What ails us?

“It is character that rules in nations as in individuals. Only in loyalty to the old can we serve the new; only in understanding the Past, can we interpret and use the Present; for history is not made but unfolded, and the Old World is ever present in the New.”

— Benjamin Ide Wheeler.

I constantly hear it said that ‘America is dead’, and that we should just get over it, not even grieve for what was lost, or what is being lost.

These flippant statements, I suppose, are just more proof that America is, in fact, dead. A country cannot survive if the people of a country no longer care if their homeland survives, or if they greet its demise with no apparent feeling of regret, grief, or sign of bereavement. There are even people who seem glad to hear of the death of their country because they saw only its flaws and none of its strengths. This category of people includes not just embittered, rage-filled malcontents like those we’ve seen in the news of the past couple of weeks, but people who call themselves right-wing.

In the normal state of things, the right represents the patriotic and loyal element, while the left often has no feelings of loyalty to country and citizens, nor do they feel much attachment to the land. And they are not ethnopatriots, which to my mind is the only real patriotism; they are often the kind who hate their land of birth.

I see a lot of the same inverted sentiments among the disaffected right (the alt-right as was). Some of the young right are among those who want to see their homeland fall and be no more. What do they think will replace it? They seem indifferent about what will replace the U.S. The idea that something much worse may fill the vacuum doesn’t seem to trouble them.

The left, however, have plans and their ‘utopia’ will be everyone else’s nightmare.
The situation in Seattle, with the ‘Chaz’ charade, may be a laughable attempt at creating an enclave or even a separate ‘state’ within a state but it is not something we should just shrug off. Never underestimate the left’s ability to create destruction and chaos. I hear people saying we should just let them go on with their plan and ignore them because it will fail anyway. Or people talk about the ‘optics’ of interfering; it will make Trump ”look bad” if he acts (which he has not shown signs of doing anyway) so let them do what they like so nobody can condemn Trump.

As I understand it, both the lefty Mayoress of Seattle, Miss Durkan, and the governor of Washington State, were pointedly nasty and disrespectful in talking to the President about the situation in Seattle. My readers know that I was a Trump skeptic but I abhor the way in which all the enemies of Trump address him or talk about him. They are uncouth, ill-bred, coarse, and ignorant — this kind of openly hostile and crude discourse is something new in our increasingly nasty political scene. Maybe this low behavior went on behind closed doors but not in the public square. It is not good; it further degrades our political discourse and it makes us that much less civil and mature a people.

Politics of course is war by other means, but some degree of collegial civility used to be de rigueur, but now there are no holds barred. Another sign of a moribund America.

I don’t question that the America I loved is gone. I have always said, though, that the people make the place. Bad people, bad country, no matter its wealth or natural beauty; if the reigning spirit is that of hostility, suspicion, anger, vindictiveness, division — which are all increasing in this country — how can such a country continue? And if there is no public will to reverse the dangerous trends, there’s not much hope of salvaging a country. However, it seems a lot of Americans now have a kind of passivist/fatalist attitude, as if no human effort can change things; it’s all ‘Karma’, which many post-Christian Americans think, or Fate. Hence it’s beyond any human effort.

The guilty-minded and mind-conditioned Americans think America is deserving of death because Reasons. (Politically Correct reasons, of course.) Some embittered young rightists think we deserve destruction because we shouldn’t have fought the two world wars. We were the bad guys in all cases. Hence we deserve the death penalty as a nation. The left — well, we know what they “think” and why they want America destroyed. They’ve been slowly killing the nation and destroying the minds of its people for generations — the Gramscian approach.

Still, despite our country being under siege and denounced every day on the ”News”, there seems to be little response from the public other than sporadic grumbling but little will to do anything more practical. It seems the right has us stymied, and people seem resigned. The left finds ways to box us in, or to silence us and we have no counter-response of any significance. It seems the President embodies this stance; he spoke of ending the Seattle situation but after his ‘conversation’ with the spinster Mayoress of Seattle and the governor, nothing was done.

Sometimes I half-wonder if those ‘witches’ who say they are directing curses at the President(and probably the rest of us) are having some success in with their efforts to harm this country as well as those in authority. It seems like we’re all under some kind of spell making us apathetic.

