The roots of civilizations do not disappear so long as the people from which they sprang have not disappeared.”
French patriot Dominique Venner, quoted by Tiberge at GalliaWatch
[Cross-posted at The Old Inheritance]
I will add my own tribute to the Cajun Navy and to the Cajun people in general, of whom I have very fond memories from my past residence in South Louisiana. My experience of the Cajuns is that they are a warm, down-to-earth, unpretentious folk who are wonderful neighbors and good company. A happy part of my childhood was spent in that part of the country.
Cajuns are as human as the rest of us, with their share of frailties but in many ways we could follow their example. For one thing, this spirit of voluntarism, of neighbor helping neighbor (without relying on the Nannystate government to come and rescue them) is born of the bond of kinship and culture that makes the Cajuns such a unique people. They are also, by inclination, upbeat and good-natured, with ‘joie de vivre‘ an essential part of their approach to life. They are resourceful and ‘can-do’ people, which is part of their colonist/pioneer heritage. They are the hardy descendants of French settlers of what is now Nova Scotia, and later settlers of what became Louisiana. Surviving in a harsh environment and poor conditions made them a strong and tenacious breed — as were many of our own settler/colonist ancestors. But their relative isolation for much of their history (until the recent demographic shifts) have enabled them to preserve much of their distinctive way of life. God bless the Cajun people and all the other (non-Cajun) volunteers who have done such courageous work during the floods.
In that piece, North mentions a scene in the classic 1934 movie, It Happened One Night,in which passengers on a Greyhound bus have a spontaneous sing-along. I remember that scene. Oddly enough I recently saw another 1930s movie with a similar scene. Coincidentally, I wrote a blog piece some years ago about the loss of our social cohesion and commonality, and cited as an example a scene from a 1943 movie, The Human Comedy.
In it, young men in uniform, on their way to be shipped out to the front, engage in a sing-along. The song they agree to sing is an old hymn, ”Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.” I found that very poignant in the context of the scene, where the young men, off to face possible death in battle, sing ”What have I to dread, what have I to fear? Leaning on the everlasting arms.” I thought of how a movie of today would never have such a scene, and would never include a Christian hymn, at least not in a positive light. And worse than that, is that a random group of soldiers or Americans in general would not be likely to know that song by heart, or to even be familiar with it — even in the Bible Belt of the South. Today’s churches most often shun the old hymns sung by generations of our forefathers in favor of bland, vague ‘love songs’ that may or may not mention Jesus, or God; these songs are called ‘praise songs.’ But in the world of 1943 America, most heartland Americans knew songs like ‘Leaning on the Everlasting Arms’, and not only knew them but would sing them unashamedly in public, as in that train scene. Such would not be the case today. We were a more closely-knit people then.
So yes, these scenes of communal singing amongst strangers on public conveyances were not some kind of quaint ‘Norman Rockewellization’ of the old days by Hollywood, but were not far-fetched at all. Americans in general had certain common customs and shared experience, a shared culture. We were much more a nation and a people then, in a cultural and social sense, because we were a people descended from common ancestors, with a common history, language, and religion. Now multiculturalism has destroyed that, and we are a grab-bag of peoples divided by mutual suspicion in many cases, or at least wary of ”offending” each other or some third party who may be eavesdropping on private conversations. People have been arrested for things said in private conversations.
The America of 2016 is very much a different country than the one many of us grew up in. I hear this sentiment expressed even by people who grew up in the 1980s, so it is not peculiar to the oldest citizens now.
One of the things that is most unattractive for me about much of the ‘far right’ of today is the utter cynicism toward the past that is on display amongst some of those under 40 or so. They are in agreement with the left that the old America is dead and gone and that the clock can never be turned back in any way, nor should it be. In fact many of them have accepted the left’s depiction of the pre-PC America as mostly a falsified, whitewashed (in more ways than one) memory of what was really an already-corrupt America, and that there was no idyllic America, no golden age. No, there is no perfect or spotless era, but the America of old was definitely a happier and more peaceful and a safer time. Those who say otherwise are likely expressing ‘sour grapes’ sentiments, or else they are people who actually prefer the leftist-created ‘America’ in which there is more ”freedom”, freedom to transgress.
