On psychology

Emil Cioran quote_Wrath of Gnon

It seems self-evident to me, but apparently not to many people, as the correlation between the decline of the West and the pervasive influence of the psychological establishment is seldom discussed. Christianity is blamed far more often, despite the fact that it has been a central part of Western culture for centuries, whereas psychology’s rise seems to coincide with the decline of our society, and also the subverting and weakening of Christianity.Coincidence?

The subject certainly deserves to be noticed and examined more widely.

[Quote from Wrath of Gnon]

Another hate crime

Yet another attack on a White young man in the South, apparently for his race and for challenging the BLM propaganda.

I read about this here, originally, and now I see that Hunter Wallace has written about on Occidental Dissent. As this happened in Alabama I expected Hunter to cover it.

Brian Ogle, 17, is in critical condition with a fractured skull and trauma to his brain, WBMA reported.

His mother, Brandi Allen, says her son was targeted for his views, and she is calling the beating a “hate crime.”

The photo of the injured young man is distressing. It puts me in mind of the Carter Strange incident back in 2011, which happened in South Carolina. That story was not given enough coverage when it occurred, and that’s unsurprising because attacks like the one on Carter Strange as well as on Brian Ogle do not fit the media’s lying narrative about how blacks are always victims and never victimizers. The concept of “hate crimes”, as a new category of crime, was meant to be used against White people, the idea being that only Whites are capable of committing ‘hate crimes’ and only blacks and other ‘minorities’ can be victims of such crimes. However it has not worked out quite as the lying media intended, as so many alleged ”hate crimes” against the protected groups prove to be hoaxes and lies.

See also Michelle Malkin’s list of hate crime hoaxes here.

I hope Brian Ogle recovers from his injuries, as it appears Carter Strange has. It’s good to see that Carter has seemingly healed but it’s sad, to my way of thinking, that he seems to have been imbued with the idea that his attacker can be ‘rehabilitated’ during his prison term, which was 15 years. It seems most of the younger generations, yes, even in the ‘deep South’ have assimilated the ideas of the ‘therapeutic society’ rather than the old moral codes of right and wrong, and of justice as paramount, not automatic forgiveness and ‘understanding.’ Somebody in society needs to be mindful of justice, not just for those who are individual victims of these attacks, though their injuries are grievous enough, but for the rest of us, who are also, in an indirect way, victims of these attackers. Because make no mistake, we are all targets of this genuine hatred; certain individuals have the misfortune to be the ones physically attacked, but all of us are attacked vicariously in these incidents. And there are few voices speaking up for us, or attempting to address these very real — not hoaxed — hate crimes.

In the meantime, let’s not forget Brian Ogle and other such targets of hate. Prayers for them and their families are in order — and for the rest of us, because we are of the same flesh and blood, all of us.

The lying media at it again

Are they ever not lying?

Since yesterday’s post there are more details coming to light on the Munich murders. But how much of what the media says is trustworthy or true? The BBC baldly states that there is a link between the Munich murderer and Breivik. The only link that is evident is that the shootings in Norway and this one in Munich occurred on the same calendar day, five years apart. But the media are so desperate to connect the Munich event with any White person, particularly one who is supposed to be a nationalist, so as to tar all nationalists with the same brush as a deranged Mohammedan, or the deranged Mohammedan of the day. Blame Whites wherever possible, seems to be Rule #1.

A German speaker, on a Free Republic thread discussing the BBC article linked above, checks the BBC’s account of things against a German-language account of the story in Der Spiegel. He gives his translation of relevant passages:

Der Täter habe sich intensiv mit dem Thema Amok beschäftigt, daher gehen die Ermittler davon aus, dass er sich auch mit dem Fall Breivik beschäftigt habe. Das liege auf der Hand, sagt Polizeipräsident Andrä. Freitag war der fünfte Jahrestag des Amoklaufs in Norwegen.

My translation: The culprit has interested himself in mass shootings, therefore the investigators assume that he also has interested himself in the Breivik case. That’s obvious, says Chief of Police Andrä. Yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the mass shootings in Norway.

