The ‘racism’ scare and other scares

There’s an interesting piece at TakiMag, called Skeered o’ the Racisms. The writer points out the way in which lefties/SJWs gin up a fear of this mysterious entity, ‘racism’, which is said to exist everywhere, at least everywhere White people (including White babies, according to Time magazine) exist.

And just in case there isn’t enough of this mysterious force everywhere, it has to be conjured, or hoaxed into existence, as the ‘demand for racism exceeds the supply‘ as I think Steve Sailer said. It seems Whitey is slacking off on the job, not committing the requisite number of ‘racist’ acts, so somebody’s got to do it.

Just an aside: there are a shocking number of politically correct commenters at TakiMag; are they ‘cuckservatives’ or SJWs? It’s getting hard to tell them apart these days.

But back to the need for a good ‘scare’ to motivate the Left and their mascots/pets: it’s ironic that the left is very fond of referring to legitimate threats as ‘scares’ or ‘witch hunts’. I read the IMDB website a lot because I watch many old movies, and maybe it’s masochistic on my part to read the reviews there but I do read them. It’s disturbing how very many commenters cannot watch an old movie without scrutinizing a film for the ‘racisms’ and all the other naughty ‘isms’ like ‘sexism’, as well as all the ‘phobias’ like homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia — have I left any of them out?  The IMDB commenters are also unhealthily obsessed with ‘pre-code’ films, which they prize very highly because, as one commenter said, it’s ”delightful” to find salaciousness and ‘corruption’ in old movies. Now, why this should evoke delight in a movie viewer is somewhat baffling to me, but I gather that it is because it confirms the lefty’s ‘faith’ that the popular image of the wholesome past is in fact false; that people were really hypocrites sinning it up behind closed doors, while putting up a false front of respectability. Human nature being what it is, certainly there were people who feigned innocence in public while being perverts, drunks, or druggies in private. But to say that ‘everyone’ was a liar and a hypocrite back then is just not true — still, it’s what the left believes. So they do love to see the pre-code movies in which we see drug usage (movies like ‘Three on a Match’) or other perversions (‘Wonderbar’).

Most of all, though, the left loves to uncover ‘racism’ in old movies, for example, a black character playing the role of a butler, maid, or janitor. And the SJWs are beside themselves with satisfaction if they spot an Oriental character (yes, I did say ‘Oriental’; it’s a perfectly good word) speaking pidgin English. One commenter on IMDB was shocked and troubled by the ‘‘degrading Chinese music‘ played in some movie with scenes of Chinese people or the Orient. I wasn’t aware that a musical score could be ‘degrading’ in and of itself. I actually found that complaint amusing.

Really, these obsessed lefties, these self-appointed advocates and ‘champions’ of their poor downtrodden minority clients/mascots, seem to need some evidence that their feared bogeyman, the spirit of ‘racism’, does exist now as then. It vindicates, for them at least, the enormous amounts of time and energy they devote to thinking and talking about it — and condemning it.

I think, personally, it’s a very appropriate use of the noun ‘scare‘ to describe their fixation with ‘racism’ as a scare. Interestingly, they almost always use the noun ‘scare’ to designate something they say is nonexistent: like the ‘Red scare’, as they call it, of the 1950s. There was no Communist threat in that era, so they say; it was all in the minds of the ‘far right’, people like Joe McCarthy and any number of others who warned of the presence of Communists in high places.  So it was just a ‘Red scare’, a mythical bogeyman created by the right.

They also favor the term ‘witch hunt’ in describing things like the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) hearings. Just as they say there were no real witches in Salem or elsewhere, they say there were no Communists, the Venona papers notwithstanding.

So it was all a witch hunt, an attempt to harass and punish perfectly innocent people, for their political views. If it was a real ‘witch hunt’ the hunters were pretty inept, because despite the much-hyped ‘blacklists’ and other such measures, the Communist cabal went from strength to strength and they have pretty much enacted all their stated goals from the 1940s-50s. So who was paranoid?

Actually now the shoe is on the other foot; the lefties, despite having the whip hand, and having the media fully in their service, claim that the ‘far right’ is a threat to them.

