which we would have some kind of feigned Unity, in a multicultural and ‘colorblind’ civic nationalist world.

Patriotism in this case would seem to meean loyalty to the System, the Flag, or to a set of ”Freethinking” beliefs. Ethnonationalism, by contrast, means we identify with the heritage and the culture of our folk, including honoring our history and our distinctive traditions.

Would that be enough to restore what Q et al regard as our natural and rightful Unity? Did we ever have that kind of unity and solidarity before? I would say yes, but that was in the early days of this country, before it became so disparate and fragmented, with many cultures and languages and customs.

There can only be unity in Truth; as of now we live in what I’ve called an Edifice of Lies. We are compelled to believe obvious untruths (about HBD, among other things) and some of us won’t or can’t speak lies in order to conform to PC.

If a system is based on lies and pretend ‘unity’, in which we all have to censor our thoughts and speech, and be party to falsehoods, then that can never be true Unity. Unity is genuine only if is not coerced or artificially created; otherwise it is just one more pretense among many.

Just as Christianity remains fragmented because of differing beliefs and traditions, so is our Western society. The causes of the divisions are real and they won’t disappear overnight.

‘Diversity’ brings disunity, which I think is more than obvious to anybody with the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

I am certain that Q’s efforts, insofar as we can perceive them, would be preferred to staying on the runaway fast train to Babel. But I think we have to exercise some discernment about where the Q train would take us — assuming a patriot remnant prevails.

Brouhaha over Trump and the Kurds

I don’t have a Twitter account, but I gather, from a post at the blog ‘Where the Strongest Evidence Leads’ that there has been something of a Twitter storm about Trump’s letter to Erdogan in Turkey. It seems that letter got the left stirred up, and probably in faux-hysterics about it. I haven’t read the letter, but I know his stance on the Kurds for some reason got the left’s drawers in an uproar. Their sometime ‘pacifist’ principles seem to appear and disappear depending on the party of the President who is in office at the time. But somehow they seem to think that Trump is throwing the poor lambs to the wolves.

It’s all theater, really, on the part of the left, and should be ignored if possible, but there are some important questions here. For one: are all immigrants just helpless and downtrodden? Or: is it always our place to be Daddy to everyone, and be responsible for them? On the one hand, progressives always complain that we are the world’s policeman, yet they want us to be the world’s servant or sugar daddy. Which is it? Are we ‘meddling’ when we ride to the rescue or are we being taken advantage of?

From the various discussions I’ve read here and there it seems there is the ususal propaganda about the Kurds, with them being portrayed, predictably, as merely another downtrodden and oppressed immigrant group. And it was a given, from the beginning, that there would be the now-expected ginning-up of sympathy for them and pressure to bring them en masse to this country and other Western countries.

I was stunned, a while back, to learn that Nashville, Tennessee has a large Kurdish colony, the largest ‘community’ of the Kurds outside the Middle East. Will Nashville, that iconic Southern city, home of the Grand Ole Opry, ever be the same place once the world is invited in permanently? Obviously that’s the plan. And it isn’t just Nashville. The Kurds have colonies — excuse me; a ”diaspora” in various Western countries.

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) the population of Kurds in the United Kingdom was over 50,000 in 2002, and though there is apparently no count kept of them as a distinct population now, that figure of 50,000 surely is much larger today, as the data was from 17 years ago. I heard that there was a sizeable protest in London by members of the Kurdish community, regarding Trump’s decision. London seems to be the home of most of the Kurds in the U.K. Well, diversity is London’s strength, isn’t it? It’s our strength, too, so we’re told.

I know the left have been wringing their hands because they fear a ‘genocide’ of the Kurds, but as much of their population is in ‘exile’ in various Western countries, I don’t think there is much likelihood of a genocide. And the leftist pretend to think Trump is abandoning the Kurds to their ‘fate’, showing his hard-heartedness or Kurdophobia (is that a word yet? It probably will be soon.) The Wikipedia info on the Kurds in the UK says that they are victims of ‘discrimination’ and suprisingly, mentions the fact of violence within their ‘community.’ There is a link at the Where the Strongest Evidence Leads blog, where there are lots of stories of violence within the ‘community.’ Usually those things are swept under the rug; those things don’t fit the ”narrative”. Among the ‘dysfunction’ reports: honor killings, drugs, human trafficking, etc.

Most Americans , it appears, are being conditioned to believe that only Moslems are hostile to us, and that anyone else will fit in to our societies just fine. That seems to be the prevailing assumption.

I think it’s wise to be aware of the fact that, as the linked blog piece mentions, “Kurds are not our allies…” It would have been good if people had learned that about the Hmong, another group who came here because they had ‘helped’ us in Southeast Asia, and somehow there is this unwritten law that ‘helping’ us militarily means we owe them forever and that they automatically come to America, presumably getting a green card and permanent status here. There are some people in Wisconsin whose lives were ended prematurely, thanks to our rewarding our Hmong ‘allies’ by adopting them; after all, ‘they helped us’.

It may sound cynical to Americans used to smarmy platitudes about immigrants, but sometimes is it not just possible that they ‘ally’ with us not out of altruism towards us, but because they have interests of their own, and ulterior motives, rather than our well-being at heart? Americans are such babes-in-the-wood sometimes. I suppose we can thank the propaganda machine for that, at least in part.

America has become an aggregate of various colonies by dozens (if not more) of other ethnicities and nationalities, and we are the colonized.

As to the Kurds, personally I don’t think we have to coddle or defend them in particular; it seems they are far from a timid, helpless group of people. Now if Trump would only get serious about our borders; Without borders we have no country, just as the English have no country of their own anymore and the Scandinavian countries likewise. And much of the rest of former Christendom. And yet everybody’s country but our own needs protection.