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.

 

“They” will not divide “us”

Just who are the ‘they‘ in this meme, and who are the ‘us‘ to which this meme alludes?

The ‘they’ who are supposedly out to divide ‘us’ are, presumably, hateful haters who don’t accept the multicultural ‘we’, the pretend unity that the lefties are invoking in the wake of the latest terror attacks.

I guess the ‘they‘ would be ethnonationalists, realists, anti-globalists, anybody who is not conforming to the official multicult dogma, anybody who dissents. People like me, obviously, and presumably people like those who may be reading this blog or others like it.

The enemy, according to the PC meme-makers is not Islam or any other foreign group; it is the citizenry of one’s own country who are not sufficiently submissive to the official party line dogma issued by the globalist overlords and their puppet-rulers in Western countries. Foreign enemies are not in fashion now; what does the Bible say in Matthew 10:36? A man’s enemies will be those of his own household? The left designates us, the dissidents and recalcitrant ‘old Americans’ as their enemy, while expressing solidarity with militant Islam, even as Islam carries out violence against us. Yet some of our folk can’t get it through their heads that we are the enemy to the powers-that-be and their leftist ‘useful idiots.’

In that sense, we are deeply divided already, within our own ‘household’. The divisions are political as well as ethnic, regional, class, religious, sex/gender, generational, and (last but far from least) racial.

We could hardly be more divided than we are.

The left and their globalist bedfellows know this, yet they have the gall to invoke this nonexistent ‘unity’ and to piously proclaim that ”They” will not divide ”us.”

There is no ‘us’ in this country that encompasses all of us, across all the boundaries that I mention above. The powers-that-be and their media stooges have made sure of that. Their constant divisive rhetoric, their ‘divide-and-rule’ memes have left their mark on our society. Sadly few people recognize that these divisions need not exist in the extreme form in which they’ve taken shape even in the last 10 or 15 years. I have to say, when I started blogging only 11 years ago, we were not nearly as riven with dissension and intra-racial animus as we are now.

The same can be said of other once-White countries, to a greater or lesser extent. This is a big part of why we are so vulnerable to what is happening to us now. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (Sadly that last sentence is often attributed to Lincoln when he was merely quoting Jesus Christ).

As far as poisonous memes go, I have to mention another one: this ridiculous idea that if we alter our lives in response to terrorism, if we show fear or even sensible prudence and caution, we are ‘giving in to the terrorists’, because taking precautions against terrorism means, bizarrely, that ”the terrorists will have won.”  So go right out and take chances and risks, as a way of defying those terrorists, whose aim is only to ‘make us change our way of life‘ because they ‘envy our freedoms.

It seems to me that their aim is to kill as many of us as they can and to terrorize us, to make us passive. Incidentally this latter seems to be the goal of the powers-that-be, and our governments. Maybe they are just using Islam and its intrinsic aggression and violence to keep us resigned and passive. False flags? Why bother? Just let the moslems do what comes naturally to them, and there’s no need for complicated false flag conspiracies and crisis actors, etc.

But to return to the original theme of this post, the main work of dividing the once-homogeneous societies was done years ago by the architects of multiculturalism. We tend to blame the leftist parties and politicians, people like Emmanuel Celler and Philip Hart, or Teddy Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. But the GOP has been complicit in this too.

The George W. Bush administration was the main promoter of the meme about how ‘the terrorists will have won’ unless we learn to be oblivious to the terror attacks going on around us.  That meme is seeing a lot of service these days, along with ‘they won’t divide us.’

At the Smash Cultural Marxism blog there’s a very good piece dealing with the ‘unity’ memes, pointing out that we are already divided thanks to ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism, via mass immigration. The time for the ‘they won’t divide us’ mantra would have been pre-1965 in America, before they ripped apart the fabric of our society with mass immigration and slow-motion ethnic cleansing/race replacement.

The time for Britain to have defiantly said ‘they won’t divide us’ would have been pre-1948, before the arrival of the Windrush. As Andrew Joyce points out in the article on the Windrush, the role of Jews was very prominent in that event, which should come as no surprise. So perhaps the roots of the multicultural divisiveness go back much further.

They have divided us already; the division is an accomplished fact. How we can walk things back and restore the cohesion and commonality that once existed is a complicated question.

We’ve already been divided, so pretending that there is some kind of imaginary unity between us and Islam — or us and Jews, or whoever else — is very hollow.

The defiant proclamation ‘they won’t divide us’ should be directed toward those who are responsible for shredding our society every which way, and that ‘they‘ is not nationalists or nativists.

