Conspiracies

“My dear brethren, do not ever forget… that the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!” – Charles Baudelaire, The Generous Gambler

That quote, often ignorantly assumed to have originated in some recent Hollywood movie or other, came from Baudelaire, and it has a couple of applications in today’s world. One is the obvious, literal meaning: many a ‘sophisticate’ or ‘freethinker’ today scoffs at the idea of a Devil, ridiculing the ‘religious nuts’ who believe a Devil exists.

Likewise, the same type of self-styled sophisticate or intellectual-wannabe scoffs at the notion of conspiracies, implying that they happen only in the imaginations of the gullible and credulous, or in today’s parlance of psychobabble, the ”paranoid.” Believe in conspiracies? You are obviously paranoid, and in need of the services of a ‘mental health professional.’ Or you are a tinfoil-hat wearing, right-wing conspiracy nut.

Leftists do believe in conspiracies, but only right-wing ones; strange, since most of the world’s disastrous Communist revolutions came about through conspiracies.

But somehow the very idea of conspiracies at work in the world is discredited amongst a large segment of the population, so that people are left powerless to even deal with the idea. In our very peer-pressured society, nobody wants to be the one lone ‘nut-job’ in a group of people who believes conspiracies happen, or that much of what we see in the world today is evidence of a widespread and only halfway-concealed conspiracy.

Some of the scoffers state baldly that conspiracies are not likely to work because, according to popular wisdom, most people can’t keep a secret, and if it is not possible for a fairly large group of conspirators to keep a secret, then conspiracies can’t be successful. And if such plots are likely to be revealed by loose-lipped plotters, then conspiracies must necessarily be rare occurrences, hence not something to worry about.

Considering the obvious examples where conspiracies did occur and did succeed in their aim — such as the plot against Julius Caesar, or the Bolshevik Revolution, or the French Revolution, or even our own revolution — where is the counter-evidence that conspiracies seldom happen, much less that they seldom succeed?

H.G. Wells, known to many as a science fiction/fantasy writer, was also a one-world utopian socialist, and titled one of his works The Open Conspiracy. Even now, we see the fruits of that effort; the one-world notion didn’t begin with the 1960s as many people assert. It has been a longstanding plan, going back centuries.

Emerson Livgren here writes on how the discrediting of the ‘conspiracy theory’ has been used to demonize or marginalize those who warn of or even speculate about possible conspiracies. So Baudelaire’s phrase about the Devil convincing us he does not exist has illustrated how possible conspirators can disarm people, leaving them vulnerable to possible conspiracies. Convince people that conspiracies are a preposterous notion, that they just can’t or don’t happen, deride people who warn or caution against conspiracies — and you have a flock of easily-fooled people, people who are afraid mostly of being held up to ridicule by their peers. The conspirators can go on with their half-hidden machinations, confident that people have been well-conditioned not to speak out.

Further complicating things, however, is the fact that there is such a thing as disinformation, admittedly used to discredit those who warn about conspiracies by spreading preposterous or questionable information. This adds confusion to the stories, and often the disinformation is so bizarre that it tends to taint the legitimate reports by association. People then don’t know what to believe, or they dismiss everything as lies, disinformation, or ”paranoia.” This works very well for those who are trying to conceal facts. People become cynical, hyperskeptical and jaded, and this serves the purpose of making the truth hard to sift out. There are blogs which many of us can think of which warn against conspiracies — but which present facts that strain credulity even for the open-minded. This isn’t helpful to the average truth-seeker.

This is our situation now, what with the globalist agenda.

For instance, most of us have heard of the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, which seems to describe perfectly what is happening to Europe — and to us — now. But there are those who say this is all White paranoia, having no basis in fact. Yet if this plan is a forgery or a hoax, how does one explain the odd fact that the same script is being followed in each and every country that was once part of Christendom, in every Western, once-White country? Coincidence? If so, it’s an awfully big and unlikely coincidence.

