Free speech disappearing

No matter what those responsible may say, it seems as if there is a determined effort to squeeze those with politically incorrect (non-leftist, non-globalist) views out. I notice that whenever I try to visit certain blogs, one of them being Anonymous Conservative, I am blocked from accessing it. Today, clicking on a link to another blog which I normally don’t visit, I am likewise blocked. It appears Cloudflare is responsible.

This blog’s traffic is now all but nonexistent — maybe not surprising since I’ve been posting more rarely and also losing readership it seems — but it looks as though I now get no traffic from search engines.

It appears as though generally, blogs with viewpoints outside the dictated range of opinion are being squeezed out of existence. The idea is to starve blogs of traffic and/or discourage bloggers who have ”wrong” political opinions, (those not approved by the self-elected gatekeepers), from bothering to blog at all. Mind you I’m not blaming the ‘censors’ or our ‘moral betters’ for this blog’s seeming failure, not completely, but it certainly doesn’t help that there are those who want non-left politics silenced all the way around, and they seem to hold all the cards.

What’s the answer to this?  I really have no idea. Meanwhile some right-wing blogs continue to thrive despite the extremely hostility towards free speech for those who are deemed to be ”thought criminals.” The way things look now, it would seem very easy to silence all non-approved free speech.

And where is ”our” president on this? Just asking….

 

Advertisements

Russian emigration

A report from Russia indicates that the numbers of people leaving Russia are greatly underestimated. The most recent data available, from 2017, shows that 377,000 Russians left that year, which is a six-year record.

Where are they going? My guess would have been that the most popular destination countries would be the U.S., and Israel. It turns out that those countries are among the most popular for Russian emigrants. Also among the most popular is Germany.

Apparently there is a ‘diaspora’ of 25 to 30 million Russian speakers — quite a large number of people.  Unfortunately for Russia many of those leaving are the young, and this is contributing to an ‘aging Russia’.  This of course leads to a shortage of labor, and can become justification for accepting large numbers of immigrants. We hear this excuse frequently, from those who favor open borders for our country and for historically White countries — we need ‘hard-working’ immigrants to do the jobs that our supposedly lazy populace won’t do. European countries are also subjected to this line of propaganda.

Russia does admit large numbers of immigrants. According to this article from 2013, the Russian Federation is the world’s second largest immigration haven. Many of the immigrants come from kindred Eastern European countries, which does not pose as much of a problem for Russians.

Russia also has received large numbers of refugees, such as Azerbaijanis, Armenians, and Turks, and in more recent years refugees from more far-flung countries — African countries, for instance.  The Russian government has expressed a welcoming attitude towards the Boer descendants from South Africa and Zimbabwe, despite politically correct sentiments in many Western countries who offer no haven for the besieged Boers.

So does this influx of many immigrants and ‘refugees’ cause the exodus of many Russians or is it the opposite situation, where the outflow of younger people necessitates more immigration?

The ironic thing about this situation is that many right-wing Americans see Russia as an exemplar of a strong, nationalistic country, upholding its own culture and historic religion. More than a few Americans harbor ideas of emigrating to Russia, because of their admiration for Vladimir Putin or for Russia itself. Meanwhile, it seems many Russians are intent on coming to this country, or Germany, or the UK.

One question that often occurs to me: given the U.S. government’s policy of preference for non-White, third-world immigrants, almost exclusively, how is it that such large numbers of Russians and other Eastern Europeans are allowed to immigrate, while other White nationalities are not allowed to come here? It’s an exception without an obvious explanation. Many Irish immigrants, by contrast,  come here illegally because of their difficulty in getting visas, likewise with other kindred countries in Europe, yet Eastern Europeans seem to be given preference.

I am neither anti-Russian nor pro-Russian when it comes to immigration; I think Russian immigration can be both good and bad. Russian immigrants are a mixed bag, with a good few becoming dependent on social programs while others are productive. Many are ‘nice’ people, if that is a criterion for coming here.

Nonetheless I’m not in favor of multiculturalism or mass immigration in general. The globalists have been encouraging and funding this vast game of musical chairs in which all the nations of the world are being put together in the ultimate ‘melting pot’, where all cultures, tongues, and peoples are getting blended away.  It’s pretty cold comfort to be told that at least we will be displaced and replaced by ‘nice, hard-working’ people, or that our children will be replaced or blended with people who are ‘more like us.’

