Banishing reality

Now the left is proclaiming that anyone who uses the term ”illegal alien” must be condemned.

Of course this was the panel on ”Meet the Press”, indicating the usual leftist bigotry. I would like to think that the average citizen is more reasonable and not as radically left as is the “Meet the Press” panel.

Why do these people demand ‘condemnation’ of anyone using a factual term? They say that the phrase “illegal alien” is an invitation to violence, that it is ‘dehumanizing’ and lacking in empathy.

Speaking for myself, I have plenty of empathy; I’ve never been accused of a deficiency of that quality — but it’s hard to empathize with people who knowingly flout laws and violate boundaries. I would not empathize with someone breaking into my home, or my neighbors’ homes. Why would I? I’ve never felt an urge to let myself into someone’s home, to sneak in through a window or to break in. The left, who are prone to “empathize” excessively with lawbreakers, inevitably claim that the illegals poor dears are ”forced” to come here lest they die of starvation or fall victim to violence in their own countries. I know of no famine in their home countries, nor are they in fear of their lives from some kind of murderous pursuers. Yet I am still expected to ”empathize” with those millions who ‘let themselves in’ to this country, in violation of laws.

I keep reading about the many leftists who are fleeing to Canada because they so abhor our country and our current political situation. Do those fleeing leftists just saunter across into Canada as the spirit moves them? Do they tunnel across in the dead of night — there are tunnels found on the U.S.-Canada border. But somehow I suspect even the leftists don’t defy the Canadian laws and sneak across in violation of Canadian laws. I would bet they observe the rules and get the necessary paperwork. Funny, that. Why not follow the example of their mascot illegals undocumented pre-Americans? If this world is naturally borderless, and borders are just a socio-political construct, why not just rush the Canadian border and demand your free health care, education, and housing? Seems like a good plan for millions of illegal aliens Americans-to-be; it works for them, as witnessed by the fact that upwards of 30 million have successfully arrived.

By the way, I am not recommending this course of action to anyone, lest anyone twist my words. It’s meant as irony, for anyone who is in doubt.

In any case the Canadians seem to control their borders more closely than we do.

But back to this condemnation business: American citizens, in theory covered by First Amendment freedom of speech, are to be ‘condemned’ for the words they choose to express themselves. Certain words merit condemnation in the left’s eyes, but illegal unlawful entry of another country is something which deserves ’empathy’ and support. What next?

Next? I wouldn’t be surprised to see more de-platforming, more people banned from Twitter and more blogs taken down because of of using speech that the all-powerful left ‘condemns.’ And who gave anyone on the left power to nullify the First Amendment? Who made them gods over the rest of us, to control what we can say and what we can’t say?

Another edict of the left: any mention of ‘conspiracy theories‘, so-called, will possibly bring on more de-platforming and more disappeared blogs — but only one side, the right, is ever targeted for this sort of thing. Funny.

Never mind the fact that conspiracies have happened throughout human history — anytime two or more people collude or cooperate in some sort of plan, that’s a conspiracy. But the left, including those who control which views are heard and which are silenced, thinks they can ban something which undoubtedly is factual.

The left can ban and banish and de-platform all they like, but they cannot erase Truth itself. Truth always wins, ultimately. But the left keeps on working tirelessly to nullify reality.

Is the state the only threat to liberty?

Libertarians usually emphasis ‘the state’ as the main threat to ‘liberty’, and no doubt an overbearing, overpowerful state is inimical to freedom and liberty. But what about private businesses which exercise inordinate power over people’s lives and freedoms?

Today we are hearing about banks and other financial instititutions cancelling the accounts of those with ‘wrong’ political views; of other businesses (lodgings, etc.) banning people for similar reasons. And then there is the de-platforming of those ‘badthinking’ individuals who have politically incorrect opinions and ideas which they expressed on social media. And because of the apparent ambiguity of laws on issues like this (and I don’t pretend to be a lawyer) it seems they are getting away with it. It seems as if the social media giants have more power than the very state itself.

