The Secret Forces?

The ‘Secret Forces’, as Catholic writer Atila Sinke Guimarães describes them, are those that I referred to in recent posts as ‘They’, the shadowy ‘elites’ who are supposedly pulling all the strings behind the scenes, making everything happen.

In this essay, (H/T Thinking Housewife) he discusses the Brexit vote, and describes how he thinks it fits into the context of ‘Their’ plans for Europe and the world.

I believe that England’s exit from the European Union may lead to the World War III. Let me elaborate. Anyone who follows international politics knows that the Secret Forces want to establish the One World Order, the Universal Republic. The UN agenda is the prototype of this ideal: a socialist government ruling over all the peoples on earth who will be transformed into a single type of brown man, the result of the mixing of all the races.”

This much is common belief among many on the Alt-Right or the ethnonationalist spectrum. Many people in the West would, despite mounting evidence in favor of these beliefs, scoff at what they call ‘conspiracy theories’ or paranoia.

In the past I have defended the idea that there are in fact conspiracies, and that conspiracies are known to have happened throughout history. So I still can’t understand why people who pride themselves on their intelligence and education sneer at any mention of a conspiracy. Are they really prepared to defend the idea that conspiracies are a myth altogether, that they never happen? That people can never get together and collude in some kind of plan or goal? Really?

It should not even be necessary to argue the fact that people have conspired, do conspire, and will conspire.

Having said that, though, it’s possible to become too suspicious of everything, and to see hidden hands and sinister plans behind everything that happens. For instance, many people on the right have now come to be quasi-pacifists because they believe that all wars,  I mean all wars are the result of ‘hidden forces’ duping everyone into fighting because of money or power. This presupposes that there is not innate aggression in many if not most human beings. Obviously people on an individual basis often come into conflict with neighbors over the most trivial matters, and violence occasionally ensues. History tells us of family feuds, clan feuds, tribal warfare, many conflicts on a small-scale basis. Sometimes these things escalate into something bigger. This is just fallen human nature. It isn’t necessary to believe that evil arms manufacturers,  or greedy banksters, or power-hungry dictators are behind the scenes pulling the strings in every human conflict. No doubt it has happened, but some human conflicts happen without sinister puppetmasters controlling the combatants.

To believe that every human ill is caused by conspiracies or shadowy elites is to attribute almost superhuman power to such people and groups. And to suppose that they have such a phenomenal success rate in shaping events, so that they are behind every major event or disaster, is to make them seem omnipotent.

As with this Brexit vote, I’ve been reading many comments from British folk online, and amongst those who have nationalistic leanings, there is a lot of second-guessing, a lot of doubts about whether or not the vote will extricate Britain from the clutches of the EU. There are many comments from people who wonder if the ‘leave’ vote is in fact what the powers-that-be wanted, that it was somehow some kind of reverse psychology move, some kind of psyops thing, and that voting ‘leave’ simply played into Their hands. “Now they have us just where they wanted us,” so  some comments said.

This kind of doubt, confusion, and suspicion actually works in favor of the ‘powers-that-be’; in fact, that’s the purpose of much disinformation put out by the governments and their media arm. The goal is to confuse, confound, and muddle people’s thinking, to make them so suspicious and cynical that they don’t know what to believe. And the upshot of this is that people often become more passive, more defeatist, and more resigned, thinking that ‘it doesn’t matter what we do or don’t do; ‘They’ are one or two steps ahead of us, controlling the outcome.’

Again, that attributes more power and knowledge to these shadowy ‘elites’ than they may possess. Unless ‘They’ have some kind of supernatural ability to see into the future they cannot predict with 100 percent accuracy what the outcome will be; there are to many variables, too many possible unintended consequences of their ‘best-laid plans’, too many random chance occurrences with surprise outcomes.

That being said, I don’t disagree with a lot of what the author of the article states. There are obviously powerful, wealthy, influential and secretive groups manipulating our societies. It does seem as if they have a monolithic regime which is working to the same plan all over the world, most especially in the West, in Christendom, and in White countries.  There are times when my spirits fall when I contemplate what a complete stranglehold they have on the media, on our educational system, and of course in government in all Western countries.

