The opposite of political correctness?

At TakiMag, Theodore Dalrymple — I mean (((Theodore Dalrymple))) offers some good points and clever turns of phrase in discussing political correctness. He describes it as a form of mass hysteria — which it does seem to be.  Then there’s this: “…the politically correct speak power to truth.

However, I felt as one of the commenters on the article said: this piece is an example of ‘bait-and-switch.’ It goes from being a scathing piece about PC to bemoaning and lambasting the responses to PC. The examples of rightist ‘hate speech’ which he cites,  are pretty over-the-top.

Did he cherry-pick those extreme examples, or are they more common than I realize?

I wouldn’t deny that some of the comments, ostensibly by ‘right-wing’ commenters online, can be callous, ugly, and sometimes objectionable even to many of us on the right. For example, I’ve seen comments over the years recommending that certain people be ‘incinerated’. I’ve seen comments from those ostensibly on the right  expressing approval over the rape or murder of certain people. I found this appalling. But these comments about ‘incineration’, rape, and murder were not directed at the traditional protected groups according to the PC hierarchy: they were directed at White people — but White people who are among the ‘out-groups’ for some on the right. The ‘incineration’ comment, for example, was directed at fat people  — and it was posted on that hotbed of ‘extremism’, Free Republic, of all places. Now, it may be that the comment or comments were later deleted by mods there, after all, the mods used to ban even mild posts perceived as ‘anti-Hispanic’ in the days before most people were so incensed about illegal immigration. The comments approving of rape and/or murder — by immigrants, actually, were in reference to baby boomers — who, according to many on the young right, deserve such a fate. However it appears that Dalrymple’s outrage about the ‘vile’ comments he cites was an outrage on behalf of minority groups/nonwhites. So who’s being politically correct?

Dalrymple should know that the left engages in worse rhetoric, or at least rhetoric equally bad, in reference to Whites/Christians/heterosexuals. One example of anti-White hatred on another blog was a social media post — Facebook, I think — calling for White women to be caught and killed before they produced more White babies. What’s that law about ‘equal and opposite reactions?’

All that aside, no one on the comment thread seems to question the authenticity of some of the over-the-top bloodthirsty comments Dalrymple gives. Considering what we know of the left, of their duplicity and dirty tactics — and the fact that they are known to employ online operatives to provoke, to derail and disrupt, and to deceive and slander, could it not be that the worst of those comments were written by lefties in order to direct anger at the right? The comments seemed almost to border on parody or caricature.

Whether or not some of the extremist sentiments are justifiable or understandable, it does seem that it’s counterproductive, at the least, to indulge in that kind of rhetoric. I don’t recommend being mealy-mouthed or so genteel as to be feeble in our self-expression, I think there’s a way to express strong sentiments without going beyond certain limits. Adopting the tactics of the left only escalates this trend of abandoning all discretion.

‘Hinduphobia’

A Free Republic poster links to an article from a news source in India, reporting that Hindu activists in America are demanding an apology from CNN. CNN’s crime? Hinduphobia.

To thinking Americans, CNN is synonymous with left-wing, anti-White and pro-multicultural content, at which it outdoes just about all the other purveyors of ‘news’ and commentary. So it’s hard to imagine that they would be anti-Hindu.

And just what did CNN do that was ‘Hinduphobic’? They had a series called ‘Believer’, in which correspondent Reza Aslan focused on Hindu religious figures and practices. The article does not seem to mention this specifically, but I would guess that the Hindu activists objected to a depiction of a guru and his followers who were shown eating human brains. Reza Aslan, the CNN reporter, apparently also consumed some of this unappealing meal, under coercion, some said.

So is it ‘xenophobic’, or more specifically ‘Hinduphobic’ to be shocked or repelled by a spectacle like that? We will have become a jaded people for sure if we can no longer be horrified at the thought of cannibalism, much less by the sight of it.

CNN displayed very bad judgement in showing that clip, even if they had displayed a warning before any such ‘graphic’ scene. What could have been their purpose in showing it? I doubt very much that they wanted to stir up antipathy towards Hindus, as dedicated as they are to the ‘all cultures/races are equal’ dogma. So what motive was there in showing it?