I confess I don’t seek out libertarian views, (although I can agree with more ‘maverick’ libertarians like Hans Hermann Hoppe or the great Albert Jay Nock). So I have no idea really how the mass of libertarian-leaning people address this apparent power of unscrupulous Business as corrosive of liberty and freedom. Are they really able only to see a threat from Statism?

Is there any checking this power of private business to interfere in people’s lives? How can it be squared with our personal freedoms and our constitutional rights? Or are they a dead letter now, as so many pessimists say?

Going, going, gone?

Maybe my choice of a name for this blog, back in 2006 or so, was prescient. Here in 2019, the politically correct commissars at Berkeley (CA) City Council — and Colorado State University are looking to eliminate the word ‘America’ or ‘American’ from their official vocabulary. The term ‘American’ is not inclusive, so therefore it should be eliminated, so they decree. The CSU language guide says that calling our country ‘America’ is taboo because it ‘erases other cultures‘ and makes our country appear to be the dominant one.

Every time one of these articles appears, chronicling the latest over-the-top edicts of the far left, I think it couldn’t possibly go much further, but sad to say, that is not true. Looking back over how political correctness has grown ever more restrictive and censorious, and noting how somehow most people seem to passively accept and adjust to the nonstop demands of PC, it seems we are getting deeper and deeper down this bottomless pit.

Read more of the list at the links.

But will people stand for having our country’s name changed, because of arbitrary rules made by people with no real authority over us ? Do we still have an actual first amendment? Or will the name of this blog be more fitting than I ever imagined?

Another Founding Father falls prey to the usual suspects

You’ve no doubt read the stories of how the ‘city fathers’ (is that sexist?) of Charlottesville, Virginia have dropped their Thomas Jefferson holiday. Why? Need we ask?

This was bound to happen, given that even George Washington has been declared unfit to be honored, as he once was, as the Father of our Country.

So on Unz.com, there is a discussion thread about the Thomas Jefferson situation, and predictably several people are repeating the slanders about Sally Hemings, treating the allegations as established fact. This riles me. Is it wrong to object to one’s ancestors being slandered in this way? It seems to me that the smears are a blot on the whole family line, not to say on Thomas Jefferson himself. Up until a certain impeached president resurrected the scurrilous allegations (back in the 1990s) few people even knew of the rumors — which originated with some of Thomas Jefferson’s political enemies, who happened to be unprincipled and lewd-minded men.

I’ve begun to be cynical enough to believe that anybody who repeats those rumors and calumnies now is also guilty of being lewd-minded, getting some kind of leg-tingle from imagining the scenario. Some people have read too many of the old-fashioned pulp novels about such liaisons, or seen too many sleazy Hollywood films about miscegeny. Otherwise why are they so eager to believe accusations with no proof? I hope those people never sit on juries; we like to think, perhaps too optimistically, that in our country people are reasonable and objective in their judgments, but I wonder.

From all I’ve read of Thomas Jefferson, the supposed relationship between him and Sally would have been greatly out of character for him. I suspect the people who believe him guilty have never learned much about him, never read any of his correspondence and other writings, never read a biography by an old-fashioned, objective historian. Of course he was not a saint but neither was he an exploiter, a liar, or a man of excessive carnal appetites. But in today’s world, everyone is assumed to be lecherous and lewd because that’s the nature of the society we live in, sadly. People today can’t comprehend that it was not always so, that there were once people of integrity, who lived by standards and morals.

It seems I am one of the last to defend his name, at least online, and I like to think I’d do so even were I not connected to him by blood. There was an older gentleman, also a descendant, who used to speak up in Jefferson’s defense on the Internet, but I think he’s no longer with us, so it seems Jefferson has fewer and fewer defenders these days. It’s sad, because it’s also an indication of how traditional America, along with our old standards, our old culture and its symbols, our heroes, and our history, all are under attack if not destroyed. The young like to label anyone who tries to defend the ‘old America’ as a ‘patriotard’ or (depending on age) as a ‘boomertard’ but someone has to speak up, or just passively watch it all crumble before our eyes.

