Polite Kid

Or so says the writer of this piece.
As I sit here writing, a conservative victory in the midterm elections looms. But I find no reason to be optimistic. The midterm elections will solve nothing. The plain fact is that conservatives have lost the battle for America. The country that many of us were born in has ceased to exist. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Nothing can or will change until we come to terms with the grim reality of moral degeneration. And I have no hope that this can happen, save by some terrible trial.''
Is it true?
If so, is our mortal wound self-inflicted?
And if we think we are finished, and that we've done it to ourselves, I guess we should all close up shop and go amuse ourselves while we are waiting for the end.
The writer of the article has expressed some interesting views, and has had a somewhat controversial career, but ironically, he warns about the greatest danger to human civilization:
He maintains that "the greatest danger to human civilization today is not environmental degradation, but a return to the ancient plague of pessimism."
I agree with that, certainly. Say not the struggle nought availeth.

Labels: American Decline, Death Of The West, Leftism, Societal Decay, Vanishing America

Tom Piatak writes about attending a live broadcast of Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion radio show.
I have been listening, on and off, to Keillor�s show for many years, and I�ve read several of his books. The interesting thing about Keillor is not that he is a Democrat, but that, despite his liberal politics, the show he produces has a strong conservative, even reactionary, streak.
Last night�s show was no exception. We heard, as is typical for Keillor, a lot of old American music, including a song from the 1932 campaign. Although an unabashed liberal, Keillor is a Christian, and his show often features old hymns and Gospel songs, and last night�s program had a moving hymn about the Good Shepherd.''
I, too, was a listener to PHC some years ago, and I found a certain charm in the program, and in Keillor's soothing, mellow delivery and style. I love the old-time music which was usually featured on the show.
And although, like Piatak, I never lived in a town which closely resembled Lake Wobegon, the small-town old America motif was universal enough that all Americans, at least those old enough to remember the old America, could relate to many of the endearing qualities of Lake Wobegon as described on the show.
I was also able to relate somewhat to the Scandinavian-tinged culture of the fictional Lake Wobegon through my experience of the Northwest, which in times past had a strong Scandinavian presence and cultural influence. The 'new' Northwest is fast losing that character and is on the way to becoming just another multicultural Nowheresville.
When I used to listen to PHC, I was still quite the liberal, and I sensed very much that Keillor and the gang were of the same persuasion. You see, liberals, especially of the baby boom generation, have a certain kind of slumming nostalgia for the 'old America', in the form of liking vintage clothes for dress-up, antique furnishings and gewgaws, and old-time music, especially of the 'downmarket' variety such as bluegrass, honkytonk, and blues. It's a kind of American multiculturalism: aren't those hillbillies and hayseeds quaint and funny? And aren't we oh-so-sophisticated for condescending to listen to their primitive music?
That kind of cultural tourism and condescension is one of the things that I find most irritating about my own jaded generation. And I perceived it in spades on Keillor's show. So as I became a fully-fledged conservative recanting all the liberal nonsense that had accreted in my life, I rather lost my taste for Keillor and his somewhat arch portrayal of middle America. With liberals, there is often a fine line between nostalgia and a certain kind of snickering at old America as sophisticated folks would snicker at their awkward country cousins.
Keillor is not, I am sure, a Christian in the sense that perhaps Tom Piatak understands it. I suspect where the 'Christian content' of his show is concerned, it derives from Keillor's 'cultural Christianity.' Christianity, specifically of the Lutheran variety, seemst to be a central part of the old American culture of Minnesota, just as some variety of Bible-believing Christianity is a central part of all small-town Southern communities. It's part of the culture, and everybody who grew up in the old American South imbibed some of it, even if they were not churchgoers, or real believers. Keillor is a 'cultural Christian' or perhaps simply a liberal Christian, which involves liberal politics dressed up in clerical robes, speaking Christian lingo.
I recalled this story about Keillor from just after the 2004 elections:
Born-agains should not have right to vote
Posted: November 15, 2004
Speaking in the aftermath of the presidential election, Democrat radio host Garrison Keillor says he is on a quest to take away the right of born-again Christians to vote, saying their citizenship is actually in heaven, not the United States.
Keillor, host of the popular National Public Radio show "A Prairie Home Companion," made the comments during a speech at Chicago's Rockefeller Memorial Chapel and during his radio monologue the Saturday after the election.
"I am a Democrat � it's no secret. I am a museum-quality Democrat," Keillor said. "Last night I spent my time crouched in a fetal position, rolling around and moaning in the dark."
According to a report in the University of Chicago's Chicago Maroon, Keillor told the audience: "If born-again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?"
And yes, some said, 'oh well, he's just kidding, just being satirical.'
Here, however, on this blog Keillor's response to a reader who questioned his statement is quoted. The reader had asked whether he had in fact meant to say 'postmillenialists' and not 'born-again' Christians:
Caroline,
I grew up among post-millenialists and probably that's why I conflated them with born-agains in one big ball of wax and I apologize for my inaccuracy. However, I don't think that the term "post-millenialist" would instantly register with our public radio audience, so one is forced to use shorthand. Thanks for your thoughts...
Keillor then went on to another subject entirely, his memories of singing the Star Spangled Banner.
So, after reflection, Keillor says he does not advocate a constitutional amendment taking the vote away from all born-again Christians -- just some of them. Thanks for the clarification.
Addendum (11/20/04): I received the following e-mail regarding Ms. Sato's (and Garrison Keillor's) use of terms:
Caroline Sato is incorrect. It's dispensational premillennialists who believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket. They believe in an always imminent rapture. Postmillennialists believe that through the preaching of the gospel, the world can be transformed.''
I find it curious that a Protestant, even a liberal one, would put down 'born-again Christians.' First of all, he would be aware that the Lord said 'except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven.'
So in truth, all real Christians must be considered born-again. However, I've noted that liberal Christians often scorn that term, as do many Catholics. But if Keillor thinks 'born again' is a disparaging term, he is not a Christian in the Biblical sense, then.
Here, in the Wikipedia entry, there are many quotes from Keillor. For example, here's what he thinks of Republicans:
Keillor calls Republicans "hairy-backed swamp developers, corporate shills, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, hobby cops, misanthropic frat boys, lizardskin cigar monkeys, jerktown romeos, ninja dittoheads. .. .tax cheats, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, grab-ass executives, gun fetishists, genteel pornographers, nihilists in golf pants."
While claiming that his book describes "the politics of kindness, Keillor also says that Republicans are "criminal" and worse, "evil, deeply evil."
Well, a few years ago I would have been quite incensed by that tirade, but now, given my lowered opinion of Republicans and self-described 'conservatives', I have to say it's not 100 percent false. The truth hurts sometimes. Some Republicans are corporate shills, and all the rest.
The sad part is, many Democrats are worse, albeit their sins and crimes are simply different from those of the Republicans. But I suspect that Keillor's seething hatred of Republicans extends to real conservatives, and all of us who hold within us the old America, that of the era in which Keillor goes slumming and rummaging on his show.
As far as Keillor's own identity, which many are assuming he is drawing on in his performances, the Wikipedia article also contains quotes indicating that Keillor's on-air persona, with many references to Norwegian-Americans and Lutherans, is all fictional. He is not Norwegian by ancestry (his name should give that fact away) nor is he Lutheran by religious affiliation. Apparently his frequent references to Lutherans simply indicate his cultural familiarity with Lutherans in his native Minnesota. He says his family were members of an obscure group called the Plymouth Brethren.
Reflecting on all this, I can see that liberals like Keillor may wax nostalgic over old America, but the old America which they mine for quaint cultural relics is not the real old America, the one realists remember fondly. They put a liberal veneer on the past in order to make it acceptable by their standards. They expunge the parts of our cultural history that embarrass them. The bowdlerized liberal version of our past is, for some liberals, simply censored and cleansed of the un-PC parts. That's the Keilloresque version. It's apolitical for the most part.
For some, usually filmmakers, the view presented is a politically revisionist view of old America, in which political correctness reigned, and 'racists' were few and far between and were quickly put in their place by anachronistic liberals who saved the day. I've noticed how most movies of today have to inject some politically correct bits in order to show that the illiberalism they object to so much is the anomaly in our history, while their liberal, multicultural America was always there in an incipient form, at least. Movies like 'Gods and Generals', with the obligatory racial commentary scene, or The Patriot, which had its noble slave scene, and so on.
Liberal nostalgia is the cultural form of revisionist history; liberals like to conjure up a 'real' old America in which people make speeches full of 21st century cliches about tolerance and inclusiveness, and in which the people who represented the real beliefs and attitudes of the era portrayed are shown as slimy villains.
Keillor's Lake Wobegon may be a kinder and gentler kind of liberal nostalgia than the Hollywood preachy kind, but it's ironic that liberals who like to sentimentalize about certain aspects of the past are hellbent on destroying everything that remains of that past, content, it seems, to turn our heritage into a quaint museum piece, which is long-gone, and deservedly so.
In what appears to be willful ignorance, they refuse to see that the Lake Wobegons of our country are the unique creations and reflections of the people, the specific group of people who inhabit that place. The Norwegian bachelor farmers of Keillor's Minnesota created a distinct place which will never be the same once it is dominated by Mexicans, Somalis, or Hmongs. Those who believe that people are interchangeable and that the place makes the people, and not vice-versa, are taking a sledge-hammer to our unique heritage, and wreaking untold damage.

