Illiberal liberalism

The title of this post is not so much an oxymoron as it appears. Liberalism, falsely so-called, at least as it is practiced in the West today, is obviously totalitarian, requiring considerable use of mind-conditioning, suppression of facts, and outright force and coercion to carry out its misbegotten policies — and to retain power.

The Council of European Canadians blog has a piece on a book called The Cultural Defense of Nations: A Liberal Theory of Majority Rights.

Just why would there be a ”liberal theory of majority rights”, given that the “liberals” have spent the last several decades delegitimizing, even denying the existence of the rights of the majority — at least, when that majority happens to be White, as has historically been the case in Europe and in the Anglosphere worldwide? Have the leftists/progressives just discovered something new under the sun? Sorry to disappoint anyone, but no, they haven’t. As the writer at the CofEC blog reports, the purpose of the book is to co-opt the growing tide of nationalist sentiment, in the face of the debacle in Europe and elsewhere:

“Liberals now realize they need to up their game; the continued emphasis on minority rights sounds absurd. But we must not allow ourselves to be co-opted by the nice sounding phrases of Orgad’s book about the “cultural rights of majorities,” the right of Europeans to judge immigration in light of their cultural needs for preservation.”

The book’s author, Orgad, admits that his intent was to offer a new approach,

“…by which liberal democracies can welcome immigrants without fundamentally changing their cultural heritage, forsaking their liberal traditions, or slipping into extreme nationalism.”

In other words, to fend off criticism from the less-rabid liberals or from the timid right, (otherwise known as ‘cuckservatives’) and thus to allow things to continue full speed ahead, on their present disastrous course.

Liav Orgad, the writer, offers this description of an earlier work of his on the same basic subject:

Illiberal Liberalism:Cultural Restrictions on Migration and Access to Citizenship in Europe

It appears Orgad has spent considerable time working out his ideas, obviously meant to serve the interests of non-European/nonwhite immigrants and would-be -immigrants to the West. His idea is some kind of token conformity, along civic lines, on the part of immigrants in exchange for granting them the “right” to settle permanently in European and Western (historically White) countries. Obviously the rights of the majority are not even mentioned in this description of his ideas. The introduction of the phrase ”majority rights” is just a bone to be tossed to the increasingly restive majority; it is not a recognition that we, in fact, have any rights. The phrase is just a subterfuge.

We’re not supposed to notice, but if the name Liav Orgad summons up associations like ”rootless cosmopolitan”, it’s because he is that, apparently, at least as far as his ethnicity, citizenship (possibly dual?) and his places of education and subsequent residence.

And even if we notice the ethnic origins of people like Orgad and so many others who are actively promoting ”multiculturalism” and “diversity” (meaning replacement of Whites with nonwhites), we are not supposed to mention it, to point it out, or to attribute any significance to it whatsoever. It’s just random chance, is the implication behind the taboo on noticing. The noticing, even simply observing that many of the prime movers and important actors in this scenario are Jewish and in many cases Israeli, is categorized as not simply common-sense observation but as that greatest evil of all, ”anti-Semitism.”

There was a time when I felt very uncomfortable noticing, and I naively thought I could stay ‘above’ this kind of thing, stay neutral. But it seems that our most determined opponents are not content to remain neutral; they are very partisan in securing what they claim as their own ethnic interests. I see no reason why the same ”right” should not be accorded to us. They obviously are not content to pursue their own interests in their own country but must work all over the West to be sure our ethnic interests are nullified while theirs are pressed, at the expense of ours.

What is it to Mr. Orgad that Third-World ‘migrants’ be allowed, en masse, into our countries? Obviously he sees his interests as being in opposition to ours, and has chosen to work on behalf of lawless ‘migrants’ and ‘refugees’ in countries which are not his own, nor those of his kin. And if he has a heart that bleeds so for the marauding migrants who are now causing havoc in Europe (and here), why does he not work to get more migrants admitted to his home, Israel?

And yes, that question is rhetorical.

Brussels police against patriots

A thousand patriots showed up in Brussels, in the wake of recent terrorist attacks, to oppose the far-left peaceniks (appeaseniks?) who, as always, turned out to give aid and comfort to the enemy. That’s what the peace-and-love crowd always do, whether they admit it or not. By advocating “peace” and condemning those who see a very real threat in Islam and mass immigration, they are in effect the propaganda arm of Islam and of the globalists.

The patriot protesters reportedly did nothing more than chanting at the far-left mobs, but the police saw fit to turn water cannons on them, and use batons or nightsticks on them.

By now, the controlled media, present to cover the “peace” rally, were busy sending news wire stories out saying that “neo-Nazis” had come to the rally and were making “Nazi salutes” (even though the photographic evidence shows nothing of the sort, with the only symbols being made of clenched fists and the well-known two-armed chant pose of the “casuals”).

