Easter being phased out?

Is Easter the next Christian holiday to be suppressed? CBN News reports that the major candy makers have taken the word ‘Easter’ off the packaging of the traditional Easter candies.

“Hershey’s, M&M’s, Lindor, Russell Stover, Dove, Rolo, and Twix have all produced Easter themed candy without mentioning the word on the front of their candy, according to a press release from the Liberty Counsel.

[…]”Earlier this month, Cadbury dropped the word “Easter” from the advertising of its annual “Cadbury Easter Egg Hunt”  in England.  As CBN News reported, the new “Cadbury’s Great British Egg Hunt” caused an uproar in the church and the government.”

Some Christians will say this is fine with them because Easter is really a ‘pagan’ holiday, or at least the secular aspects of it, such as Easter bunnies, eggs, and baby chicks are pagan fertility symbols. The same people would probably say they don’t believe in Christmas trees, Santa Claus, and all the modern trappings of Christmas. And truth be told, all these things are not Christian in any real sense, though they have traditionally been part of our celebrations.

Personally I am on the fence about this; I can see the viewpoint of those who say Christians should keep to the religious symbols and avoid the secular and pagan aspects. However I still object to the obvious ‘war’ on Christian holidays and the symbols thereof, even if some of our traditions date to the pre-Christian generations of our European ancestors. To let the secularists and the anti-Christians do this without any opposition or objections is capitulating to their agenda.

And the companies who are purging the name ‘Easter’ as well as other Christian holidays from their products and advertising should be made to feel the pain of losing their Christian customers’ business.  However so far it seems that most boycotts by Christians have proven somewhat ineffectual overall; the Christian faith is still losing out to corporate anti-Christian policies.

This kind of incident is also symptomatic of the corporate world’s disregard for their customers and their indifference to their customers’ satisfaction and goodwill. How many have noticed that most consumer products and services have declined markedly in quality?  I know I’m not the only one who perceives this change. Once upon a time (long ago), businesses supposedly believed in the old adage ‘the customer is always right.’ I doubt the businessmen really believed that, but reputable businesses tried to build good relationships with their clients and customers. Nowadays, if you are unhappy with a product or a service, you can complain, but complaints, no matter how politely and articulately they are made, are usually met with indifference at best, and with surly defiance at worst. Businesses generally let it be known that they are ‘sorry’ you are not happy, but that they ‘feel’ that their products and services are adequate, and if you believe otherwise, you are free to do business elsewhere.  ‘This is what we offer; take it or leave it. We’re satisfied that we are doing a good job” is the implicit message.

Most products, American-made or foreign-made, are shoddier, flimsier, less durable, and often uglier than those made a few decades ago. Foods are of much poorer quality, and I’ve heard this from many people.

There is a general breakdown of trust between businesses and their customers. Apathy if not downright hostility is all too common. This business of eliminating Christian symbols and names from products made purposely for a Christian market makes no sense whatsoever. But it’s to be expected, sad to say, in a society in which the traditional common culture and shared customs have almost disappeared.

 

A persistent myth

Recently I made a list of a number of popular myths or canards of the ‘realist’ right. I wrote them in no particular order, and the last one on the list is the myth that goes something like this: ‘Mormons are the remnant of the old America. They are racially conscious and Utah is a mostly White state.’

This idea in some form crops up in the comments on this article. Oddly enough only a couple of commenters seem to disagree with the idea that Mormons are somehow the last guardians of the old White American ethos. Are so few people aware of what is happening within the Mormon fold in this decades-long reign of PC?

I have no grudge against Mormons; of course most of them are ‘nice’ people, as most Americans seem to agree, but then I am not a great admirer of ‘niceness‘. Modern ‘Churchianity’ is often little more than a cult of niceness, and I am seeing that phrase being used more often. Niceness is simply a counterfeit goodness, or at best, it’s a feeble, skin-deep form of goodness; goodness minus strength and conviction. Niceness is a passivist, pacifist simulation of goodness. Niceness won’t fight for its principles.

I say this as someone who has a close blood relative who converted to Mormonism, as well as another close relative who married into a strongly observant Mormon family. I’ve also known other Mormons in real life, and I know that in recent years they are very actively converting Third Worlders to Mormonism, championing ‘open borders,’ objecting to border enforcement, and welcoming refugee/colonists to Utah.

