Which side is left, which is right?

The political question that I’ve asked above is meant only partly rhetorically.  Coincidentally, Bruce Charlton, in a recent blog post, states in passing that most people in the West are variants of leftist, except for a few very religious people. I’ve said similar things here, so I believe he’s right. Incidentally, that blog piece deserves a post of its own here, maybe later.

So, in the wake of the Governor Northam blackface ‘controversy’, and the fact that more people, even on the ‘right’, seemed more up-in-arms about that than about the ‘post-term abortion’ idea, we have an illustration of the right’s triumphalism at being able to say ‘gotcha’ to the left.  The politically corrected right jumps for joy when they think they’ve proven “DR3″, allowing the right to try to shame them. Of course such charges have proven to just roll off the left’s collective backs as it has every time; it’s impossible to shame the congenitally shameless. But Republicans/conservatives will never stop trying to get that accusation to stick, just as Charlie Brown continues to believe Lucy will give him a chance to kick that football, one day.

As to ‘Democrats are the Real Racists’, otherwise known as ‘DR3’, that may be, but it’s certain that deep down there are Republicans/conservatives who believe that there definitely IS a specific kind of dislike or ‘hate’ worse than any other sin or crime or ‘pathology’, called ”racism” and that it ‘s the role of the right to point an accusatory finger at the left whenever the occasion presents itself. The rationale for this behavior, this et tu quoque, is to try to deflect the charge from ourselves, or at least to say that the accuser is a hypocrite, which is not really an exoneration or much of a defense at all. In any case it has never yet worked as intended.

The people who gloat when they think they have proof of Democrats being ‘racists’ are simply reinforcing the left’s belief system by falling for it, accepting the premise behind their race-baiting as valid and true. They are dancing to the left’s tune. They are doing the work of the left for them. They are imitating the left. They are reinforcing the warped and dishonest ideology of the left. And to someone on the outside, that is, POCs and their enablers and sycophants on the left, this seems proof that all Whites are ‘racist’, because Whites accuse one another of racism, so it must be true that all of us are guilty. Of course most leftists don’t believe themselves guilty of anything; just Southrons or ‘right-wingers’, not they themselves; they believe they’re benefactors to the Victim Groups.

And speaking of which there’s the other side of the coin: both Repubs/right-wingers and the left claim the title of being the real allies and friends of the POCs. There was a leaflet or pamphlet from the post-Civil War (War Between the States) era in which the Dems and Republicans vied for the title of empancipators and general good guys. Both sides claimed they were the Real friends of POCs. So it’s nothing new, at least in the political world. Most politicians are prostitutes in the real sense of the word.

But to anyone from the South, especially the older generations, the distortion of history and Truth itself is unconscionable. For example in some of the ‘Q’ drops from a while back, the writer  (who is unknown obviously) reiterates the old ‘Dems keeping the poor blacks On The Plantation, that is, on the ‘Democrat Plantation’, as if they don’t exercise a free choice. This is an example of denying moral agency or free choice on the part of blacks or other minorities; as if they are children. Isn’t that what most people call being patronizing? Or condescending, or infantilizing them? Wouldn’t that be the great sin of ‘racism’, for those who believe?

Minorities know that one party caters exclusively to people from minority groups, and rejects the majority as ‘evil’ and morally guilty. It’s obvious whose bread is buttered on whose side; people usually vote for those who woo and cater to them most blatantly, but as of now one side has no party to represent its interests. POCs know which is which and vote accordingly. The GOP caters to minorities increasingly, as if in competition with the Dems as to who can pander most shamelessly, and it’s evident that both parties are disregarding the majority while working furiously to make it the minority as soon as possible.

Some of the questions asked by the ‘Anon’ in the Q material I referred to (no working link to it, sorry) were things like ‘How do the Dems hide from blacks the facts about ‘how the Confederacy was formed, how a certain ‘hate group’ was formed?’ And my reaction was: how does the anonymous questioner think the ‘Confederacy was formed’? That’s all in the old history books; the Confederate States of America was formed by the people of those states, and not for simplistic, single-factor reasons. As for how, or more importantly why a certain secret society was formed, it seems that most Americans, of any color, have little clue about that whole sordid era of our history, and most have false ideas of how and why it happened. The fact is that over half a million people were killed in that war, and few Americans even understand why, instead chalking it up to racial animus on one side, only, as if there were not multiple factors.  If only we had an educational system that was not biased, that was actually interested in truth, and that was not invariably committed to anti-Southron slanders. Maybe then people would understand their ancestors better, and be free from bias against their own people in favor of Others.

