Who’s culpable?

It’s become wearisome to even post on a terror attack when they predictably happen. Don’t misunderstand me; I am not expressing indifference to the victims, or to the country, whichever European or White country, where the latest attack occurs.

If anything, I care too much about the victims, thinking of the waste of human life and potential, especially among our besieged folk, and about their families and all those who loved the victims. Lives will be forever changed. I heard from an acquaintance in New York, after 9/11, of a little girl, a classmate of my friend’s twins, who lost both parents on 9/11. That little girl would now be 22 or so. Surely her life was changed irrevocably.

No doubt what happens in Britain, where the bones of many generations of my ancestors are buried, troubles me especially. I understand that many Americans feel no particular kinship to people in Britain, and considering that so many Americans now lack any genetic connection to Britain, I suppose they can’t be blamed for that.

Kinship, blood ties matter, even in a country which conditions us all to ‘civic nationalism’, telling us that birth on American soil makes brothers of us all. Not true, and even less true in today’s Britain, as illustrated by this now-viral photo from London yesterday.aliennation

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. There’s a reason why that photo, of all those available, went viral.

Meanwhile, the smarmy heads-of-state, after an event like yesterday’s, mouth their usual platitudes about ‘unity’, ‘coming together’ ‘reaffirming our nation’s values’, (meaning openness to outsiders, however hostile they are, and coerced diversity). Theresa May and as the Moslem mayor of London both recited such statements, though the London mayor was brazen enough to tell the British people that they had better get used to this kind of thing; after all, it’s “part and parcel” of life in a big city now. As I recall some official in France said roughly the same thing after an attack there. Will the passive and docile citizens of Western countries continue to accept this phony, condescending rhetoric about ”our values” or about “diversity and unity” — which, by the way, are opposites, and contradictory? Or is the passivity and docility merely an outward show, hiding inner misgivings and resentments?

The most disgusting bit of rhetoric, which is even used by many on the nationalist right, is the now-hackneyed statement that ”immigrants/Moslems are not the problem, only symptoms; they are just pawns in a game being controlled by the real powers, so it’s useless to direct anger at these pawns. They aren’t our real enemy.” The more liberal variation on this ‘argument’ is employed by the churchian types, who think ‘hatred’ or even honest anger, is wrong; if we give in to it, we are just reacting and playing into the hands of the enemy. If we do that, then ‘They will have won.’ Supposedly by refusing to show fear or act defensively, we are winning. Right.

Trouble is, who are the architects of all this? The shadowy ‘elites’, the globalist overlords? We know a few names; everyone’s heard of Soros. For some people, Jews are the ultimate cause behind the scenes, and the people who hold this view are often those who claim that immigrants are not the real problem. For others, the powers-that-be are simply the global corporate movers and shakers, the mega-rich, who are transnationalists and cosmopolitans, with no allegiance to any nation or people, faithful only to their own greedy interests.

Many Christians say only ‘spiritual forces of wickedness’ are truly to blame; everyone else is a pawn.

But without knowing who, exactly, is behind all this, and who is calling the shots — as they keep themselves mostly concealed — how can we act at all? Do we need to know the ultimate cause in order to save ourselves? Is it not more important to take steps against the visible agents of evil? It seems to me that that’s the only thing we can do: to focus on the proximate cause, the obvious and immediate actors in all this.

And who are the known actors? Elected politicians, hand-picked by corrupt political machines, who seem to be puppets acting for the shadowy elites. Then there are the traitorous and malice-driven ‘progressives’, antifa types. The media,  who seem to be nothing but lie merchants and ideologues, hostile to the real people of the countries they inhabit. And the Others, the colonizers, interlopers (whether legally or illegally), people with generational grudges against us and our countries.

The problem is not the Others alone, but at the moment it’s they who are killing us and our kinsmen in other countries.

The picture above illustrates that they are not of us; not us, can never be part of us.

The London attacker was born in the UK, showing that being ‘native’ to Britain no longer means much, if one is of foreign blood and origin, and especially if Islam is factored in.

The ‘melting pot’ disproved?