Country-shopping is not a way of life; it spells rootlessness, deracination, loss of kin-bonding and culture. If the globalists’ spell is broken,  I hope that in time we’ll see and end to this global shuffle of peoples.

 

 

 

 

 

So what?

In a rather strange post at Taki’s Magazine, Jim Goad asks, somewhat truculently, it seems, “So what if Jesus was Jewish?” It seems as though the piece is a response to somebody, I am guessing it’s a response (pre-emptive, maybe?) to those who defend Christianity, while disassociating it from its purported Jewish roots.

Why I so often feel drawn to responding to statements like this, given how thorny and complicated the subject is, I don’t know. Maybe I am just greedy for punishment, and fond of batting my head against a brick wall. Those who insist on making sweeping statements about Christianity, or about Christianity and its supposed ‘Jewish’ roots are determined not to be troubled by facts or truths. It seems most people have made up their minds in advance and are not open to thinking about this, or about questioning the established ‘facts’ or dogma on the subject. So the chances of persuading any given person that the received truths may be in gross error are slim to none. Yet I try, knowing how futile it is 99 percent of the time.

But here we go. Some time ago I posted about this vexed issue, asking questions about some of the widespread beliefs which remain unexamined by most people, some which are more accurately myths which are never scrutinized because of political correctness and what I call the ultimate PC taboo: the question of Jewish identity.

Are the terms ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ exact synonyms? Does the term ‘Jewish’ apply to anyone who originates (supposedly) from one of the twelve (12, count ’em) tribes of Israel? Really? Are we sure? Absolutely — or even reasonably sure?

Does anyone today have solid proof of descent from any of these descendants of Jacob, that is, Jacob who was later named Israel? Or proof of descent from Abraham, who was the grandfather of Jacob/Israel? How would, how could such proof be established, some millennia after the fact?

People often scoff at how some of us of, say, English descent, can ‘prove‘ that our lines of descent from our English forebears are valid, even though that descent is far more recent than the lineage going back to Abraham’s or Jacob’s day.  Why so little scrutiny of much more remote claims?

Multiple DNA tests have been done on modern-day Jews, virtually all of which show distinctly mixed lineages, including half or more European descent, plus some Middle Eastern genetics. (I won’t link this yet again; I’ve done so. It’s easily looked up online. I invite doubters to check for themselves). Needless to say Middle Eastern does not = Jewish, and again, much of the DNA has shown European genetics.

Yet pretty much all the DNA tests concerning today’s Jews are roundly ignored by most people, including modern Christians who have grown up in churches which consider it tantamount to blasphemy to question Jewish origins or identity.

Why should this be so?

Why do the non-Christian, Judeo-skeptical pro-Whites also ignore the results of the DNA tests? I can only guess that they prefer to lump Christianity and Judaism together (incorrectly) and condemn both together. Jim Goad clearly does not think favorably of Christianity, parroting Nietzsche’s reference to ”slave morality”, and the usual ‘alien desert religion’ canard. So if he thinks Christianity is an alien, semitic religion, not suited to Europeans, then by association he seems also to be judging Judaism the same way.

In a way Goad is seeming to defend Judaism and to accuse some Christians of being anti-Jewish, so this is a strange tack.

Judaism has always been in opposition to Christianity. The oxymoronic ”Judeo-Christian’ tradition’ is a myth. May Jews say as much themselves; look it up.

The core principles of the two religions are at odds. The God of Christianity is a triune God, for most Christians, and Judaism rejects this view, along with the very person of Jesus Christ, believing that he was a false Messiah. Judaism as we know it is Talmudically-based, not based on what Christians call the Old Testament. The two traditions are very divergent, not the same, not even close.

Goad evidently has accepted the glib half-truths of the uninformed Christian ‘mainstream’, rather than investigating thoroughly, and he is not alone in this; most Christians take this approach because they choose to accept what their misled Judeo-Christian teachers have fed them.  I used to be such a Christian before being led towards a deeper investigation.

This subject is important enough to demand some examination.

Does it tell us anything at all to know that our Christian forebears were not believers in a ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition, or in any kind of Jewish-Christian ecumenism or unity? That this is a recent (post-WWII) phenomenon? Were all our Christian forefathers, up to the era of our grandparents, wrong? Are we so sure that they were wrong?

One blog post isn’t enough to even begin to address this question, but it’s worth trying to provoke some thought, even if I step on some toes or make someone angry by raising these questions.

Truth matters. Question popular ‘wisdom’. Use Biblical discernment. That’s basic Christianity when it comes to trying to ascertain truth.

