Lost for words

So sorry for not posting more frequently but it’s hard to find anything which is both honest and encouraging to say. I find the conversation on a lot of blogs to be relentlessly downbeat — understandable but I think it’s demoralizing, what with so many looking for a cloud to every silver lining.

And I do think that there is sufficient confusion and doubt in the air that I don’t see the eagerness for the doomsaying on the part of several bloggers I read.

It was famously said by someone that ”a liberal is someone who won’t even take his own side in an argument.” If true, then many Republicans are liberals because it seems there’s little agreement; there is so much intraracial – intra-ethnic antipathy as well as generational, sexual, regional, ideological, and religious animus. Where is loyalty, pietas, kindred-feeling? It exists in some places, but it seems we are more atomized than before.

I notice that the loyal Q following, whose opinions I read, are very gung-ho loyalist to Q and others in that movement, and any doubt is , to them, treason. And I am not a blind loyalist in that fashion. I am trying to be loyal to truth and to folk more than to party allegiances and personalities.

I also find it passing strange that most people seem at best mildly put out about the difficulties of our situation — very accepting of what might not be a temporary inconvenience.

In all, I wonder if I’m alone in this feeling, yet I know we have to be aware that we can’t take freedom of speech for granted.

It’s a little tricky to maintain blind trust in the circumstances, and I think it’s a side-effect of our situation that we feel anxious and I hear that domestic conflicts are rife in some households right now, as we are in a very unfamiliar situation.

Nevertheless I can only believe that we need more than human power to carry us through this time, and not let it overwhelm. But it’s not always easy to find a ‘bright side’ to everything…

The state of politics

Sadly, this is the state of politics even in Texas.

N.B: the comment above is not mine but from the person who re-blogged it.

What further can be said about the above example of what is very common behavior from those on the left, or those who style themselves ”liberal”. What is ”liberal’‘ about wishing death on ‘everyone’ who votes the ”wrong way” in the skewed judgment of these people?

It is a good thing that the Museum’s Board of Directors are having a meeting to discuss this person’s ”future” with the museum. There should not be a future at the museum, in my opinion, for someone so venomous, so lacking in control, so unable to confine her merciless idea of politics to her personal life. Like so many of her generation (not a boomer) she has no sense of boundaries, or of being professional and responsible in her working life. Her behavior shows extreme immaturity. But as most of her peers or superiors likely share her political biases (unless they are older and wiser) she will probably get a slap on the wrist and a half-hearted lecture before going back to work as before.

Texas isn’t what it used to be and it seems the same almost everywhere. If Texas, once a solid, common-sense place, is like this, what hope for the rest of the country.

A sad and vexing state of affairs in this country.

Where do we go from here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right now praying seems the best plan.

In my opinion.

Of course it’s about politics, but…

As this faux-impeachment business plods on, the Townhall blog has a piece which, among other things, compares two female politicians, the leftist Rashida Tlaib and former South Carolina governor Nimrata Randhawa ‘Nikki’ Haley.

Tlaib, shortly after being sworn into office, promised that she and the other Democrat congressmen/persons were going to try to remove President Trump from office. On what grounds? After all, there have to be appropriate reasons. Under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the House alone has the power to impeach, and Article 3 specifies that the Senate is the body which has the power to try an impeached President — impeachment means only that formal charges have been brought by the House. Article 3 states, as to the legal grounds on which a President may be impeached, besides treason and bribery, ”…or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ is carried over from English law, and I think there is a lot of obfuscation among American politicians about the actual meaning of those terms in the present context. I won’t attempt to go into that; I’m neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar. I do remember that there was considerable quarreling between Democrats and Republicans over the meaning of the terms back when Clinton was impeached in the late 1990s. Recently I read an article where the argument was made that Clinton was only accused of ‘sexual’ misbehavior,and the Democrats insisted that his offenses (if any) weren’t impeachable. But no mention was made of ‘Chinagate’ — how many living American have ever heard of that term? The left did a very effective job of keeping the American public in the dark about the transactions between BJC and China, involving illegal fundraising and also certain improvements in Chinese military capabilities.

But then as the complicit media, acting in concert as usual with the left, managed to keep the majority of the American public ignorant of these things. The L.A. Times here told the public that Chinagate was ‘A Figment of Imaginations’.

And what about the figments of the left’s wild imaginations, the supposed ‘collusion’ with Russia and now with Ukraine? The media’s ”news” is almost 100 percent ‘figments of imaginations’. Or do the controlled media even imagine these things they report or allege? I don’t think it’s imagination as much as knowingly false allegations and accusations — utterly cynical and calculating, meant only to stifle anything that doesn’t support the left’s dogmas and falsehoods.

