Politics replaces tribe, for some

Some ask why I bother to read Free Republic and the like. One answer I give is that it’s a fairly good place to find aggregated news stories that are of interest to me. (If anyone can recommend another that would serve this function, I’m open to suggestions.)

I also read there because I used to believe, based on some signs that I observed, that some of the “conservatives” there were potential converts or allies. Less and less do I think so. After rapidly worsening scenarios involving mass immigration and racial tensions over the last couple of decades, if these people haven’t ‘gotten it’ by now, they likely never will. In fact, for many of them, it seems they have dug in their heels and become more politically correct and deluded, somehow, because of what has been happening. It is as if denial has become stubbornly entrenched among some White folk. It is their way of plugging their ears and reciting the propaganda to shut out the truth. May God help these lost souls.

One example: a news story reports that Quanell X, (born Quanell Evans), a ‘black activist’ has endorsed Donald Trump. And this is one response:

Blacks aren’t our “enemies”. Blacks, and Hispanics and Asians and whomever want for themselves and their families the same things “we” want: peace, safety, jobs, good schools, to be left alone to pursue our dreams with the talents that God endowed us with…..and more.

“Thugs” do not represent the average American Black person any more than Klansmen or NAZIs represent White Americans.”

Or this:

Add that to the list of things I’d never thought I’d see. Civic nationalism has a broad appeal.”

One commenter notes that blacks have been angry at Democrats for ”failing them for 54 years”. The commenter thinks they have a right to be angry, the implication being that yes, Democrats have ”failed” blacks. Right, just as schools keep ”failing” blacks and the ”justice system” has ”failed” blacks. That is, none of these institutions have done enough to free blacks from personal responsibility or to coddle and cater to them.

But the part about blacks like Quanell X possibly turning to Republicans in a fit of pique against the insufficiently servile Democrats makes sense. In other words, they are saying ‘the Republicans may make us a better offer, and unless you raise their bid, we won’t vote for you. You don’t want to lose our valuable votes, do you? Or be called ”racist”, do you?

It’s the same with the ever-elusive Hispanic vote. The country club GOP types, and the ‘Main Street’ GOP, think we should win over the Hispanics by wooing them and flattering them, making concessions to them — little things like amnesty. And of course the Hispanics like to flirt with both sides, like a vain and manipulative woman. If she can have two or more men bidding for her affections, she can get both sides to woo her and make promises and lavish her with gifts. This is how Hispanics and now, blacks play the two parties (really one party) against each other. Will Quanell X and his ilk really vote for Trump? If they do, it will not be because they are ‘natural conservatives’ and suddenly believers in the Free Market and Smaller Government. No; it may only be because they dislike Mexicans more than they dislike Whites at this moment, or more cynically, because they want Trump to side with them against their Mexican rivals. But then I think they are trusting too much if they believe he will close the borders.

And again, their support will come with a price tag. Quid pro quo.

Quanell X’s ‘turf’ is the Houston area, as the article mentions; illegal Latino (and other) immigration — as well as legal immigration — has changed that area immensely, so blacks in that part of Texas do see and feel the results of racial displacement and conflict. Would someone as militantly anti-White as Quanell be willing to ally with Whites against mass immigration? Doubtful; the minority groups may just be jockeying for a greater share of the government handouts and status.

But the ‘conservatives’ who are sold out to the ‘Big Tent’, multicult rainbow America are really diehards, for whom their politics replace natural tribe affinities. And as such they are bound to be used and abused and ultimately very disappointed as things do not move towards a happy, multicultural utopia based, of course, on ”conservative ideology.”

 

 

Advertisements

Problems with the post below

The post below this one did not format correctly, hence there are not paragraph breaks where there ought to be. I tried in vain to rectify that but to no avail. I find WordPress to be not very user-friendly in that respect. So please don’t take me to task for the lack of paragraph breaks in the below post; sincere apologies about that.

Could it be done today?

The New American has an article on Operation Wetback, the 1950s deportation program, under which some 100,000 illegals were sent back home, and 700,000 more self-deported.

