Hiding our political views

According to a Cato Institute survey, many Americans are fearful of discussing their political views with others.

This is understandable, given how insane the political situation is at the moment. Many news articles discussing this issue are fairly biased, with many comments implying that it’s the fault of the ‘extreme’ right.

Years ago a fellow blogger (right-wing, of course) asked why it is that it’s almost always leftists who start contentious conversations about politics in a roomful of people. My opinion was that such people are always looking to start an argument; they love to get the better of opponents by being loud and belligerent. Another factor is that they like to ‘flush out’ any potential enemies; they want to expose anybody on the ”wrong” side and gang up on them when possible: “out” them, shout them down, shut them down.

This happens at family gatherings as well as groups of friends or colleagues.

As it’s a hopeless cause to try to reason with an unreasoning, ill-informed, mendacious leftist, I try not to engage in any kind of political discourse with them. I’m sorry to say that I have some liberal/left relatives who will do their best or worst to try to start a quarrel, knowing how strongly I believe as I do; it’s as though they can’t help themselves, so driven are they to want to verbally assail their opponents.

As long as the left remain in some kind of frenzy over their imaginary bogeymen, there won’t be any sort of relaxing of tensions over politics. I think the left have worked themselves up, or been incited by the malicious media, into a delusional state. So as of now we cannot rationally discuss politics, and that, to me, looks fatal to any kind of reasonable discussion or exchange of ideas, which should be part of living in a civilized country. But clearly we do not live in such a country any more.

Words

We live in a very peculiar age, in which using a word can condemn us as individuals or as groups. There are certain words which are almost universally condemned in our society. But somehow the wrongness of a word hinges on who is using the word. One group of people can use such words with no objection from hearers, while others are castigated and perhaps even charged with crimes, and subject to legal sanctions, even imprisonment. Isn’t this a weird state of affairs? Why should this be?

How many people ever ponder the oddness of this situation? Surely if a word is wrong or forbidden, then it should be wrong for anyone to use the word.

And shouldn’t a society generally be in agreement about the intrinsic wrongness or offensiveness of a word? If general agreement should exist, (and it seems to me it should; such things should not be arbitrary and random) then surely the majority should decide which words are not to be tolerated, rather than a smaller group deciding unilaterally. Such a situation is tantamount to having dictatorial ruling groups deciding, if the majority have no say.

Mind you I am not a big fan of ‘democracy’ as it has played out in our current situation, but since our system pretends to honor ‘the will of the majority’ why are we content to kneel to the whim of a minority of — say — 15 percent?

If a small segment of a population can wield so much influence and control over the majority, can we be said to have anything like a ‘representative’ government? Our elected officials are more likely to cater to the loudest and most overbearing group as well as to wealthy factions who ally themselves to this demanding 14 or 15 percent.

So we have given up our freedom of speech in order to appear ‘fair’ to smaller groups who pretend to be harmed or traumatized by certain words. What kinds of words have such power? Mostly it amounts to simple slang terms or abbreviated words describing ethnic groups, regardless of whether those words contain any kind of insult or “slur” as they are usually called. The words designated as offensive and ‘hateful’ are judged as such by purely subjective criteria, and those who pay attention to this attempt to control speech will notice that the criteria change arbitrarily, when it comes to accusing people of wrong-speech or “hate” as it is described.

Is it a sin to call an American a ‘Yank’? Why not? Some of us don’t like the word ‘yank’, especially if the person so labeled is from the Southern states. But when we are in the UK or Australia we are often referred to as ‘Yanks’ or by semi-insulting terms like ‘Septics’ in Australia. (Septic=rhyming slang: ‘Septic tank’) So we could rightly claim offense but we aren’t prone to do that, so we accept it.

There are lots of ethnic designations that are simple abbreviations but yet they are considered OK if the target is of a White nationality. Some ethnic peoples don’t like terms like I-tie (Italian) or Mick or but when the label describes someone non-European in origin, then the term ‘hate speech’ is invoked. Some hapless woman in the Midwest, years ago, was turned in to the police (by some busybody eavesdropping on a private conversation) to report this woman saying ‘S—s should learn English.’ I think a jail sentence was her punishment — for a simple one-syllable word.

People have been killed for uttering a slang name to which someone objects, even saying that being called an ‘epithet’ drove them to kill the offender. Thus people have been given light sentences for murder because of a ‘taboo’ word.

Why are we so easily cowed by the power of these words?

The word that causes more high feelings is the familiar ‘r-word’, which has been given incredible amounts of power in our current day. And yet it is we and our undeniably corrupt legal system that have invested the word with the power to destroy lives, metaphorically if not always physically.