It’s hard to have faith in our folk since more than half, it seems, regardless of political orientation, are playing the left’s game, by the left’s rules, and at best we have only feeble ‘civic nationalism’ with which to counter the insane antics of the globalist/one-worlder politically correct machine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Suppressing facts

Following on yesterday’s post here about legal immigration (“good”) vs. illegal immigration (“less good”), I have been trying to find some statistics about criminality, comparing legal to illegal immigrants. There seems to be an effort  to show that legal immigrants do not commit more crimes than native-born, and that illegals are the only immigrants who tend to commit more crimes.

It’s obvious that of late, what with the effort to gradually choke out all dissenting (politically incorrect) opinions online, that any data which casts a negative impression of immigrants is being scrubbed from the internet. It seems that in general fewer search engines will link to anything that is politically incorrect, whether to blogs or news articles and opinion pieces. Of course the reliably dishonest media report only data and opinions that reinforce the ”narrative” and attempt to discredit and exclude dissident thought or information. So it is getting harder to find truthful, factual data.

Despite the plethora of articles from the usual Mendacious Media sources, assuring us that immigrants do not increase the crime rates — in fact, that they commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, I am not convinced.

At the very least we know of a good many crimes, reported in the media, involving immigrants, often ‘refugees.’ Examples: many cases of fraud by merchants (usually convenience-store owners) involving EBT/food stamps or other government benefits. These are not isolated stories, but part of a pattern.

We read of the rampant use by immigrants/refugees of counterfeit ID cards and theft of Social Security numbers/identity fraud. We need only go to certain areas in most cities of any size to find immigrants openly peddling forged ID cards for sale to anybody willing to pay. There are many people known, even by their employers, to be working under the table, not paying taxes on their earnings, because they are not legally here, or in some cases, some are here legally but unwilling to be taxed on their earnings — the money goes back ‘home’, so that billions of American dollars are sent to immigrants’ home countries each year.

The list could go on and on. Yet we are expected to believe that immigrants are scrupulously honest if they are here legally, despite many incentives to cheat and flout laws.

And what about prevalence of drunk driving on the part of many immigrants, especially Latinos? This is a well-known ”cultural practice” amongst Latinos, as is the ”cultural” acceptance of a very low age of consent for young girls to consort with adult men.

And as I have said before, look up the search term ”quinceanera shooting” or quinceanera stabbing. An inordinate number of assaults, even killings occur at girls’ fifteenth birthday celebrations, supposedly the age at which they are considered adult women.

But pay no attention to the facts; listen only to what the lying media tell us; nothing to see here. Immigrants, especially those with certain documents making them legal, are pure as driven snow, and do not have any proclivity to crime or violence.

However you might look up, for example, some of Ron Guhname’s data at the Inductivist website, where he provides interesting statistics on cultural habits and practices, broken down by nationality. This one, for example, on which ethnic groups are most arrested.

The usual rationalization is that ‘racist’ police ”target” certain groups. Given that most police forces now have ”diversity” quotas to ensure that “racist” White police can’t persecute innocent diversities, that excuse won’t cut it.

Another example from Inductivist, this time about the percentages, based on ethnicity, displaying traits like selfishness and pessimism.

And what about crime rates within certain countries, (most Latin American countries have far higher rates of violent crime, as is well-established as fact) but the data at Inductivist’s link show the effect of diversity (heterogeneity) in violent crime.

None of this is consistent with the Party Line laid down by immigration apologists and enthusiasts whether on the ”right” or on the left. We are being gaslighted, as usual, by both sides when it comes to immigration and diversity. And the disturbing thing is that there seems to be a more zealous effort to suppress any data that contradicts the propaganda. Soon this country may be more like Europe where even questioning offical dogma on ethnicity and immigration will be a criminal offense.

The ‘Galileo Gambit’

A former reader, ‘Flanders’, commenting on Savant’s blog, points out a logical fallacy called ‘The Galileo Gambit‘, which coincidentally ties in with my previous post.

In that post, expressing disagreement with the President’s sudden call for a large increase in legal immigration, I was inwardly pondering whether this change in direction was some kind of sudden decision or whether it was planned all along.

In posts during or just after the 2016 election I had questions as to whether Trump’s election was in fact intended to co-opt the dissident right all along.

I wondered the same about the election of G.W. Bush. Why? Because the left ramped up the insane anti-Bush rhetoric to previously unknown levels, even in the days of Nixon, when the left made Nixon out to be the biggest monster and villain in our history. It all seemed over-the-top and disconnected from reality. But then with the election of ‘W’ in 2000, along with the crazy antics of the left during the long election dispute, the left outdid themselves in histrionics and rabid rhetoric. But even that was mild compared to the 2016 election, when the millennials were all grieving and rending their garments about the ‘fear’ felt by their ‘Muslim and gay friends’  who feared for their lives — supposedly. I found this too absurd to be believed — but these young ‘snowflakes’ seemingly believed, silly as it seems. But did the Democrat party apparatchiks actually believe their own hysterical statements about Trump being ‘literally Hitler’? Or the rumors of roaming gangs of MAGA thugs attacking innocent people? Or was it a kind of calculated reverse psychology — a ‘Galileo Gambit’ plan?