I’ll just quote from a letter-writer to a British magazine, Picture Post, dated 1947.

“The Bible never mentions Jews until II Kings XVI, v. 6, and then refers only to members of the House of Judah.” This era was after the people of Israel were divided into two houses, that of Israel in the North and Judah or Judea in the South. The people referred to as Jews were those of the Southern Kingdom, Judah or Judea.

Until the tribes of Israel (of which Judah, or the Jews, were just one part) were separated by exile and political division, there were no ‘Jews’ mentioned in the Bible. Abraham was not a Jew; Jacob was not a ‘Jew.’ Jacob’s son, Judah, was the father of those later called ‘Jews.’ Not all Israel were ‘Jews’, just as not all ‘British’ people are English (or Welsh, or Scottish). But most people, to make an analogy, insist on conflating the term ‘English’ with the term ‘British.’ One term is inclusive, while one is limited to a constituent people. ‘Jew’ is a category within the umbrella term ‘Israel’, which includes other descendants of Jacob.

Too complicated? Well, then, I can’t help. In any case, DNA tests do not positively prove the present-day Jews to be descendants of Abraham or his sons. Yet we gullibly accept them to be such. Elizabeth Warren is about as likely to be proven Cherokee, maybe more so, than the present-day Jews are to be Israelitish, maybe more so, because her claims are of more recent provenance. (And P.S.: I don’t believe Warren’s ‘family lore.’)

Some readers may wonder if I am a member of some cult, because I raise these issues. Am I? If it matters, the answer is no; I am a Christian, and I am a truth-seeker; I don’t want to be found to have failed in my duty to ”prove all things“, as Christians are charged to do.

And it is tiresome to read so many less-than-informed half-truths about my faith from those who have clearly not delved into the facts and the history, especially when it appears that their efforts are meant to discredit or disparage the Christian faith, not to get to the bottom of things, to thoroughly examine known facts.

Southern tradition: Black-eyed peas on New Year’s

I know New Year’s Day is past, but at Identity Dixie, I read an interesting and historical piece on why Southerners eat black-eyed peas on New Year’s day. I was always told it was ”good luck”, but there is more to this custom.

I learned some history from reading the piece. And it makes you think about the importance of ”culture, people, identity.”

 

Words from R. Carter Pittman

As I’m lately finding it all but impossible to gather much inspiration in what I find on the Internet, I’ve been immersing myself in writings from earlier times. I know that’s all out of fashion now, as popular wisdom has it that our elders didn’t know anything, but then I never cared a hoot about fashion or fad, so I offer you some words from R. Carter Pittman.:

“Those who ride to power, and in power, rough-shod, over the rights of men, seem always to stand in marble on our public squares, while those who carry the torch of human freedom are forgotten, perhaps to be rediscovered centuries later.”

“The masses are prone to exchange an age of freedom for an hour of welfare. Anglo-Saxon institutions were designed to slow down the erosion of rights to give time for a sober second thought. “

“Without exception, despotic rulers have excluded instruction in history from any plan of general education, or they have sought to make history books a mere aggregation of lies. They have sought to substitute abstract thinking, or “new philosophies,” for the stark realities that are cried out by history’s prophetic voice. They have always sought to substitute the worship of man for the worship of institutions and the worship of God. Need we be reminded of Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Peron?”

” The Bill of Rights does not purport to create or establish rights. It shields pre-existing rights. These rights are the gift of God not governments. Each separate provision is a little foxhole of liberty ground into the hard cold face of history by helpless men in an effort to shield their naked bodies from the lash of tyrants. Every liberty catalogued in the federal Bill of Rights could be the subject of a long historical commentary showing that each in its turn has been attacked and suppressed by those who have wanted to exercise unrestrained power.”

“The First Amendment doesn’t say that those rights are given to the people. It says the people never gave them away. That Amendment is based upon the proposition that freedom of religion, freedom to speak, to write and to sigh and to cry, to assemble and to pray for deliverance from grievances, are the gift of God—not governments—and that they are held by the leave of no man and no government on earth. If government can give a right it can take it away or it can license the exercise of it.”

“History explains. Philosophy confuses. John Dickinson put it this way in the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us.”

“The methods of despotic governments have been essentially the same in all ages. Tyranny learns nothing new. It gives new names to the same things and overwhelms the bulwarks of liberty with semantics.”