Now, you can go back to the BBC piece, check the first page of the Daily Telegraph etc etc and see how a false story is made. “

The phrase that I bolded in the quote above tells the story: investigators assume. The politically correct police seem as much to blame here as the anti-White mendacious media.

Another way in which the media have deceived us on this story: his name was at first (after some delay) given as Ali Sonboly. Later reports gave his name as David Sonboly, David, of course, not being a Moslem name usually. So we are told he was a convert to Christianity. And his ethnicity was given as Iranian. However, Walid Shoebat says he is not Iranian but Syrian, with Turkish loyalties.

“Why then advertise him as an Iranian which would make him a Shiite Muslim? Is it possible that Germany wants to avoid the repercussion when Germans know that Turks or Syrian refugees who are entering Germany by the droves are the culprit?”

Obviously the media have been told by their puppetmasters to conceal any link to the ‘Syrian’ ‘refugees’, so as not to arouse xenophobia and ‘Islamophobia.’

There are Alt-Right bloggers who are quibbling over whether he is Iranian because, they say, Iranians do not commit terror acts. I am not sure of the veracity of that claim; I haven’t researched it, but it seems a bit of a sweeping general statement, to me. In any case it’s moot, if it’s true that Sonboly was not Iranian at all. Shoebat asserts that the surname Sonboly is a Syrian name and he seems more credible on that than most Western journalists (many of whom are Third-worlders, including Moslems; remember journalism’s ‘diversity mandate’?). I will trust what Shoebat says over what the rest of the media tells us.

Again, other bloggers are arguing that the killings in Munich were not terror or jihad because he was just a troubled individual who was a loser and felt suicidal. But why would a merely suicidal person kill others on their way out of this world? Why not just kill oneself, and not innocent strangers? Then again, I am not a believer in armchair psychoanalysis of every killer or criminal out there, nor do I put much credibility even on the opinions of professional psychologists or psychoanalysts. Those ‘sciences’ are not hard science; there is far too much subjectivity and ‘trendiness’ in the mental health field, and it is now politicized, politically correct, far too often for it to be credible.

And what about the tedious media discussion of how this unfortunate young man got ”radicalized”, as if believing in Islam was not radicalizing enough? Who radicalized the original jihadists as they came out of the Middle East slaying and conquering and converting by the sword in the 7th century or so?

The overriding fact is that Sonboly was out of place, in a country that was not his ancestral country, and he was angry and bitter towards the native people of his host country. He was an immigrant, and he, like all the other jihadists or terrorists or whatever we choose to call them, illustrate not just the folly of promiscuous immigration practices, but the fatal consequences for innocent people in the host countries.

It hasn’t worked yet

And chances are it never will. But still we keep on trying.

A group of police officers at a Pennsylvania restaurant performed one of those ‘random acts of kindness‘ toward some fellow diners.

”A group of policemen from Homestead and Whitaker, eating at a Waterfront restaurant, paid a couple’s bill after the couple made it obvious they didn’t want to sit by the officers on Saturday.

“A table goes to sit down and the guy looks over at one of the police officers and was like, ‘Nah I don’t want to sit here.’ So they got moved completely opposite, away from the police officers,” said Eat N’ Park server Jesse Meyers.”

The police officers even included a $10 tip.

‘The officers wrote, “Sir, your check was paid for by the police officers that you didn’t want to sit next to. Thank you for your support. I left a $10.00 tip too.”

“It just dawned on me, I should do this real quick just to show this guy look, I don’t know if you had bad experience with the police in the past — you may have you may have not — but I just want you to know I never had an experience with you and I’m not here to do anything to you. And neither will my partners,” Thomas said.”

Well, God bless these officers for their efforts. The Bible does say to give to those who are unable (or unlikely?) to repay you; to do good deeds without a thought of recompense. And the officers probably won’t win these people’s trust or goodwill.