So what is the Galileo Gambit fallacy? I admit I wasn’t familiar with that one:

“The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially “Galileo wannabes”. This logic is obviously flawed. For example, consider a horribly-oppressed ideology: Wahhabism. Western governments seek to persecute and censor Wahhabists at every opportunity. Does this mean that Wahhabism is correct?”

Obviously not; the fact that an idea or policy draws strong opposition or vilification — or to use the left’s favorite term, causes the proponent to be ‘demonized’ — does not necessarily prove that the idea is right or true, or that the proponent must be one of the good guys.

But we’ve all been conditioned to think that if the left opposes something, whatever they oppose must of necessity be true and sane and desirable — just because our foes are almost always found on the wrong side of every debate and dispute. They champion everything that is immoral, unnatural, destructive, and just deranged. (See their recent support of infanticide, as the most vivid example to date).

It’s normally safe to assume that the far left are likely to oppose anything and everything that’s good and wholesome and normal and true. But what if their excessive and exaggerated opposition to G.W. Bush, for example, was meant to induce the Republican party to champion and defend Bush — even when he was wrong on some issues, as he usually was? Things like the Iraq war, which many Republicans embraced all the more stubbornly because they thought Bush must be right if the left hated him so much. And it seems as if the Republicans stood by Bush and his open borders policy because they saw him as unfairly under attack by the scoundrels on the other side.

Suppose Donald Trump was the globalists’ preferred Republican opponent in the 2016 election, and the sudden rallying of the right to his cause was just the ‘briar patch’ that the Democrat globalists wanted to be thrown into. Whichever candidate won, the globalist, one-world cause would win. And yes, before anybody asks the rhetorical question ”would you rather have Hillary as President’? my response is no, I would not. But on the other hand, have we all been manipulated and ‘played’ by the ridiculous leftist attacks on Trump and on Trump voters?

The unrelenting attacks on the President elicited an automatic knee-jerk response from me, though I was ambivalent at best, harboring considerable doubts (expressed on this blog, if you remember) about whether Trump was the real thing. I had serious reservations, given his lavish praise of Hispanic immigrants as “wonderful, wonderful people” — even as he lamented Kate Steinle’s death at the hands of a many-times-deported Jose Zarate, one of those ‘wonderful, wonderful people.’ Was Trump channeling Jeb Bush, (remember Jeb’s ‘immigration is an act of love‘ drivel?) And after all the promises about a wall, why coddle the so-called ‘Dreamers’ and why invite millions more immigrants, even if they are ‘legal’?

Before the 2016 election many populists/dissident rightists held to the consensus that both parties were complicit in the destruction of legacy America; neither side was to be trusted, both parties, despite the fake ‘pro wrestling’ rhetoric were working towards the same ends, ultimately. I hate to return to that cynical assessment because I am not by nature a cynical person, but I am rethinking that.

I, at least, was probably fooled by the ‘Galileo Gambit’ fallacy.

Trump on more legal immigration

Already the usual comments are coming in on this news story, with the hackneyed claim that Trump is being clever, trolling the left, “playing 4-D chess”, etc.

Why does this whole situation give me a sense of déjà vu?

From Breitbart News:

During his State of the Union (SOTU) address this week, Trump went off-script while discussing national immigration policy, saying he wanted to admit “the largest numbers ever” of legal immigrants to the country.

“Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways,” Trump said. “I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.”

The reactions from the Republican faithful are simply a replay of the responses used by that same duplicitous crowd during G.W. Bush’s open borders administration. His lackeys always said ”he’s gaming the system.” or ‘trolling’ or playing (yes) “3-D chess” or ‘playing chess while his enemies are playing checkers.’ And people fell for it, or at least most GOP respectables fell for it. So why are people eager to believe those feeble rationales now? Fool me twice, shame on me. The excuses made for blindly trusting G.W. Bush did not sway me for long, so I parted company with the party faithful, whose only loyalty seems to be to The Party, not towards their folk, and certainly not towards the truth.

Now, of course, many of the party faithful have repeated the magic mantra on immigration: “I don’t oppose immigration; I only have a problem with illegal immigration, after all, we’re all immigrants….” For umpteen years now, at least as long as I’ve been blogging, the tired phrase ”as long as they come in legally” serves as the magic phrase which politicians and their duped followers use, their ‘abracadabra’ to legitimize mass immigration ad infinitum ‘just as long as they do it legally.’ And this suffices to keep most GOP voters passive.