Then the police were given the order to attack the patriots, and moved in with riot police, batons, and water cannon. A handful of the patriots fought back against this totally unwarranted and excessive police action, and about a dozen were arrested in the ensuing melee.”

It should be obvious by now that there is some kind of de facto global regime, though there is still a pretense made that countries still have some sovereignty. It is funny that the response from law enforcement authorities is the same whenever leftists and/or nonwhites go up against White patriotic or ‘right-wing’ groups. It is the White or ”right-wing” side which is always deemed the instigator, the bad guys, the ones to be beaten and arrested, while the left, with or without their nonwhite mascots, are always given more leeway if not outright protected by the police. Doesn’t this hint that the law enforcement policies are meant to protect certain groups of people while punishing others just ‘on principle’? There is no even-handedness, even when one side is clearly the aggressor.

And even worse is the blatant bias of the controlled media when reporting these kinds of events. Katie Hopkins castigates the media for their mendacity and obvious prejudices. She also takes to task the ragtag-and-bobtail far left for their siding with the invaders and terrorists.

“In Cologne, 150 officers were sent to police the migrant attacks on women on New Years Eve, resulting in 676 criminal complaints being filed. In comparison, 1700 riot police with water cannon were sent to stop a subsequent Pegida march through the city.

Whilst it seems perfectly acceptable to turn the water cannon on nationals, determined to stand up for their country and culture, it is never acceptable to criticise migrants, terrorists or extremists planning attacks.

It seems to me there is a yawning gulf between the treatment and reporting of the far-left and the far-right, and and even bigger chasm between nationals and migrant populations, who lack respect for the culture they have joined.

The left are so busy kowtowing to the rights of those who have chosen to join our culture, the right has lost the freedom to defend the culture they have chosen to join.”

There aren’t many like Katie Hopkins in the media; what she says is just plain obvious truth, and it says a lot (none of it good) about our society that there are so few people willing — or able — to say it.

 

The Trojan horse

For years, no, decades, the more prescient people have warned that immigration in our day is being used as a Trojan horse, a way of gaining access not just for the immigrants ”to find a better life” but to act as aggressors from within the gates.

Of course the left insists on denying this, and continuing to claim that ”they are just poor people looking to feed their hungry families, and to make their lives better.” The right, to its discredit, has gone along with this for the most part; for some time the only people on the right to criticize mass immigration were the so-called paleoconservatives, while the respectable right and the neocons (the groups overlap to some extent) shilled for open borders. We heard their claims that ”Hispanics are natural conservatives, with family values.” Anyone with real-life experience could see the dishonesty in that assertion. Then, even after we supposedly were waging war on terrorism, we continued to allow millions more Moslems to immigrate here, and we had Republicans making similar statements about Arab/Moslem immigrants. ”They’re often businessmen and entrepreneurs; they are naturally conservative people. They object to homosexual rights and feminism, and they tend to vote Republican.”

Among the most visible (and audible) shills for Islam was Republican Grover Norquist. Fortunately for him, one of the enemies he acquired was Glenn Beck. What is the old quotation about someone praying ”Lord, please make my enemies ridiculous”? Grover Norquist, if he is a praying man, must have prayed for ridiculous enemies, and voila, Glenn Beck appeared.  Glenn Beck’s erratic and hysterical personality, plus his many bizarre changes of course, have made him something of a byword and a figure of ridicule. Another critic of Norquist is James Carville, but then his kind sees everyone to his right as a devil incarnate. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, and Beck is/was right about Norquist.

But Norquist is one of those Republicans who apparently believed as G.W. Bush did that ”Islam is a religion of peace”, because he has worked openly as an advocate for and defender of Islam and Moslems. Being mostly a fiscal conservative only, his main cause being lower taxes, he evidently is of the ‘invade the world, invite the world’ school.

But in large part due to the dominance of that school of though on the ”right”, we now have millions more Moslems in this country since 9/11/2001, when a sane country would at least have considered the idea of excluding people from nations that are known to be hostile towards us. Isn’t an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Would it not be better, in the name of caution, to close our doors to people from known hostile countries and cultures, or from the most militant and violent ”religion” in the world? It would have been much easier to prevent the increasing Moslem presence than to ‘cure’ it by sending them home. We dare not use the ‘d’ word — deportation — because our easily-duped fellow citizens have been trained to react with horror and outrage at the mere suggestion that we send anybody (horrors!) back home. Home! Imagine the cruelty of sending someone back home! Or of excluding them from entering our national home. The way the left and some quarters of the “right” reacted to Donald Trump’s proposal to exclude Moslems indicates that they think such a thing would be unconscionable, unfair, cruel, heartless, — downright Un-American! Because the Statue of Liberty! And the poem! ”Give us your wretched refuse...” no, not that part; ”give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” — that’s sacred scripture to many Americans, it seems. A Nation of Immigrants and all that; it’s Holy Writ.