The last frontier is usually interracial marriage, and that, too, is becoming more visible and accepted, with White Mormons of both sexes marrying Third Worlders they have met on their sojourns in those countries.  The old religious taboos against miscegeny have been officially repudiated, though some apparently resist this change, as can be seen in this online discussion.

Utah may still have a high percentage of Whites, but that is rapidly changing with immigration, legal and illegal. Hispanics are a growing percentage within the Mormon Church and in the state of Utah. There are Hispanics in the Utah legislature. Another group whose numbers have grown are Polynesians (Samoans), as someone on the Sailer thread noted. Remember the case of the Salt Lake City mall shooting ten years ago? The shooter was a Bosnian refugee. And more recently, another mall shooting was perpetrated by an apparent Southeast Asian shooter. Utah is not a ‘Whitopia’, and the Mormons appear just as ‘cucked’ as the most hopelessly feeble Churchians.

Yes, Mormons are ‘nice’ people but niceness is not something we need at this time in our history. Niceness is in part what is killing us. ‘Thou shalt be Nice’ is not one of the commandments on those stone tablets.

And if I were looking for a place to hide from mandatory Diversity, Utah would not be on my short list. Mormons, at least the hierarchy, are working hard to escape their reputation as ‘racist’ and ‘too hideously White.’ They have no will to defend their ethnic/racial heritage, only their religious system, which for them takes the place of ‘tribe’.

Dangers of ‘good intentions’

Where I live, it’s become not at all uncommon to see White parents, often with two or three obviously ‘natural’ children of their own, with one or two nonwhite children in tow. Sometimes I’ve seen well-to-do White women with a White child or two, plus a Central American or Asian child, plus a black child, a la Angelina Jolie.

Another common sight are the signs advertising yard sales/garage sales ‘to fund a trip to Africa to adopt’ or to go to Guatemala for the same reason.

I wonder how much money is spent on this quest?

The people involved in this are most often Churchian types, often those who are members of one of the ’emergent’ churches, which tend to be very liberal and to follow the world’s fads and trends, including rampant xenophilia in all its forms.

Odd, considering that once this town was known for being conservative socially and religiously. This area did go big for Trump, by the way, if that means anything.

No doubt these people have been convinced (by their liberal ‘ministers’? By the media? By pop culture?) that they are doing a deed which will earn them extra rewards in heaven. Or maybe just winning the praise of ‘the world’ is all they’re after, but they think they are doing good, saving the Third World, modeling ‘colorblind’ behavior to shame the ‘racists’. Or something.

We’ve all heard the proverb about ‘good intentions’ paving the road to a certain place. Good intentions often have unintended consequences.

Is it all happy-ever-after with these ‘rainbow’ families, these ‘all-sorts’ families? Nobody thinks about what it may be like when these cute toddlers grow to adolescence and experience identity crises. The media predictably avoid stories about unhappy adoption outcomes, especially trans-racial adoptions. But an occasional story is published that highlights the problems. I’ve certainly heard of adolescent or adult adoptees from the Third World rejecting their White adoptive families and choosing to leave their ‘White’ upbringing in favor of their genetic kin group.

Then there’s the Rachel Dolezal story. Over at the middle-of-the road Republican forum Free Republic, they are ridiculing Dolezal, or as she now styles herself, “Nkechi Amare Diallo”. She is mentally ill, they say, and she herself has written a book detailing her alleged abuse at the hands of her ‘Jesus Freak’ parents (her term for them) and her biological brother. But few people seem to be aware that these parents of hers adopted four black children. Mind you, they did so decades ago, when she was a child, in a time when it was not so common or so ‘hip’ and au courant as it seems to be now. They must have been in a rather odd sect of Christianity in those days; back then, Jim Jones and his cult were among the few who pioneered the ”rainbow family”.  Jones himself called his ‘diverse’ family his ‘rainbow brite’ family.

“Did You Know? Jim Jones and his wife Marceline were the first white couple to adopt a black child in Indiana in 1961.”

Now that fact is not proof that adopting outside one’s race is evidence of insanity. But it does illustrate that the idea was once, not that long ago really, considered a ‘fringe’ idea, not something that was to be casually done, and not something one did as a way of ‘virtue-signalling.’

