Conspiracy - impossible?

''It is the Devil's cleverest guile to convince us he doesn't exist.'' - Baudelaire

This quote came to mind when I was reading various online discussions pooh-poohing ''conspiracy theories.'' I put the phrase in scare quotes not because I scoff at the idea of conspiracies, but because it seems that the phrase is abused, being deployed to discredit any unpopular or uncomfortable assertion. Just call some idea or bit of information or theory a 'conspiracy theory' and you have marginalized the person who asserts it and derided the idea or information. Or so you hope. The scoffer generally tries only feebly, if at all, to refute the ideas or beliefs factually or by making good counterarguments; the scoffer is just indulging in ad hominem attacks.

And it does work a certain percentage of the time. It works because there are a great many people who are just not that concerned with truth. Some people are scared by the thought of an actual conspiracy being conducted, especially if the purported conspiracy threatens their safety, security, or prosperity. The instinctual response is to hide the head in the sand, and deny the truth of your opponent's words. "It can't be true! How could they hide something like that? We'd all know about it if that were true!"

Then follows the typical response: "you're crazy! You're paranoid. Where'd you hear that? Some right-wing extremist blog? Where's your tinfoil hat? Do you hear voices too?"

There are others who are the know-it-all type, who are sure of all the information they think they know, and who have a ready answer for anything. They like to feel in control, and they seem to hate the idea that there might be many unknowns, or mysteries, or outright conspiracies that might threaten them.

Then there are those (and they may be the majority) who scoff because they are fearful of being ridiculed by somebody else as a 'tinfoil-hat' wearer, a conspiracy kook, an extremist. Oftentimes people of this follower-like nature listen avidly to the popular pundits who jeer at 'birthers' or 'truthers' or 'fearmongers.'

The follower types often have to have one of their favorite personalities or pundits validate some belief or rumor before they will pick up on it. But it takes the seal of approval of some revered authority figure before they will follow along with an idea or belief.

I followed a link somewhere to a blog where the blogger made a blanket statement that 'conspiracy theories' are nonsense, and that he outright rejected anything implying a conspiracy. There is no dearth of people, right or left, shouting down the 'birthers' or eligibility skeptics.

But how can anybody reject the idea of a conspiracy out of hand?
All we have to do is look back through history, and history is rife with chronicles of various conspiracies. How many kings or emperors or popes, for example, were targets of conspiracies against them? How many countries invaded or conquered via conspiracies, often involving a fifth column inside the target country?

If we look back to Rome, there was the Catiline conspiracy, as well as the conspiracy against Julius Caesar. There are more recent examples aplenty, and I won't list them, but obviously there are conspiracies. To argue that such things don't happen in the real world is absurd, considering documented examples down through the centuries.

It may be true that in our age, people are more prone to suspect conspiracies when something shocking happens, something we did not expect. For example, Princess Diana's death, or even Elvis's death. While it may seem outlandish to speculate on whether 9/11 was 'an inside job' as some say, or that it was at least known to be in the planning stages and allowed to happen, the suspicion is understandable, given the circumstances surrounding Pearl Harbor, with the government apparently having cracked the Japanese codes. It's alleged, and believed by quite a few people, that the attack was allowed to happen so as to be a casus belli, a pretext for entering the War. Many Americans had noninterventionist or so-called 'isolationist' sentiments, and were reluctant to go to war.

And I think I can safely say that most ethnonationalists in the Western world, in the historically White countries, believe that there is a broad plan, not acknowledged fully by the 'elites', to create a globalist one-world system where everyone is compelled to blend with everybody else, and the minority White race thereby blended out of existence.

The scoffers and followers say this is conspiracy-mongering, especially if the belief involves a Jewish influence at the heart of the plans. In that case, the idea is not only 'crazy', so they  say, but 'anti-Semitic' as well, and therefore taboo.

Now the eligibility skeptics are being branded with the 'racist' label as well as the 'kook' or paranoid label. This is obviously meant to discredit and smear the 'birthers'.

But the debate, if you can call some of the shouting matches a 'debate', is taking some very strange turns. It seems as if the anti-birthers are saying that it is all a trap, that the birth certificate just released is a deliberately blatant forgery meant to lure the right into a trap, and to make the right look crazy. So their idea is that the issue must not be talked about; just be quiet about it and concentrate on ''the real issues'', whatever those are.

Whichever way you look at that, it seems to me that this approach is in fact letting the left control us; we are reacting to their propaganda, rather than trying to uncover the facts.

There seem to be many 'conservatives' today who are paralyzed by what their enemies say or think about them. The same people who are running from the eligibility issue are those who are always trying to prove they are not 'racists'. They are dancing to the left's tune on cue, and they don't realize that.

Do they really believe that conspiracies don't happen, and that things are just what they seem, always? I doubt it; I think they are just whistling in the dark, like the people who don't believe that a devil exists. To oppose evil, we first have to acknowledge its existence. Closing our eyes doesn't make the evil disappear.

Where are they?

Regarding the royal wedding, from the Daily Mail (UK):

'Audrey Jones our producer was looking for the black people in the wedding and we found our Rosa Parks moment, because we were like 'where are the black people'?' she said.

'It was like where's Waldo, where are the black people?' she added.

'We found one little black child in the choir but where's the black people at this wedding?' she continued.''

Lately I've taken to saying indignantly, when viewing any kind of image of a public gathering with 'diversity' conspicuously absent ''But--but where's the diversity?'' It's laughable and yet tragic that this is the main concern of so many people today.

I don't know who 'Sherri Shepherd' is, and I suspect I'm better off not knowing. I have seen snippets in the past from that show, The View, with its panel of cackling harridans. But they are diverse, so I guess that's the important thing.

I've mentioned here before of how, when I was looking at old photos on Shorpy.com, a picture of a grade school class from the Old America was posted, and the first comment was ''Where are the African-Americans and Hispanics?' The poor soul who asked that question so earnestly was evidently ignorant of the fact that back when that picture was taken, Hispanics were hardly omnipresent, even in California or Texas then. Imagine.

And blacks, being a mere 10 or 11 percent of the total population, could not be everywhere either. So many schools, sadly, were diversity-starved. But we can thank our lucky stars, they are working to correct that now, in Britain as well as in this country.

