Who’s culpable?

It’s become wearisome to even post on a terror attack when they predictably happen. Don’t misunderstand me; I am not expressing indifference to the victims, or to the country, whichever European or White country, where the latest attack occurs.

If anything, I care too much about the victims, thinking of the waste of human life and potential, especially among our besieged folk, and about their families and all those who loved the victims. Lives will be forever changed. I heard from an acquaintance in New York, after 9/11, of a little girl, a classmate of my friend’s twins, who lost both parents on 9/11. That little girl would now be 22 or so. Surely her life was changed irrevocably.

No doubt what happens in Britain, where the bones of many generations of my ancestors are buried, troubles me especially. I understand that many Americans feel no particular kinship to people in Britain, and considering that so many Americans now lack any genetic connection to Britain, I suppose they can’t be blamed for that.

Kinship, blood ties matter, even in a country which conditions us all to ‘civic nationalism’, telling us that birth on American soil makes brothers of us all. Not true, and even less true in today’s Britain, as illustrated by this now-viral photo from London yesterday.aliennation

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. There’s a reason why that photo, of all those available, went viral.

Meanwhile, the smarmy heads-of-state, after an event like yesterday’s, mouth their usual platitudes about ‘unity’, ‘coming together’ ‘reaffirming our nation’s values’, (meaning openness to outsiders, however hostile they are, and coerced diversity). Theresa May and as the Moslem mayor of London both recited such statements, though the London mayor was brazen enough to tell the British people that they had better get used to this kind of thing; after all, it’s “part and parcel” of life in a big city now. As I recall some official in France said roughly the same thing after an attack there. Will the passive and docile citizens of Western countries continue to accept this phony, condescending rhetoric about ”our values” or about “diversity and unity” — which, by the way, are opposites, and contradictory? Or is the passivity and docility merely an outward show, hiding inner misgivings and resentments?

The most disgusting bit of rhetoric, which is even used by many on the nationalist right, is the now-hackneyed statement that ”immigrants/Moslems are not the problem, only symptoms; they are just pawns in a game being controlled by the real powers, so it’s useless to direct anger at these pawns. They aren’t our real enemy.” The more liberal variation on this ‘argument’ is employed by the churchian types, who think ‘hatred’ or even honest anger, is wrong; if we give in to it, we are just reacting and playing into the hands of the enemy. If we do that, then ‘They will have won.’ Supposedly by refusing to show fear or act defensively, we are winning. Right.

Trouble is, who are the architects of all this? The shadowy ‘elites’, the globalist overlords? We know a few names; everyone’s heard of Soros. For some people, Jews are the ultimate cause behind the scenes, and the people who hold this view are often those who claim that immigrants are not the real problem. For others, the powers-that-be are simply the global corporate movers and shakers, the mega-rich, who are transnationalists and cosmopolitans, with no allegiance to any nation or people, faithful only to their own greedy interests.

Many Christians say only ‘spiritual forces of wickedness’ are truly to blame; everyone else is a pawn.

But without knowing who, exactly, is behind all this, and who is calling the shots — as they keep themselves mostly concealed — how can we act at all? Do we need to know the ultimate cause in order to save ourselves? Is it not more important to take steps against the visible agents of evil? It seems to me that that’s the only thing we can do: to focus on the proximate cause, the obvious and immediate actors in all this.

And who are the known actors? Elected politicians, hand-picked by corrupt political machines, who seem to be puppets acting for the shadowy elites. Then there are the traitorous and malice-driven ‘progressives’, antifa types. The media,  who seem to be nothing but lie merchants and ideologues, hostile to the real people of the countries they inhabit. And the Others, the colonizers, interlopers (whether legally or illegally), people with generational grudges against us and our countries.

The problem is not the Others alone, but at the moment it’s they who are killing us and our kinsmen in other countries.

The picture above illustrates that they are not of us; not us, can never be part of us.

The London attacker was born in the UK, showing that being ‘native’ to Britain no longer means much, if one is of foreign blood and origin, and especially if Islam is factored in.

No sympathy

Only the most brain-dead of the lefties could still genuinely feel sympathy for the ‘refugees’ after hearing of behavior like this.

“A riot broke out at a refugee centre in Germany after a group of migrants smashed up their accommodations with iron bars over the lack of phone signal.”

