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.
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.
The recent death of another rock ‘legend’ is still being lamented on social media sites like Tumblr, even though most of the people there are not old enough to remember the latest deceased rocker.
He had something in common with other such rock celebrities who died during the last year or so: he was a rebel against conventional sexual morality. His criminal record, however, is mostly swept under the rug in recent years, even before his death. And articles like that linked just above, from the ‘History’ channel, seem to downplay the seriousness of the allegations and to minimize Berry’s culpability. The racial aspect of it is highlighted by mentioning that an ”all-White jury” convicted him (of course Whitey is prejudiced and willing to convict a black man at every possible occasion) and the article defends him by saying his intentions were strictly honest and honorable. He ‘offered legitimate employment in his St. Louis nightclub‘ — but to a 14-year-old girl? Maybe she was ‘precocious’ as some euphemistically put it, but in what state can a 14-year-old legally work in a night club? And the laws were more strictly enforced in 1959.
This article from NPR’s website unabashedly blames the Mann Act itself, stating that it was expressly written to be used against people like black boxer Jack Johnson with his White (white?) mistress. The article also implies that the Mann Act was a response to what the biased writers call ‘hysteria’ over what was called ‘white slavery’, or the abduction of young women into prostitution in the early 20th century. The writers imply that many such women were not forced into that life, but were simply ‘sexually active young women’ whom society wished to punish for their ‘sexual freedom.’
The NPR writers attempt to revise history, implying that the attempt to curb prostitution was based on “hysteria.” In the last couple of years, I’ve read a great many books from older eras, books actually written then, not written by (post)modern writers and their tainted point of view, and yes, there was an ‘industry’ if you can call it that involving trapping young women, many of whom were rather sheltered and naive in those days, into a life of prostitution. ‘Inexperienced’ girls were most in demand and drew high prices. There were interstate rings of what would now be called ‘human trafficking’. Hence the need for the Mann Act. Most of the reports indicated Jewish domination of these rings. Transporting of these girls extended across national borders too, with many girls and women sent across the Pacific to China and elsewhere, where Christian workers found many of them being held literally in cages or cells, disease-ridden and sometimes dying, after having been sold into that life. It is not fantasy or ‘hysteria.’
Now our jaded age thinks that such things are just a matter of personal choice; I’ve had many younger people tell me that prostitution is ‘just another job, a way to make good money’, and as Madonna famously said back in the 80s, ”It’s not exploitation if I’m in charge of it myself.” So prostitution can be ’empowering’ for feminists.
Madonna is another prime example of a celebrity who is serving the function of a ‘change agent’ by altering people’s ideas of what is acceptable, and by helping to subvert traditional morality. Some people, maybe most people, today say that sexual morality is up to the individual; whatever people choose, and/or do in private, has nothing to do with anyone else. But it does. We are social beings. Nobody exists in a vacuum. The consequences of people’s private behavior often affect society, not just the invididual(s) involved.
Celebrities of course have a much-amplified power to affect others’ choices, especially young and gullible people.
People like Madonna, and the recently-deceased David Bowie and Prince — and in his time, Chuck Berry, have had more influence than many like to think.
Michael Jackson, too, with his ‘androgynous’ persona desensitized us to certain behaviors. And celebrity alone enables such people to get away with much, as his story illustrated. People tend, these days, to have almost limitless capacity to overlook aberrant or downright immoral behavior from those that are called ‘talented’ or ‘geniuses’. Society theoretically condemns pedophilia but oddly it can be overlooked if the acccused is a popular public figure. Please notice, at the first link on this page, from a blog which is not at all PC, that the commenters, can only praise Berry.
In 1959, people were not so flexible in their morality and not so forgiving.
In time, though, it seems that Berry has been forgiven. If one wants to be forgiven of anything, it appears, the answer is to be ‘talented and famous.’
Meanwhile society suffers the consequences.
It seems self-evident to me, but apparently not to many people, as the correlation between the decline of the West and the pervasive influence of the psychological establishment is seldom discussed. Christianity is blamed far more often, despite the fact that it has been a central part of Western culture for centuries, whereas psychology’s rise seems to coincide with the decline of our society, and also the subverting and weakening of Christianity.Coincidence?
