Victory

Yesterday I was cautiously optimistic, but I admit that Trump’s victory today was somewhat surprising  — and I admit that all the naysaying talk about how ”They” wouldn’t  let him win, or “They” wouldn’t allow us to take back our country was even affecting my attitude.

Even now, as Hillary (or Queen Xanxia as I’ve been calling her: a Dr. Who allusion) has reportedly conceded, there are honestly Republicans on the Internet saying they won’t believe it, because she would never concede. Or they are saying that Trump can’t officially win until she appears in public and makes a formal concession speech. This is how hard it is for some to accept that the ‘Lizard Queen’ is not invincible or superhuman. They really think she can hold up the process by not making a formal speech. As far as I know there is no law that the losing candidate has to officially concede in front of the national media — it may be a tradition but it is not an ironclad rule, surely.

I still remember election night in November, 2000 when that sore loser Al Gore, after having called G.W. Bush to concede, then turned around shortly thereafter and took back his concession. I was flabbergasted; so graceless and childish on his part. So we can never overestimate the left’s capacity for treachery and dishonesty — but though they may have fits of  petulance and try to sabotage things, they can’t overturn the results of the election just because they don’t like to lose.

I think our folk have lived under political correctness and leftist manipulation for so long that we are like a psychologically beaten and whipped people. I think we’ll need de-programming or something to re-learn our self-confidence and to stop overestimating our enemies. ‘They are but men’, as the Bible says of the arrogant and powerful; they are not superhuman, not even Hillary.

Advertisements

Do we care?

I’ve got my ballot ready to go; it will be deposited tomorrow first thing.

Like most people on the right, I see this election as the most crucial one of my lifetime. I don’t see how anyone on our side could sit this one out.

I care about my nation — by which I mean that I care about the people of this country, the ‘generational Americans’, the ‘legacy Americans’, or ‘birthright Americans’, the Posterity of the Founders. We are the ones with everything to lose now. Not the rest.

But when I ask, “do we care?” I mean: have we grown so complacent, so jaded, so apathetic, and in the case of the dissident right, have we grown so disillusioned and so alienated from the “normies”, also known as ‘the sheeple’ or ‘Amurkans’ that we are wishing for it all to come down?

To me, my nation is like my family. I have some lefty relatives, and lately I am ashamed to claim them. Some of us were temporarily not on speaking terms due to their confrontational political rantings in my presence. But the fact is they are still my kin, and we still share ancestry and memories, good as well as bad. They may ultimately see the light, God willing. I am not willing to write them off. And I hope some of our ignorant lefty countrymen may come around to the Truth. So I can’t hate them.

But do we care in that we still at least make our voices known, even suspecting that politics and voting alone will not save us? I keep on with this blog although I suspect that it’s a vain effort on my part; I often feel I am writing for about five people out there, and the comments are few and far between. Am I just indulging myself here? Maybe so, and like many on the dissident right, in my little efforts here I may be putting myself on the radar screen of the powers-that-be, even though this blog is insignificant in terms of traffic and even less significant in terms of influence. But I feel duty-bound to make my voice heard even though I reach few and influence fewer. I honestly believe we will be held accountable for what we failed to do, for failing to speak up on the side of right and Truth, in whatever small way we can find. The point is to raise our voices; we can only do what we can do, regardless of how little the apparent result.

“I do not believe the greatest threat to our future is from bombs or guided missiles. I don’t think our civilization will die that way. I think it will die when we no longer care. Arnold Toynbee has pointed out that 19 of 21 civilizations have died from within and not by conquest from without. There were no bands playing and flags waving when these civilizations decayed. It happened slowly, in the quiet and the dark when no one was aware.” – Laurence M. Gould, former president of Carleton College, 1968

 

No predictions, but…

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?

 

Absolutely true

from-fb-2016-11-03_043823

This was posted on Facebook.  I found it on Morgoth’s blog, on a thread which is featuring memes which could be used in trying to engage Hillary voters and the brainwashed left. Could it be useful? I like it because it is absolutely true. The kind of thinking that is denounced as ‘extremist’, ‘hateful’, and ‘bigoted’ was common to most normal people back then; even Democrats had views that are considered reprehensible today.  Yet right and wrong don’t change with time. Truth is not based on shifting, fickle public opinion. What was good and right in 1965 still is.

First we have the election ahead of us. I hope to persuade some of my lefty relatives to stay home and not vote; that may be the best possibility of preventing the disaster that the election might bring.

‘What they saw’

The headline on this piece quotes a source saying that investigating NYPD officers were ‘sickened by what they saw’ in the e-mail evidence in the Hillary investigation.