CNN’s faithful audience are no doubt mostly of a like mind. So I doubt that they would react to these scenes with disgust or shock or ‘phobias’ toward Hindus. Many leftists are very familiar with the various manifestations of the Hindu religion and culture. There are pictures online of some sort of Hindu cult members eating charred human bodies they pulled out of the Ganges. So this kind of thing is not completely unknown.

Are the Hindu activists defending cannibalism in an oblique way, here, or do they just object to having anyone shine a spotlight on it? That is, are they blaming the messenger?

I doubt, though, that most Americans, hearing of this controversy, would respond by hating Hindus; in fact we have become a very jaded and tolerant people for the most part, hardly blinking at this kind of thing, whereas once upon a time, cannibalism and other such gruesome things evoked real shock and horror among civilized Westerners. But we are a post-Christian people, unfortunately, and Hollywood has helped to desensitize us to all sorts of once-unthinkable things.

And we do seem to have become, overall, very accepting of this diversity which has been thrust on us, as you can see from some of the Freepers’ comments about how they prefer Hindus to some varieties of ‘diversity.’ The usual line is that ‘at least they’re not Muslims’ or some variation of that. Every ethnicity, Hindus included, has its defenders and advocates among White Americans. But how many White Americans are willing to defend their own?

 

 

 

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.

No ‘strength in victimhood’

Following minorities’ example in seeking ‘strength through victimhood’ is a losing tactic, according to a good piece by Alexander at West Coast Reactionaries.

The writer explains how the left controls discourse by, among other things, calling banter ‘bullying’, and conditioning Whites in particular to censor their own speech and behavior in relation to minorities and to political enemies. He likens this to putting ‘shock collars’ on Whites, so that they learn, by means of unpleasant consequences, to observe the limitations on our speech and expression.

Read the whole piece at the link; there’s some food for thought there. If only most of the ‘respectable right’, also known as ‘cuckservatives’ would take the advice there to heart. For one thing, Alexander points out the misguided strategy of relying on token black ‘conservatives’ to speak for us, which is obviously (to me, at least) a tactic that screams ‘weakness.’

“This weakness is also on the Alt-Right in how they wheel out black conservatives to fight B.L.M. (e.g. Thomas Sowell). They have their own personal mandingos in reserve because they believe that having a black man support their arguments makes them innocent of any thought crime, but they accept the crime and so are being mentally dominated — the same can be said of Milo Yiannapolous‘ fans. The fact that Milo is a liberal Jewish homosexual with a fetish for black men is perceived as a form of armour in the Alt-Right. God forbid if a straight white traditionalist asserted himself, he’s totally exposed with no victim status. The Alt-Right has accepted the maxim of “strength though victimhood” and “weakness is strength.” P.E.G.I.D.A. view Europeans as victims, and even well known YouTuber Millennial Woes seems to be falling into the trap of “save the white race” nonsense.”

As this piece points out, many Whites, even segments of the Alt-Right, have come to embrace the minority strategy of using weakness and ‘victim’ status as a means of wielding power in an underhand, manipulative way. The subtle manipulative approach is, obviously, often a typical feminine method of wielding power while appearing helpless. To me, it’s disturbing that some of the right, which tends to express masculine energy in contrast to the feminized left, has fallen for this idea. As the writer points out, this does not work for the majority, because the White majority cannot outdo minorities at this game. Some people instinctively recognize this, but the effort to use victim status on the part of Whites persists in some quarters.

The ‘liberals/Democrats are the real racists‘ cliche is still in active use. When will the right learn that this does not work, and that it merely displaces blame onto other Whites, which still leaves Whites in general (not just liberals) in the villain role? It’s conceding, in effect that [some] Whites are to blame for the woes, real or imagined, of blacks and other POCs.

There has to be an effort to try to overcome this mental/verbal domination of the right by the left and their minority minions. We’ve all been so thoroughly conditioned to this frame of mind, that many of us don’t realize that we, too, are not exempt from it.

