A people ‘in good shape’?

Alain de Benoist quote

I think Alain de Benoist is right about what constitutes a people ‘in good shape.’ Number one on his list of criteria describes much of what my blog focused on in its earlier days, but it seems much of America has become too cynical to look to our cultural and historical roots; much of the right has bought the Howard Zinn/NPR view of our culture and history, which is not just sad, but it is a huge blow to our sense of who we are — and it precludes Alain de Benoist’s number 2 criterion. How can we have a ‘will to destiny’ if there is no ‘we‘ anymore, or if there is not a ‘we’ worth preserving? We so divided by generation, by sex, by region, by religion, by ethnicity.

Lastly, Alain de Benoist is right on the money about how the left does not want to have an enemy — except for White people, specifically White, Christian, straight people, especially males. That enemy is the only enemy the deluded leftists/deracinated Whites/globalists want to recognize.

And again

rot

 

I am troubled by the latest attack in Manchester, England, and sickened that this cycle goes on, needlessly. I do feel deeply for the families of the victims, and my prayers are for them.

However I am not sharing the above ‘meme’ with the motive of inspiring more teary ‘candlelight vigils’ and statements of unity (“we stand with Muslims”, as the millennials like to say). There have been far too many of those and to what avail?

And as I’ve asked, rhetorically of course, to what ‘god’, exactly, are the usual soppy prayers being offered up? More importantly, to what ‘god’ are the victims being offered up? Because they are, seemingly, being offered up by the powers-that-be, for what? An appeasement? An offering to whatever evil gods of whatever far-off-lands may require the sacrifice of innocents?

To give some of the ‘bleeding-heart’ types their due (if they have that right; I am not sure they have), they may be well-intentioned in their feeble, wet-dishrag way, with their prayers and their ‘standing together’ and their teary appeals. But can they really believe that the true God, the God of the Bible, accounts the perpetrators of these atrocities as just as much ‘his children’ as those who worship him in spirit and in truth? Are murderers and victims all equal in God’s eyes? Does God really love them all the same? Is God really morally neutral? If this is the ‘god’ these bleeding-hearts invoke then they are worshipping some kind of heathen deity who does not differentiate or judge morally. Such a ‘god’ is deaf and blind and offers no comfort or consolation. Above all, such a ‘god’ as these post-Christians pray to does not offer justice. As such, he/she is not a ‘god’ at all. So prayers are of no avail. It is no wonder help is not forthcoming to the nations who have decided to bow down to this god-who-is-no-god.

And to some extent, our nation is prey to this same post-Christian delusion that plagues most of Europe, as well as Australia and New Zealand and Canada.

On a simply human level, why do the nations who are the targets of these attacks not finally get angry that their kinsmen are being killed, picked off randomly, in incidents like this? If someone was picking off their family members like this, would people still react with resignation and tears and hand-wringing, rather than reacting with righteous anger and some attempt at healthy self-defense? There must be some deep mind-conditioning going on to cause this passivity and resignation.

One final note: I am waiting to see the first allegation of a ‘false flag’, and the first claim that there are ‘crisis actors’ and staged scenes to fool us into believing a real attack happened.

If this is true, if the powers-that-be are resorting to having to stage fake terror attacks, then the Moslems are falling down on the job; they aren’t earning their keep in our countries, not doing what they were brought here for.

Woodrow Wilson, to immigrants

The following message from President Woodrow Wilson appeared in ‘Gateway to Citizenship’, a government handbook for immigrants being prepared for naturalization. The now-familiar tropes about ‘dreams’ and ‘dreamers’ was already being employed almost a hundred years ago:

Woodrow Wilson to immgrants_Gateway

Yes, the propaganda was already there: immigrants ‘enriching us’, and ‘realizing their dreams.’ But the last paragraph shows where it was headed: if America did not commit itself to perpetual ‘enrichment’ and ‘renewal’ by ever-more-disparate immigrants, then we would be a ‘narrow and prejudiced’ kind of ‘family’, and obviously being a family is not desirable; we have to be a people of no fixed genetics or culture or history, just an ever-changing, ever in flux, amorphous collection of people(s). Such is the melting pot; such is ‘civic nationalism’.