Common sense, in cases like this, does not support the idea that the same conditions could just happen, by accident or coincidence, in so many countries at once. And we have the words of many of the world ‘leaders’ expressing ideas that betray intent, not just chance.

Advertisements

More on the most distrusted man

Speaking of that most distrusted man, I see that at the Hawaiian Libertarian blog, Keoni Galt has a post about Trump and the ‘wall’ that Trump proposes to build.

Galt admittedly doesn’t trust Trump.  He believes that Trump’s proposed wall would be the means devised by The Powers That Be to keep unhappy Americans prisoners within ”our” country. The immigration crisis, then, would be a man-made crisis engineered for the purpose of making a wall seem necessary or desirable: make the ”sheeple” clamor for a wall to keep the millions of immigrants out.

Galt asserts that Trump is one of the ‘Elites’ we have grown to justly despise. After all, he is a billionaire, a celebrity, a jet-setter. But are these factors alone enough to make one part of this globalist inner cabal? I am pretty sure that not every single billionaire or multi-millionaire is necessarily a power-mad globalist, hell-bent on world domination as part of this inner circle. But then I can’t prove my assertion; I can’t prove that Donald Trump is not secretly part of this cabal, any more than Galt can prove that he is. So that’s moot. But it does seem to me that with this army of pundits, bloggers, and commenters on both sides and all segments of the political spectrum who dislike Trump intensely, some among them would have long since come up with some kind of smoking gun showing that Trump is a member of this or that globalist in-group — CFR, Bilderberg, or any number of the other groups. If there was any substantial evidence that he was part of the globalist circle, that would surely make him anathema to many of his current supporters and defenders. Yet of all the angry Trump critics on the Internet or in dead tree media, I haven’t yet come across any who’ve made accusations of that type. We’ve heard that Cruz’ wife is CFR and evidently in with that in-crowd, but no such claims about Trump. Oh, I know: someone will say it’s being concealed so as to dupe us. He is really the arch-conspirator, the architect of it all, secretly.

I absolutely believe conspiracies exist; history shows us that. The real world tells us so. I am not one of the ‘anti-conspiracy kooks’, or the ‘Coincidence Theorists’. But I also don’t mistrust everyone reflexively; I don’t believe everything to be a huge deception. Occam’s Razor and all that. Discernment matters. We can neither accept everything unquestioningly nor doubt everything and suspect everything and everyone. To do the latter is to court nihilism, or to become cynical and resigned, because if there is really a group of god-like people controlling everything behind the scenes, then we are powerless. We are pawns, mere flies to wanton schoolboys. But the Bible tells us that the powerful men, the captains and the kings (that phrase is from the King James) are ”but men.” They are not gods, with a small ‘g’, even. They are not in ultimate control. They are fallible and human, and all the technology of the world at their disposal, all the wealth, cannot make them gods. Their best-laid plans will and can go ‘aft agley’, in Burns’ words.

I can’t give in to total cynicism. Personally, I think that if there are these James Bond movie-style villains out there conspiring to Control The World and to destroy us (and there evidently are) they would like nothing better than for us to become cynical and therefore resigned to our fate, defeated in advance. In fact it’s been reported that there are Internet operatives assigned to ‘guide’ discussions on the web, and one of their goals is to demoralize us, make us feel hopeless and defeatist, and to turn to their ‘bread and circuses’, hedonism and gadgets and distractions, to prevent us from interfering with their plans, or resisting, even if only psychologically.

But to return to the idea of a wall meant to keep us in, a la East Berlin, as one of the commenters at HL said, what about our large coastal areas? Can they patrol those so tightly as to keep us all in? And here’s another thing: a border ‘fence’ was approved in 2006 — ten years ago, and abandoned as a failure. Why? There was no political will to build it. If ‘The Powers That Be’, that is, Trump and the Cabal, wanted a wall or fence, why wasn’t it built when it was approved and planned? Who thwarted the all-powerful Powers That Be then, if it was their burning desire to build a wall?

