Hardness of heart

Is it necessary to be hard-hearted in order to be 'conservative'? Apparently.

Work til You Drop: Is that such a bad idea?

Social Security is slated to run out of money in 2033, three years earlier than expected.  So maybe it's time for politicians to stop pandering when it comes to shoring up the system and instead rethink the retirement entitlement altogether. Maybe we just need to look back at our history. In the early 1900s, nearly 80 percent of Americans over the age of 65 had a job.  Dora Costa, an economic historian at UCLA, says people stopped working only if they were no longer physically able to.  They expected to work as long as they lived.  Is that really such a terrible idea?

This is one area in which I do not like to hark back to the 'good old days.' While Ms Meade and Ms Costa might like to suggest that we all 'work till we drop' like in the good old days, I say that this is one way in which we really 'can't turn back the clock.'

First of all, in America in the early 1900s, most women did not work outside the home. Even spinsters who had no husbands to provide for them usually lived with relatives and provided help in rearing the younger generations. Some few worked at 'female' jobs like schoolteacher or nurse or clerical work. Many did not. Men dominated the work force, and they were given preference for many jobs simply because it was assumed they had to work for a living, whereas most women were engaged in domestic life. Hiring a woman for a particular job was depriving male breadwinners a job, at least in popular thinking. Only the two world wars and the consequence of a reduced male population opened the job market to large numbers of women. And not until the feminist revolution of the 1970s and onward did 'most women' work full-time.

Also, many people in the 'good old days' worked till they dropped not by choice, but out of grim necessity. In the early 1900s there was no social security. And most 'conservatives' would say that this was a good thing, a praiseworthy thing; rugged individualism, self-reliance, no old-age ''welfare deadbeats'' being coddled.

But what of the infirm oldsters who had no family to take them in or support them, and no savings to live on for the rest of their lives? The workhouse, the poorhouse, or perhaps dying in a gutter in some cases.
These were not pleasant alternatives, and certainly not ones that any of us would choose for ourselves or our parents -- though I may be wrong about the latter these days. Some would probably be happy to dump their parents in a poorhouse or have them put down like aged dogs.

It was much better, of course, when the extended family was still strong, and when people lived in real communities -- not 'communities' as the left likes to use that word today. People often lived in the same town or county for most, or all, of their lives. Fewer people lived in urban areas where people can live all their lives without even knowing their neighbors, much less caring for them.

It is all well and good to say that the 'social safety net' is not needed because 'nobody had it in the 1900s, and if they did without, so can we.' This is a different world in 2012. The past truly was another country, as we usually find.

These days, people are more often rootless, mobile, disconnected from their ancestral connections to a definite locality, disconnected from family, both from close relatives and from the extended family and clan. I grew up in a family and a place where there were vestiges of the old community and extended family system still existing, still alive and well. But now, our extended family is connected more tenuously, separated geographically as well as emotionally. Almost everyone today is centered on the small nuclear family, if even that; our society today has probably greater numbers of isolated individuals than ever before. There are many who have no near family members, no spouses, no children, no church family or other local involvements. People are hunkered down in their living rooms or hanging out on the Internet as a 'social' outlet.

This is true to a lesser extent in smaller towns, in Christian or otherwise traditional communities, but in comparison with earlier generations, we are more isolated, less communal, more selfish generally. Anyone who feels charitable impulses seems drawn to give their money and time to 'inner city' project or to 'dig wells in Africa' or adopt Haitian orphans. At least this is true in the area where I live.

Too few of us feel drawn to help our kinsmen or our actual neighbors.

And this is especially sad in light of the fact that more of our neighbors are experiencing hard economic times, possibly being unemployed for an extended period, having to exhaust savings just to survive. Many formerly middle-class people are experiencing real need. I know of a number of such cases.

Given that we live in a time when jobs are scarce, this idea that we should require the oldest members of society to work till they drop is just unrealistic as much as it is callous and spiteful.

Who will hire these oldsters, many of whom suffer from various age-related infirmities? Why hire an old person when you can hire a twenty-something with much more energy and stamina? The link in the paragraph before this one notes that the unemployed older people are most likely to be unemployed longer.

Some of the knee-jerk conservative comments on AT suggest that the old geezers just 'get fit' and stay active and eat healthy so they can work till they drop. If you have health problems, say these people, you brought them on yourselves. Deal with it.

Now, I am not one who believes that old people should just take to their rocking chairs, or if active, spend their time golfing or 'vacationing'. My beloved grandma worked until she was in her late 80s; she never grew old or 'thought old.' But she could do that, because she owned her own business. She still spent much time with her many children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren but she always kept busy and active in working life. I admired that.

But not everybody has the choices she had, nor the health to exercise the choices. Most old people do not own their own businesses, and most employers decidedly favor the younger employees.

And the fact that we have tens of millions of 'young' immigrants (and demographically, they are younger) means that there are just that many fewer jobs to be had. We all know this. The existence of isolated exceptions here and there does not alter the situation.

So, I wonder where Ms Meade thinks these jobs are going to come from?

Some of the commenters also suggest that old folks be press-ganged into working for their social security by 'working in inner-city schools.' What, is that another approach to the 'death panels?' Sounds like it to me. What have old folks done to be consigned to that fate?

Besides, I though the regime was starting some kind of 'mandatory service corps' for people between 18 and 35, to do such 'service' in 'underserved communities.' Perhaps they'd benefit more from such jobs, as they are often the most socially liberal. Maybe their eyes would be opened by working in urban areas.

There are a number of alternatives to cutting off seniors' means of support. First, one option would be to make Social Security means-tested. The wealthy or the financially comfortable should be ashamed of receiving it, but many such people do accept it. Make it available only to people who have no other means of sustenance.

Make SSI (supposedly for the infirm with little work record and the indigent elderly) available to citizens only. As it is, many elderly immigrants, brought here by their working adult children, are put immediately onto SSI. This is wrong. If we can't take care of our own old folks, then we surely can't afford to take care of the world's old folks -- but people like Ms Meade do not even mention the role played by immigration in the job situation and the shortfalls in our budgets. Cowards.

No benefits of any kind for non-citizens, or for people with adequate means. There would be quite a savings there.

The proponents of cutting off old people's benefits say that ''they should have saved up enough for their retirement.'' Are these knee-jerk types cognizant of the fact that even $1 million in savings is not enough to retire on in today's economy? And as things are getting more costly all the time, how much would it take to live on for years, given today's inflation? Far more than many people can realistically save, given today's economy.

Then, too, even some people who thought their retirement funds were adequate -- and  safe -- saw those funds evaporate in the financial debacle of a few years ago. I guess that was their fault, too. Yes, throw them to the wolves for being so stupid.

I think one of the worst features of our 21st century world is the general lack of caring for our neighbors, our folk, and even our own families. People are ''without natural affections'' in many cases today. And nobody feels any shame about it; they are much more out in the open with their callous attitudes today, where once people would have been ashamed to express such hard-hearted attitudes towards their own folk.

One of the things which turned me off about many Republicans when I was younger is their Ebenezer Scrooge-like attitude towards their fellow man. Perhaps this is a result of liberals trying to force charity out of their fellow citizens, trying to coerce people to 'love their neighbor.' Of course the liberal is wrong to do this. Charity is not charity if it is compulsory or coerced. But just because liberals use 'compassion' as an excuse for extorting money from the rest of us, from the productive, that does not make charity a bad thing, or compassion a weakness. It can be exploited, but only if we let it.

We need to exercise compassion with justice; take care of our own, while avoiding being emotionally manipulated to coddle the whole world, as liberals (including some Republicans) would have us do. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Compassion is not a dirty word; just because the liberal has polluted it and distorted it, does not make it something to shun.

Too many on our side have become hardened toward everybody rather than directing their ire and resistance toward the rightful target. It's less dangerous to say 'cut off all social programs', than to say 'cut off benefits to non-citizens' or 'to those with higher incomes.' The latter might be 'bigoted', you see.

There is no populist political party in this country, no one who looks out for the interests of the 'little people.' Both major parties truly represent the wealthiest and most powerful, while using the 'poor suffering Others' as a means of coercing 'love and tolerance' from us.

