Secession: would it work?

Colin Woodard made the case for his vision of the United States as divided into a ”country of regions.” Woodard’s map shows his idea of the ’11 countries” or nations that make up today’s United States.

woodard's eleven nations
I’ve expressed my skepticism about Woodard’s classification of the regions of the United States, because, among other things, it’s an oversimplification. I think that the uncritical way in which many people have seized on Woodard’s ideas and his map to press an agenda of their own is not a good thing. It’s helped to popularize this oversimplified, and I think inaccurate, way of seeing the U.S.

Another problem I have with Woodard’s ideas, (and those of his predecessors who pushed similar ideas in earlier decades) is that Woodard is apparently of a liberal bent, and he obviously does not take racial/ethnic realities into account in his ideas about the future of the Dis-United States.

One thing about his ideas which I find absurd is his classifying the regions according to the people who settled there many generations ago. In the past I questioned how it could be argued that ‘Yankees’, or Puritan Anglo-Saxon stock, could still exert influence over the Northeast when in fact there are, percentage-wise, relatively few of them still in the Northeast. In the article I link above, he argues that somehow all succeeding waves of immigrants have assimilated to Yankee norms, just as his Danish ancestors assimilated to ‘Midlands’ culture. But yet after so many waves of immigrants have washed over parts of these once-United States, surely the footprint of the original settlers has been trampled over so as to be effaced and lost. He is arguing for some kind of quasi-mystical influence that lives on after the actual people who shaped the place are dead and their posterity moved thousands of miles Westward.

I find it hard to believe that the Somalis, for example, who are now being shipped en masse to, say, Minnesota, are absorbing the good old Scandinavian Lutheran ways of the early White settlers. But if one believes Woodard or his followers, this must be what is happening.

Some years ago, I wrote a good bit about secession, and in recent years that subject has become a much more discussed — and popular — topic. And finally someone has written a good piece discussing the improbable situation of our current United States of America breaking up along state lines, or even regional lines, per Woodard et al. From Where the Strongest Evidence Leads blog:

Secession Must Be on the Basis of Race and Beliefs, Not Existing State Borders

“Secession at the state level solves few major problems. Huge divides exist within blue and red states. If California secedes, New Democrats will run it, or at least be the public face of power, until Marxian Hispanics take over, then Muslims take over, including Hispanic and other converts to Islam. If Texas secedes, Rick Perry’s donors will run Texas until the likes of Hugo Chavez take over, then the likes of Ibrahim Hooper replace them, with much violence resulting.

It is more accurate to call the left a coalition of incompatibles than what Steve Sailer calls a coalition of fringes. The same goes for the right.”

Read the whole thing at the blog. The writer takes into account the existence of many factions, including political/ideological as well as ethnic and religious groups who would not, or could not, coexist peaceably should the country break up into separate entities along existing state borders.

The obvious fact is that the powers-that-be have engineered much of the ‘diversity’ which resulted in the presence of so many incompatible and mutually hostile groups. This may indicate that they are hoping to control how a break-up of the United States would play out, should it happen.

It does seem that the more ‘diverse’ our country becomes, with so many competing if not warring groups, the less likely secession would be to change the situation to our advantage, as we would hope.

And maybe those in power are trying, among other things, to insure themselves against secession moves by irreparably breaking the cohesion of the country, sowing seeds of dissension and disunity, so that there can be no threat to the power of those in charge.

Update: I just found this related piece from The Roper Report, called Coloring within the lines. Written from the perspective of racial and ethnic divisions, it also questions the standard view of secession. It would seem that there is no easy solution, and that racial rifts would foil any attempt at a clean separation by region or state.

Advertisements

The Alexandria shootings and the ‘agenda’

The left is pretty predictable in their habit of calling for gun control whenever any kind of mass shooting happens, and oddly (one might think) even when the shooter is one of their own, one of their fellow fanatic ideologues, like the latest perpetrator.

Actually many if not most of these kinds of shootings are done by lefties, though maybe the mainstream GOP types make too much of the political affiliations of the perps in cases like this. For example, they will gleefully mention that some deranged shooter or assailant was a ‘registered Democrat’ when the important fact that they shy away from mentioning is usually race. If the perpetrator is black, the cucked GOP types will mention his party affiliation long before dreaming of mentioning race or religion (if said perp happens to be, oh, say, Jewish. Some things cannot be mentioned. For instance, the Columbine shootings?)