‘In the New World Order…’

“In the New World Order, there will be neither national sovereignty nor national identity, and just as the population of the nation is to be replaced by Third World immigrants, so the culture of the nation is to be replaced by one suitable only for rootless and deracinated people—a people that can be deluded that what it is told to think and believe is really ‘universal’ and ‘culture-neutral’ because it has long since ceased to have any real culture of its own.”Sam Francis

‘Austria’s richest man’ vs. PC

It seems that ‘Austria’s richest man’ has spoken out, in an interview with Kleine Zeitung,  against mass immigration to Europe and has denounced Political Correctness. According to Breitbart London:

“In the interview, Mateschitz took a stand against the “destabilisation of Europe”, which he said threatens the “uniqueness of [the continent’s] diversity and individuality with its different cultures and languages”.

“I hope I’m not the only one who’s worried that one of the highest officials in Brussels said that countries which aren’t multicultural should be wiped off the map”, Mateschitz told the newspaper, possibly alluding to comments made by European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans in 2015.”

How is it, I wonder, that Mateschitz is not spouting the same politically correct mantras we hear from most European public figures? What has enabled him to escape the straitjacket of political correctness?

The information I’ve read about him indicates that he is of Croatian origin, though born in Austria. (I half-expect someone to say that he is a Jew, though there is nothing to that effect in what I’ve read. Still, one never knows; name origins are often confusing. But if he were in fact of Jewish origin that would make his statements even more anomalous, given the fact that the default Jewish position seems to be for open borders and multiculturalism.)

Maybe the difference is that he is of an older generation, having been born in 1944 before ‘political correctness’ spread its poison throughout the West. Only those who remember things as they once were can truly know what has been lost.

Mateschitz alludes to remarks by the European Commission VP Timmermans, indicating that ‘any society, anywhere in the world, will be diverse in the future’, because ‘that’s the future of the world.’ The implication seems to be “or else.” There is to be no choice. That’s already been made clear, even though we’ve seldom heard it expressed so bluntly, and with such seeming finality, before. It’s more than clear that the European officials are totalitarians.

”Of political correctness, Mateschitz said: “It seems that no one dares to tell the truth, even if everyone knows what the truth is.”

“The elites want citizens to be frightened, and easily manipulated,” he added.”

Despite the fact that the occasional brave soul speaks up and says these things, it seems that most people in Europe (and too many here) are unwilling to break out of the mental prison. Are they frightened, or are they just unaware of reality? Surely there has to be an awakening to reality someday — surely?

Some of us have been saying this for years and have we come any closer to that day?

Still, every voice of truth and sanity is welcome, and the cumulative effect may one day be felt, even if it appears that the mass delusion is as strong as ever.

 

 

 

My misgivings were valid

Or so it appears now, what with Trump’s launching of missile strikes on Syria. Now we can watch Lindsey Graham and John McCain gloat over getting what they wanted, and we get to hear Newt Gingrich’s smug statements about the ‘decisive action’ Trump is taking.

Praise from that bunch is equivalent to anathema, from my perspective. And it seems a lot of people on the alt-right agree with my feelings about this, while many of the ‘true believer’ diehards are sticking by Trump — but these seem mostly in the GOP faithful category. Like the FReeper who posted this, in response to those disenchanted with the ‘god-emperor”:

To: TrumpisRight

All the anti-Trump drama queens around here tonight should be listening to Newt on Fox right now.

He just said this is a historic week. Gorsuch confirmed, successful meetings with Egypt and Jordan, meeting today wirh China, and decisive action in Syria that just made Russia, Iran, Syria and NK take notice. Newt said Trump has a strong SoS, SecDef, and NSA and Trump is stronger than all of them. People trashing Trump tonight need to just get a life.”

I’ve not posted much about the Trump administration and their doings. I voted for Trump with some misgivings; I was not pleased to see the coterie of neocons and globalist-types that Trump gathered around him, and it seems as if one by one he was backing off his promises or half-promises, caving on too many important things. I refrained from blogging about that, hoping these things would just be aberrations, but it seems they were not.

Is Trump the passive victim of a ‘coup,’ as some say? Is he being ”played”, duped, given bad advice by the crowd of wormtongues around him, or is he consciously participating in a preplanned operation?