There was an interesting comment (of many) on a thread at Vox Day’s blog. It addresses something I’ve thought about considerably, and the writer’s experience parallels my own, regarding ancestral lines and the ‘gaslighting’ that we are subjected to regarding American ancestry and thus American identity. I trust that the commenter, ‘Harris’ won’t object if I excerpt:

“I have been working on my genealogy lately, and I’ve discovered something about the lack of mixing with other races in my own bloodline. So far, in the 400 years since my family settled in North America from England, there are only 4 non-Anglo women that have married into the family (out of over 4500 currently in the extended family tree) and the female descendants of those 4 women have NEVER married a non-anglo male. Those 4 women were 1 Irish woman, 1 German, 1 Cherokee woman, and 1 Swiss woman.

[…]My point is that while nearly my entire family arrived in the first wave of settlers in Massachusetts & Virginia, there has been very little intermarrying with other Caucasian races, much less non-Caucasians. I’ve noticed that other races also tend to marry their own kind.
[…]
Just in my own family, you see the myth of the melting pot disproved. This indicates that the bloodline ties are more than just cosmetic. There is something subconscious about seeking your own. How has the West lost sight of this truth?

There has to have been a determined and conscious effort to undermine the cultural homogeneity of our western societies, and this can be traced back to Darwinism, the progressive movement of the late 19th century, and the emergence of a communist philosophy that sought to undermine the Christian foundations of our various Caucasian civilizations. This was purposeful, and we large did this to ourselves.”

First, just in passing, it’s of interest to me that the writer’s family tree seems to intersect with mine at some points (which is not that uncommon, with colonial-stock Americans), then the rest of his comment (which can be read here) points out what I have often said. Many people make the claim that ”we’re all mixed-up; there are no Americans who are not at least mixed ethnicity if not racially mixed.”  This just isn’t necessarily true, especially as you go back through the generations.  Some parts of the country, having had lots of immigration, were likely to see marriages across ethnic lines, though rarely interracially. Miscegenation was illegal most everywhere until the late 1960s, though the rules slightly differed from state to state. But many places, those with low immigration rates, rural areas especially, did not experience much marriage across ethnic lines. People too often tend to interpret things through their own personal reality and extrapolate that to the rest of America.

Some of the comments on the thread linked above scoffed, to some extent, at the value of genealogy, as being unreliable. It’s true that there is a lot of false or partially-false information on genealogy websites where people upload their own (often mistaken) data, and there is little cross-checking and validation being done. But that doesn’t mean all online data is untrustworthy. It does need scrutiny and verification. But now there is the additional resource of DNA testing — but as in our family’s case, it verified pretty much what our previous information indicated.

But the commenter’s assertion that there has been an effort to undermine the homogeneity of our people and nation is a very plausible one. I think a big part of that has been a conscious effort to foster the myth of the ‘melting pot’ (the term a creation of Israel Zangwill, by the way) and the idea that we are all hopelessly mixed. Why would those ideas be important to implant? Because it fosters resignation to the continuing effort to blend us all together — after all, we’re all ‘mongrels’ as I believe our former POTUS said. I believe this whole process probably was in the works longer than we have realized, and that the Ellis Island experiment was to accustom us to more and more disparate peoples and cultures, as just one stage of the plan to blend Americans into one amorphous “people” and culture, rootless and identity-less, except for our identity in a civic sense.

If Americans could only start to realize that we are not this non-nation “of no race and no culture” as we hear some voices insisting. There is something still to be preserved.

 

 

Dwindling and vanishing?

2017-03-14_231426

The above was a comment posted on Vox Day’s blog, in response to an earlier comment.

I seem to remember that in the earlier incarnation of this blog, someone took exception to the term ‘Vanishing American’, on the grounds that it was pessimistic or fatalistic. I certainly hope I haven’t given that impression in using that term. I chose it (as many people know) because it referenced not only our precarious status in our country of birth, and also as a reminder of what happened to those who were originally called ‘the vanishing American’, that is, American Indians. No doubt they haven’t vanished altogether, as so many lefties who want to lay a “genocide” charge against Whites imply, but they were outnumbered and marginalized and (to some extent) ‘lost’ by outmarrying.