I started out blogging as a patriot, or as one early commenter called me, a ”Hyper-Americanist.’ Maybe that’s what I was. This country was once a great country in which to grow up and to raise a family. Sure, it was never perfect; nothing run by human beings can be. But it was a wonderful country; it’s a shame that all who criticize and jeer at the ‘old America’ didn’t live there and see it as it was. But the sour grapes approach is just wrong. My heart breaks to think that America is gone, and can never be what it once was. But must we sit and passively watch it happen, like some kind of Eastern fatalist? We used to be a can-do people, a people who believed in being more pro-active and willing to give it the old school try. If we hadn’t been that kind, this country would never have existed. My ancestors and many of yours would have never survived the first winter or the first famine or epidemic or Indian attack — but they did, by sheer grit and by faith in God. Do we still possess the genes or the will for that kind of determination and fortitude? Maybe not. I have less and less faith in us.

We are also missing what some philosophers said a nation needs: pietas, what blogger Cambria Will Not Yield often writes of. It seems a lot of us don’t like our fellow Americans. The young — not all, but many — have developed a loathing for their elders. POCs blame Whites for all their difficulties or problems, or just dislike the latter because of their successes. Envy, in other words. Men and women are at odds as never before. And then people blame outside forces for this: ”They want us divided” — so Q and his/their followers say — but nature divides us. Others may stir up more division or exploit existing division, but what’s the answer, Q? More forcible ‘multiculturalism and inclusion” under the guise of ”Unity” ? More of what ails us? Globalism? More concessions? We’re on that road now, where we will be under greater pressure to conform to the multicult and cultural Marxism. More weakening of America.

I don’t know the answers, except that I am certain that going further down the treacherous road we are on is not the answer and will only lead to far worse situations.

And if we can’t bring back ‘dead’ America? Well, let’s not pronounce the patient dead while there’s still a pulse, and let’s not administer euthanasia yet.

This world is not ”home” for Christians; we’re pilgrims and strangers — but we’re called to ‘occupy’ until the final curtain rings down.

Unnecessary and preventable

If only. If only the majority had not turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to what was obviously happening over the past several decades.

The old (and unfounded, it now seems) idea of American exceptionalism, the idea that “it [lost freedom] can’t happen here; we’re the Shining City on a Hill, we have a Special destiny; we’re God’s people here. True democracy and freedom and liberty. Above all, in this day and age, we are tolerant and inclusive and we welcome everybody who wants some of our Freedom and Liberty and Equality.”

Can’t it happen here? Are we a charmed country where bad things are prevented from entering our space, where we have some kind of magic immunity to being subverted, invaded, deluded into false belief systems, or just plain conquered, as people grow complacent and self-centered?

Those of us who started blogging after 9/11, or in the early 2000s, hoped we might get the word out, that there were some ominous clouds on the horizon, mostly manifested in massive, uncontrolled immigration, much of it (if not all) from countries which were hostile to our interests. In addition, there was a long series of terror acts (now forgotten by many or never known by the younger generations). The homegrown left was becoming increasingly vicious (in both the old and the current usage of the word) and more hostile and threatening toward anybody who differed from them. Increasingly they not only hated the “rich” but White people, particularly Christians, especially males, and their rhetoric was increasingly violent.

But most people seemed to have tuned all this out, giving all their attention to various distractions, such as social media, sports, gutter Hollywood ‘entertainment’, etc.

Globalism was seemingly not on most people’s radar. Try to talk about the planned One World government and you were ridiculed (“conspiracy theories”) or ignored. Yet it’s here. We can’t laugh it off or pretend it’s a figment of a paranoid imagination. Actually there are people who do still dismiss it that way. Some have an amazing capacity for denial.

So now some of us in this country (and in much of the world) are still under restriction of movement and various other mandates which are affecting our everyday lives, in some cases preventing people from getting vital access to medical care or other needs. The rules and restrictions vary from one state to another. It is worrying — and it should be — that at least one Democrat governor wants compulsory testing, while another thinks people who test positive for Covid should be forcibly removed from their homes and confined who knows where, and for how long. All those little details are being kept vague, but would people object even if they knew about these proposals?

I’ve read varying opinions about these worrying developments. Some of the bloggers whose opinions I respect have speculated that these rules and restrictions are meant to test us (as I suggested when the ‘pandemic’ was supposed to be getting under way) and to be an experiment in how to bring about their desired monolithic governance with the minimum of resistance from us, in those countries where we are used to independence in some degree. It’s all to evident that decades of propaganda and mind conditioning (Mockingbird, Tavistock techniques, etc.) have made us much more pliable in the hands of our would-be overlords as compared with our vigilant ancestors. If our colonial ancestors found King George III an intolerable tyrant, with his little tax on tea, what could they say about our situation?

Oh, yes, I know the American secession from Mother Britain was about more than the tea tax. I’ve mentioned before that my ancestors in both the Southern colonies and the New England colonies had an active part in gaining independence, so I know the story and I also know that a lot of sacrifices were made then so that we might be free people. And no, it was not about ”throwing the monarchy out” — we could have had George Washington as our King — but about not being ruled from afar, from across a wide ocean in a day when an ocean was a real barrier. It was about matters being governed locally, by ourselves and our neighbors, people who knew local issues and needs, people we knew face to face.

