0 comment Saturday, November 29, 2014 | admin
Arlen Williams warns about transnationalists in 'conservative' clothing, as exemplified by Grover Norquist.
The problem is that Norquist is just one of a number of 'conservatives' who is part the globalist/transnationalist web of influence. Another one is Newt Gingrich, as I am sure most of my readers are aware, just as with Norquist.
The fact that Norquist is married to a Moslem wife is not irrelevant here, I think. Is it a chicken-or-egg question, when people who outmarry exhibit this kind of cosmopolitanist attitude? I mean does that kind of attitude lead to outmarriage or does the marriage lead the American spouse in that direction?
The Bush family would seem to be another example, with the Mexican marital ties.
I would think that conservatism, as it used to be understood, would incline people to loyalty towards their own people and country, and intermarriage with someone from a disparate people and religion would indicate a lack of loyalty, or would then diminish loyalty to one's own roots, causing conflicted allegiances.
Williams' article accurately describes the transnational scheme and strategy.
''Whether they realize it or not, operators such as this, functionally if not by ideology, are transnational progressives on the vanguard, wolves to herd the sheep. And their big tent is so huge, it stretches over a false vision of a unified yet somehow free world. Such conservatives find themselves supporting communitarians such as George W. Bush, who inadvertently (or by plan from the outset ) wind up supporting more and more suzerainty to world empire. But, if not the wolf and sheep allusion, does it smell fishy?
Transnationalism becomes communitarianism, becomes global communism, as the little fish nations are gobbled up by the manipulative, big fish seekers of absolute, New World Order power; all, while that ultimate power "corrupts absolutely." (If "communism" sounds extreme, just call it collectivism, neo-Marxism, or Marxofascism; it is the same. Or, if you don't like the more recently coined words, find the root and call it Babel.)''
In all of the propaganda that had led directly or indirectly toward the transnational goals, the idea of loyalty to one's own country and people becomes lost and devalued. That needs to be recovered if we are to have any hope of prevailing.
The problem is that Norquist is just one of a number of 'conservatives' who is part the globalist/transnationalist web of influence. Another one is Newt Gingrich, as I am sure most of my readers are aware, just as with Norquist.
The fact that Norquist is married to a Moslem wife is not irrelevant here, I think. Is it a chicken-or-egg question, when people who outmarry exhibit this kind of cosmopolitanist attitude? I mean does that kind of attitude lead to outmarriage or does the marriage lead the American spouse in that direction?
The Bush family would seem to be another example, with the Mexican marital ties.
I would think that conservatism, as it used to be understood, would incline people to loyalty towards their own people and country, and intermarriage with someone from a disparate people and religion would indicate a lack of loyalty, or would then diminish loyalty to one's own roots, causing conflicted allegiances.
Williams' article accurately describes the transnational scheme and strategy.
''Whether they realize it or not, operators such as this, functionally if not by ideology, are transnational progressives on the vanguard, wolves to herd the sheep. And their big tent is so huge, it stretches over a false vision of a unified yet somehow free world. Such conservatives find themselves supporting communitarians such as George W. Bush, who inadvertently (or by plan from the outset ) wind up supporting more and more suzerainty to world empire. But, if not the wolf and sheep allusion, does it smell fishy?
Transnationalism becomes communitarianism, becomes global communism, as the little fish nations are gobbled up by the manipulative, big fish seekers of absolute, New World Order power; all, while that ultimate power "corrupts absolutely." (If "communism" sounds extreme, just call it collectivism, neo-Marxism, or Marxofascism; it is the same. Or, if you don't like the more recently coined words, find the root and call it Babel.)''
In all of the propaganda that had led directly or indirectly toward the transnational goals, the idea of loyalty to one's own country and people becomes lost and devalued. That needs to be recovered if we are to have any hope of prevailing.
Labels: Ethno-Loyalty, Ethnoconservatism, Faux Conservatism, Globalism
0 comment Tuesday, November 18, 2014 | admin
Michael at the Southern Nationalist Network asks the question 'Are You From Nowhere?'
I've alluded to the 'people from nowhere' phenomenon a few times; I've remarked on the nomadic style of life which is more common now than in the past. I think Michael is onto something when he ties this rootlessness to the tendency to focus one's allegiance on the flag, the style of government ('Democracy') and the powerful State, rather than on the natural bonds of kin, community, region.