And what is the cost to the White siblings of the adoptees? Rachel Dolezal, or Diallo, or whatever, may be a sad example. Maybe her black adopted siblings absorbed the lion’s share of the attention of the parents and extended family and ‘church’ family. Maybe they posed domestic problems, by the fact of their exotic birth and origins, that created a more troubled home. Considering the ‘colorblind’ White tendency to fawn on other races, which is exhibited by our society in general, no doubt Dolezal and her natural sibling did not get the attention or possibly the affection children need, hence her ‘identifying as black’ since childhood.

In a sense our society, at least the media-influenced side of our society, has the ‘Rachel Dolezal’ syndrome, with so many White young people, in particular, copying black culture and even the black phenotype to some extent, with the ‘lip enhancement’ fad of celebrity women, and with intermarriage by women who then can proudly display black children of their own.

As for Christians, or more accurately, Churchians being seduced by this melanomania, I could cite Scriptural reasons why interracial adoption is not Biblically sound, nor sanctioned. But then the Churchians are not big on following Scripture, only in cherry-picking some passage — or just going by society’s whims and preening about their do-goodery.

On psychology

Emil Cioran quote_Wrath of Gnon

It seems self-evident to me, but apparently not to many people, as the correlation between the decline of the West and the pervasive influence of the psychological establishment is seldom discussed. Christianity is blamed far more often, despite the fact that it has been a central part of Western culture for centuries, whereas psychology’s rise seems to coincide with the decline of our society, and also the subverting and weakening of Christianity.Coincidence?

The subject certainly deserves to be noticed and examined more widely.

[Quote from Wrath of Gnon]

Our vanishing heritage: chivalry

Because it’s St. Valentine’s day, I am re-blogging a piece on that subject from the old blog. I think it’s still relevant today, even though I’m aware that in the years since I wrote this, chivalry has become more denigrated for various reasons. I hope readers will keep that in mind and bear with me in this post, mindful that things have changed even in the short span of time since I wrote it.

“As another Valentine’s Day is here, some news articles on the subject give us pause to consider the gulf between us in the West and those in the non-Western, non-Christian world.

In a society which insistently tells us that we are really all the same, and that our respective cultures can easily be thrown into the blender and retain their flavors, let’s think about the differences in worldview displayed in these stories:

Indian Hindus protest Valentine’s Day

‘In India, hardline Hindu nationalists have been burning Valentine’s Day cards in protest against what they consider a corrupt and commercial Western celebration.

As South Asia Correspondent Peter Lloyd reports from New Delhi, every year in the capital and other northern cities the radical fringe of Hindu politics gather for noisy protests against Valentine’s Day.

This year was no exception.

They denounced it as a corrupting influence on Indian culture.

This article from India, while more pro-Western, shows again the gulf that exists between Western ideals and customs, and those of non-Western cultures.

‘ …, it is evident that such days, and the general ethos of romance and love conveyed through advertisements, serials and books, is raising aspirations in the young. They dream of a chance to “fall in love” and live “happily ever after”. Sadly, that is where the dream ends. For Cupid’s arrow, in this country, must land in a preordained space — it must strike a person of the right caste and creed. Otherwise, the love match is rejected. Increasingly, that is the hard reality that thousands of young people, who delude themselves into believing that things are changing and that they will be able to make a choice on the basis of the dictates of their hearts, are being forced to face. They are firmly brought down to earth by families who refuse to accept their right to make a choice. If a couple refuses to fall in line, they must face rejection, ex-communication, and even violence. The happy endings are few and far in-between.’

It’s a commonplace among those who are wary of Islam to label it misogynistic, oppressive of women. And it is. But to a great extent, most non-Western cultures place a lower value on women than our culture. It’s ironic that Western feminists are the loudest complainers about the supposed oppression of women in our countries, seemingly oblivious to the fact that generally speaking, women have enjoyed the highest status in Western countries, in Christendom. than in any other culture. I invite anyone to show me an example of a culture outside the West in which women had higher status and more respect.

Around the 14th century, the feast day of St. Valentine became associated with romantic love, which in turn, developed as an ideal along with the Code of Chivalry. But that’s not the sum total of chivalry, though many think it is.