Norquist and his ilk are for some reason Islamophiles and they are just as politically correct as the Left.

And we can thank them for this situation, reported in the New Observer. Moslem activists are now mounting a campaign to register a million Moslem voters to help defeat Donald Trump. The anti-Trump right can rejoice that they have some new soulmates to help defeat their bogeyman, and likewise the Left, with their Trump derangement syndrome, can hope that the Moslems will ride to the rescue and provide the needed votes or other assistance as needed, to defeat Trump.

The left obviously hopes to use all the immigrant groups to subvert the will of the American-born White voter, and to eventually form a giant voting bloc, united mostly by their antipathy towards the White population. Their interests don’t necessarily coincide but they will make a temporary alliance against Whitey, and especially Christian Whites. The left and Moslems have a common animus toward Christians.And then there are the left-wing witch-hunting groups like the $PLC, whose existence is based on Jewish antipathy toward Christianity and White Christians specifically. Yet they have the gall to accuse others of “hate” when their very existence is motivated by that very emotion.

The Trojan horse would not be within our gates were it not for the disgruntled misfit groups and the ‘right-wing’ opportunists out for money, acting, even if unwittingly, in concert.

Co-opting the victim cult?

Can that be done? First, we should ask whether it should be done; what effect would it have on the reactionary or alt-right movement if such a tactic were used and if, somehow, it worked?

I read this piece yesterday on the subject, but I waited for comments and discussion to clarify what the blogger’s thinking was.

From the piece:

The liberal establishment is controlled by a small elite comprised of ideologues and their financiers who command the allegiance of an impressive coalition of victimized groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, women, as well as the varied and aggrieved sects of sexual deviants. It is from these groups of victims that they derive eager foot soldiers and, more importantly, their moral legitimacy.

All of the aforementioned victim groups are merely pawns that dissemble the pitiless class war waged against the white working class.”

I can agree with much of this, except for the final sentence of the quote. It’s much like the occasional commenters over the years on the old blog who said that ‘we mustn’t blame immigrants (or blacks, or whoever) because they are just being used” or the other frequently-heard phrase: “the immigrants are just doing what I would do if I had a hungry family”. I don’t accept that the various victim groups are simply hapless pawns being used — though they are being exploited by the left and by the politically correct right, who try to ‘virtue signal’ or by the business lobby who want open borders for reasons of greed. But they can only exploit these ‘victim groups’ insofar as they are already doing the things to which we object. Blacks, even before the age of political correctness and the modern left, were more socially ‘dysfunctional’ to use the psych-jargon. They have always had higher rates of crime, illegitimacy, family instability, addiction, and so on. Granted, these things were less widespread but in part that was due to ‘Jim Crow’ and the fact that the races did not have as much contact with one another. There is a falsehood often repeated even among many on the ‘right’, that falsehood being that blacks were law-abiding and respectable people before the Left got hold of them and incited them. As with most successful falsehoods, it contains a grain of truth: blacks were somewhat less antisocial in earlier times. The Left does incite blacks and other minorities by constantly repeating stories about alleged ‘racism’ and ‘discrimination. The media magnifies these things and keeps up a constant drumbeat amounting to incitement to violence.

However, a people who are naturally peaceful and not inclined to aggression cannot be made to do things that are not in their nature. If someone wants to hire a hit-man to get rid of someone he hates, he won’t recruit one from among his law-abiding acquaintances; he will look for those who have a history of crime and violence and who are practiced at it; comfortable with it.

Hispanics have longstanding hatreds and grievances against the ‘gringo’; their history books teach that parts of our land (the Southwest, or even much of the Western U.S) belonged rightfully to them, was stolen by us, and they believe they have a right to claim it. There’s no need to manipulate them into invading or behaving antisocially once they are here. They already dislike us and lack respect for us and our right to this country.

In other words, the left, their obvious malevolence notwithstanding, can’t make peaceful, law-abiding people become aggressors and criminals. Those proclivities already existed in their various ‘victim’ client groups. Those groups are not passive or unwilling participants being used by the left. They are allies.

Again, from the piece:

“…the black underclass has filled the same niche of the useful idiot. In exchange for continuous handouts (in the form of lifetime social service benefits) and a series of never-ending affirmative action initiatives, blacks have become the most consistently loyal members of a party’s base in the history of American politics. This is, of course, in spite of the fact that it is the ideologies of their benevolent overlords, i.e., the perverse stupidities of free love and atomized individualism, which have so thoroughly devastated their communities.”