One of the worst losses of the war on old America is the loss of our free speech, the loss of the right to speak our minds freely, even to criticize the powerful. Of course it’s always politically correct to slander our Founding Fathers and our ancestors generally, or to criticize those who are now society’s underdogs, not quite outnumbered yet, but already all but silenced. Thomas Jefferson was a great champion of free speech, and I think he would be greatly grieved to see the America that has replaced the one he and his contemporaries created for us.

What’s in a name?

I’m glad someone addressed this issue, though it seems to be a hopeless cause to change the politically correct terminology that dominates our language.

Jmsmith at The Orthosphere blog writes about the varying names given to followers of Islam, with ‘Muslim’ being the politically correct usage employed by the media, the educational establishment, the lefties — by everybody, in fact, left or right, except for a few ornery people who say ‘Mohammedan’ or ‘muzzie’ or some other less-than-reverential term.

A Mohammedan is not a Christian or Jew because he is: “one who accepts the proposition that an Arab named Mohammed or Ahmad, son of Abdallah, of the city of Mecca, in Central Arabia, who died in A.D. 632 is the main and indeed ultimate channel whereby the will of the Creator of the world has been revealed to mankind.”*

If you accede to calling this man a Moslem (i.e. Truly Religious), I believe that you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. If you accede to calling his religion Islam (i.e. True Religion), I believe you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. To draw this to its sharpest possible point, a Christian who accedes to using the words Moslem or Islam is at least flirting with apostasy.**

Well, then as a Christian I might be apostate because I have held to using ‘Moslem‘. However I have a different recollection as to which term was considered ‘offensive’ to Moslems, besides ‘Mohammedan,’, that is. I was not sure if my memory was accurate so after a little searching I came across this:

“According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,”Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word.” But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means”one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means”one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

[…]Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.”

From what I recall, that pressure came from the militant ‘Black Muslim’ sect back in the late 1960s when the ‘establishment’ was leaning over backwards (as now) to placate minorities, especially militant blacks. I doubt that many people today are aware of the origins of that sect, and how outré their belief system was/is. To think that we automatically kowtowed to them on the issue of what we are “allowed” to call them or their faith is pretty shameful for us. It shows how ‘cucked’ we were, even back in the late 60s when all this nonsense began.

“But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP–the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World–published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut–is still The Moslem World.”

Interesting; I didn’t know anybody officially still used ‘Moslem’, apart from me and a few others. Incidentally a friend of mine began using ‘Moslem’ after hearing me use it only to be scolded by her leftist millennial offspring, who, of course, know everything since attending college (and a Christian college, at that).

I am not looking to be contentious here or to argue with Jmsmith; I am in agreement  that we should not simply give in to pressure from those of a religion which is contradicts with our own Christian beliefs, a group which is essentially at war with us, and has been since its inception. We should not accede automatically and go along with their terminology and definitions. In doing that we are being less than true to our Christian beliefs.

There are lots of terms for followers of Mohammed: Musulman, Mahometan, Moslem, Mohammedan. They served us well for many centuries. Why change just to placate those who are never going to be appeased by anything less than total submission? Because that is what Islam means: submission.

Who are the ‘real’ deplorables?

In a recent blog post, I used a variation on the “14 words”, paraphrasing that formula with something to the effect of ‘if we can secure the existence of our people and a future for our children.”

I suppose that would make me a White Nationalist, according to the consensus? Donald Trump supposedly came close to using the ”14 words” in a recent public speech, though apparently his words were much more vague. But even a hint of a resemblance is enough to send his detractors into hissy fits and his supporters into transports of bliss because he sort of said something similar to the “14 words.” But Trump is hardly a ‘White nationalist”, much less a “White supremacist”, the name the lefties are applying to everybody who is even mildly pro-White or even just politically incorrect.