But in this case, the shooter, in Alexandria, VA, was very much a Democrat and his motivations were political; his intended targets were Republicans or Trump supporters in particular it seems.

Now we’re reading of how the shameless, callous left has been celebrating the shootings on Twitter and other social media. I can’t say I’m surprised; they are without shame or scruple, and it still astounds me how they are able to pull their double standard routine time after time. They have the unmitigated gall to pretend to be compassionate, sensitive ‘pacifists’ and Gandhi-devotees (BTW Gandhi was not as pacifistic as he pretended to be; he just got others to gin up conflicts for him) who shrink from violence. Part of this shameless play-acting of theirs is to pretend to be mortified at the mere thought of firearms, while when one of their own wields a gun, especially in an act of attempted assassination, they cheer it on, and make heartless, cynical statements disparaging the victim(s), especially if said victims are White.

It’s all who is doing what to whom. They heartily approve of violence provided it’s done against White, right-wing males, or even semi-right-wing Whites.

How does one shame people for whom shame is a foreign emotion? How can one stir guilt or conscience in ‘people’ without any sense of guilt, and lacking even the semblance of a conscience?

The left, almost to a man (or woman, or whatever other gender they believe themselves to be) are the clinical definition of psychopaths or sociopaths. I often scoff at psychology/psychiatry as pseudo-science, but if such things as psychopaths and sociopaths exist, the left fits the definition. (Incidentally, it’s sort of delicious for me to be able to cite HuffPost for the definition of those terms; if anybody knows what those terms mean, it’s that crowd.)

  • Prone to nervousness, distress and temper meltdowns, not easily calm and suave like the psychopath

  • Usually not well-educated, often non-gainfully employed, the drifter type, the one whom everyone sees as “troubled” or “disturbed.”

  • Their crimes typically are sloppy rather than meticulously premeditated and planned.

  • Capable of emotional bonds with others, but this is difficult to achieve.

  • Despite the capability of emotional attachments, they disregard social mores as a whole.

Notice they cite Ted Bundy as an example of a psychopath. I will say Ted was just evil and twisted, and leave the faux science to the lefties. I am sure they picked Bundy because he was, firstly, White, second, male, and third, supposedly an active member of the Republican party. Why not cite Coral Eugene Watts or Charles Ng?

The left, in typical not-taking-responsibility fashion, will not own its terrorists or psycho-killers, and when forced to acknowledge them, fall back on victimology excuse-making and rationalizing: ‘victim of racism’ or ‘childhood abuse and poverty’, or in this case, driven to it by Donald Trump, I suppose.

But maybe the left’s constant calls for gun control might be muted if they admitted to themselves that they enjoy seeing their fellow lefty-fanatics blasting away at Evil Whitey Republicans. When guns are outlawed, only right-wing gun-nuts will have guns. No, wait, the lefties represent the lawless, criminal side of society, the side their “hearts” always bleed for, and their kind can always obtain weapons, laws or no laws.

 

Who ‘runs’ America?

Who is in charge in our country? This is an important question for those who (like many of us) are appalled and horrified by the direction of our country. Who is to blame? To whom can we assign responsibility for the decisions that are being made, ostensibly in ‘our’ name?

Most of us who grew up in the old America, the America that was and is no more, were imbued with the idea that we, the people, were ‘in charge’; that elected officials were ‘working for us’, being paid by us. Most of us no longer believe that; how is it possible to believe that the American citizen has power in this country, when we’ve seen our elected officials, at the highest levels, ignoring our expressed will, and seemingly doing the bidding of other interests?

For some people, The Jews are the real power, albeit indirectly or covertly. Others (strangely) still identify some kind of mysterious WASP ‘elites’ as being in control. Some people refer to ‘New England Yankees’ as a powerful cabal, though there are few colonial-stock Yankees in New England anymore.