In the earlier days of this blog I think I focused more on trying to remind our folk of  heritage and history, to try to revive a sense of knowing who we are, where we came from, and of the need for regaining confidence in ourselves in this dark age. I’ve gotten away from that somewhat, maybe sensing that the mood has shifted away from respecting tradition and the past.

So in using the term ‘vanishing’ I think the sense, on this blog, always was ‘vanishing — if if we don’t face up to our predicament and do everything possible to reverse it. There are so many doomsayers and defeatists online (and in real life, depending on where you are) that it’s absolutely self-destructive to give way to that thinking.

I have to say, honestly, I have more pessimistic moods in recent years than I did in 2006, and maybe I have grown more cynical but my aim is always to be cautiously optimistic. Pessimism is not helpful to anyone, including the pessimist.

Worth it?

The Anti-Gnostic posted a piece on the recent disturbing story about a teen-aged Hispanic girl who, having recently fallen into the company of MS-13 gang members, was murdered. No less than six juveniles and four adults appear to have been involved in the killing. All the names of the suspects are Hispanic, and it seems probable most were foreign-born. Whether they were illegal is irrelevant; they could just as easily be here legally, or some might be ‘anchor babies’, considered legal by some.

This story, though it’s the latest, is one of many, as MS-13 and its equivalents put down stakes all over this country — even in the small community where I live, which is not all that ”diverse and enriched” as yet. It’s sad for the families and sad for our country as we risk becoming inured to this process of assimilation towards Third World norms.

I just began wondering, though, suppose the liberals’ hoped-for scenario comes into being, and that we gradually become used to all this diversity, and we become a rainbow nation wherein we all ‘accept and celebrate our mutual differences.’ Granted, Whites will be a small minority amongst the rest, but what of it? Race is a social construct; we all bleed red, and this is a proposition nation, after all. The Salvadorean and other gang-bangers’ progeny will be just one more variety of Americans amongst the colorful mosaic. And on and on.

But a hundred years from now, will people shrug their shoulders and accept the presence of these violent gangs and their ways as just one small price to be paid for the rich pageant of ‘diversity’ — much as most Americans now think that the Mafia isn’t so bad; we’ve enjoyed lots of good movies, novels, and TV series about the Mafiosi (the Sopranos, the Godfather, etc.), and then there’s all the wonderful food and cultural enrichment. So the introduction into our country of the Black Hand Society, the Mafia, and in our day, the (((‘Russian mafia‘))) and so on are just part of the package. Really not so bad, if we keep a sense of perspective, right?

One appalling story after another of gang murders and various atrocities and it’s all old hat, yesterday’s news. We have a way of growing jaded and accepting of things which should never be thought of as acceptable. That’s probably what the powers-that-be are counting on.

 

On the uses of genealogy

I often urge people to investigate their family tree, if they haven’t already done so. It’s becoming more common for people to be DNA-tested, and that has its uses, but genealogy really brings our ancestors to life by giving them names, locations, and many other details that make them flesh-and-blood people to us.

The following quote is from a book published in 1881, and oddly it seems especially appropriate for our time in which there is so much confusion about nationality, ethnicity, and our place in this multicultural Babel in which we live.

I’ve bolded the parts I find most pertinent to our situation:

“Ought any one to be entirely indifferent to the channels in which his own blood has come to him?

Whether it has flowed down in the veins of nobles or peasants, whether he has a reason before his fellow-men for honest pride in the exploits or for satisfaction with the mere respectability of his ancestors he surely has ground for desiring to know for himself what are his connections with the past. But irrespective of all reference to the utility of such knowledge, there is an instinct in all right minds which constrains them to such an interest. A part of the same respect and love which every true man feels for the father and mother who bore him is carried back to the whole line of his progenitors. The pleasure which most persons take in such studies springs therefore from one of the profoundest and most useful of human instincts. It deserves encouragement, among all classes of society.

