A few more words on Columbus Day

In a Columbus Day post, Alberto Zambrano explains how those who trash Columbus — and the day which honors him — justify their attitudes.

“History of mankind is one of conflict and constant competition for limited resources: Water, earth, food and women. Those who trash Columbus day want to make people believe that the pre columbine societies were much more advanced than the european societies and history has proven that this isn’t the case. Europeans have proven to be better in these sorts of disputes, conflicts and competences than any other race in the face of the earth, the indigenous peoples were losers, and their friends and successors want europeans to feel sorry, shame and regret for being better than the savages in matters of conquest and exploration.”

He is right about the anti-Columbus crowd and their ‘sore loser’ mentality. In fact that’s the whole history of the “aggrieved victim” mentality vs. those who bested them in conflict or conquered them. The thought that their side lost is unbearable to them, and they will settle for nothing less than revenge in some form, and now that mentality takes the form of forcing guilt, contrition and apologies from the descendants of their conquerors. They simply want to turn the tables, and make us grovel, and too often they succeed, fueling more demands for apologies and appeasement. The cycle shows no signs of ever ending.

So much of the Columbus Day discussion centers on claims of atrocities by the European explorers and colonists against the ‘indigenous peoples’, even to the extent of charging Columbus with ”genocide”. I still maintain that the term genocide ought to be reserved for actual extermination of a people, not things like forcing them to speak European languages, or forbidding their often bloodthirsty ‘religions’. The fact is that these peoples for the most part still exist; they were not victims of ‘genocide’. They survived not only to ‘tell the tale’ but to complain endlessly of the injustices supposedly done to them.

Most White people are willing to accept at least some guilt for what the earliest European explorers and colonists did, willingly believing the leftist narrative of victimhood vs. oppression, and accepting that their ancestors were the villains. When presented with evidence of horrible atrocities committed by ‘indigenous’ peoples against Whites, they are easily gulled into thinking that the stories of savagery on the part of the indigenous were ‘exaggerated’ if not completely false. As with the following comment from another website:

“I’ve read a couple places that Columbus and sailors before him started the cannibalism rumor to justify enslaving and killing the natives, which certainly makes more sense to me.”

Again, from Alberto Zambrano’s blog piece:

“All of the elements that have sustained previous forms of success and european western pride are either in decline or withered to the extreme. What the west must do is to awaken and stop giving terrain to the demands of minorities and other groups that demand from majorities a more liberal mindset.”

Yes. All too often White people try to meet the other side halfway and concede vital points to them, such as this kind of thing: ‘Yes, Columbus and his men were brutal to the natives and they enslaved them…’ or in other cases, ”yes, slavery was a great evil, an abomination, an atrocity, but at least we abolished slavery and stopped forcing Christianity on the natives…”

This kind of response is weak because it is defensive, and it concedes too much to the other side. The other side sees it as weak and continues to attack our Achilles heel of wanting to be conciliatory and ”fair.”

And I find it disgusting that the people who try to appease in this fashion are affecting some kind of moral superiority over those of Columbus’ time, or those of the early colonial days. My ancestors, like those of many Americans, had to fight for survival against often hostile and yes, savage natives, people who often attacked at night, stealthily, showing no quarter to the old, the weak, to children, or women. These same hostile Indians did in fact treat captives brutally, often torturing them, and doing so with open enjoyment. Our ancestors tried to live peaceably alongside these people(s) at first, and too often found that their newfound Indian ”friends” would turn on them and attack them treacherously out of the blue.

Modern Americans who apologize for or condemn their colonist ancestors for using force should be ashamed. Were it not for their ancestors’ tough-mindedness and willingness to fight for their families and their own lives and property they (we) would not be here today. We have them to thank for our very existence here. We should look up to them, and never be ashamed or apologetic. If we do so, we disgrace them, and are unworthy of them.

