Celebrities and ‘change agents’

The recent death of another rock ‘legend’ is still being lamented on social media sites like Tumblr, even though most of the people there are not old enough to remember the latest deceased rocker.

He had something in common with other such rock celebrities who died during the last year or so: he was a rebel against conventional sexual morality. His criminal record, however,  is mostly swept under the rug in recent years, even before his death. And articles like that linked just above, from the ‘History’ channel, seem to downplay the seriousness of the allegations and to minimize Berry’s culpability. The racial aspect of it is highlighted by mentioning that an ”all-White jury” convicted him (of course Whitey is prejudiced and willing to convict a black man at every possible occasion) and the article defends him by saying his intentions were strictly honest and honorable. He ‘offered legitimate employment in his St. Louis nightclub‘ — but to a 14-year-old girl? Maybe she was ‘precocious’ as some euphemistically put it, but in what state can a 14-year-old legally work in a night club? And the laws were more strictly enforced in 1959.

This article from NPR’s website unabashedly blames the Mann Act itself, stating that it was expressly written to be used against people like black boxer Jack Johnson with his White (white?) mistress. The article also implies that the Mann Act was a response to what the biased writers call ‘hysteria’ over what was called ‘white slavery’, or the abduction of young women into prostitution in the early 20th century. The writers imply that many such women were not forced into that life, but were simply ‘sexually active young women’ whom society wished to punish for their ‘sexual freedom.’

The NPR writers attempt to revise history, implying that the attempt to curb prostitution was based on “hysteria.” In the last couple of years, I’ve read a great many books from older eras, books actually written then, not written by (post)modern writers and their tainted point of view, and yes, there was an ‘industry’ if you can call it that involving trapping young women, many of whom were rather sheltered and naive in those days, into a life of prostitution. ‘Inexperienced’ girls were most in demand and drew high prices. There were interstate rings of what would now be called ‘human trafficking’.  Hence the need for the Mann Act. Most of the reports indicated Jewish domination of these rings. Transporting of these girls extended across national borders too, with many girls and women sent across the Pacific to China and elsewhere, where Christian workers found many of them being held literally in cages or cells, disease-ridden and sometimes dying, after having been sold into that life. It is not fantasy or ‘hysteria.’

Now our jaded age thinks that such things are just a matter of personal choice; I’ve had many younger people tell me that prostitution is ‘just another job, a way to make good money’, and as Madonna famously said back in the 80s, ”It’s not exploitation if I’m in charge of it myself.” So prostitution can be ’empowering’ for feminists.

Madonna is another prime example of a celebrity who is serving the function of a ‘change agent’ by altering people’s ideas of what is acceptable, and by helping to subvert traditional morality. Some people, maybe most people, today say that sexual morality is up to the individual; whatever people choose, and/or do in private, has nothing to do with anyone else. But it does. We are social beings. Nobody exists in a vacuum. The consequences of people’s private behavior often affect society, not just the invididual(s) involved.

Celebrities of course have a much-amplified power to affect others’ choices, especially young and gullible people.

People like Madonna, and the recently-deceased David Bowie and Prince — and in his time, Chuck Berry, have had more influence than many like to think.

Michael Jackson, too, with his ‘androgynous’ persona desensitized us to certain behaviors. And celebrity alone enables such people to get away with much, as his story illustrated. People tend, these days, to have almost limitless capacity to overlook aberrant or downright immoral behavior from those that are called ‘talented’ or ‘geniuses’. Society theoretically condemns pedophilia but oddly it can be overlooked if the acccused is a popular public figure. Please notice, at the first link on this page, from a blog which is not at all PC, that the commenters, can only praise Berry.

In 1959, people were not so flexible in their morality and not so forgiving.

In time, though, it seems that Berry has been forgiven. If one wants to be forgiven of anything, it appears, the answer is to be ‘talented and famous.’

Meanwhile society suffers the consequences.

Foretold in 1932

Towardssovietamerica -Money quote - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0315

 

Towarssovietamerica - money quote 2 - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0316a

The above is from a book by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster. The book was titled Towards Soviet America, published in 1932. The writer goes on to describe what the Communist Party planned for America, and for the most part the predictions came true. The feminist movement was part of the agenda, along with the ‘sexual revolution’ which supposedly would ‘free’ women, and allow them a less inhibited sex life, while on the racial front, Foster said that all laws against interracial marriage would be abolished, with racial amalgamation being the goal. Overthrowing traditional attitudes took a few decades to accomplish from the time Foster wrote this book, but they did succeed in making interrracial unions legal. Likewise with their destruction of traditional sexual morality, and they succeeded probably beyond their wildest imaginations there.