So will the Brexit vote lead into a World War? Nobody can know that. And to believe that it would likely do so would cause many Europeans to hesitate to work towards a similar EU exit plan for their countries. The EU and whoever controls them want people to hesitate, and become paralyzed with doubt, so that they accept the status quo.

But I refuse to believe that our enemies (they have declared themselves our enemies) are as powerful as many are making them out to believe. Little is certain in this world except change, and things cannot continue along their present course indefinitely.

Above all, to become fatalistic is tantamount to surrendering, admitting defeat. Carried to an extreme, pessimism and fatalism amount to cowardice.

Why pan-Europeanism is wrong

There’s been a kind of low-grade ongoing debate over the merits of ‘pan-Europeanism,’ or nationalism based only on broad racial classification vs. ethnonationalism, in which our immediate ethnic kinsmen are our ‘nation.’

Obviously I come down on the side of the latter. I think the idea that we can unite promiscuously with all those of European descent (wherever the borders of Europe may end, anyway; that can be argued) is misguided and would not work.

For an illustration see what’s going on, and has been going on in Britain, a country which has recently shown that it wants to be more self-determining.

Just for some perspective, this map:

immigration England Wales

In the number one position, immigrants from Poland. And this is only to England and Wales, not including all of Britain.

If you are a real ethnonationalist, you would say that all mass immigration is harmful to the peoples of England and Wales. If you are a pan-European (“we’re all white”) or White nationalist you will likely say, as our Freeper brethren do here, that the British should stop worrying about Polish immigrants because at least they are White. But whether the face of the United Kingdom is transformed by Polish immigrants coming en masse, or by Moslems (who, granted, are a threat) the country is nonetheless being changed into something else by the mere presence of masses of immigrants of ANY origin. To say “but they will assimilate” is to affirm your belief in ‘magic dirt.’ Poles are Poles. Welsh folk are Welsh, English are English.

The Poles have a very different language and culture. Britain has had immigrants from every corner of the globe thrust on her, and it is time they might have a chance at being themselves in the land of their ancestors, true to their own heritage and traditions.

And I ask this question to those who side with the Poles: do you think the Poles ought to accept half a million English, or Welsh, or Irish or Italians into their country? if not, why not? We’ll revisit that question at the end of this piece.

Recently some pro-White blogs have noted the fierce national pride and resurgent nationalism in Poland. “Poland for the Poles!” was mentioned as the rallying cry — doesn’t anyone see the irony in that, when the Poles have sent millions of their people to Britain and to Ireland and wherever else they are accepted as ‘guest workers’? Poland for the Poles should also imply England for the English, Wales for the Welsh.

Any other option means more of the ‘melting pot’/proposition nation/magic dirt scenario, and we’ve seen how that works out.

One more hard fact to chew on: Eastern Europeans in Britain and in Ireland seem to commit more than their share of violent crimes, and I’ve posted links corroborating that in the past. I won’t do so this time because those who doubt can google it up for themselves, and need not be spoon-fed. Some apologists for the Eastern Europeans (and BTW, note the high numbers of Lithuanians in Britain as well) claim that the criminals are not Poles or Lithuanians or Romanians, but Roma gypsies posing as non-gypsies. Nice try, but no, surely not in every case. I have speculated whether some countries are not sending their undesirables West, just as I’ve said about the ‘refugee’ flood into Europe generally, and the Latin American onslaught. I find it hard to believe that this is not being done by some countries wanting to get rid of their bad apples by dumping them onto the ‘richer’ countries, thus saving themselves some expense.

The link above in this piece is to a Free Republic discussion of an Al-Jazeera article. Obviously that is not an unimpeachable source; they are a propaganda outlet and not to be credited with being 100 percent truthful, but no doubt in some areas of Britain where there are large colonies of Poles, there is tension and resentment. And this should not be condemned as ‘xenophobia’ on the part of the British. And to say that just because the Moslems are far worse candidates for British residence, the Poles should be welcomed is just a non sequitur. Not an argument at all, much less a convincing one.