 

‘The load of calumny…’

“My duty will have been discharged, when the load of calumny which rests upon this people is lifted, when the story of Southern outrages against negroes and their allies is explained, and the Church of Christ is rescued from the suspicion of winking at lawlessness and crime — holding the nation breathless at the persecutions endured in the cause of equal rights, without a sigh of remonstrance from those who call themselves Christians.”

So wrote Joseph Pere Bell Wilmer in his ‘A Defense of Louisiana’, written during the troubled Reconstruction era. The ‘load of calumny’ to which he refers has to do with the accusations made against the White citizens of his state, and against the South generally, by the White allies of the black freedmen.

I feel the same burden that Wilmer felt; I somehow feel I have a duty to my folk and to my own ancestors, specifically, to answer the ‘load of calumny’ that not only continues these many decades later, but continues to intensify.

But let’s let Wilmer speak:

“To what is this tending? Nothing is more practicable than the cultivation of harmony among the States of this Union. Not less practicable, is the restoration of amity and affection between the two races in the South. Our hope is to live in peace with the negroes, ourselves and our children — but not while a respectable body of citizens are busy in segregating them and nursing distrust and alienation in their breasts; not while the public journals are teeming with accusations unknown in political warfare and foreign to the spirit of civilization, invoking upon the white race the restraints due to a turbulent and sanguinary people.”

I can’t say I share his optimism about the possibility of restoring ‘amity and affection’ between the two races; things have become that much worse since his words were written, and so much water has passed under the bridge. And I don’t think that it is now just a matter of troublemaking White traitors sowing distrust and animosity between the two races. If only it were that simple.

“Posterity will read with admiration, not unmingled with regret, of the patient struggles of the South to recover its forfeited rights in the Union. The privileges of representation first proffered were rendered imaginary in this State. Its representative men had all been in arms, and these by the will of Congress were excluded. This act of discrimination was not accepted by the people. From motives honorable to their spirit of chivalry, but fatal to their returning prosperity, the opportunity was lost to the Southern States to recover their influence in the councils of the nation.

[…] That the Reconstruction measures adopted by Congress for the South, were punitive in their design, I will not assert; that their aim was to establish the supremacy of a party, it is not my province to judge; that they were disastrous in their results, will be the verdict of history.”

One of the aims was to establish the supremacy of the Radical Republican party in the South, in case the allusion above is not self-evident. The Radical Republicans were the equivalent, in their anti-White tendencies, to the Democrat party of our day — or shall we include today’s Republicans in that category too? Why not?

“A more consuming policy could not have been devised. It excluded the statesmen of the land, and a large body of its ablest and best citizens, from any share in the rehabilitation of the State, and exalted to the highest functions of government, men wholly ignorant and incompetent to the task, bewildered indeed by this sudden transformation from slaves, into magistrates and rulers. So perilous a change was not wise statesmanship. The capacity of the Africans for government had been tested on their own native shores. Again, in the Islands of the Gulf of Mexico. The attempt to transfer to this race the fairest portion of the South, reckoning on their numerical strength to hold it under their sway, was to laugh to scorn the lessons of history. Ought we to be surprised that the inhabitants, — proprietors of the soil, men of our race and lineage — should revolt at this offence to their pride, not to speak of the inevitable spoliation and destruction of their property. Witness the result — in the present condition of this State, vividly, but imperfectly described in the message of the President to Congress, and the testimony before the Committee, in this city. Was anything else to be expected from African supremacy? A state illustrious in history, unrivalled in its resources, intense in its submission to Federal authority, reduced to shame and bankruptcy. Over its ample domain, or the larger portion of it, the eye ranges hopelessly for some object to break the monotony of suffering. Homes dilapidated and deserted, fields stretching far and wide uncultivated as a Libyan desert, schools suspended, churches closed, and when opened, half the congregation left to guard their property and homes from spoliation. No law exists against vagrancy, consequently in many parishes little or no stock is raised, no poultry, not even vegetables, so unsparing is the spirit of depredation. Disgrace is never attached to stealing from the whites, among a large class, and the convict emerges from the penitentiary with no sense of shame, and no loss of respectability. Indeed, the forbearance displayed by the planters under these outrages, if the facts were known as I know them, would often be regarded with amazement.”

I realize many of these facts are known to Southern folk, but I reiterate them for those who never learned of these things in our politically correct, anti-White school system. I happen to know that many private schools, sadly, even Christian schools, are just as derelict in their duties of teaching real history to their students.