As of now, Britain has a black population apparently in the single digits still, though looking at scenes of London, that's hard to believe. And if you believe the BBC, there once were blacks and 'Saracen Turks' roaming Robin Hood's Sherwood Forest, and then there was the black Guinevere. I wonder what happened? But not to worry; it's all going to be corrected as quickly as possible.

I did not see the Royal Wedding which has been the center of so much hype. I have seen snippets and read about aspects of it on the Internet. I hear that the wedding vows were somewhat altered to politically correct them in accordance with 21st century sensibilities, and that's not surprising. I saw a shot of Elton John and his man/wife there, prominently positioned.

I note, as always, that many ''conservatives'' on the Internet forums are engaging in their usual anti-royal, anti-monarchy diatribes, which I find misguided. To the FReepers: our revolution was not fought to overthrow monarchy as an institution; I think you have it confused with the French Revolution. And our aim was not to shake off alien rule; ''the British'' were our flesh and blood, and the Colonists regarded them as such. The Colonists claimed their own English origins.

So I don't share the loathing for royalty or for social classes that seems to animate many 'conservatives'. Our Founding Fathers did not regard 'democracy' as a desirable form of government, and spoke of it with disdain. They warned of the dangers of democracy, which can easily become mob rule, and can lead to rule by demagogues and tyrants.

Monarchy is as good as the people who are at the top, or as bad. Just as with our system.

Having said that, I have no particular admiration for the Windsors; it seems that they are part of the corrupt world system that is behind the slow and agonizing death of the West. The Queen, sadly, recites the multicultural propaganda these days, and it seems as if the royals care nothing that the English people, those who are the core of what is called Britain, are now second-class citizens in their own country. The English alone have no flag, no parliament of their own. The St. George's flag is now considered 'divisive' if not racist.

Still, despite all that, I can't help but regard the historical England, traditional England, with great fondness. I've felt that way since childhood, and just as with my loyalty to the South and to the best in America, it's the people to whom my fondness and loyalty belong, not a governmental system or the changing faces who 'rule' the country, or even a flag, historic though a flag may be. I somehow find the pageantry and the ceremony and the pomp to be stirring. It seems to awaken something in many people who have ties to that people and that land. It draws us to the past, and to our kin, living and dead, and to come.

We seem to have less and less of that in America as time goes by; not many of us seem to care about the past, and few even know our history. We have few symbols, except for our flag, which is trivialized in many ways.

As our country becomes ever more fractured and factionalized, made unrecognizable by the whirlwind of demographic change, there is little to hold us together, little common heritage and national memory. The monarchy, the institution and all that it represents, represents continuity, and history, extending back in the case of Britain for many centuries.

It's sad that the royals are now becoming little more than characters in soap operas, or tacky celebrities. I read that Prince William says he enjoys 'rap and hip-hop.' That in itself speaks volumes.

Despite all this, I know there is still a core there of the old England or the old Britain if you insist. Personally I think the Welsh and Scots should have full independence, and England be free to go it alone, all of them freed from the EU.

In the meantime, I am glad there is still a vestige of the England that was, even if it's a rather threadbare one. And in parting, I'll ask Sherri Shepherd, whoever she is, ''where are the English?'' That's the pertinent question.

On names and their significance

Or are they significant?

I hope nobody will mind a brief diversion into something less weighty -- the subject of names. If you've read this blog very long, you will know I am sort of a student of names, including the history of names, naming trends, names in the context of culture and ethnicity, and so on. To me, at least, it's a fascinating subject.

This article from LiveScience.com discusses 'The Most Hated Baby Names in America.' According to the writer, among the most hated of today's popular names are 'Jayden, Brayden, Addison and Madison.' Those certainly are popular in these parts; I can't count the number of young children I know of who have one of those names, under some spelling or another.

Other hated names:

The most commonly cited name that put people's teeth on edge was Nevaeh, or "heaven" spelled backward. That name didn't exist until the 1990s, but it took off in popularity in 2003, shooting from the 150th most common baby name in that year to the 31st most popular in 2007 (as of 2009, it stood at No. 34).

"Nevaeh in particular seems to stand as this symbol … for what people don't like in modern baby names," Laura Wattenberg, author of "The Baby Name Wizard: A Magical Method for Finding the Perfect Name for Your Baby" (Three Rivers Press, 2005), told LiveScience.''

I've heard of several 'Nevaehs' too. It's a cringe-inducing name for me, mainly because it is so very affected and artificial. Actually my first thought was that it was the name of a skin cream.

The attitudes on names were collected from various sources, apparently internet forums and fan boards.

''Wattenberg is quick to point out that the survey isn't scientific, but it does have the advantage of capturing the names people spontaneously hate. A formal survey that gave people an option to rank names would likely bias people by putting ideas into their heads, Wattenberg said.

The survey also turned up a few interesting trends. The first is that people hate gender-bending names, particularly when a masculine name becomes feminine, as with Madison (which tied for second-most-hated for boys with 16 separate mentions) and Addison (which tied for sixth with eight mentions). They also hate names they can't spell, including Kaitlyn, which got eight mentions and tied for sixth. (People say "Caitlin" is fine because it's traditional, Wattenberg said, though the original Irish pronunciation of that spelling would be closer to "Kathleen.")

Wow, somebody who finally comprehends that the name 'Caitlin' was not originally pronounced as 'kate-lynn' but as something more similar to Kathleen. I don't think many people call their daughters Katelyn or any of its myriad variants nowadays; it's old hat, having appeared out of nowhere in the 80s. Granted it is a traditional Irish name, a form of Catherine, but it was unknown in this country until around the 1980s. I always wondered why it suddenly became so popular, especially since from its earliest usage in this country, it was mispronounced.

It appears that people must have encountered the name in print rather than hearing it spoken, hence the mispronunciation. Where were they suddenly reading the name? I would guess that some young parents, being fans of Dylan Thomas as many were then, read of his wife 'Caitlin'. They mistakenly thought the name Welsh because Thomas himself was Welsh, but Caitlin Thomas (nee MacNamara) was decidedly Irish, of an old Clare family. Still, if you read baby name books from the 80s onward, you will read that the name 'Caitlin' is a Welsh name. And thus it will always be considered in this country, or at least as long as the name is in use -- not long, probably, in such a trend-driven country as ours. It's already been displaced by names like the popular 'unisex' names, surnames which are suddenly the hottest thing for baby girls. The second paragraph in the quote above shows this: names like Addison (Addisyn, etc.) and Madison. Other, more overtly masculine-sounding surnames given as first names are the ones that irk me: names like Hunter, Tanner, Gunner, etc., being given to little girls are an abomination, in my opinion, and I blame it on feminism and the new ideal of women being 'able to do anything males can do.' And it isn't just avowed feminists who pick these 'cute' masculine names for their little girls; most women buy into feminism to some extent, whether they would label themselves feminists or not. It's just taken for granted now, the whole 'unisex' egalitarian thing. Notice in movies how many action or sci-fi movies have the 'tough chick' -- who is of course sexy, too.