It may be, I suppose, that Donald Trump is Manchurian Candidate #2, as Keoni Galt says. But if so, who are the other candidates? If the whole political system is rigged (and it is tightly manipulated, for sure), then all of the candidates are equally capable of doing the bidding of the mysterious Powers That Be. And they don’t have to get the majority of the populace on board with the Plan; the younger generations are completely PC-programmed and unlikely to resist any facet of the globalist agenda. It’s only the older generations (everyone older than millennials) who are likely to prove resistant. But most people are either mind-conditioned, passive, or too preoccupied or tuned-out to be any real threat to the agenda. There’s no need to dupe us into supporting a pretend-populist ‘Manchurian candidate.’ If the dissidents are made so cynical that they abstain from taking part in the political process or making their voices heard, then the rest of the population will pose no threat to the Agenda.

The most distrusted man

In America? It must be Donald Trump. Obviously the left distrusts Trump, if their frothing rants and warnings about him are any indication, but oddly on the right, even on the so-called ‘far right’, people who say they are supporting Trump almost always preface their remarks by saying ‘‘First of all, I don’t trust him. I’m voting for him but I don’t trust him.” Surely this is an odd situation.

Is there really such a widespread distrust of Donald Trump even among those who ”support” him and say they are voting for him? Or are people, having become so cynical in these times, covering themselves in case Trump proves to be a disappointment to them, or if he turns out to be a washout eventually (which looks somewhat unlikely as of now)? Most of us don’t like to admit we made a bad judgment or that we were taken in, so maybe people are signaling that they are not easily fooled by saying ”I don’t trust him”, right up front.

Any ideas on this?

Personally I haven’t followed Trump’s career. I may be one of the rare people who never saw the TV program in which he was featured. Could his persona on that TV series have anything to do with this cynicism about him, or the antipathy he inspires on the left and the ”respectable right”? Correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that his TV persona was that of an abrasive, tough boss. which he may well be in real life. But aren’t many TV reality shows anything but real? Most, reportedly, are scripted and played up for sensationalism or dramatic effect; reality shows are not reality.

I don’t have a real preconception of Trump as a human being. Maybe he is tough, ruthless, abrasive, or any other similar qualities which we usually associate with the successful businessman, especially one who becomes a billionaire.

The very fact that Trump is a very wealthy man and a celebrity turns off many Americans, even conservatives who supposedly don’t object to people attaining vast wealth. Leftists hate the very rich, except when they have the correct politics, like George Soros or the late Maurice Strong, or Al Gore, the slumlord, or Bill Gates, the champion of minorities.

When I lived in the New York City area Trump was in the news constantly, especially in the ‘gossip’ columns because of his domestic/marital troubles but even then I didn’t form a hard opinion one way or the other about him. Apparently most people did.

The fact that people are supporting Trump despite their statements of distrust surely says something. Maybe it only says that the other choices are so dismal and so beneath our consideration that we are willing to gamble on someone in whom we lack real faith. That’s my situation. The other candidates are non-starters. End of.

But still I find it puzzling, and quite honestly, a little tiresome to read ”I don’t trust him, but…” so often.

It’s always a leap of faith, isn’t it? I think in order to commit to a candidate, we have to make a choice to place our faith in him. “The double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” I’d like to see people be somewhat more resolute and single-minded  about their choice.

The undeniable fact is that there are certain subjects, immigration being first and foremost, that would not even be seriously discussed in this election cycle were it not for Trump. The other candidates, including Rafael Cruz, would not be taking a tough approach or going beyond the usual platitudes or doubletalk were it not for Trump setting the standard. So he deserves full credit for that.

Worth quoting

“.. immigration is a form of war in which the violence is delayed.”

Yes, that about says it.