The article pointedly omits mention of the race/ethnicity of the ‘fearful’ diners whose check the police paid. So I will assume they were ‘POC’, people “of color”, as the PC terminology calls them. Besides, though many White lefties (and libertarians) detest police, at least if they are White, they rarely fear them, or pretend to fear them.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t imagine the cop-phobic couple suddenly having a change of heart and repenting of their hostility toward the police. Trying to imagine such a scene only produces comic scenes in my imagination, so far-fetched is it.

But the whole effort of the police is so, well, typical of 21st century Whites; “maybe if we just try to understand them, reach out, reassure them, show we care, they will see just how wrong they are about us, how very, very, not racist we are…”

How long do we go on doing the same failed action and expecting a different result?

What’s in a name?

I was reading this thread, in which the discussion of labels like ‘alt-right’ vs. ‘pro-White’ came up. There were some differing opinions. Someone says that the ‘pro-White’ label is too much for the ‘normies’ out there, and that ‘alt-right’ does not have similar negative connotations. Obviously I am paraphrasing, but you can read the long thread for yourselves.

I would have added a comment or two of my own but lately it seems that I am not able to get a comment posted on Blogger blogs, and in any case I am not part of the ‘Ilk’, though I am in agreement with much of what is said there.

I’ve given a lot of thought as to which, if any, of these labels are the ‘best’, and as some may notice, I tend to use varying terms, depending, sometimes interchangeably though there are subtle differences amongst them. When I first began blogging, a decade ago, some of the present-day labels had not even been coined. I had definitely not come across ‘alt-right’ at that early stage; I am fairly sure it wasn’t used. When I first began blogging I spoke of ‘Americans’  and ‘old-stock Americans’ more often than ‘Whites’ because at that time it was considered ‘extremist’ by many people even to speak of White people, especially to imply that Whites have distinct interests. I sometimes called myself, and was called, a ‘paleocon’, or ‘hard right’. I’ve been described as a ‘right-wing dissident’ by another blogger and for a while I identified as a ‘traditionalist’ although that label means something quite specific in Catholic circles. I’ve called myself a reactionary or a restorationist. Above all I am not doctrinaire or an ideologue.

Right now I would be most likely to identify as an ethnonationalist/ethnopatriot, and I consider myself an advocate for White interests. But terms like ‘ethnopatriot’ sound a little too — what? Academic for average people, I suppose. Even more so is the term ‘Identitarian’– too intellectual-sounding and abstruse for many people, and the political movement of that name is not something that speaks to everyday people; it’s very European and Ivory-tower-ish.

I don’t agree that the term ‘pro-White’ is too much for the so-called normal people. I mean, how can we say that with certainty? Has anybody run focus groups to see if people find that term scary or alarming? Just because the media and the rest of the left shun any label with the naughty term ‘White’ in it, does that mean that most people would recoil from it? Normal White people would be ‘pro-White’. Period. Those who are not actively for their own folk, and who would be scared off by terms like ‘pro-White’ are decidedly not normal, but are the product of half a century of mind-conditioning and politically correct browbeating. They need deprogramming like all cult members.

In the discussion someone says that the term ‘alt-right’ would be better because the alt-right implies that we are ‘for all races.’ Really? How does that follow? I don’t think most people would take that meaning from ‘alt-right’ and I think the very idea of being ‘for all races’ sounds awfully multicultish to me. We can’t be all things to all people and that’s where ‘Americanism’ went wrong: the attempt at making ‘America’ a place ‘for all races’. Christians know we can’t serve two masters. We can’t be fully for our own folk if we have to be ‘for’ everybody else too.

My feeling toward other peoples does not include being responsible for them or fixing their problems. My Bible says that God sets the bounds of nations — geographically, and also by DNA, by blood, implicitly.

And if we don’t look out for our own interests, certainly nobody else will; the rest of the world seems to see us as being here to serve and cater to them, to our own detriment. Let each people be self-sufficient and stay in their own territory, and we do the same.

