Where do we go from here?

After yesterday’s impeachment charade, I suppose all that could be said about it has been said by somebody somewhere, or will be, shortly.

Most of us were likely not surprised by the way this staged event played out. I know I wasn’t surprised.

Some of us may follow Q and the ‘predictions’ or riddles that are doled out to us. Do I believe Q absolutely? I would say I’m not a denier or a complete skeptic, but more of an agnostic, who is open to being convinced, looking to see if the ‘predictions’ or whatever prove to be valid.

I have noticed that Q often tells readers that “they” (TPTB) “want us divided.” Dividing the populace so as to solidify control is a very old idea in the minds of the more manipulative people who rule over others, or who want to rule. But are TPTB the ones who have divided us, and who keep ‘us’ divided? They like us to be divided; it makes things easier for them when we take out our anger and hostility on our neighbors or even kinsmen instead of focusing it on the people holding the reins.

The ‘civnats’ and mainstream conservatives like the mantra about those in power dividing us. They appear, these civic nationalist types, to think that once upon a time it was otherwise; we all lived in happy harmony in a rainbow America where all that mattered was our belief in holy Democracy and Brotherhood and Equality, until the left came and taught us to distrust one another and stirred up trouble amongst us, which was something new and unprecedented. Why, for example, during the Revolution (against King George and the villainous ‘redcoats’ who had somehow gotten the whip hand over us) Crispus Attucks was our hero , proving that there were no divisions among us apple-pie Americans. Or so the story goes.

It may be that the people who seem to believe this view of a once-idyllic America don’t actually believe it, but feign belief in the hope that believing in it really hard will bring it into being.

Forgive me for being a little cynical here; when I began this blogging business some 13 years ago, I was a little more idealistic. Still I was not as naive as to believe that America was ever a peaceful “pluralistic” (pre-multicult) country; ‘E Pluribus Unum‘ and all that. I think some people still don’t know that the Latin E Pluribus Unum never referred to multiculturalism and ‘world citizenship’ or any such fairy-tales. It referred to the states, the sovereign States, a confederation forming one nation. Only the South, or what is left of it, remembers that rather important fact. America has always had problems stemming from its ‘pluralistic’ origins.

But since the Civil Rights contretemps, the ‘Late Unpleasantness’ in the South, it’s required that we speak as though we were once a big happy family until The Left divided us, an event which would never have occurred otherwise, as we were all like peas in a pod, living side by side. The ‘right’ manages to give the appearance of believing this, but the left and their client ‘victim’ groups don’t believe this, and never did; why would they? There’s no advantage to be had from believing it. No grievances, no payoff.

So when Q (or are there multiple Qs?) talks of ‘Them’ wanting us divided, he means the invisible PTBs. Sure, they want us divided, but it wasn’t their doing from the beginning. Nature divided us, or God divided us. The Bible itself says that God ‘sets the bounds of nations’. In speaking of this dividing, the great Bible commentator Matthew Henry, in his commentary, said, of this division amongst the various peoples, ‘What God hath set asunder, let no man join together.’ He had a sly sense of humor, apparently, did Matthew Henry, but he was serious in his meaning.

The whole point of the Babel story was that there were meant to be differences; that we were not all made identical and interchangeable, and it was God-ordained, and for a reason.

Now, I can see that there is a need for strategic alliances in certain circumstances, and that there ought not to be perpetual hostilities between peoples, as is now the case. The events in this pretend impeachment story are the result of the out-of-control animosities between people, even people of a common origin and language and history. The left has stoked those flames of anger and hostility, and they continue to do so; it seems a deliberate decision they’ve made, evidently looking to provoke some aggressive action on the part of the right, providing them with a pretext to — – what, exactly? Only they know what they are thinking, if in fact they are capable of thought; we can only guess.

The powers that be, those Q says ‘want us divided’, are sitting back watching this as their surrogates or puppets stir up more conflict. The latter seem unmoored from reality, whereas many of the ‘mainstream’ right choose to live in some kind of civnat fool’s paradise, where we’re all really the best of friends, brothers and sisters, if only the Left wasn’t stirring the pot, bringing it to the boil.

Meantime, does the POTUS really believe in the civic nationalist ideals he expresses so often? Does he really believe that we need ‘more legal immigration, much, much more’? Does he really believe that Israel is our friend? I don’t know. Only he knows, I suppose.

I think I wrote on my blog years ago that it seemed we were in a car with no brakes, careening toward the edge of a cliff.

Somehow, though, I believe that there is someone in charge; I have complete faith in a Creator who knows the end from the beginning, and I trust Him completely, though all looks to be out of control. Isn’t it increasingly obvious that we humans are not able to extricate ourselves from this dangerous situation under our own power?

Does that mean we should do nothing? No. We have a part to play, and we are to be actively trying to do what we can to right things. It’s obvious that we are not really in charge — and neither are the other guys. But they are at a disadvantage because they are blinded to their own wrongness.