If those of us who claim to be ethnopatriots, that is, lovers of our own folk, could show that kind of patriotism or loyalty by offering support and help for our own in these hard times, we might find that we are filling a void, and that people would respond. I think people are looking for some kind of movement that cares about them as people. Republican 'conservatives' have a heart only for their own wealth or, in public, for the poor immigrants and Others. Democrats talk the talk, but don't walk the walk; they, too, care only about the abstract suffering World, and not about their neighbors, especially if said neighbor is White, working-class, Christian, and/or Southron.

We need, if we want to win people's minds and hearts, to have a heart for our folk. Look for people in our own communities who are out of work or in need of help or support, even if only moral support. The dog-eat-dog ethic is not what is needed in a world which has far too much self-absorption and hyper-individualism.

We need more loyalty towards our own; if we show it, we might elicit it in return.

I think of a Peanuts comic in which Lucy says, ''I love mankind; it's people I can't stand.''

That's a common attitude these days. The antidote is not to 'love all mankind' which is too abstract and unrealistic, but to love those close to us, our rightful folk, and not to exclude others based on age, social class, or education.

The hope of the future

Are the younger generation (meaning millennials, those born 1980 or later, ages 18-30 or so) harbingers of a backlash against political correctness?

Based on this single article and the study that it cites, the idea that millennials will turn the tide is being bandied about on the internet here and there.

Overall, 46 percent of Millennials agree that the government pays too much attention to the problems of minorities, with 49 percent who disagree. 48 percent also agree that discrimination against whites is a genuine problem. When you disaggregate by race and count only white Millennials, the picture is much worse.

A solid majority of white Millennials, 56 percent, say that government has paid too much attention to the problems of blacks and other minorities. An even larger majority, 58 percent, say that “discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities.”

The writer of course wrings his hands about what this one study means, and understandably so, as from his point of view this is a dire portent. But is it that dire (or that hopeful, depending on the side you're on)?

When I googled millennials racial attitudes, the first hit that came up was this one, headed 'Almost All Millennials Accept Interracial Dating and Marriage.'

How does this gibe with the Pew study which is causing consternation on the part of the writer at The Nation?

According to the Pew study cited in the above article ( pdf here)

Just 6% of whites and 3% of blacks say they could not accept a black-white interracial marriage in their family.

Within both races, degrees of acceptance are higher among younger respondents than older ones.'

Here's a piece from AdWeek about millennials and intermarriage:

''As more and more millennials enter parenting age and become parents, the mixed race population is sure to increase. The youngest millennials are close to puberty, so they still have quite a bit of reproducing to do. They will usher in an era of increased intermixing because they’ve proven to be more open to dating and marrying outside of their race than previous generations.''

These observations correspond to my personal experience of attitudes on these subjects based on generations or age groups.

Anecdotes of course don't prove anything, because they can be countered by opposite anecdotes from others, but there is quite a bit of corroborating evidence from these various sources.

Another Pew Research Report, The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election, discussed here, contradicts the idea that Millennials are more conservative or less politically correct than their elders, particularly the Boomer generation, the 'Silent Generation'.

Millennial generation voters are inclined to back Barack Obama for reelection by a wide margin in a matchup against Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate who has run the strongest against Obama in many polls. By contrast, Silent generation voters are solidly behind Romney.

In between the youngest and the oldest voters are the Baby Boom generation and Generation X. Both groups are less supportive of Obama than they were in 2008 and are now on the fence with respect to a second term for the president.
[...]
Growing racial and ethnic diversity, which is concentrated among younger generations, has benefited Democrats. Race and ethnicity are strongly associated with views about government, and in no small part account for some of the greater liberalism of the younger age groups and greater conservatism of older groups.

The polling finds that older generations – Boomers and especially Silents – do not fully embrace diversity. Fewer in these groups see the increasing populations of Latinos and Asians, as well as more racial intermarriage, as changes for the better. For many Silents in particular, Obama himself may represent an unwelcome indicator of the way the face of America has changed. Feelings of “unease” with Obama, along with higher levels of anger, are the emotions that most differentiate the attitudes of Silents from those of the youngest generation.''

Further:

Race is a factor in their political attitudes. Silents are the whitest of the generations and are the least accepting of the new face of America. Compared with younger generations, relatively few Silents see racial intermarriage and the growing population of immigrants as changes for the better.''

According to this source,

''The Millennial generation announced its political arrival in November when it’s overwhelming support for Barack Obama played a key role in carrying him to the White House.
[...]
Studies show that the Millennials are civic-minded and engaged and hold progressive political values, like concern about economic inequality, the desire for more multilateral foreign policy and a strong belief in the government.
These young adults are emerging as the most progressive generation since the early 1960s and will likely push the country leftward as their attitudes become more pervasive in the American mainstream.
“The Millennials are more liberal, more Democratic, more tolerant of others and more trusting of American institutions than their elders,” explains Dr. Peter Levine, director of CIRCLE.'' 

[Emphasis mine].

On their overall social and political attitudes, another Pew Study shows

''In their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life and less prone to see Hollywood as threatening their moral values.''

In other words, millennials are very much a product of the politically correct, cultural Marxist order which has done such a good job of destroying the best in Western society. How can they be expected to show us the way out if they themselves are steeped in PC, as no generation before them has been? They grew up in a world in which the media have presented propaganda around the clock and they have been taught in schools that indoctrinate rather than educate.

Does this mean that there are no escapees, no millennials who somehow avoided being poisoned by the propaganda of the media and the schools? Of course not, but we can't make judgments based on the few, but rather on overall patterns.

In my own personal experience, millennials are a mixed bag; they have some ''conservative'' ideas and some 'neocon' sympathies (for instance, I know some millennials who voted for George W. Bush and supported the Iraq War, yet they are socially liberal to the extreme, as described above). They may be for 'small government' in the sense that they want drug legalization or legal abortion, unimpeded by laws proscribing those things, but they are not truly libertarian.
Their ideas are often a patchwork of various philosophies, in part because they have not been educated to think consistently.

I think social conservatism will pretty much die out with baby-boomers, (who are not all 'gray-haired hippies') which will be good news to many people, mainly libertines, I suppose, but not to anyone who supports traditional mores in any way.

I can understand the need to grasp at straws, and to try to read the tea leaves and find some hopeful trend. I can also understand the need to find a scapegoat (WASPs, geriatric hippie Baby Boomers, whoever) but I see little evidence in real life to support the idea that Millennials will be the generation to turn things around and to put this world to rights.

If it is going to happen, it will not be one generation alone who will make it happen. And it seems backwards to me to look to the very youngest adults in our society (in which few adults are very adult in their thinking, in any case) to lead their elders. Isaiah's words about a generation led by children and women apply very much to today, and he was assuredly not recommending that the old look to the young to show them the way, nor that men let women lead them.

No, the generations and sexes have to learn to work together, and it's no good blaming one side or one generation for the disaster that the 21st century world has turned out to be. Divisive rhetoric and blame-casting will get us nowhere, and there are certainly people whose interests division serves. But that group is not ourselves; if we want to effect a change away from the chaotic world we find ourselves in, we have to focus on what needs to be done, and cooperate with other like-minded people, regardless of age or generational groupings.

Into the blender

Every now and then there is a spate of articles like this and this one, which seem to be attempts to demoralize us, or to show us the inevitability of our own demise.

And then there is this story, about how gangs associated with inner city 'youth' are now flourishing on Indian tribal lands.

This influence among American Indian youth is one that I've noticed since say, 20 years ago in the urban Northwest. The prevalence of ghetto 'styles', behaviors, music, and speech is noticeable among young American Indians. And contrary to the popular belief among HBDers, many Chinese and Vietnamese youths in America have long been emulating inner city gangsta culture, including the speech patterns. The glowing stereotype of all East Asians (or even Asians in general) as high-achieving, productive, and assimilated is not always apt.

The 'gangsta' culture is one that, thanks to the media and peer pressure among the young, has spread across racial and ethnic lines.

According to David Yeagley at Badeagle.com, the problem is not just one of mass media culture influencing young people on reservations, but the presence of Somalis and others on reservations. How on earth would this happen?

I have noticed in the area where I live that there is now a lot of intermarriage between Indians and Latino immigrants. I think this will quickly destroy American Indian culture by virtue of the fact that Latinos are so much more numerous than any of the other groups who are mixing and matching with Indians.