And it’s important to provide some context for this controversy over the history of the South, and the wanton destruction and censorship of the history of the Confederacy, and the blackout (!) of any information about Reconstruction.

We need to be aware of the other side to the story rather than relying on the ‘history’ as related by Mitch Landrieu’s speechwriters.

More on this subject to come.

 

 

 

 

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.

A propos of the New Orleans vandalism

On Confederate soldiers_from God's War by Wilson Vance

The above is a quote from Wilson Vance, in the book God’s War.

It is ironic how quickly our society descended from a kind of burying the hatchet between North and South, to absolute hatred and intolerance of anything to do with the Confederacy. The younger folk out there may not believe this, but before the Civil Rights Revolution (or would coup be a better word?) the great men of the Confederacy were not vilified but mentioned favorably in school textbooks used in the North, and the official position was to treat the Confederate dead as honored fallen, much as were the Northern soldiers. However since the malicious talebearing of certain ‘civil rights’ organizations since the 1980s, the left (and much of the ignorant political ‘center’ in this country, if such a segment even exists) have become as people possessed. I say ‘possessed’ is not too strong a word; it is not hyperbole by any means, judging by the foaming-at-the-mouth attitudes and behavior of the anti-Southern left. They are possessed (I would say truly, in a Biblical sense) by malice and destructiveness when it comes to all the symbols and heroes of the Confederacy. Like their ‘daddy’ and exemplar, Satan, they never rest, and never will stop in their fury and vandalism until every last Confederate symbol and monument is pulled down, trampled on, spat on, burnt, or crushed. Next to be the target of their destructiveness will be the few people who even attempt, peaceably, to oppose their ugly rampages.

Wilson Vance was right when he said the graves and monuments of the Confederate fallen should be guarded, cared for, and honored. Instead mobs of ignoramuses and historical illiterates are committing their acts of cultural vandalism. Those who stand by and watch, without feeling so much as a twinge of outrage, are just as bad as the ones wreaking the destruction. Not to take a stand is itself taking a stand. There won’t be any neutrals in the conflict that is seemingly brewing.

 

Frustrations of blogging

I think I owe an apology to the few faithful readers who visit this blog, especially as I’ve been posting less regularly of late. Some of the reasons for this, I’ve alluded to in previous posts.

In the past, in the old days of blogging, I often found inspiration for posts in reading others’ blogs, others who were more or less of a similar mind. Granted, agreeing with others is often less stimulating than finding someone who offers a viewpoint which challenges me to re-think something, but it is encouraging, in a world which has gone crazy, to find another sane soul out there who thinks similar thoughts.

Lately, though, I find it discouraging and frustrating to read many of the right-leaning blogs because I find myself quite at odds with many of them, and maybe that means I’ve outlived my ‘usefulness’ as a blogger; I’m past my ‘pull date’,  or my time has come and gone. I suspect many of the younger bloggers and readers would agree; I probably appear to be a relic, not relevant to today’s world. But then that’s what people of rightward inclinations look like to people who reject the past itself as irrelevant and backward.

But then I’ve always stated my position as being ‘seek out the old paths’. And it’s generally been true that the majority responds to that command with ‘We will not walk therein.’ The world has generally loved change for its own sake; people love novelty, and today’s world more so than ever. Even the ‘right’ wants a new order of things, and rejects much of the past and those who represent it. So I don’t expect to be popular or widely read.

Still, is it too much to hope for to find people who respect truth, truth with both a ‘small-t’ and with a capital ‘T’? It does seem as if the right loves its own particular half-truths and falsehoods almost as much as the left wallows in its lies.

There are so many unsupported assertions and popular tropes that don’t bear examination repeated on right-wing blogs, and my misfortune is that the old ‘schoolteacher’ instinct in me makes me want to try to correct a lot of those half-truths and canards. I am finally realizing I can’t do that; I can’t change people’s false conceptions; it’s a losing battle, especially as most people seem content to let things be, and to pass along certain popular misconceptions.

Example: “White women are responsible for most interracial marriages and relationships. White female/black male is the most common type of interracial couple.”

Another: ‘Christian refugees (from the Middle East and elsewhere) should be welcomed. They are not a problem.’

Another: What I call the ‘favorite minority‘ habit. ”[Fill in the blank] make good Americans. They assimilate and are good citizens.”