Do Q and the others (whoever they may be) know what they are doing? There are a lot of verbal reassurances that they expect success, and a reversal of the dire conditions. Some are putting their trust fully in the mysterious Q et al, and in the President, saying that it’s all a grand plan, a ‘strategy’, as they said about G.W. Bush during his bungled presidency. Obviously, though, “W” did know what he was doing — but he was not on our side. Things are seldom what they seem.

Right now praying seems the best plan.

In my opinion.

In defense of ‘fundamentalists’

The mere title of this post will probably garner some unfavorable reactions from the PTB, if they are looking in. Why should it, though?

These days, most people have heard or read the term ‘fundamentalist’ applied only to members of a certain religion — do I dare to mention it?

But even when the term is applied to what I call simply “old-time Christians”, it’s a pejorative, usually, meant to apply to what one blogger, whose post I just read, called ”fanatical zealots” or some such name.

I feel very defensive about the use of disparaging or outright hostile terms applied to fellow Americans who are nothing more than old-fashioned Christians who — imagine this: — actually believe in the Bible. I guess that is unimaginable to lots of people, after all it’s the current year, and nobody (that is, nobody that the critic considers normal or sane) actually beieves the Bible in its entirety. Yet just about every American of a Christian background has ancestors who did actually believe the Bible, including the miracles and other “unscientific” parts.

What does it say that we are willing to dismiss as ‘zealots’ and ‘fanatics’ our own ancestors, who happened, in most cases, to have been good and decent people, though these same critics tolerate many not-so-decent people, simply because they believe in the present-day ‘gods’ of Science and “open-mindedness” and all the rest?

At least they’re not ‘fanatical zealots’ like those awful Puritans, of olden time, right? Or those modern-day fundies who live in the past ,and believe absurd things?

I had a beloved Grandmother who was what the critics call a ”fundamentalist.” And what does that word mean? If you look in a present day dictionary you will probably see it defined as ‘fanatic’ because that seems to be the consensus among the ‘respectable’ people looking down on the ignorant “fundies”. Even some ‘Christians’ will use the word ‘fundies’ when talking of people who uphold the old-time Christian beliefs.

Incidentally, lest anyone think that the discredited TV ‘evangelists’ represent fundamentalism, they most decidedly don’t, in most cases. I am ashamed to say that most TV preachers represent the new Christianity that compromises unashamedly with the ‘world’.

My Grandmother had a deep influence on me, as did her whole generation. That generation, especially rural Southrons, were the last of their kind, I’m afraid. My Grandmother had been raised as a ‘Primitive Baptist’, another name that is being mentioned in a negative way — after all, the word ‘primitive’ is part of the label, so it can’t be anything but a backward group of people, right?

As for me I was baptized in another one of those churches that are more common in the South — and, like the Primitive Baptists, very Bible-believing. I guess that means I am in the ‘backward’ category, too, according popular wisdom.

As a people, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot by ‘drawing circles’ that shut each other out. It strikes me as a form of status-signaling, if not virtue-signaling, to go out of our way to make invidious remarks towards our own folk and their religious practices. Those of us who are Christian, and I mean Christian by deed and not just by name , are brothers and sisters in Christ, should we be found ‘othering’ each other, on grounds of our differing ideas of Christianity? And can we afford to do that?

I don’t object to being called a ‘fundamentalist’ because it originally did not carry such negativity. It simply meant those who accept the Five Fundamentals of the Christian Faith.

I ‘m not writing to try to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone, and I often refrained from mentioning my religious beliefs lest I alienate someone, though Christians are not to hide our faith, but rather share it.

Now, when it seems that we are up against some serious travails and troubles, faith is needed; ”Science” has proven itself to be dishonest and compromised; being only based on human perceptions, it is as flawed as its human origins. As we humans aren’t all-knowing or all-wise, where do we look for guidance? Do we put our blind faith in ‘Science’, falsely so-called?

I can’t write in the inspired way in which Cambria Will Not Yield writes. This post is simply to make the point that slurring Christian neighbors , our ancestors, and our fellow-Christians, is misguided, counterproductive, and not the thing that our side should be doing. We expect this from liberals and other nonbelievers, but from our own folk? Et tu, brute?

I realize many people out there do not share my faith, or my variety of Christianity. It isn’t my purpose to preach the particular beliefs in which I share, though I happen to believe that we need to rediscover the Faith of our fathers, and to cast aside all of today’s prejudices against that ‘Good Old Way’ which strengthened them so much. It seems that we lack the strength and serenity that I saw in the older generations. But those qualities can’t be attained by “positive thinking” or ‘self-help’ or any of the nostrums of today.

Ultimately that ‘fundie’ that is being disparaged is your kin as well as mine, and he is not a dangerous ‘fanatical zealot’; he is simply someone who does not chop and change with the winds, or the seasons, or the prevailing prejudices of our times.

Sticks and stones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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