It's surprising to gang culture spreading onto Indian reservations, though, considering that many reservations are rather isolated from the usual firsthand source of inner city 'culture.' It's less surprising to see it spread to other ethnic groups in cities and suburbs, where different groups are  casually mingled together, but Indian reservations are another matter. Why would other groups gravitate to reservations? Is the casino phenomenon part of this?

The media would seem to be the most likely source of this gang fascination -- and sadly, perhaps the schools, with their multicult propaganda. I don't know if reservation schools have enough freedom to set their own curricula, but I suspect that like all other schools they are required to administer daily doses of the multicult religion to their students. Nobody must be free of it.

Many liberal Whites perversely believe that American Indians are 'forced' to live on reservations, but in my understanding the Indians preferred the reservation option, where they might keep their traditional culture, choosing that over 'integration' and assimilation. Separation.

In the 1950s and 1960s there was an official government policy of relocating Indians from reservations to cities, where they would theoretically become assimilated. The policy was not successful for the most part, and was not popular.

Of the 35,000 participants, about 30% returned to their reservations. Many who remained in the program lived in urban poverty, poor health, with substance abuse, emotional suffering, and a terrible loss of tribal connection and cultural identity. Their common heritage of small community and rural culture values, and dependence of the BIA did not prepare them for the strains of urban living.''

But now it seems that 'urban living', with its 21st century strains, is coming to the reservation.

Occasionally I read comments on places like Free Republic which propose forcibly assimilating American Indians. But just as with all such proposals to make everyone 'become just Americans', such a move would simply reduce all Americans to a faceless amorphous mass -- which is what seems to be underway at the moment anyway, and which is apparently being engineered by the powers-that-be.

Many of our folk just don't get the idea that melting us all down in the melting pot is not possible -- and even if it were, it would not be desirable. Everything would be reduced to a kind of dull sameness, a lowest common denominator -- based on what? Apparently on the trashy materialistic, sensationalized culture which is inflicted on us everywhere we look in the media, and in the streets of our cities.

And the fact that it is now present even in remote reservations like the one in the NYT video report is evidence that it is becoming near-universal, even outside this country.

Some years ago, before I came to my present views on HBD, 'diversity' and multiculturalism, I watched a movie made in New Zealand, called Once Were Warriors. Never having been in New Zealand, I was shocked at how much U.S. gang 'culture' had spread to New Zealand. The Maori people depicted in the movies seemed. culturally, very much like urban blacks with some resemblances to American Indian culture as well. And notice how when you see photos of young people in faraway places, they are often throwing gang signs, or dressed in gang garb. How does this happen? It's ubiquitous. The media are globalism.

Back in 2005, there was a mass murder at a reservation high school in Minnesota. A young tribal member killed ten people, including some members of his own family.

''Several notes signed by a Jeff Weise, who identified himself as "a Native American from the Red Lake 'Indian' Reservation," were posted beginning last year on a Web site operated by the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party.

In one posting, he criticized interracial mixing on the reservation and slammed fellow Indian teens for listening to rap music. "We have kids my age killing each other over things as simple as a fight, and it's because of the rap influence," he wrote.''

Obviously, he was the stereotype 'troubled youth' but he probably had a point about the pernicious influence of certain kinds of 'entertainment' and 'culture.'

But this ghettoized monoculture seems to be the desired state of our future, if the powers-that-be continue to herd us toward their 'rainbow utopia'.

The admixture that is being not just encouraged, but engineered, is apparently the desired state for everybody in our country, across racial lines. We are seeing assimilation, but not to the old majority American culture, but to something less 'bland and boring', as mainstream White America is derisively called today.

So as the mass media and the multicult masterminds promote the blending away of peoples and nations, it's rather cold comfort for us to realize that everybody else is affected by this program of enforced association. The sad thing is that we are the main targets, and the ones who will be blended away first and most completely. And that's the plan, apparently.

Bullying incident or...

Hate crime?

This report from the UK Daily News indicates that an attack on a young boy in Enid, Oklahoma was a 'bullying' incident. The victim,identified as Preston Hodge, is 14 years old, and from the photo, it appears the attack was a brutal one.

The report from the authorities indicates that this attack was 'hate' related. Scroll down the first page of the report to see this.

The details of the incident show that the two boys involved, the victim and the attacker, had a dispute during which the victim supposedly told the attacker to go back to the Marshall Islands, which is his place of origin.

I really dislike the liberal emphasis on the idea of 'bullying', which has become such a broad term that includes all kinds of bad behavior. Yes, bullying and harassing are harmful, but to include something like this incident under the category of 'bullying' is to make it seem like simple childish mischief, when it seems to be more than that.

Over the years I've opposed the idea of 'hate crimes' or 'hate speech' because there should not be a disparity in punishments based on the skin color or sexual habits or gender of the victim and the attacker. Certain groups should not be extended greater protection under the law, and other groups (mainly majority Whites) must not be treated as less valuable or less worthy of protection -- which is exactly the situation that prevails now.

The accused attacker is apparently a Marshall Islander, a group which has established colonies in several places, and as with most immigrants, they are non-White, and therefore extended special consideration as 'victims' of potential White 'racism.' No doubt the accused will be defended as being himself a 'victim' of hate speech. Just as the race card is flourished in many violent attacks as a defense for the attacker ("He called me the n-word!" "She told me I didn't belong here!", etc.) it will likely be used here, and articles will appear bemoaning the 'bigotry' against the minority 'community', and there will be interfaith services denouncing 'hate' and calling for 'unity in the face of hate'. I hope I am wrong here, but I've seen it happen countless times.

But is it time, now, to appropriate the use of the 'hate crime' laws in defense of our folk, since it is our folk who are now apparently prime targets? I have resisted going down the 'victimhood' path and reinforcing the idea of different punishments based on thoughts or words or the skin color of the people involved -- but maybe it's time we make use of the laws that are being used against us.

I hope the young victim makes a complete recovery; my good wishes go out to his family as well.

Thanks to reader 'cabbageroll' who brought this story to my attention.

Jonathan Bowden, 1962-2012

 


Jonathan Bowden, described in this British Resistance piece as a 'revolutionary patriot', recently passed on. Those who knew his work describe him as a great speaker and a great thinker, and his passing is a great loss to us. The video embedded above is a speech on the subject of Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and how it has succeeded in subverting our culture.

Here is a video of a Bowden speech on H.P. Lovecraft, about whom I wrote a recent blog post.
It's just over an hour in length, and should be of interest to Lovecraft readers and ethnopatriots.

House passes surveillance bill

Why so little coverage of this in the right-blogosphere?

The U.S. House of Representatives today approved a controversial Internet surveillance bill, rejecting increasingly vocal arguments from critics that it would do more to endanger Americans' privacy than aid cybersecurity.

By a vote of 248 to 168, a bipartisan majority approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, which would permit Internet companies to hand over confidential customer records and communications to the National Security Agency and other portions of the U.S. government.
Congress

CISPA would "waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity," said Rep. Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat, during today's marathon floor debate. "Allowing the military and NSA to spy on Americans on American soil goes against every principle this country was founded on."

For once, it looks like the Democrats voted the right way, while the Republicans are happy to see our privacy and our freedom of speech and thought destroyed. Whatever happened to the 'small government' Republicans?

You can see how your 'representative' voted here.
And why did 'Dr. No' not vote 'no' on this? Surely a libertarian would oppose this.

The bill, of course, will go on to the Senate.

Liberalism causes crime?

 One popular claim of the FReepers and suchlike 'respectables' is that liberalism causes destruction  such as that seen in Detroit.

Apparently, 'liberalism' and the election of Democrat politicians to governing positions in certain cities and states results in crime, social disorder, and dysfunction of every type. Under the category of 'liberalism', gun control is also said to cause crime to flourish. While I certainly support Second Amendment rights, I don't think the correlation is as clear-cut as that.

This study reported by UPI should (but probably won't) put paid to these FReeperesque beliefs about liberalism and crime. The United States Peace Index supposedly shows that among all 50 states, Maine is the safest or least violent state, Louisiana is the most violent. Maine, of course, is known as a liberal state, and certainly tends to vote Democrat. Why is it not among the most violent or crime-ridden states?

Ask most mainstream Republicans, and they will say that 'unions' or 'the Democrats' destroyed Detroit. Not the people who live there, although on this FR thread, one person at least seems to get it:

''Quite a few “western” countries have socialist tendencies yet seem to have productive, peaceful societies (Sweden and New Zealand come to mind). Just as a wild guess, I'll postulate that maybe, just maybe, it's the people that make the difference in those cases.''

