Losing our freedom of speech

It’s no news that our freedom of speech is in jeopardy, and has been for some years. But it seems that suddenly, with the news of the Notre Dame Cathedral fire, we are under pressure to avoid ‘accusing’ Moslems, even though they are the suspects for good reason. After all, as I pointed out, a great many churches in France have been vandalized or set afire. And going back to 2016, an elderly priest was killed while saying Mass. The guilty parties? Guess.

There are reports that Fox News show hosts, namely Neil Cavuto and Shepard Smith, both interrupted guests who violated the taboo on criticizing, one of the guests being a French Deputy-Mayor. The quotes from Shepard Smith reveal that he was quite abrupt and rude in silencing his guest who mentioned possible Moslem involvement in the cathedral fire. Please notice, too, that the linked article refers to these mentions as ‘conspiracy theories.’ This Orwellian practice is a way of trying to stifle any mention of conspiracies, under the idiotic precept that conspiracies don’t exist, and never happen. Sadly much of the American population reacts the same way, jeering at anything they perceive to be a ‘conspiracy theory.’ Have people lost common sense? No wonder we are in such a predicament, we in the Western countries.

I’ve spent more time than usual reading blog discussions of the Notre Dame fire and there are quite a few people, even on ‘right’-leaning blogs, striking a superior pose by saying the usual thing: “we mustn’t jump to conclusions, we have no evidence, it could have been an accident, it could have been atheists or Satanists who did it” — well, we could just as well say Mrs. O’Leary’s cow could have caused it. So why are all these people leaning over backwards to appear ‘even-handed’ or fair?

Even Christian commentators are not immune to the urge to do this. One of the Christian commentators I follow made a great show of saying that we have to be fair. To me, this looks like a kind virtue-signalling: “I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, unlike you xenophobic bigots out there.”  So if he feels the need to strike such a pose, more power to his left elbow, but I don’t want to see it become a new restriction on our free speech.

People have always speculated about any kind of disaster or crime in which deliberate human action could be involved. People, at least in this country, have always reserved the right to voice their own personal theories or speculations about such things. But now, suddenly, we are expected to pretend that the cause of this is an utter mystery, or just a random accident? That insults our intelligence. So many incidents over the past few weeks and this incident is just a random one-off, unconnected? That stretches credulity.

I remember during the first Gulf War, in 1990-91. When talking about the subject, no one was expected to be politically correct or to hold their tongues lest they ”offend” somebody. But after innumerable ‘incidents’ there is, paradoxically, more pressure on us to be ‘tolerant’ — no, that’s not the right word. Tolerance was once the watchword, now we have to wholeheartedly embrace whatever agenda is being imposed. Now we are compelled to keep silent if we can’t convincingly adhere to the script, and say only the politically correct things that are inculcated by means of the media and the ‘educational’ system.   Remember when we were children we were told that ‘if you haven’t got any thing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.’ And some groups are protected from criticism or even scrutiny. Some are ‘more equal than others.’ Be politically correct, or be silent.

There’s a slow-motion purge of dissident right bloggers, with such political views coming closer to being defined as ‘criminal’, as in Europe. These things happen by degrees, and we become acclimated to our loss gradually.  Anybody on the ‘right’ who is promoting this ‘silence’ policy is a party to our loss of free speech.

Advertisements

Notre Dame Cathedral

I was shocked — though maybe I shouldn’t have been — to hear of the fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Without cable TV it’s possible to be out of the reach of the 24/7 news cycle for a while, and I missed the initial reports,  only learning of it online.

Over at the Reference Frame blog, there is a good piece about the incident, with blogger noting that the burning of the cathedral is symbolic of what’s happening to Western civilization now. Truly, that’s a good point. Also noted in the piece is the apparent reluctance of the controlled media to stray from the official line, that line being that the fire was nothing more than an unfortunate accident.

Even Fox News which some still persist in considering ‘conservative’, shut down any alternative explanations before they were fully voiced. That doesn’t surprise me, and now I am going to keep tabs on how many dissidents get de-platformed/banned for suggesting anything else.