The subject certainly deserves to be noticed and examined more widely.
[Quote from Wrath of Gnon]
A Free Republic poster links to an article from a news source in India, reporting that Hindu activists in America are demanding an apology from CNN. CNN’s crime? Hinduphobia.
To thinking Americans, CNN is synonymous with left-wing, anti-White and pro-multicultural content, at which it outdoes just about all the other purveyors of ‘news’ and commentary. So it’s hard to imagine that they would be anti-Hindu.
And just what did CNN do that was ‘Hinduphobic’? They had a series called ‘Believer’, in which correspondent Reza Aslan focused on Hindu religious figures and practices. The article does not seem to mention this specifically, but I would guess that the Hindu activists objected to a depiction of a guru and his followers who were shown eating human brains. Reza Aslan, the CNN reporter, apparently also consumed some of this unappealing meal, under coercion, some said.
So is it ‘xenophobic’, or more specifically ‘Hinduphobic’ to be shocked or repelled by a spectacle like that? We will have become a jaded people for sure if we can no longer be horrified at the thought of cannibalism, much less by the sight of it.
CNN displayed very bad judgement in showing that clip, even if they had displayed a warning before any such ‘graphic’ scene. What could have been their purpose in showing it? I doubt very much that they wanted to stir up antipathy towards Hindus, as dedicated as they are to the ‘all cultures/races are equal’ dogma. So what motive was there in showing it?
CNN’s faithful audience are no doubt mostly of a like mind. So I doubt that they would react to these scenes with disgust or shock or ‘phobias’ toward Hindus. Many leftists are very familiar with the various manifestations of the Hindu religion and culture. There are pictures online of some sort of Hindu cult members eating charred human bodies they pulled out of the Ganges. So this kind of thing is not completely unknown.
Are the Hindu activists defending cannibalism in an oblique way, here, or do they just object to having anyone shine a spotlight on it? That is, are they blaming the messenger?
I doubt, though, that most Americans, hearing of this controversy, would respond by hating Hindus; in fact we have become a very jaded and tolerant people for the most part, hardly blinking at this kind of thing, whereas once upon a time, cannibalism and other such gruesome things evoked real shock and horror among civilized Westerners. But we are a post-Christian people, unfortunately, and Hollywood has helped to desensitize us to all sorts of once-unthinkable things.
And we do seem to have become, overall, very accepting of this diversity which has been thrust on us, as you can see from some of the Freepers’ comments about how they prefer Hindus to some varieties of ‘diversity.’ The usual line is that ‘at least they’re not Muslims’ or some variation of that. Every ethnicity, Hindus included, has its defenders and advocates among White Americans. But how many White Americans are willing to defend their own?
The above is from a book by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster. The book was titled ‘Towards Soviet America‘, published in 1932. The writer goes on to describe what the Communist Party planned for America, and for the most part the predictions came true. The feminist movement was part of the agenda, along with the ‘sexual revolution’ which supposedly would ‘free’ women, and allow them a less inhibited sex life, while on the racial front, Foster said that all laws against interracial marriage would be abolished, with racial amalgamation being the goal. Overthrowing traditional attitudes took a few decades to accomplish from the time Foster wrote this book, but they did succeed in making interrracial unions legal. Likewise with their destruction of traditional sexual morality, and they succeeded probably beyond their wildest imaginations there.
However, either Foster was lying or just inaccurate in his predictions about other matters, as when he says that the media will be ‘taken over by the government’ (well, that was probably accomplished as the media appear to be an arm of the leftist establishment) but he further says that the media would then be ‘cleansed of their present trash of sex, crime, sensationalism, and general babbitry‘. On the contrary, the leftist triumph has meant ever more ‘trash of sex, crime, and sensationalism’; they revel in this kind of thing. They have sold it as ‘liberation’ and the ultimate freedom.
Foster seems not to have mentioned one of the fruits of the ‘sexual revolution’, namely the ‘gay rights’ agenda. Did Foster and his generation foresee this part of their plan, or was it just an inevitable result of their destruction of traditional Christian morality and their enshrining ‘personal freedom’ and individual autonomy as a great good?
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.