So what’s in a name? I don’t know what label ‘works’ best in the sense of ‘selling’ our cause to the uninformed, easily-fooled masses out there. I am not a PR person, or a huckster expert at persuading unwilling people to buy a product.

And I do think that to shy away from a certain label because it will ‘turn people away’ is exactly the sort of thinking that the ‘respectable right’/cuckservatives engage in. That kind of timidity, of catering to the deluded masses and the cowards out there, is not something we have the luxury of doing; compromising, or trying to soften our ‘image’ to appeal to the weak-minded people will only result in precious time being lost.

Truth matters. Our situation is urgent. Time is short. Stand for the truth and honest people will be attracted naturally. The rest, who value the opinions of ‘society’ more than the truth, are not people we should want to attract.

The majority is never needed in order to bring about change. The ”counterculture” was brought about by a minority of fanatical people plus a lot of mind-numbed, passive ‘normal’ people.

Creating ourselves?

Most of you have probably come across this video showing college students giving their views on identity. The students in the video are obviously extremely deluded about the nature of identity. I know that many millennials have been spoon-fed this idea that we are all in the business of ‘creating ourselves’, and that there are absolutely no limitations on who or what we might become if we decide that is what we want to be.

The man who, like Bruce Jenner, believes he is a woman (or simply pretends to believe it) is entitled to be treated as a woman, no matter how grotesque the masquerade may be; any refusal by others to go along with his self-delusion is now practically a “hate crime”, if it is not already so in some places. There are those on the right (usually the libertarians) who insist that the social issues don’t matter; worrying about restrooms or ‘trans-genderism’ is just driving potential allies or converts away. No; it all matters. It goes to very basic issues about reality. How can anyone claim to be sane and sensible if they are willing to humor delusional people who imagine they are something they are not? What does it do to our society and to our consciences and our sanity if we do?

We’ve all seen the ‘slippery slope’ in action over the last several decades. Most people did not react much when the left began their socio-sexual revolution a few decades ago. Nobody thought it was so bad when we began to be more ”accepting” of homosexuality; after all, if it was between consenting adults, behind closed doors, who are we to judge? And so on. Now there is open advocacy for pedophilia, and those closed doors behind which people’s sexuality was to have stayed are now wide open. Now we have ‘gay pride’ parades on public streets, flaunting what until recently was considered shocking and obscene. Sexuality is no longer private; the younger generations in particular see nothing wrong with public sexuality, nor do they even think of anything much as obscene — judging by what one sees on Tumblr.

So now we have this public official telling us that states can’t legislate identity, as she put it. If a man insists he is a woman, he is a woman, although isn’t this ”legislating identity”? Of course it is. And more than that, it is declaring that a falsehood is true, because the almighty State (federal government) says it is true. Never mind the man’s Y chromosome; the State is the arbiter of identity, not Nature, not DNA, not chromosomes, and above all, not our Creator-God.

I’ve mentioned before this odd phenomenon of young people declaring themselves to be ‘gender-fluid’, and what’s even more bizarre, this notion of Otherkins, or people who insist they are something other than human, or perhaps an inanimate object. Some may dismiss this as a kind of freakish phenomenon (which it is) which will be a brief fad (it may not). Considering the other forms of identity-insanity which are now accepted, at least by the young and the delusional Left, we can’t rule out anything as a potential new popular form of madness.

It might not be so unsettling if all this did not have the force of government behind it, telling us that we must be complicit in pretending all this craziness is legitimate, and true — just because the individual in question declares it so. Is Truth that elastic and that subjective?

We know that the postmodern influence has brought about this notion that there is no such thing as objective truth, only competing ”narratives.” My ”narrative” is true for me, and you cannot tell me that it is not. The interviewer in the video could not get the interviewees to deny him his ‘right’ to think he is a tall Asian woman, not a short White man.

Apparently the federal government agrees, and will compel us all to pretend along with the deranged people who think they are inanimate objects, or housecats — or ‘transgender.’