Despite it having been done once, there is always a stubborn opposition mentality saying that it can’t be done. And then of course there is the group (which sometimes overlaps with the ‘can’t be done’ crowd) who say that it shouldn’t be done, because The Children. Breaking up families. The usual rhetoric. And let’s not forget those who argue from economic self-interest, often cheap labor employers, who argue that they can’t get lazy or greedy White Americans to fill their needs, or who argue that it would hurt our economy generally or make our produce and other foods prohibitively expensive.

But mostly people tend to say ”they could do it back then, but it’s different today.” And in part that’s true, because back in 1954 the news media was not so monolithic and so overwhelmingly left-wing and hostile to White Americans as is the case now. Now, the ‘lying press’, the Enemy Media, would work to generate outrage against any large-scale repatriations. Protesters, some professional, hired rent-a-mob types, would be agitating and attempting to provoke incidents. But should we just give up in advance and let that side continue to control events?

Some think so. Take a look at the Free Republic thread on the article. One poster dominates the thread with arguments on why we ‘can’t’ deport people on a mass scale.

Suppose you started tomorrow.

How many years to get through all the court filings to stop the deportation? We simply didn’t have all the various feel good groups willing to file cases to stop/slow down the deportation back when Ike was prez.

How long before the nightly dose of crying mothers and screaming kids on the 5 PM news being separated from their families and carried off to Mexico reaches the point that the people demand that it be stopped?

Then, what you going to do if Mexico refuses to allow the buses/trucks/planes carrying these deportees to enter their country? While the media films the deportees stuck at the border?

9 posted on Monday, August 29, 2016 10:04:53 AM by DugwayDuke (“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”)”

 

Well, Dugway Duke selected an appropriate tagline, anyway.

So, as one more sensible commenter says sarcastically, we should just give up; if we can’t deport them all, then we can’t deport any.

Dugway Duke and those who think along the same lines seem more concerned about how the left, the bleeding hearts, and the lying media perceive them, more than about what is best for this country and its rightful people. They care more about public opinion, (even as dishonestly represented by the media) than about their posterity. Granted, the word ‘posterity’ is a little abstract for most people; let’s say instead, our children and grandchildren.

But then again, Free Republic is the internet home of a lot of people who are at best, at best, civic nationalists, proposition nationalists, who think that even if America is populated mostly by Central American mestizos, Somalis, Middle Easterners, as long as they speak English, salute the flag, and vote Republican, they are the same as you and me.

As to the discussion about whether ‘self-deportation’, induced by cutting off public benefits to illegals, is more feasible, I see no downside. Illegals, or even legal immigrants and ‘refugees’ should not receive public benefits. In the past, immigrants had to prove they could support themselves, and not become public charges. They had to have sponsors who agreed to assist them if they had no assets to speak of, no marketable skills. But now just about every immigrant family except for the wealthy ones use some form of public assistance. Many well-to-do families with aged parents put the older generation on SSI, which they are entitled to by law, now. So grandma and grandpa, though they have affluent adult children who are employed or in a profession, get SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, and Section 8. And these are legal immigrants, not illegals.

So yes, end benefits for immigrants, regardless. Republicans often think that no American should receive assistance in any form; I dare them to take such a tough stance with immigrants. They usually don’t. They reserve the resentment for their own, sad to say.

But having benefits taken away may or may not cause the immigrants to self-deport. Why? Because many do work, but ‘under the table,’ paid in cash by Americans who don’t want to pay more to a fellow American to care for their children, or for their aged parents, or to do their yard work and home repairs. True, you don’t get value for money when you hire cheap foreign domestic help. Children are not as well cared-for, and they may grow up speaking broken English if left with foreign “nannies”. Home maintenance jobs are often ineptly or carelessly done.

It all comes at a cost, yet Americans continue to hire illegals. How can we stop this, when it’s going on covertly to some degree?

And then there are plenty of illegals involved in some way with the drug cartel activities, even in my town. There are illegals who are involved in property crimes as well as more sophisticated schemes connected with immigration: human trafficking, identity theft, forging documents, and so on. We all know this. And this is the source of income for many illegals who are not getting social service assistance. If welfare, SSI and all the rest were the only enticement or their only source of sustenance — but that’s not the case.

