Those predictions

I have no predictions for 2012, as I am not a seer, but it's a little unsettling to see so many people taking one prediction so very seriously: the 'end of the world' on December 21, 2012.

The prediction, made by Mayan Indian astronomers in their 'Long Count calendar' has certainly generated a lot of talk, in the old media as well as among bloggers and other denizens of the Internet. Even a Christian web forum which I used to frequent has been caught up in speculation and even some nervous anxiety about the possibility of the world ending as predicted by the Mayan 'prophets.'

The History Channel, long known as a repository of very little 'history' and a lot of sensationalism, has hyped the 'End of the World' story for some time now. I have wondered why the History Channel devotes so much time these days to the supernatural (Nostradamus' cryptic 'prophecies', Bigfoot and alien stories, ghosts, etc.) rather than to actual scholarly information about real history.

Why is this prophecy being treated by many people with such earnest seriousness?

This article addresses the question of whether people are actually becoming more superstitious (and perhaps more credulous, in my own opinion) than in past eras, popularly thought to be 'backward' by comparison to our time.

''Just how strong the world resurgence in superstition and magic is was made evident by a report published by professor Steve Smith, historian at Essex University in England. For many years both China and Russia went to great lengths to eliminate popular beliefs in such things, yet today the Chinese are investing lots of money in ancestral temples while sorcery and faith healing are gaining in popularity at weddings.

Tarot cards were once banned in Russia, yet today fortune telling has become very fashionable indeed and there are many reports of a dramatic increase in the incidence of witchcraft. White witches were, for many years, regarded with deep suspicion in the west, as evidenced by the witch trials of medieval times; yet in the USA and other western societies today, especially amongst the young, there is a growing interest in it.''

I've read of a number of studies which indicate that, despite the fact that today's Western people have more education (in terms of years of schooling, at least) than our ancestors, we are not necessarily smarter or more rational and logical. Much of today's education is dumbed-down and is loaded with propaganda and bias, so I would argue that today's people are actually less intelligent than our predecessors in many ways, and the fact that many of us are pleased with our supposedly superior intellects actually makes things worse.

According to this article the fact that the world is becoming more 'frightening' to many people makes for more superstition, and in the opinion of the writer, more 'mental disorders' like 'Obsessive Compulsive Disorder'.

''A recent report from the Mental Health Foundation found that fear levels are rising in the UK, and more than seven million of us currently suffer anxiety problems severe enough to affect our health.

A huge 77 per cent of us are convinced that post-9/11, the world has become a more frightening place.

That might explain why, increasingly, we're taking refuge in small rituals, much as the ancients did, to ward off bad luck. If we can't control the wider world, we feel perhaps we can at least exert some power over our small corner of it.''

Now, I am a skeptic when it comes to things like the belief in 'mental illness' and putting credence in modern witch-doctors known as 'mental health experts', but I think there may be some truth in this explanation for the apparent growth in superstitions.

Much of the basis for superstition is that human beings can either know events in advance by some kind of divination (as with the so-called 'Mayan Calendar') and that they can change their 'fate' or ward off certain events by doing various rituals or rites. Though those who dislike Christianity insist on calling Christianity superstition, Christianity flatly denies that human beings, under their own powers, can actually know the future, and also denies the idea that people can 'create reality' by means of 'visualizations' or rituals, such as using spells or fetishes or talismans.

It does seem that the more our society has rejected Biblical Christianity, the more superstitions thrive, what with people subscribing to New Age/occult beliefs like astrology, fortune-telling, 'creative visualization' and so on.

G.K. Chesterton is often quoted as having said that those who stop believing in God do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything. Actually, the quote is based on a passage in one of his Father Brown stories, The Oracle of the Dog:

"It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.''

Is it possible that the Mayan Calendar is valid and accurate? I suppose almost anything is possible, although the Bible tells us that 'no man knows' the day or the hour of the return of the Lord, if that is how we understand the 'end of the world.' Actually the Bible does not say that the world will be ended, as in obliterated, but it will be transformed. There will be 'new heaven and a new earth.'

As for the Mayans, how are we to be sure that the translations of their peculiar ideographs or pictographs (they had no alphabet in our understanding of that term) are accurate? Surely there is much room for the possibility of error in translation or interpretation.

Even if we believed that the predictions in those 'calendars' could possibly be accurate, what good does it do to believe that the world will end next December? It seems to me that such a belief would lead to despair, to a feeling of futility and nihilism. It might lead to the fatalistic 'let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.' Perhaps that's the actual philosophy of many of the 'believers' of the Mayan prophecy; they simply want something to validate their fatalism.

And it helps that the Mayan prediction has the stamp of 'noble savagery' on it; to the typical post-modern, secular Westerner, Christianity is superstition while the Mayan Calendar has the cachet that is accorded only to non-White cultures. The post-modern, post-Christian Westerner's  stance is always incredulity and scoffing towards our own oracles of God, but absolute credulity towards anything that comes from witch-doctors, shamen, gurus, and all sources that have the air of the exotic and 'primitive' about them.

Zazie's New Year greetings

Zazie in France again sends us this card, wishing us a 'year of music and of flowers.'
Thanks, Zazie! It's a gorgeous card and a nice sentiment. We wish you the same.

Back again

I trust you all have had a happy Christmas with those near and dear to you, and I hope all my readers haven't deserted me during my absence.

I've been silent lately because what with Christmas/New Year's, I've had little time or opportunity to blog. I hope to be back in the swing of things soon.

Meanwhile, Michael at Southern Nationalist Network links to an article about the New Year's Day culinary traditions of the South. It is interesting reading; anyone with roots in the South is familiar with the tradition of eating black-eyed peas for good fortune. There's also the belief that greens bring good fortune, representing money.

This page ties the tradition to the time period near the end of the War Between the States, and it makes for interesting reading.

The Real Story is much more interesting and has gone untold in fear that feelings would be hurt. It’s a story of war, the most brutal and bloody war, military might and power pushed upon civilians, women, children and elderly. Never seen as a war crime this was the policy of the greatest nation on earth trying to maintain that status at all cost. A unhealed wound remains in southern states even today, on the other hand the policy of slavery has been a open wound that has also been slow to heal but ok to talk about.
 The story of THE BLACK EYED PEA being considered good luck relates directly back to Sherman's Bloody March to the Sea in late 1864. It was called The Savannah Campaign and was lead by Major General William T. Sherman. The Civil War campaign began on 11/15/64 when Sherman 's troops marched from the captured city of Atlanta, Georgia and ended at the port of Savannah on 12/22/1864.''

Read the rest at the link.

Merry Christmas

To all my readers: I wish you and yours a happy and blessed Christmas.

Questions

It's Christmastime, and I'm not in the mood to write any 'heavy' pieces on the usual themes on which I write; I'd rather wind down for Christmas, and my free time will be scarce over the next week.

But I will throw out a couple of questions for those of you who are interested in the North vs. South controversy, which continues to be discussed here and there in the blogging world. Specifically, I'm referring to the issue of 'Yankees/Puritans' as a separate people from the Southron people.

If the two peoples are distinct ethnically, as seems to be the case being made by numbers of commenters as well as bloggers, are we then saying that there is some kind of genetic division between 'Yankees' (of the New England old stock) and people from the states of the old Confederacy?  If so, can DNA tests back up this belief in ethnic distinctiveness? Should such tests not be able to identify the two peoples as separate?

On the other hand, if the two peoples are basically the same, or close kin, how are the apparent differences to be explained? Does 'culture' make the people, or vice-versa, as I generally say?

Actually I believe it is not as clear-cut as that; environment and genes interact. But how did the 'Yankee' colonists become a 'different people' from their brothers (or cousins) in the South?

I have to say, though, that given the fact that there are few people today who are of pure 'old stock' descent from either the New England states or the South, it would be hard to find real  examples on which to base arguments.

Ultimately it appears to me that people believe what they like to believe, or what suits their ends, not what the evidence may show.

Quakes in N.Z.