UVa Profs: stop quoting Jefferson

The ‘Old Dominion’ continues to decay. The usual academic suspects are now, along with their brainwashed adolescent charges, clamoring for the president of UVa to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson. 469 ignoramuses and budding totalitarians signed a petition to this effect.

The school’s president, Teresa Sullivan, said the following, which prompted the demands:

“Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes,’” Ms. Sullivan wrote in the email. “I encourage today’s U.Va. students to embrace that responsibility.”

The students and their academic allies cited Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves, along with his ”racist” beliefs, as reasons for banning his words.

Was Jefferson a ”racist”? We all know that term has been overused and has become so fluid and subjective that it is almost impossible to defend against the charge. As someone at VDare, perhaps, once said, to be accused of racism is to be convicted. It is not possible to prove a negative, especially when one’s accusers are ‘POCs’ or White leftists; both groups are immune to reason, facts, and common sense.

I see that Steve Sailer has a thread on this story, and to my (pleasant) surprise, the comments are mostly defensive of Jefferson, which sad to say is becoming more and more rare, as even many “conservatives”, ethnopatriots, and race-realists (so-called) are willing to pile on and baldly state that Jefferson was a ‘hypocrite’, a ‘race-mixer’ or even a slave-rapist. Examples? I can’t easily locate a specific thread, but I’ve seen such comments on AmRen (a site I long since abandoned, for various reasons) and on the OD blog, where at least one regular commenter pointedly condemns Jefferson at every possible occasion. And no one disputes what he says. I haven’t commented at OD since the comments are now under the Disqus system, so the slanders go unanswered.

Some of you may remember that I used to try to counter all attacks on Jefferson, even attempting to comment on AmRen, where my comments rarely got approved. And I have tried to defend Jefferson not just because I am a Jefferson descendant — it’s personal — but because I believe in his innocence of the slanders made against his character. I realize I am out of step with the cynicism of the times regarding all the Founding generation, and that defending Jefferson is often sneered at as being a ‘patriotard’ and the like, but the fact is there is not any definitive proof that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’ or any slave’s brood of children. Some of the Hemings descendants say they have Jefferson DNA according to tests, but the DNA is not that of Thomas Jefferson, but just of a Jefferson male. That could include many possible sires.

I used to cite a link from Ashbrook Center, Ashland University, which offered the counter-evidence to the Jefferson slander, but it seems they’ve taken that page down. Why? Too politically incorrect?

A link on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog which dealt with that subject, and offered an argument against the claim from an informed commenter, is likewise gone. Why? The comment was from the Jefferson Family historian, Herbert Barger. Why did the Britannica people not consider that this was valuable information?

There’s obviously an effort across the board to re-write history in a way that discredits the Founders, and by extension, the Founding stock of this country and their progeny. Us. Why are so many of ‘us’ going along with this, and even aiding and abetting it?

There used to be an older gentleman, another Jefferson descendant, who tried to combat these stories online, but maybe he has passed on now. I used to try to take up the slack and answer as many as I could, but it seems such a vain effort, and I have begun to feel that if nobody else cares to preserve Jefferson’s name and his legacy, then why should I waste my time and energy? Yet here I am doing it again. I guess I am a sucker for lost causes.

But back to the original charge of those ‘scholars’ at UVa and wherever this kind of nonsense is being encouraged: was Jefferson a ”racist”, whatever that means on any given day? He was definitely a ‘realist’ in that he (being something of a scientist and “HBD” man in his time) observed and noted the many differences between the two races, black and White, and he predicted — accurately — that the two races would not be able to live side-by-side in harmony, and that it would all end in conflict.  In other words, he was a truth-teller. And that’s the crime nowadays.

And Jefferson’s statement that the students of UVa would be those who would govern the country in the future is unfortunately true — and frightening, given the obvious fact that those ignorant and fanatical misfits will in fact be in charge one day, if we go on that long. I think that reality would dismay Thomas Jefferson if he had but known.

Let California secede

Somebody named Jared Huffman, apparently a California state representative, claimed to be outraged and ‘shocked’ at the sight of Confederate battle flags at a Veterans Day parade in Petaluma.  Peaceful parade-watchers were displaying the flags.