There is nothing to make it more appropriate for the rich than for the poor. An honored and virtuous ancestry is quite as much a source of pride to such as have no other inheritance, as those who glory in large ancestral titles and estates. And it may be as powerful an incentive so to live as to command the veneration and esteem of coming generations. There may be some exaggeration, but there is truth in the motto of the American College of Heraldry, “He who careth not whence he came, careth little whither he goeth.”

It is for this reason, we think, that there are instincts in nature which prompt to this as to all moral duties. The common proverb, “Blood is thicker than water,” expresses a truth which is almost universally felt, and implies an affection seldom appealed to in vain. It may at times need development, and often may be overborne by stronger passions, but such a fortune it shares with all other mental qualities. It is, therefore, one of those deep principles which are “the inspiration of the Almighty that giveth understanding.”

Americans have sometimes been tempted to speak contemptuously of family descent and family history. An interest in such matters has not infrequently been reproached as if it were inconsistent with republican simplicity. If what we have said be true it is inconsistent only with an arrogation to oneself of those titles which come from royal or aristocratic prescription. The time is coming, and has already begun, when many must take a pure delight in recollecting the part which those dear to them took, not only in establishing our national independence but in maintaining our national unity. “Beyond the stimulus which the desire of distinction gives to those who are rising in the world there is an important benefit derived from the sentiment of family antiquity, in the tendency it has to unite and hold together the mass of those families which have a stake in the country for their mutual preservation. Those who look upon the nation as composed of its honorable and patriotic families will feel bound together by a sacred tie, and communities will no longer be regarded as an incongruous mass of adventurers, but as a brotherhood animated by a kindred spirit.”

Let us bring to test these suggestions by noticing the associations connected with the contemplation of a family tree. There may, or there may not be branches in that tree which have formed a shadow for a nation or a world; but for every one who is a branch in that tree, however insignificant, it will have an illumination to which he cannot be indifferent. As he traces the limbs in various directions, his sympathies will be likely to be drawn forth to a larger circle, his consciousness of capabilities will be deepened by the suggestion of what his own flesh and blood has accomplished, and a respect for a common association will prompt to a higher style of living. He can hardly fail to have his scheme of life enlarged when he becomes conscious of a community animated by “one blood.” He will begin to regard himself, not as a mere accretion upon a dead mass, but as a member of an organism pervaded by a life leaving no minute part without a common sympathy. For want of such a sentiment many a family has never attained its appropriate character and position.’

Conway P. Wing A Historical and Genealogical History of John Wing and his Descendants, 1881

Who is an American?

This question is a recurring one on right-wing blogs, and especially so since all the talk and heated rhetoric about deportations (also known as sending people home) and walls.

Because America has had a history of rather promiscuous immigration policies it’s a fact that the homogenous America our Founding ancestors wrote of is no longer a reality — but yet it is also not a reality that the Founding stock, that is, the ‘posterity’ of the Founders, is long gone and irrelevant, or that we are a ‘proposition nation.’

That last assertion is now the official dogma of the multicultists in both the GOP and the Democrat party. The fact is it was never true.

Those who object to any mention of sending foreigners back to their homelands protest that many of them are ”as American as you and me”, fully American in their culture and their tastes and their speech — in some cases. Some of these immigrant advocates go so far as to say that even the new arrivals are more American than the Americans themselves because ”they [immigrants] appreciate this Free Country; they love liberty”, unlike most spoiled, jaded native-born Americans.

But loving ”liberty”, whatever meaning that has for individuals who come here, does not an American make.

To my mind, it comes down to this: those of kindred stock to the original colonists, whose ancestors have been here since pre-Revolution times, are American. Those who are genetically and culturally more distant, and whose ancestors have not been here for at least several generations? Not necessarily. Assimilation is not an automatic and natural process; greater genetic and cultural distance may mean that they never fully assimilate to the original stock population or share our mores and standards.

Those belonging to some ‘victim’ group, holding grievances and nursing grudges about what their sometimes-distant ancestors suffered at the hands of the ‘xenophobic WASPs’ or whatever — are not Americans in any real sense. Here’s what it comes down to for me: if you don’t and apparently can’t identify with, or have some regard or loyalty to the original stock population, you aren’t of us, by your own choice. Loyalty to this nation would seem to imply identifying and sympathizing with the majority of ‘legacy’ Americans, and our national story. Absent that loyalty to the folk, you have defined yourself as being Other, with a capital ‘O’. These types of people, even if their ancestors came here 5 0r 6 generations back, still harp on the unfair treatment they imagine their distant forefathers suffered:”My great-great-grandfather wasn’t even considered White! I deserve reparations just as much as blacks! More so!”