As for myself, about ten years ago when I was still relatively new at blogging I saw, via Lawrence Auster’s blog, that I was among the right-wing bloggers classified as ‘White Nationalists’ by Mencius Moldbug. At that point I had never heard of nor read Moldbug, and I had no clue, still have no clue, how he decided I was one of the White Nationalists. I have never been a doctrinaire type, never been one to go all-in for ”isms” of whatever kind, especially political ‘isms’. I considered myself just an old-fashioned American, following in the footsteps of my elders, of the Southron generations who had very realist attitudes on race and ethnicity. I still consider that Christian, Southern cultural grounding to be the basis of what I believe. However I do consider myself a ‘nationalist’, an ethnonationalist, rather than a White Nationalist.

I’ve expounded on why I find White Nationalism unsatisfactory as I understand it, and the gist of it is that I find White Nationalism to be a form of White multiculturalism, or White internationalism, and it is based on the erroneous idea that all White ethnicities are equal. In other words egalitarianism is part of the belief system, but it is limited to White ethnicities only. It is fine to deny equality amongst the different races but all Whites (however one defines ‘Whites’; definitions vary) are absolutely equal, none superior to another in any way whatsoever. As egalitarianism is a false ideology I have to reject any form of it.

However it seems that many of those on the alt-Right for example reject WNism because it is considered déclassé, an embarrassment, a stumbling-block for the ‘respectables’ who tar all on the so-called ‘far right’ as ‘neo-Nazis,’ ‘supremacists’, NS, or some other socially unacceptable label. WNs are the group looked down on by others on the right; nobody wants to be associated with them.

Segments of the right are now very occupied with ‘punching right’, denouncing this group or that for their political and social views. Some of the Alt-Right criticisms of WNs are simply rote repetitions of the slurs made by lefties and SJWs. Is that because the slurs are true, or is it because the motives behind those doing the slurring are the same, that is, to distance themselves from the group that is lowest on the totem pole?

The Stormfront forum is usually used as an example of a White Nationalist forum, and it is often described as filled with ignorant and hateful people. I’m not a member there, nor have I read there lately — but I have read the forum enough to be familiar with the kinds of people who post there. The level of discourse is hardly any more ‘ignorant’ or bigoted than that on the average Alt-Right blogs, though the Alt-Right includes a disparate collection of people with varying levels of education and intelligence. Some commenters are obviously intelligent, informed and civil, other blogs reveal a lot of vulgar language and blunt discourse and little substantive discussion. So it’s unfair to say that a place like Stormfront, (which, last time I looked, banned foul language and racial slurs), is any more uncivil or ignorant than other blogs on the right. At least it’s free of the vile language and discourse that plagues some blogs, and there are more socially conservative ideas on Stormfront, paradoxically.

I could name other ‘WN’-oriented forums that are far worse for rude manners, foul language and flame wars, but that would not be useful. I don’t see the need for trying to make examples of those who are considered by many to be fair game.

Truth be told, I think WNs could and should be allies with the Alt-Right, though the Alt-Right is oddly becoming more of a ‘big tent’, becoming more homosexual-friendly due to certain personalities being lionized, and also more welcoming of other ethnicities who are not usually welcomed by the WN faction.

Both the White Nationalists and the Alt-Right tend to lean towards an anti-Christian viewpoint, with Christianity often denounced as an emasculating influence for White society, and both WNs and the Alt-Right lean toward some degree of admiration for Germany, a willingness to see Hitler in a positive light  (this sentiment is expressed on some Alt-Right blogs, coupled with some degree of anti-American feeling: ‘we were the bad guys in both the world wars’,or ‘our fathers and grandfathers fought on the wrong side‘, etc.)

There is not that much outward difference philosophically between the two groups, in my observation.

And when it comes to my objections to White Nationalism, it seems the Alt-Right also believes, for example, that White people should be able to freely immigrate to any White country, believing that Whiteness supersedes nationality or ethnicity. Many Alt-Righters, as well as WNs, say they would emigrate to some Eastern European country if they could, and some seek out foreign women to marry, thereby making it clear that their own ethnicity is not considered important enough to preserve.