I've just been reading about the latest quakes (three of them in quick succession, apparently) in New Zealand. I'm sorry to hear of this happening especially just at Christmastime. Prayers up for everybody in that part of the world. Hope you and yours are all safe -- including our reader 'New Zealander.'

It's a ''pitiful dreadful life''?

The following is a repost of a blog entry from three years ago, for those of you who were not reading this blog back then, or for whoever may have missed it.

"It's a pitiful, dreadful life" is the message of a New York Times article, dissecting the classic Christmas movie "It's a Wonderful Life."
The writer is a Wendell Jamieson, who declares his affection for the movie, while saying:

Lots of people love this movie of course. But I’m convinced it’s for the wrong reasons. Because to me “It’s a Wonderful Life” is anything but a cheery holiday tale.
[...]
Was this what adulthood promised?

“It’s a Wonderful Life” is a terrifying, asphyxiating story about growing up and relinquishing your dreams, of seeing your father driven to the grave before his time, of living among bitter, small-minded people. It is a story of being trapped, of compromising, of watching others move ahead and away, of becoming so filled with rage that you verbally abuse your children, their teacher and your oppressively perfect wife.
[...]
I’ve found, after repeated viewings, that the film turns upside down and inside out, and some glaring — and often funny — flaws become apparent. These flaws have somehow deepened my affection for it over the years.

Take the extended sequence in which George Bailey (James Stewart), having repeatedly tried and failed to escape Bedford Falls, N.Y., sees what it would be like had he never been born. The bucolic small town is replaced by a smoky, nightclub-filled, boogie-woogie-driven haven for showgirls and gamblers, who spill raucously out into the crowded sidewalks on Christmas Eve. It’s been renamed Pottersville, after the villainous Mr. Potter, Lionel Barrymore’s scheming financier.

Here’s the thing about Pottersville that struck me when I was 15: It looks like much more fun than stultifying Bedford Falls — the women are hot, the music swings, and the fun times go on all night. If anything, Pottersville captures just the type of excitement George had long been seeking.''
[...]
Gary Kamiya, in a funny story on Salon.com in 2001, rightly pointed out how much fun Pottersville appears to be, and how awful and dull Bedford Falls is. He even noticed that the only entertainment in the real town, glimpsed on the marquee of the movie theater after George emerges from the alternate universe, is “The Bells of St. Mary’s.”

Now that’s scary.

I’ll do Mr. Kamiya one better, though. Not only is Pottersville cooler and more fun than Bedford Falls, it also would have had a much, much stronger future. Think about it: In one scene George helps bring manufacturing to Bedford Falls. But since the era of “It’s a Wonderful Life” manufacturing in upstate New York has suffered terribly.

On the other hand, Pottersville, with its nightclubs and gambling halls, would almost certainly be in much better financial shape today. It might well be thriving.''

Jamieson says that his first viewing of the movie was at age 15, when his high-school teacher showed the film to his class. So, doing the math, it looks as though he would now be 42, but his comments seem to indicate that he is still 15 emotionally. At that age, one thinks that nightlife and pleasure-seeking are the height of glamor and fun. But can one build a satisfying life, and raise a family in a town which depends on human weaknesses and lusts for its sustenance? Man does not live by bread alone, even if vice is lucrative.

The America represented in Frank Capra's movies, including this one, is an America that is a foreign country to many of the younger generations.

Liberals usually ignore the fact that ''the past is another country." We cannot judge "another country" by the standards of the country that is post-American America.

The younger generations, sadly, have essentially grown up in the ugly Pottersville of postmodern America. So I suppose it is only natural that someone born in the mid-60s and coming of age in the 80s might sneer at old America, as represented by Bedford Falls, as 'stultifying' or boring. Pottersville, with its bright lights, materialism, and raucous pleasure-seeking would be more to the tastes of those brought up in post-60s, urbanized, X-rated, 'new' America. It's what they know; it's what is celebrated in today's media.

Jamieson shows how little he understands the motivations or the character of George Bailey when he says that Pottersville represented the 'excitement' George Bailey had been seeking, and had missed. I have watched the movie many times, and I don't read George Bailey that way at all; he wanted travel and adventure, new experiences. But if the 'bright lights' and sleazy flash of Pottersville represent the only kind of excitement worth having, why wouldn't George have simply headed for the nearest center of nightlife and joined the revelry? I understood his desire for excitement to be the excitement of a more wholesome kind: new places, new challenges, a chance to test his wings out in the wider world. The kind of manly adventure that earlier generations of boys often aspired to.

It may be hard for post-Americans to understand that excitement and adventure, let alone happiness, are not to be found in dissipation or thrill-seeking and self-indulgence. But earlier generations knew that. George Bailey, or his real-life counterparts, knew that.

As for the writer's comment that Pottersville would be ''in better financial shape'' than boring old Bedford Falls, is that not the kind of thinking that liberals often attribute to greed-driven capitalist Republicans? The writer's liberal leanings seem apparent, as he seems to think that George Bailey might better have walked away from his hometown and set off to ''find himself', sixties-style, or 're-invented himself', unfettered by family bonds, personal obligations and other such old-fashioned concerns. But I suspect he is more likely one of those libertarians who worships 'free markets' and individual freedom as the two greatest goods in the world.

I know that many very liberal people truly love this film, and it's interesting how conservatives and traditionally-minded people see certain things in it, while liberals see other things. Liberals, of course, see the villain, the rather caricatured Mr. Potter, as the symbol of rampant greed which of course is ''conservatism" in their view. George Bailey, though he owns the Savings & Loan, is a liberal ''good guy'' because he puts the interests of the working classes and noble immigrants, like the Martini family, first. Bailey is the ''little guy'' who is the victim of capitalism, and as such liberals can see him as a sympathetic character and a hero.

On the other hand, conservatives see that the movie presents our traditional Christian Anglo-American ways as good and as the bedrock of our country. I don't see how liberals and other cynics can fail to see that. It is as though they believe that the George Baileys and the all-American small towns just grew out of nowhere, having no basis in our Western Christian heritage.

The cement that held small-town old America together was our shared Christian values and our Anglo-American idea of neighborliness and civic spirit and plain old decency. Destroy that, and you destroy the potential for the kind of community and wholesome living that was the core of old America.

Somehow liberals are unwilling to see this. They think in terms of class struggle, rich versus poor. Along these lines, is Potter merely a cartoon villain, meant to represent capitalism, as liberals think? No; I think he represents greed and avarice, which may be distortions of the reasonable desire to make a profit. His desire for gain is unchecked by any concern for his fellow man; he is selfish and unprincipled. Capitalism per se is not bad, but it can be, if unmoderated by a concern for others, for neighbors, kith, kin, and community. Potter seems bereft of any such feelings. As such, he is a reprehensible person.

George Bailey, on the other hand, is a basically decent and honest man who nonetheless has his dark side, as we see as his life unravels. He is not a goody-two-shoes or a plaster saint. He is capable of selfishness, self-pity, and anger. But ultimately he is redeemed, and it is his concern for his friends, family, and community that testify to his essential good-heartedness.

Overall, the tone of the movie is uplifting and inspiring, and it leaves us with a hopeful feeling about fallen human nature. It is possible to rise above our own self-centered concerns. It is possible to learn to accept the limitations with which life presents us, and to find the good in whatever situation we find ourselves. We all have to play the hand we are dealt, but on the other hand, we can make choices; we need not be victims of circumstance, embittered by life's difficulties. We can love and forgive even the flawed people around us, like George's Uncle Billy.

We can find beauty and fulfillment even in a ''boring'' small town like Bedford Falls.
Now, we find ourselves in a world which overall looks very much like Pottersville, and towns like Bedford Falls are becoming harder and harder to find. It is very easy to be cynical and hardened in this postmodern America, as Jamieson shows us by his article.

The post-American, post-Christian generations have a hard time understanding that you can't undercut the Christian, Anglo-American foundations of this country without destroying the whole edifice, including the things that even liberals recognize as good.