“It was just so out of place that I had to do a double-take,” said Huffman, who appeared in the parade riding an old WWII-era Jeep with Petaluma resident Steve Countouriotis, a decorated war hero.

Huffman implies that his ‘decorated war hero’ companion was likewise shocked. Now, I don’t know how old this veteran is, but one does not have to be very old to remember when the Confederate Battle Flag was a frequently-seen symbol that did not spark any outrage, faux or genuine. Even Huffman, himself a Gen-Xer born in 1964, is old enough to remember that the flag was not always condemned or shunned, much less banned from public display. If he truly has never seen this alien and ‘shocking’ flag in a public place, he is remarkably unobservant. However no sensible person would believe that the flag was so utterly alien to his eyes or so ‘offensive’ that he had to take a photo of the ‘offenders’ holding the flags and immediately tweet his shock and horror to the world, or at least to whoever follows his Twitter feed.

I’ve been in the Petaluma Veterans’ Day Parade for the past 12 years. I’ve never seen anything remotely like this. pic.twitter.com/oU3iXSPycD

— Jared Huffman (@JaredHuffman) November 12, 2016

Mr. Huffman, 12 years ago that flag was not banned in your state or in most states. And to act as though you’ve never seen anything remotely like it? Please! You must not get out much. California (though maybe not your SWPL corner of California) is a state that received many, many Dust Bowl migrants during the 1930s, and has long had a  population of Southron transplants and their descendants. So no doubt you have seen that flag before and maybe even heard a song called ‘Dixie.’ Did you get the vapors then, or is this something new for you?

You are also old enough to have been taught a different version of American History in school, a version in which the mutual bad blood of the War Between the States was put aside, at least officially. For most of America’s post-WBTS history, Southron heroes like Robert E. Lee and Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson had a place of honor in most history texts — up until the age of darkness which Political Correctness brought. Now, of course, suddenly that flag is anathema — why? Because the NAACP launched a campaign to vilify and discredit that flag, which effort went into high gear in the 1980s and is still rolling on. And because Cultural Marxists have gained complete control of education K-12 as well as ”higher education”, not to mention the biased media which relentlessly accuses all Whites, especially those of the South, of ‘racismbigotryhate’.

The town where this event took place is a town that, according to the data I found, is 80+ percent White, and a minute percentage black — less than 1 percent. So who, precisely, would there be there to be ‘traumatized’ by the sight of the Battle Flag? Mexicans, maybe — they make up 19 or so percent of the town now — but then they can display their Vulture-bedecked flag freely as they march down California streets these days. Free speech, free expression — for some.

Tellingly, the SF Gate article tries to blame Trump for ’emboldening’ the evidoers who had the flags. All about the agenda, the narrative, isn’t it? And all about ‘virtue-signalling’ to your fellow travelling progressives.

 

 

‘What they saw’

The headline on this piece quotes a source saying that investigating NYPD officers were ‘sickened by what they saw’ in the e-mail evidence in the Hillary investigation.

How trustworthy the sources are here is beyond me; I’m not familiar with the websites from which this information comes, so I leave that judgement to those who know more about them.

What I do know, because I remember the late 1990s during the Clinton pre-impeachment scandal(s), is that all the right-wing forums were a-buzz with rumor and speculation every time someone leaked new ‘revelations’ about the Clintons’ misconduct. Every time, the headlines screamed ‘Latest bombshells will finally expose the Clintons! Smoking gun found!‘ or similar sensationalism. Whatever it was, there was always something that was promoted as being ‘the Big One! This is it! This will make Clinton resign!’

As history shows, no matter what was revealed, it was never enough to cause the shameless Clintons and their minions and defenders to admit anything, much less to retire in disgrace. They brazened it out till the bitter end, even being so bold as to trash the White House when they departed. Of course the liberal lying media denied what happened, following their pattern of covering up anything done by ‘their own.’ If you search on the subject you will find the media sycophants calling the damage just ‘pranks’ and mischief, downplaying it, if not outright denying that it happened.