And this isn’t the first time such a thing has happened over the most trivial causes.Supposedly these ‘refugees’ fled their countries, fearing for their lives. If that were true, they would be grateful for safety and a roof over their heads. They would not be wreaking havoc over the lack of Nutella or the lack of a phone signal.

It’s impossible for any sane person to sympathize with anyone who has such an attitude of entitlement and such lack of impulse control when frustrated. They are worse than spoiled children and the coddling they receive from do-gooders and the rogue governments of Europe has incited them to be even more violent and demanding.

 

Old vs. new, past vs. future

Today I was reading a discussion on a blog in which the question was raised: is it more useful to our cause to be ‘forward-thinking’ and future-oriented, rather than take a reactionary tone, focusing on recovering our traditions?

The question, I thought, was loaded in favor of the ‘future-oriented’ option; the way it’s put, of course it makes more sense to try to envision a better future — and given our dystopian present situation, almost any change for the better is preferable.

However — and it will surprise no one that I’m in favor of trying to reclaim as much of tradition as possible — how can we focus on a future which exists only in imagination? And how can we even imagine, much less create from whole cloth something which has never before been, without becoming like the would-be utopian leftists, who have succeeded in creating a nightmare in their quest to make real their bizarre visions of the future?

The Jacobins, like all their leftist/progressivist ideological progeny, thought they could raze everything and build something new and perfect from the ground up. How is that working out so far? Unfortunately some on the ‘new right’ under whatever label they call themselves, are so soured on the past, and on all the works of their forebears, that they are essentially adopting the Jacobin attitude toward junking the past altogether because “it didn’t work”. Why didn’t it work? “It was imperfect.” Why was it imperfect?

The gist of their answer seems to be that the past generations were to blame; they were flawed in a unique and irremediable way, a peculiar kind of original sin, unique only to certain past generations — but absent in the present generation of young people. No; they are exempt from this particular taint; it was confined to certain time periods and generations. Once those uniquely guilty sinners are dead and gone, the present generation of young people, freed of their toxic presence, will then proceed to build their own Future, unimpeded. Many of the younger rightists share this way of thinking with the ‘mad-dog left’ of their age group.

In my early blogging days I wrote a piece asking what happened to the old optimistic America of the 1950s? Does anyone remember how the 1950s vision of the future, as seen in Sci-Fi movies and Disney cartoons, showed triumphant science and technology solving all the world’s problems: we would conquer disease and hunger; Science would show us all how to live together in peace and plenty. The problem was ignorance and want, and Science had the answers. By the 21st century we’d live in ‘Jetsons’-style cities with our own personal sky-cars to fly around in. There’d be colonies on the Moon and Mars, if not in outer space. And on and on. I think many people assumed that given the recent successes of science and technology, this was all guaranteed. Onward and upward; the human race always progresses, and progress is always good, always for the better. We are all ‘evolving’ toward a higher, more enlightened state of being, growing up as a species. So they said. And so some people still say.

But surely most of us are seeing Science (capital-S) as hardly the savior of mankind. Science is, as the character ‘Shane’ said in the 1953 movie of that name said of guns:

“…a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything..as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

Science is flawed human understanding and reason. It’s served us well in many cases but it cannot save us. The human element alone makes it imperfect, and its discoveries susceptible to being misused or corrupted. Think of the ‘global warming/climate change’ scam, as well as the mountain of lies surrounding the issue of race/HBD.

What then, imparts an aura of ‘magic’ to any of our visions of the future as enlightened by Science? Do we really think that we can conjure up this shiny, antiseptic future world as gleaming utopia, just by thinking positively?

And what good will adopting this as a tactic or strategy for pragmatic purposes (“to appeal to the young”) do? Isn’t such a strategy cynical? Would it not be better to work from what is true — as in tried-and-true — and workable as we know from real experience?

Guido Bruno, writing in 1916, said this:

“It will not do to say that all the ways of old were the only good ways, and that those of to-day are turning us from paths that were good enough for our forefathers, to those that lead, we known not where; but on the other hand we can say, that many of the old ways have been discarded only because they were old, and not because we found something better.

What we call up-to-dateness and modernism is, in the analysis, a product born of excitement, a restless desire for change, a going from one thing to another, and although there is a measured tendency in some directions for a return to some of the ways of old, the fear of being called old-fashioned is the tyrant that speeds us on to seek new activities and novelty in entertainment.”