Lately a great number of people on the right subscribe to the idea that ‘Boomers’ are and have been in charge, and that they are therefore to blame for the situation we are in. This idea is a recent one, relatively speaking. I started blogging in 2006 and I don’t remember hearing this meme then. It’s only caught on in the last several years at most. Yet it’s become strongly ensconced in the minds of many on the right.

It would be interesting to trace this meme, to follow it back to its source. I posted a comment from another ethnonationalist blog which named a few bloggers (on the right) as the likely source, but who knows? Lacking any other explanation I might accept it; I know it has been reinforced greatly through constant repetition on certain blogs, though it’s everywhere now.

I’ve tried, without success, to argue via data (polls, survey results, etc.) to refute the idea that boomers are far-left and that they constitute some kind of powerful force. However I’ve found that approach to be a failure. People seem to be operating out of a visceral dislike rather than a rational antipathy toward their favorite villains. Facts don’t matter; data does not persuade people who don’t want to believe the data.

If boomers were a monolithically leftist group, the gut-level loathing would be understandable.

And even if the charges against them were true, do they ‘run’ America? If so it would be logical to assume that they must be firmly in control of Congress and other such institutions. But at no time does one age group or cohort have exclusive control of Congress. There is always a cross-section of age groups and different generations in seats of power. The 115th Congress, which is the one sitting now, has quite a few very old members, people like Rep. Conyers, who is 87 years old (and thus not a Boomer), or Reps. Young and Johnson, from Alaska and Texas respectively. I am sure there are other octogenarians in Congress; what about Dianne Feinstein, the oldest Senator, at 83? And how old is John McCain?

The youngest Senator, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, is 39. I think that would make him a late Gen-Xer, for whatever that’s worth. So there is a mix of ages and generations in Congress. More demographic data on Congress members is here; it’s of interest that more immigrants are now sitting in Congress, as well as record number of nonwhites and women.

And what of the Supreme Court? Aren’t the ubiquitous Boomers dominating that institution? I think most of us know that there are a couple of octogenarians (pre-Boomers) on the Supreme Court, and according to this article the average age at which they are projected to retire will be 83.

Where else can we look for Boomers? They surely dominate college faculties, don’t they? They are being accused of ‘holding onto’ their jobs past the age when they should be forced out to pasture.

But does anyone seriously profess to believe that one age group can exercise so much influence in the important spheres of life? Some ‘anti-anti-Semites’ have accused those who warn against Jewish influence of attributing near-superhuman powers to Jews. It seems there are just as many people who must think Boomers have superhuman powers to exercise so much control over our society.

Simply reading a history book would make it clear that the crisis that has beset all the Western, formerly White-majority countries has its roots far back. It did not originate with Boomers, or even the Silent Generation (many of whom participated in the 60s countercultural movement). It is too facile to accuse any one age group or generation of being solely — or even mostly — to blame. Were all the other generations asleep or completely inert and passive when the Boomers were supposedly doing the dirty work of destroying Western Civilization? Even millennials have for years had the right to vote and to make their voices heard, yet only now are we seeing a percentage of them taking to the streets to oppose the left. Likewise with Gen-X. What was the saying attributed to black militant Eldridge Cleaver? “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem”? Everybody who is of age has the ability to ‘get involved’ in some way when they see things going down a dangerous path; people of every generation have had their chance to stand up and be counted, to play some part. It’s easy to point the finger at somebody else, and demand ‘why didn’t you stop it?’ or to say ‘it’s all your fault’.

A certain female politician notoriously said ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child. And it takes more than a ‘village’ to destroy a nation, a people, a culture. There is more than enough blame to go around.

And just a reminder for those who note accusingly that the ‘Boomers’ aren’t out on the barricades in these recent skirmishes: Boomers are now elderly, with the oldest being septuagenarians. Actually in the 1990s there were still a good many Boomers who were actively taking part in rallies and protests in border states, where some were assaulted by immigrants or their supporters. I can think of two such cases involving older people being injured. Do the critics really think grandma or grandpa should be mixing it up with violent young immigrants and antifa types? That’s a job for the young and fit. And the opposition has no respect for the aged or those who are weaker — but then few people on either side do.