Then, too, there is the fact that many, many illegal alien criminals were deported and yet they returned, multiple times. The illegal who killed Kate Steinle in the infamous San Francisco shooting incident is but one example of many. Another was Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, the serial ‘railway murderer’ of some years ago. Our ridiculously porous borders are not serving their purpose.

So then must we resign ourselves to this intolerable situation because of the bad press that would accompany any efforts at fixing the problem? I have no easy answers, no magic fix. And if we wait until the majority comes to a consensus about this, we will be lost for sure. What I will say is that political solutions, at least in a ”democracy” with a sorely divided electorate, will likely never be the answer.

At last

At last, here’s one blogger who sees the situation somewhat as I do. I was beginning to wonder if anyone would say it.

On Wednesday, Donald Trump betrayed his supporters on the issue that has defined his campaign: immigration. Unfortunately, with Hillary setting her campaign on fire left and right, this has gone mostly unnoticed. We need to make noise about this everywhere and immediately.”

Well, here I am, making noise about it in my quiet little corner of the blogging world, if it will do any good.

Why is there so little commentary from the (real) right on this issue? Are people especially quiet because they are uncomfortable with acknowledging the situation after investing so much in the Trump candidacy? Is it peer pressure or a desire not to rock the boat?

Of course there are some comments (I knew there would be) defending Trump’s ‘going for the centrists’ or trying to ‘get more votes’ because it’s all about ”winning.” I’ve heard all this before, when G.W. Bush was in office and campaigning for re-election. The Bushbots said all the same things, and they used the same blustering tone to shout down anybody who dissented. But the dissenters were right all along, as time has shown, while the Bushbots never, ever acknowledged that their guy was indeed selling out not only his base but the American (White) people. But he won, you see, he got re-elected despite his devotion to the ”immigration reform” (amnesty) cause.

As I said then, if we ”win” by compromising, selling out, whoring after minority votes or ‘squishy centrists’, what will we have won? Winning the election is not an end in itself, although politicians seem to see it as such.

And in retrospect, what did we win, by winking at Bush’s moving to the left?

I said before, when the Univision story appeared,  that I would give Trump the benefit of the doubt, and hear what he had to say. What he has said since then has not convinced me that the initial story was ‘a lie’, as his devout followers said.

As to his latest promises to deal with criminals (“cartel members, thugs”) it very much sounds as if his plans to deport immigrants will apply only to illegals who are known criminals. This will leave tens of millions of un-vetted illegals and legals, people with no valid identification or with forged IDs (many of them have multiple fake IDs, which can be purchased most anywhere where there is a large Latino colony). Deporting only known or convicted criminals who are here illegally will be a mere drop in the ocean.

And what’s to stop them from returning multiple times, as so many criminal aliens have done, and are doing?

As for the plan not amounting to ‘amnesty’ because ‘they will have to pay a fine, and back taxes‘, as Trump said, this is much like the earlier amnesty proposals (which the pols said were not amnesty); it’s not much different from the ‘Gang of Eight’ plans.

Trump is supposed to make another statement soon on his immigration plans. But I have a feeling that he will again parse his language carefully so as to mollify his supporters, throwing a few crumbs to his White base. I am open to being proven wrong, but as I’ve said before, he can’t serve two masters. He seems to have betrothed himself to the ‘black community’ whose plight he has expressed so much concern for, and to those ‘terrific people’ who just happen to be here illegally.

G.W. Bush redux.

Update: here’s another blog piece on the subject, from the Unorthodoxy blog.

From 2013

I’ve spent more time than usual, this past week, in searching through many blogs looking for something elusive; I suppose I am looking for other views that are somewhat on my wavelength, and seeming not to find them. I think that of the blogs I used to read, which are no longer there, I miss the Bad Eagle blog the most. Why? I didn’t always agree with all that he wrote, as I rarely agree 100 per cent with anyone. Some of the subjects on which he wrote were a little esoteric for me, but when he wrote as an ethnopatriot he wrote some very good pieces.

[Maybe it’s not ‘the thing’ to praise an American Indian, but if many on the ‘pro-White’ side can laud Thomas Sowell or certain (((other))) bloggers, then I can cite Bad Eagle.]