In my experience, the South seems to have attracted a great many of these casual Nowhere Men (and women) who up and move from one corner of the country to the other as easily as moving across town. And they often display no thought for, much less appreciation of, the culture of their new 'home.'
Some of you, having read my blog for a while, might rightly question my own wanderings in the past. But no matter where I lived, I was conscious of my roots, and as time goes by, I think most of us begin to be drawn back to the place that is home, by virtue of our attachment and loyalty to that place.When I lived in New York, for example, I was very much the fish out of water, and conscious of belonging somewhere else. There is one place that is very decidedly home. My sojourn on the other side of the Atlantic also made me far more conscious of my American roots, and my time in New York made me more conscious of my Southron origins, specifically my family's rootedness in Texas.
Paradoxically, when I was living away, I began to feel more firmly attached to my real home.
We live in a restless age, when people value change and endless variety more than permanence and stability.
The tendency to flit from one place, one region, to another in quest of something new and different is destructive to our regional culture and kinship ties. In a way, it's a great disloyalty to our folk and the place where we belong.
It seems our 'leaders' are encouraging this rootlessness and the 'nowhere people' syndrome, the better to make us atomized, alienated ciphers, bereft of any natural bonds, ''without natural affections'' as the Bible says.
This Independence Day, when we celebrate the origins of the country we live in, my feelings of 'patriotism' will not center on that flag, or on documents and ideas, but they will be focused on my kin, my folk, and my home place. That's the essence of 'patriotism' to me: that's where my loyalty resides.
"In the love of home, the love of country has its rise..." - Charles Dickens
I've alluded to the 'people from nowhere' phenomenon a few times; I've remarked on the nomadic style of life which is more common now than in the past. I think Michael is onto something when he ties this rootlessness to the tendency to focus one's allegiance on the flag, the style of government ('Democracy') and the powerful State, rather than on the natural bonds of kin, community, region.
In my experience, the South seems to have attracted a great many of these casual Nowhere Men (and women) who up and move from one corner of the country to the other as easily as moving across town. And they often display no thought for, much less appreciation of, the culture of their new 'home.'
Some of you, having read my blog for a while, might rightly question my own wanderings in the past. But no matter where I lived, I was conscious of my roots, and as time goes by, I think most of us begin to be drawn back to the place that is home, by virtue of our attachment and loyalty to that place.When I lived in New York, for example, I was very much the fish out of water, and conscious of belonging somewhere else. There is one place that is very decidedly home. My sojourn on the other side of the Atlantic also made me far more conscious of my American roots, and my time in New York made me more conscious of my Southron origins, specifically my family's rootedness in Texas.
Paradoxically, when I was living away, I began to feel more firmly attached to my real home.
We live in a restless age, when people value change and endless variety more than permanence and stability.
The tendency to flit from one place, one region, to another in quest of something new and different is destructive to our regional culture and kinship ties. In a way, it's a great disloyalty to our folk and the place where we belong.
It seems our 'leaders' are encouraging this rootlessness and the 'nowhere people' syndrome, the better to make us atomized, alienated ciphers, bereft of any natural bonds, ''without natural affections'' as the Bible says.
This Independence Day, when we celebrate the origins of the country we live in, my feelings of 'patriotism' will not center on that flag, or on documents and ideas, but they will be focused on my kin, my folk, and my home place. That's the essence of 'patriotism' to me: that's where my loyalty resides.
"In the love of home, the love of country has its rise..." - Charles Dickens
Labels: Anomie, Ethno-Loyalty, Kin Loyalty, Regionalism, Southern States
0 comment Sunday, October 5, 2014 | admin
After my previous quick post, I thought it would be good for me to try to clarify what I was thinking when I posted it, lest people think I am defending indefensible behavior.
If the incident in question was something I had heard about from someone who was there, someone trustworthy, my reaction would have been that the man who was beaten was stupid to have provoked the trouble, and that he probably was someone who makes bad choices in life all the way around, not someone with whom I would feel a great deal of sympathy. He may in fact, if what is reported in the media is true, be a troublemaker and misfit.
If, however, I had heard about this incident from an acquaintance of opposite political views, or from someone lacking a reputation for veracity, I would take the report with a big grain of salt, and wonder what the real facts were, or where the rest of the story was.