It's obvious what the commonalities would be when you look at the patterns:

''Following Maine as the most peaceful states were: Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Utah, North Dakota, Washington, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Iowa. Following Louisiana as the most violent states were: Tennessee, Nevada, Florida, Arizona, Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina and Alabama.

Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa tied for the least number of homicides with Louisiana the most -- four times as many homicides.''

Unfortunately, 'liberalism' which today virtually means 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity', does play a part in destroying the safety and peace of once-safe communities and towns. Places like Maine and Iowa will not long be the generally peaceful places they are, because their liberal delusions will lead them to be 'welcoming', and tolerant -- to their great detriment, ultimately.

Demographics.

The people make the place. But the mainstream 'conservatives' will not hear that message; they will continue to take their blinkered approach to reality, and blame 'the culture' or 'the Democrats', because by doing so, they can continue to think of themselves as 'good', fair people.

Discussion of the Owens incident

The authorities in Mobile, Alabama have made an arrest of a suspect in the brutal attack on Matthew Owens, and say that there were three (only three?) 'active' participants.

Who knows what to believe with today's lying media?
I've read several comment threads from the Mobile hometown media, and I am honestly shocked at the lack of any 'aware' comments; are they being censored, or are they just not being posted? I think the discussions there are about as politically correct and ignorantly liberal as anything on, say, a Seattle newspaper website, just not as pretentiously worded.

The thread which I've linked above is dominated by an apparent 'White' female who seems to be a loudmouthed 'respectable Republican' type who is ostentatiously 'fair' to the Diversity demographic while offering condemnations of those Whites she judges bigoted and ignorant. What a disgrace these kinds of 'see-no-evil' Republicans are. These comments have left me feeling very discouraged about the future of the South, if this is what it's come to. Our grandparents (and even our parents) are probably turning in their graves at how defeated and deluded their progeny seem to be.

Even someone's posting of the 'Mantra' on that thread is labeled 'supremacist', ignorant, and all the rest. Is the Mantra as efficacious as it's claimed to be? The usual suspects seem to spot it as pro-White, and they sneer on cue at its appearance.

I don't mean to disparage the Mantra and those who employ it around the Internet, but has it made inroads at all? 

Someone else on that thread brings up the old canard about who the 'majority of serial killers' are, citing Jeffrey Dahmer. And nobody has enough knowledge or savvy to counter those uninformed comments?

I don't see anybody doing much to counter any of the nonsense on that comment thread. Where are the sane and normal people? Where are the Southrons who are worthy of their fathers?

I think a separate post is needed to discuss all the inane 'arguments' used by the self-described (color)blind people. They are there on that thread: ''We are all individuals. You can't make statements about groups...'' and on and on. Why are these vacuous statements so seldom challenged?

Or is it worth it to even try to reason with such people? I used to think that posting at a 'mainstream' Republican site was worth the time and effort, that perhaps those people were halfway to some kind of awareness, but less and less do I believe that. I think the 'right-wing Republican' liberals are just as much a lost cause as the left-wing version, if not more so. I say 'more so' because most 'conservatives' or Republicans have been exposed to a certain degree of honesty and truth, but they will go so far and no farther, and retreat back into the multicult cliches with which they have been thoroughly programmed. So I personally think it's getting to be time to shake the dust from our shoes and not engage with the self-described (color)blind folk. There are none so (color)blind as those who will not see.

Is there a change under way?

I referred in one of my posts about the Derbyshire firing, and the protracted Zimmerman-Martin controversy, that it seemed as if a dam had broken. Suddenly the comment sections of newspapers and blogs were full of irate anti-PC, pro-White comments.

A couple of discussions that are taking place now show a similar trend: lots of politically incorrect comments by readers, who are very incensed about stories such as the beating of Matthew Owens in Alabama. As of now, there are over 700 comments on that story, and very few spouting the usual liberal idiocy. In fact, the local comments on the Mobile newspaper site contained way more liberal and PC comments than The Blaze, though we think of Alabama as a more 'aware' state than many others.

And on the Daily Mail (UK) website, a staggering 1300+ comments discussing the French election results indicate that there is a growing awareness of what is being done to the existing peoples of Europe, who are being subjected to mass uncontrolled immigration and cultural/racial replacement. There are some very emphatic comments being made there; people are incensed.

So has there been a growing awareness as it appears, or are these news sites just allowing more politically incorrect comments to appear?

Sarah of Albion in a recent blog entry says that she believes the news media, particularly CNN with its incendiary propaganda, are trying to incite something. I've expressed similar thoughts. Is there perhaps an ulterior motive for the media publishing more politically incorrect and angry comments?
Or are they taking a high-minded interest in the truth all of a sudden?

Might it also be, if the media are 'stoking the flames', that certain posts are posted by provocateurs? Or are all the irate comments actually what they appear to be, the genuine reaction by sincere people to a series of distressing and outrageous events?

I'd honestly like the latter to be the case. But is there more evidence in 'the real world' that people are awakening from their torpor?

What is going on?

Scaremongering

The media, probably because we are at the time of year when the infamous Oklahoma City terror attacks took place, are now featuring stories like this one out of Houston, warning of 'militia' dangers.

As always, the usual crowd of 'experts' are cited as sources of the information, and their 'facts' taken as gospel by their media soulmates. The SPLC and the ADL are always front and center in these kinds of stories.
Who made them the last word? Does anyone verify their 'expert information' or do the media just slavishly repeat it, verbatim?

''From San Antonio to Seattle, Albany to Atlanta, law enforcement agencies are witnessing the resurgence of a dangerous anti-government movement that peaked with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Last month, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported so-called "patriot" groups, including militias and sovereigns, skyrocketed from 149 in 2008 to 1,274 in 2011, the highest it has ever been. Texas topped the list with 76 groups, up from six in 2008. Mark Potok, who tracks extremist groups for the center, called the growth "astounding."

"We've never seen anything like it," he said. The previous high was 858 in 1996, the year after Timothy McVeigh, a militia sympathizer, and Terry Nichols, a sovereign, killed 168 people, the nation's deadliest terrorism attack after Sept. 11.''

Every time we read such stories, we are told that there is a 'resurgence', and the stories have a tone of urgency, as if the country is in danger from crazed 'right-wing extremist gun-toting haters'.
Meanwhile, the Western world suffers from real 'extremism' on the part of those who are wreaking change without the consent of the people they supposedly serve.

And meanwhile, as the media spread their scare stories about militias and right-wingers, the incidents of violent attacks by flash mobs and ''youths'' who must not be described, proceed and escalate steadily.

Who are the real extremists? Who are the true 'haters'?

They have a point

Ron Paul supporters have complained that they are maltreated by the GOP. This kind of thing has happened in various places. The latest example happened at a King County, Washington caucus.

''After supporters of Texas Congressman Ron Paul elected one of their own to chair of the meeting, the gathering was booted to an outside basketball court by King County Republican Party Chairman Lori Sotelo.
[...]
Sotelo says she asked the group to continue its meeting outside because the King County Republican Party -- not the Paul campaign -- had paid for the facility and for the insurance. She added that Smilanich stopped her from addressing the group.''

This kind of thing, while it may be far from new in our corrupt two-party system, seems to have become more blatant with the presence of Ron Paul and his supporters, challenging the status quo.

Meanwhile, Romney has been more or less crowned the nominee, though he is still short of the needed delegates.

It becomes more evident with each election that the 'fix is in' early, and that the party elites want to keep a tight grip on the party, and exclude anyone who refuses to accept the corrupt status quo.

Facebook censorship

It appears that Facebook is using paid censors (in third world countries, no less) to censor politically incorrect content. CofCC reports on it here.

It seems that the censors are becoming more heavy-handed; there's scarcely any attempt to disguise what is being done, and the one-sided nature of it.

Personally I don't use Facebook, never have, and certainly never will now. Will this censorship discourage the many people who use it? I have my doubts. From what I've observed, people are as heavily addicted to Facebook as some are (or used to be) to television. For many people, especially women, Facebook is becoming a substitute for real-life, face-to-face interaction, and it is keeping some users (apt word, there) from attending to real-life responsibilities. Of course, the same charges were made about the Internet in general in the earlier days of its existence. There are always those who will abuse things, rather than use them responsibly.