How trustworthy the sources are here is beyond me; I’m not familiar with the websites from which this information comes, so I leave that judgement to those who know more about them.

What I do know, because I remember the late 1990s during the Clinton pre-impeachment scandal(s), is that all the right-wing forums were a-buzz with rumor and speculation every time someone leaked new ‘revelations’ about the Clintons’ misconduct. Every time, the headlines screamed ‘Latest bombshells will finally expose the Clintons! Smoking gun found!‘ or similar sensationalism. Whatever it was, there was always something that was promoted as being ‘the Big One! This is it! This will make Clinton resign!’

As history shows, no matter what was revealed, it was never enough to cause the shameless Clintons and their minions and defenders to admit anything, much less to retire in disgrace. They brazened it out till the bitter end, even being so bold as to trash the White House when they departed. Of course the liberal lying media denied what happened, following their pattern of covering up anything done by ‘their own.’ If you search on the subject you will find the media sycophants calling the damage just ‘pranks’ and mischief, downplaying it, if not outright denying that it happened.

This is what happens with a dishonest media machine; Thomas Jefferson wrote so often of the vital importance of a free and independent press. We are now living the consequences of not guarding against the corruption of the media, and the concentration of media control in a few, very politicized hands.

So, it may be that these latest ‘bombshells’, this time involving much more than ‘juvenile pranks’ like trashing the White House, or worse even than the Lewinski lewdness, will prove devastating to the corrupt Democrat crime machine and all their degenerate associates and contributors. We can hope.

But personally I am not investing too much in this latest story, not until it is actually out in the open, if ever. It may prove to be yet another of many damp squibs, as with virtually all of the ‘explosive revelations’ against the Clintons in the late 90s.

The thing is, our enemies, the ‘progressives’, liberals, Democrats, are people who are generally lacking in morals, especially as regards sexual behavior. Even when sexual behavior becomes transgressive to the point of violating the laws of God and man, they have no sense of shame. They generally can’t be shocked, being very amoral people in a deep sense. Oh, sure, they have perfected the art of feigning shock, when they can find a political enemy caught in some compromising situation  — like when some Christian minister is caught in sexual misbehavior. Then they suddenly are full of high morals, reacting with condemnation, for example, if the misbehavior happens to involve homosexuality — while normally they champion, no, celebrate homosexuality. And look at how they defend, even now, Roman Polanski.

They are not like normal people who recoil from certain things naturally; they are hardened in their amorality; everything is excused as a lack of understanding on our part; everyone is a victim of genes or childhood trauma (child abusers, for example) or their behavior is called good and natural (transsexualism, homosexuality, bestiality).

There is nothing much that can shock them, and when it comes to politics they would defend the Devil himself because after all he is one of their own.

So, we’ll see what develops. It would be a great surprise, and decidedly a good thing if some eleventh-hour revelation brings down the Democrats and all their associates and enablers, especially in the media. That would be the kind of deus-ex-machina we need, but if they are to be defeated it may just be down to the usual factors: let the elections play out, and pray that the vote-rigging does not work this time for the Democrat machine.

Evangelicals prefer Trump

According to one poll, 69 per cent of Evangelicals prefer Trump.

This contradicts what many of the news media have been saying, and it’s also the opposite of the popular opinion on many Alt-Right/dissident right blogs, where people say that Christians will not vote for Trump.

Personally I think that the seculars out there who are Trump supporters simply have a low opinion of Christians (or Evangelicals specifically), as the public at large has been conditioned to have negative images of Christians. So many on the secular right are lumping Christians together with the ‘Churchians.’ Not all Christians are Churchians, or ‘cucked’.

I live in a town where the majority of people are Christian, I mean, actively Christian, who belong to churches and attend every Sunday. They even read (and believe) their Bibles. They aren’t just casual Christians; they’re not just Christians by default because they haven’t yet become Moslems or Hindus or Mormons or atheists. But in my town, the vast majority of yard signs, bumper stickers or other such displays are for Trump. I have seen one sign for Hillary, though there may be a handful here and there.

Even in the University town which is about 20 minutes away, I have seen a total of two yard signs for Hillary. It’s hard to believe because that town, population about 80,000, is an ultra-liberal town, populated by many academics and young naive college kids. There are still some ‘Bernie’ signs there that were never taken down; Bernie was the choice for most of the lefties there. But I’ve seen two Hillary signs in my recent visits.

Anecdotes aren’t data, I know. But if there is a lot of support for Hillary, people must be too embarrassed to show their support. I can only hope they will be too embarrassed to go to the polls to vote for Hillary.