This is what happens with a dishonest media machine; Thomas Jefferson wrote so often of the vital importance of a free and independent press. We are now living the consequences of not guarding against the corruption of the media, and the concentration of media control in a few, very politicized hands.

So, it may be that these latest ‘bombshells’, this time involving much more than ‘juvenile pranks’ like trashing the White House, or worse even than the Lewinski lewdness, will prove devastating to the corrupt Democrat crime machine and all their degenerate associates and contributors. We can hope.

But personally I am not investing too much in this latest story, not until it is actually out in the open, if ever. It may prove to be yet another of many damp squibs, as with virtually all of the ‘explosive revelations’ against the Clintons in the late 90s.

The thing is, our enemies, the ‘progressives’, liberals, Democrats, are people who are generally lacking in morals, especially as regards sexual behavior. Even when sexual behavior becomes transgressive to the point of violating the laws of God and man, they have no sense of shame. They generally can’t be shocked, being very amoral people in a deep sense. Oh, sure, they have perfected the art of feigning shock, when they can find a political enemy caught in some compromising situation  — like when some Christian minister is caught in sexual misbehavior. Then they suddenly are full of high morals, reacting with condemnation, for example, if the misbehavior happens to involve homosexuality — while normally they champion, no, celebrate homosexuality. And look at how they defend, even now, Roman Polanski.

They are not like normal people who recoil from certain things naturally; they are hardened in their amorality; everything is excused as a lack of understanding on our part; everyone is a victim of genes or childhood trauma (child abusers, for example) or their behavior is called good and natural (transsexualism, homosexuality, bestiality).

There is nothing much that can shock them, and when it comes to politics they would defend the Devil himself because after all he is one of their own.

So, we’ll see what develops. It would be a great surprise, and decidedly a good thing if some eleventh-hour revelation brings down the Democrats and all their associates and enablers, especially in the media. That would be the kind of deus-ex-machina we need, but if they are to be defeated it may just be down to the usual factors: let the elections play out, and pray that the vote-rigging does not work this time for the Democrat machine.

Relabeling the South

There’s a blog piece here on the idea of relabeling the people of the Southern States, or at least those of the old Confederacy as ‘Dixians.’ I believe in holding to the old ways, as those who read here know. And the idea of the new flag of the South (the black ‘X’ on a white field) is not one I can be enthusiastic about. I’ve written about this before, and I know that amongst the younger generation, the idea is popular, but that still doesn’t sell it to me.

I do know that the ‘x’ on the flag is not the letter ‘x’ but represents St. Andrew’s Cross, as it appears on both the Scottish flag and the Union Jack, where it is layered with the St. George’s Cross of the English.

Traditionally — and I suspect the younger, secular folk don’t know this, the St. Andrew’s Cross symbolized the Biblical patriarch Jacob, with his crossed-arms blessing on his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh. As many of the young are agnostic/atheist/pagan or just a-religious people from once-Christian families it’s likely this symbolism is unknown to them and that it lacks meaning for them even when explained. Likewise, their black X on a white field is devoid of meaning for me — and I suspect it would have no real resonance for most Southrons. I agree with the following comment from the blog, regarding both new names and new flags:

relabeling_2016-10-25_054930

Yes, definitely — something like a flag, or a name, can’t be just coined out of thin air and imposed on people. It has to come from the folk, and from the heart more than the head.

And the idea of changing the name of the people of the South is very reminiscent of how blacks re-label themselves every so often (or are re-named by the PC commissars who decreed that ‘colored’ had to be replaced by ‘negro’ which had to be changed to ‘black’ which gave way to ‘African-American.’) Obviously it was thought that the negative image was associated with the name, and changing the name would eliminate the “stigma”. Admittedly those who invented the new flag thought that a new name would remove the stigma attached to the South and its symbols.

But will it? Are the left that easily fooled? If the new flag catches on, will that prevent the $PLC from denouncing it as a ‘symbol of hate’? Really? Likewise, with a name change for the people of the South. The people  of the South, however educated, polite, urbane, and ‘respectable’ will forever be depicted as rednecks, bigots, hillbillies, and the rest of the insults. I (and my then-readers) had those slurs hurled at us on the old blog. Nobody is exempt, if they support the South and its history and heritage.