Those of you who remember the late Dr. David Yeagley, aka ‘Bad Eagle’, know that he was a Comanche Indian (though his father was White) and he was not in any way hostile to White Americans, not given to striking the ‘victim’ pose. He was very friendly to White ethnopatriotism/ethnonationalism. Most Americans are only familiar with the grandstanding ‘professional Indians’, the ones who denounce Columbus as a ‘genocidalist’ every October. Yeagley called these ‘campus Indians’, because in general it is only the university-educated Indians who become radicalized and militant. Yeagley was an academic by profession, yet he was that rare exception, a non-liberal academic.

I came across this article of his from 2013; in it he asks the pertinent question:

Has the White Man Gone Soft?

He is not asking the question in a hostile way; quite the contrary. He is exhorting Whites and trying to encourage a resolute response to what is happening to our country and to the West. I recommend reading it, and the comments — though I will warn that the first comment may not be palatable to some (because of the link  it contains).

Nevertheless we need a little exhortation now.

Reinforcing illusions

At VDare.com, Matthew Richer writes on “Moderate Whites” and the opportunity presented by the ‘race problem.’

Donald Trump is being criticized for his tweets about a recent shooting, in which a cousin of an NBA star was killed in some kind of crossfire incident. He tweeted the following:

“Dwayne Wade’s cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!”

Predictably, the left seized on this to castigate Trump. Examples:

    That time Donald Trump used Dwyane Wade’s cousin’s murder to campaign for the Black vote. https://t.co/fQPlUuDdEx pic.twitter.com/SjxOqPjshu
    — BET (@BET) August 27, 2016

    Trump fixed the spelling of Dwyane Wade’s name. Still doesn’t offer condolences. Same self-congratulatory tone.

    @realDonaldTrump An absolute disgrace

Honestly, the leftists love this kind of thing; it gives them a chance to gleefully express their moral outrage, and virtue-signal to each other.

In the VDare piece, Richer notes that Trump does not respond in a defensive manner to this kind of thing. He advocates that Trump should react aggressively to the left’s attempts to smear him as a ‘Nazi’, bigot, or whatever else:

“If Trump is to win, therefore, he must employ the language of assault to bypass the Left/MSM narrative and establish himself as the genuine America First candidate.”

Richer says, correctly I think, that recent speeches by Trump addressing black concerns were not so much appeals to the black vote or to blacks as a group, but directed at ‘moderate’ White voters:

”While the black vote is insignificant compared to the white vote, the challenge is that Trump must campaign for the black vote, to some extent, in order to win a significant portion of the white vote.

A great many whites have a strong psychological need to see themselves—or more exactly, to be seen by other whites—as people committed to the well-being of allegedly oppressed minorities.

If a candidate can be depicted as someone insensitive to minority concerns, some whites will not support him—even if they largely agree with the candidate on everything else.”

I realize I am outside the majority, even on the right, when I say that in adopting this kind of strategy, Trump is in fact playing according to the PC rules. He is, in fact, reinforcing the PC ‘narrative’, and because so many on the right (the ‘cuck’ establishment notwithstanding) support him so unconditionally, they will ‘go there’ with him, and nod their heads, and say, yes, he has to do this. If he wants to ‘win’, he has to do this.

All the talk of Trump ‘shattering political correctness’ and refusing to play that game by the left’s rules is just so much talk, if he is to adopt this strategy and follow it.
All the talk of the ‘Overton Window’ being shifted for good by Trump’s bluntness and iconoclastic image may also prove to be illusion based on wishful thinking.

Maybe those younger than 40 or so don’t remember the George W. Bush years, but this is much like what happened when G.W. Bush began to push amnesty and talk of Islam as a ‘Religion of Peace.’ Those who pointed out that this was not what we thought we were voting for were castigated for being ‘purists’ or ‘Bush-haters’ when warning about Bush’s disregard for his ‘base’ and for Americans in general.