The media, I think, are trying to demoralize potential Trump voters by their barrage of false data and skewed ‘news.’

Just that easy

When the ‘Milo’/Alt-right love affair started I was wary, because whenever any ‘protected group’ is incorporated into the ‘Big Tent’, chances are that group will begin to impose its agenda (which is counter to that of the majority, always) onto the majority. “We need their votes!” Or, in Milo’s case, “He fights! He wins! We need fighters.”

Doesn’t anyone think that it’s a sad commentary that an effeminate homosexual has to “fight” on behalf of straight men who should be able to champion their own interests?

[An aside: the gay ‘Daddy will save us” hashtag,  referring to Trump, is mentioned. Maybe some FReepers don’t realize that for gay men, the term ‘daddy’ has a specific meaning.]

Anyway, the title of this post is a description of how easily the ‘mainstream GOP’ types at Free Republic are all fine with the “gay community” getting on the Trump train. Just read the comments here. How many dissenters are there? Watch. Those people will soon be called ‘homophobic’ and told that they are hindering The Cause by their bigotry.

No victim group left behind.

Yes, by all means, we need two parties competing for the ‘gay vote’ and two parties (at least) competing for the African-American vote, the Hispanic vote, the Moslem vote, etc. etc.

What will happen to our interests in this scenario? Just asking. Rhetorically, of course.

Debates: some historical perspective

I have no opinions to voice about the debate really as I didn’t watch it. There is a lot of analysis online from people who did endure the debate, and so my impressions, based on what I’ve heard or read are not worth much.

I actually haven’t watched any presidential debates since 2000, I think, which was also an important election for anybody on the right then, because the Clintons and their minions were on the way out of the White House (or so we hoped; if Al Gore had been elected it probably would have been a continuation of the Clinton regime with the same corrupt and venal cast of characters.)

A lot of us on the right then were desperate to get the Democrats out of the White House but the candidates were not inspiring. Most of us who voted for G.W. Bush did so only because he seemed preferable to the other options. At the time the election seemed all-important because so many of us were just living to see the back of the Clintons and their ilk. Even then, mind you, there was talk of Hillary planning to follow her ”husband” as President, eventually. But none of us could have envisioned the situation that we find ourselves in now, with our country in such dire straits, being overrun by immigration, our economy in a shambles, race conflicts at a possible all-time peak. No one could imagine that things could get so bad, so fast. It is dizzying, in retrospect, to ponder how far we’ve fallen.

But again, the younger people among us have no memory of the days of the Clinton scandals and all the corruption and deception which marked those years. If the younger generations know anything about the Clinton years they may know about the ‘sex scandals’, ‘Zippergate’, and so on. They may not have heard of Chinagate, Whitewater, the Mena, Arkansas drug-running allegations, the ‘tainted blood’ scandal which had to do with Arkansas prison inmates (on Bill Clinton’s watch as governor) donating tainted blood to Canada, etc. And what about the White House travel office scandal. Then there was the Arkancides, and let’s not leave out Waco, and the OKC bombing. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

We then thought that our country had reached a nadir in politics, and that things could not be worse than what we had seen under the Clintons. Yes, we thought the 2000 election was very important, and I remember how frustrating and angering it was that the Democrats managed to contrive a way to contest the election when Bush was declared the winner.

Some may wonder why so many of us were ‘fooled’ by G.W. Bush but the thing is, we thought he was a prince compared to the Clintons, or Al Gore. And the ‘prince’ we elected turned out to be a frog, after all.

Sometimes I wonder if whoever pre-selects our candidates purposely chooses the worst possible candidate on one side to ensure that the other one is elected.

When G.W. Bush started showing his true, globalist/neocon colors early in his first term, I remember on an online forum I used to frequent, quoting from Scripture  “Put not your trust in princes.” Did I catch flak for saying that! I’d uttered blasphemy and treason, as Bush was still above criticism among average Republicans. So I was disaffected with Bush very early on, and left the GOP fold to ultimately find myself where I am now. Wherever that is; on the right side, I hope.

Throwing stones from a glass house

Mrs. Bill Clinton says that ‘half of Trump supporters’ are ‘a basket of deplorables.’

This, from the nominee of a party that includes among its core constituents an odd assortment of rag-tag-and-bobtail. Example: convicted felons, death-row criminals (always the object of so much compassion from Clinton and her likes), rapists, deviants (of every conceivable variety and then some), men who have delusions of being women and vice-versa, illegal aliens, and all professional ‘victims’ — at least all who are not White, Christian, or especially not male.