But there are a lot of 'ifs' in the above paragraphs. That's the situation we are in with our lying, biased, left-wing, tale-bearing media. Almost everyone to the right of center realizes that the media do not tell the truth, except by accident. Everything with them is agenda-driven. Everything is politicized and racialized. They have so misused and abused terms like 'racist', 'extremist' and related words that it's a foregone conclusion that the 'extremists' about whom they write are people we would see as sane and rational, people who see through the lies, and who actually identify with their own people, not our enemies.
Then we have the fact that in so many incidents, the charge is made that 'racial slurs' or 'racial epithets' were hurled. This is alleged in most such cases. Is it any wonder that some of us have just stopped believing in these allegations of verbal racial abuse? Truth be told, my default response is disbelief, thanks to the many instances of minorities crying wolf. There have been many 'hate crime' allegations which have proven to be hoaxes and lies. Why should we believe any of them, absent solid proof?
In general when these allegations are made, I prefer to give our folk the benefit of the doubt, until it is clear that the charges are true.
We are told in the article that the White man followed and made threats toward the black man who then beat him. And how many of us have been 'followed' and/or 'threatened' in racial abuse incidents? I have, and such things are shrugged off by authorities -- depending on who the victim is. Some victims are more equal than others.
One more thing that rubbed me the wrong way with this story was the way in which White people are quick to gloat or cheer about what happened. Regardless of the lack of respectability of the man who was beaten, regardless of his unpopular associations, does he not have the same rights as anyone else?
The police alluded to this man as having been questioned in the past about his 'extremist' associations. Do they do this with MS-13 members, or other such people? Or is this kind of thing only of interest to police when the suspect is White?
Did this man 'deserve' a beating? Who decides what is a deserved beating and what is legitimate self-defense, and what is assault? It seems to me that the media and the politically corrected police too often are acting as judges and juries, and our folk (at least as represented by the FReepers) are cheering against their own, right along with the SPLC and their ilk.
Regardless of the merits of this particular incident and the people involved -- about which we know few details -- there is something wrong in the overall trends we see here.
If the incident in question was something I had heard about from someone who was there, someone trustworthy, my reaction would have been that the man who was beaten was stupid to have provoked the trouble, and that he probably was someone who makes bad choices in life all the way around, not someone with whom I would feel a great deal of sympathy. He may in fact, if what is reported in the media is true, be a troublemaker and misfit.
If, however, I had heard about this incident from an acquaintance of opposite political views, or from someone lacking a reputation for veracity, I would take the report with a big grain of salt, and wonder what the real facts were, or where the rest of the story was.
But there are a lot of 'ifs' in the above paragraphs. That's the situation we are in with our lying, biased, left-wing, tale-bearing media. Almost everyone to the right of center realizes that the media do not tell the truth, except by accident. Everything with them is agenda-driven. Everything is politicized and racialized. They have so misused and abused terms like 'racist', 'extremist' and related words that it's a foregone conclusion that the 'extremists' about whom they write are people we would see as sane and rational, people who see through the lies, and who actually identify with their own people, not our enemies.
Then we have the fact that in so many incidents, the charge is made that 'racial slurs' or 'racial epithets' were hurled. This is alleged in most such cases. Is it any wonder that some of us have just stopped believing in these allegations of verbal racial abuse? Truth be told, my default response is disbelief, thanks to the many instances of minorities crying wolf. There have been many 'hate crime' allegations which have proven to be hoaxes and lies. Why should we believe any of them, absent solid proof?
In general when these allegations are made, I prefer to give our folk the benefit of the doubt, until it is clear that the charges are true.
We are told in the article that the White man followed and made threats toward the black man who then beat him. And how many of us have been 'followed' and/or 'threatened' in racial abuse incidents? I have, and such things are shrugged off by authorities -- depending on who the victim is. Some victims are more equal than others.
One more thing that rubbed me the wrong way with this story was the way in which White people are quick to gloat or cheer about what happened. Regardless of the lack of respectability of the man who was beaten, regardless of his unpopular associations, does he not have the same rights as anyone else?
The police alluded to this man as having been questioned in the past about his 'extremist' associations. Do they do this with MS-13 members, or other such people? Or is this kind of thing only of interest to police when the suspect is White?