”Equality beyond the range of legal rights is despotic restraint. Equality may be imposed only in a despotism. Such may be done only through the process now called “social engineering” which holds that the end justifies the means. Those means must ever be force, restriction, terror and a complete loss of liberty.”

“Under our common law and under our Constitution, no man or body of men may make law for freemen except the elected representatives of the people. Every freeman in a republic has the despotic right to veto all laws made by any man or group of men except his own delegates. For 500 years Anglo-Saxon freemen have exercised that veto power. Only a blind spot in our knowledge of history could cause any man to doubt the right of any freeman to disobey the unconstitutional edicts of a judge or king. Only fools and pseudo-socio-doctors contend that the Supreme Court can make law, but of such is the kingdom of tyranny.”

“Constitutional liberty is the child of Anglo-Saxon history, christened by the blood of our fathers. How could we so soon forget that the leading principle of the American Revolution was that only delegates chosen by the people may make constitutions and laws for the people? Every forgotten grave from Lexington to Yorktown is a memorial to that principle.”

“Eternal vigilance is not the only price of liberty. The price of Anglo-Saxon liberty is blood.”

“The federal government is now completing the destruction of state sovereignty. “Oligarchy, masquerading as democracy” is here. The revolution is a fact accomplished. It was simple and bloodless.”

“When a servile and corrupt judiciary abandons the people and enlists in the service of those who would enslave mankind by the age old methods of tyrants, the rifle over the “fire board” is the last slender “security of a free State”.’

“The Anglo-Saxon race must again emulate the Founding Fathers and organize to fight fire with brimstone. “Sons of Liberty” is an honored name for such an organization. “To your tents, O Israel” is an honored watchword.”

Note: the reference in the last sentence above, mentioning ‘Israel’ is not to be understood as having anything to do with present-day geographical locations or peoples, but to the historical people Israel.

And though his words may seem a little incendiary, they were no more so than those used by other public figures of that time; consider that free speech was still allowed in those days.

‘White flight’ and changing demographics

A lengthy discussion can be found at Steve Sailer’s blog, the subject being ‘White flight’ and the ‘Great Migration’ of blacks to the North during the mid-20th century. Of course it encompasses more than this, as is usual with such threads.

One thought that has occurred to me, and which I’ve mentioned on the other blog, is that the WASP colonial stock was one of the first ethnic groups to be ‘cleansed’ by the waves of immigrants starting in the early to mid-19th century. Where did these original stock people go? Many went farther back into the rural areas of the New England states; many of my ancestors went to the Maine woods and founded other towns named after family lineages or the original towns begun by their colonial forefathers.. As time went on more of these New England exiles went farther West to the midwest and to the Mountain states, including Utah, in the case of the Mormon converts.

In spite of this, there is still a peculiar idea that New England is still full of the old-stock WASPs and Puritan descendants, who are somehow the root of all evil in New England. I don’t like to disappoint people but New England is not (and has not been for a while) the homeland of the fabled WASP ‘elites.’ Even 10-12 years ago, statistics showed that English-descended Americans made up only 13% of New England residents . The numbers show that Anglo-Saxon Americans are now outnumbered by an aggregation of Irish, French-Canadian, and Italians, with many recent immigrants from Brazil, as well as the Spanish-speaking countries, Asia, and all the rest of the various and sundry ‘new Americans.’

In any case, Anglo-Saxon Americans were the first to have the dubious privilege of being cleansed from their home states and the towns their ancestors established.

The ‘Great Migration’ of Southern-born blacks to the North, especially to the industrial towns and cities, led to the better-known ethnic cleansing of Whites in certain Northern locales, with Detroit now held up as an example of White flight leading to urban blight and decline. Yet there are many White Americans who are not familiar with that story, such is the lack of awareness on the part of so many Americans.

No doubt this ignorance is by design on the part of the powers-that-be, who prefer that these things not be discussed, at least not in a factual way.

While reading the comments on the Sailer article I wondered if anyone would mention that there was a sort of parallel ‘great migration’ of Southron Whites to places like Detroit or Saginaw, Michigan, to find work in the now-mostly-gone auto industry, or other manufacturing jobs. California also had quite an influx of Southrons during the Dust Bowl era and later; this was true of the urban Northwest also.