Why?

Why are we willing to condemn ourselves, or if not ourselves, then our kin and kind, because of a word? Some will say ”but it’s not just a word; it implies an evil attitude on the part of the speaker, and fear, plus psychological harm to the person to whom it’s directed.”

Again, how can something subjective be determined with certainty? Many ‘hate hoaxes’ have happened and do happen, and they are documented. In many cases the hoaxsters admit to concocting a false story. Yet such stories are treated as irrefutable right out of the box, because some people are held to be above scrutiny, and are not held to the same standards as the rest of us.

It’s become as if it’s unthinkable to hold certain people to any standard, much less to question their veracity. But any human being is capable of dishonesty, so why exempt anyone? One standard for all. But we know it doesn’t happen that way.

Today, in the wake of recent events, it seems a sizable segment of our population is obsessed with showing themselves to be concerned about the plight of this protected group, worrying that the ‘Democrats aren’t taking good care of” this group of people.

It seems that we are very solicitous and protective of certain groups, especially one, because it would appear that people see them as perpetual children, who need our protection and charity. In their estimation we owe them that, and more, indefinitely.

And now, it’s reached the point where our folk are willing to kneel and prostrate themselves to certain people. This seems like some kind of mental aberration which has taken hold on European-descended folk. Maybe it’s a sign of stress; it’s quite a strain to be under for all one’s life, to be told again and again how evil our ancestors were and how we are responsible for everyone’s troubles and disappointments in life, we and our evil genes.

Yet our reprobate ”leaders” and politicians side against us, and help load us down with more burdens of guilt and blame. These political hacks are not our ‘representatives’ nor are they our advocates nor are they our ‘friends’. If they are leaders, they are leading us to destruction.

How many times a day do we hear or read the ubiquitous ‘r-word’? Hundreds? Surely the word should lose some of its power, given how it is overused, ad nauseam? Or have we decided to surrender to that word?

And is the thing described by that word a ‘sin’ in God’s eyes? Let’s look at what the word is supposed to mean, (though we all know there is no fixed meaning; they keep changing the meaning according to expediency). At its core, the invented word (not in use before 1930s) just means wariness of, or dislike for, a particular ethnic group or people. I am talking about common parlance, not any fluid dictionary definition.

Is it a sin to dislike, or be wary of, a group of people? It may be unfair to judge a people as a group — so we’re told — but is it a sin, much less a crime?

Remember, it isn’t we who decide what constitutes a sin. That’s God’s prerogative. Popular vote, or peer pressure has no say in what is a sin. My neighbor may not approve of an act, as I might, but neither of us has the power to make it a ‘sin.’

So what ‘people’, even the majority say, about the ‘r-word’ holds no weight in a religious sense. That’s just fallible human opinion.

Is it possible to ‘love everyone’ as we’re always told? Is that required of Christians? The Bible condemns hating ‘our brother without a cause.’ Notice that phrase ‘without a cause.’ That phrase is there for a reason.

Most of us would not hate someone without a cause. Yet that is what the Left and the clueless Civic Nationalist right thinks is the case: ”just because of the color of their skin!”

Only an idiot would hate someone because of outward appearance, skin color, etc. Scarcely anybody is guilty of that. Yet it’s what the ‘r-word’ supposedly implies.

Very few on the right judge people just according to their skin color. It is because of drastically different behavioral patterns and cultures that friction, animosity, and misunderstanding happen — and will always happen, based on what history shows.

It is the liberal ‘right’ who think that we can shoehorn everyone into one country and pretend that no differences exist, that ‘we’re all one race, the human race.’

What makes the ‘patriotic civnats’ think that the Others want to be just like us? Our culture and our ways are laughed at by other ethnicities: we are bland, boring, we eat tasteless foods, we can’t dance, we have no coordination, and we’re silly dupes who are easily manipulated. And maybe there’s good reason for believing that last one. Remember ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me’? Yet it seems names and words have got us, in truth, on our knees.

On cue

From my vantage point, it seems as if political correctness, and the insistence on conformity to it, are intensifying. For instance, on Tumblr, with those of college age and younger it seems as if their racial attitudes are becoming more intolerant and anti-White. Scan through their blogs and when you look through their own descriptions of their blogs, you’ll see belligerent statements something like this: ”This blog is not for Nazis and Haters. Stay the F— away if you are one of those.”

Other bloggers’ statements threaten those deemed “fascists’ or ‘bigots’ with being reported if they attempt to ‘follow’ any of the self-righteous SJWs and melanophiles.