Once you take away our traditional faith and culture, Potter has won; it's all reduced to money, cheap entertainment, and selfish individualism.

Bedford Falls and the people therein were artifacts of a certain place, time and value system. It's no accident that as those values fade, as the traditions and the habits of mind fade, so does the particular kind of 'wonderful life' celebrated in Capra's film.

As I've said before, it's possible to be homesick for the old America, even for those who never experienced it. The fact that many young people, even liberal young people, are moved by "It's a Wonderful Life" shows that perhaps they feel a sense of loss which they fail to recognize.

We might all try to re-create that kind of life in our own individual sphere, but it can't be done in a vacuum, without a congenial world in which traditional ways are once again acknowledged and preserved.

"Hate" and honesty

John Derbyshire at TakiMag writes about the Ron Paul controversy, in which his political enemies have re-discovered the politically incorrect newsletters which were put out in his name over his years in Congress. Those newsletters were a factor in the 2008 campaign, which many of you may remember.

At the time, Rep. Paul disavowed authorship of the newsletters in question, in which he made 'controversial' statements on racial matters. When a CNN 'personality' brought the subject up in a recent interview with Paul, he responded testily, and is reported to have ''stormed off.''

Derbyshire highlights Rep. Paul's accusing Michelle Bachmann of 'hate':

''The sort of generalized group hatred that inspired Homer’s heroes and which is usually what’s being alleged in remarks like Ron Paul’s has been largely tamed and corralled into a small number of socially acceptable areas. The definition of “socially acceptable” varies—an Occupy demonstrator hates bankers, a social conservative hates abortionists, etc.—but generalized mass hatred is not a significant feature of modern Western society.

Accusing people of it sure is, though, as Ron Paul’s remarks illustrate.''

I agree that his remarks about Bachmann's alleged hatred of Moslems are the kind of thing that leftists specialize in, and should not be employed by people on the right -- or libertarians.

As for the issue of the newsletters, I remember being rather dismayed when he first denied authorship of the newsletters back in '08. I recall, though, that many of his supporters believed that he had not written the offending statements, and that many on the pro-White right rationalized that he probably had written those 'controversial' statements but he ''had to'' disavow them if he wanted his political career to continue. My readers know how irksome I find that argument -- you know, that so-and-so ''has to'' say certain things or ''can't'' speak certain truths
''if he wants to keep his job'', etc.

Perhaps he really didn't write those controversial passages about MLK or about crime and race; it seems possible that someone else wrote them because in my observations, it appears that Rep. Paul really does not have any innate ethnocentrism or ethnic consciousness. I think he is one of the aracial types of libertarian, or the anti-collectivists who really sees people as individuals, from a 'colorblind' perspective.

If so, then that tells me that he would probably not be the president who would take on the PC establishment -- something we sorely need.

If he did write the 'controversial' material, then he is less than honest to disavow it, and is perhaps afraid of the firestorm from the leftist and 'colorblind conservative' establishment which would follow if he owned up to writing the newsletters.

And if you still don't realize that the 'conservatives' can be just as politically correct and just as intolerant of honesty as the left, read the Free Republic thread discussing the CNN incident.

In that thread, one lone voice, probably an old-time FReeper, says:

''I never thought I’d find FReepers so “concerned” about racism. Did Jesse Jackson take over the website from JimRob? Did Kweisi Mfume sign up?''

I've been noticing the 'change in outlook' over at FR in recent years; notice that some FReepers deny the MLK 'allegations', a far cry from the prevailing attitude there in the 1990s.

But PC is making definite inroads on the ''right.'' So the window is closing for an honest politician to stand up to the PC vigilantes; if Rep. Paul is not the man to do it, it's good for us to know that.

Somehow, though, I sense that this whole controversy involving Rep. Paul will have little effect; his supporters on the left and in the 'middle'  are happy to accept his denial of authorship of the offensive words, and his supporters on the pro-White right believe that his denials are just for public consumption; they believe he is really 'one of us' or close enough.

George Washington's eggnog

in my recent post about Christmas in Virginia, there was mention of George Washington's famous 'potent' eggnog. Just in case anyone wants to try it, here's the recipe:

1 pint brandy

1/2 pint rye whiskey

1/4 pint Jamaica or New England rum

1/4 pint sherry

12 eggs

12 tablespoons sugar

1 quart milk

1 quart whipping cream, whipped

Mix liquor first. Separate eggs. Beat yolks, add sugar. Mix well. Add liquor mixture slowly, beating constantly. Add milk, then whipped cream while slowly beating. Beat egg whites until stiff and fold slowly into mixture. Allow to stand in a cool place for several days. ''Taste frequently'', the directions conclude. 

Serves about 50.''

 
[from Recipes from the Old South, by Martha L. Meade, Bramhall House, 1961]

Christmas greetings

Reader and commenter Zazie sends us this card from France. Thanks, Zazie, and a Merry Christmas to you too.

From a past Christmas

Ernie Ford had a wonderful voice, for which he was not sufficiently recognized.
This is a beautiful rendition by the two men, in my opinion.

New fronts in the War on Christmas

It looks as though the lefties, though generally not in favor of Christian holidays, have found them useful occasions for propaganda lately. For instance, making 'protest carols', with political lyrics, out of Christmas carols. And now, in Canada, Santa is making political statements.

Santa Claus will touch down on Sunday afternoon to celebrate International Migrants Day and join in a protest calling for the Mexico government and its Vancouver consulate to stop the blacklisting of Mexican migrant farm workers in BC suspected of being union supporters, according to a statement from United Food and Commercial Workers Canada (UFCW).

Still, those examples are not quite as disgusting as the pornifying of the Nativity story as seen in these examples.

Look at the photo at the last link to see a little extra sensationalism added to the mix. Nothing is sacred now. And it's not that many people are now indifferent to the meaning of Christmas, it's that they are actively hostile to it. There is an obvious effort to affront and insult Christians and to mock Jesus Christ.

And the perpetrators, shameless as ever, deny that there is any 'war on Christmas.' It's all paranoia, they imply. As always, they have to 'gaslight' us while they are working to tear down our traditions.

Christmas in colonial America

From Christmas in Colonial and Early America,  (ed. Peter Andrews, 1975):

Compared to the jubilant ways with which we keep Christmas, many of the colonial practices were something less than convivial. The Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts, founded in 1620, reflected their faith's stern edict against what were called "Bacchanalian Christmases." For the Pilgrims, the first December 25th in America was just one more day of work.

A few daring souls attempted to make merry the following Christmas, claiming that work would be 'against their consciences.' Governor Bradford retorted that it was against his conscience that they should play, and others, work. "If they made ye keeping of it a matter of devotion, let them keep their houses, that there should be no gaming or revelling in ye streets."

The Pilgrims belonged to the Puritan sect of the Church of England, and had left their mother country to sail to the New World, where they hoped they could practice their beliefs in their own way. As their name implies, the Puritans were determined to lead lives that were 'pure' of anything which was not specifically written down in the Bible. And the Bible made no mention of Christmas parties or celebrations.
[...]
A decree issued in 1659 formally banned the observance of Christmas, and all other like holidays, with a penalty of five shillings to be levied against any lawbreaker. Although the decree was repealed in 1681, the Puritan clergymen kept up their opposition in fiery sermons.
[...]
Christmas in the colonial era of Virginia was something else, however. There, Christmas was not simply another day, but a long, rollicking season. The holiday season was a natural extension of rural life in Virginia. The fall plowing was done, crops were harvested, and the tobacco was gathered and stored. It was time to celebrate. The great homes were thrown open to all, and guests came and went as they pleased. No one bothered with invitations, and a Virginia hostess had no idea how many guests she might expect for dinner, or to spend the night, or even a few weeks.

In 1746, a London magazine declared, ''All over the colony, an universal hospitality reigns.'' And despite a nose-in-the-air comment from the aristocratic Thomas Jefferson, that their activities showed them to be in a ''state of deplorable barbarism,'' Virginians enjoyed themselves immensely.