And then there’s the fact that to renounce the old flag, the flag under which our ancestors fought, is essentially conceding defeat to the Left and the anti-Whites. I hope to meet my ancestors in eternity one day, (not just yet, though) and I want to meet them knowing that I kept faith with them, and did not disgrace them in renouncing them and the cause they fought for — the Southern land and people and Christian heritage.

‘Touch not the ancient landmark’. That flag and the statues, they fall under that category, as I understand it.

Look, I know it’s hip and cool to follow after European ‘isms’ like ‘Identitarianism’ but we do not need to look to European intellectuals to interpret the world for us; we are not second-rate European descendants who have to rely on them to impart the truth. Good luck to them; I wish our European cousins well. But their ways of thinking are not those of this country and its heritage. Truth never becomes passe; fashion and popular opinion are passing, trifling things.

Ethnonationalism or ethnopatriotism are things of the heart, not the intellect, when it comes down to it. When we swell with pride hearing a national anthem or see our flag raised in battle — these things have inspired many songs, poems, and stories — that comes from within the heart, and cannot be artificially created.

Trusted media sources?

The UK Daily Mail reports on the “first” refugee children arriving from Calais, into the UK. Are they really the first, as in the only ones to have arrived via Calais? How does the Daily Mail writer know this? Surely with all the immigrants sneaking in via the Calais route over the years, no one knows how many under-age young people have slipped into the UK with family members or on their own. We have a similar situation here, with many Latino children (at least, the media assures us they are children) coming across the border without parents or other older relatives.

But as in our country, questions are being raised by skeptics about whether some of these ‘child migrants’ are in fact adults lying about their ages. And as the authorities wish to have as many of these people entering our country as possible, they are determined to accept the word of the alleged children as to their actual age. There have been cases where the supposed child proved to be a mature man. This has happened in the UK also. The fact that the supposed children are often laughably obvious as adults shows how gullible or dishonest the authorities are. But the whole thing is far from laughable; serious consequences have resulted from this transparent deception.

The Daily Mail article contains the usual pro-immigrant sympathy, but the commenters, in many cases, are having none of it. At least some people are finally rejecting the media lies.

But earlier today, when checking in on the Russia Today channel, which we get via a streaming device, the ticker reported this story with something about ‘Child migrants being greeted with skepticism’ as they arrived in the UK. And this, with a tone of disapproval.

The RT news channel is so often recommended by people on the right as a source of real news, as opposed to our lying media. I’ve given RT a second chance because the American media is so obviously lacking credibility that I sometimes think any source is better, but what other sources, at least on streaming media, have any credibility at all? So I have given RT a second chance. Unfortunately my impression is as it was at first: RT does give a pro-Russian viewpoint, which is what it should be for, but it also presents an anti-Western, anti-American point of view, which it should not necessarily do. Yes, I realize ‘our’ government has been on an anti-Russian tear, baiting Putin and Russia shamefully. But is Russia necessarily on ‘our’ side, meaning pro-White? From viewing RT, you would not get that impression, if you view it with open eyes. I am probably considered, by my readers at least, to be anti-Russian, though I’m not. In my youth I was fascinated with Russia (the USSR generally), including the language, culture, films, and the people. I still have an affinity for the culture and I’ve known many Russians I liked or was fond of, though they still seem enigmatic to me. I simply warn people that we must not make Russia a Rohrschach inkblot in which we show what is in our own minds, rather than what is really there. We see in Putin or Russia that which we sorely need here: strong confidence and leadership; toughness in the form of ethnopatriotism.

All that aside, Russia Today seems most of all like a Russian version of Fox News. Many of the personalities (and I use that term purposely rather than journalists) on the English version of RT are native English-speakers, either British or American; some of them bear Jewish surnames and other intimations of their ancestry. Why this does not evoke skepticism from the Alt-Right  viewers who are very awake to the Jewish presence in our own media baffles me.

RT has its ‘news babes’, much as Fox News does, and RT is very much of the mindset that makes ‘diversity’ a mandatory feature.