My belief, having some familarity with this displacement, is that it was destructive to the ethnic cohesion of the South generally, as it provided an opening for Northerners to fill in the vacuum left by the exiled Southrons. This was detrimental to the South as the newcomers brought their own ways and social habits (including a greater stand-offishness, and a general obliviousness to the unique folkways and traditions of Dixie). I’m not attempting to disparage individuals, but the fact is that many people from Northern states seem to think that Southrons are just Americans who ‘talk funny’, but otherwise share the same culture with the North. Sadly this idea has become more true, as the ethnic makeup of the South has changed in the last half-century at an accelerated rate. Everyone has become less attached to their home states and regions, it appears, and this makes the fate of the South a foregone conclusion.

Change is inevitable, of course, but traditionalists and ‘conservatives’ ideally should try to preserve all that is good about the past, including preserving the true history, acting as guardians of a region’s heritage and memory. There seems to be an ambivalence about this, as some Southrons have been infected with White guilt. The very idea of ‘conservatism’ has fallen into bad repute because there were — and are — so many false conservatives,  the proverbial ‘dumb dogs that do not bark‘ of Isaiah 56. I include the political ‘conservatives’ as well as those who posture as defenders of the South’s history and heritage.

Most of the unwanted changes in our demographics and the South’s culture were passively allowed by local leaders and a sleeping population. I realize some have done all they could to try to hold the fort or to withstand the onslaught on the South; I give them credit. But with increasing political correctness and the defamation of the South, there is too little opposition to these coerced changes.

Ever since the mass migrations of Northerners into many parts of the South in the 1970s and 1980s I began to wonder if this movement, as with the ‘Great Migration’ of blacks (and poor Whites) to the North, was engineered, planned, deliberate. I’ve become convinced it was not happenstance, in either of these cases. It may be that the powers-that-be merely saw an opening into which they could insert their agenda, which would presumably be to further integrate and foster more blurring of the lines between races. It may be that it was planned since much earlier times, and the aftermath of the War Between the States and a newly mobile black population was the opportunity sought by TPTB. It seems too much to think of it as merely an accident which proved lucky for the globalists.

The late 20th century migration of Northerners to the South was meant to dilute and weaken Southron culture, to further homogenize it with generic American culture and peoples, who were already farther along the road to being ‘generic Americans’ in contrast to the mostly Anglo-Norman South with its ‘Bible Belt’ ways and Confederate memories. Much as the Regime preaches diversity, they don’t intend to tolerate the native diversity of Southron culture and Southrons as a unique people, a people who were not yet fully immersed in the Melting Pot. So further efforts were focused on the South, and we’re seeing that they are in deadly earnest about the changes they are effecting. Again I can’t help thinking of a Scriptural phrase: “They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation…” In 1865 they formally ‘cut the South off from being a nation’ but the job must be finished. First, erasure of historical memory, a cutting off from the roots.  Next, reduce the ethnic character of the South to just another part of Melting Pot America. Another essential ingredient in this recipe: a little ethnic animosity and jealousy.

So, cue the ongoing argument about whether the South is Anglo-Norman or Anglo-Saxon as the older generations held, or whether the South belongs to the ‘Scots-Irish’ (Ulster Scots) or Celts. Cohesiveness has been undermined by this kind of squabbling. Political divides enter the picture and are exploited, fomenting bickering between right and left, and between the generations.

Speaking of engineered migrations, remember Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath? Remember planeloads of New Orleans residents, predominantly black, being flown to far-flung parts of the U.S.? This was something unprecedented; it seemed like blatant social engineering, relocating so many people, changing the demographic makeup of some areas.

No one can help being aware that there are unprecedented movements of peoples, especially residents of Third World countries, into Western, mostly White, areas. So would it not make sense that the powers-that-be are determined to alter the ethnic and racial makeup within countries as well as internationally? It all serves the globalist agenda, and the worldwide effort to ‘redistribute the poverty’. The agenda is panmixia, and no White communities left intact.

The ‘transgression and barbarism’ of the past

In the words ‘transgression and barbarism’, Molly Ringwald, that great philosopher, describes not long-ago eras, but the world inhabited by our parents and grandparents. Her exaggerated take reflects the hysterical view taken by “progressives”, you know, that group of people whose cult members believe that the world must be in a constant flux, with morals and ethics constantly changing. In this strange worldview, every generation sees itself as superior mentally and morally to previous generations.

The writer of the piece containing Molly Ringwald’s words, Ted Anthony, addresses the ‘transgressions’ of the older generations, such as the ‘domestic assault’ committed by Cary Grant towards Katharine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story. The list of shocking crimes against recently-invented Political Correctness reaches to horrors like ‘bullying’ against Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in a popular cartoon. Other guilty parties? Desi Arnaz as ‘Ricky Ricardo’, husband of fictional Lucy Ricardo, (Lucille Ball). Even the Beatles, themselves “progressives”, are not above scrutiny. John Lennon’s song ‘Run for Your Life’ violates the progressives’ new-and-improved 21st century standards. What next?