But the left did not introduce the idea of ‘free love’ to blacks, nor compel them to practice it so enthusiastically. That kind of sexual carelessness was long a part of the culture; some apologists blame it on slavery when they were supposedly not allowed to marry (false) or the alleged fact that wives and husbands were torn apart, etc. But after emancipation, the same pattern continued with no slavery to blame for it. Black apologists like the respectable right’s darling, Thomas Sowell, blame “White redneck culture”  for black misbehavior; Sowell argued that ‘rednecks’ have been a persistent bad influence on would-be virtuous blacks, and that blacks’ dysfunctions are from Scots-Irish rednecks. Again, nobody can force someone into a certain way of living.

The left has undoubtedly exacerbated and exploited the dysfunctions of minorities, but they didn’t cause them just to use the people as pawns. They were just shrewd enough to see the existing qualities which they could divert for their own ends. There are materials from the Communist Party from the 1920s and 30s in which they discuss the plan to make blacks the ‘vanguard’ of their hoped-for revolution in America, seeing as how the White working class here was not suitable fodder.

“The beauty of co-opting the culture of victimhood is that, if effectively carried out, it not only provides an effective rhetorical tool but also a host of new allies with which to torment our foes. Imagine being able to watch a group of Black Nationalists deface a progressive Brooklyn neighborhood full of effete white hipsters as a protest against the racist policies of gentrification. Or perhaps a group of veiled Muslim women confronting a group of white, upper middle class feminists over the white privilege that is implicit in their calls for female equality. The possibilities are endless.”

But this is just what the ‘respectable right’ has been trying to do for some years now; the Republicans compete like mad for the ‘Hispanic vote’ by promoting open borders and by castigating people who object to mass immigration. This is part of the reason for the GOPe’s anger at Trump and his followers. We are jeopardizing their plans to ‘co-opt’ the minorities and bring them into the Republican fold, which is of course their natural home. The same Republicans keep telling blacks that they are on a liberal ”plantation” being kept down, and that Democrats are taking them for granted. ”The liberals are the REAL racists”, as they are always saying. Their need for ‘great black hopes’ in the form of people like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Ben Carson, is for this reason; they think they can win blacks away from their Democrat ‘masters’ and turn them as weapons against the Democrats. It will never work unless or until the right promises better handouts to the various groups, and until the right abases itself and repudiates any real non-liberals within the fold.

Lastly, again from the piece:

This, then, should become our aim: (1) establish productive dialogues with vulnerable and underserved members of the liberal coalition; (2) adopt their grievances and slowly peel them away from the herd.

Because the right, the real right, is mostly White, implicitly or explicitly, minorities will never make common cause with us. The whole attitude of the right is not compatible with the attitudes and mindsets of the various minority groups.

Adopting the many grievances of these groups — taking them on ourselves, trying to win these groups over would require that principles be sacrificed on a huge scale; they will demand to be catered to, these victim-clients; they have come to expect it and demand it. They have an attitude of entitlement, and it is not just imposed on them by the Left. It is part of their makeup, seemingly. They have always dismissed any misguided attempts at outreach by the Republican panderers; ”tokenism” they call it. They won’t settle for a pale (!) imitation of the Democrats. And do we want to enter into a bidding war with the Left for the affections of the ‘victims’? We’d never win, though we sold our souls trying.

 

 

Not just for Whitey?

Keoni Galt at Hawaiian Libertarian writes about the multicult’s agenda of pushing metissage among the subject peoples, mainly Europe and all former majority White countries. But he points out that even Hawaii, which has long been ‘multicultural’ and mixed, is now being subjected to the purposeful introduction of alien groups of people who are now causing social disruption in Hawaii:

“…it seems like in the past six months, no matter where I go (my work takes me all over the island to many different towns and communities), I invariably encounter people discussing the impact the COFA-Micro migrations are having on my island home.  All of the familiar complaints US Mainlanders have for Mexican and South American illegal immigrants spreading crime, taxing public services, using up resources and flooding the job markets with cheap labor all apply to the situation with COFA-Micros here.

Despite the manufactured narrative our Government Media complex has been relentlessly pushing to keep us pacified in the face of this newest mass migration, more and more people are noticing the undeniable impact this large influx of foreigners are having, and are increasingly beginning to speak up in public.”