That phrase has become the default speech of the usual GOP loyalist/follower types who above all, don’t want to be thought ‘racist’ in opposing mass immigration, or even objecting to immigration per se, because to be suspected of ‘racism’ is social death for the Respectable Republican faithful.

So, as a sort of protective mantra, those on the ‘right’ who have even mild qualms about mass, unchecked, un-vetted immigration will learn to couch their timid objections by reciting the rote phrase.  It seems likely to me that this phrase and its variants were seeded either by the ‘no borders’ Republican operatives or by the left, or both, hoping to derail and re-direct any honest opposition to unchecked mass immigration by directing all the objections at illegal immigrants only, when the fact is that America receives at least a million legal immigrants each year for some time now. And if I recall my statistics, which I used to cite a dozen years ago, we actually received something like 1.3 million a year, or 1.5 for a while. So if the lower figure is anywhere near accurate, since I started blogging close to 13 years ago we have likely welcomed 13 million plus. That’s a lot of people. And then what of chain migration? How many have come in on the coattails of those 13+ million in the interim?

And does President Trump claim that all these warm bodies still leave us with a labor shortage? Do we really have near-zero unemployment among our native-born work force? Sorry, I am just not buying this rationale.

“We need people in our country because our unemployment numbers are so low and we have massive numbers of companies coming back into our country,” Trump reportedly told the media.

“I need people coming in because we need people to run the factories and plants and companies that are moving back in,” Trump said. “We need people.”

And if we do need immigrants to fill these many, many job openings, why do we need low-wage, non-English speaking, unskilled workers, who are also heavy users of social services? Why not recruit immigrants from Anglosphere countries, people who are native speakers of our language, and who ‘fit in’ culturally, and who do not ”contribute” lots of crime and social dysfunction to our country?

I can readily believe that the easily-manipulated segment of our population has been primed to repeat the party line about ”as long as they come here legally…” so as to be willing to accept millions more immigrants annually, for any length of time, because they are gullible enough to accept the feeble rationale provided — and they can still salvage their own reputation as being open-minded about immigrants and not ‘bigoted’ like those people who actually want a halt to open borders.

As for the wall? It’s irrelevant, at this point. It may get built, per President Trump’s promise, or it may not, but walls won’t help if our government is avidly recruiting millions more legal immigrants annually for the foreseeable future. Legal or illegal, if we are outnumbered by the steady inflow of immigrants, if we become a permanent class of exiles in our own country, a wall would be pretty cold comfort.

 

 

 

 

Conviction vs. intensity

It’s no news that the world has been turned upside down by the rabid left. Their ‘morality’, if it can be called such, is so warped that appearing in ‘blackface’ is a cause for outrage, while proposing to kill a newborn baby is fine with them.

Governor Northam, the Democrat governor of what was once Virginia, advocated for killing newborn infants, with the consent of the ‘mother.’ Up until pretty recently this kind of monstrous proposal would have shocked all but the most hardened and callous among us. But what with the stepped-up propaganda/mind manipulation, now most can’t be bothered to even raise a mild outcry at such ideas. Ho-hum, is the response, usually drowned out by the sound of crickets.

Meanwhile, the left is displaying their trademarked fake outrage, virtue-signalling like crazy, because of Northam’s politically incorrect peccadillo from the past.

Is that not a sign of at best, warped priorities, or at worst, a total lack of functioning moral compass?

The Bible tells us that as we approach the End Times, people will be without natural affections, and that ‘the love of many will wax cold.’ Certainly the left (and some on the right) lack natural affections — toward kin and kind, toward children, towards the old, towards the opposite sex. This is not in accordance with nature or with God’s laws.

The left, lacking natural feelings, can only manage to act out some feigned ‘offense’ — oddly enough on behalf of other people, never on behalf of their own, not even their own children or parents in some cases.

I’d love to confront some of the lefties I know about Northam and those like him, people who deem taking a helpless infant’s life to be of no consequence — just one less superfluous human being in this world. But there can’t be any kind of dialogue with our foes on the left; they are blinded and deafened and without conscience or remorse, bereft of all but the most shallow and insincere emotions. Above all, the ‘truth is not in them’ and thus they cannot be reasoned with.

I would love to see some of my ‘progressive’ relatives be put on the spot and watch them try to come up with some kind of justification for voting for infanticide (and euthanasia) — just try to call yourself a Christian or a moral human being while arguing that killing babies, the ill and the old, is a good thing while politically incorrect transgressions are an outrage to humanity.

My first instinct to news items like this is righteous outrage, but as time goes on and these things seem only to grow more and more egregious with each passing day, it’s hard stay determined, to sustain the effort to stay the tide.

It’s been quoted so frequently, the passage from Yeats which seems to sum up our present struggle:

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

Do we have the necessary degree of conviction, the courage thereof? It will take a lot to match the degree of malignant intensity on the other side.