I’ve long been fascinated with the Code of Chivalry, which is a legacy of our Norman ancestors. Now these days, for some reason, our Norman ancestors are not well spoken of; it’s more fashionable for those of British ancestry to claim kinship to Anglo-Saxons and Celts, while the poor Normans are disavowed. Why? They were too strong, and too capable. In our modern world, the strong are devalued, and the weak, the underdog, and the victim reign supreme. Ironically, that grotesque exalting of the weak is something of a perversion of the chivalric tradition. Under the chivalric code, men were to treat the weak generously and kindly, but they were not to relinquish their power, and strength was honored, not disparaged as it often is now.

Here is one writer’s modern take on the meaning of chivalry

‘Chivalry spells out certain ethical standards that foster the development of manhood. Men are called to be: truthful, loyal, courteous to others, helpmates to women, supporters of justice, and defenders of the weak. They are also expected to avoid scandal.
     Beautiful ideals! They attract us with a sense of nostalgia that is almost religious. That’s because they are part of us already. Unfortunately, they must contend with powerful, often destructive influences, like commercial television, that bombard us with outrageously bullish images of men that are, at best, inappropriate.
     The virtues of chivalry offer more than pleasantries and politeness. They give purpose and meaning to male strength, and therefore support the overall workings of society. They remind us that Camelot is an ideal worth striving for, the reflection of who we are when we are at our best. Here is a short summary:

         Truth provides the foundation of chivalry. A man who lies cannot be trusted. His strength and ambitions cannot be counted on. Truth should always remain our greatest concern.
         Loyalty denotes a relationship that is based on truth and commitment. If we are fortunate, we have companions who are loyal to us—but we must be loyal to others as well. Remember, loyalty is a virtue to cultivate, even when it is not reciprocated.
         Courtesy provides the means for cordial and meaningful relationships. A society cannot be healthy without courteous interaction. We sometimes admire people who trample on courtesy to get what they want—but keep in mind, the contentious world they create is very disappointing, and we all have to live in it.

  […] Justice involves little more than treating people fairly. It also calls for mercy. We all make mistakes.
         We admire men who are strong, but if their strength is not directed to uphold what is good, what value does it have? We are therefore called to use our strength to defend those who cannot defend themselves, and commit ourselves to just causes. “

And here is an excerpt from a 19th century work on Chivalry.
From G.P.R. James, The History of Chivalry, 1830

‘The first point required of the aspirants to Chivalry in its earliest state, was certainly a solemn vow, “To speak the truth, to succour the helpless and oppressed, and never to turn back from an enemy.”

[…]the knights for long after the first institution of Chivalry, were “simple in their clothing, austere in their morals, humble after victory, firm under misfortune.”

In France, I believe, the order first took its rise; and, probably, the disgust felt by some pure minds at the gross and barbarous licentiousness of the times, infused that virtuous severity into the institutions of Chivalry which was in itself a glory.
[…] [N]o words will be found sufficient to express our admiration for the men who first undertook to combat, not only the tyranny but the vices of their age; who singly went forth to war against crime, injustice, and cruelty; who defied the whole world in defence of innocence, virtue, and truth; who stemmed the torrent of barbarity and evil, and who, from the wrecks of ages, and the ruins of empires, drew out a thousand 14 jewels to glitter in the star that shone upon the breast of knighthood.”

[…]There cannot be a doubt that Chivalry, more than any other institution (except religion) aided to work out the civilization of Europe. It first taught devotion and reverence to those weak, fair beings, who but in their beauty and their gentleness have no defence. It first railed love above the passions of the brute, and by dignifying woman, made woman worthy of love. It gave purity to enthusiasm, crushed barbarous selfishness, taught the heart to expand like a flower to the sunshine, beautified glory with generosity, and smoothed even the rugged brow of war.

For the mind, as far as knowledge went, Chivalry itself did little; but by its influence it did much. For the heart it did every thing; and there is scarcely a noble feeling or a bright aspiration that we find amongst ourselves, or trace in the history of modern Europe, that is not in some degree referrible to that great and noble principle, which has no name but the Spirit of Chivalry.”