As Zambrano says in closing his piece,

“It is really foolish and decadent when western men, that have never have had to subdue entire tribes of savages are forced to morally condemn those men that in a past fought tooth and nail to take the continent for their Kingdom. Those men who’s blood, swear, tears, pain, broken bones bought peace at a very high cost for the territories over which liberals cry and communists fantasize about by lying to the public by saying that the indians were good savages.”


Europe: Independence or union?

I haven’t written anything on the Catalonian independence issue, not because of lack of interest in it, but because it is a complicated issue, and like most outsiders, I don’t have in-depth knowledge of the overall situation, and felt a need to learn more about it.

John Bruce Leonard at Countercurrents touches on the Catalonian issue in this piece at Counter-Currents, as well as the larger issue of the European Union, and whether the fact that the age we live in impels us towards the nation-state and ultimately ‘global governance.’ Leonard’s piece is in response to a comment by a reader who raised these questions, and Leonard makes some good points in favor of independence or balkanization vs. a pan-European superstate or federation.

I’ve written against the latter a number of times, but it is a popular idea amongst some on the right, mostly WNs, who believe that being White is  enough to bind the many European or European-descended peoples together under one government or nation-state. The very fact that there has been violence associated with a peaceful vote on Catalonian independence, with Spain apparently wanting to keep the Catalonians under Spanish rule by force, should illustrate the unrealistic nature of the belief in pan-Europeanism or some kind of White state encompassing disparate European groups. Also, the fact is, the Catalonian people and their culture are no doubt distinct from the Spanish to some extent, but they are not genetically distant peoples. As with many other European ethnicities who seem similar to outsiders, and who may in fact be close cousins genetically, there are distinctions that matter to the people of those ethnic groups. Trying to compel them to live in one nation-state is often a recipe for conflict.

It’s for this reason that I think the European Union is not a good thing, and its totalitarian policies only confirm this in my mind. I think Catalonia would be foolish, if they become independent, to want to stay in the EU, just as I think the Scots are foolish to want to remain in the EU, while threatening to leave the UK.

I think, for this reason and because Scots tend to favor leftist policies, including mass immigration, Scots nationalism is not true nationalism. Catalonia apparently is similar in that they have a significant Moslem population which they seem to accept.

“A fiery editorial in right-wing newspaper La Razon branded Catalonia the “capital of Salafism in Spain.” With this reference to an ultra-conservative branch of Islam, polemicist Alfonso Ussía took aim at local politicians for avoiding the issue and suggested local Muslims had not shown sufficient anxiety.”

Theirs is a strange kind of nationalism if they accept Islam in their midst, especially considering that Moslems occupied the Iberian peninsula until 1492, and a ‘Reconquista’ was required to free Spain and Portugal from Moslem rule.

The Scots, too, seem eager to prove their Islamophilic bona fides by having Moslem members in the Scottish Nationalist [sic] Party, and this policy goes back some years.

However, just because I think these countries are not nationalistic in a true sense, perhaps believing in what we call ‘civic nationalism’, based on documents and ‘citizenship’ or based on adhering to some creed or ideology, they still should be independent. Just as the Confederate states in our country wanted the right to govern themselves and not be held in a ‘shotgun marriage’ with a hostile North, so should these nations have a right to be left alone and to work out their own destiny.

Balkanization,if you like, ethnonationalism and self-rule, self-sufficiency, being governed by our own kinsmen, is better than rule by strangers in distant places, people who do not have our interests at heart.

Yes, it’s Columbus Day

Well, technically it isn’t ‘Columbus Day’ because that day falls on October 12. But even though it is not really Columbus Day, I will commemorate it here, in defiance of the PC kommissars who want to force ‘Indigenous People’s Day’ on us.


Artist’s depiction of Christopher Columbus

The late Sam Francis understood what this war on our heritage was really all about.