The Freepers on another thread also sputtered that ‘the Poles were brave fighters’ in WWII or whenever; that’s all well and good. But does their bravery give them carte blanche to live in the UK or Ireland or even our country? Here in America we had many Polish immigrants during the Ellis Island era and later, to the extent that large Polish enclaves existed in several cities. Immigrants, especially of that era, tend to become romanticized and a mystique has built up around them. The ethnic kin of those immigrants see them in a rosy glow. Some of that rosy glow has to dissipate, and we have to begin to look at immigration with a colder and more detached eye. We, meaning we in the ‘wealthier’ countries which are destinations for the world’s restless masses, will have to stop being sentimental and think of what is best for our folk, our progeny, not for the world’s hard luck cases.

I wish the Polish people well, in their own country, where it seems they are needed; there are stories that Poland ‘needs’ immigrants to fill jobs that are going begging.

Ironically, the Polish view immigrants with a jaundiced eye. And they are right to do so. But they should accord Western Europeans the right to feel the same.

Sudden jihad or ‘workplace violence?’

We already saw how the powers-that-be and their media arm spun the Fort Hood massacre by a Mohammedan as ‘workplace violence.’ Now they are already calling the latest incident, in Amarillo, Texas of all places, as more ‘workplace violence’ because the Somali Moslem shooter was an ex-employee of the Walmart where the incident happened.

Within a 76-minute period, shots rang out inside an Amarillo Walmart, a disgruntled employee took two hostages, panicked customers fled, an army of area law enforcement descended, the national news media covered and, ultimately, a gunman was left dead.

Amarillo police shot and killed 54-year-old Mohammad Moghaddam and rescued two hostages in just a little more than an hour. The incident paralyzed blocks along South Georgia Street and the Canyon E-Way for hours and had many in the city following the tense period through social media and other channels.”

And this same newspaper reporting this incident, about six months ago, was bemoaning the fact that blogs were stirring ‘controversy’ over the big surge in refugees being settled in Amarillo. The Mayor of Amarillo was insisting that the problem was the sheer number of refugees, not the fact that they were Moslem.

“It’s sad these groups are blaming (refugees for) some threat of an ISIS terrorist. That doesn’t translate at all to the situation in Amarillo. I would go anywhere with the refugees here,” Harpole said. “(The blogs) misquoted me about five times.”

Well, Mayor Harpole, I am not misquoting you, unless the quote I pasted above from the Amarillo Globe-News misquoted you. I doubt that they would do that, given that most public officials are liberal as are 99.9999 percent of the ‘newspapers’ in America. I am sure the Globe-News will faithfully report the party line carried by most politicians, namely: “Islam is a religion of peace. These are hardworking people looking for a better life. And this is a nation of immigrants.” Etc., etc., repeat as needed.

Leaving aside that risible cliche that ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ it’s just a fact that Somalia is a violent place — one of the most violent on this planet. No, it is not America with its ”gun culture” that is the worst, as leftists ignorantly say. According to most reliable statistics, Somalia up there near the top.

According to this website Somalia is number one. This site lists Mogadishu, the Somali capital, as the third most dangerous city in the world.  There are plenty of other stats out there which verify this fact; I needn’t go on providing more of the same. Liberals and assorted ”conservative” pollyannas may make excuses such as ”but the violence is done by extremist groups, warlords, etc.; the Somalis are mostly innocent victims not perpetrators. We need to rescue them from their violent cultures.” But where does their violent culture come from? The people make the place. The culture is a product of the people, not the other way around, no matter what the ‘nurture over nature’ cult says.

And in this article we can read how America’s ‘magic dirt’ has transformed the Somalis once they are breathing America’s ‘magic free air.’ :

The decision taken in the early 1990s by the US’s former president, Bill Clinton, to import tens of thousands of backward Somalis into the American heartland of Minnesota has turned into an entirely predictable tale of crime, violence—and now, as demonstrated in the Nairobi, Kenya, shopping mall atrocity, terrorism.”