Still, the 'social media', including blogging, seem to be a way for TPTB to harvest personal information, and those of us who have made use of the free speech that still exists here and there on the Internet may find that we are being painted into a corner; our politically incorrect speech may be used against us, as in other countries. It seems we are moving toward a more tightly-controlled Internet and more flagrant attempts by those who control the media to limit and ultimately end politically incorrect speech.

How do the Internet gatekeepers and censors justify their gathering of personal information from users? Generally they cite 'security concerns' as the reason for their 'need' to collect information and to monitor users. Their close connection, in many cases, with the powers-that-be should be cause for concern.

Maybe it's excessive suspicion, but it almost seems as if the social media are a means to harvest information and facilitate monitoring of users. What use this will be put to remains to be seen.

So are the social media, like Facebook and like sites, a bane or a boon?
What are the alternatives for dissenters who are being banned or shut out of the system?

Again

When I log in to Blogger, I am being asked repeatedly for my cell phone number.
For the life of me, I can't see any valid reason for being asked to provide this information, though it's purportedly to do with some kind of 'security' issue. Likewise I have long since been unable to get into my old GMail account without providing a cell phone number. I am wondering if I will soon be unable to access this blog and post without the cell phone number.

Are any of you who blog on Blogger being hit with these requests/demands? I am curious.

Original purpose of gun control?

Picture posted by a FReeper here.
Is this some kind of new propaganda being promoted by the 'respectable' wing of the GOP?
Looks like it to me.

Meanwhile, in the USA...

The Constitution Party has chosen Virgil Goode, of Rocky Mount, Virginia, as its presidential candidate.

''Goode historically has held strong views on illegal immigration and citizenship. He said he plans to focus on unemployment by cutting down on the number of green card issuances and "keeping American jobs for American citizens first."

He also said he opposes automatic citizenship and public assistance through programs such as Medicaid and food stamps for the children of illegal immigrants.

Goode said he supports substantially cutting government spending in areas such as foreign aid, food stamps, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education and the Department of Defense to reduce the national debt and balance the budget.''

I've been favorably impressed with what I have read and seen of Goode in the past, but that's in the context of how corrupt the whole system is. Whether I would vote for the Constitutional Party, or vote at all, remains to be seen. The other candidates are abysmally bad, so just about anyone who is not the run-of-the-mill globalist, PC politician looks good by contrast.

Meanwhile, back at the GOP ranch, people are clamoring for Condi Rice to be the vice-presidential nominee. That might be a good thing, having an unintended effect. It might finally separate the brain-dead 'respectables' from the few sane people who still, mysteriously, cling to the GOP.

Not bad

Marine Le Pen appears to have come in at about 20 per cent of the vote in the French elections.

''Analysts credited Miss Le Pen’s strong showing to alienation and frustration that has led to almost a third of voters choosing the far-right and far-left candidates.''

However, the analysts say, according to the article, that perhaps half of those who voted for her will likely vote for Sarkozy in the May runoff. Still, think about the fact that 19.9 percent of voters voted for Miss Le Pen -- would an equivalent candidate (we have none, of course) draw such a large number of votes in this country?

Opinions needed

Is it really beyond the intelligence of most readers to figure out how to leave a comment on this blog, without the link prompting the reader to click? I would not have thought so, but it seems one of my readers suggests that I need to do something to draw attention to the comment section. I did add a 'click to comment' message on the sidebar, but that does not seem to help.

Here's my view: I personally don't like large numbers of comments (like the scores or hundreds of comments seen on some blogs) because the threads are hard and tme-consuming to manage. I don't censor many comments (contrary to what some readers have thought); most of them are allowed to stand. I have little time to blog, let alone to manage comments.

If I were to attract more comments, I would like them to be quality comments, not flippant one-liners, not abuse, not rambling diatribes, not off-topic chats between commenters. I get some of these kinds of comments as it is. But attracting more comments (and more readers) may mean more of the kinds of posts I can live without.

Over the years that this blog has existed, I've been blessed with some very good commenters, people who write quality posts. I've also had the other end of the spectrum from time to time, as some of you may remember.

Quality, not quantity, is my preference, as always. But I understand that many readers like a long comment thread and a kind of social connection that comes with a busy blog which draws many comments. Some people like their posts to be seen by many people, and leaving comments on a blog like mine does not satisfy the need to have their comments read. I understand that.

And I do think that people who can't figure out how to click on the blog post title (or on the time and date stamp) probably don't have much of a clue generally. Or maybe I am simply being an elitist snob.

I do have part of this blog mirrored elsewhere. How many of you would prefer that I 'move', as it were, to the mirror site and use the comment system on that other blog rather than Intense Debate? I've become rather attached to this system, despite its faults.

What do you say? Your thoughts are needed.

France's election and immigration

Tiberge at GalliaWatch links to a very good op-ed piece at François Desouche on the importance of voting for non-immigrationist candidates, spelling out the situation regarding mass immigration and its consequences.

I know I haven't written as much about immigration recently as I used to; it seems as if the subject has fallen off the front page of our newspapers (to the extent that it was ever there), perhaps as a result of other distressing, and seemingly more urgent stories, like the violent flash mob phenomenon and the alarming lack of coverage by our derelict media. But the op-ed writer at F. Desouche, who signs himself as Paysan savoyard, hits all the right notes to impress upon his readers that immigration has an effect that cannot easily be reversed.

You can not recover from the invasion of the country, the massive installation of hostile invaders who gradually tend to crowd out the native population.''

And much as our attention is focused on other crises within our country, we may tend to forget that other problems may be more easily solvable than the situation whereby we are being phased out, replaced, if you will, by immigrants from very populous countries, countries which can virtually send near-limitless numbers of 'immigrants' to our shores. It's true for France and other European countries, and it's true for us.

Why do so many of our people seem resigned to this situation, or seem to see it as a minor annoyance at best?

France, at least, has a party that stands against the open-borders, multiculturalist policies of the 'establishment' parties. We in this country conspicuously lack such leadership and such voices.
Lucky France.

I wish Marine Le Pen, who seems to be doing better than predicted, success.

"Love and tolerance"

In case you haven't seen it at Western Voices World news.

Discussion worth reading

At Badeagle.com, David Yeagley discusses the Breivik trial, and some thought-provoking comments follow. This is one of the more stimulating discussions on the subject I've come across, although there are a few knee-jerk kinds of comments.

One oddity that I've noticed among the various discussion threads around the internet is that generally the more 'extreme' right comments are strongly anti-Breivik, which is the opposite of what the typical liberal would think. The commonest reason for their denouncing Breivik is his purported Zionism. Others point to his killing 'children'. Also, many 'extreme right' types seem to be expounding a Gandhian philosophy, or is that just for public consumption? I am speaking in general terms here, not specifically about the Badeagle comments. Nonetheless, it's puzzling in some ways.

This day, in 1775

In the year 2012, 'Stand Your Ground' Laws are much in the news. The phrase, as you may notice, appears in the words of Captain Parker, quoted on the Minuteman monument in the picture above.

Today marks 237 years since the historic battles of Concord and Lexington, and the beginnings of the American colonies' war for independence from Britain.

When I first began this blog several years ago, I suppose I was one of those whom many people today sniff at as 'patriotards.' Being someone who often quoted the Founding Fathers, and who believed in the principles on which this country was founded, I admit I fell into that category, which is much despised by ethnonationalists and WNs today.

Things change, and people change with them. Now, when I read the 'mainstream' Republican or 'conservative' sites and blogs, I see only a lot of people who believe in the proposition nation, who naively think that we can simply follow The Constitution and mouth the patriotic mantras, and reverse the malevolent changes that have been wrought on us without our consent.

So, even to me, in 2012, the old American 'patriotism', which fetishizes a document and a set of ideas, is now in disrepute. The phrase 'patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel' should today be amended to say 'patriotism is the last refuge of a denialist.'