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Historical Revisionism, Nostalgia, Old America, Old Days, Vanishing America

Here's another video glimpse of old America, if you have 25 minutes or so to watch it. It's dedicated to the 'Woman American', and the flim was made by 'the Chevrolet Division of GM', rather ironic considering recent events with GM and with the sad state of American manufacturing generally.
The film is about, among other things, our old American virtue of thrift, as practiced by the typical American wife and mother. It is a nostalgic look back at the daily life of a time when most people, even the middle-classes and upper-middle classes, practiced a simpler way of life, with few pretensions. America was at its height of prosperity and plenty when this film was made (circa 1962) but people lived more modest lives then.
For those who remember the time, this is nostalgic; so much of this is familiar to me as part of my childhood.
Yes, I know those times are dead and gone, and can never be brought back. I say this because there is always someone who has to remind us of this when we look back. But though we can't enter a time machine and go back, we can look back to glean what we can from those times, and perhaps try to correct some of the missteps we took along the way to today.
Just a caveat: some Lincolnolatry at the beginning, and beware some proto-Political Correctness and a nod to 'diversity' towards the end.

Labels: Family Unit, Nostalgia, Old America, Old Days, Vanishing America

Where our traditions and our culture are concerned, it's all important. It all matters, even the simplest of things.
This article informs us that according to an 'international survey of travellers', the 'full English' breakfast is the world's top breakfast, with American breakfasts in second place.
See the photo if you are not familiar with the English 'fry-up.'
It's not too dissimilar to the breakfasts I remember, back in my childhood in Texas, minus, of course, the baked beans and black pudding.
The breakfasts on the other side of the Atlantic differ too in that the sausages and bacon are not the same. The English bacon is more similar to Canadian bacon, or 'back bacon', and their sausages are not much like those we eat in this country. I prefer the American ones, but I suppose we all prefer what we've grown up with.
The sliced tomatoes are usually included in our breakfasts along with the fried eggs, bacon, and sausage. I don't think this is generally true for Yankee-style breakfasts, but I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
Breakfasts in the South, too, often include distinctive foods like grits, a food item which has never caught on up North. Also, breakfast in the South may include toast but more traditionally would include biscuits, preferably made from scratch, not those counterfeits which you buy in a can from the dairy case at the grocery store. Those are all right in their way, but they can't compare to the homemade ones. The biscuits preferably should be eaten with molasses and butter, at least in my opinion.
This topic reminded me of a post which Sarah Maid of Albion posted a while back. The post was titled 'Losing things of value.' She discussed English food traditions like soft-boiled eggs with 'soldiers', or dip fingers, then discussed the importance of what may seem on the surface to be small things, trivial traditions. Yet food is something which is closely tied to all our memories, and which often stirs up recollections of happy times (or not-so-happy times). Aromas and tastes have the power to conjure up very vivid memories.
''Egg and soldiers, buttered scones, Yorkshire pudding, crumble, custard roast beef or muffins. The simple pleasure of such simple treats, enjoyed before us by generations of English men and women is something we can share with those who went before us, even if was are no longer permitted to share their certainty of their role within the world or their pride in what we are as a people.''