Apparently some reactions to the fire amounted to cheering. This is disgusting, especially when it comes from Westerners, all of us who are heirs of Christendom. I did have a fleeting thought that maybe post-Christian Europe may not appreciate their heritage, because as of this moment, it’s considered de rigueur to regard Christianity and all its outward symbols as merely reminders of a dead and useless past, one which all ‘hip’ people find embarrassing and backward. Our ancestors were so bigoted and narrow you see, and we disown them, being too sophisticated to do otherwise. This attitude exists in all countries which were once Christian. This makes us ripe for being culturally conquered, open to capitulating to the ‘vibrant and diverse’ communities which have been planted in our midst. And few among us seem to see the incredible loss we are suffering by abandoning or being shamed out of our heritage.

So will the ‘news’ commissars try to stifle any further discussion of the causes of the fire? And can it really be a coincidence that the fire follows in the wake of so many vandalism incidents and fires, involving churches in France?  I have a feeling that the questions will not be welcome, so as not to offend the communities. So much the worse for free speech and freedom of thought in our former Christendom.

Meantime, what happened to Notre Dame saddens me in a way I can’t quite explain. It’s part of our past. Our ancestors labored to build these great cathedrals over the span of generations. Maybe many people don’t appreciate the effort, the labor, and the care that went into those cathedrals. Our ancestors built for the centuries, for the future, and to think that their work might so easily be destroyed by malice plus indifference is sad, beyond sad.

 

 

 

Another one missing

To my dismay, one more of our number seems to be missing.  CWNY’s blog seems to have disappeared, or perhaps he was ‘disappeared’, after what, 12 or 13 years of blogging? I always admired his dedication, the way he kept soldiering on when many others might become demoralized and stop blogging — as I did (and sometimes still feel like doing). Maybe he will be back elsewhere on the web. Until then I am sure he is very much missed; his inspirational posts often lifted my spirits when I needed encouragement.

Where is the ‘right’ going?

Lately it seems to me as if the right, or what passes as the ‘right’ is rather undefined at the moment. The whole political scene seems to be in disarray, on both sides. The left is off the rails, but for that matter, it’s always been so, but lately the left seems to have strayed completely outside the bounds of reality and decency, not to mention common sense.

Not so many years ago, the right consisted mostly of the old-fashioned Republican right, with its country-club faction, it’s ‘Main Street’ types, and then of course the Neocons, who had ensconced themselves in order to change the direction of the real right. The sanest people on the right, in my opinion, were the ‘Paleocons’, the old right which tended to be non-interventionist, America-First types. I didn’t agree with everything they believed; I’m not doctrinaire but they made more sense than the others. When I started blogging circa 2006 the Borders issue was heating up and a lot of new bloggers were immigration patriots, resisting the pro-Bush status quo as well as opposing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Most of us, myself included, walked away, or were made unwelcome by the GOP because of those issues.

The ‘Alt-right’ was the media’s flavor-of-the-month in 2016, drawing a lot of interest from the media, in part it seems because they thought it would damage Trump to be associated with the ”deplorable” Alt-right. But now, a couple of years after Trump took office, it seems some of the Alt-right supporters have lost faith, and there seems to be no focus for many, except for the usual discussion of the JQ, as well as plenty of elder-bashing, which is now a staple of the average right-wing blog. But what does the right, “Alt” or otherwise,  stand for now, if not for ethnopatriotism?

Lately there are headlines about how ‘White nationalists’, or at least those defined by the controlled media as such, are now following Andrew Yang, the Chinese-American Presidential aspirant. It seems his take on the ”accelerationism” philosophy, which seems to be a rather hard-to-follow school of thought, would include a Universal Basic Income. I haven’t read enough about his proposals; for example is this $1000 handout to be recurring or permanent or a one-shot thing? This part of his plan seems to be the biggest draw for some people on the right. What is in this for WNs, if they are in fact supporting Yang as some media sources say?

Maybe it’s the influence of American Renaissance, but it seems the younger right has long had a soft spot for Asians, seeing them as being allies or kindred spirits to Whites, even those Whites who consider themselves pro-White. But if one’s own people aren’t given preference, what about ethnocentricism and ethno-loyalty? I would say those last two qualities are the sine qua non of being any kind of nationalist, but then I don’t get any of the purported enthusiasm for Yang.

The ‘accelerationism’ thing, when explained, seems like a very intellectualized concept, dreamed up by intellectuals with too much time on their hands. I have no time for ideologies. If it’s boiled down to a very simplified form, it seems somewhat akin to the stale old idea of ”worse is better”, which some WNs used as a pretext for voting Democrat in 2008 and 2012 — though many wouldn’t admit to having done that afterward. But the idea of handing out money to everybody — which is a bad idea on its face for a number of reasons — in order to hasten a collapse of ‘the system’ is just a variation of the old lefty Cloward-Piven strategy, as explained at length by Glenn Beck, at his chalkboard. Now, I suspect the average person’s explanation of Accelerationism is somewhat misinterpreted, but understandably, since it is a very abstruse philosophy and hard to grasp for many people.