Since the above was written in 2013, I am sure that other examples could be added to the above list.

So Mayor Harpole and the many other elected officials like him are simply in massive denial about the habits and behaviors of Somalis, and about the nature of the so-called ‘religion of peace.’

Part of my upbringing was in a West Texas town not far from Amarillo. At that time, most of the panhandle and West Texas was populated by old-stock Texans, mostly ‘Anglos’, to use the Hispanic term, though there were Mexican migrant workers who actually did migrate back to Mexico when the crops were in. There was little ‘diversity’ in today’s sense, just the natural diversity of the various kinds of Anglo Texans.

Since I spoke of the Fort Hood shootings at the beginning of this piece, I remember one of the more shocking statements made afterward by one of the public figures, General Casey. He warned (as usual) of a possible ”backlash” by Americans:

General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding dozens of others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”

“I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” General Casey said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union. “It would be a shame—as great a tragedy as this was—it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.

So General Casey, a military man whose job is allegedly to defend American citizens against foreign enemies (what else is a military for?) is being more protective of ‘Muslim  [sic] soldiers.’ What about American soldiers? American civilians, too, some of whom were murdered at Fort Hood? All Casey seemed to care about was his precious ‘diversity’. The potential damage to ‘diversity’ was more of a concern to him than the loss of American human beings, men, women, children, old, young — diversity is all that matters, right, General Casey? Mayor Harpole?

Heaven forbid ”Holy diversity” be damaged.

At least, thank the Lord, none of our folk were killed in this incident. But that was only by the grace of God, not through any efforts by American officials to protect their citizens and constituents. However, credit to the police who did what was necessary, and perhaps Texas is not yet as PC-paralyzed as many American states are. But the best cure is prevention. This situation was one of human making. Import large numbers of people from a violent country and you get — surprise, surprise — violence.

Elected officials? They are too busy protecting The Narrative, and Holy Diversity.

“It was workplace violence, Islam is a religion of peace, and diversity is our strength.”

Once again: diversity is not our strength. It is our greatest weakness, our greatest vulnerability in this day and time. It will be the end of us, either by slow demographic ‘swamping’, as we are blended beyond recognition, as our country becomes another Third World panmixia country like Brazil, or as we are slowly picked off by people like the Orlando shooter, the San Bernadino ‘Mr. and Mrs. Terrorists’, and all the rest of the vibrant enrichers, whose presence must be protected and defended at all costs. even at the cost of American lives. Diversity is all.

“What you mean, ‘we’?”

For those of you who may be too young to get the reference in the title, it’s from the punch line of an old, pre-PC joke. It went something like this:

The Lone Ranger says “Looks like we’re surrounded by hostile Indians, Tonto.”

Tonto replies: ”What you mean ‘we’, White Man?

In this latest from Fred Reed, he uses the word ‘we’ in a similarly questionable way. Writing about the recent political/racial violence directed at Trump supporters, and looking at the overall context — illegal and legal immigration out of control, warring ethnic/religious/racial groups, Reed says:

Somebody needs to take command to end this nonsense before it becomes irremediable. But is it possible? There is no nice way to do it. The scum will ignore niceness. The police would have to beat the living dog-snot out of rioters, charge them with assault, and put them in slam for the maximum. Controlling them would require martial law in cities in insurrection and the shooting of arsonists and looters. Universities would have to expel without recourse of misbehaving college children. These would take stomach, which we do not have.”

While I can find little with which I can disagree there, I can’t help questioning the word ‘we’ as he uses it. What you mean ‘we‘, Fred? Most of your readers are still in this country, while you are ensconced in Mexico — the land from which many of our enemies are coming — and you are married to a Mexican and raising Mexican children. So who is this ‘we’?

Maybe my patience has long since worn too thin but I consider that anybody who appears to have thrown in his lot with Mexico and the Mexican people is no longer part of the American ‘we’, or the White ‘we.’

Most pro-White men condemn White women who marry outside our folk and who bear children of another race, and rightly so. But strangely few people mention the irony of Reed implicitly including himself in the American ‘we’ or the White, Anglo ‘we’ when his choices say that he prefers Mexicans over his own folk.