And it should give us pause to consider that there has been so little acknowledgement of the unprecedented nature of the rolling wave(s) of immigration that have been ongoing since 1965 — how have we let it go on so long without having a real national discussion about it? What is happening now, with the response to Donald Trump, represents a lot of pent-up frustration with what has been happening while our media and political classes try to tell us not to notice.

The reckoning can’t be delayed forever.

On Trump as economic nationalist

“They’ve been brainwashed into thinking it was simply an endless dark carnival of lynch mobs and gator-baiting.”

That’s a great bit of prose there. The above quote is Jim Goad, describing the ‘deluded young commies’ reaction to Trump’s harking back to an earlier America, as he promises to ‘make America great again.’

It does seem as if many of those who don’t remember any America other than this hideous changeling America we see now think that the America of their parents’ or grandparents’ day was an evil, sinister place,  with racists lurking around every corner, not to mention ‘sexists, homophobes, transphobes, and xenophobes.’ And whatever other ‘-phobes’ one can dream up to fill the role as bogeymen for the credulous young.

Readers, you’ve seen that I’ve made some small case against Rafael Cruz on the basis of his dubious allegiances and especially his lack of Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency.  But you will note I haven’t written a pro-Trump piece, stating my reasons for supporting Trump. The fact is I haven’t said I am supporting him, though some may infer it. The fact is, I don’t how I will vote or if, but I certainly admire how Trump has taken the fight to them — meaning all those who are now controlling the debate and the system as it exists. The fact is, I have never heard one of Trump’s speeches all the way through. I don’t know that much about him as far as his political views — except that he opposes ‘free’ trade and the loss of American jobs. I know that his candidacy is a big thumb in the eye to the Establishment and especially to the odious ‘Respectable’ right, Conservative, Inc., the Cuckservatives, call them what you will.

But Jim Goad describes Trump’s ‘economic nationalism’ and yes, I like that about him.

Somebody should be taking the side of Americans, especially those who have been economically displaced.

As a long-time enemy of that evil system called ‘political correctness’ I have to admire that he is truly ”speaking truth to power”, the real power of our day being Cultural Marxism, political correctness, the suppression of honesty and truth. He is currently the only national figure doing this urgent but thankless job.

Rafael Cruz plainly isn’t doing that, nor are any of the others. Trump is one of a kind. If we reject him because he doesn’t fit our ideological paradigm — well, we shouldn’t be slaves to ideology and ”isms” in any case, and we just can’t afford to turn him down.

To use a ‘sexist’ analogy, if we reject him, we may be left old maids, waiting for the perfect (literal) Mr. Right.

“Trump speaks to a maligned, mistreated, and disregarded demographic that the elites of both parties view not as a constituency but as an obstacle. But even though this constituency is majority-white, Trump is never the one who points this out—only his enemies do.

The Trumpsters who have been awakened by The Trumpening have been systematically beaten down and silenced into a sort of learned helplessness. And then comes Trump speaking directly to them—but far more to their economic anxieties than to their ethnic ones.

Sure, they love Trump because he represents a huge wet sloppy unapologetic fart in the face of all the Cultural Revolution-style witch-hunting madness of the Obama years. But I think they love him even more because he’s the first presidential candidate in memory to speak directly to their completely legitimate economic anxieties.”

 

Truth is ‘incendiary’

But these remarks wouldn’t have been ”incendiary” even a few decades ago.

And for the ”progressives” who got outraged because he made a comparison to animal behavior: if we are all ”apes” descended from a series of lower forms of life going back to the amoeba, or to the ”primordial soup” of eons ago, then why the offense-taking?

Isn’t that being ‘species-ist‘? Aren’t we all egalitarians here?

White guilt month

As it’s now Anti-White History Month, for another week at least, it’s no surprise to read that there is a remake of Alex Haley’s Roots miniseries, originally aired in the late 1970s.