The ‘Micros’ he refers to above are Micronesians. Here’s the requisite story of ‘discrimination’ against the Micronesians by Hawaiians. The Micronesian woman who complains of discrimination cites examples like ‘changes in tone of voice’ in a doctors’ office, people not holding doors open for her, and a grocery clerk ”assuming” that she was using an EBT card rather than a debit card. If these are her examples, they are not very compelling, in my opinion. Everyone has experienced and does experience rudeness or lack of consideration from others in public situations; only minorities have managed to turn every such instance into ”discrimination” , bigotry, and “racism.” If one is looking for “racists” around every corner, one will find them. And the media spotlights these stories of injustice and victimhood, magnifying them greatly out of proportion. The victim classes know how to play the system and the media give them a platform to publicize their supposed suffering. The media are the official disseminators of these accusations and grievances. They supply the fuel for the fire.

I don’t know whether the Hawaiians will let themselves be ‘played’ the way that White people tend to do; White people have been trained and conditioned to accept their guilt and to appease the accusers. Maybe the nonwhite majority people of Hawaii will not go along with this.

The Micronesians are not only going to Hawaii; they are being transplanted to the mainland of the U.S. as well. Remember this story from several years ago? Now there are thousands of Micronesians in unexpected places like Springdale, Arkansas. And it apparently began with one Islander getting a job with Tyson Chicken in the 1980s.

No place is to be left untouched. We are all destined for the blender, Hawaiians included, apparently.

 

The Cruzes and the global agenda

Here’s an informative piece from the OD blog about Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz and wife Heidi.

It’s been reported for some time that Mrs. Cruz is a member of certain well-known globalist organizations, and that she has long been deeply involved in political and governmental issues as her husband. Some have tried to dismiss this as unimportant, implying that her views (which are evidently globalist) do not necessarily represent her husband’s. The OD post makes the point that the two of them have been regarded as a partnership, not as two individuals whose viewpoints may not coincide.

In 2004, George W. Bush was running for reelection and a book was published defending his “agenda of compassionate conservatism” called “Thank You, President Bush: Reflections on the War on Terror, Defense of the Family, and Revival of the Economy.” You can buy a used copy on Amazon for 1 cent. BOTH Ted Cruz and Heidi Cruz penned essays in this book in which they defended George W. Bush’s policies. Ted’s essay, “The Rise of Opportunity Conservatism,” foreshadowed the theme of his Senate career.’

The fact that they both seem to be committed ideologues in their causes (never a truly conservative characteristic) seems to me very reminiscent of the Clintons and their ‘co-president’ approach when in power.

In her essay in the above-mentioned book, Heidi Cruz argues for free trade, arguing its supposed benefits:

“…helping people deal with the challenges of change, building coalitions for trade and creating leverage in negotiations to maximize the opening of markets around the globe, enforcing the rules of the global trading system and defending America when others don’t play fair, and using trade to improve standards of living around the world.”

The italics in the last sentence above are mine. Free trade may improve standards of living for the Third World or other less-developed countries, but it has not improved our standard of living overall. A relative few might increase their personal wealth by ‘free trade’ but it has tended to lower wages for most — at least for those whose jobs have not been forever lost. Workers who once enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world, especially in proportion to their level of education, have in many cases been rendered permanently redundant. ‘Free trade’ is just one more means of wealth redistribution, as Heidi Cruz more or less admits in that quote. Are our trade policies supposed to benefit us, serve us, or are they meant, really, to ”improve standards of living around the world”, in her words?

If you believe that our government should set its policies based on benefiting the rest of the world, then you are a globalist or a ‘progressive’ ideologue, and you are certainly not a patriot, either an ethnopatriot or a plain old generic patriot.

I still don’t get what’s happened to Texans if they think that Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is one of them, or more specifically, that he has any connection to the Texas of old, the Texas that was, before the influx of Yankees and immigrants, illegal and legal. Count Ted among all those groups, actually. It used to be said by some Texans who disliked the Bush family, especially ‘Shrub’ as that old harridan Molly Ivins named  him, that they were mere ‘carpetbaggers’ and interlopers in Texas. I know I myself referred to them as such. But I suspect that many of todays Texans In Name Only (TINOs?) think that Cruz is a true Texan and native son, else why do they support him so strongly? I have never actually listened to the man speak; does he speak with an acquired Texas accent as George W. Bush did? At least GWB gave a fairly believable performance as a Texan, accent and all, and looked convincing clearing brush down on his Prairie Chapel Ranch.

Bush, ultimately, was a globalist and because his family decided to Hispanicize itself, a traitor to his country. I would say the same for Cruz, but the question is, what country really is his? Canada? If so, maybe that’s why he and Heidi are all-in for the North American Union. Or maybe it’s because of his Hispanic ancestry. Or maybe he and Heidi are both just born-again ”citizens of the world,” like all progressives.

A little biographical information from Heidi Wilson Cruz’s hometown news.

 

 

The disconnect

The recent flurry of discussion of the NRO screed by Kevin D. Williamson, much of which was irate response to Williamson’s dismissive statements about the White working class, points up the huge disconnect between the ”elites”, so-called, and the lower-to-middle class American, especially White Americans.