Did this man 'deserve' a beating? Who decides what is a deserved beating and what is legitimate self-defense, and what is assault? It seems to me that the media and the politically corrected police too often are acting as judges and juries, and our folk (at least as represented by the FReepers) are cheering against their own, right along with the SPLC and their ilk.
Regardless of the merits of this particular incident and the people involved -- about which we know few details -- there is something wrong in the overall trends we see here.
Labels: Ethno-Loyalty, Media Dishonesty, Political Correctness
0 comment Sunday, September 21, 2014 | admin
Our symbols and our heritage are under attack.
And who speaks up for them, or for us?
Don't count on this man to defend us. Hear what he has to say in the short video at the link.
Is there any politician who is able to speak forthrightly, without trying to play coy and have it both ways?
This AP story gives us the PC revisionist line about General Forrest, but they don't tell you the background of the 'society' which is the focus of all the controversy. I would like to ask somebody who is ritualistically denouncing that group if they can tell me just how and why it began. I would like to hear their version of the conditions that existed in the occupied South after the "Late Unpleasantness". I suspect they would be speechless because they know next to nothing about that era, about that time and place.
Schools do not teach about that part of our history, the Reconstruction Era, a euphemism if there ever was one. And whatever little is taught is selectively biased in the usual way. Add to that the Hollywood movies and pseudo-documentaries that present a dishonest account, and people know less than nothing. What they think they know is false.
As if Barbour's evasiveness and spinelessness on the Forrest issue weren't enough, we recently learned that he was involved in lobbying on behalf of Mexico.
''Though Barbour is currently considering whether to sign an Arizona-style immigration bill that passed in the Mississippi House in January, he took a softer stance last September on what to do about immigrants illegally in the country. Barbour told Human Events that though the United States must secure its border: "Common sense tells us we're not gonna take ten or twelve or fourteen million people and put them in jail and deport them. We're not gonna do it, and we need to quit--some of the people need to quit acting like we are, and let's talk about real solutions."
Barbour also praised "the Spanish speakers that came in to help rebuild" the state after Hurricane Katrina. "There's no doubt in my mind some of them weren't here legally. Some of them were, some of them weren't. But they came in, they looked for the work--if they hadn't been there, if they hadn't come and stayed for a few months or a couple of years, we would be way, way, way behind where we are now."
I guess Barbour does not remember the stories that appeared after Katrina, in which American workers were hired for jobs rebuilding New Orleans, and were then turned away after they traveled there, being told that Mexican workers had been given the jobs. The reports said many of the men were devastated, because they needed the work. Cheap labor and capitalist greed work well together.
Anybody who says that Americans won't work or can't work as hard as the sainted immigrant is ignorant or dishonest.
So Barbour, like most of our politicians, fails the test of loyalty to his own.
That's what I am looking for first and foremost in everybody these days: loyalty. It's getting pretty scarce.
And who speaks up for them, or for us?
Don't count on this man to defend us. Hear what he has to say in the short video at the link.
Is there any politician who is able to speak forthrightly, without trying to play coy and have it both ways?
This AP story gives us the PC revisionist line about General Forrest, but they don't tell you the background of the 'society' which is the focus of all the controversy. I would like to ask somebody who is ritualistically denouncing that group if they can tell me just how and why it began. I would like to hear their version of the conditions that existed in the occupied South after the "Late Unpleasantness". I suspect they would be speechless because they know next to nothing about that era, about that time and place.
Schools do not teach about that part of our history, the Reconstruction Era, a euphemism if there ever was one. And whatever little is taught is selectively biased in the usual way. Add to that the Hollywood movies and pseudo-documentaries that present a dishonest account, and people know less than nothing. What they think they know is false.
As if Barbour's evasiveness and spinelessness on the Forrest issue weren't enough, we recently learned that he was involved in lobbying on behalf of Mexico.
''Though Barbour is currently considering whether to sign an Arizona-style immigration bill that passed in the Mississippi House in January, he took a softer stance last September on what to do about immigrants illegally in the country. Barbour told Human Events that though the United States must secure its border: "Common sense tells us we're not gonna take ten or twelve or fourteen million people and put them in jail and deport them. We're not gonna do it, and we need to quit--some of the people need to quit acting like we are, and let's talk about real solutions."