The left has destroyed our social cohesion in many ways, and it is not just in a racial and ethnic sense that they have undermined our country; it is in a social/ethical/religious sense. They have given us a post-Christian — no, anti-Christian replacement America, and many of the younger generations prefer this part of the Left’s reconstructed America. The past appears bland, homogenous, conformist, and boring to many of those weaned on the Left’s cynicism.
So even on the ”right”, the Left has succeeded in creating division.
In the religious sphere, the Left has subverted Christianity so that Babelist, multicult ‘churchians’ go to battle against their brethren who hold to the more truthful and more Biblically-grounded faith of our fathers. And sad to say, many of these politically correct Babelists are in denominations that were once known as ‘conservative’ and Biblically sound. The Southern Baptists spring to mind, and institutions like Bob Jones University, which has repented of it previous political incorrectness in opposing miscegenation.
I’ve gone far afield from the points made by Ehud Would in his piece; I do recommend you read it.
As for the popular view that looking to the past is useless and counterproductive, what about this:
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”
However, the next verse says:
“But they said, We will not walk therein.”
The more things change…
The faithful will deny it’s true but Univision is claiming that Donald Trump, in a meeting with Hispanic leaders, is offering a deal to legalize “millions of undocumented immigrants.”
If true, Trump’s plan would stand in sharp contrast to his previous statements about immigrants during the campaign. During the primaries, the New York property tycoon promised to build a wall along the border with Mexico and to deport all undocumented immigrants.
The possible reversal over immigration policy by the Republican candidate would not be without precedent after Trump has shifted his position on a variety of issues during his campaign from banning Muslims to taxes, minimum wages and and abortion.
Polls show Trump has alienated many minority voters and Republican party strategists have urged him to tone down his rhetoric about immigrants, especially Hispanics who make up a growing share of registered voters – about 10% in November.”
Republican party strategists — I see their hand in this. I have not trusted the recent additions to Trump’s staff, particularly people like Newt Gingrich, about whom nothing more need be said, and Kellyanne Conway — who previously headed Ted Cruz’ SuperPac and was a big donor to his failed campaign. She has also favored legalizing illegals.
Kellyanne Conway, who was named Trump’s campaign manager Wednesday morning, co-authored a 2014 polling memo for the pro-immigration group FWD.us touting the benefits of a sweeping overhaul bill that would have created a 13-year pathway to citizenship for roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants.
The memo, which was signed by Conway and 15 other GOP pollsters, argued that “most Americans don’t believe deportation is a viable policy” and that there is an “overwhelming consensus” for “some kind of legalization” for people in the United States illegally. The pollsters made the case that there is “broad support” for the bill that Trump now strongly opposes but Hillary Clinton supports.
“Supporting this new immigration reform proposal should be good electoral politics for Republicans,” the memo said.
Still, if Trump is sufficiently his own man he would likely not be swayed by this coterie of Wormtongues he’s acquired.
It appears I’m one of very few people who find this new report unsettling; everybody else on the Internet seems to shrug this off as, (to use Limbaugh’s word when excusing some leftward move by George W. Bush), “strategery.” Bushbots used to excuse any sellout of ‘conservative principles’ by Bush as being just ‘W’ being shrewd and ‘gaming the system.’ Strategery, and you need strategery to win. But, as I used to waste a lot of time arguing with these Bushbots and party faithful, if you ‘win’ by sacrificing any ‘conservative’ principles you may have had, or by selling out your real base of support, what has the Party won? More importantly, what will we, the People, have won? Trump may be elected but if he comes into office heavily indebted to blacks (who have ‘suffered the most’ as he said) and illegal immigrants, what will we have won?
Talk is cheap, and the minority groups who are on the receiving (and I emphasize receiving) end of the pandering know this. They will not be satisfied by sweet talk and courting; they will expect Trump to come across with the goods ultimately. And that will mean more tax dollars spent on ”outreach”, special programs, and constant attention for reassurance that they are still at the apex of the victims’ pyramid. Just as in the past, there is always the threat of rioting to keep their special status intact.