By day, the men rode to hounds, or hunted the plentiful game: turkeys, ducks, pigeons, and geese, that abounded. At night, parties were made gay by music, dancing, and games, that often went on until nearly dawn. Philip Fithian, a young divinity student from Princeton University, who served as a tutor for the offspring of the wealthy planter Robert Carter, has left us one of the few early accounts of a Virginia Christmas party. Carter's lands sprawled over 75,000 acres of countryside, and he could well afford to offer lavish entertainment.

After breakfast -- parties in Virginia started early in those days -- Mr. Fithian tells of entering a large ballroom and seeing several minuets danced ''with great ease, and propriety, after which the whole company joined in country dances, and it was indeed beautiful to admiration to see such a number of young persons, set off by dress to the best advantage, moving easily to the sound of well-performed music, and with perfect regularity, though apparently in the utmost disorder. The dance continued till two; we dined at half after three. Soon after dinner we repaired to the dancing-room again. When it grew too dark to dance, the young gentlemen walked over to my room, and we conversed till half after six. Meanwhile, the great hall was lit with hundreds of candles, and looked luminous and splendid. Everyone then returned for more dancing and parlor games, until supper was served."

Although the good squires of Virginia were mostly English-born, as were the Puritans of the North, they chose to re-create the merry Christmas customs of medieval England as best they could. No Puritan asceticism for them.

The Yule log, usually of oak and of immense size, was cut in the forest, hauled to the house, and set afire on the hearth. Originally a Norse custom, the burning of the Yule log was adopted by the English many centuries ago. Among other superstitions, it was thought to bring good luck to the house, for the year to come. Masses of fir, holly, and mistletoe decorated doors, halls, and ballrooms.

Virginia was a land of huge plantations, and the affluent owners were expected to be generous with their tenants and the poor in general. Servants and slaves were given Christmas presents, and, unless they were needed for the great parties, they were given the season off.

While the Christmas celebration was largely of English derivation, Virginia's Christmas Day began with an American accent. On the morning of the 25th, a great roar would resound throughout the countryside, as every man fired off his musket to announce the start of the big day. Strings of firecrackers were set off. Cannons would boom out a salute. And if a man had nothing else to make noise with, he would set up a clatter with pots and pans from the kitchen. This noise-making became a tradition througout the South. Religious services, if any,
were generally brief. As with most people in those days, Virginians read their Bibles daily. They knew what day it was.

The next major event of the day was dinner. A Virginia Christmas repast might well extend to seven or eight courses. That prestigious landowner, George Washington, set a holiday table typical of the era. Turtle soup, oysters, crab, codfish, roast beef, and Yorkshire pudding, venison, boiled mutton, suckling pig, and hickory-smoked ham, were most likely served, along with the roast turkey, with stuffing. At least five vegetables, hot biscuits and cornbread, and a variety of relishes followed. For dessert, there were often as many as a dozen choices, pies, tarts, puddings, cakes, ice cream, and fruit. And so that no one could possibly complain of hunger, dishes of nuts, raisins, and candy rounded out the impressive display.
[...]
An old Virginia saying claimed that if you lost all of
your senses except that of smell, you would still know when it was Christmas. Certainly the kitchen at [George Washington's home] Mount Vernon poured forth a wealth of glorious odors: mince pies, fruitcakes, plum puddings -- the joyous fumes of Christmas, they were once called. The traditionally English wassail bowl, a punch of spiced wine or ale, with apples, was traditionally offered at some point in the festivities, as well as port and Madeira. In addition, genial host Washington enjoyed concocting a particularly potent eggnog from his own recipe, which was always popular among the most iron-stomached of his guests.

Although gift-giving to tenants and servants was considered obligatory, the idea of bestowing heaps of presents upon friends and members of the family at Christmas did not come to the South until well into the next century. A kiss and a small toy were usually the limit of parental affection for children. For friends, best wishes for the New Year were considered sufficient.

More on the NDAA

The other day I linked to a post by David Yeagley regarding the National Defense Authorization Act. That act is further discussed in this piece:

Rights Activists 'Appalled'' as Senate Passes Prison Without Trial Bill

Despite protests that the legislation will negate centuries old rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the Senate Thursday passed a bill authorizing the arrest and imprisonment without charge or trial of terrorism suspects, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.''

This is pretty serious stuff, and it is not being reported or discussed as it should be.

Unsurprisingly, Lindsey Graham has been involved in supporting this bill.

Among those supporting the bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has been a leading proponent of viewing the entire world, including "the homeland" as a battlefield.

"If you're an American citizen and you betray your country, you're not going to be given a lawyer," Graham said. " . . . I believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home or abroad."

This shows another reason why ''our'' government has been so willing to import millions of potential terrorists via our open borders and insane immigration priorities: if we have potential enemies sown in amongst American citizens, and if our government is determined to make us all 'equals', regardless of origin, then homegrown, native-born, old stock Americans are fair game as well.

There is a method to the madness.

Meanwhile, one ray of light, possibly: HR 3676

H.R.3676 - To amend the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

Let's hope this countermeasure succeeds.

The 'good news' of unbelief

Vox Day comments on the passing of journalist Christopher Hitchens, a dedicated atheist. Some of the responses from readers seem not to 'get' the irony in Vox's comments. It seems to me that he is simply stating the atheist point of view put in its starkest terms.

If there is no Deity, no Creator-God, then everything is a matter of chance and accident, including the existence of any individual human being, who is extinguished forever upon the withdrawal of the life-force.

I don't have much to say about Hitchens, except that he was a good writer, though his politics did not agree with mine, and his very vocal atheism did not endear him to me.

I've known atheists intimately and many of them, rather than being simply people who find the idea of God implausible, are militantly, aggressively against God and against believers. It frustrates them that they are not able to convert everybody to unbelief. Many of them outdo Christians when it comes to being intolerant.

The missionary impulse for Christians is understandable if you look at it from the believer's point of view. If you believe that there is a God, a God to whom we will have to account one day, and if you believe that those who reject their Creator and his offer of salvation are condemned, then it makes sense to want to bring the 'good news' of God's salvation through his Son to the unbelieving world.

However, why do atheists try to proselytize for their unbelief? Christians want to deliver what they earnestly believe is 'good news' to the world: the good news being that there is a God who wishes you to believe and be saved, and to escape condemnation.

The atheist who proselytizes wants to deliver you the ''good news'' that there is no God, that there is no afterlife, and that, absent a God who judges, there is no right and wrong, no inherent meaning to this world. Some 'good news.' Why would someone trade belief for atheism, for the belief, held apparently by Carl Sagan and Christopher Hitchens, that life is essentially meaningless and purposeless, except for an animal existence that is snuffed out after a paltry threescore-and-ten? We are simply 'naked apes', descended from primate ancestors by way of freak mutations, who live to eat, procreate, work, maybe ''think'', then die and disappear.

Life truly is a 'tale told by an idiot', for the believing atheist.

Atheism is much evident in WN circles as well as among others on the 'alt-right' end of the spectrum. The constant refrain is that Christianity must be stamped out among White people because it is killing us, literally. Christianity is blamed for the perverted altruism that causes many soft-headed people to want to import 'diversity' en masse. Christianity is blamed for the (related) sickly-sweet criminal-hugging mentality that causes many deluded Christians to seek out the very worst in human nature and coddle it, caress it. So say the enemies of Christianity.

So the nonbelieving proselytizers on the various ethnonationalist sites are on the march, never missing a single opportunity to slam Christianity and Christians. I realize this is all foretold in prophecy; Christians know we will be hated, and we know, too, that there will be counterfeit Christians out there who follow various liberal heresies that now masquerade as Christianity. This fake Christianity serves the purpose, also, of drawing hatred toward the small remnant of real Christians, who will suffer for the doings of the false Christians.