“What is being fought in the jihad against the Confederate Flag, Thanksgiving, Columbus Day and Christmas is not the ’sexism, racism, anti-lesbian and gay bigotry’ and other pastimes of Western man but the West itself and its local manifestation in American civilization. The isms being denounced are icing on the cake. The real target is the cake itself, and those taking aim at it know the only way they can get to it is by scraping off the symbols and icons that represent it in the minds of most Americans. Americans who still care what the real meanings of their holidays, as opposed to the three-day orgies of stuffing, guzzling and spending the national ruling class wants them to mean, need to know that the war against holidays is a war against their country and against them. If they don’t hang together in defending each others’ myths and icons, sooner or later their enemies will hang all of them separately.

So let’s observe our holidays and traditions while they are still legal. If things continue as they are, such observances will be made illegal, and observances punishable by law. Think I’m exaggerating? Look at what’s happening with our Confederate symbols.

You Tube ‘censoring’ search results?

From GlobalNews.ca:

“YouTube is modifying its search algorithms to prevent conspiracy theories and fake news videos from making it to the top of its search results, following outrage over the high visibility of videos spreading misinformation about the Las Vegas mass shootingthe Wall Street Journal reports.”

We know that Google seems to be doing this kind of thing, altering algorithms to push to the bottom of the search results anything that conflicts with The Narrative. I find this whenever I do web searches, even when using alternative search engines like duckduckgo or Startpage or Ixquick. They evidently use Google results but supposedly refrain from tracking the user or collecting and storing data about the user. And YouTube/Google have proven to be, in effect, just another arm of the government, enforcing ‘political correctness, attempting to stifle anything that questions the official Narrative.

There is still a large segment of the right, or should I say the ‘right’, that strongly oppose anything they deem a ‘conspiracy theory’, and generally it’s just good sense to exercise discernment when we come across speculations from people on the Internet or IRL. As the saying goes, “don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out,” but on the other hand, it is wrong for the Powers That Be to ‘protect’ us from conspiracy theories or other speculations about ‘what really happened’ in events like the Vegas shooting.

The Vegas shooting? Some out there would say that there was no such event; it was all a staged ‘psy-op’ involving ‘crisis actors’ and lots of fake blood and false testimonies from phony ‘witnesses’. We’ve heard this about any number of other shocking events.

If this is the case, are we likely to ever find incontrovertible proof of such fakery? Would TPTB be so careless as to fail to cover their tracks? I think that at the very least it is a dead end to speculate about such events being staged.

Nevertheless I don’t like anybody, YouTube or anyone else trying to suppress speculations which conflict with the official narrative.

There are many people who dismiss conspiracy theories per se, regardless of their merits or lack thereof. There is a tendency on the part of these people to go into knee-jerk mode when anyone even hints at a mystery regarding some event. It’s easy to scoff without even hearing the other side, a tendency to shut out anything that would raise questions or suspicions. Some people can’t stand a mystery and would prefer to close their eyes and ears. And the media have fostered this attitude in many cases. The media’s function seems to be to put across the ‘correct’ scenario, and in doing this, they are quick to ridicule anyone who differs with the official line.

Those in power do not like conspiracy theories or conspiracy theorists, though they concede, as in this paper, that some conspiracies do happen and have happened. Sunstein and Vermeule in the linked paper say that some conspiracy theories pose ‘risks’ and should be ‘dispelled’ or ‘rebutted’, and one of the means suggested was infiltration:

“Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them.

We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy- minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.”

With the Internet being the main source of many such ‘risky’ theories, it would seem the Internet — blogs, YouTube, forums, social media — would be a target for infiltration. We know that there are paid operatives on the Internet; other countries employ them, and certainly ours has done. Spreading disinformation and sowing discord and confusion amongst various dissident-leaning groups is something that has been discussed.

“One promising tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. By this we do not mean 1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.