And as the article points out, those originally masculine sounding surnames, at first given to boys, usually become feminine names over time, and then suddenly boys are carrying around names that are now considered 'cute' names for little budding feminist girls. Think of the guys (and there were many) given names like Tracy, Kelly, Stacy, Ashley, Brook, Kim, etc. back in mid-20th century. Now their names are considered women's names. I had an Uncle Aubrey, now passed on, but today Aubrey is seemingly becoming one of those now-feminine names.

As far as the '-son' surnames given as feminine names, our blogging compatriot Mostly Cajun  in his 'Name Game' posts, often notes the absurdity of calling your little girl somebody's 'son.'

Giving males a family surname as a first name used to be fairly common among prestigious families; if you had a surname as a first name, it usually meant that you were a descendant of that family. Now it means nothing in particular, except that the parent liked the sound of the name or its association with some vapid celebrity.

There seems to be an upsurge in traditional names, often Biblical or otherwise archaic sounding names for babies, but those are still nowhere near as popular as they once were. Some more obscure Biblical names have found new popularity, names like Javan or Caleb. (Sadly, distant relatives of mine called their daughter 'Caleb'.)

But novelty seems to be the main factor in the trends these days; everybody wants to be unique and 'special' and yet in their desire to be original, the majority seem to be choosing names that other 'unique' families are choosing for their children.

I notice that black naming fashions seem to be carrying over into White society. Blacks have long had a tendency to make names up out of thin air, and to create affected and 'fancy' spellings. The latest trend is toward hyphens in the middle of first names, like Ra-Heem, and then there are the popular apostrophes, in names like D'Shelle and D'Shaun or Ty'quial.  Invented names and invented spelling (and punctuation marks too) seem to have caught on among a certain group of White parents, too. Names which are misspelled or misunderstood (like 'Chastisy') are being given to White children too.

Names are a part of our ethnic/racial/national heritage, and I favor giving names that are names from your own blood lineage, from past generations, or at least a name that goes with your surname. Pairing up two very disparate names, from two different heritages, seems very awkward at best, and at times, even laughable, but it happens, in large part because parents pick names for very frivolous or arbitrary reason. Oftentimes they choose names that satisfy their own desire for attention or cachet, not thinking how the name will be perceived. And does anybody consider the original meaning of a name before bestowing it on their child? For instance, the people who named their daughter 'Caleb.' Caleb means 'dog.' Granted, most people probably wouldn't know that, but how about picking names with some thought for their meaning?

Is naming a trivial issue? To some, probably, but I think it's a serious business, as our names are part of our heritage. Each people has a store of names that are entwined with the history and the deeds and the soul of their people, and these are the names a healthy, proud group of people would favor, not ad-libbed, synthetic names or the name of today's celebrity who will be a has-been tomorrow.

We've talked before about how the most common surnames are changing in accordance with the demographic displacement of our folk, and soon, surnames like Martinez and Garcia will take the place of the Smiths and Joneses and the Andersons. I suppose unless things change, our given names will reflect the change too, as English-speaking people start to name their babies exotic names instead of the time-honored names of our past.

The name trends of today reflect the deracination of our people, and their rootlessness in many cases, their deculturation. It's not a happy thing to witness, much as we might joke about it or treat it frivolously.

A question

The reader comments on my post called Defenses Against Reality prompt me to pose a question to you all. I've asked the question in the past, probably a couple of years or more ago, and perhaps some of you weren't here then. So I'll ask it again.

How did you start to question ''political correctness'', multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and all those things which are now proving to be so disastrous for our people? Was there a clear defining moment or turning point, an epiphany or ''awakening?" Or was your experience more like mine, a gradual reversion to the values you learned as a child from your elders?

Some of my readers have said that they've always held their present attitudes, while others have had experiences that led to more traditional or realist views.

I don't ask to be intrusive, but I am always interested in how those who once held the standard 'mainstream' views came to be more ethnopatriotic or ethnonationalistic. Is there something about personality types that make some people more conforming or others more questioning and less susceptible to propaganda? Is it innate, or due to upbringing and experience, or some combination? And as somebody here once asked, is there some way to pass on our immunity, if that's what it is?

On today's big news story

Karl Denninger explains, from a technical angle, his assessment of the BC.

On the blogs, it seems few in our sphere are even discussing this, with the exception of Nathanael Strickland at Faith and Heritage, and Old Atlantic on his blog.

Any opinions or thoughts about this story? Or is it just we few who are interested in it?
Free Republic is buzzing with discussion of this, with FReepers arrayed against one another, so-called 'birthers' vs. what I call 'faithers' -- those who are willing to take on faith anything given to us by the media and those in authority.

It seems the faithers are furious the 'birthers' are not going to accept things at face value.
By my computer I have a sign, quoting I Thessalonians, 5:21 -- "Prove all things...."
I find it a good rule to live by. I plan to continue doing so.

Defenses against reality

One of the vexing politically correct habits, which I've alluded to before  is the knee-jerk, all-purpose response of ''they're not all like that.'' Our people seem to have had this ingrained into them, indelibly etched into their brains, judging by how often they employ this meme.

The ''They'' who are ''not all like that'' in this context means minorities, mainly nonwhites and non-Christians. It seems to be the way that liberals both Republican and Democrat, talk themselves into clinging to their 'colorblindness' and 'tolerance.' It is the ready answer when confronted with news stories involving interracial crime (black on white, to cite the most common) or misdeeds by other non-White or non-Christian people. The latter may be Moslems or they may be Jews; the colorblind Republican rigidly holds to the idea that all bad behavior, all aggression, passive or active, against us by such people, is the exception. They are not all like that! If you cite some outrage perpetrated by one of any of the favored victim groups, the colorblind conservatives will cite some exemplary person of that same group. The one person in a hundred or in a thousand is to be the 'real' example of their group, not the majority.