I sense that in all the chaos of today, people are reaching, grasping for something, anything to believe in, or they are drifting, without a coherent belief system of philosophy to guide them.

I’m not a believer in ‘-isms’ or ideologies, but as the old saying goes, if we don’t stand for something, we’ll fall for everything.

We find ourselves in a very crazy time period, in which little seems to make sense, and we can’t guess at what insanity tomorrow will bring. Many of us feel the lack of leadership and inspiration, or guidance. As for me I won’t jump on any bandwagons.

Our ‘Grey Champion‘ hasn’t yet appeared, though he’s long overdue. But then, the Champion in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s story was honored for his age and wisdom, but if such a grey-haired figure appeared now he’d be scorned; no grey headed oldsters need apply.  But we do need leadership, and it seems the pickings are slim.

Maybe Yang’s appeal is also that he is young, and it seems the young will accept none but one of their own age cohort; no one else is welcome in their clubhouse. It’s said that we get the leaders we deserve. Heaven help us.

Politically correct GOP, at it again

I don’t know who started the meme, but there’s one going around (sorry, I still can’t post graphics here for whatever reason) which depicts some mounted CSA soldiers, apparently led by General Lee, though he’s obscured by the text. Anyway, the text says ”Demorcrats [sic] haven’t been this mad at Republicans since we freed their slaves.”

This just seems to be another attempt at the lame ‘DR3’ theme, that is: ”Democrats ‘R’ the Real Racists.” That idea, which amounts to trying to out-PC the Democrats/leftists, is a non-starter. It never succeeds in embarrassing the left, because they are congenitally incapable of shame or embarrassment, so sure are they of their virtue. And it’s lame as a strategy because to try to shame progressives as hypocrites and ‘racists’ is historically incorrect here. We could say the Republicans of that time period were anti-White considering their punitive and vindictive treatment of Southrons.

If I were a member of the GOP today (which I’m not) I would not be too proud of the role played by Republicans (aka ‘Radical Republicans) during the era of the War Between the States. Under Radical Republican control the shameful era of Reconstruction was imposed on the South. But few people know the story of that episode in our past.

I suppose it’s too much, to hope that these present-day Republicans, so proud of the radical Republican abolitionists, might learn actual history instead of accepting the PC narrative which is pounded into everyone’s heads via bad history and Hollywood propaganda. Only the misinformed ”right”  would be proud of the Radical Republicans. To put the situation in perspective we could simplify things by saying that the two parties swapped places: the Republicans of yesteryear were ultra-liberal humanist ideologues, while the Democrat Party was more like a populist party.

Can’t somebody on the Republican side get a clue about the history of this country, and stop trying to play at the left’s poisonous name-calling and cringe-worthy virtue-signalling?

There are so many good historical sources written in a saner era, before Political Correctness clouded everyone’s brains. Archive.org, my favorite source of reading material, can educate those who were never taught proper history. And now that Amazon is purging its non-PC books and materials, and our local libraries are quietly removing old books in general, who knows how long Archive.org will still have truthful books, containing materials that ‘trigger’ those who are allergic to truth. Truth is getting scarcer these days as censorship and enforcement of an official ‘narrative’ are being imposed on a wide scale.

Truth needs as many rescuers and defenders as we can muster, before the lights go out on our once-free civilization.  ‘Memes’ may be cute but unless they are truthful and honest they need to be countered.

 

NZ women in hijabs

So the women of Christchurch, New Zealand decided to wear Moslem dress, following the example of their lady Prime Minister, including the obligatory head-scarves. This charade was meant to show ”solidarity” with their Moslem ‘friends and neighbors. In addition the Moslem call to prayer was to be broadcast nationwide. How long before wholesale conversions begin? Any bets?

In my previous post I wrote about the absence of solidarity on the part of White Americans amongst ourselves; still, it appears as though we are not quite as far gone towards submission and dhimmitude as are the Enzedders and the people in the benighted EU. It seems the younger generations are eager to adopt the same obsequious attitudes after a terror incident. Remember the Australians after such an attack, and their slogan about ‘riding with’ the Moslems?