How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups, including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior, their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts. Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

So, some of those spreading bizarre theories may be these operatives, and anybody who stirs up discord and division, pitting one group against another is not trustworthy in my opinion. There are blogs where certain individuals specialize in expressing over-the-top ideas and causing divisions that way; some stir up animosity based on region, ethnicity, sex, or age group. I’ve noticed some blogs which seem rife with this kind of thing and it is demoralizing. Whether the people who stir things up are paid operatives acting according to plan, or whether they are ‘genuine’, yet polarizing and divisive naturally, the effect they have is toxic; they may as well be paid political operatives or provocateurs, for all intents and purposes.

I disagree with banning conspiracy theories, even though I find some of them bizarre and unhelpful. Opposing such discussion usually leads to more conspiracy theorizing, because it has the feel of the heavy hand of the Powers That Be, and it fuels more suspicion and cynicism.

However the proliferation, in recent years, of theories about how these traumatic events ‘never happened’ leads to a great deal of confusion; these theories could, in some cases, actually be part of a disinformation campaign, meant to confuse and gaslight us, and once we no longer rely on common sense, or trust anyone, or believe our eyes, the likely result is resignation and a feeling of helplessness and passivity. If we can’t know, how can we act? All that is left is to withdraw into our entertainment and distractions, and disengage from any kind of participation in the larger world. I am certain that this is just what our overlords would like for us to do.

What motivated the Vegas shooter?

Lots of blog posts and news articles are speculating on why the Las Vegas shooter killed 50+ people and wounded many others. I’m sure you’ve all read quite a few such stories, and I don’t know if there is anything original left to say. I do know that all the facts are probably not in, and I suspect that any facts that conflict with the desired ‘narrative’ will stay unknown, or be covered up and rationalized away.

The ‘journalists’ at Newsweek, predictably, point out that it is White men who commit more mass shootings ‘than any other group.’ How do the Newsweek crowd and their fellow lefties at Mother Jones (which source they cite) define ‘group’? Do they include Moslems? I suspect that would be politically incorrect. Or do Moslems just prefer different kinds of weaponry in their mass killings? But the biggest example of dishonesty in naming White men as most likely to be mass killers is the fact that in this country White men are still (for now) the numerical majority, and thus in raw numbers will represent the largest numbers. The writer of the Newsweek piece, in the last paragraph, actually mentions this, as if grudgingly, but the average unaware reader would take away only the message that ‘White men are mass murderers, more so than any other group.’

These half-truths, or twisted facts, taken out of context, are doing us a great deal of damage.

On another blog, someone doubts that the ‘suspect’, Paddock, was “the type” to commit this act, saying that his bio just didn’t show a likely mass murderer. As if things always add up and make perfect sense in this world. People, all of us, are complex, and a quick look at someone’s biography, as reported by those who may be biased or dishonest, does not tell us everything about the suspect. And it may come as a surprise to some people that the ”experts”, so beloved of news sources, do not know everything and cannot predict who will or will not do such things. Yet even Rush Limbaugh, allegedly ‘conservative’, cites his own ‘expert’ as to the motives of this shooter.

At least one blogger, who is a professional in the mental health field, says that mental health cannot predict these things, and explains why.

I’ve often asked those who recommend that we ‘keep track’ of people with mental health problems and try to find in advance those who might ‘snap’ and kill people: suppose we could predict such things? What then? Could people be arrested pre-emptively in case they might be dangerous?

This shooting has brought some odious and twisted comments from the anti-White left on Twitter and elsewhere. This woman, a lawyer and a vice-president in the media was reportedly fired for her callous and malicious comments about the shooting victims. The fact that she is Jewish, some will say is irrelevant, but when her kinds of views are expressed with alarming frequency amongst prominent Jews — is it just coincidence?

I am no coincidence theorist.

However I don’t pretend to know what happened at that fateful concert and I don’t know that we will ever know the whole story. I suspect we will read more of the now-standard claims of ‘crisis actors’, false flags, patsies, sleepers, etc.

Some, even on ‘conservative’ sites, speculated that Paddock might be a ”White supremacist.” Assuming such a thing exists, would a ‘supremacist’ marry or set up housekeeping with a nonwhite woman, as this man supposedly did? If so then the label ‘White supremacist’ doesn’t mean what it’s purported to. Absurd.