Another minor, but annoying one: ‘American blacks have 17 percent (or whatever percentage) White blood.’ To say that the average percentage of White blood among American blacks is 17 (or whatever) percent is not to say that all blacks have that amount. People don’t seem to understand the difference, and they insist that most if not all blacks have White blood. Maybe I am being pedantic (again, it’s my training showing here) but it’s exasperating.

And one of the most persistent, and the most impervious to any effort to correct it, ‘Boomers are the most liberal and stupid age group. They caused all our problems.” There are several prominent bloggers who regularly propagate that idea and their commenters eat it up. I’ve come to think it’s a lost cause. There seems to be a deep-seated need for a scapegoat.

I’ve always been something of a contrarian; it’s a kind of curse — or is it a blessing?  — maybe because I was strongly influenced by the people of my grandparents’ generation. As time goes by it seems I feel more on the outside looking in, in my own country.

The answer to this frustration? I suppose I have to relinquish the idea that I can ‘make a difference’ in any way; maybe all this blog can be is my own effort to vent my feelings and express my thoughts for my own sake. If that’s all it is to be, though, why expose myself to scrutiny by those who monitor dissident blogs and ‘unacceptable’ opinions? That’s a question I ask myself these days, and the answer is still up in the air.

Again, thanks to my regular readers for your loyalty despite my lack of inspiration lately.

What’s the solution?

My lack of activity on this blog for several days now reflects my state of mind about current events and my less-than-optimistic take on our future prospects as a people.

My stock-in-trade, at least in my early days of blogging, was hope in the resilience of the people of this country, and in the legacy our forefathers passed down to us. I believed that we, as a nation, had a history and a culture which was not yet lost and which could still inspire us to change things for the better. These days it’s hard impossible to maintain that kind of hope. So rather than write pessimistic pieces I’ve simply lost the impulse to write much about the news and the political chaos.

I hope I can be excused for writing a somewhat pessimistic (or is it just realistic) piece this time.

I think our system of government served us very well for a good while but as the nature of the people of this country has changed — or was changed — we’ve become estranged from what our forebears were; they would likely not recognize us as their descendants and heirs, so different have we become. Founding Father John Adams explicitly said that the (political) system they designed for us was made only for a ‘moral and religious people’ . These days, with the exception of an ever-smaller number on the right, we are neither of those things. Nor do most of us aspire to be ‘moral or religious’; those traits are despised these days, along with the Christian faith to which they were tied.

Without sound ethics and morals, and without a sense of being an organic nation, a nation ‘descended from a common stock’, what is there to hold us together as a people?

For this reason, I suppose, many on the (new) right are happy to see the old order die, so that they can build, on the ruins, something more up-to-date and suited to their tastes and needs. I suspect that the ‘new and improved’ America that some on the right envision would be post-Christian and post-modern, hence not at all like the country that existed only a few decades ago.

Even if the right does not gain ascendancy in this country or elsewhere in the West, it looks as though the future will be framed along egalitarian lines, with more coerced ‘equality and brotherhood’, something like the Harrison Bergeron dystopia envisioned by Vonnegut.

Is there any chance that an ascendant right would ditch egalitarianism and the ‘leveling’ impulse? I see it as unlikely because it seems most Westerners have absorbed egalitarianism into their worldview, regardless of whether they are on the left or right end of the political spectrum. I remember writing a blog post some years ago in which I mentioned that I saw no reason why some sort of aristocratic order should be rejected out of hand, and that monarchy was not in itself evil as most Americans seem to think. Some of my readers got quite irate that I wrote such things.

Nevertheless since I wrote that fairly innocuous, yet apparently ‘heretical’ piece years ago, I’ve become less and less favorable toward ‘democracy’ and I have never been a fan of ‘equality’ because it is a false ideal; it can’t be attained, except in the narrowest sense, and temporarily.

So why, then, are most Americans still opposed in principle to an aristocratic order or to the very idea of monarchy? How has our electoral system served us in giving us men of character and integrity, men of ability and courage? As far as I can see, in recent times it’s given us, at best, a succession of mediocrities, time-servers. At worst we’ve elected (or had selected for us) venal, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant men (and women), who have undermined if not destroyed everything of value.

With a maleducated, mind-conditioned, dumbed-down electorate, there is not much chance of our prospects improving.

Given that it’s extremely unlikely that our population will reconsider their false gods ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’, it’s only a remote possibility that we could turn to another system.

And maybe the answer is not political, in any case. There would need to be a benevolent despotism to bring about such a change, absent a change of heart and mind in such a cynical populace, but in any case, we seem to live under an anarcho-tyranny, so what do we have to lose?