I think it’s fitting to deploy their own terminology and rhetoric against them; yes, call the racism thing a ‘racism scare‘, in the spirit of their ‘Red scare’ propaganda. Call the racist hunt a ‘witch hunt’ because that, in truth, is what it is. Except that unlike in the past, there are no ‘witches’ on the White right working evil voodoo against the army of ‘victims’ the left has in tow.

I don’t know if the left really believes in their own hysterical rhetoric; some are utterly cynical and habitual liars, who lie to themselves, but it may be that some actually believe in their increasingly bizarre view of the world, especially the past. In any case, the SJWs are the ones who imagine, or pretend to imagine, threats and evil intentions around every corner.

If we’re lucky, in some saner time we will be able to read in honest history books about the ‘hysterical racism scare‘ of this era.

Advertisements

The Alexandria shootings and the ‘agenda’

The left is pretty predictable in their habit of calling for gun control whenever any kind of mass shooting happens, and oddly (one might think) even when the shooter is one of their own, one of their fellow fanatic ideologues, like the latest perpetrator.

Actually many if not most of these kinds of shootings are done by lefties, though maybe the mainstream GOP types make too much of the political affiliations of the perps in cases like this. For example, they will gleefully mention that some deranged shooter or assailant was a ‘registered Democrat’ when the important fact that they shy away from mentioning is usually race. If the perpetrator is black, the cucked GOP types will mention his party affiliation long before dreaming of mentioning race or religion (if said perp happens to be, oh, say, Jewish. Some things cannot be mentioned. For instance, the Columbine shootings?)

But in this case, the shooter, in Alexandria, VA, was very much a Democrat and his motivations were political; his intended targets were Republicans or Trump supporters in particular it seems.

Now we’re reading of how the shameless, callous left has been celebrating the shootings on Twitter and other social media. I can’t say I’m surprised; they are without shame or scruple, and it still astounds me how they are able to pull their double standard routine time after time. They have the unmitigated gall to pretend to be compassionate, sensitive ‘pacifists’ and Gandhi-devotees (BTW Gandhi was not as pacifistic as he pretended to be; he just got others to gin up conflicts for him) who shrink from violence. Part of this shameless play-acting of theirs is to pretend to be mortified at the mere thought of firearms, while when one of their own wields a gun, especially in an act of attempted assassination, they cheer it on, and make heartless, cynical statements disparaging the victim(s), especially if said victims are White.

It’s all who is doing what to whom. They heartily approve of violence provided it’s done against White, right-wing males, or even semi-right-wing Whites.

How does one shame people for whom shame is a foreign emotion? How can one stir guilt or conscience in ‘people’ without any sense of guilt, and lacking even the semblance of a conscience?

The left, almost to a man (or woman, or whatever other gender they believe themselves to be) are the clinical definition of psychopaths or sociopaths. I often scoff at psychology/psychiatry as pseudo-science, but if such things as psychopaths and sociopaths exist, the left fits the definition. (Incidentally, it’s sort of delicious for me to be able to cite HuffPost for the definition of those terms; if anybody knows what those terms mean, it’s that crowd.)

  • Prone to nervousness, distress and temper meltdowns, not easily calm and suave like the psychopath

  • Usually not well-educated, often non-gainfully employed, the drifter type, the one whom everyone sees as “troubled” or “disturbed.”

  • Their crimes typically are sloppy rather than meticulously premeditated and planned.

  • Capable of emotional bonds with others, but this is difficult to achieve.

  • Despite the capability of emotional attachments, they disregard social mores as a whole.

Notice they cite Ted Bundy as an example of a psychopath. I will say Ted was just evil and twisted, and leave the faux science to the lefties. I am sure they picked Bundy because he was, firstly, White, second, male, and third, supposedly an active member of the Republican party. Why not cite Coral Eugene Watts or Charles Ng?

The left, in typical not-taking-responsibility fashion, will not own its terrorists or psycho-killers, and when forced to acknowledge them, fall back on victimology excuse-making and rationalizing: ‘victim of racism’ or ‘childhood abuse and poverty’, or in this case, driven to it by Donald Trump, I suppose.

But maybe the left’s constant calls for gun control might be muted if they admitted to themselves that they enjoy seeing their fellow lefty-fanatics blasting away at Evil Whitey Republicans. When guns are outlawed, only right-wing gun-nuts will have guns. No, wait, the lefties represent the lawless, criminal side of society, the side their “hearts” always bleed for, and their kind can always obtain weapons, laws or no laws.