Not American.

It’s also this group of perpetual-grievance-holders who most often champion today’s mass immigration, and support open borders, multiculturalism, and the Democrat Party — though one can be a GOPer and be all for those things, sad to say. These are the people who say “How can I be against immigration? My ancestors would never have been allowed in if the xenophobes had their way.” And how would America have even existed without these people and their ancestors having been admitted? America just wouldn’t have been America without them. So they flatter themselves.

In a sense they are right; America as it is now would not be the same country had we not let in millions of such immigrants in the past; it was the old melting pot philosophy, the proposition nation, Emma Lazarus ideology, that led to today’s ethnically and racially divided, conflict-ridden America. Immigration led to more immigration; it’s a perpetual cycle.

 

 

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.

Could it be done today?

The New American has an article on Operation Wetback, the 1950s deportation program, under which some 100,000 illegals were sent back home, and 700,000 more self-deported.

Despite it having been done once, there is always a stubborn opposition mentality saying that it can’t be done. And then of course there is the group (which sometimes overlaps with the ‘can’t be done’ crowd) who say that it shouldn’t be done, because The Children. Breaking up families. The usual rhetoric. And let’s not forget those who argue from economic self-interest, often cheap labor employers, who argue that they can’t get lazy or greedy White Americans to fill their needs, or who argue that it would hurt our economy generally or make our produce and other foods prohibitively expensive.

But mostly people tend to say ”they could do it back then, but it’s different today.” And in part that’s true, because back in 1954 the news media was not so monolithic and so overwhelmingly left-wing and hostile to White Americans as is the case now. Now, the ‘lying press’, the Enemy Media, would work to generate outrage against any large-scale repatriations. Protesters, some professional, hired rent-a-mob types, would be agitating and attempting to provoke incidents. But should we just give up in advance and let that side continue to control events?

Some think so. Take a look at the Free Republic thread on the article. One poster dominates the thread with arguments on why we ‘can’t’ deport people on a mass scale.

Suppose you started tomorrow.

How many years to get through all the court filings to stop the deportation? We simply didn’t have all the various feel good groups willing to file cases to stop/slow down the deportation back when Ike was prez.

How long before the nightly dose of crying mothers and screaming kids on the 5 PM news being separated from their families and carried off to Mexico reaches the point that the people demand that it be stopped?

Then, what you going to do if Mexico refuses to allow the buses/trucks/planes carrying these deportees to enter their country? While the media films the deportees stuck at the border?

9 posted on Monday, August 29, 2016 10:04:53 AM by DugwayDuke (“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”)”

 

Well, Dugway Duke selected an appropriate tagline, anyway.

So, as one more sensible commenter says sarcastically, we should just give up; if we can’t deport them all, then we can’t deport any.

Dugway Duke and those who think along the same lines seem more concerned about how the left, the bleeding hearts, and the lying media perceive them, more than about what is best for this country and its rightful people. They care more about public opinion, (even as dishonestly represented by the media) than about their posterity. Granted, the word ‘posterity’ is a little abstract for most people; let’s say instead, our children and grandchildren.

But then again, Free Republic is the internet home of a lot of people who are at best, at best, civic nationalists, proposition nationalists, who think that even if America is populated mostly by Central American mestizos, Somalis, Middle Easterners, as long as they speak English, salute the flag, and vote Republican, they are the same as you and me.

As to the discussion about whether ‘self-deportation’, induced by cutting off public benefits to illegals, is more feasible, I see no downside. Illegals, or even legal immigrants and ‘refugees’ should not receive public benefits. In the past, immigrants had to prove they could support themselves, and not become public charges. They had to have sponsors who agreed to assist them if they had no assets to speak of, no marketable skills. But now just about every immigrant family except for the wealthy ones use some form of public assistance. Many well-to-do families with aged parents put the older generation on SSI, which they are entitled to by law, now. So grandma and grandpa, though they have affluent adult children who are employed or in a profession, get SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, and Section 8. And these are legal immigrants, not illegals.

