Media ‘concern’ about Q

The media have become concerned — putting it mildly — with the QAnon group, and they are identifying the people who follow Q as a dangerous cult, and as a conspiracy.

I’ve been slightly critical of the Q movement here on this blog, but I think the media are overreacting, hoping to gin up some kind of fear of the Q group, creating a pretext for suppressing it.

The CNN article quotes someone called a “disinformation researcher” warns about the dangers of the QAnon movement:

On Twitter Thursday morning, disinformation researcher Molly McKew argued that TV news “is not doing a good job covering this corrosive conspiracy or explaining it. You can’t just call it insane. That doesn’t explain why it is cognitive cancer.”
So I asked her to elaborate. Here’s what she wrote to me: “QAnon offers its adherents an addictive alternative reality that requires their participation and, through this participation, draws them into the elaborate architecture of the conspiracy. It exploits the sense that something is broken in our society. But rather than focus on understanding these social fractures and healing them, QAnon instead fixates on the pursuit of enemies and villains described in such extreme terms that any action — either by adherents or by identified champions like President Trump —becomes justifiable. By drawing on the culture and value system, Q adherents have justified violent attacks.”

So they are worried about the Q people potentially “justifying violent attacks”?

Hello? There are groups of people roaming some of our cities and towns, and actually attacking people — and the name by which they are known is not ‘QAnon’, but political correctness gives those groups carte blanche to burn buildings, threaten and harm people, and take over whole city blocks — with no consequences. And CNN et al are lying awake at nights for fear of the QAnons.

Leave it to the media to point in the wrong direction when looking for ‘danger.’ The left has a history of stirring up fear of phantom bogeymen such as the elusive neo-Nazis, or the imaginary men in white sheets and hoods. Or ‘militias’ who were supposedly everywhere back in the 1990s. The left has a lot of imagination; I give them that.

In contrast to the left and their panic over invisible villains, Joe McCarthy was dismissed as a ‘paranoiac’ who imagined the supposedly non-existent threat of Communism. Today’s monopolistic media and the whole coordinated apparatus of control is proof that McCarthy had it right; while he was being shouted down and pushed out of public life, the ‘long march through the institutions’ was going on, and CNN et al are visible proof.

You might ask: what do I know about the Q movement? I am not a follower, but I have been observing by reading the sites, watching their YouTube channel and following their ‘chat’. I’ve spent many an hour doing that out of curiosity, learning from the conversation and the guests, who are interesting and informative. There are a lot of ways in which the Q movement is not that far off from what the dissident right thinks or believes, though there is not an ‘ideology’ as such. There is a range of opinions, but most of the Q people are very loyal to the elusive ‘Q’ and eagerly read and dissect his ‘drops’. Of course most followers are also very loyal to the POTUS.

Are the Q Patriots a threat or a danger? Rest easy, lefties. The Q movement does have some quirky obsessions (like the idea that JFK Jr. is still alive and in disguise, or the ‘Ten Days of Darkness’) but most importantly they are not “racists” as that seems to be considered the most heinous and shocking offense most people can imagine these days. So they are not outside the acceptable limits of ”racial orthodoxy”. The phrase ‘patriots don’t see race’ is a popular phrase, and they seem very concerned about the well-being of black people; isn’t that the highest virtue for most people, at least on the left and in the middle, politically?

In fact, this is my biggest issue with the Q movement; if they succeed in becoming more influential in politics and society (and it may happen), it would represent a slight swing to the ‘right’ but their brand of ‘conservatism’ is decidedly watered down. They believe in the Second Amendment but they also believe in MLK, the Civil Rights revolution, and a multicultural, polyglot, multiracial America where everyone will live side by side in harmony, and blacks will no longer be on the ‘Democrat plantation.’ They are civic-Americans. I won’t say they are ‘civic nationalists’ as I have been saying, because people cannot be nationalist and multiculturalists at the same time; there is no nation where there is so little homogeneity.

As for Q himself (if Q is just one person, or a group, I am unsure) — he seems to lean heavily on the ideas of Freemasonry, and he uses a lot of telltale phrases and verbiage that are linked to Freemasonry. For example, heavily emphasizing ‘unity’ and avoiding ‘divisiveness’ (no ethnoloyalty or religious differences), shunning “dogma” and “traditions” and embracing ‘Freethought’. Look it up. It’s all very much in the Masonic catechism if I may use that word.

The influential New Age writer and ‘channeler’ Alice Bailey wrote in some of her many books of how Freemasons would play a significant role in the coming ‘one world’ system. And I believe she wrote those books before the existence of our present-day globalist apparatus.

I find it plausible that Q is not simply a ”patriot” but is working towards some agenda; I am not so overconfident as to guess just what the purpose is. It may be, as some familiar with Q are saying, that at worst Q is just trying to buy time for the President to accomplish some things. I don’t think he is as sinister or that the Q followers are ‘dangerous’ conspiracy theorists. For the most part I think they are well-intentioned and justifiably alarmed about the insanity and chaos that is growing around us, in our cities especially. Anybody who is not alarmed, or at least very concerned, is more likely one of the crazy ones. How can one be indifferent to what is happening around us? I suppose only the Left is capable of getting things so wrong.

So Q, if it is an individual or a group, is likely connected to Freemasonry — which is usually defended by members or families of members as harmless or benevolent — but given any choice I would choose not to live in a system run by Freemasons, with their secretive history and their ideas about a Babel-like multicultural society in which differences are all blended away so as to have a forced ”unity.” It sounds a little too much like the present system. More of the same.

DR3, CivNats — two useless ideas

Louie Gohmert, GOP Congressman “representing” Texas, has moved to ban Democrats from Congress because of their history of ‘racism and hatred.’

At the Amerika blog, Brett Stevens sums up why the Republican fondness for the this DR3 ploy is not helpful.

“Dummy mainstream conservatives think that this is a good idea. Saner people realize that DR3 is always a trap. He has just endorsed far-Left ideas as conservative.”

As it happens I was just reading a thread at Free Republic where the original poster found a quote from Joe Biden that the O.P. thought was proof positive that Biden was a racist and should be exposed as such. One or two posters argued against the DR3 approach but could not get their point across to the original poster, who was champing at the bit to let people know what a horrible racist Biden is (or was, based on an old TV interview).

How does one get across to these people that it’s a useless strategy trying to discredit Democrats or leftists by pulling out the tattered race card? Nobody really believes the Democrats “care” about blacks, or minorities generally, even if they are certified “victims” according to the rules of Political Correctness. Everyone knows on some level that it’s all a cynical play for votes and support, but blacks’ votes are almost always guaranteed to go to Democrats. And no, it’s not that Democrats are ”keeping black on the Plantation” as the DR3 types say; they willingly choose to vote Democrat; they perceive, rightly or not, that that party best serves their interests. Who are we to argue with them? Blacks usually don’t share the philosophy or predilections of most people on the right. Trump is actively wooing the black vote and boasts of having a lot of support from blacks but I think he is overly optimistic or wanting to shore up his support among the CivNat segment who worry and fret about blacks being “neglected” by both parties.

There are still a great many conservatives who have now, after years of heavy ‘propaganda, come to believe that this nation was always destined to be a sort of rescue operation to save the world’s ‘tired and poor, huddled masses,‘, etc, and so therefore America must be multicultural and diverse.

In effect the social philosophies of the right are coming to resemble those of the left, and it seems that Republicans feel it is their duty to police people for ‘racism’ even though the left usually assumes that role. But what with the numbers of Republicans and their quest for Conservative blacks to display as examples, somehow I don’t think that lack of attention to black people or other ‘protected groups’ is the problem.

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.

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.” +