The original miniseries, from what I recall, had quite a large audience. In 1977 there was a large segment of the White population that had been softened up by a couple of decades of hectoring and shaming about ‘racism’, and it also helped Roots‘ ratings that many teachers and college professors required their students to watch the miniseries.
Remember, too, that many people did not have cable TV in that era, so the only choices available were the alphabet networks, all three of them, plus PBS and maybe a local independent channel. So most of the White TV audience (a majority still in those long-ago days) saw the series and if not, heard discussion of it at work or school.

I remember my sociology teacher, who was black and Afrocentric,  requiring us to watch it and discuss it. Back then political correctness had not yet ‘got our tongues’, so I remember some White students actually complaining that the series made all Whites look vicious, ignorant, and ugly. I remember our Sociology teacher telling us that the shoe needed to be on the other foot for a change, and that seemed to squelch any further criticism of the series’ anti-White tone.

Since I saw Roots back in those days, I’ve told many people that the “writer” Alex Haley was a plagiarist, and that the series was a propaganda piece, not history, but few people are able to accept that, at least not the usual brainwashed PC crowd — just as they are not able to process the heresy that a certain other black ‘icon’ was a plagiarist. They don’t want to entertain such blasphemous thoughts.

In recent years there has been a barrage of anti-White movies, among them that ‘Django’ movie. Aside: what’s the story with giving the character a gypsy name? Django Reinhardt, the famous gypsy guitarist has said his name was s gypsy name. The movie writers were ignoramuses; I guess ‘Django’ sounded cool to them and sounded ‘African’ so they went with it. Facts? Irrelevant. They always are with lefties.

Facts never matter in these propaganda pieces. The sad thing is that the audience (which seems to include a distressingly large percentage of the White population) seems not to care. They accept movies as gospel truth in most cases, and can’t be bothered to seek out the truth for themselves. Not that there are many history books around that tell the truth, anyway.

The fact that, thanks to decades of anti-White propaganda, we now have a population of politically-corrected (read: misinformed and stupid) anti-White Whites. That’s bad enough, but the tragedy of it is that blacks who believe the media lies about the past are now acting out in ways that are physically injurious to Whites. How many flash mob attacks, how many ”random” murders, rapes, and assorted other crimes have resulted, if only indirectly, due to the hate-Whitey propaganda coming out of Hollywood and TV and popular music — which has also carried its share of anti-White messages? However many there have been, it’s too many. And it was all avoidable. All predictable, and therefore 100 percent preventable. But obviously there are interests wishing to incite hatred (though they project hatred onto us) and to provoke violence. So they continue with their relentless warfare against us via their slickly-produced lies.

And when will it stop?

Another instance of this phenomenon is the book and later, movie, To Kill a Mockingbird. This book is now required reading for many high-schoolers, even in Christian schools, and probably is part of some home-schooling curricula, too. The author, or putative author, Harper Lee, recently died, and on social media like Tumblr, primarily the province of very young, very PC users, there has been so much hagiolatry, so much fawning, over Lee. (Incidentally, is Harper Lee any kin to the Lees of Virginia? I rather have hoped not, because she may be kin of mine.) The young and the witless venerate writers like her. Of course it is only the White young people, not the blacks, who idolize her.

It’s always said to be bad form to speak ill of the dead, so I will restrain myself; or maybe I will give her the benefit of the doubt: she may not have written To Kill a Mockingbird anyway. It’s been rumored for a long time that her lifelong friend Truman Capote actually wrote the book, or at least heavily contributed to it, and the fact that she never produced anything else in print except for the recent ‘prequel’ fueled that rumor. But whoever wrote it, there’s no doubt that it was a big contributor to White guilt. Even ”conservative” White women often say the book is their favorite. So ‘Mockingbird’ has done its part to create today’s anti-White, politically correct, racially-charged world, and yes, indirectly, to incite violence against Whites. Every little bit hurts.