 

Who ‘runs’ America?

Who is in charge in our country? This is an important question for those who (like many of us) are appalled and horrified by the direction of our country. Who is to blame? To whom can we assign responsibility for the decisions that are being made, ostensibly in ‘our’ name?

Most of us who grew up in the old America, the America that was and is no more, were imbued with the idea that we, the people, were ‘in charge’; that elected officials were ‘working for us’, being paid by us. Most of us no longer believe that; how is it possible to believe that the American citizen has power in this country, when we’ve seen our elected officials, at the highest levels, ignoring our expressed will, and seemingly doing the bidding of other interests?

For some people, The Jews are the real power, albeit indirectly or covertly. Others (strangely) still identify some kind of mysterious WASP ‘elites’ as being in control. Some people refer to ‘New England Yankees’ as a powerful cabal, though there are few colonial-stock Yankees in New England anymore.

Lately a great number of people on the right subscribe to the idea that ‘Boomers’ are and have been in charge, and that they are therefore to blame for the situation we are in. This idea is a recent one, relatively speaking. I started blogging in 2006 and I don’t remember hearing this meme then. It’s only caught on in the last several years at most. Yet it’s become strongly ensconced in the minds of many on the right.

It would be interesting to trace this meme, to follow it back to its source. I posted a comment from another ethnonationalist blog which named a few bloggers (on the right) as the likely source, but who knows? Lacking any other explanation I might accept it; I know it has been reinforced greatly through constant repetition on certain blogs, though it’s everywhere now.

I’ve tried, without success, to argue via data (polls, survey results, etc.) to refute the idea that boomers are far-left and that they constitute some kind of powerful force. However I’ve found that approach to be a failure. People seem to be operating out of a visceral dislike rather than a rational antipathy toward their favorite villains. Facts don’t matter; data does not persuade people who don’t want to believe the data.

If boomers were a monolithically leftist group, the gut-level loathing would be understandable.

And even if the charges against them were true, do they ‘run’ America? If so it would be logical to assume that they must be firmly in control of Congress and other such institutions. But at no time does one age group or cohort have exclusive control of Congress. There is always a cross-section of age groups and different generations in seats of power. The 115th Congress, which is the one sitting now, has quite a few very old members, people like Rep. Conyers, who is 87 years old (and thus not a Boomer), or Reps. Young and Johnson, from Alaska and Texas respectively. I am sure there are other octogenarians in Congress; what about Dianne Feinstein, the oldest Senator, at 83? And how old is John McCain?

The youngest Senator, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, is 39. I think that would make him a late Gen-Xer, for whatever that’s worth. So there is a mix of ages and generations in Congress. More demographic data on Congress members is here; it’s of interest that more immigrants are now sitting in Congress, as well as record number of nonwhites and women.

And what of the Supreme Court? Aren’t the ubiquitous Boomers dominating that institution? I think most of us know that there are a couple of octogenarians (pre-Boomers) on the Supreme Court, and according to this article the average age at which they are projected to retire will be 83.

Where else can we look for Boomers? They surely dominate college faculties, don’t they? They are being accused of ‘holding onto’ their jobs past the age when they should be forced out to pasture.

But does anyone seriously profess to believe that one age group can exercise so much influence in the important spheres of life? Some ‘anti-anti-Semites’ have accused those who warn against Jewish influence of attributing near-superhuman powers to Jews. It seems there are just as many people who must think Boomers have superhuman powers to exercise so much control over our society.

Simply reading a history book would make it clear that the crisis that has beset all the Western, formerly White-majority countries has its roots far back. It did not originate with Boomers, or even the Silent Generation (many of whom participated in the 60s countercultural movement). It is too facile to accuse any one age group or generation of being solely — or even mostly — to blame. Were all the other generations asleep or completely inert and passive when the Boomers were supposedly doing the dirty work of destroying Western Civilization? Even millennials have for years had the right to vote and to make their voices heard, yet only now are we seeing a percentage of them taking to the streets to oppose the left. Likewise with Gen-X. What was the saying attributed to black militant Eldridge Cleaver? “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem”? Everybody who is of age has the ability to ‘get involved’ in some way when they see things going down a dangerous path; people of every generation have had their chance to stand up and be counted, to play some part. It’s easy to point the finger at somebody else, and demand ‘why didn’t you stop it?’ or to say ‘it’s all your fault’.