The article from Townhall, in its quote from Rashida Tlaib’s promise to impeach the President, deletes one of the words used by Tlaib. She is quoted as saying “We’re gonna impeach the (expletive).” What did she say? If it was bad enough to be deleted in this age of ‘anything goes’, in this age of brazen profanity, it must have been pretty offensive.

This, as much as anything else, is what I find so appalling about the degradation of our public sphere, the lack of standards, the lack of civility, the plain old lack of ”class” in 21st century life. The ostensible right used to be ‘classier’, more gentlemanly (and ladylike: remember Phyllis Schlafly?) Maybe this too is a product of the changing generations, the changing of the guard.

The younger generations deplore the weakness of the GOP establishment, the fake ‘conservatives’, who never conserve anything, as people say, but the latest initiatives of the politically correct/globalist left. Carleton Putnam, who was an early foe of what we now call political correctness or Cultural Marxism, used the phrase ‘castrated conservatives’ to describe the spineless ‘right’. So today’s young critics are right to deplore and despise the fake right, but the old right has made these same criticisms for a long time.

The old Paleocons were very critical of mainstream ‘conservatism’ and the GOP. There is a way to be tough, uncompromising (and uncompromised) without being effete and spineless and craven, which is what today’s mainstream ”right” is. Or maybe they are so far gone that they don’t even realize that they are liberals in all but name — with their crawling political correctness and their embracing of every misguided or malevolent initiative by the left.

But foul language, and embracing the gutter culture of the times is not necessary in order to be strong or tough. Being profane and crude, and adopting the retrograde cultural norms of the left is not a necessary part of being tough or strong.

I think culture is far more important than many people realize. Politics as such is not the be-all and end-all. What good is it if we win political battles but we still have to live in a gutter society? Will anyone ever have the nerve and the will to try to reverse all the cultural changes for the worse that have come mostly from ‘pop culture’, even more than by political action?

One further observation about the article from Townhall: the article contrasts Nikki Haley (she who oversaw the removal of the CSA flag from the state offices in South Carolina) with Rashida Tlaib. Haley, according to the Townhall article, is a ‘Woman of Color.’ But look at her official picture online. She looks European, though she was born in India. It’s a stretch to call her a person ‘of color’ but then she chooses that identity, and in fact she plays the ‘race card’. She says that her immigrant family felt the ”pain” of being treated as being different. Well, that’s as may be, but it appears that they — and she — choose to identify as ”Other” and to play the race card, implying mistreatment by Whites. It’s the same with the overwhelming majority of Republicans ”of color” — they have their little stories of being treated badly, and in that way enforce the official narrative of White Guilt. As such they are apparently in the Republican Party to remind ”conservatives” that we do in fact have sins for which we have to atone, and then obedient ‘conservatives’ vote for them, reinforcing the guilt narrative. We should vote on merit only and keep in mind that ‘Others’ will likely never see the world as we do, and that voting to assuage any guilt we may feel is always a bad idea.

And, in an impeachment vote, would Nikki Haley vote with the other ‘POCs’ in Congress or can she really identify with the rest of us?

I am not a big fan of President Trump but this spurious impeachment business is just wrong, and in general everything the not-so-honorable opposition is doing is unlawful, unethical, unholy, and just plain malicious.

How has it all changed so much?

VDare has a piece by Harri Honkanen in which he writes about the apparent worrying situation in Denmark as immigration becomes more of a problem. The aggravating factor is accelerating mass immigration from the the Middle East and other disparate cultures.

As Honkanen points out in the article, there were some hopeful trends in Denmark, hinting that they might just be showing some common sense and a smidgen of healthy self-preservation instinct. This article, typical of many written a few months ago, praises her commitment to ‘cutting carbon emissions’ and the usual causes, but called her a ‘hard-liner’ on immigration; this raised the hopes of some on the right.

But those were false hopes, it seems. Mrs. Frederiksen, the Prime Minister, is singing the now-familiar refrains, the same tune that’s so popular among all the Western leadership.

It seems undeniable that female politicians and ‘leaders’ are softer when it comes to immigration or any ‘social justice’ issue. Maybe it’s the maternal instinct kicking in. Mrs Frederiksen is something of an anomaly among European female leaders in that she is not childless. She has two children so we can’t rationalize her political stance as being “maternal” towards the downtrodden at the expense of her own constituents and countrymen.

So why are all the Western countries seemingly moving leftward in recent years? It isn’t all due to the accession of a number of female leaders recently. When this subject is discussed, few people ever mention the factor of the ‘changing of the guard’ generationally. It seems to me that people overlook — or do they evade? — the part played by this factor.