Our age has forgotten the roots of our civilization, going back to European Christendom, but some of the remnants of the Code of Chivalry still survive, and those traditions are what divide us from the Moslems and the Hindus and the rest of the non-Western, non-Christian world. And to those agnostics and atheists who are indignant at any mention of Christianity and Christendom, I can only say that history cannot be denied; even if you dislike Christianity, it is part of our European heritage. All of us of European ancestry had Christian ancestors going back many generations, and Christianity largely shaped European culture.

The high ideals of Chivalry are all but forgotten today, and the word is rather an archaic word . But it encompassed both love and war, and it encompassed faith as well. The knight was strong yet compassionate toward the weaker: children, women, the old. A knight fought fairly, and did not attack the unarmed. Please notice how those basic rules of civilized warfare are not observed by Moslems or most non-Western people. Perhaps the Japanese code of bushido was akin to the Western chivalric tradition, but in general, chivalry, as known in Christendom, was unique in the world.

Our more humane standards in warfare, as compared to the Moslems, make a striking contrast. Unfortunately, they put us at a disadvantage in our war with Moslems. If we are fighting by the old chivalric traditions, as we have been, trying to avoid harming civilians and noncombatants (and how can we tell, when our opponents are not regular, uniformed soldiers) and they are fighting with no holds barred, we are at a disadvantage. Our chivalric traditions leave us vulnerable, when facing an opponent who is not principled. How can we deal with an enemy who is not above using women, children, and the old, as human shields? An enemy who sends children out in harm’s way, purposely? Our chivalric codes took the barbaric edge off warfare, as long as our enemies were others who observed the same rules. Now, this is not the case.

And notice how in every Western country where there are Moslem colonies, there seems to be a pattern of rape against the indigenous Western women, often gang rape.

Our prolonged contact with Moslems can only result in conflict, unless one of us is conquered and dominated culturally, To survive among Moslems would require that we become more like them; we can no longer cling to our age-old traditions of measured, civilized rules of warfare. We would have to match them in ruthlessness if we are to continue to try to coexist in the same space with them. And in fighting to survive, we would lose something of ourselves, of who we are and who we have been for thousands of years. This would be as tragic as the mere physical or political conquest by Moslems: the surrender of our standards, ideals, and civilization.

St. Valentine’s Day may be thought of as just a sentimental, but ultimately silly, holiday by many people, but it is symbolic of what makes us in the West what we are, with our idealism and sentimentality. The celebration is emblematic of the stark contrast between us and the non-Western world. To them, our idealized romantic love is corrupt, decadent, and intolerable. I think they see it as weak and feeble. And, isolated from the rest of the chivalric code, maybe it is. Christendom, the West, must rediscover the strength and justice aspect of chivalry, and not only the softer, tenderer side which, alone, makes us vulnerable to the predators abroad in a dangerous world.

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.

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.

From 2013

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

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

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

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

Has the White Man Gone Soft?

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

Nevertheless we need a little exhortation now.

Sam Francis on globalism, and…

From The Social Pathologist, a very good quote from the late Sam Francis on the subject of globalism. I’ve long admired Sam Francis, and consider him one of the most lucid and sound thinkers on our side.

However, read the comment below the quote at Social Pathologist. The commenter ‘refutes’ Francis by an extensive quote from Mencius Moldbug, and the seeming gist of Moldbug’s words, quoted as gospel apparently, are that Puritans/”Brahmins” and ultimately Christians are the real ‘elites’, not those considered elites by most of us.

Really? Who are these ”Brahmins”? That word was traditionally used to refer to primarily Bostonians, old-stock Anglo-Saxons, usually ‘Mayflower descendants’ or at least the most prominent families in the Boston Social Register. Famous people like the Lowells, the Cabots, and related families.  Read this PBS piece on the ”Brahmins” and you get very much the same jaundiced view of them as the one advanced by Moldbug.

In my earlier days of blogging someone mentioned my blog in the same sentence with Moldbug’s Unqualified Reservations blog, somehow likening us. Some people criticized Moldbug’s tendency to verbosity, thus compared me to him. In any case, though I looked in on his blog I never read it habitually. Maybe it was his manner of expression that was a little opaque and hard to follow, but from reading others’ analyses of his work, I gathered that he had a very idiosyncratic view of the world which I found hard to relate to. For one thing, his constant references to ‘The Cathedral‘, a term which to me seems a very Christian reference, and it seems that ultimately he blamed Christianity, or ‘Puritanism’ in particular for all that has gone wrong in the West. Now of course there are all those influenced heavily by him who perpetuate this meme. Personally I object to the references to ‘The Cathedral’ and I think his idea that these shadowy ‘Brahmins’ are controlling the world behind the scenes is ridiculous.