Has conservatism conserved?

This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always — when about to enter a protest — very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it ”in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”  – Robert L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 4

Along the same lines, Robert Dabney, in an essay called The Public Preaching of Women, wrote this:
‘In this day innovations march with rapid strides. The fantastic suggestion of yesterday, entertained only by a few fanatics, and then only mentioned by the sober to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the recognized usage. Novelties are so numerous and so wild and rash, that in even conservative minds the sensibility of wonder is exhausted and the instinct of righteous resistance fatigued.”

Dabney could hardly have imagined how much more ‘wild and rash’ the world would become by this time.

But to return to the question, is it true, as the currently popular saying has it, that ”conservatism never conserved anything?

That statement has become almost ubiquitous on right-leaning blogs, with bloggers and commenters alike repeating it as gospel truth.

Another question which that blanket condemnation should inspire is: should we even wish to conserve anything of our heritage and our history, or is it all dross, all worthless, as many cynical commenters insist?

The statement that ‘conservatism never conserved anything’ may be a paraphrase of  Rev. R.L. Dabney, as quoted at the top of this page. The quote has been circulated quite a bit on pro-Southern blogs and on right-wing blogs generally in recent times. Regardless of its provenance, the quote has certainly spread like wildfire in recent years.

If Dabney were alive, I doubt that he would want his words or his ideas used to declare ‘conservatism’ per se as useless, and as unnecessary as many in our time expressly say.

It may be that conservatism (as we know it, at least) is a failure, but if so, does it automatically follow that we are better off without something called ‘conservatism’? It does not logically follow that such is the case. However it is popular to believe such things in the current year, and for some people, the popularity of an idea is all-important; if it is not the belief of the majority of those we know it must not be true.

How is conservatism defined? If by ‘conservatism’ we mean an organized political movement or a specific party (Republicans, supposedly) then certainly those institutions have failed, or failed the people they supposedly represent. But just as ‘America’ is not a political system or a ‘proposition’ or any kind of abstraction, so conservatism is not. As has been pointed out often, it is not an ideology, so the phrase ‘conservative ideology’ is an oxymoron. Conservatism is not a systematic ideology but more of an attitude. It varies according to the culture it reflects. People living in a monarchy have a different set of priorities and traditions than people in a Republic (or a ‘democracy’). People living in a Christian culture and practicing the Christian faith will differ from those in a non-Christian setting. So there is no one set ideology or belief system for conservatives, except maybe the emphasis on tradition, continuity, and stability over change and innovation for its own sake.

So why are so many Americans, including right-leaning Americans, soured on conserving what little may be left of our traditions and heritage and culture?

We live in a cynical age, and the cynicism has its roots partially in the fact that few people believe in the things that once held our society together, and the things which provided a kind of cement which united us to a considerable extent. It may be that this can never be revived, but it seems many of us feel relieved to know that ‘the past can never be brought back’ because we’ve become convinced that the past was every bit as bad as the leftists say it was; is this merely sour grapes, or are we now possessed of new information about the past which convinces us that the past is dead and that’s a good thing? Are we really sure we can continue as a nation or a people, believing that our history was never what we thought it was? This kind of thinking (if thinking it is) could have come from a Howard Zinn textbook. Everybody  in the bad old days was racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted. It appears as if the left has won the argument and many of us have essentially accepted defeat, conceding tacitly that yes, things are better now that the left has ”fundamentally transformed” America.

How did this happen? Even the younger right was educated in the propaganda factories that pass as our educational system, and whether it’s acknowledged or not, many have absorbed much of the left’s narrative of Evil America. Can this be a good development?

The Republican Party in its present form along with much of the Republican establishment (the ‘conservative’ media) is a disgrace, and if they were actual Trotskyite operatives out to destroy the GOP and conservatism as such, they would hardly have done anything differently. So actually if the GOP is forever discredited by its behavior in the past, that is a good thing, as I’ve said before, long ago.

The GOP could disappear tomorrow and the right would not be worse off, if we have some kind of representation, some real counter-force to the leftist juggernaut. To say that we don’t need conservatism may sound radical and hard-nosed, but it is just not wise to say that we don’t need any sort of efforts to preserve the last shredded remnants of our heritage. Can we just improvise some new kind of culture to replace the old system, just re-invent the wheel? What we will get, if we don’t work towards a new and healthy counter-culture of the right will be just a post-modern dog’s dinner, with the default being a muddled mixture of the left-wing nonsense with a few ‘right-wing’ ideas. Something has to fill the vacuum if we declare that we have no need of, no use for, tradition and history and the ”old paths”.

Political correctness, with its fantasy ideology of ”equality” has to go as do many of the ideas which even many right-leaning people accept unquestioningly.