One (European) world

After reading yet another plea for White ‘internationalism’, in other words, White multiculturalism, I find myself compelled to reiterate why I believe this idea is wrong-headed and moreover, unlikely to be workable.

Looking at the practical side of it, how could all the disparate peoples of European descent (and they are disparate) be compelled to unite? By simply the threat of an outside enemy? That is the main argument usually; the White race is under dire threat from outside enemies who want us gone, or more accurately, under threat from enemies within and without. However it’s useful to remember that the European Union, once euphemistically called the ‘European Economic Union’ or ‘The Common Market’, was proposed as the way to shield Europe from an external threat.
propaganda poster, 1951

Poster above: from 1951

The storm clouds above the little girl have hammers and sickles, representing Eastern bloc Communism, obviously.

And how did that work out? Europeans under the EU have shown no greater resistance to outside threats, and in fact the Communist threat was simply internalized, while the European peoples still retain their differences. Many differences are good, but old grudges and grievances persist along with the healthy differences.

But suppose a ‘new and improved’ right-wing EU arose, with all the European peoples under one government, determined to amalgamate themselves into some kind of generic European. Putting aside the big cultural and genetic gaps that exist even within Europe, assuming that could all be dealt with easily, whose culture would be the dominant one? We’ve seen in all multicultural experiments, even with White American multiculturalism, that some group’s culture, by design or simply by natural strength, will dominate — or will be perceived as dominating. Whose would that be? In America, as Anglo-Saxons were the original and dominant group, theirs was the default to which newcomers were expected to assimilate and conform. And how did that work out? Centuries later, certain groups nurse grievances over things that they imagine (or read in a history book) their great-great-grandparents ‘suffered’ at the hands of the oppressor. Even ethnicities who appeared to have assimilated successfully have in recent decades suddenly ‘remembered’ or been taught that their ancestors were ‘done wrong’ by the WASP elites, and now they are born-again partisans of a nationality and culture that their ancestors left behind 100 or more years ago.

Likewise, with language. Whose language would be the ‘official’ language in some kind of White multinational empire? English would be the most plausible, given that a great many Europeans are fluent in it (Scandinavians and Dutch, for example) but imagine the Francophones, just to name one group, quietly accepting English as the, ahem, lingua franca of the new Empire?

And religion? Catholic and Protestant seem more divided than at any time in my lifetime, and then there are growing numbers of proponents of paganism or some form of ‘nature worship’ supposedly based on the legendary ‘old religion’ who are very eager to proselytize and push for the elimination of Christianity as being an ‘alien’ faith as they often insist. What then? Invent a new religion out of whole cloth, as some people propose? As if religion is something that one can cook up to order, to serve a purpose. A religion professes to be true. If it is not true, and is just an invention of some human mind (a la L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology) then it is no religion and would not answer people’s needs for truth and meaning.

And then there are the militant atheists, who seem to exist mostly amongst White people, for some reason.

Culture, language, religion, these are all important components of a working civilization. To lack cohesion or a common basis would be fatal to the success of constructing a new ‘union’.

Can we say that, at minimum, the people (I would say more properly, peoples) of that proposed new entity should have a common blood origin, based in kinship? Because at heart that is what a nation is: a people united by a common origin and ancestry.

And along with that common origin and shared ancestry goes a shared history, a shared heritage and memory, which is naturally passed down in a body of folklore and custom and legend and tradition: holidays, commemorations of past triumphs and trials. Every nation has its heroes (and villains, too), people who are real or semi-legendary who embody the nation’s archetype, the archetype of the unique character of that particular kin-group and people. America, despite the frequent sneers that America is not a ‘real’ nation and never was, once had all the above things, and those things I tried to re-introduce into the common consciousness when I first began to blog, but that doesn’t ‘sell’ anymore.

Absent a desire to remember our past, we seem to have died a little more since the days I first began blogging.

But are we in a real sense equal kin with all European-descended peoples? Maybe more Americans (or Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders) would feel more ‘inclusive’ towards Whites who are distantly related to us, but that is because we have been given infusions of multiculturalism from relatively early in our history, and have come to believe that people who are very different can ‘become us’ just by acquiring citizenship papers, or by learning a halting version of our language.

Many Europeans are not as ‘welcoming’ that way, because they have not been made to acclimate to ‘diversity’ as the Anglosphere nations have been. And, I suppose, good for them. The Eastern Europeans fit this category as of now, but suppose they too are made to acclimate to having very different people living in their midst?