Few critics of Christianity are willing to admit that the faux-Christianity that causes so much evil in the world is an aberration, a mutation, a perversion. It is liberalism/Jacobinism in a clerical collar, not the real thing. And I think the most rabid critics do realize this, but they want to extinguish Christianity not because it is a liability to us as a people -- but simply because they don't like the ''thou shalt nots.'' They don't want to account to God or anyone else for their moral choices. They don't want any morality at all, except for the Aleister Crowley anti-morality of 'do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.'

And I think that's the same rebellious attitude of many of the intellectual atheists. It all boils down to ego, self-centeredness, arrogance, and unwillingness to even accept the idea of a greater Being, to whom we will have to answer.

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau:
Mock on, mock on: ‘tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
-Willliam Blake

Wave that (white) flag

Are 'civic nationalists' happier than ethnonationalists? According to the study reported in the UK Daily Mail, civic nationalists are happier, though people who reported being proud of their ethnicity were happier than those who felt no such pride. Still the message of the article is that 'civic nationalists' who identify with a flag and a government or system were the happiest. The academic 'experts' quoted in the piece say that civic nationalism is more ''inclusive'', being open in theory to 'minorities and immigrants'. They take it as a given that the feelings of 'minorities and immigrants' are of paramount importance, not the feelings of the actual native peoples, or the indigenous peoples of the various European countries. European countries were the focus of the study.

''It added: ‘More national pride correlated with greater personal well-being.

‘But the civic nationalists were on the whole happier, and even the proudest ethnic nationalists’ well-being barely surpassed that of people with the lowest level of civic pride.’ ''

If 'civic nationalists' are in fact happier, can we be surprised, when this is the only kind of nationalism that is respectable in the Western countries today? Our leaders throw a few sops to people who wave the flag and express patriotism toward the government and the establishment. The typical American patriot has a sort of mystical reverence for the Constitution and the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance, while not caring explicitly for his ethnic/racial kin who are his neighbors and fellow citizens. The typical patriot recites the rote nonsense such as ''I don't care where you are born, as long as you believe in free enterprise and the Constitution, and as long as you play by the rules, you're as American as I am.'' Yes, these people are the backbone of the current regime, as they are willing to play the game and to go along with the propaganda about how 'America is a nation of immigrants' and about how assimilation can make Americans of anybody from anywhere. There are people like these in all European countries as well, I suspect, though it seems as though Europe seems to have more innate ethnocentrism than is found in the United States.

And is it any wonder that ethnonationalists are unhappy when the outlook is so bleak in many of our countries? All Western countries seem to be besieged to some extent or other by mass immigration, legal and illegal, and all Western countries seem to be in the death grip of the globalists and their political puppets who are acting in opposition to the legitimate citizens of their respective countries. Anyone in the West who is a normal, ethnopatriotic, ethnoloyalist person, can only be chagrined or alarmed at what is happening to our countries and peoples.

But the article and the study are not meant to inform us; they are only meant to further promote 'civic nationalism' and to make invidious comparisons between civic and ethnic nationalism. Civic good, ethnic bad.

Wave that flag, and celebrate diversity, if you know what's 'good' for you.

On borders and state sovereignty

David Yeagley writes on the issues of borders and state sovereignty, in connection with the federal suit against Arizona regarding their immigration law.

The United States Supreme Court is ready to start a second American Civil War, only this time, the war is not between the states, but between the federal government and the states. It is more like a second revolution.
As of today, December 12, 2011, we are told that the judiciary branch of our federal government, the highest court in the land, will decide whether a state has the right to protect itself from foreign invasion.

Dr. Yeagley also discusses the National Defense Authorization Act, which Forbes is calling the 'greatest threat to civil liberties'.

There is a great deal of alarmist talk about this; is it in part deliberate fear-mongering, or are the worst case scenarios really a possibility?

As others see us

The opinions are not all bad, despite the first couple of minutes.
I find it interesting that the respondents have a very definite American 'type' in mind when they respond; American identity can't be as fluid and amorphous as the 'proposition nation' cultists make it out to be.

More mayhem

I can't say I've ever seen a headline like this one from the UK Telegraph:
Charity carol concert attacked by Congo protesters

Given the policies of our governments, things like this will become more commonplace. I just hope that people don't increasingly accept this kind of thing as just another day in the multicultural West.

''Shops were attacked, passers-by threatened and car windows smashed during a demonstration in central London against the election result in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The carol concert was raising money for MacMillan Cancer Support. It was organised by a group of friends whose loved ones had been treated for cancer.

Masked teenage boys ‘stormed’ the singers, throwing bottles of water and hot drinks into the crowd. A woman in her 40s, said to be undergoing treatment for breast cancer, was pulled to the ground. A youth attempted to set light to the Christmas tree, an annual gift from the city of Oslo since 1947, one witness said.''

Stuff Who likes?

I've just come across this blog called Stuff WASPs Like. I followed a link from somewhere and found it, and I am still not sure whether the blog is parody or for real.

The title, obviously, is inspired by the well-known Stuff White People Like, and many of the things WASPs like, apparently, are the same sorts of things preferred by the SWPL types: designer brand names and various upscale items and habits.

I suppose you might say that Stuff White People Like is just a more ''inclusive'' version of Stuff WASPs Like (SWL). However I think of SWPLs as very urban, hip, and trendy in a granola kind of way, the kind of people who inhabit Portland, Oregon, Seattle, San Francisco, or Austin.

One reason I ask whether SWL (Stuff WASPs Like) is serious is the fact that as a WASP icon, they name Ina Garten, she of Food Network fame. You know, the 'Barefoot Contessa.' The blogger at SWL refers to Ina Garten's ''secret Jewish ancestry''. Secret? She is open about it, and she is often seen preparing dishes with Jewish origins (challah, for example). But if being a WASP is a matter of living in an upscale Northeastern suburb and furnishing one's house in a certain way, driving a certain kind of car, wearing certain brands of clothing, then why not Ina Garten as a WASP?

But even as I take a skeptical tone about the blog, the post at the top of the blog's page as I write this is titled 'Majoring in Art History', as one of the things WASPs like. My family would laugh knowingly at this, as I myself came very close to majoring in Art History, though I ultimately chose History as my major, only because the college I attended did not offer a major in Art History. (I also came very close to majoring in English Lit, and in fact minored in it). So I have to admit that I fit the stereotype in that respect.

Other than that, though, I can't say I identify with much of the 'Stuff WASPs Like', which seems to me to be associated mostly with living in the Northeast, and moving in rarefied 'old money' circles. As I always say, my maternal family had the bloodline but not the wealth that went with it. Shabby genteel, I believe, is the old term given to families like my mother's.

But if the term WASP is defined by only those people from old money Northeast backgrounds, does that exclude the many people of Anglo-Saxon Protestant origins who live elsewhere in the United States, and who don't connect with the old-stock New England families, as my mother did? It would seem so.

Much of the South is now fully convinced that the South is Celtic, so they seem to have abandoned their Anglo-Saxon roots. The rest of the descendants of the early English settlers seem to have 'settled' into amnesia, themselves, so it appears on the surface as if WASPs have all but disappeared from the country they founded. Perhaps they are the true Vanishing Americans.

Some quotes

Some quotes related to things that have been on my mind:

From John Crowe Ransom:

"I will propose a thesis which seems to have about as much cogency as generalizations usually have: The South is unique on this continent for having founded and defended a culture which was according to the European principles of culture; and the European principles had better look to the South if they are to be perpetuated in this country."
[...]
The nearest of the European cultures which we could examine is that of England; and this is of course the right one in the case, quite aside from our convenience. England was actually the model employed by the South, in so far as Southern culture was not quite indigenous. And there is in the South even today an Anglophile sentiment quite anomalous in the American scene.''

Obviously things have changed since he wrote the above, which was circa 1930. The essay appeared in the collection of essays titled I'll Take My Stand, written by various Southern Agrarians, as a sort of manifesto.