Events like the recent rash of violence at various McDonald's franchises simply calls forth references to Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain or Allen West, or name your 'favorite' minority exemplar.

The prize-winner in this category was some poster on Free Republic who said, in discussing the McDonald's beating in Baltimore "I would die fighting for Allen West, Herman Cain, Walter Williams, or any of our black conservatives.'' Ponder the significance of that kind of thing coming from a White. How many White people today would defend their own folk in that fashion? That kind of devotion should belong only to God or to one's nearest and dearest, but yet we have people saying that about these public figures, who have somehow achieved demigod status among some conservatives.

This really does border on idolatry, as Cambria Will Not Yield alludes to on his blog frequently.

How does it happen that this kind of zeal on behalf of Others is so ingrained in many people today? The quick answer is 'programming, or indoctrination', but as we've asked here before, how did it come to be that our people were so susceptible to this kind of upside-down thinking?

It's no good answering ''Christianity programmed them'', considering that the rise of this kind of adulation of Others grew only as Christianity declined. Christianity, throughout most of its existence, was free of such deluded servility. The old-time Christian believed in bringing the gospel to far-off nations but most had realistic attitudes about the people in those countries. There was no looking up to them as sages or saviors, as with today's twisted multicult image of Third Worlders. Today's fawning attitudes owe more to Rousseau and his idea of the 'noble savage', the savage as innocent, unspoiled child, than to anything in Christianity. The left and their religious arm, the 'new agers', revere something called 'crazy wisdom' which they believe resides only in pure third-worlders or alien peoples and religions.

So now we have this mass of people whose knee-jerk impulse is to defend Others rather than their own flesh and bone.

And these people maintain their absurd ideas by telling themselves that all these violent crimes are anomalies, random acts, the work of only a few bad apples. The 'real' representatives of any given group are the few who conform to our standards.

This is true whether the group being discussed is blacks, Hispanics, Moslems, Jews or whoever.
A few years ago when I posted links to articles about problems with Somalis refugees in Maine, I got an irate and condemnatory comment from some goody-two-shoes in Maine who claimed that Somalis are wonderful hard-working people who get along famously with their White neighbors.

So first comes the race card, or the victim card, followed closely by ''they're not all like that.'' Sometimes the next cliche on the list is that 'Whites commit lots of crimes too.''

I truly do see this attitude and defense mechanism as an impediment to facing reality. As long as our people can continue to take refuge in these facile cliches, these platitudes, I see little hope of honesty and clear-thinking.

And it seems that conservatives in particular cling fiercely to these notions, often lashing out at anybody who tries to dispute the facts with them.

Perhaps decades of maleducation has left many people unable to spot faulty logic or fallacious thinking. It should be obvious to anybody who can think that there are undeniable patterns, patterns which are unfailing predictors of how groups of people will generally behave. They truly think that if they can find one exception somewhere, the many 'bad apples' are therefore insignificant. We can disregard them, because they are not representative; the few are the real 'typical' members of that group, or so they maintain.

For instance, in talking with people I have cited the correlation between 'diversity' in a city or town and crime, or social deterioration and pathology. I can show people statistic after statistic as evidence of the link between demographics and the 'liveability' of a given place. Detroit is probably the prime example of this, but then you are met with these absurd explanations such as the articles about the 'Ruins of Detroit' being examples of Democrat misrule! For many 'conservatives', minority dysfunction or bad behavior is due to 'liberals keeping them ignorant and dependent.' In other words, if only they would read Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell, or listen to Allen West, blacks might all be successful businessmen and high-achieving, law-abiding citizens.

But the mere existence of Williams or Sowell or Cain is incontrovertible proof that ''they're not all like that'' -- they are all in fact potential Herman Cains, and Hispanics are all potential Marco Rubios.

I cited my personal experiences in my previous post, with being a crime victim, and since those things happened, I've had a great variety of unpleasant interactions with random 'Others' who behaved aggressively towards me or mine. However, I'm sorry to say it was years before the cumulative weight of all those bad experiences, and of hearing or seeing the bad experiences of others, led me to see how preposterous our racial cliches are, how out of touch with reality, how false.

It seems it often takes much hard experience to wake people up -- yet some people persist in their stubborn delusions. Why? It must have some payoff for them; it makes them ''feel good about themselves'' to know that whatever they are they are not 'racist'. For most Americans, sad to say, that is the single most defining proof of virtue or character, to be 'colorblind' or 'tolerant.' Some people will even give up their lives rather than relinquish their illusions.

A variant on this 'they're not all like that' meme is the 'favorite minority'. I see this a lot among HBDers, who, even in using the acronym, 'NAM', indicate that Asians are given an exemption from criticism; they are the good immigrants who will benefit our country by bringing us their high IQs and 'successful'' wealth-creating ways. The Non-Asians are the group who are the lesser -- though many of the HBDers seem enamored of Hispanics, especially the 'hot' Hispanic women or Filipinas. At AmRen, many regulars seem to have their favorite minorities, including even the Sikhs, who have been involved in violence according to recent news stories.

In a way I think even people who are 'race realists' or even WNs believe in the proposition nation business; they are willing to accept others, however alien, if they think that these people accept American laws or 'contribute to society' or don't commit too many crimes.

How do we persuade people who refuse to recognize patterns and accept reality?

Or again, is it even necessary to win them over? Do we need the majority on board with us, or do we just need to neutralize this nonsense and hope they will stop working against their own folk?

Seekers of truth

Have you seen the picture of the lightning strike at a well-known residence?

I seem to remember that back in the summer of '09 there was a tree on the WH grounds that was blasted by lightning.

Speaking of the White House, WH spokesman Jay Carney blasted Rev. Franklin Graham for his comments in an interview about the eligibility issue.

Franklin Graham occasionally makes comments that get him into trouble, as when he called Islam an evil faith, and if I remember correctly he did not back down when challenged about it. Still, he seems to have a tendency, like his famous father, of trying to please and get along with everybody. Personally I don't think it's wise for a religious leader to try to be cozy with people in positions of power, especially given the fact that few people in public life today are especially moral or righteous men and women.

But as to the eligibility question, it seems that the media are going all-out to try to shut down the controversy. I read on the Internet that Shep Smith of Fox News has declared that it's all been proven, so the case is closed. CNN is reportedly saying the same -- based on what? Apparently on a digital copy of a Certificate of Live Birth, which is not the official document you  or I need when we have to establish our birthplace or birth date, or our citizenship.