Ethnonationalism isn’t just a statement that one’s own ethnicity is of importance, and should command loyalty, it’s an identity, a felt kinship and affection and bond with kinsmen, those who look most like us, share our history, our language, our manners and customs. Our ethnicity is family writ large. As Steve Sailer said, ethnicity is a slightly-inbred extended family, (I am paraphrasing there).

So how many real ethnonationalists are there? Too often I see expressions of contempt on the part of Americans toward their own folk; Americans (Murkans, so-called) are fat, stupid, lazy, and worthless, if one believes the talk on a lot of forums.

I am sure we all have, in our own families, some stupid people, some whose politics we abhor, some who are lazy, and yes, some who are fat. I wonder if the anti-White Whites disown their family members because of flaws like that? Human nature would cause us, normally, to be more tolerant of the faults of family members as opposed to strangers; if we love only those of our kin who conform to our high expectations as regards their politics, their intelligence, their appearance, or their social prestige — or their generation, then we’d claim very few family members, I think. Shall we draw a circle that shuts our kinsmen out? Apparently so, but we isolate ourselves in doing that. Are we then embracing this toxic ‘individualism’ that is the plague of our time and our country?

So shall we have ideological litmus tests to determine the desirability of allying with anyone? There are few enough of us that we can’t afford that kind of exclusivism. Many of us have had political views that have changed with experience and with maturity. Only very small-minded and rigid people never change their thinking. There may be hope for some of those we have written off, given time and given a chance to be de-programmed from the brainwashing.

During the recent presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton famously called the newly-discovered Alt-Right a ‘basket of deplorables’, and the Alt-Right, along with even the ‘Respectable Republicans’ and cuckservatives, embraced the label. But yet some segments of the right are intent on using Hillary’s labelling criteria, calling those to their right ‘deplorable’ or other pejorative words. Is this productive or helpful? Everybody has somebody they deem ‘deplorable’ or beneath them, and sad to say, both left, right, and center seem to find the ‘White trash’ deplorable. To many people, even on the right, the White Nationalist is the ‘White trash’ everyone seems to look down on. From what I’ve seen, I think this blanket condemnation is not necessarily accurate, and this mentality makes strange bedfellows, with some on the Alt-Right joining the chorus of the likes of the $PLC and that ilk, along with the cuckservative crowd.

I still think that in the cause to which we are supposed to be loyal, we could and should be allies, at least call a cease-fire.  The Fourteen Words, after all.

 

 

 

 

The ‘racism’ scare and other scares

There’s an interesting piece at TakiMag, called Skeered o’ the Racisms. The writer points out the way in which lefties/SJWs gin up a fear of this mysterious entity, ‘racism’, which is said to exist everywhere, at least everywhere White people (including White babies, according to Time magazine) exist.

And just in case there isn’t enough of this mysterious force everywhere, it has to be conjured, or hoaxed into existence, as the ‘demand for racism exceeds the supply‘ as I think Steve Sailer said. It seems Whitey is slacking off on the job, not committing the requisite number of ‘racist’ acts, so somebody’s got to do it.

Just an aside: there are a shocking number of politically correct commenters at TakiMag; are they ‘cuckservatives’ or SJWs? It’s getting hard to tell them apart these days.