Actions speak louder than words. Marrying and producing children with a genetically distant mate says that you have no real loyalty to, or even real regard for the future of your own folk. I suspect at heart, despite Reed’s blunt way of writing, he is more of a libertarian — even a ‘colorblind’ libertarian than a nationalist: you know, the right of the individual over the duty to the kin-group, the people to whom you belong by blood.

Deny it though we might, we’re part of an unbroken chain: we are part of our ancestors and we owe them allegiance. We owe it to them to follow their example and carry on the heritage, to keep faith with the past. We are not ‘islands’, entire of ourselves.

And we owe our posterity something. We owe a future to the unborn generations. We have no right to let their future be stolen.

Reed’s children, Mexican as they are (by birth, genetics, and very much by phenotype) have a home and a people in Mexico. Will our progeny have a national home at all? Will their children be absorbed into the ‘huddled masses’ eventually, or be despised in the country their ancestors founded?

Loyalty to our own folk is something that must be rediscovered. In these times we will see testing of this loyalty, and find out who is ‘of’ us and who is not.

Police chief connected to La Raza

Gateway Pundit reports that the San Jose police chief appears to have some kind of ties to the ethnoracial advocacy group, La Raza. Hardly surprising, given that his name is Garcia. The hard reality is that only hapless, gullible Whites play the ‘colorblind’ game. Only Whites are required to.

I admit, however, to being somewhat surprised to read that the San Jose mayor, Sam Liccardo, is not just Italian by ancestry, as his name and appearance might imply, but he too is of ‘la raza’, of Hispanic origins as well as Sicilian and Irish. Except for his Spanish (not Mexican) ancestor who was in California in its colonial days, he is of fairly recent immigrant stock, and that goes a long way towards explaining his siding with the rioting Latinos rather than with his White constituents.

Like his rival for mayor, Dave Cortese, Liccardo is often assumed to be all-Italian: The paternal ancestors of both men came from the same area on Sicily’s north coast (In Liccardo’s case, one line can be traced to the island of Salina, where the movie “Il Postino” was filmed.)

Melting pot

But Liccardo is only half-Italian, and the rest is an American melting pot: His mother’s mother was Irish, which partly accounts for Liccardo’s stints as master of ceremonies at various San Jose-Dublin Sister City events.”

I’ve long said that recent immigrant origins, especially when the countr(ies) of origin are ‘ethnic’ (non-Anglo Saxon) stock, there is a much greater likelihood of identifying with immigrants more than with the old-stock Western/Northern European Americans. Exceptions may exist, but as a rule, this seems to be a pattern.

Liccardo’s wife has a double-barreled surname (Garcia-Kohl) so her origins appear to be ‘ethnic’ as well, further reason that he seems to feel little allegiance to the old America.

This is the face of Changeling America: Whites becoming increasingly marginalized and power passing to (or being conferred on) not just minorities, but also ethnic Whites who ally with nonwhites and especially with non-American born ‘people of color.’

The mainstream conservatives will insist that this is all just about the Democrat Party and not about tribalism, ethnocentrism, anti-White policies, or anything controversial. According to mainstream Republicans, though, Detroit is in ruins because it was inhabited by a Democrat majority,  and for no other reason. That’s what political correctness does to people’s brains: it blinds people to the obvious.


San Jose attacks: the perpetrators

Since I heard of the disgraceful attacks on Trump rally attendees in San Jose, I’ve been following the reactions around the Internet, especially our side’s reactions.

The photos give the impression that the rabble who attacked the rally participants included the ‘usual suspects’: Latinos/Mexicans, blacks, and assorted ‘white’ riffraff, mostly young people, the usual college radical poseurs and attention-seekers.

I saw ‘Mexicans’ or other Latinos, while many people on various right-wing blogs saw ”illegals.” Maybe I’m missing some hidden clue, but how are people able to look at an obviously Latin American/Indio/mestizo and discern his immigration status? I surely can’t.