However, either Foster was lying or just inaccurate in his predictions about other matters, as when he says that the media will be ‘taken over by the government’ (well, that was probably accomplished as the media appear to be an arm of the leftist establishment) but he further says that the media would then be ‘cleansed of their present trash of sex, crime, sensationalism, and general babbitry‘. On the contrary, the leftist triumph has meant ever more ‘trash of sex, crime, and sensationalism’; they revel in this kind of thing. They have sold it as ‘liberation’ and the ultimate freedom.

Foster seems not to have mentioned one of the fruits of the ‘sexual revolution’, namely the ‘gay rights’ agenda. Did Foster and his generation foresee this part of their plan, or was it just an inevitable result of their destruction of traditional Christian morality and their enshrining ‘personal freedom’ and individual autonomy as a great good?

 

Sham altruism

Those who can feel righteous indignation only about things that directly affect them may have some moral deficiency in their character, and it seems that such deficiencies are more common in our postmodern, narcissistic culture.

On the other hand, I’ve commented here that there is something bizarre and unnatural, not to say phony, about the left’s tendency to get outraged about some wrong that they perceive happening to people in far-off lands, or to their minority clientele/mascots. They have this maddening habit, these lefties, of taking offense on behalf of others who haven’t themselves complained of being offended. Example: the ongoing protests of athletic teams with names like ‘Braves’ or ‘Indians’. Polls have shown that many American Indians (‘Native Americans’, in PC-speak) say they find nothing offensive in such names; some even say the names have a positive connotation to them — yet leftist Whites and other minorities often show outrage on behalf of American Indians. Can’t the supposedly offended speak for themselves? Aren’t the lefties being condescending and paternalistic by claiming to be offended for them? The same thing happens when say, White Republicans set up a howl about how the Democrats ‘keep black people on the plantation’ or ‘liberals destroyed the black family/black community.’ I suspect those complaints originated in the minds of politically correct White people, not from black people themselves. I don’t think most black people would bite the (liberal) hand that feeds them, and provides ‘programs’ for them, programs that are the main source of income for many minorities.

On the Reason.com website, there is a piece about this kind of vicarious moral outrage on the part of the ‘social justice’ crowd.

“When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don’t affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.” But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as “moral outrage”—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one’s own status as a Very Good Person.”

Two professors, Rothschild and Keefer, conducted studies which, to sum up, shows a definite self-serving aspect to this phenomenon — which is just what I would think. We give these meddling lefties far too much credit to ascribe ‘altruism’ to them.

“Ultimately, the results of Rothschild and Keefer’s five studies were “consistent with recent research showing that outgroup-directed moral outrage can be elicited in response to perceived threats to the ingroup’s moral status,” write the authors. The findings also suggest that “outrage driven by moral identity concerns serves to compensate for the threat of personal or collective immorality” and the cognitive dissonance that it might elicit, and expose a “link between guilt and self-serving expressions of outrage that reflect a kind of ‘moral hypocrisy,’ or at least a non-moral form of anger with a moral facade.”

It’s a veneer of morality and solicitousness but the motivation behind it is to present a moral pose, a front to the world, and to claim the moral high ground.

Don’t let’s be fooled by it.

H/T to commenter ‘Anonymous’ at Steve Sailer’s blog for the link.

Whose agenda is being served

The controversy around Milo continues to grow, and it looks as though the ‘right’, whoever that term includes at any given moment, is becoming more polarized around it. Some are saying that ‘the left’ is causing the division, and maybe the leftists are exacerbating it, as that serves their interest. So is the answer to just dig in our heels and defend Milo et al , in knee-jerk fashion, just because the left attacks him? Maybe they are trying to use simple reverse psychology to get the younger right-wing to rush to Milo’s defense, and in so doing ultimately legitimize the presence of flagrant homosexuality and even (through association) with alleged pedophilia. I mean, how can anyone on the right credibly reject pedophilia and pretend that Milo is not in any way associated with it? It destroys all credibility on this issue on the right. The left would like the right to shut up about ‘Pizzagate’ and yes, they would also like to lower the age of consent and decriminalize certain taboo behaviors. It would suit them fine if the right began to go soft on all these issues — which it seems is the direction the younger ‘right’ is heading.