It's sad that it is so, but it is. When the Founding Fathers, who were the actual physical ancestors of many old-stock Americans, lived, the country was a real blood-and-kin nation, not merely a random collection of peoples from the four corners of the globe. Perhaps the Founders lacked foresight in that they didn't even conceive, I think, of a polyglot, multiracial country of strangers 'standing where it ought not', in the place of the country they lived in and fought for. They did not foresee that this country would ever welcome all and sundry, regardless of origin, religion, character, skills, and potential, to live here in this country. They thus didn't see the need to explicitly outline the need to keep this country what it was at its inception. So, slowly this country was shaped into something it was never intended to be, and the great error of today's 'patriots' who think they stand for 'conserving' this country, is that they fail to note the obvious fact that this country as it stands today is a changeling, not the country of our Fathers, not the land 'where my fathers died.'

The patriotism of the proposition nation crowd is not mine. My patriotism and loyalty is for my own people, those who constitute the 'posterity' of the Founders, for whom they said they created and defended this country. No one else.

Still, on days like this, I have to at least acknowledge the deeds of my ancestors (my maternal ancestors were there, at Lexington and Concord: the Parkers, Putnams, Poor(e)s, the Fryes,  and many others. It's for them that I remember this day, and perhaps for the chance to remind us of what we once were, and what we should have been had our country not been pulled out from under us.

"My opinion with respect to immigration...is that, except for mechanics and particular description of men and professions, there is no use in its encouragement."- George Washington

''How prone all human institutions have been to decay; how subject the best-formed and most wisely organized governments have been to lose their check and totally dissolve; how difficult it has been for mankind, in all ages and countries, to preserve their dearest rights and best privileges, impelled as it were by an irresistible fate of despotism." - James Monroe, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 10, 1788

Interesting discussion

You may have seen a link to this at Crimes of the Times. That's where I came across it.
There are some thought-provoking comments at the linked blog piece, even though I am not a scientific/HBD type

After reading the thread, one thing that jumps out at me is that I differ from such people in that this is an emotional issue for me; some of the posts are very detached in tone. I understand that detachment is part of the scientific approach, though obviously science is compromised today by leftist politics and the general seeping-in of political correctness to every area of life. So I understand the value of detachment and objectivity. But I suppose I don't understand the seeming detachment of those of our folk who feel little or no emotion about what is happening to our countries and our people. I think it should stimulate an emotional or visceral feeling, not to the exclusion of reason and common sense, but we should deeply care, those of us who identify as ethnopatriots or ethnoloyalists. There has to be a passion, because logical arguments alone won't carry us very far. And as we've seen, most leftists are basing their 'arguments', such as they are, on emotion, but on rather unhealthy kinds of emotion.

But we need people on our side who are engaged, who care, who have a passion.

In any case, the thread is an interesting read, with some good points made.

Costly denial

This story is a strange one, even as such stories go.

The comments at the Daily Mail website are many, but none that I saw even questioned the bizarre idea that the baby-stealing murderess could pass off the stolen child as her own.

Are people so thoroughly indoctrinated to the idea that 'there is only one race, the human race,' to overlook the obvious question of how the McClain female could pretend the baby was hers?

It seems to me that there is more to the story than the pat media narrative, which is basically that a 'troubled woman', an 'RN', suddenly snapped and kidnapped a baby because she wanted another child.

By the way, the 'RN' part was not credible to me; it appears she is not in fact an RN. Why the media want to print falsehoods about her employment or credentials is beyond me, unless it's just the effort to make the accused more presentable and less dangerous to the public. Sort of a reverse poisoning of the jury pool.

So among all the comments on mainstream sites, no one brought up the question of why or how she expected to pretend the baby was hers.

This article does raise that glaringly obvious question at the very end of the piece. 

The comments by British readers on the Daily Mail site also fail to mention any of the politically incorrect questions, but considering how broad the category of 'hate speech' is over there, it's not surprising. I suppose such comments would never see the light of day, even if some intrepid soul wrote about such things. And our media are not much better in allowing frank speech.

One American commenter at the Daily Mail, in response to British taunts about violent, gun-happy 'Americans', accused the British of knifing each other in great numbers. Both sides ignored the obvious fact than in each country it's not just 'people' doing these things, but certain people, for the most part.

Of course I am speaking in generalizations;  but we've tried to base our policies and personal choices on the isolated exceptions for far, far too long, and at too great a cost.

Sympathies to the Schuchardt and Golden families, of course. What a tragedy for them, and ultimately for all of us.

'Conflicting narratives'

The title of this post refers to the leftspeak, postmodernist phrase so overused by liberals; according to them, 'truth' is relative, because everything can be interpreted according to any number of 'conflicting narratives.'

Victor Davis Hanson uses the phrase in this piece about the Zimmerman-Martin case. He alludes to the unleashing of a hysteria, based on two 'irreconcilable narratives', black and White, used to view the events around the 'tragedy', as Hanson calls it.

I suppose it is a 'tragedy', but for whom? That's where we are divided. The liberal mind inclines to the view that there is no objective truth here, or that the truth is whatever they declare it to be, under their dominance of the media and the public square.

In the days following the firing of John Derbyshire, some people around the Internet speculated that other heads were about to roll, and most believed that Mark Steyn would be next, or Victor Davis Hanson. Reading this article, I doubt very much that Hanson is for the chop, as at heart, he is still the liberal (he is a Democrat, as I understand) though he may say rather politically incorrect things now and then.

Of the reaction to the Derbyshire firing, he says (and note where his consternation is shown)

''To read comments following these stories on the Internet is to enter the world of white counter-rage at a level I have never seen. We talk of black accusations of racism, but they are earning a counter-response that is equally scary, with some irate and others wearied to the point of quietism and isolation. The lurid Drudge Report weekly posts videos of African-American teens flash mobbing or attacking and beating whites, in not so subtle reminders that in terms of violent crime blacks commit roughly 50% of the offenses, while making up only 11-13% of the population, and are 7-8 times more likely to harm whites than vice versa.''

[Emphasis mine.]
His expression of shock about White 'counter-rage' is an example of his essentially liberal mindset. His reference to the Drudge Report as 'lurid' is another example.

Perhaps the Drudge Report is being 'not so subtle' about these incidents of violence because the majority of the population have been unaware of them until certain incidents broke through the media's silence about such things, and began to command attention from many unaware Americans. Even so, even now, many Americans are somnambulists about much of the recent violence. Nicholas Stix writes of the cover-up of a number of recent attacks in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a cover-up that has been so effective that even some people I know who have children in college there are unaware of the situation. Surely people should be made aware that their college-age sons and daughters could possibly be in jeopardy, but no, they are not, because our derelict media refuse, for ideological reasons, to warn people, and to keep us informed so that we can make appropriate judgements. No, the latter must not happen, even at the expense of human life. The mere possibility of hurting feelings among certain 'communities' trumps the safety of innocent people.

So Mr. Hanson should consider why Drudge is calling attention to these things. It may mean life or death to some people. Sometimes you have to shake people who are asleep to get them to awaken and pay attention.

Mr. Hanson, though probably well-meaning, is caught up in the liberal 'narrative', wherein equality is achievable, if black leadership stops exerting a bad influence on the 'community', and if people stop playing the race card for opportunistic reasons. But sadly, the evidence indicates that it is just not that simple.

Hanson reasserts the idea that ''The crux for every group is culture, not skin color.''

As long as he clings to that idea, his job with NRO is safe, as is that of Mark Steyn.

Hope for 'comment snobs'

I've occasionally remarked about the abysmal quality of the comments at You Tube. Too many of the comments, even on innocuous, non-controversial videos, are rife with leftist belligerence. The language used is often barely literate. The content of the comments is ignorant, and the tone of the 'ideas' expressed is vulgar and profane.

For those who find the comments at You Tube to be annoying or vexatious, there is a Firefox add-on called You Tube Comment Snob, which will hide comments which contain obscene language as well as comments with many misspellings and all-caps. Enable the add-on, and miraculously most of the offending comments are removed from your sight. It's really quite amazing how many of the most odious 'anti' comments are eliminated simply by a profanity filter as well as a bad spelling filter.
Which only confirms my belief that most such people are ignorant, maleducated, and profane in their self-expression.

I can't tell you how much more enjoyable You Tube can be without having one's eye drawn to the garbage that is often posted there.

Further thoughts

The latest discussions on the John Derbyshire/NRO controversy have to do with follow-up interviews given by Derbyshire, most notably the interview with Vox Day. That interview is discussed by the AmRen commentariat here.