Some Texas kinfolks of mine used to say that you could tell the wetbacks, — excuse me, mojados, excuse me, ‘recent arrivals’ or ‘newly-minted Americans’ by their “roach-stomper” boots, or their preference for garish colors. I’m not convinced that it’s that easy. Maybe you can tell by their English skills, or lack thereof — but then I can show you people who have lived here for decades (and who may have citizenship papers), or even American-born Hispanics who don’t speak fluent English. So how do you sort out the illegals or recent border-jumpers from the second-generation or long time resident? You can’t, not by sight.

Yet lots of ‘race-realist’ people seem to see only ”illegals” when they see people like the feral mobs in San Jose.

Legal or illegal — and how can we know? — the relevant fact is that they are Mexicans, or Latinos of some nationality. In other words, they are not us. They are not of us. That is all we know and all we need to know.

Do people have this meme so hopelessly embedded in their minds, this idea that ‘illegals= bad, legals= good’? It looks that way.

Did an ‘illegal’ say the following:

“Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die.”

Or this:

“We’re here today to show L.A., show the minority people here, the Anglo-Saxons, that we are here, the majority, we’re here to stay. We do the work in this city, we take care of the spoiled brat children…. we are the majority here and we are not going to be pushed around.”

The man who said those things, way back in 1996, some 22 years ago, was not an ‘illegal.’ He was an “activist”, or more accurately, an anti-White agitator. There were many more such ‘activists’ saying similar things decades ago. Many of these were people who were educated and nurtured in this country, accorded all the benefits and rights thereof, who repay this country and its too-tolerant people by this kind of hatred and incitement to violence.

And there are plenty of other such statements from Hispanic ‘activists’, many if not most of whom are American-born or considerably ”assimilated”. Augustin Cebada is not an exception or a rare case.

If you look up some of these quotes, you will probably find that questions their legitimacy. But Snopes is biased and should not be considered the final word.

No doubt my readers are aware of the anti-‘gringo’ animus of many Hispanics, but just in case you have relatives or friends or colleagues who are still clinging to the politically correct illusions, please inform them. There are still too many wishful thinkers and naively trusting people among our folk.

The ‘evolving’ views of the Dalai Lama

There has been a minor stir created in the last couple of days by remarks made by the Dalai Lama, who is considered a spiritual leader by Buddhists as well as by Western ‘New Age’ types and ultra-liberal Christians who believe all faiths are valid — except for those of old-fashioned Christians.

It seems the Dalai Lama shocked a few sensitive liberal souls by saying that Europe had taken in too many immigrants, and also by saying that Germany ‘cannot become an Arab country.’ The fact that such a statement would shock anybody just shows how strange and illogical the Western world has become in the 21st century.  It’s just self-evident.

The Dalai Lama, of course, is speaking from his experience of seeing his native country, Tibet, conquered by China, and in the process of being re-populated by Han Chinese colonists. However, the Pope obviously sees Italy and all of Europe being colonized by Third Worlders and he doesn’t see this the same way as his Buddhist counterpart does. Instead, he advises that Europeans breed with the ‘refugees’ and produce a new population. Shocking.

The Dalai Lama, though he spouts the usual passivist/pacifistic/quietistic teachings that characterize his religion, occasionally says something that seems surprising. Way back in 2001, he spoke out against a new rail link, by means of which the Chinese were colonizing Tibet. The DL said that this rail link was being used to send ‘beggars, prostitutes, the unemployed, and handicapped people’, also ‘people with AIDS.’

In another article, here, he charged that this was part of a plan to ‘forcibly change Tibet’s demography.

“The Chinese are setting up the railway tracks, but it is not for economic development. They have plans to transfer 20 million Chinese population into Tibet. The purpose of the railways is basically to facilitate the transfer of population.”

This is the kind of thing that is being done in Europe, this transferring of millions of people, and the purpose is to forcibly change Europe’s demography, as well as that of all Western, White countries. Surely the Dalai Lama recognizes this. His talk of showing ‘compassion’ to the refugees is predictable, but what about Europeans showing compassion to their own folk and above all, to their progeny, who will have the misfortune of living as minorities in a Third-Worldized slum?