That rather reminds me of the way Moslems rally around their Christian friends when Christians carry out attacks on them.  No? Oh, that’s right, Christians/non-Moslems haven’t contributed a fair share of such attacks, have they? An occasional ham sandwich left in front of a mosque somehow doesn’t cut it, does it? Well, maybe the two approaches are morally equivalent to the liars in the Media, but not so much in the real world. Incidentally,  the poor guy in Britain who committed the Ham Sandwich Atrocity died behind bars. The lack of parity in the way such incidents are treated is a glaring example of how one side is coddled and placated and kowtowed to, even when committing real atrocities, while the other side is treated like Literally Hitler for relatively harmless acts.

How can so many of our folk be so utterly delusional about what is happening, in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the EU, and our country? How is it that they seem to believe, contrary to reality, that it is they and all of us in former Christendom who are the guilty parties, the ones who must apologize and plead for forgiveness from those we’ve allegedly wronged? It’s sad, and beyond sad, that we’re reduced to this. And it seems to me that we’ve got our share of these cringing, servile people in our own population, especially the young, who seem most thoroughly taken captive by the mental conditioning. I don’t know if this condition is curable or not. Sometimes I think not.

In a way I pity the people who are captives to political correctness and the multicult mania. But mostly that pity gives way to contempt. It is hard to respect those who are abasing themselves and who lack self-respect (not “self-esteem”, mind you, but self-respect) and dignity.

I think we’re seeing how a relatively small population of Moslems have made a kind of de facto conquest of parts of former Christendom already, without having to wage a full-scale war. Capturing people’s minds and emotions is all it takes. And peer pressure keeps people conforming. Nobody wants to be the one saying that the PC emperor is shamefully naked.

Wouldn’t it be great…

Wouldn’t it be a refreshing change to be able to read a blog discussion that was free of gratuitous ‘boomer-bashing’? Does every ‘right-wing’ blog have to include ‘die, boomer’ rhetoric? It seems that virtually any subject under discussion leads to vitriolic comments at the expense of boomers. And there is almost no pushback, even from the bloggers, some of whom are actual boomers.  The older generations are dying off as I write this;  the last of the ‘Greatests’ and the ‘Silents’ as well as the boomers. Easy to kick those who are down.

And when they are gone, the demographics will really be stark.

I know it’s a forlorn hope, but for years I’ve lamented the divisions among us, that is, we ‘heritage Americans’, what with the ever-growing political rifts between left and ‘right’, the growing gulf between the two sexes, plus religious divisions, regional differences (North vs. South), class differences — and then the hatred of elders, to cap it all off. This is a house divided and it makes for a rather discouraging outlook. It certainly drains away any optimism or hope I can muster up. It is morale-destroying.

We can have no real ethnonationalism or ethnopatriotism unless we have a feeling of kinship and solidarity but there is scant evidence of that. And it seems that elder-bashing is a safe way to redirect any hostility towards the Others, as certain ethnic groups benefit from having us divided amongst ourselves, and they no longer take as much ‘heat’ from those looking for someone to whom they can shift the blame.

This crisis in which we find ourselves has been under way for decades, since long before the 1960s. Millennials and X-ers have had the franchise for some years and they, too, bear some responsibility, though they deny any such agency. We are all in this together, like it or not.

Yes, I know it’s useless to repeat this, and I seem not to get anyone  to second my feelings, but without some regard for each other, our ‘nationalism’ or ‘populism’ is a non-starter, or an outright sham and fraud. Are we serious about this existential struggle, or is it all just a game in which we condemn only those we don’t like amongst our kin group?

Events in New Zealand

I don’t pretend to know whether the latest incident, in New Zealand, was a ‘false flag’; at this point we can only guess. And given the bias and outright dishonesty of the media, we can’t be sure how much of what we’ve read or heard is true, or how much it has been distorted so as to be consistent with the media’s carefully constructed narrative, which is invariably anti-White.