However we’ve lost all that, in a country which is too vast, too divided not just by geographical barriers like mountain ranges and rivers and deserts, but divided by innate differences amongst peoples and cultures and religions. We are not, and have for long not been, “one nation, indivisible”.

Neither do we find “liberty and justice for all” when criminals are being turned out of prisons lest they get the virus from other criminal, and all the while, lady hair salon owners are jailed and/or fined for re-opening for business.

Speaking of our Founding principles and of old-fashioned (outmoded?) patriotism, the ‘Q’ movement professes patriotism, and I give them credit for boldness in embracing the label in this cynical and anti-American generation, but sadly they seem to be aspiring to restore not an old America, united by ‘common ancestry’ as the Founding Fathers said but are hanging their hopes on a multicult America, the Proposition Nation writ large. ‘We don’t see borders. We don’t see color. You can’t divide us.’ Sound familiar? It’s just the left’s slogans recycled or refurbished with a “conservative” veneer. I know I risk offending those who follow Q but it is the truth. Watch the patriotic vignettes they run on the website. They have the mandatory quota of diversity; it looks like the U.N., demographically, and their pantheon of heroes seems to juxtapose Abe Lincoln and MLK with Robert E. Lee and a little of everything.

Maybe there is no going back; it seems to me that the future is a big question mark. And if this is a big experiment, it’s anyone’s guess. I can pray for at least a partial restoration of the great country this once was. But as I always say, change the people, change the country. And the generations who made this country so special are now no longer with us.

For now the focus is on what is to happen next.

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.

People’s Party of Canada vs. multicult

Maxime Bernier, candidate for the People’s Party of Canada, is proposing a new policy regarding the increasing ‘diversity’ of Canada. Sometime ago I seem to remember that the Canadian government was sending out a call for ‘more diversity’, that is, more immigrants ‘of color’.

So why the need for rethinking the policy on increasing immigration, specifically, requesting immigrants unlike the founding — and once dominant — ethnic group?

David Grant at the Council of European Canadians blog, writes about this.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but one thing that jumps out at me, as an American, is that Bernier’s ‘new’ ideas are not exactly new; those same ideas have been foisted on Americans, to replace our early beginnings as a nation made up mostly of people of British Isles descent, as well as some Northern and Western Europeans. As more and more disparate peoples were entering our country, and we soon had a polyglot population as increasingly exotic peoples immigrated here, it was gradually taught in schools that our nation was a set of propositions.

And this is the track on which Mr. Bernier would put Canada. Canada, at least officially, prides itself on its ‘diversity’ and its many cultures.

Bernier, it seems, wants to make Canada a proposition nation, in which people are Canadian by virtue of accepting a set of beliefs and ‘values.’

David Grant rightly points out that language, ethnicity, and history are ignored in Bernier’s plan:

Already he has shot himself in the foot. If Canada was just based off a sense of belonging and common values than why did the English and the French have to fight a war for the land? How will Maxime Bernier explain the distinct Quebecois identity that has been trying to tear away from Canada almost from inception? In these things Maxime’s belief makes it impossible to objectively understand Canada’s history. “

Bernier apparently repeats the line that we’ve so often heard from our politicians in the U.S.: the statement that Canada has ”always been diverse.” This is the official dogma in our country and in most Western countries. Both in Canada and in the U.S. it is false; both Canada and the U.S. had homogeneous populations early on, with the greatest percentage being of British descent — English as well as Scots and Irish. Just as this country was not ‘diverse’ according to the PC definition (meaning mostly POC’s). But this mantra ‘we were always diverse’ is a glaring bit of gaslighting, to condition people to accept the changes in their homeland(s).

It appears Mr. Bernier’s list of ‘values’ that should be core values of Canada include the usual: ‘freedom’ (in a vague general sense), freedom of religion, equality between the sexes, democracy, tolerance, pluralism, etc. Read the whole list at the link.

The question of what makes a nation is always very relevant these days. The comments below the article are worth reading; despite the official dogma about these subjects, the comments show that there are people in Canada who are not easily fooled, and they take issue with ithe status quo regarding, as Trudeau says, ‘what makes a Canadian.’

I believe that most thinking people in Western countries see through the offical rhetoric and propaganda, but even if Bernier’s new policy were to be implemented, I don’t see it making much difference; multiculturalism and multilingualism will prevail unless someone is finally able to gain influence and freedom to offer real changes inot imposed from the top down, but from the ground up.