Early on I began to wonder: what if? What if he is a participant in some kind of psyops directed at the right, probably at the alt-right, as the media seemed obsessed with calling attention to the ‘evil, fascist’ alt-right during the campaign? Might the powers-that-be not have purposely run a candidate that could be made to appeal to the nationalist, non-PC, anti-globalist right wing, so much feared (it seems) by TPTB? By running a candidate that would give signals that he supported a populist, nationalist right agenda, maybe they thought they could corral and ‘tame’ such a movement, or co-opt it, making the alt-right feel they had a stake in ‘the system’, in mainstream politics, rather than in opposing the system.

They could thus de-fang the feared alt-right/populist right and, when the latter inevitably found out they were being gaslighted and fooled, disillusionment and demoralization would follow, and maybe a schism in the non-PC right, or even amongst the harmless, ‘cucked’ GOP, who would likewise break down into dissension and thus spend their energy in infighting (pro-Trump loyalists vs. disillusioned ex-Trump supporters). Or maybe I have read too many ‘conspiracy’ oriented speculations, and become too cynical.

Maybe we’ll never know. I do think our trust was betrayed, though as I said I was a skeptic already.

Meantime we have to wonder if this Syria thing will lead to war with Russia, and for Christians, whether this is the ‘Gog-Magog’ scenario we’re embarking on.

Syria intervention?

I don’t know if I have much to add to the discussion of the situation in Syria. Plenty of other bloggers on the right are talking about it. All I can say is that it gives me a feeling of déjà vu, of 2003 and the beginning of the Iraq war, which has proven to have been futile (as I and many others on the ‘real right’  then said it would be) and to have wasted many American lives.

Back then, the Republican faithful had become used to defending G.W. Bush in the face of the constant attacks from the left, who were then in the throes of ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’. And thus anybody on the right who criticized Bush was called names and basically read out of the Republican fold. Only the ‘paleocons’, the old right, and a few ‘traditionalists’ spoke out against the Iraq war, because in the face of all the anti-Bush feeling in the media, the GOP resorted to a blind loyalty that led them to rationalize every bad move Bush made, talking themselves into believing that he was a ‘master politician’ who had some grand, secret plan, some ‘strategery’, as Limbaugh called it, that would eventually bring triumph for himself and for Republicans. Of course Bush, the ultimate ‘shrewd poker player’ and political genius, never produced this grand triumph his faithful followers counted on. The war in Iraq was, as the doubters on the ‘old right’ predicted, a boondoggle, and a ‘quagmire’.

The ‘old right’ was right back in 2003. The ‘neocons’, who were hardly recognized by many Republicans for what they were then, have since unmasked themselves; surely we know better than to follow their failed policies? Or will blind loyalty cause us to repeat the blunders of the recent past?

I hope I am wrong in this case, but if this proposed Syrian adventure happens, it could be the Bush ‘quagmire’ all over again.

Are people easily swayed?

In the midst of the ongoing disaster in Europe, there’s been a lot of discussion of how Germany — which seems to be Ground Zero in the escalating war against Europeans — has become so self-abasing and unwilling to defend herself. ‘How could the Germans’, it’s often asked, ‘go from being a proud and racially conscious people to being self-flagellating, willing to commit national suicide?’

The consensus seems to be that gradually, over the years since WWII ended, the German people were ‘re-educated’ into believing that their past was shameful and evil, and that they had to atone perpetually for their history, especially during WWII. Slowly, between 1945 and now, they became a passive, PC-whipped people thanks to relentless chaming propaganda.

In light of that popular belief, it’s interesting and puzzling to look at this poll, which was taken in Germany in March, 1946. The poll is in a book titled ‘Public Opinion, 1935-46’, edited by Hadley Cantril, published by Princeton University Press, 1951. See the results below:

Germans on race 1946ab

I would have expected different results. It appears, assuming that the respondents gave honest replies, that even by 1946, not that long after the end of the War, that they held very liberal attitudes on race and intermarriage, views that we now call ‘politically correct.’ What does this say, I wonder? Are people’s opinions that shallow and fluid, that they could be reversed so quickly? Surely the globalist, Babelist propaganda merchants (who were at work even then) hadn’t had time to thoroughly change public opinion in Germany.

Incidentally, the book in question has many polls on various subjects, taken in various Western countries, and it’s fascinating — and depressing, at times — to see how different most people’s views were in that time period. I expect I will post more from these polls.

 

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’.