A certain female politician notoriously said ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child. And it takes more than a ‘village’ to destroy a nation, a people, a culture. There is more than enough blame to go around.

And just a reminder for those who note accusingly that the ‘Boomers’ aren’t out on the barricades in these recent skirmishes: Boomers are now elderly, with the oldest being septuagenarians. Actually in the 1990s there were still a good many Boomers who were actively taking part in rallies and protests in border states, where some were assaulted by immigrants or their supporters. I can think of two such cases involving older people being injured. Do the critics really think grandma or grandpa should be mixing it up with violent young immigrants and antifa types? That’s a job for the young and fit. And the opposition has no respect for the aged or those who are weaker — but then few people on either side do.

Some people openly wish harm to Boomers for their ‘sins’, but be patient; at seventy or so, people begin to die of natural causes, as we’ve seen with a few Boomer celebrities recently. Time is catching up with them as with all of us, and the Boomers will be gone soon enough, vacating the role of scapegoat for someone else. And how does this blame game change anything? It doesn’t. It divides us. It polarizes and paralyzes us. We need to regain a sense of common purpose to unify us. We should, for the greater good, be able to put differences aside.

The American Indians lost control of this continent because they were so lacking in unity; our colonist ancestors benefited from the divisions that kept the different tribes at each others’ throats. Somebody is benefiting from our divisions.

And it ain’t us.

 

 

‘D & C meme’

Divide and conquer, divide and rule, as cited by an English commenter on another blog.

2017-05-25_235410

I noticed that this particular meme began some years ago; it wasn’t always widely used. Was it started because of resentments of parents or grandparents of that generation? Was it based on a simple revulsion toward older people generally?

Was it started because those ‘seeding’ it really believed the popular media stereotype of all boomers as counterculturists and ‘hippies’? Or was it deliberately introduced as a divide-and-conquer weapon?

Or was it, as the comment quoted above implies, used as a diversion from other possible suspects? On at least one blog I used to peruse regularly, the former emphasis on the Jewish role has all but disappeared in favor of blaming ‘boomers’ (who are supposedly 100 percent left-wing and ‘cucked’) and WASPs/Puritans (!) and the opposite sex. Some dislike most of their fellow Americans whom they label with derisive names like ‘Murkans’.

Funny how that works. It distracts the attention nicely from some of the actual culprits. So I suspect the ‘D&C’ memes will continue to be used.

In reading British blogs I’ve found the generational warfare meme to be less common; why should that be? The UK had the Sixties madness as well, but somehow there seems to be less evidence of a virulent anti-boomer sentiment there. The real bitterness seems to flourish on this side of the Atlantic. I find this interesting though very destructive of healthy solidarity and ethnonationalism. I get the feeling that some would like a ‘purist’ movement with only the younger generations who are ideologically correct as members, and the rest be damned.

The boomer-bashing meme is so common on many right-wing blogs that really, a content warning ought to be used so that those of us who are disheartened and put off by this stuff could avoid it rather than finding ourselves mired in it unexpectedly.

Ironically, almost laughably, some of the same people who insist that we have to be as one with our brothers in Europe or wherever (because of our common genetics) can’t find much to like about those closest to them. It’s because of this kind of thing that Roger Scruton coined the term ‘oikophobia’, which he mentioned was often part of the adolescent phase of development. Many of us in adolescence resented our elders, who of course were old fogies, hidebound, out of touch, and embarrassing to us, and many of us thought our own country and heritage were so crass and backward compared with sophisticated Europe. This all sounds strangely familiar, except that it seems to be happening among mature adults in their 30s and 40s who should have outgrown these feelings long ago.

We have to learn to accept our own folk, warts and all, and try to ‘redeem’ those we can, rather than resent or condescend to them — otherwise any kind of ethnonationalism or other nationalism would be a very hollow thing.

 

Note: This blog piece from way back in 2006 deals with oikophobia as well as, in passing, something called ‘Crow-Jim-ism.’ It makes for an interesting read.

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.