Barbour also praised "the Spanish speakers that came in to help rebuild" the state after Hurricane Katrina. "There's no doubt in my mind some of them weren't here legally. Some of them were, some of them weren't. But they came in, they looked for the work--if they hadn't been there, if they hadn't come and stayed for a few months or a couple of years, we would be way, way, way behind where we are now."
I guess Barbour does not remember the stories that appeared after Katrina, in which American workers were hired for jobs rebuilding New Orleans, and were then turned away after they traveled there, being told that Mexican workers had been given the jobs. The reports said many of the men were devastated, because they needed the work. Cheap labor and capitalist greed work well together.
Anybody who says that Americans won't work or can't work as hard as the sainted immigrant is ignorant or dishonest.
So Barbour, like most of our politicians, fails the test of loyalty to his own.
That's what I am looking for first and foremost in everybody these days: loyalty. It's getting pretty scarce.
Labels: Confederacy, Ethno-Loyalty, Ethnopatriotism, Political Classes, Political Correctness, Southron Heritage
0 comment Friday, July 25, 2014 | admin
The reader comments on my post called Defenses Against Reality prompt me to pose a question to you all. I've asked the question in the past, probably a couple of years or more ago, and perhaps some of you weren't here then. So I'll ask it again.
How did you start to question ''political correctness'', multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and all those things which are now proving to be so disastrous for our people? Was there a clear defining moment or turning point, an epiphany or ''awakening?" Or was your experience more like mine, a gradual reversion to the values you learned as a child from your elders?
Some of my readers have said that they've always held their present attitudes, while others have had experiences that led to more traditional or realist views.
I don't ask to be intrusive, but I am always interested in how those who once held the standard 'mainstream' views came to be more ethnopatriotic or ethnonationalistic. Is there something about personality types that make some people more conforming or others more questioning and less susceptible to propaganda? Is it innate, or due to upbringing and experience, or some combination? And as somebody here once asked, is there some way to pass on our immunity, if that's what it is?
How did you start to question ''political correctness'', multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and all those things which are now proving to be so disastrous for our people? Was there a clear defining moment or turning point, an epiphany or ''awakening?" Or was your experience more like mine, a gradual reversion to the values you learned as a child from your elders?
Some of my readers have said that they've always held their present attitudes, while others have had experiences that led to more traditional or realist views.
I don't ask to be intrusive, but I am always interested in how those who once held the standard 'mainstream' views came to be more ethnopatriotic or ethnonationalistic. Is there something about personality types that make some people more conforming or others more questioning and less susceptible to propaganda? Is it innate, or due to upbringing and experience, or some combination? And as somebody here once asked, is there some way to pass on our immunity, if that's what it is?
Labels: Ethno-Loyalty, Ethnocentrism, Ethnopatriotism, Kin Loyalty, Old America, Realism
0 comment Wednesday, May 7, 2014 | admin
I have had this post simmering for a day now, and I have been dragging my heels about writing it, but I suppose it will keep nagging at my mind until I write it.
We have likely all heard the often-repeated saying ''A society (or civilization) can be judged by how it treats the least (or weakest) of its members.'' Who said that? It is credited to several people, including Mohandas Gandhi, (the MLK of India and the hero of lefty new agers everywhere). A close approximation of that sentence was also spoken by Hubert Humphrey, a Democrat politician and presidential candidate who was defeated by Richard Nixon in 1968.
Pearl S. Buck, a popular writer and leftist activist of the mid-20th century said something similar:
"Yet somehow our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members."
This piece by Tim Heydon, about the National Health Service report on elderly care in the UK hospital system, posted at Sarah, Maid of Albion provoked a kind of strong reaction in me. I reacted, understandably, to the disturbing content of the article -- and to the comments attached thereto at Sarah's blog.
And it was more than that. It was the cumulative effect of a number of callous comments, or downright hateful comments posted by 'conservatives' of various stripes, everywhere from Free Republic to the comments section on this blog, over the last few months.
We've been hearing a lot about the proposed government-run health care system that looms in our future, and its proposals to curtail health care for those over 60 and those with chronic conditions. The gist of it all is that such people are being increasingly talked of as being a drain on the economy and a waste of space and resources. And in a way, this is all the culmination of many decades of propaganda which exalts youth, beauty, and perfect health, as being the epitome of human worth. The counterculture of the 60s, with its adolescent narcissism and its unhealthy obsession with 'health' has taken its toll. It's been a long time since America respected its elder citizens.