There, as in various other places, there are grumblings about the fact that Mr. Derbyshire seems to approve of 'policing' of conservative opinions at publications like NRO and elsewhere.
As I said in one of my recent blog posts about this story, I don't agree with the 'policing' that is being done; for the most part, it amounts to nothing less than limiting the discussion of certain issues, notably those to do with race and ethnicity, and of systematically excluding opinions that dissent from the PC orthodoxy. And there is also the factor of the personal vilification that accompanies the public denunciation of those who express politically incorrect ideas, and the blackballing of certain writers who stray too far from the party line.

The same kind of constriction occurs on most internet discussions regarding race and ethnicity, whether the discussion is on a mainstream forum or blog or newspaper comment section. The offender is ritualistically denounced by the self-righteous keepers of the PC flame, and oftentimes he or she is banned for saying taboo things. Blogs are 'flagged down' for offending the usual people. This is all meant to stifle and discourage any point of view that is not acceptable to those who control discourse.

So, for me it does not matter that Mr. Derbyshire is not 'one of us', that his views do not exactly tally with mine or with many of those who read 'realist' sites like AmRen. It is not just about John Derbyshire (though I think he was wronged in this case) but about the issue of the smothering of open, substantive discussion, and the basic dishonesty of the 'respectable' mainstream conservatives. Either they are dishonest or they are deceiving and being deceived.

Some of the criticism of Mr. Derbyshire relates to his having agnostic views, or his less-than-friendly attitude towards Christianity. Some object to his emphasis on the question of IQ differences among the races, rather than on the larger picture. That tendency betrays his 'HBDer' point of view. I agree with those who say that IQ is not everything; to emphasize that area above all others is to encourage the 'Asian supremacist' tendencies that one sees so often among HBDer comments on certain blogs. It over-emphasizes 'intelligence' and minimizes the importance of other racial differences. Just as it is not just ''about skin color," as the liberals left and right insist, it is not just about IQ. One can be highly intelligent in terms of IQ, yet lack character. The fact that certain groups possess high IQs does not mean that certain groups are more compatible or 'assimilable' with us, nor should assimilation automatically be seen as a desirable thing.

As I've said, loyalty to one's own is the key thing for me; this struggle has to be for us, and by us, by us alone. We don't need to pick favorite minorities, or to court potential 'allies' as so many AmRenners and HBDers believe we should. We need to put our folk first. Those who don't have this attitude are by their choice not of us, and not really for us, although they may in rare cases be our allies in certain limited ways.

In connection with the NRO 'policing', I find it less easy to sympathize with Robert Weissberg, who, by all accounts, finds ethnonationalists and WNs distasteful. Why such a speaker was featured at the AR conference is beyond me. But then such is the state of 'our side' in 2012. It's hard to tell who is genuinely on our side, and who may be out to divert people like us onto a dead-end road.

Thus it's always possible that this whole thing is a charade, a play put on for some reason, a set-up, as a few commenters suggested. Things aren't always what they seem.

All in all, regardless of the real story behind this incident, it seems to be bringing some issues to the surface, and I can only hope it will be an impetus to a new frankness and a more honest discussion. I hope it will show the fence-sitters the uselessness of 'conservatism', the necessity of honesty and a truly free media -- and the need for a political party that is not just another set of politically correct lackeys, hostile to our interests.

"Preventing'' tensions

Have you heard of the DOJ's community 'peacemakers'? Neither have I, until just recently. Maybe I am just out of touch, or maybe the fact that this group works in an environment of 'secrecy', in their words, has something to do with my lack of awareness of them and their role.

This article tells us that these 'peacemakers' are working behind the scenes in the Zimmerman-Martin case.

The same news source tells us a few details about their past efforts in other such racially charged situations, including the Jena 6 incidents. However, this group is not new, having been formed some years ago. This piece tells us more about the function of the group, and its origins.

 ''The mandate of the agency known as the Justice Department’s “peacemakers” has expanded beyond its original goal of soothing racial tensions to extend to conflicts involving discrimination on the basis of sex, religion and disability, according to Community Relations Service Director Ondray T. Harris.

Harris said the Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed last year broadened the jurisdiction of the agency exponentially, adding five additional protected categories that can trigger the division’s involvement in an incident: gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability.

“Our role historically has been someone reactionary in dealing with race, color, national origin matters,” Harris said in an interview last month. “Now we have more of a preventative role.”

The agency, which celebrated its 45th anniversary last August, was created under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is the only federal agency that exists to assist state and local governments, organizations and community groups in preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions.''

Am I incorrect in perceiving that they take an advocacy role for those who are society's designated 'victims', rather than a truly impartial role, as we would expect normally?

The 'secrecy' or the covert nature of their role is explained in the same article:

Secrecy, Impartiality Key to Success of CRS
The congressional mandate of the Community Relations Service includes a confidentiality agreement that bars officials from revealing the identity of parties taking part in negotiations without their permission, Harris said.

“Part of that is the reason that is some of those groups wouldn’t even come to the table if they feel that what they say to us or even that we’re talking to them will go public or will be shared with other federal agencies. Some of these groups aren’t very trusting of federal agencies,” Harris said.

That secrecy, Harris said, allows for frank and open discussion and participation. It also can ease the concerns of local elected officials who may worry how their work with the agency would be viewed by the public.''

So it would seem that public officials are working with this group, unbeknownst to their constituents, also known as 'the public.' How does this comport with the idea of openness and transparency in government?

The 'peacemakers' seem to be acting as advocates for the 'victim groups', and one such group they apparently see as their clients are illegal immigrants. There is apparently a plan to step in, should there be any conflict around the upcoming amnesty push, referred to euphemistically as ''immigration reform."

As the issue of immigration takes the national stage, the agency expects to see a rise in incidents tied to the debate, Harris said. The agency’s fiscal 2011 budget request states that if immigration reform moves forward, “experience suggests that we will see an increase in discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin” against either immigrants or those perceived to be immigrants.

Immigration often masks other issues concerning race and national origin, according to Harris.'

In other words, they are arraying themselves against majority America, now cast in the role of the bad guys.

I wonder, too, how this group is funded? What is the Constitutional authority for such a group? Asking such questions is undoubtedly considered 'xenophobic' or 'extremist' these days.

This agency was supposedly created under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and for some reason, I recall the words of Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, who said bluntly

"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them."

I don't think many of us took her seriously when she said that, choosing to laugh it off cynically, but it seems to be out in the open these days, an open 'secret' as it were.

Comments again

Again, my apologies if your comments take a while to show up. The commenting system is being naughty again and holding comments back that should not be in moderation.

Proud and egotistical

What group of people are best described by those adjectives? According to the lefties at the Vancouver Sun, it is probably you and me.

According to the all-knowing, all-seeing psychology professors at some Canadian institution of 'learning', there is something called 'hubristic pride', which is the wicked kind, and something that is called 'authentic pride', which is a good thing.

''On hubristic pride, Tracy said: "It's really a kind of anti-social emotion. This is the pride that is essentially arrogance, conceitedness. ... They really feel superior to the people around them. They're kind of hostile."
[...]
A separate questionnaire found a correlation between the extent to which subjects felt hubristic pride and harboured negative feelings toward African-Americans, and the opposite trend was found with those with a greater degree of authentic pride. African-Americans were not part of this sample group.''

Pseudo-science plus a heavy dose of egalitarian, multicult dogma. What a formula. 'Science', it seems, has fallen victim to the long march through the institutions. Now 'science' serves another master besides truth.

I have a psychologist friend from my college days, and I have often longed to ask her why, if ''self-esteem' is such a necessary thing for success (according to most psychologists) are these academics so hell-bent on destroying the self-esteem and self-confidence of young White people, as well as adult Whites. And just for the record, I prefer the idea of 'self-respect', which is rather different from the baseless 'self-esteem' piffle taught by the see-all, know-all psychology 'community.'

We are told that young people who have little self esteem (generally held to be the case with blacks and other minorities) are prey to all sorts of troubles and 'dysfunctions', up to and including violent criminality. Yet look at who actually has the higher 'self-esteem.'

It's been remarked by many on our side that our people have lost much of their former confidence, and have thus become apathetic or supine. We can see evidence of this in various news stories, such as the young man in Baltimore who was beaten by a mob. We can see it in the way many young Whites say 'I hate being White.' Or 'we have no culture.' I've also had people say to me 'I'm ashamed to be White.'