So yes, end benefits for immigrants, regardless. Republicans often think that no American should receive assistance in any form; I dare them to take such a tough stance with immigrants. They usually don’t. They reserve the resentment for their own, sad to say.

But having benefits taken away may or may not cause the immigrants to self-deport. Why? Because many do work, but ‘under the table,’ paid in cash by Americans who don’t want to pay more to a fellow American to care for their children, or for their aged parents, or to do their yard work and home repairs. True, you don’t get value for money when you hire cheap foreign domestic help. Children are not as well cared-for, and they may grow up speaking broken English if left with foreign “nannies”. Home maintenance jobs are often ineptly or carelessly done.

It all comes at a cost, yet Americans continue to hire illegals. How can we stop this, when it’s going on covertly to some degree?

And then there are plenty of illegals involved in some way with the drug cartel activities, even in my town. There are illegals who are involved in property crimes as well as more sophisticated schemes connected with immigration: human trafficking, identity theft, forging documents, and so on. We all know this. And this is the source of income for many illegals who are not getting social service assistance. If welfare, SSI and all the rest were the only enticement or their only source of sustenance — but that’s not the case.

Then, too, there is the fact that many, many illegal alien criminals were deported and yet they returned, multiple times. The illegal who killed Kate Steinle in the infamous San Francisco shooting incident is but one example of many. Another was Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, the serial ‘railway murderer’ of some years ago. Our ridiculously porous borders are not serving their purpose.

So then must we resign ourselves to this intolerable situation because of the bad press that would accompany any efforts at fixing the problem? I have no easy answers, no magic fix. And if we wait until the majority comes to a consensus about this, we will be lost for sure. What I will say is that political solutions, at least in a ”democracy” with a sorely divided electorate, will likely never be the answer.

Univision: Trump appeasing Hispanics

The faithful will deny it’s true but Univision is claiming that Donald Trump, in a meeting with Hispanic leaders, is offering a deal to legalize “millions of undocumented immigrants.”

If true, Trump’s plan would stand in sharp contrast to his previous statements about immigrants during the campaign. During the primaries, the New York property tycoon promised to build a wall along the border with Mexico and to deport all undocumented immigrants.

The possible reversal over immigration policy by the Republican candidate would not be without precedent after Trump has shifted his position on a variety of issues during his campaign from banning Muslims to taxes, minimum wages and and abortion.

Polls show Trump has alienated many minority voters and Republican party strategists have urged him to tone down his rhetoric about immigrants, especially Hispanics who make up a growing share of registered voters – about 10% in November.”

Republican party strategists — I see their hand in this. I have not trusted the recent additions to Trump’s staff, particularly people like Newt Gingrich, about whom nothing more need be said, and Kellyanne Conway — who previously headed Ted Cruz’ SuperPac and was a big donor to his failed campaign. She has also favored legalizing illegals.

Kellyanne Conway, who was named Trump’s campaign manager Wednesday morning, co-authored a 2014 polling memo for the pro-immigration group FWD.us touting the benefits of a sweeping overhaul bill that would have created a 13-year pathway to citizenship for roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants.

The memo, which was signed by Conway and 15 other GOP pollsters, argued that “most Americans don’t believe deportation is a viable policy” and that there is an “overwhelming consensus” for “some kind of legalization” for people in the United States illegally. The pollsters made the case that there is “broad support” for the bill that Trump now strongly opposes but Hillary Clinton supports.

“Supporting this new immigration reform proposal should be good electoral politics for Republicans,” the memo said.

Still, if Trump is sufficiently his own man he would likely not be swayed by this coterie of Wormtongues he’s acquired.