Some people openly wish harm to Boomers for their ‘sins’, but be patient; at seventy or so, people begin to die of natural causes, as we’ve seen with a few Boomer celebrities recently. Time is catching up with them as with all of us, and the Boomers will be gone soon enough, vacating the role of scapegoat for someone else. And how does this blame game change anything? It doesn’t. It divides us. It polarizes and paralyzes us. We need to regain a sense of common purpose to unify us. We should, for the greater good, be able to put differences aside.

The American Indians lost control of this continent because they were so lacking in unity; our colonist ancestors benefited from the divisions that kept the different tribes at each others’ throats. Somebody is benefiting from our divisions.

And it ain’t us.

 

 

The continuing war on the Confederacy

It truly makes me feel sick to write about the recent events in which time-honored monuments in the South have been vandalized, desecrated, and destroyed.  And all of this is being done so as to destroy, finally, the image of the Confederacy and the good name of the White people of the South. It’s being done to appease, to flatter, and to pander to blacks, to reassure them that they, in fact, are THE people now; the time of Whitey has passed, and it is now their turn, their time to exact revenge and to demand homage and ‘respect’ from those who (as they believe) have ‘held them down’.

As I’ve written before, the real ‘dark days’ of the South were the days of so-called ‘Reconstruction’, in  which nothing was rebuilt, but much was savaged and destroyed. Newly-freed blacks were then being instructed by their unprincipled ‘carpetbagger’ mentors and ‘protectors’ that they were now entitled to payback for the past, and that they were now free to behave as they pleased. Search out older history books (if the leftists have not eliminated them all) and you may find that the White population of the South was on the receiving end of a great deal of violence thanks to ‘freedmen’, Northern carpetbaggers, and Southron scallywags, all of whom, together, fomented disorder and fear in the South. Those days, Mitch Landrieu, were really dark days; not the antebellum days in the South as you implied in your recent anti-White speech in New Orleans, justifying the destruction of Confederate monuments.

Mitch Landrieu’s uninformed references to the days of slavery and the whole history of the Confederacy amount to the usual anti-White, anti-Southron boilerplate, and it sounds like history as told via Hollywood scriptwriters looking to sensationalize that era (a la Django, 12 Years a Slave, etc. etc.) as one of incredible cruelty, rape, and inhumanity. I believe Landrieu even uses those words.

Most Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of lies regarding the past, especially concerning racial differences, and Landrieu perhaps believes it all himself; but liberals are much more free to make up ‘history’ as it suits them, believing as they do that there is no such thing as objective truth; nothing is absolute, all is relative. It’s all a matter of whose narrative you choose. Obviously Landrieu chooses the nonwhite version of “history”, in which nonwhites are ever-sinned against, never sinning. Nonwhites, in their own eyes, can never be wrong or do wrong. It is always ‘Whitey’s’ fault; the blame can never lie elsewhere; it can never even be shared. Guilt is exclusively the property of Whitey. No one else. Ever.

I wonder if Mitch Landrieu or any lefty has ever heard of the Slave Narratives? If so, the response is simply to ignore it, and failing that, to deny the truth therein. If any of  my readers have not read from that source, I recommend reading some of the stories. The overall picture is not at all the lurid picture of White cruelty and rapine that the current powers-that-be continue to push. I won’t be surprised when and if the politically correct archivists and historians yield fully to PC and expunge those stories from the Internet as well as from libraries. Can’t allow competing narratives, can we? Only the anti-White narrative must be allowed to be read or heard or seen; all else must be silenced, or, as with the Confederate monuments, pulled down, razed, and turned to rubble.

And now that all those who were actually slaves are long gone, there is no one to gainsay the lying depictions of the South as a cesspool of inhumanity, exploitation, torture, rape, and degradation. So the Mitch Landrieus of the world can spread their mendacious stories likening the antebellum South to ‘Nazi Germany’ or whatever other example of ultimate ‘White evil’ they are hyping.