But I do notice that a couple of Irish Savant’s commenters have noticed these things, and these responses followed after someone recommended RT as a reliable media source:

Yeah I have no sympathy for RT. They are playing both sides of the field and yes they do show another perspective but they are a propaganda entity or at least a counter-propaganda element and only show that other side to gain an effect.

I don’t blame the Russians for setting it up like that, but they will expand on the Leftist PC bullshit not because they believe in it but because it destabilises the West who of course has dug their own grave and asked for it by trying to destabilise Russia and her neighbours and allies.

Therefore I don’t care much for RT just as I feel fuck-all for the Western NWO controlled media houses. There are no completely “good guys” in this.”

and:

Anonymous eleos said…

Jay, RT does indeed provide an alternative to the usual anti-Russian Ziocon media. However it otherwise adheres totally to the PC multicultural, blacks-are-victims, mass immigration good agenda.”

The verdict, for my part, is that there is no broadcast or streaming news source that I know of that is on our side, and that is trustworthy.  If anyone out there knows of such a source, I’m open to hearing it.

And I’m glad to see that others are not taken in, in their desperation for some source they can trust.

Russia banning porn?

Is the old ‘puritanical’ Russia making a comeback?

A commenter on Irish Savant’s blog links to a piece on the Jim Stone blog here which reports that Russia has apparently banned pornography.

I waited to comment on this until the MSM actually admitted it. It is still not being allowed to be huge news, but Russia really did ban porn. On top of that, Russia has released a huge team of trolls to bash anyone who argues about it online into oblivion. Here are the details, which you probably can’t find covered in one spot and this is not a “rumor”.

Russia has banned every single porn web site that does not require an identified log in to access. The MSM is focusing on Pornhub and Youporn, but as it turns out, the real deal is that ALL OF IT is blocked except for porn sites that require paid membership with log in, (and maybe those are gone next).”

Well, this sounds as though it is not technically banned, but the measures will require paying to view the sites and logging in to access the material.

Only those above 45 years old or so are likely to know that the old Communist regimes, even Communist China, were not at all tolerant of what was then (correctly) called ‘vice.’ When the Communist party took over China in the late 1940s, there was a campaign to ‘eradicate’ prostitution. It was not until the liberalizing reforms of the 1980s that this policy changed. The old Soviet Union, too, was not tolerant of vice of whatever kind, and this seemed to cause Western governments to become very defensive of the corruption in our countries, claiming that it merely represented our ‘liberty.’

It would be interesting if this reported crackdown on pornography proved to be a harbinger of a new direction in Russia, away from Western-style libertinism. Now it seems that even the ”right” in our country is supportive of various vices as part of the heritage of ‘freedom’ and personal choice. Now, the contrast to this is provided by Islam, with its overzealous prudishness and harsh laws. Now even the ‘conservatives’ in America are happy to defend homosexualism and porn as part of ‘the American way of life’, as being what our forefathers fought and died to preserve. I am not going to defend Islam’s harsh system of ‘morality’, nor do I necessarily countenance the police states practices of the old U.S.S.R., but surely there has to be a happy medium between tolerating anything and everything as in todays’s Western, ex-Christian societies, and too-stringent efforts at censorship. It’s not an all-or-nothing choice.

Some of the vices, like the so-called ”oldest profession” and pornography in some form, have likely always existed, and that because mankind is flawed and sin-prone from birth. Hoping to eradicate them once and for all by passing laws against them is unrealistic, just as we can never end war by outlawing it, or end crime by having ‘anti-crime’, anti-violence marches and protests as we see in so many cities in America. As if crime and violence will ever go away, as if they can be wished away.

But to give up any attempt at limiting vice and deviancy seems to be having a very damaging effect on our society. Just because we can’t totally eliminate them does not mean that we must tolerate it all, in the name of ‘liberty.’

One thought occurs to me, though: if Putin really is cracking down on porn, will this mean that he will lose some of his fans in this country? Many on the ‘right’ admire Putin though he is apparently more socially conservative than is acceptable to many of his fans.