Was the shooter an Islamic convert? Was his Indonesian-via-Australia female ‘girlfriend’ or wife Moslem?  Was she a mail-order bride? Does it matter?

There is still so much speculation swirling around that it seems impossible to make sense of it. Some of the information may be mixed with disinformation, assuming (as I do) the basic dishonesty of the media.

But in this life a great deal of what happens doesn’t make sense, especially in recent years, where it seems ‘things fall apart; the center cannot hold.’ It’s become a cliché to quote that phrase from Yeats, but more and more, it describes our times.




‘Divide and Conquer’

In a recent post at the Amerika blog, Brett Stevens discusses the trope which has it that our ‘elite’ overlords purposely divide us racially, the “us” being the citizenry collectively.

He describes this trope as being rooted in the teachings of Karl Marx, who described how this practice was used to artificially divide the English working class and their Irish counterparts. Marx, seeing everything in terms of class struggle, evidently believed that were it not for the divisive efforts of the ‘ruling class’, who used the media and other public institutions to keep the poor Irish and the English workers from uniting against their common foe, the ‘capitalist class.’

This of course presupposes that the English and the Irish had no natural differences which might cause the existing divisions; to Marx, being an outsider, the English and the Irish probably seemed almost identical to his perceptions.

So did the ‘ruling classes’ of England create any animosity that existed between the Irish workers, whose presence in England undercut wages and took jobs away from the indigenous people, and the English? At worst, they probably could be said to have exacerbated or exploited existing differences. But we might say nature caused any conflicts that existed. Or, as a Christian, I would say God creates ethnic differences, and at Babel he created linguistic divisions and scattered the peoples, thus creating geographical separations and territorial boundaries. See Deuteronomy 32.

Marx also makes an analogy between the situation of the Irish-English antagonism and that between the black in America and the ‘poor White’, who because of economic rivalry looked down on the black, according to Marx. So, while acknowledging the fact that antipathy between the groups existed, he plays down all the factors other than the economic, and sees the ‘ruling classes’ as keeping this animus alive.

When first reading the linked blog piece, I took exception to the denial that the ‘divide and rule’ tactic is being used by the left or by ‘the powers that be’, because it seems evident to me that there has been a decades-, or centuries-long effort to worsen divisions.

However, I see the point which Stevens seems to be making, if I understand correctly; just as with Marx, the media have us think that we could and should be a united country, with race and ethnicity being trivial factors, overridden by our ”common humanity” and our ‘brotherhood as children of God’, as mainstream Judeo-Christians insist.

I’ve been in this world long enough to know that there was never a state of bliss in this country, with a colorblind citizenry all holding hands and celebrating our unity-in-diversity. Any peace and ‘harmony’ that existed across racial and ethnic lines was made possible by the preservation of boundaries, by our agreement, often tacit, to live parallel but separate lives, remembering Frost’s line about “good fences” making “good neighbors.”

However there are generations grown up after the Civil Rights coup who know no other way of life than this multi-cult New World Order, in which we must ‘Celebrate Diversity Or Else.’ They don’t know that there was no golden age of race relations in which blacks were all law-abiding, monogamous, and conservative, as the colorblind Republicans say. And neither were there any evil old days in which White people conducted a nonstop reign of terror over frightened nonwhites.

People are people; differences, even intraracial differences (as those between English and Irish, or Ukranians and Russians, for example) exist, and frictions, up to and including warfare, happen. We can’t wave a magic wand and make those things disappear.


you will not divide us PC twaddle

Whoever created the poster (which I found on Pinterest) demands, in a suspiciously belligerent way, that we all love each other as everyone in Louisiana does, according to this totalitarian-sounding message. “You will not divide us!” the anonymous propagandist declares, after he/she has ordered all the haters out there: “Don’t bring your hate to Louisiana!” The person who wrote that line would have us think Louisiana is a ‘hate-free zone’, knowing nothing of any animosities that the toxic outside world teems with.