Whose agenda is being helped by this defense of Milo? What is also happening is that anyone on the right, whether through religious/moral scruples or other concerns, criticizing Milo is being branded a ‘concern troll’ or a Bible-thumping fogey. Either way these defenders are sounding more and more like lefties every day, both in their socially libertarian mores and in their tendency to call names and hurl ad hominems at those who differ with them. There will either be no place for Biblically-faithful Christians on the new right, or the Christians who are not driven away will succumb to peer pressure and go along with this new-found ‘right-wing’ tolerance. Either way, this is not a ‘win’ for our side; the left will win ultimately, as they’ve done so far, with their insidious tactics.

And does the presence of Milo, even as an ‘outside ally’ benefit ethnonationalism or the pro-White cause? Championing a half-Jewish and pro-miscegenist personality helps the racially-aware right how, again? If anything it undermines the side.

‘Desensitize, jam, and convert’

The phrase above describes the strategy outlined by a pair of ‘gay’ activists back in 1988. These two activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, co-wrote a book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.

As of the 1990s, I think we could safely say their goal was pretty much realized. Think back to the late 1980s, those of you whose memories extend back that far: America’s ”fear and hatred”, or at least suspicion or disdain, of homosexuals was mostly neutralized by the 90s, with more and more people saying that ‘whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, between consenting adults, is nobody else’s business.’ Or they became sympathetic to gays because of AIDS. Or else they believed the media propaganda that homosexuals were persecuted, bashed, even killed, just because of their (supposedly) inborn sexual orientation.

Just as the activist/writers Hunter and Madsen suggested, the media played a huge part in the growing acceptance of the homosexual ‘lifestyle’; TV series and movies featured more and more sympathetic gay and lesbian characters, and portrayed anyone who objected to this change as a narrow-minded, hateful fanatic.

According to marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, the plan was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.” In Rondeau’s words, from his book Selling Homosexuality to America:

The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in “1984.”

I’d say they mostly succeeded. Up until quite recently, though, there has been a core of resistance to gay acceptance, and that core was made up of the few remaining conservative Christians, along with a few others on the ‘old right’. There is also a considerable generational divide, with each new generation becoming more accepting of homosexuality. The millennials are the most pro-homosexual of all the generations.

This seems to account in some part for the lionizing of Milo Yiannopoulos, and the bizarre decision by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to make him the keynote speaker at their upcoming conference. [Note: I now see that Milo has been ‘disinvited’, following the release of some Milo tapes in which pedophilia is spoken of favorably. But the substance of my comments are still relevant, re: Milo’s role.]

Twenty, or even ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable to present as keynote speaker at a conservative conference a flamboyantly homosexual figure, notorious for his outrageous persona and the lewd content of his videos and self-publicity. He makes it known that he is pro-miscegenation, (his preference for black male ‘company’) which makes it doubly baffling why supposedly pro-White ethnonationalists are among his most ardent defenders. In addition, Milo is half-Jewish (his Greek surname confuses the issue) while those who are part of his following are supposedly ‘Jew-wise.’ Makes no sense.

Oh, I’ve heard the usual arguments: his ‘gayness’ supposedly insulates him from the usual insults from the left; how can they attack someone of a victim group, especially since he actually prefers men ‘of color’? The fact is, though, that he is being attacked just as fiercely from the left, so he is not insulated or immune to the usual assaults.

The fact that the younger dissident right loves Milo is understandable when one considers that this is the ‘South Park’ generation, a generation which is, after all, just as post-modern and libertine in their ‘thinking’ as are the predominant lefties in the same age group. They are of one mind, left and right, on social and cultural issues except for race and nation, perhaps. And granted, those things are of paramount importance now, as they are being used to destroy the West, and Whites in particular.

So is Milo an ally with whom we should make common cause because he is an effective weapon against the left? Or is he being used, whether he knows it or not, as a battering ram with which to allow the gay cause to get a foothold within the right?

We can look at the FReepers as an example: many on the dissident right would call FReepers either ‘cuckservatives’ or ‘normies’, yet look at how they defend Milo here, and welcome his ‘joining’ our side. This post, for example:

So glad to see so much support for an ally on this thread.Beware though, the “Milo is a sodomite!” crowd will show up soon and start trolling.’