People often say that recent elections have been affected by the increasing numbers of immigrants. No doubt that does play a part. But it’s generally been true that immigrants, according to polls and surveys, have less interest in voting and political action, outside ethnic activism.

But a bigger factor, it could well be, that as the older generations die then the remaining generations are much more left-leaning in their politics, even more so with the youngest new voters. And many of the youngest voters have very strong feelings about their politics.

I noticed some years back that the Silent Generation members, and ‘Greatest Generation’ people who used to be on the Internet were slowly disappearing. The result was the loss of many well-educated and articulate people, people with lots of life-experience. The discussions on the Internet, with the older people gone, became less well-informed, less civil and gentlemanly, more rancorous and given to use of foul language and name-calling.

I miss some of those individuals I used to ”see” around the Internet — and those in real life too; we won’t see their likes again.

The loss of those people means, politically, that there is less support for right-wing or even right-leaning policies. And, just as important if not more so, the culture has become so degraded and corrupt that the oldest generations could scarcely have imagined the shocking headlines we are seeing today, with no change toward sanity in sight.

I know someone will inevitably insist that those older generations were ‘dumber’ than today’s people, which is not supported by any data that I’ve seen, even allowing for some cognitive slowing-down in older age. It’s not even supported by simple observation. Those older people,our grandparents and even our parents, were better-educated; schools were better, and people were not as addicted to mind-numbing TV. Porn was not mainstream then; it was not everywhere
as it is now. The propaganda machine was not running 24/7 back then; people were better able to think for themselves. And they did, more so than today.

Personally I miss the older generations. I’ve always said the people make the place, well, the people make the era, too. The kinds of people who make up the population produce a society that is good, bad, or indifferent, according to the aggregate of individual character.

But as they say, ”you can’t turn the clock back’ so I expect we won’t have such a society ever again; we can only try to salvage what’s left of the one that was left to us. Whether that statement implies hope or lack thereof is up to us.

Uncharted waters

Does it seem as though the world is getting darker and darker? I mean, in the sense of becoming murkier, more uncertain, more unsettled. I’ve been saying this to people for some years now. It’s just something that’s palpable to me, and it’s distressing.

It seems so many recent events are odd, unprecedented, and things are spiralling out of control. Maybe some few don’t feel it, and think I am exaggerating or magnifying things.

The line from Yeats, ‘Things fall apart; the center cannot hold‘ comes to mind. Well, for years I’ve been quoting the rest of that poem, especially the part about ‘the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Was Yeats prophetic? I ask rhetorically, though Yeats was unlikely to have been divinely inspired; he was a dabbler in the occult — more than a dabbler, actually; he was involved with the Aleister Crowley cult, Crowley touting himself as the world’s most evil man, or something of the sort.

At this point, it’s people who dissent from the present day’s orthodoxy who are considered ‘evil’ — people who question the leftist, PC consensus. It’s they and their subservient media who control the narrative and the dialectic.

Thinking back to when I began blogging — that was 13 years ago, I think — there still seemed to be reason to hope that America might wake up from its stupor and see what was transpiring, but no; it seems in retrospect that people were reluctant to open their eyes, and wanted to remain in the dark.

But when I began, I thought there was hope in trying to awaken our folk to our history, our heritage, our traditions — and yes, we did and do have a culture. I hoped to exhort people to some kind of healthy pride and awareness of where we came from, and what we had in our way of life and our very identity. But as time went on, and with the changing of the guard — the passing of the older generations and the new ‘young adult’ generations — there no longer seemed to be a receptive audience to the message I tried to convey. Cynicism is the order of the day, and to be honest it’s partly the fact that some of the younger ones never learned the history of their folk or of this country. History and heritage don’t sell. There is no demand for that it seems.

The pietas to which Cambria Will Not Yield often alludes must be found and restored. But are we ready to do that?

If I had my wish, I would focus on our history, and on our fellow-feeling, our love for our own, for our folk. That, to me, is of value; the political situation is very worrying and maddening at times. I don’t believe there will be a political solution to our crisis.

It seems we’re far from home, without a compass or a map.

Acknowledging we are lost is hard in times like these, at least for those who, like me, tend to be optimistic — though cautiously, much more cautiously so, in these times. We have to be honest and acknowledge that we are in uncharted waters. But then we can’t lose heart and lose hope.

Having just read CWNY’s latest post, his last paragraph says some of what I am thinking:

There are no supports left for the Christian European. Everything Christian and European has been torn asunder. Only our hearts are left. Inside His Kingdom of the heart, we must find the strength to resist liberalism and cling to our European hearth fire. All is indeed cheerless, dark, and deadly – we have only our “trembling faith,” and His promise that He will be with us “alway, even unto the ending of the world.” +