I wonder how many Americans will passively accept this, and believe it just because their favorite TV talking head or talk radio personality says it.

And it isn't just the liberal government media; it's the ''conservatives'' who populate talk radio and most of the TV pundit positions. So they are all reading off the same script.

Typical is this little diatribe, from the ''conservative'' mag Human Events.
The author writes this rather cryptic sentence:

''The Birther phenomenon confuses critics and believers alike into misinterpreting blind partisanship as philosophical purity. Birthers aren’t the most conservative Republicans. They are the most Republican Republicans.''

If anybody out there understands this, please provide a translation for me.

Then he says

''Conservatism isn’t about our guys. It’s about our principles. If exposing the president’s “hidden” origins has anything to do with conservative political philosophy, it has yet to be explained.''

Well, you might start by considering the Constitution, and its stipulations on the requirements for presidential eligibility. If you are willing to call that inconsequential, I don't know how you can claim to be 'conserving' anything. And what about the rule of law, generally? I realize those are mostly abstract principles in this lawless age, but no real 'conservatives' would sacrifice those principles for the sake of winning the next election.

And what about the conservative principles of honor, truth, justice, integrity ? I suppose those are considered trivial these days, especially by those who love their political party and being in power more than they care about real principles.

''In fact, harping on this cock-and-bull story will only detract from the pertinent reasons to reject the president: increased socialism in health care, adding instead of subtracting wars, spending us further into debt, the depressing stimulus, injudiciously appointing justices who aren’t blind, etc. Where will conservative credibility be on these issues after conservatives highlight a conspiracy theory about Obama’s African birth?''

Well, for a start, ''conservative credibility'' on these issues is already shot, considering that the Republicans, when in power, did a great deal of 'spending us further into debt' and 'adding instead of subtracting wars'', and increasing socialism in health care -- if you count the Medicare drug benefit. And who exactly are 'we' trying to win over by this credibility-building exercise? The Democrats? Not a chance. Ethnic votes? Laughable.
Courting ethnic grievance groups and liberals, or flaccid moderates, is a lost cause. Why pander to them or try to impress them? They have no respect for conservatives anyway.

''It’s easier to go along than to think.''

Obviously, as the people hyperventilating about 'conspiracy theories'' are doing now: going along with the 'respectable' consensus.

''Believing the president with an alien ideology is of an alien soil may be flattering. It may ingratiate you to comrades. It may seem to grant a sense of special enlightenment unknown to the benighted masses. The problem is that it isn’t true.''

Again, translator needed for that first sentence: ''believing the president with an alien ideology'' etc. What?

''The conspiracy theory imagining the president’s foreign birth doesn’t advance any conservative principle. It just aims to discredit a political enemy.

Ultimately, it just discredits us.''

Calling this question a conspiracy theory is easy to do, but hard to prove. Who is supposed to be conspiring here? The so-called 'birthers'? Do these scoffers think that the 'birthers' are fabricating all the conflicting information, or are they behind all the hidden documents and pieces of evidence? Are they persuading officials (such as state records departments) to conceal or scrub documents? How is it a conspiracy theory? Who is conspiring? From where I sit, it is the people who are the keepers of documents who are concealing and 'losing' information, or claiming that it never existed. It seems they are part of any 'conspiracy', not those who are just seeking the facts.

I can't believe how incoherent the scoffers' arguments are.

As for 'conservatives' being discredited by the search for the facts, I think that anyone who wants to just drop it, and let the facts continue to be obscured, is being discredited by their lack of curiosity, their lack of regard for our laws and standards, and above all, by their wishy-washy concern for 'going along to get along', as opposed to seeking the facts.


Above all, I don't like their tactic of trying to silence others and stifle any questioning.
Certainly the Republican party has discredited itself by this kind of dishonesty.

And one more thing: these people always say this issue keeps us from talking about the 'real issues'. How? How does it do that? Is there a limit on the number of things we can care about, or discuss? Can't we walk and chew gum at the same time?

People like Flynn (and Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, et al) are certainly spending their fair share of time blathering about what they call 'conspiracy theories' and fringe movements. They should follow their own advice and stick to talking about the things they declare most important.

Easter 2011

Easter Song - Keith Green

The opposite of love...

...is indifference.

It appears that the rumors about the identity of the beating victim were true. Apparently the victim was a transsexual. However I still stand by my original skeptical stance about the rumor; it's still sound practice to take almost anything rumored on the Internet with a huge helping of salt.

It is interesting how many on our side are ready and eager to believe something they saw on the Internet as credible, when in most cases we all decry the dishonesty and corruption of the 'mainstream' media sources. It seems the need to believe something sometimes overrides that skepticism, and for some reason it seems to be welcome news for many conservatives and some 'realists' that the victim was 'just' a transsexual. That makes it just fine, apparently. But I maintain what I said at the beginning: the behavior was unconscionable and should be intolerable in a civilized country. There's no excusing it, and regardless of who was attacked in that fashion, it's evil.

I do notice that the incident is still not being picked up by the major media outlets; celebrity news and other trivia takes precedence. And it would seem, if political correctness were a coherent and reasonable worldview, that they would cover this story widely, just as they cover most incidents of 'gay-bashing'. But again, race protects the perpetrators. If the attackers had been White, the incident would have been discussed everywhere, as a way of sermonizing against the intolerance of White Americans.
But because of the hierarchy of PC victimhood, the attackers will escape the vilification and they will not be made examples of.

Like a lot of Americans, I've been a victim of crime on two occasions, and the perpetrators were not White. In one incident, had my wallet stolen from my purse (which was slung over my shoulder), and this, with a baby in my arms. The thieves were two black guys, and several people witnessed it -- including a White man, who did nothing to stop it. In retrospect, I wonder why he did nothing while watching it. This was in broad daylight, in a downtown business district; it was not in the 'inner city' where we were outnumbered. But he said nothing. He might have spoken up, but I think that he was afraid to say anything. Others who saw it probably had the 'none of my business, don't want to get involved' attitude that prevails in most places today.

Many times I've witnessed Whites being intimidated or harassed or threatened in public -- and I've been the recipient of that kind of unwanted attention myself, for no reason whatsoever. But it seems that most people turn a blind eye, and pretend not to see or hear anything. There's no kin loyalty, there's no altruism towards our own. I truly think most Americans feel that they are not any more connected to their genetic kin than they are to random nonwhites. They seem to feel no common bond with their own.