Bush pushed amnesty relentlessly and yet the true Bush believers shouted down any conservative who had a problem with that, just as they did with those who objected to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I remember that very well, as it was what drove me away from the GOPe and into blogging. Loyalty to leaders is good — provided they are in the right, but loyalties should be to something more than an individual.

So does Trump ”have to” make speeches about how blacks have ”suffered more than anybody else”, carrying on the rancid ‘Democrats are the Real Racists‘ meme?

If this is for the benefit of the ‘moderate Whites’ (I would call them liberal, if they are more concerned for black interests than their own, but that’s just me), then how long must both political parties and all candidates cater to these people, as well as to the ‘Victimocracy’? Some of us began to hope that Trump would be the one to break the mold and thus pave the way for others to have the courage or the ”permission” to speak up for the rest of us, the majority. So if he is declining that role, preferring instead to continue this charade which is de rigueur as of now, who will ever have the courage and the independence to say ‘No!’ to the whole farce? The longer it continues unopposed the stronger it will become.

I mean, if not now, when? When will it ever be time?

‘Moderate’ Whites who see themselves as protectors or champions of blacks are people who need to have their eyes opened, rather than having their silly ideas reinforced by politicians. They urgently need to see that we (including those same clueless Whites) are under an existential threat. Politicians on both sides who perpetuate their politically correct platitudes and false morality are complicit in what is happening to us.

Déjà vu

Some quotes:

”We have to win the presidency. The way you win the presidency is to have practical plans. What we need to do is allow people to earn legal status where they pay a fine, where they work, where they don’t commit crimes, where they learn English, and over a period of time, they earn legal status. That’s the proper path. “

Further:

[…]” And there should be a path to earned legal status for those that are here. Not amnesty, earned legal status, which means you pay a fine and do many things over an extended period of time.”

“I know there’s disagreement here,” acknowledging boos that came from the right wing crowd. “I feel your pain. But there is no plan to deport 11 million people,[…]We should give them a path for legal status where they work, they don’t get government benefits, where they learn English.”

And though he prioritized security along the nation’s border, he believed the GOP could also broker an agreement on other reform possibilities. “Let’s do it. Let’s control the border[…]There’s nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing that holds back the Republicans from putting a comprehensive plan in place to do it.”

“Having a solution to the fact that we have all of these young people–many of whom are making great contributions, don’t have a connection to their parents’ former country–yeah, of course I’m for it. “

Finally:

“And for the 11.5 million who are here illegally, if they’ve not committed a crime since they’ve been here, I would give them a path to legalization where they pay a fine, back taxes, delay in any kind of benefits they get. I think is a reasonable approach, but not a path to citizenship.

“My position has not changed. The idea that we’re going to go into communities and yank people out of their homes and leave their kids on the porch crying, that’s not what we’re going to do. That’s — that’s just — that’s more promises that will never happen, and the people will become more cynical.”

Question: who said the above?

 

‘So God made a Cajun’

A nice video tribute to the ‘Cajun Navy’, a volunteer group who tirelessly rescued people in urgent need of rescuing after the severe flooding in Louisiana.

I will add my own tribute to the Cajun Navy and to the Cajun people in general, of whom I have very fond memories from my past residence in South Louisiana. My experience of the Cajuns is that they are a warm, down-to-earth, unpretentious folk who are wonderful neighbors and good company. A happy part of my childhood was spent in that part of the country.

Cajuns are as human as the rest of us, with their share of frailties but in many ways we could follow their example. For one thing, this spirit of voluntarism, of neighbor helping neighbor (without relying on the Nannystate government to come and rescue them) is born of the bond of kinship and culture that makes the Cajuns such a unique people. They are also, by inclination, upbeat and good-natured, with ‘joie de vivre‘ an essential part of their approach to life. They are resourceful and ‘can-do’ people, which is part of their colonist/pioneer heritage. They are the hardy descendants of French settlers of what is now Nova Scotia, and later settlers of what became Louisiana. Surviving in a harsh environment and poor conditions made them a strong and tenacious breed — as were many of our own settler/colonist ancestors. But their relative isolation for much of their history (until the recent demographic shifts) have enabled them to preserve much of their distinctive way of life. God bless the Cajun people and all the other (non-Cajun) volunteers who have done such courageous work during the floods.