Another quote, this one from Richard Weaver, another Southern scholar:

[The Southerner] accepts the irremediability of a certain amount of evil and tries to fence it around instead of trying to stamp it out and thereby spreading it. His is a classical acknowledgment of tragedy and of the limits of power. This mentality is by nature incompatible with its great rival, the Faustian. Faustian man is essentially a restless striver, a yearner after the infinite, a hater of stasis, a man who is unhappy unless he feels that he is making the world over… For different opinions and ways of life he has not respect, but hostility or contemptuous indifference, until the day when they can be brought around to conform with his own."

And:

"The saying of John Peale Bishop is worth recalling, that the South excelled in two things which the French deem essential to civilization: a code of manners and a native cuisine. Both are apt to suffer when life is regarded as a means to something else. Efficiency and charm are mortal enemies, and Southern charm indubitably derives from a carelessness about the efficient aspects of life."

One last one:

“In the last analysis, provincialism is your belief in yourself, in your neighborhood, in your reality. It is patriotism without belligerence.''

Henry Timrod

I'm a little late with this posting, as Henry Timrod's birthday was December 8.
For those who don't know the name of Henry Timrod, (born in 1829), he was known as ''the poet laureate of the Confederacy.' He was born in Charleston, South Carolina.

"A fierce Southern patriot -- almost, some might say, an instigator -- whose poetry and song lyrics inspired many a Confederate soldier and civilian during the course of the War, Timrod is best remembered today for his magnificent "Ode at Magnolia Cemetery," possibly the finest memorial verses to come out of the four-year conflict.''

The Past

To-day's most trivial act may hold the seed
Of future fruitfulness, or future dearth;
Oh, cherish always every word and deed!
The simplest record of thyself hath worth.

If thou hast ever slighted one old thought,
Beware lest Grief enforce the truth at last;
The time must come wherein thou shalt be taught
The value and the beauty of the Past.

Not merely as a warner and a guide,
"A voice behind thee," sounding to the strife;
But something never to be put aside,
A part and parcel of thy present life.

Not as a distant and a darkened sky,
Through which the stars peep, and the moon-beams glow;
But a surrounding atmosphere, whereby
We live and breathe, sustained in pain and woe.

A shadowy land, where joy and sorrow kiss,
Each still to each corrective and relief,
Where dim delights are brightened into bliss,
And nothing wholly perishes but Grief.

Ah, me! -- not dies -- no more than spirit dies;
But in a change like death is clothed with wings;
A serious angel, with entranced eyes,
Looking to far-off and celestial things.

Conditioning

The UK Daily Mail ran an article on how running marathons could permanently damage the heart. It makes sense to me, so I was surprised (though I probably shouldn't have been) to read the responses at the Daily Mail website. Most of the people were irate if not downright angry at the idea that this article should have been written. They responded, in many instances, with comments like 'so I guess that means we should all just sit on the couch and never move.'

Is it really a matter of either/or? Is there not some middle ground between the exercise zealot and the couch potato?

Why, I wonder, do people get so worked up over something like this article? It's true in this country as well as the UK, apparently. I notice that when any article questioning the health establishment orthodoxy is posted, the FReepers often react just the same way, scoffingly. They cling very tightly to the common 'wisdom' about health/diet, even though much of it has been debunked. For instance: salt is evil and bad for you. Trans-fats will kill you. Exercise will help you live decades longer.
Sugar makes children ''hyper'' and contributes to ADHD and violence. And on and on. Look up those 'truisms' and you may find they are not backed up by evidence.
But tell someone that, and watch them explode. These are cherished beliefs for many people, and they are very self-righteous about them.

But why is the issue of health/diet such an emotional one for many Americans in particular? I've noticed for some years that Americans almost all claim to be experts on diet and health, with each one claiming to have the last word on what people should eat and how they should exercise. Americans seem especially prone to food faddery, and this has been true for generations, dating back to the 19th century at least.

Now, it seems we can't read the news without having some government official preaching to us about diet and exercise, warning us that if we don't eat more fiber or less cholesterol, and if we don't get plenty of strenuous exercise, we will all die before our time. Most Americans don't take their religion (if they have one) as seriously as they take the diet and exercise gospel that is preached everywhere.

Granted, it does matter what we eat, and exercise of some sort is generally beneficial, but is running marathons a reasonable form of exercise? Remember, the 'marathon' run was inspired by the famous 26-mile run by the Athenian messenger Pheidippides, who ran to ask help from the Spartans. P.S.: Pheidippides collapsed and died following the completion of his run. Some people say the story is apocryphal, and that's as may be. Somehow the idea of running 26 miles appealed to many people despite the fact that it didn't seem to help Pheidippides live a long life.

Now we read of everyone from senior citizens to pregnant women running marathons, and just about everyone thinks it's an admirable thing, a good thing.

As I said, it seems plausible to me that doing that kind of demanding and (let's face it) grueling exercise could be damaging to the cardiovascular system if done repeatedly. So I don't get the anger on the part of the pro-marathon commenters.

Recently we've had the nanny state government officials preaching in schools against obesity, and local governments in various places banning 'trans-fats.' Why is the government so interested in people's eating and exercise habits? We live in a time in which there are many unemployed people, some by choice and some not, and in which there are not enough jobs to keep everyone employed. We no longer have a draft for the military, so we can't use the excuse that the government needs lots of healthy young conscripts to 'keep our country safe.' Our government is not interested in protecting the lives of its citizens anyway, at least when it comes to borders and immigration screenings. So why is the busybody government busy indoctrinating us about food and exercise?

Is power and control the end goal of all this nanny state preaching and haranguing?

The vehemence with which average people react when somebody challenges the offical orthodoxy on health/diet matters reminds me very much of the way they react when someone challenges the orthodoxy on matters of 'political correctness.' It seems very much like a conditioned response, and it has something of the feeling of heresy-hunting.

Someone I know, when we were discussing the health busybodies in the media and government, suggested that perhaps the powers-that-be want to get us used to consuming less (since we constantly hear how we greedy first-worlders consume way more than our share) and ultimately to reduce our standard of living. The way to do this is to persuade us that it's for our heath and (appealing to our vanity) that it will improve our looks, and help us live to a hundred or better.

And could it also be that they are using the same methods of conditioning our beliefs and thoughts with the propaganda regarding diet/exercise as they use on ''diversity'' and race? Maybe it's just a way of keeping in practice with the propaganda technique. Who knows. All I know is the nannystate thought police  are overstepping their authority, whether they are 'shaping' our ideas about what we eat and how we exercise, or what we read and think. It's all about control, and teaching us what to believe, rather than letting us decide for ourselves.

A few thoughts

Just a thought or two that I've been ruminating over: I've mentioned my issues with libertarianism before, but one thing that I am very uncomfortable with is the way many libertarians have of identifying with our sworn enemies, present or historical.

For instance, most libertarians oppose our foreign adventurism and intervention. Fine; so do I. We can agree on that. But where I can't go with the libertarians and many paleoconservatives is the point where they take on the old 'the enemy of my enemy' attitude. For example, since 9/11 many libertarians and paleocons have been fairly sympathetic towards Islam. This makes  no earthly sense to me. Yet the tendency seems not to be reasoned, or reasonable, but mostly a knee-jerk reaction: 'neocons' hate Islam, Jews hate Islam, so therefore let's be sympathetic to Islam and pretend they could be our friends if we stopped being so hostile to them.

I am seeing more and more a tendency to cheer on anybody who is opposed to America, whether past or present America, because we dislike the State, or the Yankee government. Another example of this is the idolizing of Russia by many on the far right; another case of knee-jerk reacting.

We can tell ourselves that the Cold War was wrong and evil, but might it not be that both sides were guilty of fomenting it and keeping it going? Why is the other side automatically cast in the role of the good guy? Is it always a case of either/or?

I feel sometimes as if I had gone through the looking glass with Alice, and now I am in a world in which the 'right' is now in agreement with Howard Zinn's version of history. Where does this kind of thinking comport with ethnopatriotism or ethnoloyalty?

I don't believe in the credo 'my people, right or wrong', at least not fully; but wherever there is a doubt, I will always give the benefit of that doubt to my own folk and not their enemies.