One of the last Democrat national conventions I watched any part of was, I think, in 1996, when the camera panned across the delegates, offering an up-close view of those representing the party. One of the faces that stayed in my mind all these years was that of an obvious male, wearing eye make-up,  dressed in a woman’s wig and feminine clothing — and in the close-up shot, his facial stubble was very visible. What a grotesque spectacle, and yet today it hardly draws a shrug from most people. Thanks, Democrats, for that.

Then there was the spectacle in 2000, or was it 2004, of the Democrats booing the Boy Scouts because of the Scouts’ then-policy of excluding homosexual scoutmasters. Yet now that stance is painted as ‘homophobic and bigoted.’ Thanks, leftists, for making evil, good, and good, evil.

During my misguided youth I attended enough liberal events (protests for ‘peace’, etc.) to know firsthand the base of the Democrat party. The big-time fundraisers may be populated by the limo liberals who support the party financially but the voting base and the radical foot-soldiers are a rabble of older communists and deluded young people,  having bad hygiene, smelling of body odor and patchouli. Even the middle-class Democrat types are slovenly, being proud of their proletarian rumpled look. Sad to say that look crosses party lines now, though it used to be the trademark look of middle-aged and older lefties.

Bad dress sense and hygiene aside (and granted, those are superficial things, though not unimportant) just look at what the left says and does; look at the things they consider priorities. They are full of loathing and envy and resentment — resentment of those who are their betters in any sense of the word: people who are more intelligent, more successful, more attractive. It’s been said that most leftists are ‘mentally ill’ in some sense, though they project that onto their political enemies — they are masters at projection and denial. But no, the problem is not just that they are outwardly unpleasant but that inwardly they are full of venom and corruption. They are unethical, immoral, and sleazy. That’s what’s deplorable, not these invented ‘sins’ of Islamophobia, ‘racism’, or ‘homophobia.’ Telling, isn’t it, how they had to invent new words to describe their invented sins.

‘Basket of deplorables?’ Mrs. Clinton just described herself and her blind followers.

Immigration: planned or coincidence?

Steve Sailer posted the same video of Bill Clinton which I posted in my previous entry, asking the question ‘Is it too late for Hillary to stop being so extremist on borders?’ Commenters discuss how back in the 1990s it was not unheard of for even Democrats to express immigration restrictionist views, albeit more middle-of-the-road ones.

Nonetheless, I think Bill Clinton’s words were meant mostly for effect, not as a sincere intent to restrict immigration, legal or illegal. I think the fix was in even then, and when G.W. Bush came into office, his plan was to accelerate the demographic change. Maybe he was chosen to push for amnesty for the millions of illegals who had already entered our country because his being a Republican would make it easier for pro-border enforcement Republicans and conservatives to accept an amnesty bill. Just as ‘only Nixon could go to China.’

Still there remain lots of immigration skeptics who doubt that there was a plan to flood this country and all Western, historically White countries with millions upon millions of immigrants, legal or not. Why there is such stubborn resistance to this idea baffles me, except that there seem to be a great many Americans who are skeptical to a fault, shunning anything that smacks of ‘conspiracy theories’, preferring to believe that most things are coincidences, random events. As if those in high places, those with great power and wealth and ambition, are content to sit around and hope things go their way accidentally.

Despite the evidence of the reality of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan (which some doubt) there is also this piece, from 2006, which I posted way back then on the blog, by Fredo Arias-King. He was a Mexican national who was an aide to Mexican president Vicente Fox in 1999-2000. I post the link again in case that there may, just may be someone looking in on this blog who is not familiar with the piece.

The article is titled Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will. It is just as timely now as it was then.

In that article, Arias-King discusses possible reasons why American politicians were willing to go against the will of their constituents in supporting mass immigration and demographic transformation of America.

“While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.”

He also noted that Republicans saw this engineered demographic change as a means to enabling them to escape from the constraints of the existing political system as planned by the Founding Fathers, and to further enlarge their own power at the expense of the people. It’s also telling that these same politicians and elected officials seemed to actually cheer on the demographic transformation of this country by the influx of Mexicans and other third-worlders.

“While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.”

This seems to me to be a very accurate and plausible picture of how “our” representatives regard us behind our backs, while, like Bill Clinton and so many others of both parties, they stand before the cameras and mikes lying about their intentions to enforce our laws. Behind our backs they are metaphorically or actually high-fiving our supplanters and apologizing for our ‘redneck’ ways.

Since Arias-King wrote his piece over a decade ago, things have worsened appreciably — and yet there are still those who refuse to believe that there is intent behind this situation, and there is still intent to thwart the will of the people.

The people: that’s us, the Founders’ posterity.