But this is an example of the mindset that pretends, and wants to force the rest of us to pretend, that ”hate”, whatever that may mean today or any given day, would not exist except for the presence of outside agitators who are the serpents threatening the Garden of Eden, innocent Louisiana.

By the way, I have a soft spot for Louisiana, especially South Louisiana, having spent part of my childhood there. So while I have no grudge against Louisiana or any of the people therein, I think the truth is a must for everybody; adult people have to face up to the truth instead of creating make-believe narratives in which everybody would love each other if we could only banish ‘hate’ and ‘haters.’

And who is being ‘divisive’? Is it those who recognize racial and ethnic distinctions, and who acknowledge that our ethnic interests usually come into conflict with others’ ethnic interests? Or is it the petty tyrants to believe in a kind of coerced ‘unity’, and who would, rather than preserving boundaries, forcibly ”join together what God hath put asunder?”

The ‘elites’ definitely work with all their might to divide White people within nations, as we see; recent clashes were more about White xenophiles vs. White ethnopatriots, not Whites against nonwhites. The ‘powers-that-be’ fear united Whites and they have very effectively worked to create animosities within the White fold.

As for the Whites threatening the idyllic universal love-fest that is said to exist in Louisiana, that idea is a cynical attempt to enforce xenophilia or to silence anybody who does not buy the Narrative.

Yes, divide and rule or ‘divide and conquer’, as the Romans applied it, is being used against Whites, but nature, or God created the original divisions.

Richard Weaver on brotherhood, equality

“The ancient feeling of brotherhood carries obligations of which equality knows nothing. It calls for respect and protection, for brotherhood is status in family, and family is by nature hierarchical… It is eloquent of that loss of respect for logic to which we owe so many disasters that the French Revolution made equality and fraternity co-ordinates… How much of the frustration of the modern world proceeds from starting with the assumption that all are equal, finding that this cannot be so, and then having to realize that one can no longer fall back on the bond of fraternity!… Nothing is more manifest than that as this social distance has diminished and all groups have moved nearer equality, suspicion and hostility have increased. In the present world there is little of trust and less of loyalty. People do not know what to expect of one another. Leaders will not lead, and servants will not serve…” – Richard Weaver, excerpted from Ideas Have Consequences

The Tennessee church shootings

Surprisingly — or maybe not — there’s been very sparse coverage of the shootings in Tennessee recently. Now, it’s a cliche to say it, and it’s painfully obvious, that if/when a White man shoots up a black church, the media go into overdrive with coverage and ‘analysis’ by the usual politically correct shills. But as the murderer this time was from Africa, and an immigrant, the story is being hushed up, it seems, as it’s all but disappeared from the news, even from the right-wing blogs.

I can see how some of the more PC Republicans don’t like to discuss this kind of story; they may make some feeble protestations about our lax immigration policies, but this shooter was, by the accounts I’ve read, apparently here legally. If he were here illegally, the liberal ‘castrated conservatives’ would be denouncing illegal immigration and in the next sentence, saying ‘I’m not against immigration, just illegal immigration!’ Yes, even now some of those liberal Republicans cling to the old trope about how ‘legal immigrants play by the rules; they get in line and go through the correct procedures, and they make good Americans!

And then there’s this trope, or some variation thereof, which gets passed around the various ‘pro-White’ or mainstream GOP blogs: ”The African immigrants are much more intelligent than the American-born ones; they are well-educated, polite, and well spoken, and they have a good work ethic.” If I had a dollar for every time I’ve read that over the past couple of decades…and why do so many White Americans cling to pollyannaish ideas like that about various kinds of nonwhites? The same thing is said about Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Caribbean blacks.