And what is it with this particular kind of Southerner, Harper Lee and Truman Capote (and some other ‘literary’ Southrons) who seem to hate their own “roots” and their own folk? This is a problem that Southrons have to address. What does one call the White equivalent of an ‘Uncle Tom’? The older generations had a name for them that is too politically correct to utter.

Remember back in 2009 White Americans were subjected to a diatribe about how we were a ‘nation of cowards’ who refuse to dialogue on race? When have we ever been given a choice? Even in my sociology class, back in the late 70s, we were being silenced and told that our opinions did not count. We were told that it was our ‘turn’ to be slandered as we supposedly had it coming. Well, when will the score be evened? Our side is not being heard, and things get uglier and uglier, as the lies mount up to the heavens.

Boycott the lies, and answer them with the truth whenever possible. We can’t let only one side be heard forever.

S.C. Governor sued

From NumbersUSA, we learn that Governor Nimrata Randhawa, I mean ‘Nikki’ Haley has been sued over refugee resettlement in South Carolina. Good. Some of the governors and others involved in this nefarious business, which violates both states’ rights and the ‘will of the people’, should be sued. This should not go on uncontested and unchallenged.

The comments section at the article link is somewhat surprising in that the commenters express disgust that Governor Haley reneged on her promises regarding immigration and Syrian refugees specifically. Someone also mentions that she has done her bit to perpetuate the ‘nation of immigrants’ mythology. Well, of course she would; even people who identify with their immigrant ancestors from several generations back tend to be full of sympathy for all immigrants, and those people are often the biggest proponents and apologists for open borders. In part because our society has filled us full of emotional stories about immigrants coming here to find the ‘American dream’, about how all our forefathers were immigrants (not true),  most people have come to identify with the ”poor immigrant” and his noble desire to become an American. Maybe this kind of manipulated emotion is finally starting to be seen as the destructive thing it is. As long as we sentimentalize and romanticize immigration per se, and tell ourselves that ”we are all immigrants”, we will continue to be suckers and pushovers for the liberal/open borders/globalist mind-conditioning.

But people of recent immigrant stock like Governor Nimrata, as well as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz can hardly be expected to think or see things as do those of us who are ‘generational Americans’ or old-stock descendants of colonists. They seem to have a knee-jerk reaction on the subject of immigration — why wouldn’t they? And they come from groups that are much more ethnocentric and clannish than those of us whose families were here since, say, before the Revolution. Our families fought, sweated worked, suffered privation and shed blood to make this country, as well as to make it the prosperous and free country it once was. What have the recent immigrant stock people invested in this country? I am not just referring to monetary investment, but what can this country, its people, and its history and heritage mean to them? Obviously not much, or they would not be in favor of opening the gates wider, which inevitably changes this country irrevocably.

A bit off topic, I see that Donald Trump has been declared the winner of the GOP primary in Governor Nimrata’s state. I am surprised because a state that re-elects the likes of Lindsay ‘Grahamnesty’ Graham and elects Governor Nimrata — as well as giving so many votes to the two Hispanic candidates — lacks healthy ethnocentrism. It appears that the South Carolina citizenry put more stock in ‘party loyalty’ than loyalty to the South, or to their folk. I suppose it’s just a microcosm of the South, which has been colonized heavily by people from north of the Mason-Dixon line for some decades now, and more recently, by people from the four corners of the globe. Change the people, change the place.

Governor Nimrata understands that.

European identity?

Here’s a worthwhile piece on the subject of ‘Pan-Europeanism’, from the Traditional Right blog. It’s got the apt title “Peter Pan-Europeanism.”

If you’ve read my blog before, you have probably read my past objections to the idea of ‘pan-Europeanism’. I’ve written of it before because I’ve noted that the idea has gained some currency among the younger demographic, most particularly among those termed Alt-Right, as well as WN. The idea is that Americans, being part of a dying republic, heirs to a ‘failed experiment’ as the blog piece quotes it, have nothing to preserve and therefore should embrace some kind of pan-Europeanism. Putting it simply, skin color only matters; those of a suitable complexion, all being European-descended, have to unite, forgetting  ‘petty, narrow’ ethnic/national loyalties, brothers simply by our European descent.