The article, predictably, mentions ‘blackface’ routines in a tone of feigned shock, and tsk-tsks over the character ‘Apu’ on the Simpsons, because of his accent. I suppose in the progs’ world, no immigrant ever has an accent, or runs a lowly convenience store. In the ideal universe envisioned by the progressive reformers, Apu and all his kinsmen would be lawyers, brain surgeons, physicists, tech moguls. There is an unwritten rule that POCs, if not employed in presitigious and well-paying professions, are victims of racism, proof of bigotry on the part of Whites.

This article would be laughable, but it seems to be written in earnest.

It’s ironic and a bit rich that the writer criticizes some of the TV series and movies that were the product of progressives. For example movies like ‘Porky’s’. Can movies of that type, rife since the 70s-80s, be blamed on the right? The left can’t seem to make up their minds whether libertinism and hypersexuality are good if they run afoul of recent codes of behavior toward women or girls. How do lefties cope with the obvious cognitive dissonance, especially when they rarely, if ever, admit to having been wrong?

While the writer goes down the list of the ‘transgressions’ and barbarisms of the past, he mentions the 1915 film ‘Birth of a Nation‘, which chronicles the turbulent Reconstruction era in the South. The writer describes the award-winning film as one of the most ”corrosive” films ever made, and says that it is viewed ever more harshly with passing years. By whom? By the judgmental left? Sadly, the movie has been all but banned — and I am expecting that to happen someday soon, especially with the Jacobin behaviors of the left. The recent wanton, vandalistic destruction of Confederate monuments and the banishing of all Southern symbols and icons shows that the left will tolerate nothing that does not fit their narrow, arbitrary, and constantly changing mores and rules.

But the facts about The Birth of a Nation are that it was a box office hit, drawing crowds in the North as well as the South. President Woodrow Wilson, known as one of our most liberal presidents, praised the movie highly. The entertainment trade paper Variety, in 1915, described the movie glowingly as a ‘masterpiece.’

Still, as people become more ignorant of history, and as the South has been vilified and the dark era of ‘reconstruction’ airbrushed from history, The Birth of a Nation is considered unfit to watch. How times and people change. That’s what decades of ‘progressive’ domination and propaganda will do.

So round and round we go, and where we stop, nobody knows. Just as leftist icon Mao (or is he becoming a non-person now, too?) preached, a perpetual revolution is a necessity. There is no stopping point; everything must be constantly scrutinized and roundly denounced by the ‘enlightened’ left, and removed as necessary.

The difference between left and right should be obvious; the left reveres nothing but the constant remaking of the world (tikkun olam, anybody?) in its ‘correct’ system of the moment. Change is the only certainty, in a way, for all of us, but need it be? Surely preserving what is good, and shoring it up, defending it, reinforcing it is a must in order to maintain any stability and continuity. The idea of constantly remaking ourselves (or everybody else, as with the left), or constantly condemning our own ancestors is, as we can see, destructive. At the moment it seems to be ascendant, this culture of censoring and hating the past, and sadly it seems never-ending. But need it be?

In unity?

During the years that I’ve been blogging and/or following discussions on dissident right blogs, there has been a lot of talk about how to bring the ‘normie’ section of our folk to some kind of awareness of our predicament. And having done that, presumably, we would move on to some kind of useful action.

At the AntiDem blog, this question is explored in a blog piece, which I recommend.
In that piece, one idea that is proposed is that of doing concrete acts such as charitable volunteerism amongst our own folk. I know that this has been discussed on forums and blogs occasionally, but it never seems to get off the ground. Why?

The writer of the blog piece has sound ideas and recommendations as to how it could be done, but one obstacle is that for some on the right, the idea of doing charitable acts is seen as enabling society’s losers; there is a tendency on the right to see the poor as being responsible for their own misfortunes, not worthy of receiving any sympathy or help. It’s true that there are those who may have created their own problems through what used to be called ‘vices’, along with fecklessness and irresponsibility, or ”poor life-choices.” In other words, not all those who experience difficulties in life are ”victims,” neither are they villains.

And what about the elderly or disabled, or anyone who through unforeseen catastrophes have ended up in need of assistance?

I commend the author of the AntiDem piece for a more compassionate attitude towards those who, through no fault of their own, are in bad circumstances. It’s surprising to find something other than the usual ‘die, boomers, die‘ rhetoric.

Incidentally, not all elders are ”boomers’; we still have many of the ‘Silent generation’ among us, and even some of the Greatest Generation’. They are human and subject to human frailties, but hardly the monsters they are often alleged to be.

Then there are those who, despite the improved economy, are jobless, and many still homeless. Can we turn our backs on our kinsmen when they are in need?

As the author of the blog piece suggests, we on the dissident right could generate considerable goodwill by doing what real ‘pro-Whites’ should do, helping our brothers and sisters, those who are not likely to be favored when the government or charitable organizations direct their largesse towards the usual ‘victim groups’, not towards Whites in distress. I’ve read that in the UK the government spends considerably more money on immigrants than on their own elders, who receive paltry pensions. I suspect the same situation exists here in the U.S., where ”our” government now spends close to $135 billion on illegal immigrants alone.

I’ve asked before, where is the brotherhood or solidarity amongst Whites? Are we truly pro White, if we nurse grudges against our folk for arbitrary or petty reasons, like the generational grudges which are suddenly in vogue?

Personally I believe that many of these divisions have been created and fostered by those who are hostile towards our folk, and who purposely sow internal dissension amongst Whites. I have come to believe that those who nurture internal strife are ‘outside agitators’ or shills, or paid operatives. They may be antifa types or they may be others not our kinsmen, perennial outside enemies and subversives. Can I prove this? Maybe not, but anyone deliberately stirring up internal divisions is not pro-White, their DNA notwithstanding, no matter what they may say. There are several supposed nationalist bloggers who seem to relish dividing Whites. These are not the actions of a nationalist, populist or a true kinist, or ethno-patriot. I’ve asked where these ideas began? Who’s responsible, and who benefits? Is this blaming and condemning beneficial or hurtful to us as a people?

We may not know who started all this internal animus, but this we know: whoever started it was not on our side, not a well-wisher.

Our foes have created and fostered this, with some of our ‘own’ being the most persistent promoters of internal division. ‘By their fruits‘ we can discern who is loyal and true.

Back in the saner days of the early 20th century, certain phrases were heard amongst Whites; in praising a fellow White’s actions, someone might say ”that’s mighty White of you”, implying that Whites possessed integrity and decency in all senses of the word. Another compliment amongst Whites was “you’re a real White man.” Can that be said of most of our folk now? I still think that we can have some pride in our folk; most of us still have a strong sense of fair play and honor, despite all the slanders against us from the usual suspects. But can we say we actually love our kinsmen, our fellow Whites? Can we, really, when we defame each other?

It’s not very ‘White’ to turn on our own folk, for whatever reason. Most of us have relatives we don’t get along with, including our close relatives in some cases — but they are still our family, and as we used to say, blood is thicker than water. And it used to be that anyone with breeding and discretion did not air family differences in public; we ‘kept it in the family’; we didn’t flaunt the family’s internal problems before the whole world as some are doing now.

Even though all our folk may not be lovable we should show solidarity and loyalty to our own even if only for the sake of mutual defense, survival. Obviously we are under an existential threat. We can’t afford to exclude big segments of our people.

Christians, can we justify having bitter grudges against our kinsmen?

We have a movement within Christianity known as kinism, which should imply
a strong loyalty to our own folk, a concentric set of loyalties and priorities, placing our family and extended family at the center, with non-kinsmen a secondary priority. Our society inverts this, compelling us to extend most of our charity and support to those farthest from us geographically and genetically. The alarming divisions amongst us are a by-product of the propaganda to which we are all subjected, which devalues our folk, producing an estrangement within our family, and internal bickering and antipathy. This is unnatural and counterproductive. It should not even have to be said, it’s so self-evident.

Solidarity with our kin is the sine qua non of being a nationalist or a Kinist, and yet the loyalty and mutual trust is sorely lacking. I’m especially sorry to see Christian ‘pro-Whites’ ripping apart their elders, and justifying these attitudes,
cherishing their grievances. Where is forbearance? Forgiveness?

We might all benefit by a focus on acting within our communities, our neighborhoods, showing our ‘normie’ kinsmen that we are not the caricatured ‘bigots’ and ‘haters’ portrayed by the controlled media. This would be a positive action, showing that we look out for our own; we care. The rest of society seems bent on slandering and defaming us; we could salvage our own reputation by showing that we are human and not a menace as we are portrayed.

Somewhere someone has to do something in the real world to build trust and solidarity with our own folk, beginning with building trust within our communities and strengthening connections with our folk. Nothing is to be gained by continuing with the status quo, with all its divisiveness, internecine squabbling, and accusatory claims. I’ve pleaded this case before, and I may be pleading in vain, but it has to be said, whether or not anyone reads this or heeds the call.

A right to adult content?

Back when ‘adult content’ began to be widespread in Hollywood movies, I used to muse about whether people who preferred their movies with extra ‘sex-and-violence’ would, if deprived of it, storm the movie box office and demand their money back?

Needless to say it hasn’t ever happened that I know of; apparently Hollywood never fails to provide the audiences their rightful quota of sex-and-violence, (and then some, at least these days).

Over at Tumblr, the owners (Verizon, to be specific) have announced a ban on adult content, whatever that includes. And the Tumblr bloggers, many of whom are teens, are up in arms. They are having a collective hissy fit at the mere thought of being deprived of their Constitutional right to a daily quota of ‘adult content.’ Some are saying that the aficionados of Art will be robbed of their beloved ‘artistic nudes’, (but who decides what is artistic?) while others say that obscene content involving children is the only kind of thing that should be banned.

However there are intermittent grumblings about how ‘far-right’ politics or images must be banned.

I think that some Tumblr users are glad to see the ‘adult’ content go, because many Tumblr bloggers are exasperated at being besieged by porn bloggers unscrupulously trying to lure more traffic. I suspect many under-aged children, including sub-teens, get lured into these blogs and become fascinated with, or addicted to, the lewd content. Tumblr has an age limit of 13 years and above. 13 is still childhood, no matter how knowing the 13 year old may seem.

There are ‘bot blogs’ on Tumblr which are apparently not run or moderated by real people; porn images are sown amongst other normal content, such as artwork, photos of a non-sexual nature, and other wholesome images.

Some commenters online say that Tumblr is mostly porn; I can’t speak to that; I began viewing Tumblr some years ago, for classic art works, nature scenery, old movies, and historic material. There is a lot of good content on Tumblr. Unfortunately the porn epidemic is spreading, it seems. Whenever salacious content is not restricted or banned, it seems it will proliferate, until it crowds out the worthwhile blogs and bloggers. The bad always crowds out the good wherever and whenever it is tolerated. We see that in our society at large.

However, if Tumblr were aimed at the actual adult crowd, that would be legal and approved in our increasingly libertine society. But the fact is, there are many young teens who view Tumblr or maintain their own blogs, and even the very young bloggers are rather jaded because they’ve been brought up in the corrupt atmosphere of a debauched 21st century West. Sadly even young adolescents are worldly beyond what we imagined in earlier times.

Adults are not, it seems, doing enough to keep their children away from the debased elements in our society. But in a society which is permeated with hypersexuality, it’s getting to be almost impossible to remain free of the corruption.

Social conservatism, so-called, is all but dead now, dead and unmourned, except for those few religious people who value separating from ‘the world’.  Doing that is difficult because there is widespread ‘tolerance’, an anything-goes-between-consenting-adults’ attitude. We are seeing the results of the past few decades now in our wider society.

As for Tumblr and the brouhaha over the feared ‘loss’ of adult content, there’s certaintly no need to panic; pornography is in no danger of disappearing anytime soon. It’s been around since time immemorial. Now, if it crawled back under its plain brown wrapper, as in former, more enlightened times, it might be ‘tolerated’ to some extent. But those times are gone; there’s no putting it back.

The young, who’ve been brought up with this stuff as part of their lives, cannot see things as the older generations did, but does that mean we are condemned to live with the present situation? Are we doomed to see the world deteriorate as porn continues to become more and more extreme, more depraved, as down the slippery slope we continue to slide?

And does our First Amendment condemn us to pretend that porn is ‘free expression’?

Some “conservative” defenders of adult content on Tumblr liken this restriction to the political censorship on Twitter, Gab, Facebook et al, but it’s apples and oranges. Someone, I can’t recall who, wrote years ago that pornography was a sop thrown to a jaded population, in order to keep them content with their ”freedoms”, since obviously the presence of obscenity in media signified a ‘free society.’ There is probably a lot of truth in that theory; it’s all part of the bread and circuses, as it was in ancient Rome. Just a way to distract or lull the masses, that is, a means of control.