Some people like this bizarre idea that there are all these Anglo-Saxon Mayflower descendants, all obscenely wealthy, who are somehow, somewhere, exerting all kinds of power. Who and where are these all-powerful Brahmins who have managed to survive the centuries? Some think they are still living in Boston, but have any of these people been to Boston lately? Most of the old stock Anglo-Saxon Puritan descendants (having lost their Christian faith and became Unitarians or agnostics) are moved to happier climes, having gone to the Midwest and the Far West long ago, ethnically cleansed by the immigrants who came in waves, starting before the War Between the States. My own ‘Puritan Yankee Brahmin’ great-grandfather came to the far West long ago, as did many cousins. So where are these elusive ‘Brahmins’ and ‘Puritans’?

It seems to me that for Moldbug, the Brahmins are invoked as a way of deflecting blame from the Jews, and that is their function for many people looking to redirect the criticism of Jews.

Moldbug, whose name is Curtis Yarvin, is Jewish by ancestry though probably an atheist or agnostic. But then one can be an ethnic and cultural Jew though one professes no belief in God.

Yarvin, I think, is a pied piper, and I find that a great many people quote his words as if he were an infallible source, the last word. And most oddly, these are often people who profess awareness of the Jewish influence in the anti-White, anti-nationalist tyrannies with which we have to deal today. I can name at least one other Jewish blogger who also has a loyal and almost reverential set of followers among Alt-right or ‘pro-White’ readers and bloggers on the internet.

This is one of those paradoxes which always keep me shaking my head. Is it not wise to treat such writers as at least potentially working an agenda which is against our interests? I don’t understand this uncritical embrace of those who probably have some anti-White, anti-Christian axe to grind.

The new Ireland

Many Irish-Americans, provided they haven’t actually visited Ireland lately, still think of Ireland as a country which is religious and socially conservative, safe, and above all, populated by Irish (mostly Catholic).

Meanwhile, in the real Ireland of 2016, the Minister of Social Protection is surnamed Varadkar, and he is ‘out’ as a homosexual. I can just hear someone say ‘Ireland is a nation of immigrants’ — oh, wait, that’s what they say about our country. They say it also about Britain or any historically White country these days. Whatever. By their constant use of that refrain to pummel immigration skeptics into submission, they succeed in making it true, as propagandized populations begin to believe the lies over time.

Varadkar, in case you are wondering, has a father from India and an Irish-born mother.

But all the same, no doubt, he is more Irish than the Irish themselves.

However he does not seem to share the same set of ethics as most Irish people, who, despite the social changes accompanying the transition to post-Christianity, are probably still more pro-life than many other Western nations.

An Ireland with African mayors, an Ireland where a native-born mayor is driven to quit following a controversy over his remarks about African migrants — where are the ethnopatriots in Ireland? I know there are a few but it seems the Irish are in the throes of xenophilia or more properly xenomania. It seems they have so identified with the ‘immigrant’ because their folk have so often immigrated to other countries for economic reasons, and because of the famine and colonialism, they see Africans as fellow oppressed folk.

It appears that much of the nationalist fervor that led to past rebellions against the much-hated Brits was not motivated mainly by ethnopatriotism but enmity towards, and envy of, the British. The result we see in these news stories out of Ireland is what happens when nationalism is not so much based on love, or above all, on loyalty to one’s kinsmen, but on hatred of some outside group.

Several years ago I wrote a post addressing this in an American context. We are very united in dislike for ‘the elites’ or some other group — everyone has their favorite minority, it seems, and many have their favorite enemy as well. But do we love our own folk, do we have enough loyalty to our own, to attain some kind of solidarity? I believe that love for folk and family and Faith have to animate our desire to prevail; animus cannot take us that far, especially when we can’t always agree on exactly who or what is ultimately responsible for our predicament.

Time will tell. I hope Ireland wakes up, and I hope the same for the American majority.