I’ve never been to New Zealand but from what I have read, and what I know from having a Kiwi friend, it seems the New Zealanders are very far left, politically. In that worldview, the sacred Other can do no wrong, being always the victim and never the aggressor — even though statistics show the opposite to be true so far.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.  There is a picture on the Internet, (sorry I can’t post it because WordPress will not allow me to post a picture, apparently) showing the Prime Minister of New Zealand, a woman (of course!) speaking to a group of people, and she is wearing a head covering, Moslem style, and her body languages speaks surrender. Her hands are clasped in front of her, in a pose of supplication. It’s very much like another news photo of British PM Theresa May, showing her speaking to Moslem ‘community’ spokesmen after one of the many ‘incidents’ in which British citizens were (as usual) the targets of an attack. Was it a bus attack, or a bombing, or a stabbing or beheading? It’s hard to keep track. But in any case, though Mrs May’s fellow British people were not the aggressors, Mrs May, wearing the obligatory head-scarf, showed a similar attitude and pose to the Moslem ‘community leaders’.  The head tilted to one side, the wide-eyed look, the hunched shoulders, all tell of submission.

Feminists, back in the 1970s or so, used to boast that if women were heads of state, war would no longer exist because women are non-aggressive, unlike men with their ‘machismo’ and competitiveness. Women, of course, would be healers, they could be humble while still being authoritative, so they said. How has that worked out? It used to be said that Mrs Thatcher in the UK was a great woman leader, but where immigration was concerned, she talked the talk while seemingly doing nothing to forestall the immigration tsunami that followed in the years after her term in office.

What feminists see as women’s strong points, such as the ability to ‘reach out’ and find consensus, the ability to ’empathize’ and so on, seem rather to be weaknesses that are being blatantly exploited by those from cultures which are male-dominated, and this is to be expected in the case of the Moslem world. How can Western female leaders expect to wield power vs. Moslems who have a low regard for women? The submissive and weak behavior showed by these women vis-a-vis Moslem men in particular should tell us something.

Merkel, May, Ardern, all these women seem to have failed to exercise real leadership in these circumstances.

And though it hasn’t been made explicit, it looks for all the world like the Western countries have submitted and surrendered, in fact, if not on paper. It seems to be a fait accompli, though the powers-that-be seem to be letting us go on playing at being sovereign countries, under a rule of law and answerable to ‘the people’ — but in reality we seem to be subjects, not citizens, and we seem not to be in control of where we are going, being given no say except for show, as with our hollow elections. I hate to say it, but that’s what I see. And the fact that women are presiding over this in many Western countries it not something for women to be proud of.

But as to the meaning of the events in New Zealand, there are already calls to remove 8-Chan from the Internet. Yes, but what about Facebook, which was the means of live-streaming the gruesome events yesterday, or what about the other gory videos which have in the past been hosted by You Tube/Google? Even now there is a video of a disabled teen being beaten, visuals courtesy of Facebook/You Tube. Social media gives carte blanche to violent people as long as they are not ‘right-wing’. And for the record, we don’t even know the shooter’s actual politics.

Double standards are a given with the Left. Treating these events with a degree of fairness and parity is unthinkable to the controlled media.

One other consequence of the latest violence: measures to ban semi-automatic weapons in New Zealand.

It’s all predictable. And it’s all avoidable, which is the most vexing thing about it. All so easily avoidable.

 

 

 

‘…and the people imagine a vain thing…

Some of us remember the satirical TV series, ‘SCTV’, from the early 1980s. Unlike the more popular ‘Saturday Night Live’, SCTV was actually funny as well as clever. One sketch featured a fictional tabloid news rag called ‘The National Midnight Star’, trading in lurid scandals, faux-paranormal stories, and flimsy ‘facts’ directed at the very credulous reader.

The New York Post now seems to be fully morphed into the ‘National Midnight Star’ with this article assuring us that believing ‘conspiracy theories’ might just make you a criminal, Well, yes, if the same people who dreamed up the concept of ‘hate crimes’ declare that conspiracy beliefs are now illegal by stroke of a pen, then yes, we might just be made criminals, because our moral betters and superiors do not want us to even think that a conspiracy might sometimes happen.

We seem to be on the verge of a situation in which we are forbidden not only to suggest that people do actually conspire together sometimes, but blocked from reading about actual or suspected conspiracies. This seems to be the whole point of the efforts to ban or suppress what someone deems ‘fake news.’ We know that some in the previous administration suggested vigorous efforts to “protect” us via infiltrating forums, blog comment sections, etc., so as to stifle what they call ‘conspiracy mongering’. It’s interesting that their definition of fake news means news that contradicts the ”truth” as dispensed by the Ministry of Truth or whatever their official title.

So ‘conspiracy talk’ or theorizing is a threat to those in the seats of power? What does that imply? Why must we be protected from opinions or even facts that lack the Official Seal of Approval from the Usual Suspects?