What makes Landrieu’s posturing especially ironic is that there is at least some doubt about his own ancestry; sources say Landrieu’s family was listed as ‘black’ on past census records, and Mitch’s grandfather altered their identity to White. So is Mitch Landrieu a ‘White supremacist’ because he and his relatives now choose to downplay if not deny any black ancestry? I would say hardly; no ‘White supremacist’ would take such a hard-line anti-White, anti-Confederate stand as he is taking. At worst he is a hypocrite on his racial identity, though why he does not proudly claim any black ancestry is beyond me, considering that he extols ‘diversity’ and the holy ‘melting pot’ in his speech. In fact he praises everybody under the sun in that speech except Whites, for whom he reserves his greatest vitriol.  So is Landrieu White or not? Is he self-hating? I mean, if even Rachel Dolezal can proudly claim her black ancestry, why not Landrieu?

Maybe he enjoys posing as the noble White defender of poor downtrodden diversities, hence the decision to be ‘White.’ But he knows that by the old code of the South — and indeed, of pretty much all of old White America — the one-drop rule was applied. If one was a fraction black, one was black. Period. Full stop. End of story. One drop was all it took. Hence people like Adam Clayton Powell. Or some of these people.

For some bizarre reason, The Atlantic seems to insist on Landrieu’s ‘white’ identity; wait — I thought race was just a social construct anyway.

Mitch Landrieu is a politician, and they come and go. So he is not really the issue here; he is just one of many. There are plenty of other anti-White ‘Southern’ politicians today, who deserve the shameful label ‘scallywag’ that our Southron ancestors used for them. When Landrieu and that whole clan are no longer in office (if Louisiana ever runs out of Landrieus to run for office) there will be others, by other names, just as much scoundrels, to take their place.

I don’t know how North and South,black and White, can coexist under the same government, but for some reason the perverse pro-Union types insist, demand, that live together we must, whether we like it or not. Some people, strange though it may seem,  believe that this hideous ‘shotgun (re)marriage must continue, despite divisions and, increasingly, open violence. Is this abstract thing called the ‘Union’ really worth coercing people who distrust and despise and resent each other to live together? And how is that called ‘freedom’?

 

 

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.

‘Unvetted’ refugees

I doubt if anyone reading this would be surprised to read in The New American that the majority of ‘refugees’ (and immigrants, for that matter) are not vetted, or are vetted very poorly. I’ve said it before as have many others, but the woman, Jill Noble, who is at the center of this New American piece is saying these things as one who has some direct knowledge. Josh Tolley’s interview of her on YouTube has attracted over 125,000 viewers, and apparently the information she offers is new to them.

Noble says that many of the ‘refugees’ are mostly men, from Africa and the Middle East — whose names are not even known for certain. And they obviously come from what used to be termed ‘backward countries’ where thorough documentation or identification are unreliable and spotty, to say the least. I will point out that this is true of most of the countries which are sending us ‘immigrants.’ Our media, much as they lie and obfuscate about these things, mention that many immigrants who are arrested have multiple identities and their true names are never known for sure in some cases. So it is not just the ‘refugees’, but many immigrants too. No need to point out the foolishness of our policy of taking these people at their word. Deception is not unheard of among them.

Surely Western countries — which seemingly are the only desired destination for these people who supposedly ‘fear for their lives’ — are viewed as the world’s pushovers, a lot of gullible and easily-duped people. We invite this attitude on their part by our lack of common-sense. Even “conservatives” who think of themselves as tough-minded are prey to the tendency to feel sorry for these poor people ‘just looking for a better life’. Then there are those squishy ‘conservatives’ who feel flattered to fill the role of the World’s Savior.

So, though Donald Trump promised to ‘vet’ incoming refugees, I think it’s just window-dressing, meant to assuage any doubts, and to reassure those easily-pleased followers, who accept a vague promise to ‘do something.’ The truth, which this video seems to reinforce, is that vetting incoming refugees (and immigrants from the Third World) is just not possible.

Those who are content to rely on ‘vetting’ are kidding themselves or they are simply blind followers of the leaders they admire. That in itself is the source of many of our woes as a country: blindly trusting leaders.

 

‘The carnal idea of Nation’

Tiberge at GalliaWatch posted an important piece, one which hasn’t gotten the attention it merits, in my opinion. The title is Protecting and promoting French heritage. However it is really about something deeper than that, something that is brought out in the article which cites Marion Maréchal-Le Pen as well her better-known aunt, Marine Le Pen.
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen wrote a piece for Le Figaro in which she argued for cultural and historical preservation, in which government officials would play a part. Unless nationalists and reactionaries gain power in France, the role played by French government seems wishful thinking at this point, but who knows?