But back to the need for a good ‘scare’ to motivate the Left and their mascots/pets: it’s ironic that the left is very fond of referring to legitimate threats as ‘scares’ or ‘witch hunts’. I read the IMDB website a lot because I watch many old movies, and maybe it’s masochistic on my part to read the reviews there but I do read them. It’s disturbing how very many commenters cannot watch an old movie without scrutinizing a film for the ‘racisms’ and all the other naughty ‘isms’ like ‘sexism’, as well as all the ‘phobias’ like homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia — have I left any of them out?  The IMDB commenters are also unhealthily obsessed with ‘pre-code’ films, which they prize very highly because, as one commenter said, it’s ”delightful” to find salaciousness and ‘corruption’ in old movies. Now, why this should evoke delight in a movie viewer is somewhat baffling to me, but I gather that it is because it confirms the lefty’s ‘faith’ that the popular image of the wholesome past is in fact false; that people were really hypocrites sinning it up behind closed doors, while putting up a false front of respectability. Human nature being what it is, certainly there were people who feigned innocence in public while being perverts, drunks, or druggies in private. But to say that ‘everyone’ was a liar and a hypocrite back then is just not true — still, it’s what the left believes. So they do love to see the pre-code movies in which we see drug usage (movies like ‘Three on a Match’) or other perversions (‘Wonderbar’).

Most of all, though, the left loves to uncover ‘racism’ in old movies, for example, a black character playing the role of a butler, maid, or janitor. And the SJWs are beside themselves with satisfaction if they spot an Oriental character (yes, I did say ‘Oriental’; it’s a perfectly good word) speaking pidgin English. One commenter on IMDB was shocked and troubled by the ‘‘degrading Chinese music‘ played in some movie with scenes of Chinese people or the Orient. I wasn’t aware that a musical score could be ‘degrading’ in and of itself. I actually found that complaint amusing.

Really, these obsessed lefties, these self-appointed advocates and ‘champions’ of their poor downtrodden minority clients/mascots, seem to need some evidence that their feared bogeyman, the spirit of ‘racism’, does exist now as then. It vindicates, for them at least, the enormous amounts of time and energy they devote to thinking and talking about it — and condemning it.

I think, personally, it’s a very appropriate use of the noun ‘scare‘ to describe their fixation with ‘racism’ as a scare. Interestingly, they almost always use the noun ‘scare’ to designate something they say is nonexistent: like the ‘Red scare’, as they call it, of the 1950s. There was no Communist threat in that era, so they say; it was all in the minds of the ‘far right’, people like Joe McCarthy and any number of others who warned of the presence of Communists in high places.  So it was just a ‘Red scare’, a mythical bogeyman created by the right.

They also favor the term ‘witch hunt’ in describing things like the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) hearings. Just as they say there were no real witches in Salem or elsewhere, they say there were no Communists, the Venona papers notwithstanding.

So it was all a witch hunt, an attempt to harass and punish perfectly innocent people, for their political views. If it was a real ‘witch hunt’ the hunters were pretty inept, because despite the much-hyped ‘blacklists’ and other such measures, the Communist cabal went from strength to strength and they have pretty much enacted all their stated goals from the 1940s-50s. So who was paranoid?

Actually now the shoe is on the other foot; the lefties, despite having the whip hand, and having the media fully in their service, claim that the ‘far right’ is a threat to them.

I think it’s fitting to deploy their own terminology and rhetoric against them; yes, call the racism thing a ‘racism scare‘, in the spirit of their ‘Red scare’ propaganda. Call the racist hunt a ‘witch hunt’ because that, in truth, is what it is. Except that unlike in the past, there are no ‘witches’ on the White right working evil voodoo against the army of ‘victims’ the left has in tow.

I don’t know if the left really believes in their own hysterical rhetoric; some are utterly cynical and habitual liars, who lie to themselves, but it may be that some actually believe in their increasingly bizarre view of the world, especially the past. In any case, the SJWs are the ones who imagine, or pretend to imagine, threats and evil intentions around every corner.

If we’re lucky, in some saner time we will be able to read in honest history books about the ‘hysterical racism scare‘ of this era.

‘A safety valve’

Francesco Guicciardini, the Italian historian and statesman of the early 16th century, said some things about the uses of ‘angry words’:

guicciardini - safety valve in words_result

It’s not an original thought on my part, obviously, but I’ve often wondered if this is one of the reasons why the powers-that-be ”allow” the degree of freedom of speech that we still retain. It can’t be because they respect our Constitutional rights or that they really want to give every opinion a chance to be heard. Obviously they would like to shut down free speech altogether if it is not in line with the official PC dogma.

