via Wrath of Gnon.
via Wrath of Gnon.
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”:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the exit polls I’ve seen since the election, there was no upsurge in minority votes for Trump this time, as contrasted to previous candidates. Yet I keep seeing claims on every other right-leaning blog that ‘Hispanics went for Trump’ or ‘lots of blacks voted for Trump.’ Depends on how you define ‘lots’, apparently. According to the Diversity is Chaos blog, citing Reuters/Ipsos polls, Trump got 8 percent of the black vote, and 27 percent of Hispanic votes.
Now, can we please, please dispense with the wishful thinking, the spin, and the half-truths/half lies? Why is this going on? I thought the right was the realist faction in America. Are people purposely lying or are they just pulling numbers out of their hats? Somebody on a right-wing blog today claimed that 33 percent of Hispanics voted for Trump; of course they cited no source.
It does seem to me to be especially important to many people on the right, even on what is deemed ‘hard right’, to imagine that lots of POCs are, or could be, on our side, if we just make them welcome. Obviously that was Donald Trump’s belief (or strategy), given his constant efforts to court minorities, especially blacks and (legal) Hispanics. But all evidence is that it didn’t work, because according to the Diversity is Chaos post, Trump had less support from Hispanics and blacks than any president in the last 40 years. His percentage of the Hispanic vote was the same as Mitt Romney’s, and less than the alleged 40 percent that George W. Bush got in 2004.
Even in that often-cited 2004 total, there were those who doubted that the 40 percent was accurate, but it seemed as if the GOP was doing some magical thinking, as if saying that Hispanics were coming over to our side would make it true.
And if blacks and Hispanics did join the GOP or a theoretical ‘right-wing’ party (none exists, of course) what would we have then? Eventually two parties where Whites and their interests are marginalized.
I see that some Oregonians are talking of their state seceding after the Trump victory. Typical childish tantrum-throwing, sulking and ‘threats’ from the overgrown infants called ‘progressives.’
I thought it was bad enough during the G.W. Bush years, but the left has grown ‘progressively’ more unhinged with each passing year.
Why not let Oregon and California, likewise, go if they no longer want to be part of these United States? If a majority of Oregonians want to secede I believe (as did my ancestors) that they have a right to do so. After all, in a purportedly free country, how can we keep people in the Union by coercion or force?
However it appears that most of Oregon, comprising the rural areas mainly, voted Republican in this election; this Christian Trejbal quoted in the piece is evidently not typical of Oregon residents, though he may delude himself that he is. After all he probably associates only with other ‘progressives’ and lives in a bubble in one of the liberal enclaves: a big city or an academic town.
As for California, as it is now well on the way to becoming a majority Mexican state, maybe there is a case for that state to secede, based on majority sentiment. Some people have been saying for years that we should throw California to the Mexican government and in return they might stop sending their rejects and criminals across our border. I doubt California would be enough to satisfy them; if they could conquer it demographically, by stealth over the years, they can do the same with other states. Why facilitate the takeover? And if the border with Mexico was moved north, why on earth would Mexicans or other Latin Americans respect that border any more than they have respected the current border?
If California became part of Mexico, we would have to get serious about enforcing the immigration laws, and stop leaving the doors wide open for anyone and everyone to come sauntering in. But the thing that exasperates me most about this secession talk is that the media treats the Oregon and California threats as reasonable, while any talk from the South of secession meets with scorn. Even among conservatives online, many Northerners want to re-fight the War Between the States, throwing around words like ‘treason’ when any Southern state or state mentions seceding.
Why the double standard? Many Northerners want to play the role of a control-freak spouse, saying ‘if you leave, I’ll hunt you down and kill you. You can never leave..’ Half a million people died in the War Between the States because, dammit, the South had no right to break up the Holy Sacred Union. They had to be crushed, subdued, and humbled — even to this day, with the destruction of our monuments, the banning of our flag, and even the exhuming of our heroes. So let the northern states who want their ‘progressive multicult utopias leave, and let them live with the consequences of their actions. No sneaking back into our country, no restoration of citizenship. Or maybe if they begged to re-enter the Union they would have to undergo Reconstruction as their ancestors inflicted on the South. It would be fitting.
Yesterday I was cautiously optimistic, but I admit that Trump’s victory today was somewhat surprising — and I admit that all the naysaying talk about how ”They” wouldn’t let him win, or “They” wouldn’t allow us to take back our country was even affecting my attitude.
Even now, as Hillary (or Queen Xanxia as I’ve been calling her: a Dr. Who allusion) has reportedly conceded, there are honestly Republicans on the Internet saying they won’t believe it, because she would never concede. Or they are saying that Trump can’t officially win until she appears in public and makes a formal concession speech. This is how hard it is for some to accept that the ‘Lizard Queen’ is not invincible or superhuman. They really think she can hold up the process by not making a formal speech. As far as I know there is no law that the losing candidate has to officially concede in front of the national media — it may be a tradition but it is not an ironclad rule, surely.
I still remember election night in November, 2000 when that sore loser Al Gore, after having called G.W. Bush to concede, then turned around shortly thereafter and took back his concession. I was flabbergasted; so graceless and childish on his part. So we can never overestimate the left’s capacity for treachery and dishonesty — but though they may have fits of petulance and try to sabotage things, they can’t overturn the results of the election just because they don’t like to lose.
I think our folk have lived under political correctness and leftist manipulation for so long that we are like a psychologically beaten and whipped people. I think we’ll need de-programming or something to re-learn our self-confidence and to stop overestimating our enemies. ‘They are but men’, as the Bible says of the arrogant and powerful; they are not superhuman, not even Hillary.
I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.
I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.
Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.
“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”
The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.
However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’
Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?