So, traditional rightists and Christians will now be considered’trolls’ and ultimately, if this trend continues, will be unwelcome, while the Milos and whoever follows him as the next ‘conservative gay’ are embraced wholeheartedly. Voila, both major parties will be gay-friendly, and pursue pro-gay policies as the ‘homophobic’ old guard will be shown the door.

This is a case in point as to how the left has succeeded in pulling both parties to the left, and how they have met with only feeble and dwindling opposition to their cultural Marxist agenda over the years. It illustrates the ‘long march through the institutions.’

It also calls to mind the familiar list of Communist goals, as outlined in the book The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen. Just to jog your memory, goals # 25 and #26:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

The right may think they are just being pragmatic and ‘using’ people like Milo to slap the left in the face, but the right should beware lest they end up being used and manipulated.

‘Dear Netflix’

I recently got an e-mail from Netflix, with a plaintive statement along the lines of ‘we miss you; won’t you come back?’

I ignored the e-mail, because I have no intention of renewing my subscription, and besides I told them the reasons for my cancellation when I cancelled some time ago.

Since that time, this controversy over the Netflix series ‘Dear White People’ has hit the news.

More than 250,000 ‘dislikes’ were registered for the Dear White People preview on Friday, just 24 hours after it was officially uploaded to YouTube.

But the true scale of the discontent could be much higher after claims the online broadcaster deleted both a million views and 100,000 accompanying negative comments.”

I haven’t seen previews or trailers for the series; the title alone tells me what I need to know. No major media outlet uses the phrase ‘White people’ in anything but a pejorative sense in these dark times. And all that I have read or heard about the series indicates that it is meant as yet another in an endless series of racial lectures from nonwhites to Whites. I’ve heard it all before, too many times, and I don’t partake of television or recent movies because they are all rife with such propaganda and arrogant moralizing.

So here is my ‘Dear Netflix’ response to their plea for my patronage:

Dear Netflix,

You don’t really want my business or my money or you would have heeded my explanations for cancelling my Netflix subscription. You, like other purveyors of ‘entertainment’, such as Amazon Video and Turner Classic Movies, have deliberately removed many classic older movies and TV series, and have increased the number of pornographic as well as other objectionable films.

The reason for your dropping of many older films while still offering other content with a very limited audience is likely political and racial, as the old films show modern audiences a world which was very unlike today’s dystopian world. In American films we get a glimpse of a world which some of us remember, and from today’s vantage point that world, while not perfect, was almost idyllic compared to what we see looking out our windows today — or looking at our TV screens at the dark and disturbing content and milieu of the 21st century.

And maybe it’s just coincidence that the world shown in the classic movies was mostly White. The ‘reel world’ we saw, contrary to the claims of leftist, multicult ideologues, did match to a great extent the real world. No, it was not a lie that people really did live wholesome lives in peaceful, tidy neighborhoods and towns. It was not false to show a world in which neighbors knew neighbors, and people looked out for each other. It was not whitewashing to show a world in which people lived safely in their neighborhoods, and in many cases did not have to lock their doors at night.

The powers-that-be, and their media outlets, are becoming more and more averse to showing today’s people the world of the past, lest people begin to question why things are not the same, and why today’s often-ugly world has come to exist in its place.

In a sense, the decision to make the older films scarce is a racial one; Whites are not to be shown in a good light; no, they are meant to serve as arch-villains or ignorant bigots as in favored old films like ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ or ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ or ‘Roots’ or any number of such politically correct propaganda pieces. Today’s films are even worse in their anti-White, past-hating tone. And it is that kind of content you are interested in foisting on your customers, culminating for the present in propaganda like ‘Dear White People.’

I have no intention of paying only to be subjected to your propaganda. I hope the cancellations increase and that Netflix, like all the other media outlets, meets its deserved end, that is, that it fails and disappears. I hope that the backlash to this series is a sign of a long-needed return of self-respect on the part of those “dear white people” to whom you condescend.

Sincerely,

An ex-customer

‘The real fascists’

We’ve all seen the above phrase being used by many Republicans/’conservatives’,  along the same lines as the tiresome “Democrats are the real racists” — as in the statement that the right are not fascists as the left claims; no, ‘the liberals are the real fascists.’