While Williamson spoke of the ‘working class’, it seems the people under discussion were really what we call the underclass: the long-term unemployed (not those unemployed by design), the dependent or dysfunctional segments of society. White people, though found amongst that class, especially in certain parts of the country, are rather underrepresented there, though Williamson singled out Whites for opprobrium.

Then again, he just represents the ‘class’ of which he is a part, a class of white-collar workers who are rather overeducated: journalists, academics, and the like. These people, whether they own up to it or not, are a self-styled elite who sit in judgment on the rest of us. They are the enlightened ones; we are ignorant, unlettered, unwashed. Of course many non-‘elite’ Americans are easily as intelligent and as educated (if that means anything) as Williamson and his like. But we don’t count.

Nonetheless, Williamson’s piece did occasion some lively discussions and responses. Reader and commenter Sheila brought this article from Free Northerner to my attention. It’s a response to Williamson. Thanks, Sheila; it’s an interesting article, with much that is thought-provoking in it. I am not sure I can adequately address it because of its complexity but I will offer some thoughts.

The Free Northerner piece asserts some points with which I differ. I agree that the view of human beings as simply economic units, completely detached from culture and from environment, is wrong and is destructive to people’s individual lives and by extension, to our society as a whole.

The left uses economic disparities as arguments for big government to intervene and enforce a sort of parody of ”economic justice.” The left thus has an incentive to preserve the disparities so they can continue to agitate for ‘social justice’, a chimera if ever there was one. The right, as the writer correctly says, is guilty of buying the liberal ‘blank slate’ theory of human nature, though in a slightly different form. The average Republican (at least those who are still relatively prosperous) buys the idea that anyone can start a business and guarantee himself and his family a good living — if he only practices ‘conservative values’ and a good work ethic. In my experience these kinds of ‘conservatives’ are callous towards those who have been displaced in today’s weak economy, insisting that anyone can prosper if he uses the formula. But how many small businesses fail? And how many people who have been unemployed for a while can get the capital needed to start up a business, much less to keep it alive until he turns a profit? And how many new small businesses can our economy support? How many people, even those with intelligence and a good work ethic, are cut out to run their own businesses? To hear the average Republican tell it, we should all be small business owners; anyone can make it with a little effort. And let the devil take the hindmost.

They refuse to admit that the rules that applied when they started their businesses back during the Reagan years no longer apply — and Reagan himself helped create this current America of mass uncontrolled immigration and outsourcing.

Neither the right nor the left care much about the ‘working class’ — or the underclass.  There is a need for genuine populism. We cannot write off a whole segment of our people (and I say our people) as being irredeemable. It’s the people that make or break a place, and as of now we are throwing away many capable people, potential assets to our society, in many instances blaming them for their misfortunes.

There are those who, through character deficiencies and weaknesses (alcohol, drugs, sexual carelessness) destroy their own lives and families. We can’t excuse that because of outside factors like the economy. We aren’t doing them favors by saying that because of their ethnicity (Scots-Irish, for example, according to Free Northerner) they are not capable of conforming to basic rules of decency and self-respect. In old America, yes there were casualties of this sort; the underclass we have always with us, though they were less numerous and were often pariahs. Now we no longer stigmatize them to the same degree, and this, in the name of non-judgmentalism and ‘compassion’ but in effect our tolerance has increased the prevalence of such behaviors.

What we reward, or at least what we don’t punish, we end up getting more of.

I’m puzzled by the writer’s lumping-together of peoples whose commonalities are not very evident to me: for example,  he speaks of ‘WASPs and Jews‘ in tandem in several places, as if there is some common thread. Apart from having higher average IQs and a historic record of achievements in scientific fields, I don’t see much similarity. It is evident to me that there is a pervasive resentment and envy toward WASPs on the part of Jews; it seems they see WASPs or Anglo-Protestant Americans as their main rivals or competitors, and from personal experience I know that they are aggrieved because of social slights on the part of those they saw as ‘WASP elites’ for things like being excluded from Country Clubs in the Northeast. WASPs and Jews in my experience are two very different  peoples. Likewise, classing blacks and Scots-Irish together is puzzling to me. I am not sure that underclass membership is that common among people of Ulster Scots or Ulster-English lineage.

The writer says that noblesse oblige requires us to care for those in the underclass. As long as this does not translate to things like the kinds of ‘social justice’ wealth transfers so dear to the left — ”from each, according to his ability” — then I agree that we cannot in good conscience turn our backs on those who are the victims of man-made policies — policies like open borders, free trade, offshoring, and the general hard-hearted policies which the right has been proud to promote. Even the left has been party to this, despite their claims to champion the ”workers.”