No doubt there have always been people who did not respect their elders, even their own parents, but they have not been brazen or bold enough to display their callousness and resentment openly, as we see now. And this is even among 'conservatives', many of whom name the name of Christ, and profess to believe the Bible.
I blame the decades of leftist propaganda. Leftists are odd in that they claim to care for society's ''weakest members'' and the helpless and the poor, but when you look at what they actually do, they clearly don't care. They have had their consciences seared 'as with a hot iron.' They claim to care about children, but support abortion.
But they don't even pretend to care about the old and the infirm, unless said old and infirm are of a victim group of some sort. They obviously, emphatically, don't care about their own blood kin and countrymen.
And I am going to make the same charge against many of the callous fiscal conservatives who would pull the plug on granny, their own and everyone else's, if it meant lower taxes for them, or less of a burden on them financially. And if their granny is sitting on a sizable fortune, so much the better if she pops her clogs sooner rather than later.
When I had deserted the liberal camp, I still, for a long time, could not bring myself to identify as a 'conservative' because to me, conservatives were all too often grasping and mean (in both senses of the word), eager to judge others who they deemed 'deadbeats'. I wrote about this a few weeks ago in the context of the debate over extending unemployment benefits. There is incredible hardness of heart among many Republicans and among many libertarians who spent their adolescence reading Ayn Rand. They truly do believe selfishness is the ultimate virtue. They truly despise the man who is experiencing hard times.
That's to be expected if one is a nonbeliever, but it is just not possible to hold those attitudes if one is a Christian.
I truly think we are being sifted now, and that we will see who is a real Christian, and who has a heart for his neighbor or his brother, and who is living only for Self and money.
And even if this does not matter to you on moral grounds, think of it this way: do we really love our people, or are we really even loyal to our folk if we despise some large segment of them?
For some people, their despised group is Christians. Well, that category includes most of our ancestors up until recently, so if you loathe Christians, you loathe your own forefathers, your blood and kin, as well as your European and American heritage, which was bound up, like it or not, with Christianity. Our ancestors lived and died for it. Go ahead and despise them and all they believed in, but forfeit your right to claim you care about your people or heritage.
And can anyone say he cares about ''the existence of our people'' if he hates his elders, or the elders of our people in general? I say categorically: no. It is not possible to have contempt and a cold heart towards your elders and still claim you care about our people, your people, or your nation.
So I say, if you name the name of Christ, you cannot hate your own people, especially your elders who raised you and taught you and nurtured you when you were weak and helpless and dependent.
Despise the weak, if it makes you feel tough, but remember you too will likely be weak one day, or ill one day, and possibly broke one day. How much comfort will Ayn Rand be then?
And if you claim to be an ethnopatriot yet loathe large segments of your people, then your claim is dubious.
I am reminded of an old 'Peanuts' cartoon, in which 'crabby' Lucy Van Pelt says ''I love mankind; it's people I can't stand.''
Do you hate the old, or Christians or the Europeans or the Anglo-Saxons/WASPs, White women -- and still claim you love your race? You can't love an abstract notion of your people, or your idealized version of your people. You have to love the flesh-and-blood, imperfect people that you see around you.
It seems that for some people, loving their folk means that they love those people who are exact mirror images of themselves: people with the same ideology or belief system, people of similar ethnic identification, people who speak the same shibboleths. What kind of love is it that loves only that which mirrors onself very closely? Loving those like ourselves is a necessary balance to the insane xenophilia that is force-fed to us day in and day out, but it can be carried too far. If we love only that very small coterie that is on the same page with us ideologically, or generationally, then our love is too narrow to enable us to prevail in this crisis.
Like many of us, I have family members whose political views are absolute anathema to me, yet I can still love them as my flesh and blood. After all they might come around and see common sense one day. That is where 'charity' comes in; I may not like my lost relatives very much but I can be patient with them and loyal to them when the chips are down. That is all that is required for the disparate elements among our people to work together. Your family, warts and all, will always be your family.
We don't all have to love each other in the warm and fuzzy sense. We should be loyal to one another if we intend to continue as a people.
We cannot afford the division and constant infighting.