So this post on the Ex-Army-Libertarian Nationalist blog is welcome. In it, we read how the European communists of the last century employed ‘street thugs’ to bully and terrorize opponents, to which the fascists responded by using the same tactic. Yet now the popular belief is that the street thugs, much like those we’ve seen in action in Berkeley (and elsewhere) lately, were originally fascists. Now, of course, anybody to the right of Mao is a ‘fascist’ or a ‘nazi’, deserving of being physically attacked by the hordes of leftist ‘useful idiots’ and organized street thugs.

We’ve seen how ineffectual the ‘conservative’ tactic of calling leftists ‘the real racists’ has been; it seems to roll right off their backs, just as do most of the insults and accusations hurled by the ‘respectable right’ — or even the not-so-respectable right. Like most thoroughly reprobate types, they have no shame, no conscience, and no capacity for reflection or self-examination. They have no honesty. How can anyone expect that calling them a name will shame them, or that it will somehow hit home, causing them to change their ways?

The left is expert at persisting in their lies, saturating our public discourse with certain ideas that come to dominate if only through constant repetition and by the left shouting down anyone who disputes the lie.

Some examples of ‘big lies’ that have prevailed over the last half-century or so: Joe McCarthy was a paranoid drunk who imagined the whole ‘Red Scare’; there were no Communists (big-C or small-c) in high places, or in Hollywood. It was a Witch Hunt, and everybody knows there are no witches. And if there were communists anywhere it was only for the purpose of fighting for ‘social justice, freedom, and equality.’

Another big lie: certain self-defense organizations in the South during Reconstruction were ‘hate groups’, secret vigilante societies that lynched innocent people just because of their skin color.

This, in fact, is sort of a parallel to the lie that it was fascists who started using street thugs to intimidate and attack opponents. The secret societies (which probably have little in common with their present-day counterparts, the ones so ”feared” by the likes of the $PLC) were in response to the reign of terror that was Reconstruction in the South. Those vilified groups arose as a reaction to real dangers to members’ families, neighbors, and property. Not everyone who resorts to force is an aggressor; the left has succeeded too often in blaming those who act in self-defense, in response to the left’s violence and coercion.

And from the article:

At any rate, don’t let anybody pull the “the leftists are the real fascists” line on you. They’re nothing of the kind. Fascists had principles, and for all their failings, had a much more realistic and less ideological view of the world than the Berkely thugs do.”

Communism produced a reaction in fascism. Today’s communists (‘progressives’ or whatever they like to call themselves at any given moment) are causing the appearance of a counter-force, the various new permutations of the right, whether they know it or not.

 

Our PC prison

So much has been written and said about how we have reached this state of things wherein certain truths are ruthlessly stifled and banished from public discussion, and worse, there are civil and/or criminal penalties for those who violate the taboos on discussing these truths.

Brainwashing, mind-conditioning, 24/7 propaganda, much of it under the guise of ‘entertainment’, sugar-coating for the lies. But is there not at least another factor at work, a simpler and more familiar factor?

During the latter part of the last century, during the heyday of the social ‘sciences,’ someone coined the term ‘peer pressure’. Most often it’s been used in describing adolescents, who are generally the age group most susceptible to seeking security within their age-group, over against adults. Adolescents tend to be the most conformist in their thinking and dress and behavior, even their language; most slang terms seem to start as youth argot, specifically black youth argot which quickly permeates the speech of White teens as well as that of others who emulate blacks.

But let’s be honest: it isn’t just teenagers or over-aged adolescents who succumb to peer pressure; Americans in general, in my observation, are very prone to be followers and to ‘go along with the crowd’, not wanting to be the odd ones out, or to be thought weird.

In my lifetime I’ve seen time-honored social standards and taboos disappear almost overnight, as in the early 70s when the ‘old morality’ regarding sexual behavior went out the window. Cohabitation, premarital sex? No problem. Crude, obscene language? No big deal.

How could the old standards and mores crumble so easily and so completely? Obviously people’s ideas of right and wrong were not firm principles; they were merely ‘outward professions’. The majority seemed entirely flexible with their morality; whatever their peer group appeared to accept, they would acquiesce in.

As sexual morality (derided as ‘puritanism) became a non-issue for most conformist Americans, the focus shifted to one’s attitudes on racial issues. One’s character became defined by attitudes toward Others — mostly blacks and Jews. If one did not hold the ‘right’ attitudes towards the protected Others, one was declared a bad, immoral, undesirable person. As time went on this criterion for judging people became, seemingly, the be-all and the end-all. It became a requirement that we praise and honor groups that had formerly been ‘victims’ — (think: MLK Day, and the ‘White Guilt Month’ of February).Lack of adequate praise or deference toward blacks and other minorities, including Jews, as well as homosexuals, ‘womyn’, etc., would be considered proof of ‘hate’ or bigotry.