It makes sense that letting dissidents and political out-groups vent their thoughts on the Internet, if not in the government-controlled newspapers and TV outlets, is a means of letting us blow off steam, and though this is a necessary thing sometimes, as few of us have chances to express our ideas openly without repercussions, it’s also a bad thing potentially, as it may serve as a substitute for some sort of action.

As much as I dislike the frequent taunts from certain people online accusing those who blog or comment of being mere ‘keyboard warriors’, and of ‘doing nothing’, there might be some truth in that for some people.

Another reason for “allowing” dissenters and so-called ‘thought criminals’ to express themselves online is that it allows TPTB to keep tabs on the state of the average citizen, to gauge how much resistance is out there to the agenda. After all, the powers-that-be have to get some idea of ‘how much work still needs to be done‘ as the left always puts it. They want to know how much more relentless propaganda and gas-lighting they still have to churn out to get the population in the properly passive and compliant state, or to more fully demoralize us (in both the old and the new sense of the word).

Some of us have been saying for years now that any day now, our freedom of speech, such as it is, will be taken away and we will no longer have any opportunity to present our case to the fence-sitting ‘normies’ or apoliticals out there. However it seems it would be more profitable for those in authority to let us go on venting so that they can keep tabs on the state of the people, and also be alerted to those out there who they deem a ‘danger’ — at least among the White citizenry; dangerous folk of other ethnicities and races are allowed free rein to be a public danger.

And then, as Guicciardini said all those centuries ago, the use of ‘harsh words’ by dissenting elements may take the edge off their righteous indignation and enable them to refrain from doing anything that poses a ‘threat’ to the agenda. Still, though it may to some extent be a way of keeping us subdued and passive, there may be a limit to its usefulness in that way.

It isn’t wise, ultimately, to believe that we are still ‘free’ because we can still speak relatively frankly on certain subjects. It may just be part of creating an illusion of freedom, an illusion that seems to suffice for many middle-of-the-road Americans. The appearance of freedom is good enough for them, even without the substance.

Theresa May: no more ‘safe spaces’ online

Tiberge at GalliaWatch reports that Theresa May issued a communique in Arabic, of all things. A translation is at that blog.

Here’s one of the salient parts:

“Third, while we need to deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online, we must not forget about the safe spaces that continue to exist in the real world. Yes, that means taking military action to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But it also means taking action here at home. While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.

So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out – across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations, but the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism – and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities but as one truly United Kingdom.”

What jumps out here is not just the call for some kind of censorship of the Internet, but also the carefully parsed language which condemns ‘extremism‘ — not Islam, of course, and not just ‘Islamic extremism’ or ‘extremist Islam’, which are favorite weasel-phrases of our politicians, but extremism per se. Whatever that may mean to people like Theresa May, and however they define it. Obviously they are implying that the rightful people of the UK, the indigenous White people whose country the UK is, are also among those in the sights of the government — if they dare to criticize Holy Diversity (particularly, but not limited to, moslems) or immigration. We’ve seen how the governments in Europe have gone after their native indigenous White citizens if they so much as questioned immigration policy, or said an unflattering word about immigrants themselves. Twitter (and probably other social media sites) have colluded with the totalitarians in charge to zero in on people who said impolitic things online.

If Theresa May is proposing this, likely all the Western governments are going to act in concert to clamp down on the free speech of their own citizens who are deemed ‘extremists’, and that would include dissident bloggers and commenters.

I’ve said it before, and never yet got an ‘amen’, but I am becoming more convinced that most Western leaders, those in Europe especially, have already surrendered to Islam. Look at May herself, with her headscarves, her obsequious attitude toward her Islamic ‘constituents’, and now, communiques in Arabic. More and more it looks to me like surrender is a done deal, a fait accompli, (how does one say that in Arabic, Madame May?) and the hapless citizens who are to be made dhimmis are going to be the last to catch on, the last to be told.