Our enemies are trying to ensure that we all turn on each other and become hopelessly divided. Divide and rule.
In fact, I am going to have to convince myself, for the sake of keeping up my morale, that all the cold-hearted ones out there, the misanthropes and the nihilists are really just provocateurs or operatives pretending to be on our side, in order to sow division. If I believed there really were so many hard, bitter hearts on our side, people who would turn their backs on their elders, I would not be able to continue this effort any longer. What would it all be for? Why save a people that is no longer a cohesive and loyal group in any case? Why save a people that won't save their own? Why save a people that have so little love for their own kin?
Some people on our side, when accused of being 'haters', have offered the rote response that we don't hate anybody; we are acting out of love for our own people. Well, where is the evidence of that love? It is increasingly hard to find out there.
Maybe the charge of 'hatred' fits -- but only in the sense that many of us hate our own, far more than we hate the sainted Others. And that is sad.
The most tragic thing about a protracted struggle like ours, and the long-term onslaught of propaganda, is that we have started to believe the rhetoric of the Left, and have become a kind of reflection of the Left. We merely react to their manipulations, and have lost track of what we once were, and become something our ancestors would not even recognize.
As for me and this blog, I had hoped that I would be able to post more positive things about our heritage and our people, to call us back to an awareness of what we might be at our best.
Can it be done? Can we change things? Awash as we are in this sea of ugliness and lies, it becomes harder and harder to see the other shore.
We have to believe it's possible, as an act of sheer will.
We have likely all heard the often-repeated saying ''A society (or civilization) can be judged by how it treats the least (or weakest) of its members.'' Who said that? It is credited to several people, including Mohandas Gandhi, (the MLK of India and the hero of lefty new agers everywhere). A close approximation of that sentence was also spoken by Hubert Humphrey, a Democrat politician and presidential candidate who was defeated by Richard Nixon in 1968.
Pearl S. Buck, a popular writer and leftist activist of the mid-20th century said something similar:
"Yet somehow our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members."
This piece by Tim Heydon, about the National Health Service report on elderly care in the UK hospital system, posted at Sarah, Maid of Albion provoked a kind of strong reaction in me. I reacted, understandably, to the disturbing content of the article -- and to the comments attached thereto at Sarah's blog.
And it was more than that. It was the cumulative effect of a number of callous comments, or downright hateful comments posted by 'conservatives' of various stripes, everywhere from Free Republic to the comments section on this blog, over the last few months.
We've been hearing a lot about the proposed government-run health care system that looms in our future, and its proposals to curtail health care for those over 60 and those with chronic conditions. The gist of it all is that such people are being increasingly talked of as being a drain on the economy and a waste of space and resources. And in a way, this is all the culmination of many decades of propaganda which exalts youth, beauty, and perfect health, as being the epitome of human worth. The counterculture of the 60s, with its adolescent narcissism and its unhealthy obsession with 'health' has taken its toll. It's been a long time since America respected its elder citizens.
No doubt there have always been people who did not respect their elders, even their own parents, but they have not been brazen or bold enough to display their callousness and resentment openly, as we see now. And this is even among 'conservatives', many of whom name the name of Christ, and profess to believe the Bible.
I blame the decades of leftist propaganda. Leftists are odd in that they claim to care for society's ''weakest members'' and the helpless and the poor, but when you look at what they actually do, they clearly don't care. They have had their consciences seared 'as with a hot iron.' They claim to care about children, but support abortion.
But they don't even pretend to care about the old and the infirm, unless said old and infirm are of a victim group of some sort. They obviously, emphatically, don't care about their own blood kin and countrymen.
And I am going to make the same charge against many of the callous fiscal conservatives who would pull the plug on granny, their own and everyone else's, if it meant lower taxes for them, or less of a burden on them financially. And if their granny is sitting on a sizable fortune, so much the better if she pops her clogs sooner rather than later.
When I had deserted the liberal camp, I still, for a long time, could not bring myself to identify as a 'conservative' because to me, conservatives were all too often grasping and mean (in both senses of the word), eager to judge others who they deemed 'deadbeats'. I wrote about this a few weeks ago in the context of the debate over extending unemployment benefits. There is incredible hardness of heart among many Republicans and among many libertarians who spent their adolescence reading Ayn Rand. They truly do believe selfishness is the ultimate virtue. They truly despise the man who is experiencing hard times.