It still amazes me, how thoroughly many Americans accept that our attitudes towards a group (or groups) of people are allowed to define our very worth and character. Nothing else seems to matter in defining us as good or bad.

Obviously as this monster called ‘political correctness’ was fed and coddled and allowed free rein, it has grown ever more insistent and tyrannical, and a greater price is being exacted from those who violate its sacred commands.

Granted, the election of our President has ‘shifted the Overton window’ and emboldened quite a few people to stand up to the PC dictatorship, but only because there is safety in numbers (and the publicity given to the Alt-Right gives an illusion, perhaps, of greater numbers than actually exist) and sadly most people seem to need to have ‘permission’, from those they deem their peers or from some admired authority to deviate from the group mind or the Crowd.

In other words they are still, in a sense, servile where the opinions of others is concerned. Few people will stand alone and defy a taboo, and when they do, they find few others that are willing to risk condemnation by taking an unpopular stand.

It could be said that this passive and dependent attitude that has allowed PC to grow and to cow us into submission is nothing deeper than simply following a ‘fashion’ or a custom; to be accepted people feel they must adopt the shibboleths, go along to get along. A need for others’ approval is the factor that has allowed us to be tyrannized by the ‘PC vigilantes’ as I used to call them.

Interestingly, writer Doris Lessing is quoted as using the same analogy:

“Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this.”

Having read some of Lessing’s books, I judged her to be a leftist, but maybe she was one of the last of a dying breed, an honest liberal.

If people allow the ‘vigilantes’ to impose their views, it is, again, fear of being a heretic or a rebel, declared anathema. For some people, their ideas and standards are completely fluid, and shallow. They will go whichever way the wind blows. This is one of the dangers of democracy; someone described as ‘democratic censorship’ this coercive influence of public opinion. Although the government has become increasingly intrusive and overbearing, it is mostly the force of leftist domination of the popular mind that has led to this state of things.

It seems to come down to something as shallow and slight as ‘fashion;’ Leftism and PC have become ‘the’ accepted posture for most people, especially the sheeplike younger generation. It’s the fashion to be politically correct, to hold racial minorities, Moslems, and ‘The Other’ generally in adulation, and to be an ethnomasochist, a ‘wigger’, a miscegenist.

So we are in a sense being bullied, allowing ourselves to be bullied into silence, by nothing more than political ‘Fashionistas’, for whom it’s all an outward pose, meant to signal not so much virtue, but simply being part of the ‘in’ crowd.

Is Christianity a suicide cult?

Asks Alfred W. Clark at Occam’s Razor.

The short answer, of course, is Yes.

However, since the question pertains to “Contemporary Christianity”, which is a corruption and perversion of real, historical, Biblical Christianity, it is not true of the latter. We have only to look at Christianity as previous generations of our ancestors understood and practiced it to see that it was not always as it is now. How today’s professing Christians (or ‘churchians’, more accurately, in most cases) can ignore the obvious fact that they practice and preach a ‘Christianity’ differing radically from that of the past, is a mystery to me.

Even some of the more sensible Christians of today have been seduced by this corrupted form of Christianity, this changeling Christianity. For instance I was watching a podcast on Roku by one Christian commentator, whose comments I often find valid and sound, and he was warning against feeling ‘hate’ against the enemies of Christianity or of enemies in general. He said that there are spiritual forces goading us to hate one another, setting us against each other. Yes, as in the oft-quoted passage from Ephesians:

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

As I remember, the gist of the message was that ultimately Satanic powers are pitting us all against each other, so therefore human beings should not be held to account; they are merely being used as pawns in this vast spiritual struggle. I don’t deny that aspect of it; as a Christian and as a Bible-believer, how could I? But the fact is that there are times in which we (Christians and others, too) must fight against human agents of evil in this world. We cannot absolve other human beings of their moral responsibility; they have to be accountable for their actions, whether or not they are being used as dupes of the ‘rulers of darkness in this world.’ If we excuse the human evil-doers on this basis, how do we resist the immediate evils in the physical world which human beings are perpetrating?