Talk, and action

The Emma West case is a launching point for some interesting pieces; first, this one by Christopher Pankhurst at Counter- Currents. Pankhurst discusses English nationalism --- that's English nationalism, not British. The distinction is still lost on most people on this side the Atlantic, and even on a few in the UK.

At the moment, it seems as if British nationalism is the only kind which gains any notice in the media, and whatever notice it garners is negative, thanks to flagrant media bias. But there are a few English nationalists who speak up here and there, though their voices fall on deaf ears among the many who still think 'English' and 'British' are interchangeable.

''For the present British establishment Mrs West is an embarrassing anomaly: an English woman who won’t turn a blind eye and keep quiet. It is likely that with the ongoing censorship of the native English, and their further displacement, this dying breed will be wiped out once and for all.

For the situation to have any chance of being reversed it is imperative that any nationalist movement in England must be an unashamedly English Nationalist movement. British nationalism is, to begin with, an oxymoron, as it seeks to exploit nationalist sentiment for a multi-national project. The problem with this is that vast numbers of foreign people now see themselves as British and have the documentation to prove it. British nationalists tend to be hamstrung by their attachment to the Union, as that very Union is the entity responsible for the threateningly high levels of immigration that assail us.''

Pankhurst mentions the little-acknowledged fact that immigration has concentrated much more in the portion of the UK that is England. It's also a fact that the English as a nation within the UK traditionally vote much more conservatively than the other ethnicities within the United Kingdom, and if the English had a choice there would be far less immigration into England. However, in the UK, they are the most marginalized of peoples, ironically, and do not have their own parliament. Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have their own nationalist movements, but only the English are prevented from having a legitimate nationalist movement. The St.George's flag of England is proscribed, while the Celts within the UK are permitted their own national symbols.

Pankhurst is surely right that the 'Union', with its leaders coming from mostly non-English roots, apparently have an anti-English agenda, and this is why England and its people seem to be in the cross hairs.

There should be some support from the millions of Americans of English descent, but those who are not amnesiacs about their origins seem to be unable to grasp the idea of the English as a distinct people, not as a 'proposition nation' as are the ''British.'' And we here in America have been force-fed this proposition nation lie for too long now to question it, in many cases. Many Americans know of no other kind of 'patriotism' except the civic kind, centering on a flag and a set of ideals.

Anglo-bashing is the favorite pastime of many Americans these days, so little sympathy is forthcoming from our side of the pond.

Here, Sean Gabb writes about Emma West and 'How to Argue with the Ruling Class.'

''One of the ways in which a ruling class keeps control is its insistence on rules of debate that place opposition at a regular disadvantage. I cannot think of any time or place where opposition voices have been listened to on fully equal terms. In modern England, however, the ruling class and its various clients and useful idiots are particularly rigid in their shepherding of debate. This is so not only because England is an increasingly totalitarian place, but also because the main legitimation ideologies are all obviously false and cannot be exposed to open criticism.''

Gabb notes how the linguistic rules are arbitrary, such as the demand for new words to describe the favored groups:

''Quibbling over words may sound petty. But to control the words usable in debate really is to have a very great if subtle advantage in debate.

A similar advantage is had by taking real or pretended offence, and calling on an opponent to apologise. When those crying out in horror have numbers or the power of government on their side, they can avoid the danger of arguing with an opponent by smashing his reputation. People are led to believe that he is a bad person.''

These demands for apologies, which are a regular occurrence on the part of privileged groups claiming victimhood, are a staple of the politically correct ritual.
The cries of 'offense', as I've said before, strike me as being calculated, feigned, in order to assert power, put the 'majority' Whites in their place, and to gain some new concession. Nobody's feelings are really hurt; it's all just a way of cracking the whip, showing who is really in the driver's seat.

If only more of us could see it this way, we might stop feeling the need to apologize and grovel.

Gabb mentions the harsh comments made by Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson, wherein he called for having strikers shot in front of their families. These remarks, though certainly far worse than those of Emma West, were not considered a cause for arrest. But the ritualized demand for apologies took place, and Clarkson and the BBC acquiesced.

''Or there are demands for “historic apologies.” The Celtic peoples are rather good at this. So are the Indians. [...]But demanding apologies for alleged ill-treatment in the past is a good way to advance present interests. It smooths the way to actual financial or legal advantages. Or – as with the Irish – it just wins battles in a long-term vendetta.''

When are people -- that is, our people -- going to see through this ploy, and treat it as what it actually is: just cynical manipulation of our sense of 'fairness' or justice, and an appeal to our 'compassion'? We are being played. And too many of us fall for it, though people grumble about it.

Gabb recommends not bowing down to their rules of debate, and refusing to argue according to the rules they lay down. As he says, we need to withdraw consent.

Regardless of what some think of Emma West and her behavior, it should be agreed that she has provoked some thinking and discussion among ethnonationalists.



As for Emma West herself, still in jail, she does have supporters who are trying to organize some activism on her behalf. I think it's the least that her kinsmen can do.
Loyalty is all-important.

An outbreak of prudery

As I've been reading so many criticisms from 'right-wing' or nationalist people about Emma West's shocking language, I thought it might be good to look at the issue of profanity or obscenity today.

First, we live in what is probably the most profane of societies, at least in regard to our everyday speech. Even the professing Christians I know give themselves a lot of leeway in regard to their language. Most of today's self-identified Christians use some kind of profanity, even if mild, and some are just as given to using four-letter words as the worst non-believers. Even those who avoid using the crudest four-letter words often discuss lewd subjects, tell crude jokes, or discuss subject matter that in our grandparents' day would be considered shocking: for example, discussing personal sexual matters in public.

So where did this latest wave of outrage about 'bad language' come from, suddenly?

Christians are warned numerous times in the Bible against not only cursing or blaspheming, but against bad or coarse language, for example:

"Wherefore laying aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and cries and all evil speakings." - 1 Peter, 2:1

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." - Ephesians 4:29

However many of the Christians I know seek a loophole by saying that it doesn't count if you are not taking the Lord's name in vain. Just saying ''sh*t" or other four-letter words is apparently all right with God, according to these people, because it is not disrespecting God himself or mentioning his name.

But back to Emma West: what reason do we have to assume she is a Christian? And can we expect those who are not to follow Biblical commandments or warnings?

I marvel, too, at the non-believing people who use profanity themselves, often copiously, still condemning Emma West for using bad language in front of her child.

Personally I think that sets a bad example and it's not good parenting, but in this day and age it is really near-impossible to shield our children from all the obscene language that can be heard anywhere and everywhere. I have been in public places in various cities and heard the most disgusting language and subject matter in public conversations -- at which nobody, including sweet little old ladies, bats an eye. Only once in recent years have I heard anyone chided for foul language in public, and the one doing the scolding was a 60-something schoolteacher, who was brought up in more genteel times. This was about 15 years ago, and that lady, who may be deceased now, was surely one of a dying breed even back then.

I suppose I should be cheered by the apparent revival of morality, and the fact that suddenly so many people are incensed by foul language. Surely that means some kind of spiritual revival or renewal, doesn't it? Is everybody getting religion on this issue?

I wish it were so; I'd love to live in a society once again in which only longshoremen or drunken sailors curse in public, and a society in which I might not have to hear coarse, crude conversations by everybody from elementary-school age children to senior citizens, male and female. I long for the day when the word 'lady' was not considered a pejorative, nor was it a generic word for any female over 21, but it actually connoted a high standard of gentility and comportment. And ladies did not swear, curse, blaspheme, or talk about sex or bathroom functions in public.

But that world is dead and gone -- yet it seems a lot of people are condemning poor Emma West because she does not speak like a lady from the long-dead past, from the time when there were standards. She is a product of our profane and ugly age, and her anger -- justified anger -- was expressed according to the custom of our time, in the strongest language.

Her critics and self-designated judges are not suddenly getting religion and heeding what the Bible says about language; I am afraid they are just the latest manifestation of a particular school of thought on the racial right (and the aracial right): the school of thought which places 'respectability' above all other considerations.