I wonder,though, if this Ms. Lynch would agree with some ‘transracial’ White who, like many young White people, wants to be black? Would, say, Elizabeth Warren, the pretend ‘Native American’ politician be declared legally an Indian simply because she wants to be one, or has delusions that she is? If leftist were logical (and they’re not) then people could assign themselves a race. I think that lots of liberals would decide they are black or Native American. Anime and manga fans might decide they are Japanese. Being White is not very desirable for a lot of mind-conditioned White Americans. Maybe this is why a surprisingly large number of White Americans claim they have ‘Cherokee’ ancestry, even absent any proof. I went to grad school with such a woman, who looked 100 percent European by ancestry, but whose family had an ‘oral tradition’ of some Cherokee blood. She made a pilgrimage to visit the Cherokee tribal headquarters in search of proof of her ancestry — which she never found, but she refused to give up her story of Native American blood. White people often cherish that; why? Why do people identify themselves by a small part of their ancestry which is very diluted — say 1/16th or 1/32? Isn’t that yet another form of delusional wishful thinking? Why not identify with the other 15/16th of your ancestry? Anyone know the answer to that one?

We are what we are born; we don’t ”create ourselves”. We can’t be another ethnicity or race than what we are; genetics are a given. So-called transgenders can’t change their x or y chromosome, no matter how many surgical mutilations they undergo. White women can’t become Native American. Nor can they become black.

Those of us who are Christians should remind ourselves that we can’t be party to a lie, or give assent (or pretend to give assent) to a lie. Those who ‘love and make a lie’ will not enter the Kingdom. The Truth matters. We can’t be complicit in this web of lies.

‘Dead’ Europe

I have a high regard for the blogger Cambria Will Not Yield. I look forward to his weekly posts, which offer, at times, the one lone ray of  light amongst a lot of ‘we are doomed’ pronouncements from the various other bloggers and commenters who write about the fate of the West.

CWNY has been blogging for something like a decade now, and I remember because I began blogging initially around the very same time. I, however, have taken a few breaks during the past decade, sometimes vowing never to blog again, but CWNY has soldiered on.

His latest piece deals with the subject of the rumored ‘death’ of Europe. Writing from a Christian perspective, he does not accept that Europe should be pronounced dead; death is not final for Christians, and I believe CWNY has used the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead as a metaphor for Europe, offering hope that Europe’s apparent death may not be irreversible.

He writes in this week’s piece:

I certainly understand why someone would say Europe is dead, but it is not an accurate statement. Civilizations are not like vegetables, which have a certain shelf life and then they rot and decay. Civilizations are moral essences that will continue as long as human beings love their people and the civilization they built.”

He is right. A nation is a people, an organic entity. People are not inert matter. It used to bother me greatly when a certain blogger used to refer to Britain disdainfully as ‘The Dead Island.’ It bothers me when that blogger’s disciples continue to repeat the phrase in reference to Britain. A Christian would not make such a pronouncement, but would believe in the possibility of the ‘dead’ being brought back to life, through Divine intervention. As I’ve occasionally said, the doomsayers completely exclude God from the equation.

Lazarus in the Bible was most certainly dead, and was brought back to life by Christ but we can’t say that a people or a collective  are as dead as the man Lazarus was.

However, God’s intervention has to be preceded by a wide-scale return to the Lord; if Europe (or our country, or any country) persists in ignoring God and defying his laws, our misfortunes will continue to accelerate. The most pertinent Bible passage on that is 2 Chronicles 7:14.

But what are the chances of Europe choosing to ‘humble themselves, pray, seek God’s face, and turn from their wicked ways‘? What are the chances that Americans would do the same? I don’t see much chance, just on the face of things, to think they would. Both Europeans and today’s Americans tend to be proud and self-regarding people, fed full of ”self-esteem psychology”, New Age twaddle (which has invaded the Churches for decades now) about ‘self-realization’ and then the cant about ‘rugged individualism’ (per Rand, et al), all of which are in direct opposition to Christian teaching. Returning to Christianity would require renouncing the popular folk-religion of the day, the religion of Self. A popular song from the mid-80s proclaimed that ”learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all.” If national pride is merely shallow self-love collectivized, then it’s not the healthy kind of pride.