This also reminds me of the frequently-heard pleading of many on the “right” when they say that ‘we can’t blame minorities’ (or immigrants, or whoever) for what they do; it’s the elites that are to blame; they are engineering all this. The immigrants/refugees, or whoever are just being used by them. Then this particular commentator said that even those among the lofty ‘global elites’ are not really to blame, and that we mustn’t succumb to hatred — because if we do, we are just doing what the ‘rulers of darkness’, the spiritual forces, want us to do; they want us to sin by hating our brethren. So if we give in to ‘hate’, the enemy will have won.

When did we hear that message for the first time? I remember hearing it repeatedly after 9/11/2o01. If we react with fear or hate, the terrorists will have won. They want us to fear and hate so we are not to fear and hate. We are to go on as before and not give in to these emotions or they will have won.

No. I didn’t accept that message then and even less do I accept it now, even though it may come from a Christian commentator I usually respect.

The very fact that we (meaning Western Christians in general) have largely been too accepting and too willing to trust people we should not trust, too willing to give everybody the benefit of the doubt and ‘tolerate’ everyone and everything is what has brought us to where we are now, with Europe in danger of ethnic/genetic obliteration, and our own country being overrun with people from hostile countries.

And all the while it is this faux Christianity that tells us we must not experience honest, God-given emotions for the just purpose of defending our families, our folk, our Faith, our homes (our national homes as well as individual homes).

As the late Oriana Fallaci wrote:

Haven’t you understood what drives our enemies? What permits them to fight this war against us? The passion! They have passion! They have so much passion that they can die for it!”
[…]”…We have lost passion.

Well, I have not. I boil with passion. I, too, am ready to die for passion. But around me, I see no passion. Even those who hate me and attack me and insult me do this without passion. They are mollusks, not men and women. And a civilization, a culture, cannot survive without passion, cannot be saved without passion. If the West does not wake up, if we do not refind passion, we are lost.”

And the passion that she spoke of includes that very human and natural feeling called ‘hate.’ We’ve been thoroughly conditioned, especially over the last few decades, to think that ‘hate’ in itself is evil, that it is in itself a crime for which we can be prosecuted, discredited, persecuted, imprisoned, and ostracized — depending, of course, on who is the ‘hater’ and who is the ‘hated.’ Liberals/leftists/’progressives’ openly and vociferously hate everybody who does not agree with their dogmatic ideas, and they posture as being the superiors of those they hate and harass. Minorities of various kinds can and do hate and openly attack and kill the targets of their hate, and they are put on a pedestal of righteousness for doing so. It is truly only Whites, and most especially Christians, who are warned against ‘hate’ and punished for supposedly ‘hating’ when in fact they may only be stating a fact or voicing a just criticism.

But as to ‘hate’ itself being un-Christian, or a sin per se, it is not, though the members of the changeling ‘Christian’ suicide cult may tell us that it is a sin and an abomination.

One need only take up a concordance or look up every instance of the word ‘hate’ in the Bible to find that among other things, God says there is a ‘time to love and a time to hate’. Surely it’s possible that is is ‘time to hate’ when someone endangers and threatens those we love, and everything that we value, cherish and stand for. But, but, can’t we fight for our families, our homes, our way of life, our property without hating? Surely we’re supposed to love our enemies? However, when it comes to fighting for our lives or those of our loved ones, we have to muster up the passion, the feeling, the energy to do that; try loving someone while you are having to defend yourself with force. Can the soldier in battle be ‘loving his enemy’ while he is in a life-or-death situation? When it’s him or the one threatening his life? Loving one’s enemy has traditionally been interpreted as referring to personal enemies, not enemies in wartime, invaders, homebreakers. And those with self-righteous pacifist tendencies may have a right to sacrifice themselves while feeling virtuous, but they have no moral right to sacrifice other innocent lives so as to feel oh-so-moral.

And this is what the cult-of-niceness Christian suicide cult would have us do.

Shock and denial

‘…there is nothing new under the sun.‘ – Ecclesiastes, 1:9

That was written by Solomon many centuries ago. And it’s true, even when it comes to human depravity. Some of us say that today’s world is much more depraved than the recent past, and at least on the surface, that view can be defended. There was a brief period, under the influence of Christianity, when human evil was somewhat diminished, or at least, to take a more skeptical view, driven underground.