Russia, remember, is a polyglot, multicultural, multiracial empire, even post-Soviet Russia.

I’ve lately begun to wonder if some of what is happening to the Western countries is in part happening because the globalists, who still sit firmly in charge, want European-descended peoples to react by willingly uniting and amalgamating. Obviously they have tried, via the EU, to do this, but it seems not to be proceeding as they want, and the Anglosphere still remains recalcitrant to some degree (Brexit, for example) and America’s (failed?)attempt to turn the clock back, to ‘Make America Great Again’.

White internationalism, or some kind of transcontinental Empire of Europeans would just be one more step, intentional or not, toward forming a ‘region’ which would fit nicely into the globalists’ theoretical One World system, divided into several ‘regions.’

It’s more centralization, which is not good.
It’s an attempt to fit disparate things and peoples together by political means. It is thus unnatural.

And most importantly, to me, it is based on the utopian idea that all European peoples are, or can be treated as, equals. This is a false idea, and a false god, truth be told. Since most Western countries have become hopelessly infected with the idea of ‘equality’ and egalitarianism, this would doom the project from the start. It is not true of nations, or of cultures, and especially not of flesh-and-blood human beings.

The idea of equality, of fungibility, of interchangeability, and of leveling out all differences in the name of the ‘rights of man’ or whatever slogan has been a toxic one on which our nation is mistakenly basing itself. To have a pan-European empire built on that false foundation would be a disaster.

Easter being phased out?

Is Easter the next Christian holiday to be suppressed? CBN News reports that the major candy makers have taken the word ‘Easter’ off the packaging of the traditional Easter candies.

“Hershey’s, M&M’s, Lindor, Russell Stover, Dove, Rolo, and Twix have all produced Easter themed candy without mentioning the word on the front of their candy, according to a press release from the Liberty Counsel.

[…]”Earlier this month, Cadbury dropped the word “Easter” from the advertising of its annual “Cadbury Easter Egg Hunt”  in England.  As CBN News reported, the new “Cadbury’s Great British Egg Hunt” caused an uproar in the church and the government.”

Some Christians will say this is fine with them because Easter is really a ‘pagan’ holiday, or at least the secular aspects of it, such as Easter bunnies, eggs, and baby chicks are pagan fertility symbols. The same people would probably say they don’t believe in Christmas trees, Santa Claus, and all the modern trappings of Christmas. And truth be told, all these things are not Christian in any real sense, though they have traditionally been part of our celebrations.

Personally I am on the fence about this; I can see the viewpoint of those who say Christians should keep to the religious symbols and avoid the secular and pagan aspects. However I still object to the obvious ‘war’ on Christian holidays and the symbols thereof, even if some of our traditions date to the pre-Christian generations of our European ancestors. To let the secularists and the anti-Christians do this without any opposition or objections is capitulating to their agenda.

And the companies who are purging the name ‘Easter’ as well as other Christian holidays from their products and advertising should be made to feel the pain of losing their Christian customers’ business.  However so far it seems that most boycotts by Christians have proven somewhat ineffectual overall; the Christian faith is still losing out to corporate anti-Christian policies.

This kind of incident is also symptomatic of the corporate world’s disregard for their customers and their indifference to their customers’ satisfaction and goodwill. How many have noticed that most consumer products and services have declined markedly in quality?  I know I’m not the only one who perceives this change. Once upon a time (long ago), businesses supposedly believed in the old adage ‘the customer is always right.’ I doubt the businessmen really believed that, but reputable businesses tried to build good relationships with their clients and customers. Nowadays, if you are unhappy with a product or a service, you can complain, but complaints, no matter how politely and articulately they are made, are usually met with indifference at best, and with surly defiance at worst. Businesses generally let it be known that they are ‘sorry’ you are not happy, but that they ‘feel’ that their products and services are adequate, and if you believe otherwise, you are free to do business elsewhere.  ‘This is what we offer; take it or leave it. We’re satisfied that we are doing a good job” is the implicit message.

Most products, American-made or foreign-made, are shoddier, flimsier, less durable, and often uglier than those made a few decades ago. Foods are of much poorer quality, and I’ve heard this from many people.

There is a general breakdown of trust between businesses and their customers. Apathy if not downright hostility is all too common. This business of eliminating Christian symbols and names from products made purposely for a Christian market makes no sense whatsoever. But it’s to be expected, sad to say, in a society in which the traditional common culture and shared customs have almost disappeared.