Am I the only one who is sick of the never-ending bombardment with this kind of shrill rhetoric and the truculent attitude? There is truly no escape unless you are able to remove yourself to some remote spot where there is no commercial radio or TV and no phones. Otherwise everywhere you look, you are surrounded by advertising which is not meant to sell products so much as to embed someone else’s ideas in your brain and psyche. And it works, judging by what we are seeing and hearing. Being honest we have to admit that even people who are ‘conservative’ on the surface somehow harbor some very left-wing or liberal ideas, thanks to the ubiquitous media programming. This is especially true of social issues, and unfortunately it’s there, on the social issues, where the battle is really being waged. Many self-described conservatives are liberal to all-out leftist in everything but economic issues.

It’s very wearying to be surrounded, via the media and the ‘masses’, with the harsh, ugly, gutter rhetoric that is the trademark of the left. Unfortunately that has also crossed over to the right and it’s hardly possible to hear civilized discourse from either side. And I never imagined, even 10 or so years ago, that we’d hear someone address the President of the United States as ”B—h” in a public message. These verbal assailants are people of no breeding, no class; they respect no one. It used to be that in order to be a public figure one had to at least pretend to be polite, civil, and respectful. Now, most public personalities behave like rabble. And it is dragging our society down to a brutish level. It’s sort of like the old ‘Broken Windows’ theory of society: if you don’t maintain the small things, then everything falls to neglect and decay; it’s not just buildings but all of life is affected, including manners and ultimately our spiritual life as a people.

But the worst is the lies with which the left assaults us every day. The lies are brazen, patently false, and yet they seem to be believed by too many Americans. Being subjected to nonstop lies daily is demoralizing in the extreme — and that’s probably why it’s so intensive now.

And here’s something else I am noticing: as of now it’s bad enough that we are silenced, and the truth is banished from the public square. Even though the realists among us have facts and data to back up the veracity of our assertions and beliefs, we are not allowed to have our say. The censors who stifle our speech and writing, insist that ”the truth is no defense”, as some imbecile judge in the UK said in a ‘Free speech’ court case. Needless to say, the truth lost.

But the current situation may not be the end of it. I notice that a lot of the hard-core enemies of truth now insist that people have to make some affirmative statement of support or solidarity with whatever designated hero or martyr of the day.

Being silent is gradually being treated as suspicious. It may be as it was in the days of the old Soviet bloc countries, where one had to praise the ‘fearless leader’ or the ideological ‘heroes’ of the left. Being silent, even being lukewarm, might get you reported for thought crimes, disloyalty, or whatever bogus accusation.

Or just as in the book of Daniel in the Bible, it was required to worship the King when the music was sounded. You had to acknowledge the authority and power and possibly the ‘divinity’ of the Leader, or the God-King. Is that where we’re going? Do we in fact have a royal or privileged caste to whom we have to offer praise?

Someone on Tumblr, in an attempt to pressure people who might be lukewarm on the ‘social justice’ question, posted a quote from Desmond Tutu, with the accompanying message that ‘‘Being neutral on a moral issue is being on the side of Evil.” Hence those who don’t bow down when they hear the cue are ‘on the side of Evil.’ It seems to me that somebody is now succeeding in making the masses see evil as good and good, as evil.

As of now, it seems like few have the courage or the inclination to challenge those who want to control our thoughts and stifle our political expression. But as long as we are not coerced into kowtowing under duress or threats, that’s something.

Once we are required to offer some kind of pro forma tribute or praise then we will no longer have the right to keep our thoughts private. To require verbal compliance, even if it is insincere is to trespass on our right to our own thoughts and beliefs and opinions. We need to be vigilant when it comes to complying with people who would control us.

Dixie defamed again

The governor of what was once the state of Virginia, a state founded by my own ancestors (and yours, probably, if you are an original Southron), has now ended the holiday which honored Generals Lee and Jackson.

This, according to the governor, makes his People’s Republic of Virginia “a more representative and inclusive Commonwealth”. Representative and inclusive of what, or whom? Certainly not the oldest inhabitants of the Old Dominion. And by what rights can it now be called ”The Old Dominion”? You can read the history of that nickname here, but clearly it has to do with the origins of the state of Virginia, its founders, and its population, its history and heritage, in short.

The people who ‘elected’ the present governor of the current ‘state of Virginia’ constitute a group of people very unlike those who have populated Virginia since the English colonists first arrived, some 400+ years ago. This is not by happenstance; it’s by design. It’s an agenda, like Trudeau’s Grand Remplacement. The great ‘god’ diversity must be served.