''She makes us look bad to the 'average' people out there.''
''If we want to attract more people to our cause, we have to act like civilized and reasonable people. We have to watch ourselves and be on our best behavior.''
"We have to show everybody that we are normal, decent people, not ignorant racists.''

And on and on. You all know how it goes. There are people with this 'respectability' obsession in every segment of the 'right', from the 'respectable Republicans' to the suit-and-tie nationalists who believe it's essential to 'win over the majority' or 'not appear too scary' to the masses.

I get more and more exasperated by these people as time goes by. There are so many errors in their thinking that it's hard to list them all. Most importantly, the idea that we have to appeal to the majority, or win over 'most people' is a delusion. And then there's the idea that 'one size fits all', that one approach is THE key to 'winning people over.' Not everybody responds to the suit-and-tie, scholarly, reasoned approach. It hasn't exactly worked like a charm heretofore, has it? Has it?

How did you, my readers, come to your present way of thinking? Were you persuaded by debate or logical argument? Or was it a matter of life experience, common sense, and observation? Was it intellectual, or visceral?

The less-educated or less polished members of our society do not care about intellectual arguments; they may not identify with intellectuals and those speaking in academese. There are all kinds of different people with differing backgrounds and life experiences who bring different presuppositions. They will not all be reached with debate, reasoning, and an appeal to upper-middle-class sensibilities.

In any case, the kind of thinking that leads us to constantly fret about 'what they are saying about us' or 'what they think of us' will not lead to any kind of success; it bespeaks self-consciousness and lack of confidence, an over-dependence on the opinion of strangers -- and enemies. Or it hints at an arrogant sense of superiority towards those deemed less than 'respectable'. This is not a helpful attitude.

It seems that some of these respectability-seekers crave the approval of 'mainstream' society or the 'cool people' more than they love their folk, more than they care about truth or justice.

And where is ethnic loyalty in all this?

Meanwhile, Emma West languishes in jail, and her children are in custody of lefty social workers. That's what should trouble us, not her language. Priorities.

Marine Le Pen interview with RT

In the interview, Marine Le Pen talks, among other things, about immigration as a means of 'replacing the French population.' This is something that very few politicians are willing to say. I may not agree with 100 percent of what she says but she is head and shoulders above most Western politicians.

Foul, fouler, foulest

It seems that the authorities in Britain have taken Emma West's children from her. Frank Ellis writes an indignant letter to the British Home Secretary in protest against Emma's arrest and the removal of her children from her.

This is all troubling, and it's all gone as most of us expected it would. It's pretty easy to predict the moves of the totalitarian multicultists by now; they are nothing if not predictable, these madmen; almost like automatons.

As I implied the other day in my initial post about the incident, the most disgusting thing about it is the torrent of ugly, malicious, inhuman comments from the diversity-mongers from the 'anti' commenters on YouTube and other 'social media' sites. Why is it that YouTube seems to attract and harbor the most pig-ignorant and loathsome of commenters, the worst of the worst on the Internet? And these creatures have the gall to say that people like Emma West are 'vile' and 'ignorant'?

And speaking of ''vile'', I wonder how many of you read those horrifying comments left on YouTube and elsewhere, and I refer to the comments condemning and threatening Emma. Some of those comments were unspeakable. I would not repeat them or describe the content of them, except to say that some of them contained threats of unnatural acts toward her child, her toddler son, and this in the most obscene language possible. Yet the really repellent comments like that are perfectly acceptable at YouTube; one sees them even on innocuous music videos and other non-controversial videos. This, friends, is the face of leftism: they defend and champion the most unnatural, immoral, gross, and inhuman words and actions possible, while vilifying someone who simply said 'you ain't English' and 'you don't belong here.' And yes, Emma used some four-letter words, but those words are now heard everywhere in our popular entertainment, in our public squares, in our 'literature', and these words are uttered by 'ladies', old folks, and children nowadays. The leftists worked mightily to make the formerly obscene words 'respectable,' and to remove all censure against those who used them publicly.

And since we're discussing the use of those words, where did all these nationalists come from who suddenly found those words shocking and beyond the pale? I've seen so many nationalists and others denouncing her language, when they never before saw fit to complain about the plague of vulgar and obscene words in our society? Why are people suddenly objecting to the words she used? As if the situation does not call for such vehemence? As if ''niceness'' will ever get us anywhere -- has it, so far? Has it impressed our opponents one whit?

But think about this: we now live in a world in which one can write or utter truly vile and shocking things, threats toward an innocent child and his mother, and face not even social disapproval -- yet a woman who speaks obvious truth ('you ain't English') is ''vile'' and deserving of losing her freedom and the custody of her own children. Think about it.

This is the measure of the left: perverted threats, the foulest and most insulting language is just fine -- but if you breathe one word against the 'protected victim groups' then you are 'vile' and deserving of death and worse. This state of things is unconscionable, and it should make us stop and think, again, of how upside-down things have become. Evil truly is 'good' these days. How much more depraved can it be before some of the dull-witted and willfully blind among us realize how bad things are?

Whenever I think of our present order of things, and of the leftists/multicultists who preside over it all, I keep thinking of one of the phrases H.P. Lovecraft used, in describing the horrifying aliens he wrote of: "As a foulness shall ye know Them."

Foulness personifed, and yet they are the self-righteous pharisees of our time.

Like minded people, or 'free-for-all'?

This is a subject that I was thinking about earlier, and it's one that comes up with some regularity on blogs like this one. Over the years, I've seen other ethnonationalist/non-PC bloggers being accused of ''censorship'' for not welcoming posts by hostile people or even those with opposing viewpoints, expressed somewhat civilly. I've been accused before of wanting an ''echo chamber'' on my blog, or desiring only an 'Amen chorus.''

Here, Ryu discusses this subject, in a post titled 'Rethinking the Echo Chamber.' 

''Our critics often point out that our forums and sites are echo chambers.  This is true in the same way that churches are full of the faithful, that football stadiums are full of football fans and that schools are full of those who wish to learn.  One of the big principles that WNs discuss is being surrounded by men who are similar in character, race, and culture.   It is natural to want to be around people who resemble oneself.''

That, after all, is what motivates us; the desire to be with those who are 'our own,' with whom we have important commonalities.  Still, the criticism persists that if we do not welcome even our most strident enemies and their obnoxious rants, then we are 'totalitarians' or that we don't allow freedom of speech.

I've noted before that when I come across a blog that I like, I am eventually turned off by the presence of hostile and abusive commenters, who are given free rein by the typical blogger who believes in ''total freedom'' of speech. The presence of odious and aggressive commenters is demoralizing, depressing, and it contributes nothing to the overall purpose of the blog, in my opinion.

I think there are some bloggers who truly do welcome trolls and disruptive commenters of various kinds; sometimes they claim that these commenters have instructive value, in showing just how repellent our enemies and their ''ideas'' actually are. Or some bloggers like to flex their debating muscles and show how they can demolish their antagonists with words. I find that it's generally a waste of time for all involved, and again, it deflates morale, as Ryu points out.

The chance for us to communicate with like-minded people among our own is a valuable opportunity to build up our spirits and to enjoy a little of the camaraderie that is so lacking for many of us dissidents in the increasingly straitened public discourse.

And we are not all in lockstep on every issue; there is a certain amount of divergence of opinion among us, so that 'iron sharpeneth iron', and we receive intellectual stimulation within our own groups, without having to spend our energies and precious time wrangling with our sworn enemies, most of whom are too dimwitted to bother debating with.

It's possible to enforce some rules on a blog without using too heavy a hand in censoring or deleting posts. I believe in free speech within limits, but again, the purpose of this blog is not to provide a forum for ''ideas'' or people who are inimical to what we live by. The purpose is to provide a discussion for those of us who are of like origins and like minds, and in so doing to help our cause.

Freedom of association is a right that has been taken away from us in 'the real world' but we can exercise that right in the blogging world.