I’ve lately wondered if some of the obsession with ‘diversity’ and the desire to outmarry is nothing more complicated or profound than just this juvenile seeking for change-for-change’s-sake, coupled with the desire to repudiate one’s old fogy elders. Forget pathological altruism and all the rest; what if it’s just novelty-seeking?

To return to Guido Bruno’s remarks:

“All things up to date have their places, and by invention do we measure progress, but on the other hand a change is often times a going back, rather than a moving forward.”

Worth it?

The Anti-Gnostic posted a piece on the recent disturbing story about a teen-aged Hispanic girl who, having recently fallen into the company of MS-13 gang members, was murdered. No less than six juveniles and four adults appear to have been involved in the killing. All the names of the suspects are Hispanic, and it seems probable most were foreign-born. Whether they were illegal is irrelevant; they could just as easily be here legally, or some might be ‘anchor babies’, considered legal by some.

This story, though it’s the latest, is one of many, as MS-13 and its equivalents put down stakes all over this country — even in the small community where I live, which is not all that ”diverse and enriched” as yet. It’s sad for the families and sad for our country as we risk becoming inured to this process of assimilation towards Third World norms.

I just began wondering, though, suppose the liberals’ hoped-for scenario comes into being, and that we gradually become used to all this diversity, and we become a rainbow nation wherein we all ‘accept and celebrate our mutual differences.’ Granted, Whites will be a small minority amongst the rest, but what of it? Race is a social construct; we all bleed red, and this is a proposition nation, after all. The Salvadorean and other gang-bangers’ progeny will be just one more variety of Americans amongst the colorful mosaic. And on and on.

But a hundred years from now, will people shrug their shoulders and accept the presence of these violent gangs and their ways as just one small price to be paid for the rich pageant of ‘diversity’ — much as most Americans now think that the Mafia isn’t so bad; we’ve enjoyed lots of good movies, novels, and TV series about the Mafiosi (the Sopranos, the Godfather, etc.), and then there’s all the wonderful food and cultural enrichment. So the introduction into our country of the Black Hand Society, the Mafia, and in our day, the (((‘Russian mafia‘))) and so on are just part of the package. Really not so bad, if we keep a sense of perspective, right?

One appalling story after another of gang murders and various atrocities and it’s all old hat, yesterday’s news. We have a way of growing jaded and accepting of things which should never be thought of as acceptable. That’s probably what the powers-that-be are counting on.

 

Sensible discrimination

Anonymous Conservative writes about the appalling fact that refugees aren’t screened for tuberculosis, and this, in an age when tuberculosis has made a comeback in the First World, after a long period of absence.

From what I recall, the incidence of tuberculosis had dropped dramatically by the 1970s or so, thanks to improvements in medicine and hygiene, but according to this government website, it began to reappear by the 1980s. I wonder what mysterious cause there could have been for its reappearance?

From 1953 to 1984, tuberculosis disease incidence dropped steadily at an average rate of 5.8% per year to 9.4 cases per 100,000.

In 1985, however, the United States saw a reversal in this long-standing downward trend, and tuberculosis reemerged as a public health threat. From 1985 to 1992, not only did the number of cases increase from 22,201 to 26,673, but also large outbreaks were reported. Many of these, especially in hospitals and other health-care settings in large cities (5), were caused by multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis. Several factors contributed to this increase, including the emergence of the HIV epidemic and large influxes of immigrants from countries in which tuberculosis was common.”

Yes, I remember reading in local newspapers back in the late 7os, and hearing from people in health care professions that the influx of Southeast Asian ‘refugees’ and immigrants was the source of the resurgence.

Now we are reading of yet new strains of drug-resistant TB.

From the above-linked website:

The proportion of cases in persons born in other countries will probably continue to rise, unless domestic programs providing tuberculosis services for immigrants are strengthened and international programs are expanded. Another risk, in the current climate of bioterrorism, is the possible intentional spread of multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis.”

Oh, of course, the answer is not to limit immigration but to ‘provide tuberculosis services for immigrants.’ The obvious and sensible answer, to limit immigration and to screen would-be immigrants and ‘refugees’, is off the table; unthinkable.