I have not yet given up on Trump; I will give him the benefit of the doubt, realizing that we, the Founders’ posterity, have nowhere else to go this election. We have no candidate that represents our interests; in fact we have no viable candidate who is not outright hostile to our interests. But let’s watch and see whether Trump himself confirms this story from Univision. I wonder if, having satisfied himself that he has people like me ‘in the bag’, and that we have nowhere to go, he will now turn to minorities and focus on them until November. As always, we are taken for granted.
‘Ole Miss’ has caved again.
The University of Mississippi’s marching band will no longer play any variation of the song “Dixie” – a tradition some seven decades old at football games and other sporting events.
The University’s Athletic Department confirmed to Mississippi Today on Friday that the song, which was the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, will no longer be played at athletic events.”
The Confederate Battle Flag gone, ‘Colonel Reb’, the school mascot/symbol gone, and now the song ‘Dixie.’ What next? What will be banned next? Because, I assure you, ‘they’, meaning the South-hating SJWs, and Southern-born ‘cucks’, plus Northern transplants who should have stayed in their home states where they needn’t be offended — plus the ever-aggrieved blacks, will not rest. They go from strength to strength because they are unopposed. Why are Mississippians, real Mississippians, so passive in letting this go unchallenged? Are there no people who simply want to defend freedom of expression as a principle, even if they don’t care about the South?
What will be next to fall?
The songs “Dixie,” “Dixie fanfare,” and a pregame arrangement containing themes of “Dixie” will no longer be played by the band, known as the The Pride of the South.”
The Pride of the South? How have they let that name stand all this time? The South is not supposed to have any pride, according to the heritage-destroyers and the rewriters of history. If there is any pride of the South, or pride in the South and what it represents, it must be PC-whipped out of the Southron people. That seems to be the agenda. And it seems to be right on schedule.
The article notes that the Band Directors chose not to comment on this announcement. I don’t know who they are, but I would guess that they are probably not Southern-born or Southern-bred, just as with the Ole Miss Athletic Director, Ross Bjork. It seems that few Southron people are in positions of influence and authority so that outsiders now determine their future, people with little to no understanding of the Southron people and their unique history and heritage. And that is probably by design. The South is now occupied territory, since 1865.
My late uncle, a rather tough Marine, told of one time, back in the 1990s, when he was on the highway driving home and the song, “I Sang Dixie” by Dwight Yoakam played over his car radio. It was the first time he heard it, and he told of how he had to pull over until he could dry his eyes. The song is a tearjerker for those of us who understand what ‘Dixie’, the place and the song and the people, mean to us. I had the same reaction to the song when I first heard it, and it still affects me, even more so, considering that soon, singing “Dixie” will be ‘hate speech’. Probably even the name ‘Dixie’ will be forbidden, eventually.
Our forefathers are turning in their graves. That they fought so hard and so bravely, against such odds, only to have their heritage erased bit by bit and their descendants demoralized and alienated from them would be more than they could endure.
From The Social Pathologist, a very good quote from the late Sam Francis on the subject of globalism. I’ve long admired Sam Francis, and consider him one of the most lucid and sound thinkers on our side.
However, read the comment below the quote at Social Pathologist. The commenter ‘refutes’ Francis by an extensive quote from Mencius Moldbug, and the seeming gist of Moldbug’s words, quoted as gospel apparently, are that Puritans/”Brahmins” and ultimately Christians are the real ‘elites’, not those considered elites by most of us.
Really? Who are these ”Brahmins”? That word was traditionally used to refer to primarily Bostonians, old-stock Anglo-Saxons, usually ‘Mayflower descendants’ or at least the most prominent families in the Boston Social Register. Famous people like the Lowells, the Cabots, and related families. Read this PBS piece on the ”Brahmins” and you get very much the same jaundiced view of them as the one advanced by Moldbug.