The reactions to the Baltimore incident seem to indicate that, too. Remarkably few of the comments online from professed 'race realists' or WNs express and unequivocal feeling of kinship. When the rumor about the transsexual status was introduced, then there were a lot of harsh comments about how beating such a person was fine with them, or that it needed doing. Others claimed the victim was nonwhite -- which appears not to be true at all. But anything to distance themselves. I don't understand that.

It's dawned slowly on me that loyalty is what is lacking. It's all well and good to acknowledge racial differences -- or 'HBD' to use the nonthreatening euphemism -- that's obvious to all but the most brainwashed, after all. But it's quite another to feel a kinship, a connection, and above all, a bond of loyalty to our own. We should feel this way towards our close relatives and extended families, but I meet an incredible number of people, especially up North, who seem not to know or care to know any relatives beyond their immediate nuclear family. I grew up in a family where cousins were cousins, even fairly distant ones. We knew we were kin, and we had a sense of belonging. I don't see this as much in our day. It should be something that spreads outward to our larger 'extended family' which is our ethny or our race. But it seems not to be so these days.

Kin loyalty means that we feel a sense of responsibility and a certain protectiveness towards one another and a caring for the well-being of the larger group. I don't think it's as easy to expand that kind of bond outward to humanity as a whole, as the multicultists are trying to force us to do, or even to extend it to our 'civic' family, our fellow Americans with whom we have no blood connection, nor even a cultural connection.

If we don't have this kind of bond or loyalty, a sense that we are all in this together, then we don't have what it takes to preserve ourselves and our posterity, and survive in a world in which we are the targets. It's fine to be a 'realist' or an HBDer or a nationalist, but the vital ingredient is loyalty. Are we loyalists, or are we just disssenters or dabblers? What we are for is more of a motivator than what we are against.

The latest random violence

I am sure most of you have seen the video of the vicious beating incident at a Baltimore McDonald's. It's been all over the Internet, though I would be surprised if the TV news channels would touch it because of the racial aspect.

I refrained from embedding it here, but  you can see it at Vox Day's blog here, and read the discussion.
However the most jaw-dropping discussion of it for me, so far, has been this Free Republic thread.

It seems that much of the discussion there is not about the violence against a White by a number of blacks, but about whether or not the victim was a transvestite or transgendered male.  I find it disgusting that some people over there on FR openly say that the beating was justified if the victim was a 'tranny'. I mean, I have no sympathy with the gay rights agenda, but nobody should be beaten that way,  or have their injuries disregarded. In the video the Mickey D's ''employees'' stand around chattering and recording the beating on their cellphones, doing nothing to help the victim.. Male, female, or some third option, the beating is indefensible.

And here's the other thing that is staggering for me: do none of the White commenters feel any kinship or solidarity towards the victim? I guess the FR discussion illustrates what 'colorblind conservatism' does to your brain. Nobody seems to care that this is one of our folk being attacked and called a 'White B----' while those present stand around and watch and joke and carry on.

Once upon a time, White people had some sense of kinship and solidarity with their own. There's precious little of that among these 'conservatives'.  

I invite you to watch the video -- if you don't have a very sensitive constitution, and to read the discussions - I am not sure which is more distressing.

Whether the victim was male or female, the beating was an outrage. These attacks (and there are many, lately) are against us all.  And half of our people are so hopelessly indoctrinated that they are useless.

But what about Pacific Islanders and Asians?

April is Confederate History month,  and the following is from a release by the Sons of Confederate Veterans:

"Confederate History Month commemorates the men and women of the Confederate States of America who came from all races and religions that include: Irish-born General Patrick R. Cleburne, Black Confederate drummer Bill Yopp, Mexican born Colonel Santos Benavides, Cherokee Born General Stand Watie and Jewish born Confederate Nurse Phoebe Pember who was the first female administrator of Chimboraza Hospital in Richmond, Virginia where she served until the end of War Between the States."

San Jacinto Day, 2011

Today is the anniversary of the historic victory at the Battle of San Jacinto, in Texas. In commemoration I will repeat one of my post from years past on the events of that day. The excerpts in it are from an account by a woman who tells her story.

The runaway scrape
by Mrs. Kate Scurry Terrell, from Wooten's Comprehensive History of Texas

Mrs. Terrell gives a very vivid and moving depiction of the events of April 21, 1836. At this time, the able-bodied men of the Texas colonies were away with Gen. Sam Houston's army, and the distressing news of the recent massacres at the Alamo and at Goliad was fresh in the minds of the colonists. The women and children were mostly left, along with the old men and boys. These families fled from the advancing Mexicans, and from the occasional Indian raids, abandoning their vulnerable settlements. The retreat of Houston's army, and the flight of the settler women and children, are referred to as 'The Runaway Scrape.

' The women of the colonies really showed their mettle during this trying and dangerous time, as recounted in Mrs. Terrell's story:

'On the women- -- brave wives and mothers of brave men fell the responsibility of protecting their families. Knowing the quality of Mexican mercy, they gathered their children and servants and started at once for the Brazos. Any kind of vehicle served for transportation; in carriages, wagons, ox-carts (sometimes with cows hitched to them), were piled the bedding and babies, the women driving, or following on foot or on horseback as they could. The panic was so great that frequently families would leave a meal on the table to join the rush, and the next one that came that way would snatch it as they raced
[...]Colonel Guy M. Bryan, in a paper on early days in Texas, says he can never forget the pitiful sight of the runaways when his family joined them at Cedar Bayou. On the road, as far as the eye could reach, east and west, a motley crowd of suffering and perplexed humanity struggled, uncomplaining, through the mud. Many women and children were walking, some barefooted and bareheaded.
[...]The stronger women became veritable Sisters of Mercy as they went about nursing, encouraging, and comforting the less fortunate. General Rusk pays a glowing tribute to these noble women. He said:

"The men of Texas deserved much credit, but more was due the women. Armed men facing a foe could not but be brave; but the women, with their little children around them, without means of defence or power to resist, faced danger and death with unflinching courage."