Marion says of her aunt, Marine:

“When she drew up her cultural platform in the shadows of the stones of Mont-Saint-Michel and the abbey of Conques, Marine Le Pen brought into the campaign the carnal idea of Nation.”

I am not sure if there is an alternate translation to the phrase at the end of that quote — “the carnal idea of nation.” However I think I grasp what she means, at least in the context of the speech referred to.  To me, it suggests what I’ve alluded to in a post on the other blog. It implies — to me, at least — the ‘people’ implicit in the very word, ‘nation’. It implies their physical works and achievements — as with the great architecture of old Europe, as well as their works in all the other arts, their intellectual and spiritual heritage.  Their folkways, their language, their customs. This is all of paramount importance in a people’s survival, and it’s not given enough thought and attention, as it has become second-nature for many of us to think of political parties and the whole governmental apparatus along with the economic system. However the latter is not the real nation; a nation is its people, and that people are not economic units or interchangeable consumers or raceless, rootless ciphers.

The entity that is often thought of when we think of a ‘nation’ or a country is only the outer aspect, the physical, whereas the culture is the soul of the people. If that culture is damaged or destroyed, or altered beyond recognition, then it leaves a people bereft of meaning, of continuity, of a sense of identity and of rootedness in the past.

“I can already hear society sarcastically describing us as embittered nostalgia-seekers. In her latest book, Le Crépuscule des idoles progressistes (The twilight of progressive idols) published by Stock, author Bérénice Levet summarized it brilliantly: “The past is not a program, it is a resource.” The past, in truth, is a compass of meaning, a breeding ground of experiences, a haven in which we can take refuge, and even console ourselves in these uncertain times. And our heritage constitutes precisely this past incarnate, this “petrified History.”

With (Marine Le Pen’s) platform we will perpetuate the national pact, that of the common possession of our dead, their dreams, their hopes and their prowess.”

Marion refers to cultural ‘vandals’ in government ministries:

“Their vision of a disincarnate France led them, false right and true left alike, to organize the historic amnesia of our children. They went after our intangible heritage: instilling in our minds the shame of our ancestors, refusing to transmit the national history in the schools, depriving our children of mastery of their own language or abandoning it for “globish”. Then they attacked our material heritage by allowing the stones and tiles to collapse. All the components of our national identity have been the object of their assaults. The whole chain of transmission has in this way been broken.”

Yes, these ‘cultural vandals’ have been at work here in our country, and in all Western, White countries. These vandals obviously know what they are doing; this is not all by accident or happenstance. It’s deliberate.

The political front is one part of this one-sided war against us; I believe that if we lose the spiritual/cultural side of this struggle, we will have little to no chance of restoring our countries. I begin to think more and more that the non-material aspect of the struggle is more important. The political tide may not turn in our favor enough to save us. I think recovering the idea of a nation of flesh-and-blood, of people, is essential to restoring and preserving our folk.

Which God? Which America?

I’ve been out of touch with what passes for news lately, though I can’t avoid hearing what people are saying in the ‘real world.’ More pressing concerns closer to home have had me preoccupied these last couple of months, and that’s part of the reason for my lack of activity here.

When  I was searching for a live discussion thread on the Inaugural ceremonies I found that Free Republic seemed to be down. I wondered if the usual suspects were behind that or if they were just overwhelmed by the numbers of people who, like me, were looking for live coverage and discussion. And no, I couldn’t access C-Span coverage either.

Online, wherever the lefties (especially the young ones) were hanging out, there was a real fawn-fest going on, with everybody seeming to be teary-eyed over the exit of their Idol from the White House. Now, these are people who are not usually likely to invoke ‘God’, and they usually choke on the word ‘America’ but they were asking God to ‘bless America’. That phony piety was enough to make me choke, but I had to ask just which God are they invoking? And just which ‘America’ are they asking their god to ‘bless’? Certainly not the same God as the one I serve, and the America they are asking a blessing on is not my America, and not in fact the historic nation (and people) known as America.