The even more troubling fact is that not only do we not screen for tuberculosis, neither do we screen for other communicable diseases. During the recent ebola outbreak “we” deliberately brought ebola cases here for treatment. It’s as though they are courting an epidemic or a plague. Our government officials are ‘bug-chasers’, in the ‘gay’ parlance.

We, the people, are not given any say. We must be the guinea pigs, as “our” government is apparently experimenting with introducing various new (or once-extinct) diseases into our population.

Anonymous Conservative is right; screening for TB and all other communicable (and non-communicable) diseases should be re-introduced. It was once standard procedure, but that was in the days when our government actually seemed to have our well-being at heart.

Screening for diseases would be a good way to put the brakes on out-of-control immigration; it would be hard for any sane person to argue against it, but then of course the left are obviously not sane people.

The administration would be acting wisely and sensibly to start screening again.

Non-discrimination can be deadly

This story illustrates the fact that not discriminating can cost innocent lives, as well as damaging our societies in numerous ways.

As Val Koinen points out here, it’s insanity on parade. I fully agree with his outrage and apparent exasperation. The older generations, could they have seen into the future, into our time, would surely have been incredulous at this story. Imagine, a crazed killer could behead a man in full view of witnesses, on a bus, then be institutionalized in a ‘hospital’ for a short while — then be granted full freedom — and Canadian citizenship to boot. So now, the crazed killer,  (poor, sick individual, in PC terminology), one Vince Li is a Canadian citizen, with all the privileges and freedoms thereof, and he is known as ‘Will Baker’, for some bizarre reason.

Understandably, the mother of the murdered young man in this story, has opposed freeing the killer, and is quoted as saying ‘I have no words’ in response to the news.

Lest the victim be forgotten, as is usually the case, his name was Tim McLean. He was all of 22 years old. His apparent offense against the murderous Li (aka ‘Will Baker) was in smiling at him as he sat down, and asking Li how he was doing.

There are so many things wrong in this story, things which are symptomatic of how our countries (Canada, our country, and all the West) have lost their way. For instance, the obvious thing is the injustices of our ‘justice systems’, in all Western countries subverted by leftism/bleeding-heart pop psychology, and moral relativism. Then there is the ever-present issue of mass, promiscuous, un-vetted immigration, weighted towards the Third World and hostile, primitive countries in most cases, this being no exception. I am really weary of hearing about how ‘East Asians can produce civilized societies; they have high IQs and low criminality.’ Statements like that show a real ignorance of conditions on the ground in most East Asian countries. I consider Japan an exception, but I don’t idealize Japan, either.

Was this man vetted before immigrating to Canada? Since Canada has one of the most promiscuous immigration policies, being besotted with the idea of “diversity”, they seem to be actively recruiting people from the most backward and most hostile cultures on earth, given the statements their politicians are making. Not that our country is much better, if any. We can only hope that our President means what he has said about curtailing immigration, especially from certain societies. But poor Canada; they seem to have no political leader or other prominent voice to speak up for common sense and for the real, historic people of Canada.

So how many more homicidal or otherwise dangerous and problematic immigrants are in Canada — or in our country — now? How many future Lis does Canada have roaming their country? How many does America have? We are letting millions of un-vetted strangers into our countries, offering up our citizens, our children, our elderly, as potential sacrificial victims — and why? Because it is wrong to discriminate. Always wrong. It is evil. We are not to discriminate about who we allow into our countries on any basis, be it religion, nationality, race, creed, gender(!), health condition, character — any basis whatsoever. Send us your wretched refuse, by all means. We don’t discriminate. Let’s put that phrase on our national epitaphs: ”At least we didn’t discriminate.”

But not to discriminate is to give up our right to choose. It means we take huge risks; we leave it all to random chance. It amounts to having no standards whatsoever. It amounts to saying that one thing is as good as another. Law-abiding or criminal, healthy or contagiously diseased — we don’t care. It’s all the same. Ignorant or educated, skilled or uselessly unskilled, what’s the difference? Those who hate us? Just as welcome as those who like us. Come on in, one and all. And there are no limits on numbers, no quotas. Just keep ’em coming, always room for a few million more.

Imagine applying this kind of insanity to our own homes. If we did so, we’d have no locks on our doors; in fact we ought to leave the doors wide open so that nobody would have to trouble themselves to knock; they can walk right in. And bring their friends, families, in-laws, their whole clan, their whole village from the old country.