It appears I’m one of very few people who find this new report unsettling; everybody else on the Internet seems to shrug this off as, (to use Limbaugh’s word when excusing some leftward move by George W. Bush), “strategery.” Bushbots used to excuse any sellout of ‘conservative principles’ by Bush as being just ‘W’ being shrewd and ‘gaming the system.’ Strategery, and you need strategery to win. But, as I used to waste a lot of time arguing with these Bushbots and party faithful, if you ‘win’ by sacrificing any ‘conservative’ principles you may have had, or by selling out your real base of support, what has the Party won? More importantly, what will we,  the People, have won? Trump may be elected but if he comes into office heavily indebted to blacks (who have ‘suffered the most’ as he said) and illegal immigrants, what will we have won?

Talk is cheap, and the minority groups who are on the receiving (and I emphasize receiving) end of the pandering know this. They will not be satisfied by sweet talk and courting; they will expect Trump to come across with the goods ultimately. And that will mean more tax dollars spent on ”outreach”, special programs, and constant attention for reassurance that they are still at the apex of the victims’ pyramid. Just as in the past, there is always the threat of rioting to keep their special status intact.

I have not yet given up on Trump; I will give him the benefit of the doubt, realizing that we, the Founders’ posterity, have nowhere else to go this election. We have no candidate that represents our interests; in fact we have no viable candidate who is not outright hostile to our interests. But let’s watch and see whether Trump himself confirms this story from Univision. I wonder if, having satisfied himself that he has people like me ‘in the bag’, and that we have nowhere to go, he will now turn to minorities and focus on them until November. As always, we are taken for granted.

Conservatism and ideology

Where to begin?  This piece is in response to a lengthy discussion here, and as I can’t usually get a blog comment published on Blogger, and as a blog comment can’t cover the subject, I’ll say my piece here.

Recently I wrote a piece about the necessity of some countervailing force to the ‘progressives’ who are demolishing our country. Especially is this true in our decaying society wherein the Left has been careening out of control, unchecked, so that our society is unrecognizable from what it was even 20 years ago. If those who say that ‘conservatism’ per se is useless and must be destroyed offer no alternative to it as a preserving force in society, what will check the hell-bent-on-change ‘progressives’?

Firstly, the comments I linked above seem mostly to agree that conservatism is useless because it has ‘no ideology’, being based only on ‘feelz’. But is this true? Is it true that conservatism has no ideology? The paleocons (are there still any surviving?) would say conservatism has no ideology, because ideology is opposite from conservatism and vice-versa. I’ve never encountered an old-time conservative who said otherwise. It is only the neocon, present-day Republican faithful who always rattle on about “conservative eye-dee-ology“, insisting that it’s what new immigrants (and black Americans) must adopt to succeed. I’ve had my share of disputes with such typical Republican, neocon, pro-war ‘conservatives’ over this ‘conservative eye-dee-ology’ which is a sine-qua-non. In my experience it’s only those now labeled ‘cuckservatives’ who yammer about ‘conservative ideology‘ and its paramount importance. It is the Cruzbots and the Never Trumpers who are the ones who always go on about the ideology of conservatism. Cruz was their guy because he is a ‘strict Constitutionalist’, a devotee of the Ideology.

As they believe in the ‘proposition nation’ they have to believe in ideology; that’s after all what holds a ‘proposition nation’ together, however tenuously.

An ideology is needed where there is no natural, organic bond and consensus among a people.

By contrast, most paleocons (who, for the uninitated, were the conservatives who are most closely akin to the Alt-Right, being racially aware, noninterventionist, against open borders, and anti-free trade and globalism) disagree.

I’ve said that conservatism is an instinct — a gut instinct, nothing to do with feminine-type feelings, or ‘feelz’, but visceral and bred-in-the-bone. Certain peoples are more conservative by nature, just as some individuals. Some seek change for its own sake, seeming to crave novelty and the exotic, loving risk and danger, while some are innately averse to such things. I believe this because it comports with what I’ve observed in my years of living and working, not because a psychiatrist says it and invents pseudo-scientific labels for it. Needless to say, liberals are often risk-taking types with all the ‘dysfunctions’ that implies. Conservatives are people who prefer order and stability over thrills and unpredictability. And though there are exceptions there is still a general rule. And we as a people (even ”conservatives”) show evidence of the risk-taking, thrill-seeking temperament, compared to our forefathers. (Yes, they took risks and braved dangers beyond the endurance of today’s coddled thrill-seekers, but that’s not the same impulse.)