In my earlier days of blogging someone mentioned my blog in the same sentence with Moldbug’s Unqualified Reservations blog, somehow likening us. Some people criticized Moldbug’s tendency to verbosity, thus compared me to him. In any case, though I looked in on his blog I never read it habitually. Maybe it was his manner of expression that was a little opaque and hard to follow, but from reading others’ analyses of his work, I gathered that he had a very idiosyncratic view of the world which I found hard to relate to. For one thing, his constant references to ‘The Cathedral‘, a term which to me seems a very Christian reference, and it seems that ultimately he blamed Christianity, or ‘Puritanism’ in particular for all that has gone wrong in the West. Now of course there are all those influenced heavily by him who perpetuate this meme. Personally I object to the references to ‘The Cathedral’ and I think his idea that these shadowy ‘Brahmins’ are controlling the world behind the scenes is ridiculous.
Some people like this bizarre idea that there are all these Anglo-Saxon Mayflower descendants, all obscenely wealthy, who are somehow, somewhere, exerting all kinds of power. Who and where are these all-powerful Brahmins who have managed to survive the centuries? Some think they are still living in Boston, but have any of these people been to Boston lately? Most of the old stock Anglo-Saxon Puritan descendants (having lost their Christian faith and became Unitarians or agnostics) are moved to happier climes, having gone to the Midwest and the Far West long ago, ethnically cleansed by the immigrants who came in waves, starting before the War Between the States. My own ‘Puritan Yankee Brahmin’ great-grandfather came to the far West long ago, as did many cousins. So where are these elusive ‘Brahmins’ and ‘Puritans’?
It seems to me that for Moldbug, the Brahmins are invoked as a way of deflecting blame from the Jews, and that is their function for many people looking to redirect the criticism of Jews.
Moldbug, whose name is Curtis Yarvin, is Jewish by ancestry though probably an atheist or agnostic. But then one can be an ethnic and cultural Jew though one professes no belief in God.
Yarvin, I think, is a pied piper, and I find that a great many people quote his words as if he were an infallible source, the last word. And most oddly, these are often people who profess awareness of the Jewish influence in the anti-White, anti-nationalist tyrannies with which we have to deal today. I can name at least one other Jewish blogger who also has a loyal and almost reverential set of followers among Alt-right or ‘pro-White’ readers and bloggers on the internet.
This is one of those paradoxes which always keep me shaking my head. Is it not wise to treat such writers as at least potentially working an agenda which is against our interests? I don’t understand this uncritical embrace of those who probably have some anti-White, anti-Christian axe to grind.
Where have we heard this line of rhetoric before?
I realize Trump is not perfect, and this may not turn me against him, because the alternative is much, much worse. But is Trump just courting the elusive ‘African-American’ vote? Or is he trying to win back the Trump-phobic ‘cuckservative’ vote? Either possibility seems like a waste of time to me.
In any case, see the responses of the Free Republic faithful to this speech of Trumps: they roundly cheer it, and think it constitutes ‘throwing down’, and ‘his best speech ever!’ One comment says “Right on Mr. Trump! BlackVotesMatter!”
And that alone is enough to make me think the opposite. The FR crowd, for those who shun that forum, love to use that line about the Democrats ‘being the real racists’, considering it to be a potential coup-de-grace to the Democrat Party, if only blacks would see it the same way — which, of course, they don’t and won’t. To blacks, all Whites are ‘real racists’, even those who protest they aren’t. Especially those who protest they aren’t, and point the finger at other Whites.
From the speech:
“It is time for our society to address some honest and very difficult truths.
The Democratic Party has failed and betrayed the African-American community. Democratic crime policies, education policies, and economic policies have produced only more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty.”
Who writes these speeches? Trump seems to have some on his staff who are part of that FoxNews group of pundits who seem to be influencing him towards being more ‘inclusive’, reaching out to the very people who oppose him the most, and hate him.
How can Trump be a potential advocate for the majority population while trying to appeal to minorities with endless grievances? One can’t serve two masters.