This is the essence of our immigration policies, on the premise that we ‘need’ more warm bodies — but most especially, ”diverse” warm bodies. People of color. Visible minorities, vis-mins, isn’t that what Canadians call them?

Insanity, as Val Koinen says, indeed, but our overlords, who are masterminding this whole ‘fundamental transformation’ of our national homes, are not insane as much as power-mad, greedy, and determined. They know what they are doing. There is a plan at work, though it seems  madness to the sane amongst us.

So our cultural Marxist system is busily destroying our countries under the guise of humane, compassionate ‘non-discrimination.’ Unless we commit ourselves to returning to common sense discernment, to choosing between good and evil, safe and unsafe, beneficial or destructive, we will continue to see many other stories like this one.

Black-robed tyrants

“Judges ought to remember that their office is Ius dicere, and not Ius dare; to interpret law, and not to make law, or give law.” – Francis Bacon, “Of Judicature”, 1625

“I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent judiciary.” Chief Justice John Marshall, Debates of the Virginia Constitutional Convention, 1829-31

Lindbergh: visionary or ideologue?

During the time I was not blogging, I spent many hours going through old printed material on Archive.org. I came across this transcript in an old radio magazine, Radio Digest, from the year 1930, titled Lindbergh’s Message. It appears that Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator (and ‘America First’ proponent) delivered this address somewhere, or was it written for the magazine in which it appeared? In any case, I found this piece very pertinent to our present-day crisis, in which the West is inundated with immigrants and ‘refugees’, mostly thanks to cheap, easy air travel. Lindbergh foresees this in 1930, and yet seems very sanguine about the consequences. From the piece:

“As methods of transportation improved, it was found impossible for the individual or the community to remain completely independent of other individuals and communities. Contact with foreign countries brought about an intellectual development together with the commercial. Men became no longer content with the bare necessities of existence of a more modern world. The intercourse which sprang up as a result was responsible for the banding together of larger and larger communities under one central government and eventually brought about the comparatively high standard of living.

Every great advance in transportation has forecast a greater unity in world government. Directly or indirectly, whether by peaceful negotiation of by warfare, the demands of commerce have made it both impossible and undesirable for an entirely independent community to exist permanently.
[…]Transoceanic traffic with its worldwide commerce brought about the necessity of international regulation and agreement. In every instance the advantages of cooperation and exchange broke down the barriers of sectionalism.”

Lindbergh seemed to see this as an unqualified good, this breaking down of barriers and the erasure of distances.

“When measured in hours of flying time the great distances of the old world no longer exist. Nations and races are not separated by the traditional obstacles of earthbound travel.”

I’m by no means the only one to note that our present situation, facing an ongoing invasion from the Third World, would not be happening had it not been for the advent of cheap and easy air travel — along with the ‘advertising’ by the global media of the material attractions of the West, luring the ‘have-nots’ plus the ‘have-somes-who-want-more’ to enter our countries bent on conquest, slow or otherwise.

The quoted message from Lindbergh is causing me to re-assess what I thought of his aviation pioneering; I was brought up to see ‘Lucky Lindy’ as simply a rugged individualist, the ‘Lone Eagle’, as he was called, the adventuring spirit in the tradition of our Western European ancestors, driven only by the desire to explore and surmount barriers. Yet in this piece he sounds just like so many of the peace-at-all-costs globalists who were especially vocal in the years between the two world wars. The world was understandably sickened by the ugliness and the destruction of World War I, so that they were determined that the world must be unified, and that an official universal brotherhood of man, institutionalized in something like a League of Nations must be put in place to prevent another war, in fact, to make all future war impossible. So they naively thought.

Was Lindy just another globalist utopian ideologue, and was he conscious that when he made his transatlantic solo flight that he was taking a big step towards unifying the world, and breaking down the barriers, the ‘bounds of nations’ as instituted by God?

I wonder. Nevertheless he did seem to foresee what would happen once worldwide air travel was a reality. Maybe he thought it would be worth it, regardless. Too bad he could not seem to foresee the dire downside to it all.

[To see an enlarged image of the complete text, click on the image below.]

lindberghs-message_radiodigest193025radi_0734sm