To even dream of creating some kind of new culture and society out of whole cloth is just absurd; doing so would be a perfect example of left-radicalism in action, and would risk being a replay of the whole obscene Jacobin experiment. And we know how that worked out. Or do we? Most people educated in our schools have not been taught about the failures of the egalitarian ideologues, or they were taught that the failures were actually triumphs for The People. Santayana warned about the dangers risked by those who do not learn the lessons of history.

As to whether conservatives ever conserved anything, I would cite the modest example of the Hays Code in old Hollywood. Just read comments on any old ‘Hays Code era” movie reviews on IMDB. You will find that almost everyone hates Mr. Will H. Hays just as they hate Joe McCarthy — without knowing why. They just know that any kind of limit on ‘freedom of expression’ or so-called ‘art’ is evil. But imagine, if there had not been a code that prevented the irresponsibility and excesses of the Hollywood movie industry, we would have been led down the slippery slope to today’s kinds of degenerate ‘entertainment’ much sooner, half a century sooner, likely.

Some think it would be better if today’s kind of movies had always been allowed rather than limiting Hollywood’s elites ‘artistic expression.’ But Mr. Hays and his code, vilified though they were and still are by some, fought a kind of rear-guard action and at least delayed the corruption process that led us to today’s ‘entertainment’ industry. However today’s right seems to differ little from the left in their entertainment preferences. No wonder our society has been turned upside down with the loss of our former moral system.

Among others, I think it was Lycurgus of Sparta as well as Sir John Glubb who pointed out that decadent, dissolute societies were inevitably weakened and often conquered once the rot set in, and if only for survival’s sake we should take note.

Some believe that our society just ‘fell’ on its own, but I think most believe that our decline has been engineered. If we have to contend with those who are bent on destroying what our forefathers so arduously built, the least we can do is to try to halt the destruction and to preserve what is good. To say that we need no such efforts (“conservatism”) is to concede defeat.

More accurately, though, we need a restoration, but we must know what it is we are restoring, rather than take the attitude that we should pull it all down, adopting the ‘order from chaos’ idea from the destroying faction.

Dealing with heresies

If you’ve ever watched local newscasts (which I admit I no longer do, myself) you have seen how, when there is a rare report of a UFO sighting,  the ‘news’ anchors snicker and jeer at the report, dismissing it with knowing looks at the camera, and lame jokes. How humiliating for the people who saw and reported a UFO.

And how dishonest. It’s all too obvious that the so-called news media are not merely reporting events objectively, but pushing a point of view. Whose point of view? That of the powers-that-be, which is evident because the coverage is the same no matter where you are in the U.S. If the coverage were honest, and if it were up to the local news people, there would be more variation and more evidence of the input of individual minds with ideas of their own.

But then we know that no such freedom of thought or expression exists in our news media these days. And what little there is left amongst individual people is being eroded as people are increasingly exposed to that single, received point of view pushed by a monolithic media.

Now, in mentioning UFOs, my intent is not to argue for acceptance of the ‘flying saucer’ or ‘alien abduction’ theories; I’m merely using an example of the kind of dishonest and slanted manipulation exercised by the media when they report the news, whether in print, online, or on your local TV channel. In sneering and ridiculing certain ideas, they shame people into agreeing with the official narrative, because a great many Americans don’t want to be outside the consensus or the dictated popular opinion. Hence, people who think there are unidentified craft seen in the skies occasionally have to develop thick skins to cope with the ridicule dealt out to those who are simply open-minded about such possibilities.

The same applies to people who believe there is more to, say, the JFK assassination or the events of 9/11/2001 — or the existence of any sort of conspiracy or cover-up. The respectables among us wouldn’t be caught dead espousing any belief that is sneered at by the opinion-dictators.

Bruce Charlton, an always interesting and thought-provoking blogger has written several pieces on the topic of conspiracy theories.

His latest one is here. In it he explains why it is necessary to the System, as they seem to see it, to suppress such speculations or beliefs, and his explanation is convincing.

Even on the right, where we consider ourselves realists, more open-minded than the dogmatic and totalitarian left, the attitude of ridicule and condescension acts to stifle some of the discussion of such matters, and often there is a kind of posturing as superior on the part of those on the right who dismiss conspiracy theories. Even the very idea of any individual conspiracy is thus seen as evidence of stupidity or ‘paranoia’, resorting to the left’s favorite tactic of psychologizing unpopular points-of-view, labeling them as some kind of disorder or ‘mental illness.’ Thus certain ideas are beyond the pale, preventing any sort of rational and open discussion of the possible facts.

It’s true that some people carry ‘conspiracy theorizing’ too far, finding some dark plot at the heart of any mysterious or unexplainable set of facts. However it’s also nonetheless true that in a theoretically free society there should be room for open discussion, unhindered by sneering and ridicule directed at the people who simply want answers, or at least, free exchange of ideas.