The businessman in this country used to have some loyalty to his customers and to his employees. The companies that worked best were those who displayed this loyalty and social responsibility. Now, the businessman is seemingly only interested in ”new markets” in China or elsewhere across the sea, or in selling to the growing Hispanic colonies in this country. Their American-born customers and employees are nothing to them, it seems, given that they now have no shame about selling inferior and shoddy products and offering poor customer service, usually provided by ill-mannered, unintelligible immigrant employees or ‘offshore’ customer service staff.  Business now has no conscience, it seems — except for their phony pieties about ”diversity”.
Some small local business may be exceptions to the rule.

But the feeling of kinship and community which formed the basis for the ‘conscience’ of business in America is no longer there, for the most part. We are not detached economic units. Our towns and neighborhoods matter. Having intact local institutions and businesses is what made our country a liveable place for so long. These supports once destroyed will be very hard to bring back. And as long as the subversive and destructive forces of mass immigration and ‘diversity’ continue to make us nothing more than a collective mass of atomized individuals, bereft of roots and stability, things will only worsen.

And if our supposed ‘betters’ continue to see us as nothing more than economic ciphers, units of consumption and production, or as obstacles to be replaced by new ‘consumers and producers’, our society will be an anomie-ridden wasteland.

Condemned if you do, condemned if you don’t

BreitbartUK reports on a rally in London to ‘protest against ”racism” ‘.
Counter-demonstrators from the Britain First group reportedly clashed with the far-leftist open borders rabble.

According to the Breitbart article, an alleged ‘comedian’ named Jeremy Hardy made the usual self-abasing statements required of White people:

“People say white people are in danger of becoming a minority in London. Well, I am one of the whitest people you will ever meet. I’ve done my family tree. I thought ‘this will be interesting’. It f*cking wasn’t. 200 year of white people from the South East of England.

“Because you are my brothers and sisters. These people are my brothers and sisters. I have no more claim to this soil than anyone here.”

If Hardy had any integrity, he would then leave Britain, having no claim to the soil, and hand it over to his ”brothers and sisters”. Maybe he can go and ask his ”brothers and sisters” in Africa or Asia to allow him into their countries. After all, by his logic, they have no more claim to the soil than he has — we’re all just inhabitants of planet earth; freedom of movement for all, right? What are the chances Hardy would be welcomed into some nonwhite country? People like Hardy should leave their native countries and go to where their ”brothers and sisters” are. Science now allegedly has the means to change someone’s sex from male to female or vice-versa; when will they develop race-changing surgery so that people like Jeremy Hardy can escape their loathsome whiteness?

Britain First, the nationalist group mentioned in the article, is labeled in all the media reports as ”far right extremist” and ‘fascistic’, as ‘a hate group’ and so on. But are they?

I don’t think there is any substantial ethnonationalist group in the UK. The English Defence League, about whom we occasionally read, are, despite their name, not necessarily English; they have claimed to be ‘colorblind’ and they are not by any means open only to English members. They are a civic nationalist group, and a rather politically correct one at that. They are ostentatiously pro-Zionist, and the founder is of Irish background.

Similarly with Britain First, see this page on their own website:

Britain First and “Racism

Britain First is a loyalist movement: This means that if you are loyal to Queen and Country then you are welcome to join our organisation. “Race” does not feature in our policies or outlook in any way.”

The page features a large picture of a black man against a backdrop of a Union Jack. [Note: the page has annoying pop-ups which demand that you click ‘like’ in order to continue viewing.]

It is sad that no actual ethnonationalist or ethnopatriot party has appeared in the UK. It is telling that the flag with Cross of St. George, the traditional symbol of England, is condemned as ”racist” and ”hateful” in much the same way as the Confederate Battle Flag is condemned and banned here. In our case, we are told that because the flag represents ”slavery and hate” it must be removed from public view. One day it will be against the law to even own one, I believe.

But why is the cross of St. George offensive or a ‘‘hate symbol” according to the liberals (both left and right) in England? I think it’s because just as the Confederate Battle Flag represents a people who are now deemed political outcasts, so with the red cross of St. George, representing the English. Just as America does not like to remember that the English were the original stock of this country, Britain or the United Kingdom does not like to remember that the English people are the very heart and core of the United Kingdom; it was English dominance that led to the formation of a kingdom with the English at the top, in the position of rulership. Resentful minority groups (and yes, the Scots are called a ”minority group” and consider themselves as such, as do the Irish and the Welsh) insist on being made coequals but in practice have put the English beneath them. The Scots, the Welsh, even the Cornish have their ‘nationalist’ parties and flags, while the English are told that their symbols are ”racist” and offensive.