Critics of the Bible, who are more outspoken today than ever, frequently like to point at certain incidents in the Old Testament which they say constitute proof that the Bible is ‘full of filth’. Yes, there are some very distasteful and shocking episodes in those books of Scripture, but they are there as a stark illustration of what unredeemed humanity is capable of. In no way are they meant to titillate, or to sensationalize, much less to excuse human evil.

On the other hand, we have Christians who are so high-minded that they avoid such passages because they prefer a Christian faith that is all sweetness and light; they don’t like to be confronted with the ugly side of this world. Then there are the many Christians of today who don’t believe in the supernatural; they may (or may not) believe in the virgin birth, or Jesus’ miracles of healing, or his walking on water — but they don’t believe, truly, in a Devil. One of my highly-educated Christian friends says she does not believe in a ‘literal’ Satan, only in the fact of a human ‘shadow side’ that we all possess, and that we must all ‘own’. That’s not the same, though, as the Biblical view that all human beings are fallen; she believes we are ‘basically good’.

For these people, any talk of various forms of depravity being practiced by prominent and powerful people is not credible, because it does not fit the complacent worldview these people have cobbled together for themselves. It shakes their very idea of life itself and of human nature to even ponder the possibility that some of the worst rumors may be true. They don’t want to believe it.

We see that expressed here on this Reddit thread, where several people who appear to be very worldly-wise are voicing extreme shock about some of the allegations that are being bandied about. Yet I myself am not shocked, nor do I rule out the real possibility that where there is smoke, (which has been evident for many years), there may just be fire. And this, considering that I don’t watch modern movies or TV shows because of their decadence and vulgarity;  therefore I’ve developed no tolerance to it, as have many of those who consume it avidly. It does have a way of inuring people, making them shockproof, as I call it. Yet many people are seemingly shocked by what is being discussed these last few days.

Ann Barnhardt writes briefly about the allegations on her blog, and points out that she has been warning of this for years. Maybe it takes someone who seriously believes in such a thing as ‘spiritual wickedness in high places’ to accept the plausibility of it. I think that she has written about similar allegations regarding the highest circles in the Catholic hierarchy. So these things are not unheard of; where were all these oh-so-stunned people all these years?

Remember, too, the ongoing accusations against the rich and powerful in the UK? Maybe many Americans are not as familiar with those stories. There were many, many people of both sexes who reported being the victims, as teens or children, of certain celebrities like the late Jimmy Savile.

But Jimmy still has his staunch fans who defend his ”good name”, saying that the accusers were liars looking for attention or money. And that response to their stories explains, in part, why we don’t hear from the purported victims — there are powerful forces who will stifle their claims, and there are just plain stupid people, fans of the ‘celebrities’ and the politicians who are the accused, who will shout ‘liar!’ at the victims.

More examples? Rolf Harris, yes, the ‘Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport’ guy. “Oh, but he was so warm, so funny, so witty, he just couldn’t do things like that!” Same with Michael Jackson in this country.

Another factor in these cases is the “normalcy bias” which I referred to the other day. People are strongly invested in protecting their particular, comfy version of reality. It seems to pose a threat to people’s mental well-being to imagine that they may have been wrong to trust in a predictable and mostly benign world and people.

But we might dismiss the accused celebrity deviates as just being the typical ‘artistic’ personality, the type who dabble in the transgressive. Michael Jackson was just eccentric and misunderstood. Savile just liked kids. Same with Rolf Harris, et al.
But what of the very powerful, who presumably have ‘everything to lose’? Have people forgotten, or maybe they never heard of, the Belgian scandals?

The link above may be considered biased by some, but here are other accounts:

From the left-wing BBC

and as we see here, Wikileaks was also involved in publishing details of the Dutroux case several years ago, which implicated people at the highest levels in Belgium and possibly elsewhere.

Why, then, is there still an unwillingness to even consider the veracity of the allegations? It’s not as though it’s unprecedented. Maybe the fact that only those who are sneered at as ‘tinfoil hat’ sources have written about these things, while the “mainstream” controlled media, in recent years, shies away.

I suppose we should be encouraged to see that there are still Americans who are capable of being shocked at the mention of these things. Yet if we avert our eyes and insist that it’s just too much to believe, then we are enabling such things, which do in fact happen in this fallen world.

Christians in particular are called to be ‘wise as serpents’ yet harmless as doves. But if we are to be  ‘dove-like’ when confronted with evil, what use are we?