The lefties in their various mutated forms  (and they are not the left of the old days) no longer inhabit the same universe as the rest of us, and I don’t know how this can all be resolved without a great deal of turmoil and upheaval, most of which they seem to be courting and lusting after. But it must be resolved one way or another; the present state of affairs can’t continue as it is now. I think most people sense that, even if they don’t “know” it.

I realize these are not original observations by any means; I don’t seem to have much wisdom or wit to impart. I do hope I can somehow get back in the swing of blogging provided somebody wants to read my ramblings, but there are still personal concerns that claim most of my time and attention. But if good intentions matter, maybe I will get back to blogging regularly.

 

Trump’s choices

I know my point of view is out of step with much of the right, but I am not happy with some of the choices Trump is making for his cabinet. They seem decidedly politically correct to me.

At first glance it might seem that Jeff Sessions was a sound choice, but given how he is leaning over backwards to prove he is ‘not a racist’, citing his bona fides as a champion of desegregation/civil rights activist, we’re going to be seeing a lot more of the ‘mainstream’ right posturing and marginalizing of the traditional South. It’s already happening, with the usual ‘Democrats are the real racists’ articles.

Sessions was born in 1946 so he is old enough to have grown up amongst unreconstructed Southerners. Truth be told there were very few Whites back in those times who broke rank with fellow Whites — even in the North — to make common cause with blacks; usually only the most liberal would do so. Did he really have an epiphany then or is he just being a typical politician and going whichever way the winds blow? He is also a Methodist by faith and it does seem that Methodists today are a very liberal denomination, given to ‘social justice’ crusading.

Surely, also, Sessions must know something of that certain ‘taboo’ organization, which he ‘broke the back’ of in his state; that at least at its inception it was not a terrorist mob, but a self-defense organization, made necessary by the fact that there was no law and order or justice for the disenfranchised Whites in the South. They were preyed upon by carpetbaggers from the North, traitor ‘scallywags’ from amongst their own, and by the newly-freed slaves, who ran rampant. That now-proscribed organization was at first made up of respectable men, of the upper classes, who simply wanted to protect their families and lives in a lawless situation, that of Reconstruction. There is no excuse for a man like Sessions not to know that history, and I am certain he does know it. He chooses to participate in the anti-White, PC interpretation of the past.

The organization of that same name is apparently not the same now, being mostly composed of agents and operatives, according to what I’ve heard. Even so, how much violence have they committed, such as they are, as opposed to BLM? Or foreign terrorists?

Will anyone ever step forward to try to correct the popular delusions about that era of history? Trump, according to some of the faithful, has destroyed PC — but from where I stand it looks to be as entrenched as ever.

Maybe Sessions will be ‘good’ on immigration. Maybe. But I’m not taking that on faith.

Then there’s Nimrata “Nikki” Haley, who presided over the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag in South Carolina. Trump was aware of the CBF controversy, and I thought he had said something that vaguely indicated support for ‘free expression’ where the flag was concerned. But why, then, pick this woman?

Surprisingly quite a few Southrons, because of what I see as unwarranted blind faith in Trump are giving him a pass on this.

This evidently makes me a ‘purist’ or ‘hard-liner’ in some people’s eyes because I don’t have that kind of faith. So be it; I’m used to this being the case. Despite the amount of time and space I devote to these political things, I have less and less belief in our political system, or in politics per se; everyone these days says politics is all about compromise and dissimulating if need be to trick the enemy (and the constituencies). If so, then there’s no hope of real solutions there. If lying and dissembling is intrinsic to politics, necessarily, then it won’t save us. I have thought more and more that the culture is where the battle is to be fought. As long as the edifice of lies that is our society is still mostly unchanged, politics won’t be the solution. It only reflects the wider world, corrupt as it is.

As far as the endless defenses of moves like this by Trump, I get a definite feeling of déjà vu, taking me back to the ‘W’ years, in which everything G.W. Bush did was rationalized as ‘he’s gaming the system‘, or ‘it’s strategery‘, or ‘it’s rope-a-dope.’ Everything was a brilliant move shrewdly disguised as blundering. No one wanted to admit that his actions were exactly what they appeared to be, rather than some clever, cunning maneuver. I expect that kind of pattern with Trump; the true believers are so invested in him that there will be literally no end of the rationalizations.