And yet the psychologists care nothing for these people. In fact, studies like this one will only add to the determination that we will have to be browbeaten more relentlessly to correct our 'hubristic pride' and to humble us further.

Science can no longer be considered a neutral force, above politics and dogma. And to be accurate, psychology is a pseudo-science anyway.

No method in this madness

What is going on here? Is it an attempt to divide everybody into black and not-black? The media continue to call Tulsa shooting suspect 'White', even though he self-identifies (and looks) American Indian. This Reuters article ends by saying that Jake England has been described as 'at least part' American Indian.

Why are they playing this game regarding England's identity? It should be easy to check tribal records, should it not, where England's genealogy may be found? Isn't that what 'news reporters' or journalists are supposed to do, or at least what they once did in saner times?
Meanwhile, David Yeagley at BadEagle speculates about why this game is being played:
Color Me White, Even if I'm Indian?

''Given the fact that the media calls any non-Negroid people “white,” and, more importantly, police reports are identifying non-Negroes as “white, these statistics must be reconsidered entirely. They appear to be intentional anti-white manipulations. It is another case of white oedipal liberals trying to destroy the white America.''

I think there is also some effort to muddle the categories, so as to further weaken all efforts to classify or be classified by race and ethnicity. Perhaps only blacks and Hispanics will be allowed a racial identity, and the rest will be defined only by their lack of Hispanic or black ancestry, just as Whites are now officially referred to in some government records as 'non-Hispanic Whites.'

It's pointless, I suppose, to try to make sense of what the powers-that-be are up to; it simply makes no logical sense unless you try to see through the distorting lens of the multicultists.

Fear of dissent

I recently saw a documentary about the life of writer H.P. Lovecraft, a writer whose works I've read extensively, going back to my teenage years, when I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy.
I've read a good bit of Lovecraft's voluminous letters to various correspondents, and his letters and other writings were as interesting in their way as were his stories. So I am familiar with his biographical details and his general personality, as revealed in his personal letters.

Some of my readers, I know, are Lovecraft fans, and are aware that his views on society and politics would probably lead to his being hounded from the public square in today's society by the PC vigilantes who dominate the media. He had views that might be described as 'race-realist', but he was more accurately an ethnonationalist, I suppose, being very conscious and proud of his Anglo-Saxon ancestry. He was even more of an Anglophile than I am -- which would also make him unpopular with many ethnonationalists or WNs today, as Anglo-Saxons are no longer respected as our cultural and racial progenitors as they were still in Lovecraft's time.

Recently, I saw a documentary about Lovecraft's life and work, titled 'Fear of the Unknown.' The title seems to refer not just to his horror themes, in which unspeakable evil lurks in small-town New England, but it seems to have been chosen as a reference to his personal views, and his 'xenophobia.' The word 'xenophobic' is applied to him numerous times in the documentary by the "multicultural and diverse" writers who discuss and analyze his work and his character. One of the writers interviewed seems to be a transsexual, to round out the 'diversity and inclusion.'

It seems that it is a requirement for the self-chosen 21st century sages to castigate Lovecraft for his personal views. To be fair, a couple of the writers who are interviewed in the film gave a half-hearted defense of his politically incorrect beliefs. Some said that he was simply a creature of his time, and that his views were not uncommon in the early 20th century. (Of course we are much more enlightened now, as witness our superior society in the 21st century. Just look at how much interracial harmony we enjoy and how well everyone gets along.)


It's telling, and rather sad, that even Lovecraft's biggest fans are loath to defend his views, feeling it necessary to give at least a token denunciation of his opinions.

The denialist left always insists on psychoanalyzing anyone they see as a 'hater', that is, anyone who is not sufficiently deferential to the venerated victims. And the consensus opinion about 'xenophobes' and 'racists' is that they are 'fearful of anyone who is different', and that fear breeds hate. This is a cliché among the leftists. So this line of analysis is turned on Lovecraft in this film. His fantasy aliens and bogeymen are seen as being grotesque versions of the immigrants he is said to have 'feared' and thus hated. His horror stories are all about his 'fear of the unknown' and of the 'Other,' or so say the armchair psychiatrists of the film.

Lovecraft, from all I have read of his life, seems to have been a complex man. And of course no one is as one-dimensional as popular psychology would make us out to be; we are not all driven by a 'death wish' or a 'fear of sex' or whatever Freudian twaddle pop psychology regurgitates. Lovecraft, though said to be an 'anti-Semite' also found himself interacting with a number of Jews in the narrow literary circles in which he moved in New York. Ultimately he ended up marrying a Jewish woman, though that marriage failed. I don't think he was a simple-minded 'hater' as the multicultists describe those on the racial right. He was an inconsistent man in some ways.

Whatever may be said about him, he was an erudite man, a man well-versed in the classics, a man of varied intellectual interests -- quite the opposite of the popular stereotype of the 'ignorant racist' or 'hater' that the left created as a whipping boy.

I find it annoying that the left, from the media minions to the average PC-brainwashed consumer of popular culture, feel compelled to inject their personal political views into everything they create or discuss. It is not possible to make a documentary like this, apparently, without making sure that everyone knows that 'xenophobia' and 'racism' are signs of a 'troubled' and 'sick' man. 

Reading some of his writings from his letters or the little journal he edited show a man with a certain prescience about the future of our country. He was rightly worried about the effects of mass immigration from disparate and incompatible cultures. He was rightly concerned about the failure of our so-called 'melting pot' America. He saw that America had lost her cultural moorings, and become disconnected from our English roots, thus making us a people with no real identity, vulnerable to becoming caught up in a meaningless way of life centered on money.

He understood the importance of being rooted in a culture, which provides a context and a background for our lives, giving them meaning.

The following is from a letter he wrote in 1930:

''America without England is absolutely meaningless to a civilised man of any generation yet grown to maturity. The breaking of the saving tie is leaving these colonies free to build up a repulsive new culture of money, speed, quantity, novelty, and industrial slavery, but that future culture is not ours, and has no meaning for us. Its points of reference and illusions are not any points of reference and illusions which were transmitted to us, and do not form any system of direction and standards which can be emotionally realisable by us.

It is as foreign to us as the cultures of the Sumerians, Zimbabweans, and Mayans. Those who will be authentick parts are the boys being born right now in the larger and more decadent American cities—they, and those who will be born after them. Possibly the youngest generation already born and mentally active—boys of ten to fifteen—will tend to belong to it, as indeed a widespread shift in tastes and instincts and loyalties would seem to indicate. But to say that all this has anything to do with us is a joke! These boys are the Bedes and Almins of a new, encroaching, and apparently inferior culture. We are the Boethii and Symmachi and Cassiodori of an older and perhaps dying culture. It is to our interest to keep our own culture alive as long as we can—and if possible reserve and defend certain areas against the onslaughts of the enemy.''

He wrote of those he called 'cosmopolitans' and 'universalists' and their delusion that 'cultural amalgamation' -- what we would call 'multiculturalism' today -- was good, or even possible.

''If the especial culture of any one of these idealists were to vanish, he would find himself just as lost as anybody else—and would realise at last—too late—just how much of his emotional life and sense of comfortable placement really was due to the existence of his own background as a setting for his life and thoughts; however much he may have verbally repudiated that background in favour of a theoretic, meaningless hash made up of fragments of that and everybody else’s backgrounds. There is no more reality in anybody’s primary attachment to a mythical world-stream of all mankind, than there is in my primary loyalty to the whole cosmos as distinguished from our galaxy and solar system and planet. It sounds all right as an abstract principle—but there is no ponderable and authentic instinct to back it up so that it means nothing in the real alignment of groups.
[...]
''In my opinion the paramount things of existence are those mental & imaginative landmarks -- language, culture, traditions, perspectives, instinctive responses to environmental stimuli, &c. --  which give to mankind the illusion of significance & direction in the cosmic drift. Race & civilisation are more important, according to this point of view, than concrete political or economic status; so that the weakening of any racial culture by political division is to be regarded as an unqualified evil -- justifiable only by the most extreme provocation. ''

This sounds to me like the thinking of a much more sane gentleman than the inanities of those who called Lovecraft 'sick.' It also seems that the PC tendency to pathologize the views of those who think politically incorrect thoughts betrays a fear of dissent, a fear of real 'diversity.'