Conservatism is a temperament. But ideology? It’s a systematic set of beliefs codified by some person or persons, not an organic set of principles that grows amongst a  people based on shared innate tendencies. Some modern dictionaries give more liberal definitions, implying that an ideology is more of a spontaneously-arising group consensus.

The word ideologue, for most people, implies rigid beliefs, dogmatic and doctrinaire tendencies. Notice that leftists by whatever name had purges of their peers who are found guilty of wrong-think, violation of the Sacred Ideology which must not be questioned. ‘Correct’ ideology is a must with leftists. And lately we’ve seen ”conservatives” or cuckservatives doing this as Trump and his supporters have been ‘read out’ of the conservative ‘movement.’ Personally I hate that term ‘the movement’ because I associate it with the radical left. The Sixties left always referred to itself as The Movement.

So the conservatives being condemned in the discussion thread are really liberals or ‘neocons’ in conservative clothing, not people who would have been by any measure considered ‘conservative’ in previous eras. They simply subverted the Republican Party (and that was one of the stated ‘Goals of the Communists’ as reported by Cleon Skousen in his writings) and proceeded to destroy it from within and discredit the very label “conservative” by polluting it with their own un-conservative policies and, yes, “ideology.” The neocons are ideologues par excellence, as are their leftist brothers.

Part of the neocons/cuckservatives ideology is the idea that everybody everywhere is capable of ‘democracy’ and that if we only send our armies in and ‘give’ them democracy, they will be good Jeffersonians in no time. Another tenet is that blacks and all immigrants can be real Americans if they salute the flag, wave the Constitution (like Khizr Khan, that good American) and thus celebrate Conservative Eye-dee-ology.

Obviously, their “conservative ideology” shares the blank slate, magic dirt tenets with leftist-liberals.

One of the better conservative thinkers, Russell Kirk, was adamant that conservatism is not an ideology, though I see that the commenters on the VP thread don’t like Kirk for the most part, lumping him in with today’s  ‘cuckservatives’. But if you read Kirk, which I have, he was very opposed to multiculturalism, globalism and political correctness, and he was racially aware, though in the context of his time. I recommend reading his work if you haven’t already, though he must be read with an open mind, not a mind already made up against him.

Kirk, while not ‘perfect’, perhaps, in the eyes of today’s impatient Alt-Righters, could be seen as a forerunner of Neo-reaction. He was not a ‘neocon’ by most measures.

In the earlier years of this blog, we had some lively discussions among the then-regulars; hard to believe, I know, but true. Many were young, and there was kind of generalized clamor among some of them that ”we need a manifesto.” I disagreed with that sentiment. I find the clamor for an ”ideology of the Alt-Right” to be the same, and while it’s understandable to a degree, I think it’s unnecessary and wrong-headed. There would no doubt be many different opinions as to what would constitute a codified set of Alt-Right principles or beliefs. There would be squabbles, considering that the Alt-Right or Neo-reaction includes some very different groups, groups who do not play well together. There are so many divides, even among American Alt-righters, for example the pro-Confederate Southrons vs. many Northerners who still blame slavery on the South, or consider Southrons ‘traitors’ for seceding. Then factor in religion or lack thereof, the divisions based on sex, ethnic nationalists vs. WNs or pan-Europeanists, Identitarians, and so on. Could such disparate groups with so many inter-group grievances work together and agree on much of anything?

It has to boil down to making survival a priority; what is good for us at this point in history — this very crucial point.In essence, our gut instincts have to take over;  our natural, God-given affinities, not some set of abstract principles. People who put abstractions and disembodied human reason above gut, natural instincts are what I call ideologues.

People won’t naturally sacrifice for abstractions; will not defend abstractions to the last man. Ideas cannot unite people, not for long anyway. Our country worked as long as it did (and yes, it did work, for a good while) because it was founded by a people with a common origin, sharing common ancestors, and a common religion — paraphrasing John Jay.