What we’ve lost

Ehud Would at Faith and Heritage has posted another of his worthy essays  on the subject of ‘The Way We Were.’ He begins by citing a 2003 piece by Gary North, which appeared on Lew Rockwell.com

In that piece, North mentions a scene in the classic 1934 movie, It Happened One Night,in which passengers on a Greyhound bus have a spontaneous sing-along. I remember that scene. Oddly enough I recently saw another 1930s movie with a similar scene.  Coincidentally, I wrote a blog piece some years ago about the loss of our social cohesion and commonality, and cited as an example a scene from a 1943 movie, The Human Comedy.

In it, young men in uniform, on their way to be shipped out to the front, engage in a sing-along. The song they agree to sing is an old hymn, ”Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.” I found that very poignant in the context of the scene, where the young men, off to face possible death in battle, sing ”What have I to dread, what have I to fear? Leaning on the everlasting arms.” I thought of how a movie of today would never have such a scene, and would never include a Christian hymn, at least not in a positive light. And worse than that, is that a random group of soldiers or Americans in general would not be likely to know that song by heart, or to even be familiar with it — even in the Bible Belt of the South. Today’s churches most often shun the old hymns sung by generations of our forefathers in favor of bland, vague ‘love songs’ that may or may not mention Jesus, or God; these songs are called ‘praise songs.’ But in the world of 1943 America, most heartland Americans knew songs like ‘Leaning on the Everlasting Arms’, and not only knew them but would sing them unashamedly in public, as in that train scene. Such would not be the case today. We were a more closely-knit people then.

So yes, these scenes of communal singing amongst strangers on public conveyances were not some kind of quaint ‘Norman Rockwellization’ of the old days by Hollywood, but were not far-fetched at all. Americans in general had certain common customs and shared experience, a shared culture. We were much more a nation and a people then, in a cultural and social sense, because we were a people descended from common ancestors, with a common history, language, and religion. Now multiculturalism has destroyed that, and we are a grab-bag of peoples divided by mutual suspicion in many cases, or at least wary of ”offending” each other or some third party who may be eavesdropping on private conversations. People have been arrested for things said in private conversations.

The America of 2016 is very much a different country than the one many of us grew up in. I hear this sentiment expressed even by people who grew up in the 1980s, so it is not peculiar to the oldest citizens now.

One of the things that is most unattractive for me about much of the ‘far right’ of today is the utter cynicism toward the past that is on display amongst some of those under 40 or so. They are in agreement with the left that the old America is dead and gone and that the clock can never be turned back in any way, nor should it be. In fact many of them have accepted the left’s depiction of the pre-PC America as mostly a falsified, whitewashed (in more ways than one) memory of what was really an already-corrupt America, and that there was no idyllic America, no golden age. No, there is no perfect or spotless  era, but the America of old was definitely a happier and more peaceful and a safer time. Those who say otherwise are likely expressing ‘sour grapes’ sentiments, or else they are people who actually prefer the leftist-created ‘America’ in which there is more ”freedom”, freedom to transgress.

The left has destroyed our social cohesion in many ways, and it is not just in a racial and ethnic sense that they have undermined our country; it is in a social/ethical/religious sense. They have given us a post-Christian — no, anti-Christian replacement America, and many of the younger generations prefer this part of the Left’s reconstructed America. The past appears bland, homogenous, conformist, and boring to many of those weaned on the Left’s cynicism.

So even on the ”right”, the Left has succeeded in creating division.
In the religious sphere, the Left has subverted Christianity so that Babelist, multicult ‘churchians’ go to battle against their brethren who hold to the more truthful and more Biblically-grounded faith of our fathers. And sad to say, many of these politically correct Babelists are in denominations that were once known as ‘conservative’ and Biblically sound. The Southern Baptists spring to mind, and institutions like Bob Jones University, which has repented of it previous political incorrectness in opposing miscegenation.

I’ve gone far afield from the points made by Ehud Would in his piece; I do recommend you read it.

As for the popular view that looking to the past is useless and counterproductive, what about this:

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”

However, the next verse says:

But they said, We will not walk therein.”

The more things change…