So the only nationalism that is allowed to exist in Britain is not ethnonationalism but only ”civic” nationalism, centered on a geopolitical entity called the UK. And by definition it must be an ideological loyalty, not limited to a particular people, not even the founders of the nation, the historical owners of the land, the English.

As the Britain First statement says, loyalty must be to Queen and Country not to any people or group of people. So Britain First, sad to say, agree to some extent with that sad sack Jeremy Hardy, who says he has no more claim to Britain than someone who just crashed his way into the country via Calais.

According to Britain First, the man in the picture at the link counts as ‘British’ though his origins are in Africa.

While I don’t want to be too hard on Britain First, or any civic nationalist group — at least they are doing something –British civic nationalism in effect means dispossession in one’s own land. It means accepting Pakistani and Caribbean ‘baronesses’ and ‘barons.’  It means Babel re-created, with people from the four corners of the globe swamping your small island. And we here in the not-so-United States are not much better off; we have our own useless ‘civic nationalism’ in which ”as long as you come to this country legally, and assimilate, you are just as American as I am, and we’re all immigrants anyway.” This is still the credo of far too many Americans.

The Tea Party, though originally a welcome idea, centered exclusively on what the misguided Republicans call ‘conservative ideology’, mostly abstractions about ‘small government, tax cuts, responsible spending, and free markets.’ They were not only afraid to express ethnonationalist or ethnopatriot sentiments but leaned over backwards to display their ”diverse and inclusive” credentials. Now they are history.

I would like to think that something was learned in the process: running from the race-baiting accusations, trying to be all things to all people, going on the defensive, are losing tactics, and above all, dishonest.

Trump, so far, appeals mostly to economic nationalism — which is needed. He speaks of ‘making America great again’ which is very much the same kind of generic ‘patriot’ rhetoric employed by the Tea Party.

But sooner or later, as the opposing sides array themselves, people will have to face the reality that civic nationalism or generic “patriotism” is an evasion. We might be optimistic and say that it’s just a way-station on the route to a true ethnopatriotism but we don’t have all the time in the world to take it in increments.

The core people of this country, contra Jeremy Hardy and his American counterparts, do have a claim to this country. Our ancestors built it for themselves and their posterity — that’s us, or a lot of us, anyway — and we do have rightful claim to it. We must not be shy about saying so.

We can see, with the press coverage, that even organizations which obey the politically correct commissars and shun any kind of exclusivism, are still labeled as ”hate” groups and ”extremists”. What good then, does it do to tailor a group’s policies and language to conform to the leftist orthodoxy? Better to take an unequivocal stand and not bow down to a PC establishment which will condemn them regardless of their ‘diverse and inclusive’ pandering and their tiptoeing around controversial subjects.

Another blog

As I have mentioned to some readers of this blog, I’ve long planned to start another one dealing with the subject of English America. I have finally got it started though there is not much content there as yet.

The blog is The Old Inheritance, and it’s here.

Those of you who have any interest in the English roots of America, the current state of ”WASPs” (so-called) in today’s post-America, or in American history generally are invited to take a look.

Shameless media

There’s nothing surprising in this story, via CBS News, of a threat sent through the mail to Donald Trump’s son. But the story is disgusting in the obvious lack of impartiality, in fact, its open bias.

What kind of journalistic standards does the ‘mainstream’ media have these days? Never mind ‘journalistic standards”; let’s just stick to plain old ordinary ethics and morals. By the minimum standards, they fail.

First, notice the reference to the younger Trump’s place of residence:

“…his posh Manhattan residence…”

They’d never refer to their favorite liberal politician’s home as a ‘posh residence’, though the fact is that most of the leftist champions of the poor and downtrodden live in residences that are far from spartan. Maybe Ralph Nader was one exception to that rule, by most accounts, but Al Gore, the inventor of Global Warming and the Internet, certainly does not live like one of the common folk, nor does Hillary. And the leftist celebrities (I know; it’s redundant to use that phrase. They’re all leftists) live like kings and queens, flying around in private jets to make speeches about starvation in Africa.

They decry wealth though none of them exactly live like one of their idols, Mohandas Gandhi, who supposedly owned only a pair of sandals, a dhoti (loincloth) and a wooden bowl. On second thoughts, that too sounds like another lying-media concoction to make their hero some kind of saint.

So Donald Trump’s son lives in a ‘posh’ residence? Why should CBS think it necessary to throw in that adjective?

Worst, though, is their deliberately including the street address of the building where he lives, and the name of the building, lest some unhinged leftist misfit have trouble finding it. I mean, the rest of the loathsome left have to know where to send any future hate mail, right? Like the letter which this article describes? This is almost an invitation to the other deranged ‘progressives’ out there to be copycats.

Thanks, CBS, for your responsible ”journalism.”