Looking at a website which is supposed to be a biographical site for Northam, the only “memorable quote” attributed to him is the following, which I could have guessed at without knowing anything more about him than I do:

We live in a very diverse society — it is getting more diverse every day. It is that diverse society that makes this country great.”

quoted here

Now, if that’s not an original quote or thought. Imagine.

We’re additionally told that he was voted ‘most likely to succeed’ in high school or college or somewhere. Again, how predictable. But likely to succeed at what, exactly? Being the first to suggest legalizing post-natal infanticide? To succeed at pushing for demographic change in your own state, so that the original founding-stock are pushed out, or outnumbered at the polls? Or to make a run at abolishing the historical memories of Virginia’s greatest men? His ‘success’ is at the expense of history, heritage, tradition, memory. A country and a folk cannot thrive without those things.

Northam’s changeling Virginia (how long until the original name has to go?) is made up of a congeries of vastly disparate peoples who have little to nothing in common, except for an envy and covetousness that motivates the purposeful demographic changes which have transmuted Virginia to another mini-Babel. This kind of cobbled-together ‘state’ cannot thrive.

For those diversity-bots who go around parroting ‘diversity makes us strong’ or ‘diversity is our strength’ — prove it. Just saying it does not make it true. Just repeating nonsense does not make it sensible, much less factual. Yet we let every two-bit charlatan who gets behind a microphone or in front of a camera get away with uttering this tiresome drivel. Why, in heaven’s name, do we let them go unchallenged or unquestioned?

It’s a tragedy for us that we no longer seem to produce leaders of any calibre to challenge the demagogues and fakes. Where are our men of the talent of Thomas Jefferson, or any General Lee, or Rev. Dabney or any of the great orators or thinkers of our past? None of today’s leaders can hold a candle to any of them.

Still, it goes on: our country is being subjected to a ‘great replacement’, as are all of the countries of former Christendom. And to our shame, it’s people who are nominally of our own folk who are facilitating this compulsory transformation.

Worst, the ‘state of Virginia’ was trying to pass laws forbidding criticism of elected officials. How shameful and how very — shall I say it? — un-American. Yes, it is against the very principles laid down by our forefathers who created this country, but then few people seem to know those principles, much less to care to preserve them.

Theoretically my opinions would make me ‘guilty’ of refusing to bow down to the self-declared godlets who sit in legislatures or inhabit some public office. And that in itself is wrong. If such becomes law then America will well and truly be done.

Did the Virginia rally change anything?

Before the Virginia rally to show support for the Second Amendment, there was talk that a clash was almost certain to happen, and it may be that some people took those warnings to heart and didn’t attend — though from the Right’s point of view it would seem as though the rally succeeded in its purpose.

However — despite the fact that the pro-Second Amendment attendees showed that the image of the ‘redneck’ rowdy gun nuts, as characterized by the Left is just not reality, the Left seems to be going full speed ahead. The Democrats in Virginia introduced a measure in the Virginia Legislature to criminalize criticism of elected officials. House Bill 1627 would prohibit criticism of a number of elected officials, including, of course, the Governor.

This is all in addition to the Red Flag laws which are in the works, and they’ve already stopped the Republicans’ pro-Second Amendment measures which they were attempting to push.

Obviously the Left planned all this ahead of time, so as to keep a step or two ahead of the Right, foreseeing any countermeasures from the Republicans.

The idea of making it a crime to criticize elected officials is blatantly totalitarian in intent and in nature. This is just the kind of thing that went on in the old Communist bloc countries. So why are people so blasé, given that this has all been done and seen in the past?

Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov had a lot to say about that, predicting the direction this country was about to take. But I suspect not many of those who need to see his video — which for a long time was on YouTube — will have ever watched it. The warnings he gave fell on many deaf ears.

Thanks to decades of propaganda, with the left being aided and abetted by the leftist ‘journalists’ and cable news ‘personalities’, a great many people, especially the young, see nothing bad about Communism, Socialism, ‘Antifa’-ism, Bolshevism, Jacobinism, whatever name or form you want to give it.

Having reduced Communism to a joke, or a relic of the past, nobody fears the supposedly mythical monster. Beyond that, since most of the two youngest generations have been thoroughly conditioned as ‘postmodernists’, many don’t believe in Truth or in evil; there are no absolutes and everything is what you choose it to be.

And freedom can’t long survive in this kind of atmosphere. Expect more totalitarian measures and minimal pushback against it. I hope very much to be wrong about this.

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?

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.