A few years ago on this blog I think we touched on the idea of how multiculturalism has even been imposed on our culinary habits and preferences. If I recall correctly, the discussion was started by another blogger (are you out there, JS?) and continued briefly on this blog. I strongly feel that we are being colonized in matters of food as well as in the more obvious ways. A few years ago I used to watch the Food Network a good bit, and I began to notice that they were featuring more 'diversity' in the program hosts and recipes. In our local grocery stores, too, Mexican foods (imported from Mexico, not Americanized 'Mexican' food) take up more and more shelf space, until whole aisles are now given over to Mexican foods and beverages. My town has quite a few people with roots in a Northern European country, but the foods of that country which used to be available in our stores is now banished to make way for Mexican foods. How symbolic.
Increasingly our tastes run to spicy foods containing ingredients like Jalapenos, chipotle peppers, salsa, and so on. It's trendy. Eating plain old American food is dull and boring, so the popular idea seems to have it.
Even alcoholic drinks show the Mexican influence.
Sarah in her piece discusses how the English have been taught to devalue their own foods and culinary traditions in favor of more exotic stuff, just as we Americans have been led to do. She mentions music also as being subject to the same process of devaluation and denigration. We can say this about our own music, too, though it has been a gradual process here. For some years, it seems as though American music has been dominated by black styles, going back at least to the turn of the century if not to the mid-19th century with 'minstrel' shows.
Since then almost all youth-oriented music has been black music, although I am not one of those who believe that rock 'n roll is primarily a black style of music.
Now rap and related forms of 'music' seem to prevail among the very young, at the expense of our rightful, European-derived musical traditions. And of course our tastes have been debased as a part of this process.
So far, Mexican music has not made many inroads into our culture, although the music moguls keep pushing Latino 'entertainers' who do a more 'urban' style of music, rather than the noises that your Mexican neighbors blast from their car stereos.
But as Sarah points out, this is all part of a larger agenda to demolish what is left of our real Western traditions and cultures.
''The point is to so devalue our culture in our eyes that we will not care what happens to it. After all, a man will only fight to defend that which he loves whilst he still loves it, if he ceases to love it why would he fight for it? Of course, if he is never taught what he has he will not miss it when its taken from him, and if he's never seen the stars he will never know their beauty and will not care if they cease to be.
[...] That may sound a tiny issue, but there are a million different experiences, feelings thoughts and objects which come together to create a national identity, we can lose them one by one until we lose them all.''
It all matters, even these trivial things such as what we eat for breakfast. The warm memories of my childhood are bound up with the smell of breakfast cooking, the sights, the smells, the feeling, of sitting in my grandmother's kitchen enjoying her home-cooked foods, the same foods generations of our ancestors enjoyed.
The music we listened to, or sang and played during long summer evenings, it all evokes very vivid memories. It ties all the generations together, the absent ones as well as those still present, here in this troubled time, this 'present darkness.'
It's all important. All of it. And if we don't value it, if we are content to give it all away without a whimper, then it will be a thing of the past very soon, along with the freedoms we've also ceased to value as we should.