What was the line from the Carl Sandburg poem,

“We are the greatest city, the greatest nation; Nothing like us ever was.”

Yet I can continue to love my folk despite our faults and I continue to hope that God will turn the hearts of his people back to him, in due time. But they/we have to seek him.

I am afraid that I don’t see anything short of catastrophic, traumatic events (even the current marauding migrant disaster won’t be enough) to turn Europe in the right direction. Much worse may have to happen to them, though I wish it weren’t so.

And the same for us. People should be more traumatized by what is being done to our own country, but the overlords keep us tranquilized and distracted by entertainment/propaganda (all the same now), drugs, porn, sports, and shopping.

So far it’s worked, apart from a minor restiveness from those who are actually sentient, thinking beings, but in the main we’ve just adapted to the intolerable as it is gradually being forced on us; we get used to it. We are an adaptable people, to a fault.

It would be better for us if we weren’t so ‘adaptable’ and accommodating and so ”tolerant.” We call things ‘intolerable’ for a reason: they ought not to be tolerated.

Europe went through terrible trauma during World War II. Those civilians who went through it often had horror stories of starvation, bombing, separation from family members, loss of loved ones, the list goes on. And is there any evidence that their sufferings made them turn en masse to God? Much of Europe was already quite secular even then; it’s much more irreligious and post-Christian if not anti-Christian now.

What would it take to bring about a return to their Christian roots now?

I don’t know. I don’t know what it would take for us. I do have hope because I believe in God, and God keeps his promises. Europeans have been the Christ-bearers, as CWNY says, and God will preserve, if only a remnant.

It’s cynical and lacking in faith to pronounce Europe — or this country and its people — ”dead”. Let’s not pull the plug on Europe yet.

Second thoughts about ‘refugees’

Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch reports that German Christian leaders are having second thoughts about their unequivocal ”welcome the stranger” stance in regard to the ‘Refugees’ now flooding Europe:

“PARIS (RNS) Germany’s Christian churches, long the most positive voices greeting waves of Middle Eastern refugees pouring into the country in recent months, have begun to admit the need to limit the flow now that public opinion towards the newcomers has turned from welcoming to wary.

Catholic and Protestant church leaders fully backed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s original open-door policy announced on Sept. 4, framing it as wealthy Germany’s Christian duty to offer refuge to all Syrians and others fleeing civil war in their home countries. […]
Then came the New Years Eve sex attacks. After a few weeks’ delay, the heads of both the Catholic and Protestant churches have shifted their focus and begun to speak about controlling the number of arrivals.”

While I certainly hope that these Christians are seeing reality for what it is, I think just ‘controlling’ the number of refugees is insufficient. It’s tantamount to saying ”we can handle a certain number of potential rapists and assorted criminals and terrorists, but just not too many.” But letting any potential criminals or otherwise dangerous people in is taking an unacceptable risk. Why is the risk unacceptable? To the do-gooder Churchian, or to the liberal (they ‘reason’ similarly, after all) we owe it to the poor refugee to take them in and give all we can to help them, rescue them. Risking the safety and the lives and the health of the existing citizenry, even their own neighbors and kinsmen, is an acceptable risk if you think that your religion or your political ideology  decrees that ‘helping the downtrodden’ takes precedence over protecting the lives and the well-being of your kith and kin, and your future descendants. These kinds of utopian-minded people, both naive Christians and deluded leftists, live dangerously because they see themselves as being more virtuous by doing so. So a few women or even children are molested or raped; so a few people get hurt or even killed — the poor refugees are dying as we speak! We have to help them, even at our own expense. ‘Progressives’  and Churchian altruists alike are willing, apparently, to compel others to take those risks that they blindly take themselves. They would not allow us any say about whether we want to assume those risks by bringing millions of unknonwn people from hostile peoples and cultures into our midst.