Still, credit to the Dalai Lama for saying as much as he has. None of our Western spiritual “leaders” will say even that much.

Will the Dalai Lama’s Western devotees turn against him for saying something politically incorrect? They usually brook no such comments from fellow Whites but they will give a pass to someone from a non-Western, nonwhite, non-Christian background. And the Dalai Lama has a history of saying politically incorrect things about sacred cows such as homosexuality. Back in 1997, when gay activists were not so aggressive and powerful as they are today, he said some impolitic things.

I won’t excerpt the article as it gets rather explicit, but let’s say that he said certain ‘irregular’ sexual practices, between men and women as well as between same-sex partners, were ‘sexual misconduct’ and not appropriate for Buddhists.

I don’t think most Christian teachers or pastors would dare to express such old-fashioned ideas today, given the way in which the world has annexed the Church, with the Church’s acquiescence.

But the Dalai Lama has since had a change of mind or heart, and now says he is fine with ‘gay marriage’ and that homosexuality is harmless. His views have ‘evolved’, say his followers. What was unacceptable yesterday, or at least in 1997, is harmless today.

The celibate Dalai Lama has thrown his considerable moral weight behind gay marriage, condemning homophobia and saying sex was fine as long as it was consensual.”

Situational ethics and moral relativism are not just Western problems, it seems. Consenting adults, and all that. The slippery slope is everywhere.

‘For whom the bell tolls…’

From Cambria Will Not Yield:

‘And if you think that it is only the white Britons who have succumbed to Satan and that you need not concern yourself with them you are mistaken. Every white nation is facing the same crisis as Britain. There is a cadre of American white nationalists who seem to delight in what they call the ‘death of Britain.’ We’ve all known such individuals: They say they hate to tell you a certain piece of bad news, but the gleeful smile on their face as they tell you the bad news gives the lie to their false words of regret. What does an American white nationalist have to boast about? Our major cities are even more crime-ridden than London, and we have placed a negro on our Presidential throne. We need, within the ranks of white Europeans, more of an ‘every man’s death diminishes me’ attitude toward the satanic overthrow of white governments and white cultures. All whites are in the same boat, and we are all tempest-tossed. Why not leave it at that and give our sympathy and support to our fellow white brethren instead of kicking them when they are down?”

The above words express my sentiments too. I am glad to see at least one person say the same thing, especially someone I so respect, as against the legions who are gloating or reveling in Schadenfreude over the alleged ‘death’ of Britain.

The title of this post is from the words of John Donne, though in the poem which most of us learned in school, the words are altered from Donne’s original rendering. The sense remains the same, whichever way the words read.

‘No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”

[All emphasis above is mine.]

CWNY is right; we are all in the same boat. The English are not more ‘passive’ and ‘stupid’ than we are, though they have been more heavily propagandized and for a longer period of time.  What they have in their favor, among other things, is the fact that the English (and the other peoples of the British Isles) have existed as a distinct and identifiable people, a nation, far longer than we in the United States, we of the Proposition Nation Melting Pot. There are those who falsely say the English were always a ‘mongrel island’ people, as if the various strains which made the English people centuries ago are as disparate as the ”allsorts” immigrants who are said to have ‘built America.’ The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Vikings, and their Frenchified kinsmen the Normans were closely-related peoples.

“Tribe after tribe, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, poured across the sea to make new homes in the Isle of Britain. Thus grew up the English nation – a nation formed by union of various tribes of the same stock. The Dane hardly needed assimilation. He was another kindred tribe, coming later than the others. Even the Norman was a kinsman”.

The English have a long history as a people, a fairly homogeneous people, unlike America. I don’t know what it will take to wake them up from the spell which they are under, but then what will it take to wake our country up? Despite the Trump phenomenon, things go on much as they have for the last several stupefied decades for many, all too many, Americans. We have a long way to go to find our way out of the maze in which we find ourselves imprisoned.

I once held more hope for the Southron folk than for the rest of America but since they too have been invaded and PC-whipped, my faith begins to falter.