Those who can feel righteous indignation only about things that directly affect them may have some moral deficiency in their character, and it seems that such deficiencies are more common in our postmodern, narcissistic culture.
On the other hand, I’ve commented here that there is something bizarre and unnatural, not to say phony, about the left’s tendency to get outraged about some wrong that they perceive happening to people in far-off lands, or to their minority clientele/mascots. They have this maddening habit, these lefties, of taking offense on behalf of others who haven’t themselves complained of being offended. Example: the ongoing protests of athletic teams with names like ‘Braves’ or ‘Indians’. Polls have shown that many American Indians (‘Native Americans’, in PC-speak) say they find nothing offensive in such names; some even say the names have a positive connotation to them — yet leftist Whites and other minorities often show outrage on behalf of American Indians. Can’t the supposedly offended speak for themselves? Aren’t the lefties being condescending and paternalistic by claiming to be offended for them? The same thing happens when say, White Republicans set up a howl about how the Democrats ‘keep black people on the plantation’ or ‘liberals destroyed the black family/black community.’ I suspect those complaints originated in the minds of politically correct White people, not from black people themselves. I don’t think most black people would bite the (liberal) hand that feeds them, and provides ‘programs’ for them, programs that are the main source of income for many minorities.
On the Reason.com website, there is a piece about this kind of vicarious moral outrage on the part of the ‘social justice’ crowd.
“When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don’t affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.” But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as “moral outrage”—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one’s own status as a Very Good Person.”
Two professors, Rothschild and Keefer, conducted studies which, to sum up, shows a definite self-serving aspect to this phenomenon — which is just what I would think. We give these meddling lefties far too much credit to ascribe ‘altruism’ to them.
“Ultimately, the results of Rothschild and Keefer’s five studies were “consistent with recent research showing that outgroup-directed moral outrage can be elicited in response to perceived threats to the ingroup’s moral status,” write the authors. The findings also suggest that “outrage driven by moral identity concerns serves to compensate for the threat of personal or collective immorality” and the cognitive dissonance that it might elicit, and expose a “link between guilt and self-serving expressions of outrage that reflect a kind of ‘moral hypocrisy,’ or at least a non-moral form of anger with a moral facade.”
It’s a veneer of morality and solicitousness but the motivation behind it is to present a moral pose, a front to the world, and to claim the moral high ground.
Don’t let’s be fooled by it.
H/T to commenter ‘Anonymous’ at Steve Sailer’s blog for the link.
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.”
The controversy around Milo continues to grow, and it looks as though the ‘right’, whoever that term includes at any given moment, is becoming more polarized around it. Some are saying that ‘the left’ is causing the division, and maybe the leftists are exacerbating it, as that serves their interest. So is the answer to just dig in our heels and defend Milo et al , in knee-jerk fashion, just because the left attacks him? Maybe they are trying to use simple reverse psychology to get the younger right-wing to rush to Milo’s defense, and in so doing ultimately legitimize the presence of flagrant homosexuality and even (through association) with alleged pedophilia. I mean, how can anyone on the right credibly reject pedophilia and pretend that Milo is not in any way associated with it? It destroys all credibility on this issue on the right. The left would like the right to shut up about ‘Pizzagate’ and yes, they would also like to lower the age of consent and decriminalize certain taboo behaviors. It would suit them fine if the right began to go soft on all these issues — which it seems is the direction the younger ‘right’ is heading.
Whose agenda is being helped by this defense of Milo? What is also happening is that anyone on the right, whether through religious/moral scruples or other concerns, criticizing Milo is being branded a ‘concern troll’ or a Bible-thumping fogey. Either way these defenders are sounding more and more like lefties every day, both in their socially libertarian mores and in their tendency to call names and hurl ad hominems at those who differ with them. There will either be no place for Biblically-faithful Christians on the new right, or the Christians who are not driven away will succumb to peer pressure and go along with this new-found ‘right-wing’ tolerance. Either way, this is not a ‘win’ for our side; the left will win ultimately, as they’ve done so far, with their insidious tactics.
And does the presence of Milo, even as an ‘outside ally’ benefit ethnonationalism or the pro-White cause? Championing a half-Jewish and pro-miscegenist personality helps the racially-aware right how, again? If anything it undermines the side.