Would those on the right support official suppression of conspiracy theorizing?
Should we be ‘protected’ from ‘dangerous ideas’ or simply ideas deemed deranged, like ‘hollow earth’ or flat-earth theories? Who has the power to declare certain ideas off-limits, to proscribe them? To create penalties and punishments for ‘wrong-think’? Who would hold the power to determine which ideas are crazy or dangerous? Is it crazy or should it be illegal to believe that the moon landing was staged, fake? Is it morally desirable for anyone in authority to infiltrate online discussions in order to discredit or stop conspiracy theories, as per the information in the link above?

And who would decide what constitutes a ”conspiracy theory”? Would the belief have to be definitively proven false before being labeled as such? Or would such labeling, as now, be completely arbitrary?

These days, the idea of climate manipulation in the form of aerosol spraying from aircraft is derided as a conspiracy theory by those who consider themselves arbiters of what is a ‘wacko conspiracy theory’. But yet information about such plans was discussed in Congress years ago, more than once, though not much publicized.  Still the very idea is still laughed at by the respectable arbiters of fact vs. ‘paranoia.’

It’s possible to be too credulous, but erring in the opposite direction is even worse in some ways, leaving us to be manipulated by those with an agenda who think they must not only monitor but dictate what we must believe, or more likely, disbelieve.

The left vs. truth: Who’s winning?

If more proof were needed, the recent story about the Covington Catholic High School boys ”harassing” an Amerindian man illustrates how truly unhinged and rabid the left has become. I know I’ve used those adjectives for years to describe the left, and at the time it seemed as though the words were apt, but then until recently we had no idea how much more crazed and virulent the left could actually be. They’ve long since lost their moorings and are utterly adrift from reality — and have long ago lost any ability  — or desire — to recognize truth.

The latest on this story about the Covington students, who ‘provoked’ people by wearing MAGA hats, has taken several turns since it first broke, with the first reports accusing the students of deliberately provoking an innocent ‘native American’ man, who was surrounded by the boys and supposedly harassed or insulted — why? Just because of his ethnicity or race. The original video was disingenuously edited so as to make the boys the villains of the story, but later, more contextualized videos showed a different story. Meanwhile, hordes of Twitter users tweeted threats to the boys, their families, and their school; the leftist perpetrators did not stop short of death threats.

So far no real consequences have ensued, unless you count a few reluctant, unconvincing apologies from the guilty parties, and maybe a few Twitter bans.
https://www.thewrap.com/vulture-writer-on-covington-students-i-just-want-these-people-to-die-simple-as-that/

The Indian man has since claimed that his behavior was an attempt to defuse a conflict between the high school students and some ‘Black Israel’ cult members who apparently were present on the scene. The Indian, Nathan Philips claimed he served as a Marine in Vietnam (his story has been picked apart since) seeming to think this would win him sympathy or credibility, but he does not come across as credible, given the facts as they are unfolding.

The whole story seems to become more complicated by the minute, with the only obvious truth being that the media are desperate to create, if they cannot find, a story casting White Trump supporters as evil and hateful. In their overeagerness to write such a story they got more careless than usual in picking their villains and heroes/’victims’. It looks as though it’s backfired on them, which is very satisfying to watch.

However, do the general public, the people who don’t really pay that much attention to facts and fine details, know or care what the truth is here? Or will the inattentive news consumers simply absorb whatever of this story confirms their existing biases or ignorance? Does anyone not on the right even care about truth, or acknowledge that there is such a thing as objective, verifiable truth?

Stories like this one make me wish the late Dr. David Yeagley were still with us to offer his cogent commentary, and to offer a sound, non-leftist, politically incorrect opinion on this story.

For those who don’t know who David Yeagley was, he was a Comanche Indian (and yes, he said ‘Indian’ and not ‘Native American’) and an academic, a professor, but that rarest of rare birds, an academic whose mind was not eaten away by political correctness and left-wing cant. He spoke somewhat dismissively of ‘campus Indians’ who were completely captive to political correctness and progressive dogma; he knew that it was not always the case that Indians were militantly anti-White as in recent years.

Dr. Yeagley was a true friend of ‘heritage Americans’ and he often expressed his wish that we prevent our country from being taken from us by mass immigration and replacement.
Indians like those Dr. Yeagley called ‘campus Indians’ are somehow oblivious to the fact that the existential threat to them is not from the dwindling ‘heritage Americans’ but from the constant stream of immigrants from the four corners of the globe, who seem not to care that they are displacing the existing populations of this continent, including American Indians. And the Hispanics who are trying to capitalize on this controversy by making demands for obeisance from White Americans are utterly disingenuous; they expect everyone to believe that they, being ”indigenous” are somehow the same as the American Indians who were here when our ancestors arrived. What brazenness; and yet so many people are taken in by that particular falsehood.