[...]On the 20th, a squad of soldiers riding into camp found a Sabbath stillness, the children asleep under the trees, the women in groups talking quietly or reading aloud, the old men dozing around the campfires. The 21st day to be remembered of all time was misty and cold, but strangely electric; the suspense was intense and the waiting agony, Suddenly, as the sun shone out, the booming of cannon came faintly across the prairie.

"God of battles, remember the helpless! Let thy strength be with us this day!" Towards sunset, a woman on the outskirts of the camp began to clap her hands and shout "Hallelujah! Hallelujah!" Those about her thought her mad, but, following her wild gestures, they saw one of the Hardins, of Liberty, riding for life towards the camp, his horse covered with foam, and he was waving his hat and shouting "San Jacinto! San Jacinto! The Mexicans are whipped and Santa Anna a prisoner." The scene that followed beggars description. People embraced, laughed and wept and prayed, all in one breath. As the moon rose over the vast flower-decked prairie, the soft southern wind carried peace to tired hearts and grateful slumber. As battles go, San Jacinto was but a skirmish; but with what mighty consequences! The lives and the liberty of a few hundred pioneers at stake and an empire won! Look to it, you Texans of today, with happy homes, mid fields of smiling plenty, that the blood of the Alamo, Goliad, and San Jacinto sealed forever "Texas, one and indivisible!"
The Texas State Library & Archives Commission website gives a straightforward account of the battle and the surrender of Santa Anna.

But please note this opening paragraph, and ponder on it in light of current events:

The Battle of San Jacinto lasted less than twenty minutes, but it sealed the fate of three republics. Mexico would never regain the lost territory, in spite of sporadic incursions during the 1840s. The United States would go on to acquire not only the Republic of Texas in 1845 but Mexican lands to the west after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican War in 1848.

Has the war ended, and can we say Mexico will never regain the lost territory?
"Look to it, you Texans of today", as Mrs. Terrell said, and unfortunately, it is not just Texans who are under siege now.''






I will add just one more postscript on the subject. Over the last weekend Rep. Ted Poe spoke at a commemorative re-enactment and celebration at the historic site. During the course of his remarks he felt compelled, it seems, to mention that 'people of all races' joined together to win the victory and Texas independence. It seems political correctness and ''diversity'' demands obeisance to the presence of Mexicans or 'others' at these historic events, and gives them equal billing and credit for any victories won. To me, this detracts from the real heroes of the day, and of Texas Independence, diminishing their stature and their accomplishments.
What an age we find ourselves in. I am afraid our forefathers who were there and who won the victory for us are ashamed of us.

Ponderings...

..on 'tradition', respectability, and change.

I've been trying to compose this post from a series of jumbled thoughts, so forgive me if it is not quite as coherent as it might be.

Over at a blog which I suppose is considered conservative/traditional and Christian, I've been reading a thread which, among other things, discusses whether or not our ancestors (White people's ancestors) were 'racist', considering that they held views which would not be tolerated in polite society today. Some expressed the certainty that yes, they were probably 'racist' but that the older generations just saw things in a different light and were not fully culpable for that. They didn't know any better, in other words.

In my opinion, that seems to imply that we, in this generation and era, have been given greater 'light' and wisdom than our forefathers, or that as Christians, we have some new revelation which gives us more 'humane' ideas about race, ethnicity, or perhaps other religions, than our forefathers had. I don't see how that position is tenable for a fundamental Christian. Now, there are many people today who shy away from that term, 'fundamental' but I simply mean it in its original sense, that of accepting the fundamentals of the Christian faith, including the truth of the Bible.

I've said before that to believe such a notion bespeaks a certain level of arrogance and self-righteousness unbecoming of a Christian. I don't see much evidence that we are the moral superiors of our forefathers; isn't that a concomitant of the belief in Darwinism, that human beings are 'evolving' upward?

The Christian who imagines he is more enlightened or advanced than all previous generations is no better, it would seem, than the Pharisee who thanked God that he was not a sinner like the other poor benighted soul alongside him. It's that kind of moral superiority projected backward in time, pitying our forefathers in their ignorance.

It also puts me in mind of Mormons, who used to have restrictions on blacks' participation in their Church hierarchy, based on their beliefs about how the races came to differ.


Many Christians cynically ask how the Mormon church fathers came to find a handy new revelation which just happened to conform to the new politically correct rules about race. It seems mainstream Christianity has found a handy new word from God too, so that we see things so much better than those dead old White men who were our forefathers.

Does truth change, or do we just try to conform our ideas of truth to the popular consensus of our day?

This all leads me to ponder the Kinists, who it seems are under fire from other Christians frequently because of their politically incorrect views. Yet it seems that the Kinists have more of a claim to conforming to historic Christian practice than do the modern-day 'Babelists' who would 'join together what God hath put asunder'.

Strangely, this never seems to give the PC Christians of today a moment's pause. The fact that their interpretation of Christianity, with its exhortation to mingle all peoples together, socially, genetically, and religiously, is something new under the sun, and is not something their ancestors would recognize.

But it seems our generation is busily inventing a new 'tradition' in which the past is glossed over, a tradition that is an ad hoc invention based on politically correct necessity.

The Kinists are also being criticized for being 'anti-Semitic', which apparently is enough to pronounce them anathema -- though the earlier generations of Christians expressed beliefs that would today be called anti-Semitic. The philo-Semitism that is so common among Christians today is again, not something that our grandparents (or even parents, in some cases) would recognize as the Christianity of their childhood.

The issue of attitudes toward Jews seems to be the one defining issue for many 'conservatives', who seem to want to make it the dividing line between the respectable, civilized, enlightened people vs. the 'haters' and 'bigots.' Recall, if you can, the counterjihad blog wars of a few years ago, where certain counterjihad blogs were anathematizing and attacking anybody who was too politically incorrect and 'extremist'. I suppose this is a marking of territory; those who don't conform or meet the rules for acceptability are banished to the outer darkness, and the heresy-hunters solidify their own bona fides as being on the side of respectability.

But what if the truth itself is not 'respectable'? What then? Is it ''so much the worse for the truth, then" as Hegel supposedly said? What if the truth offends or implicates certain people, or groups of people? And how, if we place whole groups of people above criticism and beyond scrutiny, can we ever arrive at the whole truth?

This is where the 'right' is going wrong; placing political correctness or the good opinion of certain important people above truth. And in doing so, the 'right' becomes just the pale shadow of the left.