Certainly Europeans are kin to us, but we’re not all the same. Trying to blend away  real differences by proposing (as some do) that we all just intermingle and forget our different ancestries, or that we unite on the basis of some kind of WN ideology, is just a variant on the multicultural idea.

On one popular forum there is a policy that fellow White ethnicities or nations are not to be criticized. The ruling is ignored, though, when the criticism is leveled at English or Anglo-Saxons, something which I couldn’t help noticing. Anglophobia is always in style. But English people who complained about mass Eastern European immigration to Britain were harshly warned not to ”attack other Whites” or told that ”at least the Poles are White; you should be grateful they are coming and making your country Whiter.”

This, again, is just another form of Political Correctness, and it’s also an echo of the liberal dogma that people are interchangeable; that everybody can ‘assimilate’ and intermarry. Wanting to preserve one’s own people and culture are considered ‘narrow’.

The blog piece at Traditional Right notes that people do have attachments to their ethnic identity and heritage:

“…proud Italians don’t want to become Germans, or French..” — of course they don’t.
This is also a point that is often forgotten when some American, unhappy with our changeling America, announces he plans to go to some European nation where he expects to be welcomed with open arms, or where he thinks he can ‘fit in’ just fine because after all, the Europeans are White and so is he. Everything else is irrelevant. Except it’s not.

Just read a history book; many of the bitterest or longest-lasting animosities amongst Europeans have involved peoples who are genetically and culturally close. And how much more distance, culturally and genetically, is there between the average American and the average citizen of Russia — where many disgruntled alt-Right types wish to emigrate? They overestimate our commonalities while underestimating incompatibility factors. They seem oblivious to the fact that many Europeans, whether because of media conditioning or political differences, dislike Americans to one degree or another.

We are not universally loved, we Americans, if we ever were to begin with.

Which brings up another question: why is it that so many younger Americans seem to partake of the outside world’s antipathy to all things American? My surmise is that the constant barrage of anti-Americanism that is taught in our own schools and in our media has affected all of us, even those on the ”right” who used to be reliably ethnocentric and patriotic. Now patriotism is scorned by the ”right” as much as by the cosmopolitan ‘World Citizen’ left. It’s unfashionable to love one’s country or heritage. It’s in fashion to sneer at ”Amurka”  — or ”Amerikka’ to use the 60s left’s terminology. The two sides are sounding remarkably the same on the issue of America; they all sound like they swallowed a Howard Zinn ‘history’ book and are channeling Michael Moore.

If any of you remember the early incarnation of this blog, I wrote much more about our history, our culture, our traditions. I would like to do more of that now, but I get the idea that there is little demand for it. Nobody wants to look back at our past, much less try to salvage any of it. Still, I haven’t broken faith with my forefathers and I wish that others could find something to value in what was right with our country. And yes, there were many things that were good, and no, the country was not fatally flawed and doomed from the start, despite the cynics’ claims. That point of view seems like sour grapes, mostly.

Some anti-patriot types on the right disparage America as a hopeless case because it’s a ”multiracial empire”, and thus irredeemable. But oddly the same kinds of people look up to Vladimir Putin and Russia. Putin claims he is defending European identity — but what is Russia but another ”multiracial empire”, a proposition nation par exellence? Putin’s claim to defending European identity rings hollow, considering that he has many Moslems and countless other restive minorities under his rule. How can such a country preserve anything European?

There is no such thing as an overarching ‘European identity’ at least where culture and ways of life are concerned. I am not one to downplay genetics, but genetics alone, especially skin color, will not unite the diverse European peoples into one ‘nation’, unless it be a ‘proposition nation.’ And we’ve seen how that can go wrong.