Although this incident has stirred up so many ugly feelings on the left, it could result in some good if it illustrates for the few perceptive people remaining that the left is on the verge of losing the last shreds of sanity — and decency.

Free speech disappearing

No matter what those responsible may say, it seems as if there is a determined effort to squeeze those with politically incorrect (non-leftist, non-globalist) views out. I notice that whenever I try to visit certain blogs, one of them being Anonymous Conservative, I am blocked from accessing it. Today, clicking on a link to another blog which I normally don’t visit, I am likewise blocked. It appears Cloudflare is responsible.

This blog’s traffic is now all but nonexistent — maybe not surprising since I’ve been posting more rarely and also losing readership it seems — but it looks as though I now get no traffic from search engines.

It appears as though generally, blogs with viewpoints outside the dictated range of opinion are being squeezed out of existence. The idea is to starve blogs of traffic and/or discourage bloggers who have ”wrong” political opinions, (those not approved by the self-elected gatekeepers), from bothering to blog at all. Mind you I’m not blaming the ‘censors’ or our ‘moral betters’ for this blog’s seeming failure, not completely, but it certainly doesn’t help that there are those who want non-left politics silenced all the way around, and they seem to hold all the cards.

What’s the answer to this?  I really have no idea. Meanwhile some right-wing blogs continue to thrive despite the extremely hostility towards free speech for those who are deemed to be ”thought criminals.” The way things look now, it would seem very easy to silence all non-approved free speech.

And where is ”our” president on this? Just asking….

 

Russian emigration

A report from Russia indicates that the numbers of people leaving Russia are greatly underestimated. The most recent data available, from 2017, shows that 377,000 Russians left that year, which is a six-year record.

Where are they going? My guess would have been that the most popular destination countries would be the U.S., and Israel. It turns out that those countries are among the most popular for Russian emigrants. Also among the most popular is Germany.

Apparently there is a ‘diaspora’ of 25 to 30 million Russian speakers — quite a large number of people.  Unfortunately for Russia many of those leaving are the young, and this is contributing to an ‘aging Russia’.  This of course leads to a shortage of labor, and can become justification for accepting large numbers of immigrants. We hear this excuse frequently, from those who favor open borders for our country and for historically White countries — we need ‘hard-working’ immigrants to do the jobs that our supposedly lazy populace won’t do. European countries are also subjected to this line of propaganda.

Russia does admit large numbers of immigrants. According to this article from 2013, the Russian Federation is the world’s second largest immigration haven. Many of the immigrants come from kindred Eastern European countries, which does not pose as much of a problem for Russians.

Russia also has received large numbers of refugees, such as Azerbaijanis, Armenians, and Turks, and in more recent years refugees from more far-flung countries — African countries, for instance.  The Russian government has expressed a welcoming attitude towards the Boer descendants from South Africa and Zimbabwe, despite politically correct sentiments in many Western countries who offer no haven for the besieged Boers.

So does this influx of many immigrants and ‘refugees’ cause the exodus of many Russians or is it the opposite situation, where the outflow of younger people necessitates more immigration?

The ironic thing about this situation is that many right-wing Americans see Russia as an exemplar of a strong, nationalistic country, upholding its own culture and historic religion. More than a few Americans harbor ideas of emigrating to Russia, because of their admiration for Vladimir Putin or for Russia itself. Meanwhile, it seems many Russians are intent on coming to this country, or Germany, or the UK.

One question that often occurs to me: given the U.S. government’s policy of preference for non-White, third-world immigrants, almost exclusively, how is it that such large numbers of Russians and other Eastern Europeans are allowed to immigrate, while other White nationalities are not allowed to come here? It’s an exception without an obvious explanation. Many Irish immigrants, by contrast,  come here illegally because of their difficulty in getting visas, likewise with other kindred countries in Europe, yet Eastern Europeans seem to be given preference.

I am neither anti-Russian nor pro-Russian when it comes to immigration; I think Russian immigration can be both good and bad. Russian immigrants are a mixed bag, with a good few becoming dependent on social programs while others are productive. Many are ‘nice’ people, if that is a criterion for coming here.

Nonetheless I’m not in favor of multiculturalism or mass immigration in general. The globalists have been encouraging and funding this vast game of musical chairs in which all the nations of the world are being put together in the ultimate ‘melting pot’, where all cultures, tongues, and peoples are getting blended away.  It’s pretty cold comfort to be told that at least we will be displaced and replaced by ‘nice, hard-working’ people, or that our children will be replaced or blended with people who are ‘more like us.’

Country-shopping is not a way of life; it spells rootlessness, deracination, loss of kin-bonding and culture. If the globalists’ spell is broken,  I hope that in time we’ll see and end to this global shuffle of peoples.