How did one group of people become so all-important that to criticize or even scrutinize and question them puts one off limits? How are people willing to sacrifice their own society and ultimately their own folk rather than examine others, whose interests and agendas conflict with our own?

I've been attacked here in the past for not writing about 'the Jewish Question'. I've been told I was a hypocrite and a fraud for not doing so explicitly, and insinuations were made that I had Jewish in-laws or even Jewish ancestry -- neither of which are true. The truth is, my own views have been in flux and not fully formed, though I know what I believe now. However even back then, I chose not to exclude any mention of the Jewish issue, nor ban people who mentioned it in comments, though some of my readers pressured me to delete and ban. I decided that in the name of free speech, I would not shut down any discussion of it, though I myself did not initiate it usually. My allegiance is to  my people, and it would not occur to me to side with others over my own folk. Though I have been accused of being pro-Jewish I would never favor them, or others, over my own people. I know where my loyalties are.

So when someone says that they would prefer 'suicidal multiculturalism' over a homogeneous ethnostate, I find that hard to understand.

It provokes one to wonder how we got from where we were in my parents' day to where we are today; how did what was considered natural and right back then become unspeakably abhorrent today?

It's a question that has been discussed in various forms on this blog over the past few years, probably to a wearying degree for some of my readers. But I had hoped, in all this discussion of the issues, to lead a few out there to question their own presuppositions, and to think about whether the tradition they uphold is really 'tradition' in the sense of being time-tested, or whether it's just warmed-over liberalism dating back to circa 1960.

The media finally noticed

It's interesting to me to notice that suddenly the ''mainstream'' media have deigned to start discussing the eligibility issue, almost three years after it was first brought up. Up until very recently only the so-called ''birther'' blogs and a few others have discussed it.

It's staggering to note that some people, especially the Republicans who claim to care about the Constitution and the Rule of Law, insist that the eligibility issue is irrelevant, a 'red herring', a ploy by the Democrats to discredit Republicans, or a 'conspiracy theory' which they deem off limits.

Here, the Washington Times notices the issue, if only to sneer and to ridicule it. And the Washington Times is the closest thing to a conservative daily paper in this country, which is itself a pretty sad commentary on our media.

Apparently many ethnopatriots don't believe this issue touches on our concerns, but it does, if only in the way it illustrates how race and color exempt one from meeting standards and following established rules and procedures. To insist on a single standard for all is to be accused of racism and bigotry. How dare we expect documentation and proof of anything?

As the left and the PC right insists that there is racism inherent in 'birtherism', I say that the left, including the media, have buried this story, and exhumed it only to ridicule it, because of race. There is an unwritten, unspoken rule that everyone must cover for a public figure who is of one of the protected victim groups. And it would appear that it is more than just the left's groupthink which enables a coverup of this proportion; it would seem that probably there are powerful interests who make sure that the media and the paid-for politicians hew to the party line, or else.

So many of us, at this point, have grown so cynical that this elicits only a shrug or a sigh of resignation, or a few bitter complaints, but we resign ourselves to this as a fact of life in our corrupt age.

The one individual who is most responsible for stirring up this flurry of coverage on the eligibility question is Donald Trump. I can't say that I have ever regarded him favorably, to the extent that I thought about him at all; to me, he was just the moneybags with the bad comb-over and the unfortunate marital history, but I have to say I applaud him for speaking up about this and stirring things up. I see that as only a good thing, or at least a welcome diversion from the dreary media monotone. I have watched with some bemusement as the FReepers squabble amongst themselves over Trump and the 'birther' question. Some are vociferous in their view that Trump is a 'Trojan horse', being employed by the Democrats to distract or discredit the Republicans. There is some acrimonious discussion going on over there.

Many of the Republicans are directing ad hominem attacks at Trump, attacking his character and honesty. It seems many of those who shrilly denounce the eligibility skeptics as 'conspiracy-mongers' are themselves believers in an another conspiracy theory, that Trump is acting on behalf of the DNC or the 'Powers-that-Be' to ensure that the Republicans lose the election.  Or this one: he is another 'Ross Perot' sent to divide the party and re-elect the Mystery Man.

By the way, I actually voted for Ross Perot, though I was still officially a Democrat then -- a very disaffected one. I knew a number of similar Democrats who voted for Perot. So the idea that he was a spoiler who helped elect Clinton is not necessarily true; I think he stole quite a few Democrat votes. But most Republicans do not accept that; Perot is their excuse for not winning in '92. At the very best, I would say he drew votes off from both parties.

But apart from venal party politics, what about the issue of truth? Has the truth become irrelevant for most people today? Are we really willing to shrug off this obvious corruption and secrecy in the name of maximizing our electoral chances and re-electing our political party? Or do we care about the issue of justice and right also?

Are we willing to let the standard fall as far as requiring our presidents to be documented natural-born citizens of this country? Or are we willing to acquiesce to letting non-citizens or inadequately-vetted candidates assume the highest office in our country? Apparently a lot of us are.

I fully expect the left to sacrifice all standards in the name of winning an election and gaining or keeping power; that is who they are. But shouldn't there be at least one political party which upholds certain principles? There is a lot at stake here in the eligibility controversy, even as the media try to bury it and discredit all those who ask obvious questions.

Still here

Glad to see a faithful few here on the blog, despite my extended silence lately.
Some of you may have seen me commenting here or there on other blogs, but the few comments I've posted elsewhere have been all the writing I've done lately. It will take a bit to get warmed up to this again, so please bear with me.

These last weeks and months have been a rather difficult time what with personal and family concerns, which I won't bore anyone with here. During all of this I have also had my dominant hand immobilized in a splint (due to injury) which makes it a little hard to do any typing except for the laborious hunt-and-peck kind. But it looks like things may be calming down just a bit -- apart from my internet connection being down yesterday, delaying my blogging efforts.

I realized that my 'blogiversary' came and went while I was absent; it was on April 9 in 2006 that I first began this blog. Time goes quickly, doesn't it?  Some of you have been reading and commenting here for much of that time and some of you are more recent. But I appreciate your presence.

Good news out of Finland

Nigel Farage of the UKIP congratulates the True Finns on their recent showing in Finnish elections.

The doomsayers notwithstanding, I think there are some hopeful signs over there; not just in this election but in other European countries. I agree with Farage that the EU must be repudiated, and I hope this gives more momentum to the ethnopatriots in Europe and elsewhere in the European-founded countries.

On the eighteenth of April, in '75...