Civic nationalism, as a substitute for natural ethnonationalism based on shared descent, religion, culture, and language, has always been a poor replacement.

Faye’s important book

I expect you’ve all heard about the late Guillaume Faye’s recent book, titled Ethnic Apocalypse. I haven’t read it as yet; I just read the review, by Andrew Joyce, on The Occidental Observer. I certainly plan to read it.

Ethnic Apocalypse should be considered essential for anybody in the West who values and loves their heritage, their folk, and their home. Faye, who died recently from cancer, showed a degree of bluntness in his writing from which he had previously refrained. Many of us, I think, including me, find ourselves doing a lot of self-censoring, as it seems we are being scrutinized more than ever, lest we indulge in reckless truth-telling. But Guillaume Fay, knowing his life would end soon, seemed to be emboldened by that fact — in that situation, you have nothing to lose, and he speaks frankly, not burdening himself with euphemisms in describing the real world.

It must be a exhilarating to realize that you are freer to state facts as they are, and according to Faye’s assessment of those facts, they are very stark. I think so many of us, whether in France or in this country, or any Western country have become far too accustomed to monitoring our thoughts and our speech. Too many of us have learned, maybe as a defensive behavior, to stifle any thought of what is going on before our eyes; we don’t want to believe the situation is as dire as Faye says in his book. Why is that? I ask myself (and any others I feel free enough to talk with about this) why our people are so passive and supine? Despite the dishonest media’s efforts to paint us as ”the problem”, and to label us as ”supremacist” — how can one be a supremacist when we can’t even speak freely , and when we’re laden a staggering load of guilt?

So Guillaume Faye, no longer fearing the censors and witch-hunters in the media and the ‘collaborationists’ (accurately described), predicts a descent into some sort of war, a three-sided war. Just as in most Western countries, the authorities almost always side against the native population in favor of the Others; it’s quite brazen and undisguised. So those who shamelessly favor the Others. The authories treat the indigenous French as the wrongdoers, even in the face of events like the incident, cited in the book, where a French priest was attacked in his church while saying Mass. The priest, as I recall, was over 80 years old; his throat was cut in front of his horrified parishioners. How much more of this kind of thing is to come? And it is far from being an isolated event, or a rarity. Andi it could have been avoided; could still be avoided. If.

Faye says things can only worsen until or unless the tide turns, he says, in the face of some kind of major event which would change the French people’s passivity or lack of response to these atrocities.

Although the book seems, from what I’ve read of it, to be quite stark and, for some people probably, too ‘harsh’ in tone. But the truth is the truth, and I believe Faye saw things clearly; without the denialism and the self-deception that has become so commonplace among the ‘normies’ or even some on the right.

It’s heartening to see Faye dispensing the truth, and doing so without hindrance from political correctness, without trying to soften his statements with PC disclaimers — such as the feeble phrase: ‘but they’re not all like that‘. No such appeasement is found in the quotes in Andrew Joyce’s review.

I haven’t read much of Faye’s work, though I’ve been aware of the Identitarian movement in Europe. I will frankly say I found Identitarianism to be too intellectual for the majority — but then again I’ve said that it never requires ”the masses” or a majority for a movement to become popular or dominant. The masses, the majority or the ‘normies’ are usually found sitting out any important changes or movements. Usually, as the familiar quote from Samuel Adams has it, it does not take a majority to prevail, but an ‘irate, tireless minority’ keen to set brushfires of freedom in the minds of the people. And Americans are apparently not even at the ‘irate’ stage. Nor, according to Faye, are the people in France. “How blind are my people.” It’s the same over most of the West.

Faye is ‘well out” of the situation in this troubled world, and I hope that his book, written when he knew his life was soon to end, was not written in vain, only to fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. I hope he will be rememberd not as a ‘voice in the wilderness’, championing a forlorn hope like Enoch Powell, who also made dire predictions, but who was shouted down.

I hope Faye’s book will be widely read and taken to heart. Americans tend to be blindly optimistic in some cases; some of the people I’ve discussed this with dismiss it with the reply that ‘oh, it won’t be bad; people will assimilate and marry-in with our people and that will solve it.’ Kalergi would like that response. And then there are those who act concerned but quickly go back to saying that ‘at least our president is on our side.’

We need optimism, but not the blind and pollyannaish kind. I heard a term ‘hardboiled optimism’, and I think that’s what is essential: not to become cynical and fatalistic, which many of us have done, but to be realistic and strong-minded, determined, without succumbing to the fatalism. We also need fearless men like Guillaume Faye, and is there any such likely advocate here in our country?

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.