Like Cambria I believe that God will not let his remnant be destroyed, but we have to turn to him before he will turn to us and defend us.

“Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.” – Psalm 20:7

As we’ve hardened our hearts against him and relied on ourselves and our ‘horses’, our military strength, in our hubris, God has likewise turned away from us, leaving us to our vain trust in our own human strength or in our military power — and there is no political will to use our military might even to defend ourselves against the invasion. So we are in the same sinking boat as our unfortunate kinsmen in Britain and on the European continent.

For whom does the bell toll? For the so-called ‘dead island‘ called Britain? No, it tolls for me. And for thee.


1990 and today

1990 seems like ages ago, mostly because this country and the world have changed so drastically — ‘thanks’ to the progressive juggernaut and the third-world invasion.

But one thing that has not changed as much as some would like us to believe is the worldview of Donald Trump. Matt Bailey, via The Ex-Army – Libertarian Nationalist blog offers excerpts from an interview with Trump in that long-ago year.

‘We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and
fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations
for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in
about fifteen minutes if it weren’t for us. Our “allies” are making
billions screwing us.”

Read the whole thing at the link.

Those opposed to Trump constantly repeat that he is ‘a phony’ or that he has reversed himself on most things over the years and is therefore not to be trusted. Or they say he is a ‘liberal’ — as if any liberal these days would propose a border wall, or curtailing Moslem immigration specifically.  As if any liberal (or even most “conservatives” in the 21st century) would speak of questioning globalism.

His enemies say Trump used to be a Democrat, therefore he must be, at core, a liberal or an impostor, because as we know nobody has ever changed their views during their adult lives, or ever changed parties or ‘sides.’

As the blog post points out, that great hero of the respectable Republicans, Ronald Reagan, was a Democrat in his younger days — he famously said that he did not leave the Democrats as much as the Democrats left him. And the Democrats have actually left quite a few people behind as they have moved more and more leftward over the last several decades. Imagine: there once were patriotic Democrats, ‘race-realist’ Democrats, ‘hawkish’ Democrats, populist Democrats.

Now we are in the process of seeing the Republicans ‘leave’ many of us behind as they trail after the Democrat-progressives, like the pale shadows of the Democrats that they are.  Hunter Wallace writes about the Democrats ‘reaching out’ to their potential soul-mates on the GOP side.

But given the social and political upheavals of the last few decades it would not be surprising if the political scene is re-aligned, along the lines of globalist vs. nationalist as some have been saying for a while now. Or elitist vs. populist.

Trump’s supposed inconsistencies over the years have been exaggerated by his enemies. And it would seem that any thinking person should be able to have a change of heart and mind in response to the rapidly-changing conditions in the world. What was good for this country 50 years ago is no longer so; only the most foolish people refuse to learn and refuse to change course, especially when about to careen over a cliff.

Another mention of our English origins

I can hardly believe it: there’s yet another blog post which mentions the English origins of America. There have been a few such blog pieces in recent weeks from alt-right bloggers.

That’s the good news: there is renewed discussion of American identity and the loss of cohesion, but the bad news is: the comments. The comments are a depressing lot: please go over and read the piece and the accompanying comments. They are a mix of the usual canards and outright falsehoods mixed with some backhanded quasi-slurs against Anglo-Americans. Examples: the descendants of the English founding stock are ‘elites’ who subverted America, in collusion with you-know-who. This canard is repeated often on alt-right blogs and rarely, if ever, challenged. Another frequently heard comment: ‘there are no [pure] English people’ or ‘the English people are a mixture of peoples anyway, so, what’s the big deal if they are lost in the genetic blender?‘ Just for some perspective, the native indigenous English people in England are being brainwashed with the same falsehoods, and are told that ‘Britain has always been a multicultural multiracial nation’, because The Angles, and The Saxons, and the Danes, and the Vikings and The Normans — never mind that all these people are kindred peoples. Why does most of the world seem not to comprehend that basic fact?

I don’t have time to write a full response but I will do so later — though it seems futile to even try; as I’m just one person writing in obscurity here.