I’ve speculated that it’s another formula whereby Whites with some kind of guilty conscience or fear of being called the ‘r-word’, or whites who just want to reassure themselves that they are not ”racist” try to nullify the stigma of saying something vaguely un-PC. So they grasp at such straws, and search diligently to find the ‘good ones’ that they can say flattering things about: African blacks with “conservative values” or pious Latin Americans who work harder than lazy Whites, or Asians who zealously promote academic excellence in their children.

So when an Emanuel Kidega Samson shoots some White people in a Tennessee church, a lot of people on the fake right are strangely silent. There are, if people are willing to consider the uncomfortable truths, many examples of people’s favorite nonwhites and immigrants committing crimes of this nature.

Maybe, in an ideal world, it should be a positive trait, this desire to find ‘the good ones’ or to praise some out-group as a way of trying to be ‘fair-minded’ or understanding. However, judging by history and the current news headlines, it’s evident that some wariness, at the very least, is warranted in dealing with those who are not-us, who don’t share our genetics and culture, and consequently hold grudges against us, fear or hate us, whose violent tendencies are a danger to us.

The rosy-colored glasses have to go. Reality has to be accepted and dealt with, regardless of whose ‘feelings’ are hurt by the truth.


On why Europe is being flooded…

…with ‘refugees’ and assorted third-world immigrants.

You Tube blogger Brit Girl explains why this is happening, and according to her, it is the result of something called the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, which took effect at the end of 2010. But if you watch her video (it’s around  6-7 minutes) she explains it. I leave it to you to discern how valid this information is, but it does appear plausible to me — at least as one piece of the puzzle.

Sorry I can’t embed the video, but it’s here.

[H/T Col. B. Bunny at Intergalactic Source of Truth]

Universal love is no love

At least if you are a mere human being; I think it is safe to say that nobody in this world really has the ability to love ‘everybody’. In this universe, only God is capable of that, and even he has those he hates. Some of my Christian acquaintances don’t believe this; the God they believe in loves absolutely everybody. But as I’ve often said, love is not love if it’s not exclusive and particularistic. Love is bias. We prefer some individuals when we love them, and we care about their well-being whereas we are indifferent to the multitudes out there, the billions of people we will never meet. Love means we pick and choose, and some people have our attention and our affection while others don’t, and can’t.

In his article “Love of All is Love of None” Huntley Haverstock writes about this, and also discusses the recent research about the role played by the hormone oxytocin in bonding us to others.

“Studies have discovered that mice which are genetically engineered to be incapable of responding to oxytocin lose the ability to distinguish between mice from their own group and outsiders. Guess what science discovered in 2010? Here’s an interesting study title:“Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. After an injection of oxytocin, participants became less likely to sacrifice the life of an individual in order to save the lives of a group in the classical trolley problem—if and only if that individual was a member of the same race.”

Of course the politically correct crowd find this unacceptable, because in their view, preference for our own must indicate that we ”hate” others, and I remember when the first reports came out on that research, some on the right speculated that the PC establishment would look for ‘antidotes’ to oxytocin as a way of ‘curing’ people of love for their own. It seems that decades of propaganda have had some effect in creating all these ‘global citizens’ that the article refers to, and the [Judeo]Christians who claim to, or aspire to, love everybody in the entire world. But the fact that there are any people left who still have some love for kin and kind is alarming to the globalist/universalist “lefties and luvvies“, as my English acquaintances call them.

I remember an old Charles Schulz cartoon depicting Lucy saying ”I love mankind; it’s people I can’t stand.” That’s the average lefty; they profess to love ‘mankind’ universally but they can’t stand actual human individuals — especially those of their own ethnicity and culture — unless those people mirror their own preferences and ideology. Everyone else is The Enemy.

Nobody can love an abstraction or a disembodied idealized human, not in any real sense. But our natural affinities should be for kin and kind, spouses and families. As for ‘love’, that word has been so cheapened and overused that it has lost much of its power.  Love is by nature something that is rare and which belongs rightly to those few people with whom we have a truly strong bond.