The idea expressed in the New York Post that criminality is tied to believing in covert collusion between people is bizarre. Apparently those who wrote our codes of law must have been criminally inclined because our laws forbid certain kinds of conspiracies. But wait — conspiracies don’t happen, do they? Crimes involving several planners in secret are just crazy talk; they don’t happen, right? And all crimes are planned and committed by single lone nuts. Conspiracies, according to TPTB do not happen. Except of course in the case of right-wingers. Probably white right-wing-extremists. Got it.

No other collusion happens, or has happened, or will happen. No conspiracies except conspiracy to spread conspiracy belief.

If one believes that more than one person was involved in the JFK case — that person is paranoid and of course, evil, because proven to be criminally minded.

The NY Post article tells us that this assertion is ‘backed up by science.’ Well, then, it must be true, even though the sources and evidence are not very convincing. I mean, science! is never capable of dishonesty, and ‘Climategate‘ was not a conspiracy, and those e-mails must have been faked — but wait; who faked the e-mails, if they were not real? It must have been a right-wing conspiracy. No; scratch that. It was a right-wing lone-nut climate-change denier, who did it alone. Or maybe a crowd of lone-nut right-wingers who coincidentally came up with the same fake news. Yes, that’s it.

No collusion, no conspiracies. It’s all random coincidence when we see patterns.

This clickbait website lists a number of alleged conspiracy theories which they denounce as false, though they offer no proof of their assertions. Example: ‘chemtrails’ are a ‘conspiracy theory’. How can visible phenomena be a ‘conspiracy theory?’ They can bee seen, and unlike UFOs they can be seen by everyone, though people often uncritically accept the left’s sneers about ‘paranoia’, etc. Studies have also been done of aerosol subtances associated with this ‘conspiracy theory’.  At the very least, this phenomenon exists. On this blog I’ve linked to official materials dating back decades about ‘geoengineering’, weather modification and related phenomena.  Discussions were entered into the Congressional Record. Why would government sources address simple jet contrails or discuss weather mod, if it is not real?

Those sources certainly don’t point to the delusional nature of these things, though the truth-challenged media deny, deny, deny. And yet sensible people on the right, oddly, accept a biased media’s childish clams uncritically. Why? Because of the media’s great track record?

The media monolith has for years pooh-poohed and ridiculed any story threatening their carefully constructed ‘narrative’, which is looking a little creaky and ramshackle at this point. There must be reasons why there is an effort to ‘protect’ the public from incorrect thinking, and to keep a lid on any free speculation, lest we actually figure something out for ourselves, without the spoon-fed falsehoods. Many of us really seem content to be told what to think rather than exercising our own faculty of discerning.

As to dismissing, as many ‘coincidence theorists’ do, any talk of conspiracy, we need only to open a history book and find example after example of actual conspiracies, some of which succeeded.

The conspiracy deniers must truly think we’re idiots to believe that no such things happen. After all, the left-wing ideologues whose destructive beliefs furthered the Communist dominance of much of the world began in the brains of malcontent conspirators, and that ideology still holds sway over far too many people, especially as pernicious ideas continue to wreak destruction in former Christendom. This is what ignorance plus relentless propaganda does.

Are conspiracies a figment of our ‘criminal’ imaginations?

The Bible suggests otherwise:

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”

Psalm 2:2-3

I don’t know about others, but I know which source I accept.

‘Greatest constitutional crisis…’

According to Conrad Black, quoted in a Daily Mail article, the effort by Donald Trump’s enemies to brand him as a ‘Russian agent’ has amounted to the most dangerous “constitutional crisis since the ‘Civil War.’ ” It’s surprising that the Daily Mail has published this piece by Black. I say this as someone who is not a big fan of the Daily Mail, as they are very politically correct despite occasionally presenting honest news about events in the U.S. which are not covered, or not covered honestly here. But I give credit to the Daily Mail for this piece, which I recommend.

Despite any criticisms of President Trump which I’ve expressed here, I am no ‘Never Trumper’, and I agree with the gist of Conrad Black’s comments. I am exasperated with the American media’s blatant bias and their unwillingness to look objectively and honestly at the relentless attacks on Donald Trump and the silly ‘Russian collusion’ canard. Will this ever go away, and will the shameless media admit their part in prolonging this? We can hope so, but it seems doubtful at this point. I don’t know what it will take to change things and to stop this endless merry-go-round of smears and lies.