Even Italy, which Italian-Americans have often boasted would never tolerate what the weaklings in Western Europe have allowed, is ferrying ‘refugees’ to their country, not just fishing them out of the Mediterranean for humanitarian reasons, as we were told. Italian ships are still going obligingly to North Africa to fetch these ‘refugees’ and deposit them in their new home in Europe.

So far, Eastern Europe appears to be a holdout against this kind of insanity, but will that last? Will the globalist powers-that-be truly be content to let Eastern Europe alone, or are they just biding their time, or getting Western Europe subjugated first, hoping that the rest will fall in line in due time, when they too are targeted for dhimmitude?

In any case it looks like much of Europe has in fact thrown in the towel, and the quislings are firmly ensconced as the puppet ‘leadership’, May and Merkel being pre-eminent.

May speaks ominously of “one truly United Kingdom.” There can be no naturally united kingdom in Britain that is a hybrid of Islam/Sharia Law and the true English tradition. Oil and water cannot mix. Kipling was right in saying (of East and West) that ‘never the twain shall meet.’

The opposite of political correctness?

At TakiMag, Theodore Dalrymple — I mean (((Theodore Dalrymple))) offers some good points and clever turns of phrase in discussing political correctness. He describes it as a form of mass hysteria — which it does seem to be.  Then there’s this: “…the politically correct speak power to truth.

However, I felt as one of the commenters on the article said: this piece is an example of ‘bait-and-switch.’ It goes from being a scathing piece about PC to bemoaning and lambasting the responses to PC. The examples of rightist ‘hate speech’ which he cites,  are pretty over-the-top.

Did he cherry-pick those extreme examples, or are they more common than I realize?

I wouldn’t deny that some of the comments, ostensibly by ‘right-wing’ commenters online, can be callous, ugly, and sometimes objectionable even to many of us on the right. For example, I’ve seen comments over the years recommending that certain people be ‘incinerated’. I’ve seen comments from those ostensibly on the right  expressing approval over the rape or murder of certain people. I found this appalling. But these comments about ‘incineration’, rape, and murder were not directed at the traditional protected groups according to the PC hierarchy: they were directed at White people — but White people who are among the ‘out-groups’ for some on the right. The ‘incineration’ comment, for example, was directed at fat people  — and it was posted on that hotbed of ‘extremism’, Free Republic, of all places. Now, it may be that the comment or comments were later deleted by mods there, after all, the mods used to ban even mild posts perceived as ‘anti-Hispanic’ in the days before most people were so incensed about illegal immigration. The comments approving of rape and/or murder — by immigrants, actually, were in reference to baby boomers — who, according to many on the young right, deserve such a fate. However it appears that Dalrymple’s outrage about the ‘vile’ comments he cites was an outrage on behalf of minority groups/nonwhites. So who’s being politically correct?

Dalrymple should know that the left engages in worse rhetoric, or at least rhetoric equally bad, in reference to Whites/Christians/heterosexuals. One example of anti-White hatred on another blog was a social media post — Facebook, I think — calling for White women to be caught and killed before they produced more White babies. What’s that law about ‘equal and opposite reactions?’

All that aside, no one on the comment thread seems to question the authenticity of some of the over-the-top bloodthirsty comments Dalrymple gives. Considering what we know of the left, of their duplicity and dirty tactics — and the fact that they are known to employ online operatives to provoke, to derail and disrupt, and to deceive and slander, could it not be that the worst of those comments were written by lefties in order to direct anger at the right? The comments seemed almost to border on parody or caricature.

Whether or not some of the extremist sentiments are justifiable or understandable, it does seem that it’s counterproductive, at the least, to indulge in that kind of rhetoric. I don’t recommend being mealy-mouthed or so genteel as to be feeble in our self-expression, I think there’s a way to express strong sentiments without going beyond certain limits. Adopting the tactics of the left only escalates this trend of abandoning all discretion.