The Churchians who are the most gung-ho for importing millions of the ‘Wretched of the Earth’ to live next door are not of the same faith as our forefathers, the ones who practiced the ‘old-time Christianity’, the faith that taught realism not pollyannaism.
The old Christianity taught that man is a sinful creature by nature, and that we should be both ‘harmless as doves’ — and ‘wise as serpents.’ A big part of the requisite wisdom for a Christian is awareness of human depravity; we are not to trust foolishly but to exercise the utmost discernment, especially when the safety of the weak and helpless is involved. Those who are responsible for bringing in dangerous outsiders, and giving them free rein to roam the country and attack one’s own people, will have to answer one day, if not in this life, on Judgment Day. The do-gooders should be busy doing good for those close to them geographically and genetically; we are called to have concentric loyalties, with our kin and neighbors in the inmost circle, while people from faraway lands are least entitled to our concern; presumably they have others among their own people to help them out. The Bible does not say that a Christian is meant to rescue all of humanity, but to care for those of our own household (kin group and neighbors, mainly) first and foremost.

But thanks to our modern-day multicult one-world mindset, some ‘Christians’ have come to believe that God gives us special brownie points for being kind to those farthest from us and super-duper points for ”loving the unlovable”, for example criminals (the more violent and heinous their deeds, the more credit we get for fawning on them) and those from hostile countries, even those whose religion commands them to kill us or practice deception and stealth to harm us.

Christianity of today, with few exceptions, is more a product of the ‘therapeutic society’, the pop-psychology, self-help, self-esteem, “think positive and create-your-success” belief system.

One of the most popular phrases from Scripture that is quoted on Christian greeting cards or in conversations from one Christian to another is this one from Jeremiah 29:11:

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

I believe everything in the Bible to be true. But this phrase in context was God talking to Jeremiah, the latter being in very dire straits, to put it mildly. God certainly had plans for Jeremiah’s life, despite the ordeals he was going through. But contrary to popular Christian ‘folk-belief’ of the 21st century, not every phrase in the Bible is promised to every individual Christian, nor are we taught that Christians as a body, or our countries, are guaranteed prosperity and ‘a future.’

Most Christians today have bought the idea that all will be well if we but have faith and exercise positive thinking. In this they agree most with New Age followers; the latter has had enormous influence on Christians if Christians but knew it. Pop psychology/feel-good thinking is common to all areas of Western society, and this is in a large part responsible, in my opinion, for the weak and passive attitude of many people in the West towards our displacement and ethnic cleansing. The cardinal sin these days is in ”being negative”, even when there is just cause for concern. Sometimes the ‘negative’ side has to be recognized and confronted; it is dangerous to deny unpleasant realities in the name of ‘holding positive thoughts’ or ‘visualizing good things.’ Yet that’s what a lot of our folk are busy doing, while Rome (and the rest of the West) burns.

It isn’t necessarily ‘pathological altruism’ that fuels this craziness; it’s a kind of passivity and a reluctance to ‘think negative thoughts’ that keeps people’s heads in the sand, while the world collapses around them.

Christians, or a sizable number of them, believe that the Moslem refugees, or all Third World immigrants, provide an opportunity to ‘convert millions’ and ‘win the world for Christ.’ Yet does our Bible lead us to expect that the world will be won for Christ, or does it teach the opposite, a great ‘falling away’, an apostasy?  Does it teach a one-world, kumbaya future, or a world in which it is ‘ethnic group against ethnic group’ and Christians persecuted under a syncretistic one-world religion?

The Churchian naifs think they are going to get extra crowns in heaven for converting the Third World, and the refugee invasion is seen by some as a way of getting to ‘win souls’ of the noble savages without even having to go overseas to do it.

I am sorry to say this about fellow Christians. But I do hope the European remnant of Christianity recognize reality before it’s too late for them. If they really believe in the faith of their fathers, they will recognize the truth. If they don’t then they won’t.