Labels: American Traditions, Culinary Traditions, Multiculturalism, Old America, Southron Foods, Vanishing America

The photo above, taken sometime in the 1920s or 30s, depicts Border Patrolmen apparently trying to apprehend a suspect who is straddling the border, attempting to re-enter Mexico.
I found this picture at How To Be a Retronaut, which is a pictorial blog with a lot of very interesting stuff from past eras. The photo above is apparently part of a National Geographic collection. I recommend clicking over to the Retronaut blog and seeing the whole set of photos from the 20s and 30s, which depict people from just about every state, in various activities. It's a colorful essay on life in the USA at that time.

Labels: Cultural History, Old America, Usa, Vanishing America

I posted the following (excerpted) article a couple of years ago, but I think it's worth re-posting, for those of you who were not reading this blog when I first posted it. It's from a magazine article of 55 years ago, and it ties in with what I've been writing about our therapeutic, pop-psychology outlook of today, vs. old American common sense.
[All emphasis in the following is mine.]
What Happened to Common Sense?
by Mary Ellen Chase, from Coronet Magazine, May, 1954
Whenever I return to the isolated Maine village where I spend every summer, I am pleasantly surprised by the way in which my neighbors there hold on to certain old terms.
One of these is grit, with its companion, gumption; another is get up and get, which in Maine means to depend on oneself; yet another is common sense. These words describe the human qualities which my neighbors, fishermen and their wives, extoll above all others. For fishing is a hard calling. It demands gumption, or in more polite terms, self-reliance, the power of decision and the determination not to be downed by adverse circumstances.
My neighbors are frankly suspicious of anyone who lacks these old American virtues. They voiced their common judgment of a man who had lost his lobster traps in a northeast gale and had been bewailing his fate with too little reserve.
"Why don't he shut his mouth and pick up his feet?" they said, "You can't set sail straight by takin' time to bawl about bad luck."
They and I stem from the same rural background. In the country school of my childhood, precepts were written on the blackboard, each Monday morning by our "old-fashioned" teachers who knew it to be their duty to instill iron in our souls as well as common fractions in our minds. Through the years those precepts have proved salutary to me in moments of indecision and anxiety. Usually they were in terse prose:
"It takes a live fish to swim upstream, but any old log can float down."
Don't expect others to bear your troubles; they have their own.
Life isn't all you want, but it's all you have; so have it."
Occasionally a rhyme enlivened us. One I recall as a favorite.
The mind of man has no defense
To equal plain, old common sense.
This homely virtue don't despise,
If you would be happy as well as wise.
Parents, too, 50 years ago dealt out such robust aphorisms liberally, sometimes even sternly, in the upbringing of children. I was taught early by both precept and example that a job once undertaken has to be completed whatever the cost, and that no one but the maker of them ought to be expected to pay for mistakes.
[...]During my life as a teacher I have often questioned whether we have discovered any worthy substitutes for those precepts and teachings which, outmoded as they seem, are rooted deeply in our history and our ways of life.
In place of the old sayings we use today new words and terms to describe our states of mind and our meetings of those difficulties and questions which will always beset us. We are now insecure, or ill-adjusted, or frustrated, or made ineffective by a sense of inferiority. These new words lack the optimism of the old. Implicit in them is the notion that we are surrounded by foes difficult to defeat.
The new vocabulary comes into use early. We hesitate to look upon our children as simply ill-mannered or spoiled. We fear that they are problem children who need expert care lest they become neurotics or uncontributive members of society.
In high school and college they are surrounded by advisers on what they would best study, what work in life they are best fitted for. They are too seldom encouraged to face problems by themselves, to make their own decisions and to pay the consequences of their own mistakes.
Nor are adults free from waves of anxiety. Too many of us are looking about for some panacea which will ease the burdens of our past and present errors in judgment and lighten our fears of the future. Something, we feel, is wrong somewhere, and without making any stout attempts on our own to discover what it is, we turn to professional advice which guarantees to show us how to understand ourselves.
Even a cursory reading of such books reveals nothing but what we used to call plain old common sense. They urge upon us a calm and objective weighing of ourselves; a frank and even merciless recognition of our weaknesses and failures, a determination to oust at any cost oversensitiveness, which is but a form of self-indulgence; a sense of personal responsibility for the well-being of our families and communities; a fresh start; in short, reliance on our own powers of self-discipline.
No one in his senses would suggest that such books are not often helpful to the anxious mind. But the assumption that most of us have somehow acquired emotional conflicts which we cannot cope with by ourselves surely has its dangers.
We Americans have since our beginnings been known for our self-reliance, for our gumption and common sense. We are, or at least we were, adventurers and our history is the story of a game played against tremendous odds and gloriously won. Why not recall the tough moral fiber which made the winning possible? Isn't it about time that we return as individuals to those values and practices which we have not forgotten so much as neglected?
[...]Life may not be all we want, but it's all we have, as my old school precept said, and it's high time that we have it. We shall not find its secrets or its possible riches in the advice of others, however wise, unless we complete that counsel with our own grit, gumption, and common sense."

Labels: American Character, Aphorisms, Common Sense, New England, Old America, Proverbs, Self-Help, Self-Reliance, Vanishing America