And bad as the Democrats are, it’s just a falsehood to say that Democrats are to blame for black dysfunction and crime; that attitude takes moral agency away from blacks, as if they are in fact blank slates who have been shaped completely by the Democrat Party, and exercise no free will at all.
I am sorry to see Trump recycling these pathetic memes of the Limbaugh/Fox News crowd.
Update: Byron York writes about the speech, in a piece entitled ‘Asking for black votes, a very different Donald Trump’.
Another note: a commenter at Free Republic says the speech was ‘partly written by Rudy Giuliani’, and York reports that Newt Gingrich approves highly of the message.
Where to begin? This piece is in response to a lengthy discussion here, and as I can’t usually get a blog comment published on Blogger, and as a blog comment can’t cover the subject, I’ll say my piece here.
Recently I wrote a piece about the necessity of some countervailing force to the ‘progressives’ who are demolishing our country. Especially is this true in our decaying society wherein the Left has been careening out of control, unchecked, so that our society is unrecognizable from what it was even 20 years ago. If those who say that ‘conservatism’ per se is useless and must be destroyed offer no alternative to it as a preserving force in society, what will check the hell-bent-on-change ‘progressives’?
Firstly, the comments I linked above seem mostly to agree that conservatism is useless because it has ‘no ideology’, being based only on ‘feelz’. But is this true? Is it true that conservatism has no ideology? The paleocons (are there still any surviving?) would say conservatism has no ideology, because ideology is opposite from conservatism and vice-versa. I’ve never encountered an old-time conservative who said otherwise. It is only the neocon, present-day Republican faithful who always rattle on about “conservative eye-dee-ology“, insisting that it’s what new immigrants (and black Americans) must adopt to succeed. I’ve had my share of disputes with such typical Republican, neocon, pro-war ‘conservatives’ over this ‘conservative eye-dee-ology’ which is a sine-qua-non. In my experience it’s only those now labeled ‘cuckservatives’ who yammer about ‘conservative ideology‘ and its paramount importance. It is the Cruzbots and the Never Trumpers who are the ones who always go on about the ideology of conservatism. Cruz was their guy because he is a ‘strict Constitutionalist’, a devotee of the Ideology.
As they believe in the ‘proposition nation’ they have to believe in ideology; that’s after all what holds a ‘proposition nation’ together, however tenuously.
An ideology is needed where there is no natural, organic bond and consensus among a people.
By contrast, most paleocons (who, for the uninitated, were the conservatives who are most closely akin to the Alt-Right, being racially aware, noninterventionist, against open borders, and anti-free trade and globalism) disagree.
I’ve said that conservatism is an instinct — a gut instinct, nothing to do with feminine-type feelings, or ‘feelz’, but visceral and bred-in-the-bone. Certain peoples are more conservative by nature, just as some individuals. Some seek change for its own sake, seeming to crave novelty and the exotic, loving risk and danger, while some are innately averse to such things. I believe this because it comports with what I’ve observed in my years of living and working, not because a psychiatrist says it and invents pseudo-scientific labels for it. Needless to say, liberals are often risk-taking types with all the ‘dysfunctions’ that implies. Conservatives are people who prefer order and stability over thrills and unpredictability. And though there are exceptions there is still a general rule. And we as a people (even ”conservatives”) show evidence of the risk-taking, thrill-seeking temperament, compared to our forefathers. (Yes, they took risks and braved dangers beyond the endurance of today’s coddled thrill-seekers, but that’s not the same impulse.)
Conservatism is a temperament. But ideology? It’s a systematic set of beliefs codified by some person or persons, not an organic set of principles that grows amongst a people based on shared innate tendencies. Some modern dictionaries give more liberal definitions, implying that an ideology is more of a spontaneously-arising group consensus.
The word ideologue, for most people, implies rigid beliefs, dogmatic and doctrinaire tendencies. Notice that leftists by whatever name had purges of their peers who are found guilty of wrong-think, violation of the Sacred Ideology which must not be questioned. ‘Correct’ ideology is a must with leftists. And lately we’ve seen ”conservatives” or cuckservatives doing this as Trump and his supporters have been ