These words seemed to be the message I was needing when I came across them.
I hope they speak to others out there who may be dispirited or pessimistic now. Sometimes just “a word in due season” is what is needed.
These words seemed to be the message I was needing when I came across them.
I hope they speak to others out there who may be dispirited or pessimistic now. Sometimes just “a word in due season” is what is needed.
On Steve Sailer’s blog, following a piece about ‘Silicon Valley’s most boring adventuress’ (and the significance of White Shoes), this comment appeared:
The commenter deserves some points for imagination in deftly shoehorning Boomers into the discussion but I don’t understand how it can be imagined that feminism began in the mid-1960s or even much later, when ‘The Boomer Women’ were old enough to be passing myths on to anybody. Nevertheless some law apparently exists that stipulates that all evil has ‘boomers’ as its source, and I won’t try to resume that battle just now.
Do people really believe that feminism began only in the mid-20th century or later? First of all, the ‘battle of the sexes’ goes back to Adam and Eve, I suppose, but feminism as we know it dates back at least to the 19th century, with women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and events like the Seneca Falls Conference. But then in 1792 there had been Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, which was an influential book, and which encouraged women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton to agitate for “equality” for women.
Then in the 20th century there were successive ‘waves’ of feminism, with women in the U.S. being given the vote in 1920. The two world wars, however, were a big factor in women entering in substantial numbers into the work force. Some of this was by necessity, as many of the younger and able-bodied men were fighting the wars, and women stepped into some traditionally male-dominated jobs, or at least entered the work force for the first time. When the men returned from the wars (of course many men, sadly, didn’t return) some women found they wanted to continue working and earning a paycheck, or they wanted the ‘independence’ of having a career or even a mere job, rather than returning to the ‘drab’ domestic sphere where their abilities would be wasted.
‘Liberal’ philosophies and political systems appeal to human weaknesses and what the Christian Bible calls sins: pride, vanity, and greed, mainly, and these leftist systems entice people with the promise of ‘equality’, teaching that everybody is as good as anybody else; hierarchy is bad because ‘unfair’, and that nobody should assume an ‘inferior’ role or a humble role in life. Women were taught that their great gifts and talents were squandered in the domestic sphere; the world was being deprived of the female sex’s nobler qualities and talents, and it was demeaning to be a helpmeet to a husband or to do domestic chores, which are menial and degrading. I’ve heard career women say that their own mothers ”didn’t do anything with their own lives” because they stayed at home as homemakers and mothers. Only a paying job, or a job with considerable prestige and income, would suffice for a feminist-minded women.
So where did all this start? It’s at least as old as Jacobinism and Marxism, and older than that if we look back through history. Aristophanes’ play Lysistrata has the women rebelling against the men. Women have always seemingly had the temptation to believe that they are the equals of men in every way, if not the superiors.
To bring this back to the 20th century, I read somewhere on another blog (I read a lot of blogs, and I lose track of where I read what sometimes) the charge was made that GenXers had a hard upbringing as ‘latchkey kids’, presumably with working parents or single mothers, yet many children from earlier in the century likewise had working mothers, especially children of those women who had gone to work in ‘defense’ jobs during WWII or in WWI. Working mothers were not just a late-20th century phenomenon. And there have always been widows who were compelled to go to work to support families and who did not have parents or close relatives to care for their children. Many of those children ended up in foster care or the old-fashioned orphanages when their single parent couldn’t cope with caring for them.
Feminism or female supremacy, as it really is in its current incarnation, is not something that was dreamed up 50 or so years ago. It’s been with us a long time, as have all forms of egalitarianism. And no generation has a monopoly on ‘victimhood’ because they were children of single parents, or neglectful parents. Those have been with us always, too.
And suppose your parents did steer you wrong, or teach you unsound ideas? We are all responsible for evaluating, as we mature, what is true and good and what is not. Blaming others for our problems, our elders or whoever else, is neither mature nor healthy. We all have agency to make our own choices as we become adults, to accept or reject what we were taught, and to bear the consequences.
At the Iron Ink blog, Bret McAtee has a very timely and apposite blog piece called ‘On out-enemying the enemy’. It’s actually Part II, a follow-up to an earlier post.
The title of this post is from the Iron Ink piece, and it’s from a Russian proverb which Pastor Bret quotes: “One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world.”
We live in a truth-starved time, a time which I have called ‘The Age of the Lie’, and I’ve noticed that others have also used similar terms to describe the age we live in. And when the very air we breathe is saturated with the lies of the ‘propaganda machine’ we need to hear the truth, as well as to speak it, though the latter is carrying considerable risks these days.
The blog piece at Iron Ink emphasizes that though we have to combat the many lies which are fed to us daily, we must not resort to lying as a way of countering the propaganda. The old saying ‘fight fire with fire’ does not work here; The truth alone is sufficient to combat the lies.
“Christians don’t need to rely on deception, misdirection or spin. All they need to do is tell the truth. Telling the truth can happen in many ways. It can happen in the context of a logical well structured rational argument but let’s face it… in the age of social engineering and sociological techniques logical and well-structured arguments are typically not going to get it done.”
This is something which I find useful to remember myself, because my preferred method is to rely on rational argument, but I’ve concluded that most people are not so much moved by that kind of approach. Sad to say, many people have not been taught how to think logically or to follow a reasoned argument. Facts and data in our postmodern age are not as effective for a great number of people, especially the young. As Bret McAtee says, emotive approaches seem to speak to more people, and it seems that the left specializes in manipulating emotions, generating fear, indignation and rage (though they accuse us of appealing to fear or ‘hate’, they actually stir up and exploit those feelings themselves). By their use of the complicit media’s dishonest fear-mongering they use images especially to provoke feelings which they then use: think of the image of the drowned refugee child. Or the constant images of the ‘Dreamers’ and their families, and the sob stories about ‘families being torn apart.’ See the image in this story. How is this to be countered? Do we really ‘tear families apart’ by sending parents home to their native land and keeping the ‘anchor babies’ here as hostages or something? Do people really believe that, or is that just part of the lies? Yet people seem unable to question the message.
I agree that we should use images and memes where possible to counter the lies, but lacking a powerful media ally to present
our side the truth, we are at a disadvantage. Still, as the old saying goes, one plus God is a majority. We have to start somewhere.
Letting the constant tsunami of lies go unanswered is not the thing to do. Though as the Iron Ink piece points out, we can’t emulate our enemies’ dishonest tactics but we can’t let their lies go unchallenged, and be passive when we are presented with nonstop lies and false witness.
On Archive.org, you can read Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s book, The Totalitarian State Against Man. It’s not a long book, only 199 pages. Reading it may provide clues (or not) to the motivations of the ideologues who are in control of our world.
As best I can understand Coudenhove-Kalergi’s ideas, he believed that mixed races were superior to more homogeneous races. He doesn’t really get to this aspect of his philosophy until well into the book.
As to the title of the book, I find it misleading; it might make you actually think he was not a friend of totalitarianism, but let the reader judge for himself.
Anyway, it’s available to read for those who are interested in this man who obviously was one of the main architects of this crazy world we find ourselves in in the 21st century.
As September 11, 2017 came and went, I was aware that it was the anniversary of the World Trade Center destruction. Usually, over the years that I’ve been blogging, I would post something related to that event. But this year I just had no inspiration to write about it.
This blogger notes as I did inwardly, that there were very few blog pieces or even news stories from the controlled media about 9/11/01. I also wondered why.
Have we forgotten, in 16 years, what happened on that day? 3,000+ people lost their lives. Those deaths should not have happened. So many decent people’s lives snuffed out, horribly.
Why the apparent indifference? Well, silence does not mean indifference, as in my case; I was deeply affected emotionally and mentally by the attack and the many deaths. I was in a kind of shock for some time afterward; it was traumatic to realize how vulnerable our country was, and how our feeling of security was obviously not grounded in reality.
But are many Americans somehow indifferent or even callous about those many dead people?
First, one thing that is a factor in this change over the last 16 years is that many people who were alive back then are now no longer with us; the older people who were alive then have passed on. The young adults who make up a lot of the voices on the Internet were young children back in 2001, and have no memory of those events, or only a vague one; the event doesn’t have much emotional resonance for them.
Another factor: today there is so much more cyncism and disbelief as to what actually did happen on 9/11/2001 in New York City, in Washington, D.C., and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It seems that most of the online commentary believes that planes crashing into the WTC towers did not cause the collapse of the buildings, and some even say there ‘were no planes.’ Most people I talk to seem to think that there was at least some foreknowledge by those in power that this attack was coming, and that they ‘let it happen’, at least, much as with Pearl Harbor.
Personally? I don’t know what actually happened, except that I don’t question (as some do) the fact that thousands of people died. I mean, there are those who say in all seriousness that those people who were supposedly on the planes which supposedly hit the towers were actually just spirited away and given new identities. Sometimes these theories get way out of control and posit what to me are implausible scenarios.
I believe that yes, Islamic fanatics carried out the attack. It’s what they do. No need to make up alternative stories which absolve Moslems of the main guilt.
Was there a Jewish/Israeli/Mossad role in the attack? That’s a claim that is pressed by a lot of people.
The net result of all these conflicting stories is that many people don’t know what to believe, and no longer trust their common sense, or even their five senses. We live in a cynical age, dominated by postmodernism, which denies even the existence of objective truth.
We are also, sad to say, living in a time in which there has developed a certain callousness towards our fellow citizens, a coldness which is in part due to the obvious efforts to divide our folk every which way. It’s worked, to a great extent. We are a divided people.
Right after 9/11, I was still living in a big city, and a local fast food restaurant had a sign reading ‘United We Stand‘, — followed by ‘Celebrate Diversity.‘
That’s the story in a nutshell; the two ideas are in opposition. We are a diverse nation in every possible way, and there can be no unity in such a society, not even a coming together in mourning.
Here’s some interesting data that should be useful in one of those online discussions where people are pointing fingers regarding slave-owning in the South. I see lots of claims that only a ‘tiny percentage’ (single digits, according to some who claim this) held slaves, and of course the person saying this always says that his own ancestors owned none — “it was only those big plantation owners, the very rich Cavalier class”, etc. This always rang false to me. I know that there were smaller farmers who had a couple of slaves, or a few.
The following is from a book called The South, its Economic-Geographic Development, by A.E. Parkins, published in 1938:
The salient facts, to me, are that about 50 percent of farm-owners did own slaves but the author estimates that about a third of the total population of the South owned any. The distribution of slaveowners varied according to region and county.
And of those farms which had slaves, there were a good many more small farms with a few or a couple of slaves versus the number of very large plantations with great numbers of them. So it was not the large farmers or plantation owners alone who owned most of the slaves; even small farmers had them, and smaller farms were overrepresented, percentage-wise, in the number of slaveholders.
I don’t expect this data will ever be used by anyone; it seems it’s more appealing to make unsupported claims about who owned, or didn’t own, slaves, so as to be able to point the finger somewhere else. Where is the solidarity that should exist? The South is besieged and there should be more unity as opposed to class division. Funny, our ancestors didn’t go in for that kind of division as much; the people of the old South had a loyalty to one another and there was little of this ‘Celt vs. Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘poor people vs. rich, evil planter class’ that has become popular. Jacobinism is slyly insinuating itself in our society, although it’s always been there, implicitly, in egalitarianism; it’s just a matter of degree.
There was a popular statement, credited to a couple of renowned Southron statesmen:
“I am an aristocrat; I love liberty, I hate equality.” Naturally that kind of sentiment is not going to go over well in egalitarianism-besotted America. Few people seem to get the obvious truth that liberty and equality can’t coexist; they are mutually exclusive. Equality, or a pretended equality, requires coercion. And we are finding that out.
If you haven’t already, I recommend reading the post at GalliaWatch, titled ‘Unprecedented: a peaceful conquest of Europe.’ When I saw the title, my thought was ‘peaceful conquest of Europe? The word ‘peaceful’ does not apply to what is being done to Europe, but the word choice is that of the current Pope, who recently delivered a message about migrants and ‘refugees’.
Tiberge at GalliaWatch quotes from an interview of Philippe De Villiers by the Catholic magazine Famille chrétienne. The interviewer asks Philippe de Villiers for his opinions on the Pope’s recent message.
The interviewer asking the questions seeems to be one of those open-borders liberals who have made themselves the voice of what passes for Christianity today, but Villiers gives very good answers, in my opinion, to the questions put to him. He says that Francis’ message on migration amounts to a recommendation of suicide for the West.
The interviewer asks if the pope would really ‘want to annihilate the West.‘
– One would think he wants to punish Europe – he never speaks of its Christian roots. With John-Paul II, Benedict XVI and his predecessors, there exists a “theology of nations”. It is based on the fourth commandment: “Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.” This commandment implies worshiping one’s parents and one’s ancestors, hence one’s country. It implies a love that is given preference, which extends to the nation because it constitutes a family of families. If you believe Saint Augustine, politics is, in this sense, the highest form of charity.”
Villiers is sounding a little like a kinist there, although I wonder if the phrase ‘worshipping one’s parents‘ is a good translation of his original remarks. I wouldn’t think ‘worship’ is correct, but yes, we are to honor our parent, including the generations that went before, and by extension our national family, our national forefathers as well as our own immediate family.
But the whole world cannot be our ‘family’; if they are, then the whole concept of ‘family’ becomes null and void, illegitimate according to this postmodern redefinition. If everybody is my brother, nobody is my brother. Family by definition is particularistic and exclusive. It is not possible to love everybody as we love those closest to us; if we claim we do, then we are thus stripping the word ‘love’ of its real meaning as well. This is where this kind of twisted pharisaical ‘charity’ leads us.
Villiers, in the interview, further says that the pope’s viewpoint in essence makes nations and citizenship obsolete or null and void, if any ‘migrant’ anywhere has a right to enter our countries at will, and to stay permanently. We end up with a borderless one-world system, and if Catholics follow the current Pope’s teachings, they become globalist/universalist, basically on the side of the antichrist system. This applies to all the Christian denominations or individuals who adhere to this perverted parody of Christianity and Christian charity.
Please do read the article at Gallia Watch, and if you read French, the complete interview at Le Salon Beige.
The Houston Chronicle reports how the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo uses callous ‘humor’ to depict the recent disaster in Houston as God’s punishment on the ‘nazis’ of Texas.
It’s interesting to note that not so long ago, in 2015, Charlie Hebdo’s offices were the scene of a gruesome terror attack by Moslems, angry about Charlie Hebdo’s affront to their Prophet. A dozen people there ended up dead.
Despite that massacre, the people who work for Charlie Hebdo persist in their reality-deficient leftist worldview, in which the only villains are ‘right-wing extremists’, and imaginary ‘neo-nazis.’
Charlie Hebdo’s ”satirists” have obviously never been to Houston (probably never even to the United States, except perhaps New York or L.A. — but those places are not American) because if they had been to Houston they might observe that the majority of Houston residents are not White, but represent just about every kind of ‘diversity’ imaginable. Blacks, including a large contingent of Katrina ‘refugees’ strategically relocated by a helpful government to Houston), many Mexicans and Central Americans (legal and illegal), Vietnamese, Chinese, and on it goes. Whites make up at most around one quarter of Houston’s population, at least Houston proper. And ‘neo-nazis’ are few and far between.
But reality and facts are of no interest to leftists, who live in a universe of their own imaginings, one created specifically to rationalize their political agenda, and their cult of diversity and “equality.”
The casualties of Harvey were demographically likely to have been people of color, not Whites, especially not the apocryphal neo-nazis dreamt up by Charlie Hebdo’s ethnomasochist, dhimmi satirists.
This attempt at satire is insulting to the people who have been killed or displaced or who are otherwise suffering because of hurricane Harvey. It’s cynical and insulting to the people of Houston, presuming to frame their misfortunes as some kind of ‘karma’, as leftist new-agers conceive it.
Just a heads-up, one of the links in my blogroll, the link to Northern Ireland Demands the Right, is no longer a good link, as the blog has evidently come down. The message says it was removed by the author, but it may have been removed because of non-PC content, given today’s climate of silencing the right.
There’s a partial list here of some of the sites which have been removed or have come down. I am sure there are more which are not on the list, and most of us on the dissident right know that our days might be numbered. But just take a look at the list.
Sadly there are some sites whose loss is being cheered by segments of the right, and that reflects what I would classify as ‘virtue-signalling’ from some on the right, or ‘punching right’, trying to distance oneself from the ones deemed ‘deplorable.’ Everyone seems to have their own list of ‘deplorables’.
Someone mentioned the taking down of one of the most ”notorious” WN forums, the one with the largest membership, according to their own claims. Lots of ethnonationalists/alt-rightists said this forum deserved taking down, and that it was outdated and out of step as well as being crude and ugly in the content and the kinds of people who posted there. I think it’s a loss, nonetheless. I was not a member, never registered there, though I read it at times. It certainly had lots of posts from people in various countries, so it gave a voice to a real spectrum of people, and ethnopatriots from lots of other Western countries had a voice there, where all nationalist-minded people could read and interact with them — something not found on any other forum or blog to my knowledge.
How did I happen to read it? I was still more of an ethnopatriot American, but a simple search on the word ‘nationalism’ for a blog piece I was writing brought me to that forum. I had vaguely heard of it, probably in a disparaging way, but I found some very intelligent and interesting commentary there, alongside some not-so-intelligent postings — much like any other politically incorrect rightist blog. In fact there was less use of obscene and profane language (because of the rules of the forum) and any discussions of religion were confined to a forum for that topic only, a sensible rule. It made for a change from so many right-wing blogs where Christian-bashing and crude blasphemies were allowed. There was a wide range of opinions representing the right, the ethnonationalist/WN right, there, unrivalled elsewhere in my experience.
Someone said that this notorious ‘extremist’ forum was banned with the excuse that some 100 or so registered members were allegedly ‘murderers.’ I don’t know if a claim like that is verified or if it’s just a number made up of whole cloth. And with hundreds of thousands (I think) registered members, 100 is a pretty minuscule percentage. How many times have we read of terrorists or mass murderers being members of left-wing forums or political groups? Most such people seem also to be active Twitter users, or Facebook users, or habitues of ‘dating sites.’ Does this incriminate Twitter, Facebook, or other social media by association? People have made open threats to politicians and celebrities on social media sites, and those sites continue to operate despite that. Only when the site is a politically incorrect, right-wing forum is guilt transferred to the forum they posted on.
Reading that forum does not turn one into a raving maniac or a dangerous extremist.
In any case, how many White ‘extremists’ have committed violent acts based on their philosophies, versus the number of leftists and minorities who have acted out violently? There is no comparison, no moral equivalency.
Despite all this, the right is seemingly being targeted by the monolithic leftist/multicult media for silencing, and any one of us could be next.
In the meantime, ”Truth is hate only to those who hate truth.‘
And as always, ‘free speech: use it or lose it.’ Use it while you have the chance.
The state of Texas’ attempt to ban so-called ‘Sanctuary cities’ has been blocked by a Federal judge — not so surprisingly, the judge, Orlando Garcia, is Mexican by descent, though Texas-born.
He is also (unsurprisingly) a Clinton appointee.
If not for this judge’s action, the ban would have gone into effect on Friday. The judge’s ruling does not stop the ban altogether, but temporarily puts it on hold.
“As a result of the ruling, local law enforcement won’t be given the option of asking people they detain for their immigration status. It was feared that could lead to racial profiling and make the immigrant community much less willing to report crime or cooperate with anyone wearing a badge.”
So the danger of so-called ‘racial profiling’ is greater than the danger of letting unknown aliens, possibly dangerous felons, have free rein to roam our country at will. Of course the ”immigrant community” is rejoicing over this ruling, and although the San Antonio media do not say so, the American-born ‘Latino community’ is likely happy about this judge’s action. Blood is thicker than water. The judge himself is American-born, as I said, educated and given every opportunity in the old Texas, supposedly a place which held minorities down, and we see where his loyalties lie.
There is a cliche that is often repeated on many so-called ‘race-realist’ sites or forums like Free Republic, and it asserts that most American-born Hispanics are ultra-patriotic and that they oppose illegal immigration just like their Anglo neighbors. If this is true even to the limited extent that I might believe it to be, it assuredly will not be true as the percentage of Hispanics continues to rise in Texas, versus the declining Anglo population. As their share of the population grows, they are flexing their political muscle and asserting their own ethnic power, adopting tactics used by the black Civil Rights militants. Ethnocentrism will rise, especially as members of their ethnic group are placed, like this judge, in positions of power. How long until Texas has a Hispanic governor, and a majority Hispanic legislature and local governments? It happened pretty speedily in California. Watch it happen in Texas. And local Anglos, who want to feel good about themselves, will vote for it, having been taught from childhood that Hispanics had an equal share in founding, first, the Republic of Texas and then the state of Texas.
Hispanics will increasingly act in their own ethnic interests, with, at best, indifference to their Anglo neighbors, or at worst, they will exhibit greater revanchist tendencies as they grow in numbers.
Too many Anglos have caught the ‘equality’ virus even in the South, and they will sacrifice their children’s future for the sake of that abstract and absurd idea. The judge, though theoretically neutral, was acting in his own ethnic group’s interest, not in the interests of the citizenry as a whole, nor out of devotion to justice and upholding the law.