Despite the skepticism toward Takuan Seiyo which I expressed in an earlier post, I found his latest installment of the 'Meccania to Atlantis' series a worthwhile read. It's called The True Horrors in Hitchcock Films.
He uses the dramatic changes in San Francisco since the mid-20th century as an illustration of the changes in all of America since then, and I think it's apt. Granted, San Francisco is not what I would call 'typical' traditional America; it may well have been closer to that at an earlier time in its existence, but by the time I first visited it in the late 60s, at a time of my youthful naivete, it was already rather a law unto itself, with topless bars and men dressed as women, and of course Haight-Ashbury, with its bizarre display.
Seiyo, however, contrasts the San Francisco of Hitchcock's 'Vertigo' with the sci-fi version of San Francisco in the 21st century, with its air of brazen decadence. I had to smile at his mention of the Chinese-American lesbian police chief, who has been conspicuous in TV news coverage of San Francisco, dressed in a uniform which looks as though it was designed for a male of considerably larger proportions. That itself is rather appropriate in an ironic way, and it's a testament to how insanely devoted to political correctness our age has become.
I've written on several occasions about my love for old movies, by which I really mean old, not five years old, but real old relics of the pre-PC era. I've written about how watching such movies often leaves me with a wistful feeling, evoking my childhood memories of real America, traditional America, before we were forcibly 'enriched' with 'diversity', and before we were taught to speak and think in that quaintly sinister language of euphemisms and lies called 'political correctness.'
Sometimes old movies cause a feeling of nostalgia and longing for the past, but sometimes they inspire a fierce, smoldering indignation at what has been done to my country, and at what is still being done.
Old movies can be an educational experience for those who have enough common sense to notice the jarring disconnect between the old America on the screen and the 'new' America which they see around them. The new and 'improved', diverse America is graffiti-defaced, crowded, often squalid, full of people who are strangers to each other in every possible way.
Whenever I speak about the lost world of the old movies, somebody, usually someone of the liberal or leftist persuasion, will bluntly claim that 'that world never existed. The movies whitewashed things and censored things, covering up the injustices and hatreds that were really there.' And the leftist or liberal is always adept at finding some flaw or failing in the old America: ''people were sexist and misogynist! There were no African-Americans in these movies except in subservient roles!"
My response is that while the movies may have presented a slightly manicured and polished version of reality, the underlying truth of old America was presented as it was. So when we see the well-dressed, presentable, civilized citizens of San Francisco, we are seeing the America that truly existed then, which was an America of mostly clean, well-behaved people, a place where order and common sense and civility still prevailed.
Seiyo mentions the role played by mass immigration in the drastic transformation of California, from the images seen in Vertigo and in 'North by Northwest'. This goes without saying. but it's amazing how few people seem to want to see a connection; many people act as if what is happening to California or to their own towns is some kind of fluke, due to blind forces of nature, rather than a conscious, malicious policy.
I know I have visited these themes repeatedly, but I will pose the same questions again, even if I am only asking myself: what happened to the people who inhabited the old America, the people who are seen as the extras in the Hitchcock movies? Are they all dead and six feet under now? Some, obviously, are still with us, but how did the good, common-sense inhabitants of the old America become the docile, vacant, 'pod people' as Seiyo calls them, of today? How did they go from sanity to becoming PC pod people, acquiescing meekly and passively to this grotesque experiment that is being carried out on our country and our people?
We can revisit the same explanations: brainwashing, due to leftist control of the media and the educational system; the fall of organized Christianity to the same pernicious influences, the culture of passivity reinforced by TV and video-game addictions, the therapeutic culture, which accentuates narcissism and neurotic self-obsession, the hedonism which diverts the attention and the energy of many young people who should be exercising leadership. We could go on and on. Some focus on the Jewish role in all this; some say Christianity is to blame (although Christianity's influence is waning), some say it's feminism and the destruction of the family. Some even suggest that the fluoride in our water supply induces passivity.
There are elements of truth, I think, in all of these.
If we believe any of these, or all of these, does heredity hold the power that I believe it does? Certainly heredity is not all, but neither is its influence negligible or nil, as leftists and tabula rasa believers insist. Are we merely passive products of our environment? Can we go from being self-respecting, self-confident, assertive, sensible people to being vacant receptacles for propaganda in such a short time, as the deterioration of our society suggests?
If the former is true, if environment is paramount and people can be shaped or re-shaped by the manipulative elites, then there seems little hope, since they hold all the cards, it appears. But if there is such a thing as hereditary influence on temperament and character, then perhaps we might hope that our ancestors' strength will re-assert itself.
I have not mentioned the idea that our problem is in large part a spiritual deficit; we've abandoned the faith of our fathers and we've made ourselves idols, among them self and pleasure and power. Many of us place our faith in flawed human beings or institutions, which is not what our forefathers counseled, and not what Christianity teaches.
Many of those who call themselves Christians are being led astray by 'wolves in sheep's clothing', either church leaders or popular writers of 'religious' books. Some are being led astray by political wolves in sheeps's clothing, or political parties and personages (Republicans, mainly) which become idols for some Christians. In any case, we are in need of a spiritual awakening as well as a political one.
I get the sense that things are accelerating, and being moved along very fast now; it's evident in some of the news stories that are being discussed here and elsewhere. Are they testing the waters? Trying to provoke a response from the few holdouts who haven't fully submitted?
Whether the 'elites' are intending it or not, they are showing their hand; it's obvious now that there is an agenda, a 'new world order' plan, and that all Western countries are on the same track. Their brazenness can help things for us; it might alert some of the somnolent ones among us, and it might also show us just how passive most people have become.
I say as I've always said that it's always the few who bring about real changes; the question is, will it be the few who are truly driving this multicult madness, or will it be the few on our side, the patriots, the people who love their kin and honor their fathers?

Labels: Demographics, Old America, Old Movies, Political Correctness, Race Replacement, Societal Decay, Vanishing America