That's to be expected if one is a nonbeliever, but it is just not possible to hold those attitudes if one is a Christian.
I truly think we are being sifted now, and that we will see who is a real Christian, and who has a heart for his neighbor or his brother, and who is living only for Self and money.
And even if this does not matter to you on moral grounds, think of it this way: do we really love our people, or are we really even loyal to our folk if we despise some large segment of them?
For some people, their despised group is Christians. Well, that category includes most of our ancestors up until recently, so if you loathe Christians, you loathe your own forefathers, your blood and kin, as well as your European and American heritage, which was bound up, like it or not, with Christianity. Our ancestors lived and died for it. Go ahead and despise them and all they believed in, but forfeit your right to claim you care about your people or heritage.
And can anyone say he cares about ''the existence of our people'' if he hates his elders, or the elders of our people in general? I say categorically: no. It is not possible to have contempt and a cold heart towards your elders and still claim you care about our people, your people, or your nation.
So I say, if you name the name of Christ, you cannot hate your own people, especially your elders who raised you and taught you and nurtured you when you were weak and helpless and dependent.
Despise the weak, if it makes you feel tough, but remember you too will likely be weak one day, or ill one day, and possibly broke one day. How much comfort will Ayn Rand be then?
And if you claim to be an ethnopatriot yet loathe large segments of your people, then your claim is dubious.
I am reminded of an old 'Peanuts' cartoon, in which 'crabby' Lucy Van Pelt says ''I love mankind; it's people I can't stand.''
Do you hate the old, or Christians or the Europeans or the Anglo-Saxons/WASPs, White women -- and still claim you love your race? You can't love an abstract notion of your people, or your idealized version of your people. You have to love the flesh-and-blood, imperfect people that you see around you.
It seems that for some people, loving their folk means that they love those people who are exact mirror images of themselves: people with the same ideology or belief system, people of similar ethnic identification, people who speak the same shibboleths. What kind of love is it that loves only that which mirrors onself very closely? Loving those like ourselves is a necessary balance to the insane xenophilia that is force-fed to us day in and day out, but it can be carried too far. If we love only that very small coterie that is on the same page with us ideologically, or generationally, then our love is too narrow to enable us to prevail in this crisis.
Like many of us, I have family members whose political views are absolute anathema to me, yet I can still love them as my flesh and blood. After all they might come around and see common sense one day. That is where 'charity' comes in; I may not like my lost relatives very much but I can be patient with them and loyal to them when the chips are down. That is all that is required for the disparate elements among our people to work together. Your family, warts and all, will always be your family.
We don't all have to love each other in the warm and fuzzy sense. We should be loyal to one another if we intend to continue as a people.
We cannot afford the division and constant infighting.
Our enemies are trying to ensure that we all turn on each other and become hopelessly divided. Divide and rule.
In fact, I am going to have to convince myself, for the sake of keeping up my morale, that all the cold-hearted ones out there, the misanthropes and the nihilists are really just provocateurs or operatives pretending to be on our side, in order to sow division. If I believed there really were so many hard, bitter hearts on our side, people who would turn their backs on their elders, I would not be able to continue this effort any longer. What would it all be for? Why save a people that is no longer a cohesive and loyal group in any case? Why save a people that won't save their own? Why save a people that have so little love for their own kin?
Some people on our side, when accused of being 'haters', have offered the rote response that we don't hate anybody; we are acting out of love for our own people. Well, where is the evidence of that love? It is increasingly hard to find out there.
Maybe the charge of 'hatred' fits -- but only in the sense that many of us hate our own, far more than we hate the sainted Others. And that is sad.
The most tragic thing about a protracted struggle like ours, and the long-term onslaught of propaganda, is that we have started to believe the rhetoric of the Left, and have become a kind of reflection of the Left. We merely react to their manipulations, and have lost track of what we once were, and become something our ancestors would not even recognize.
As for me and this blog, I had hoped that I would be able to post more positive things about our heritage and our people, to call us back to an awareness of what we might be at our best.
Can it be done? Can we change things? Awash as we are in this sea of ugliness and lies, it becomes harder and harder to see the other shore.
We have to believe it's possible, as an act of sheer will.
Labels: Christian Charity, Division, Ethno-Loyalty, Ethnopatriotism, Social Decay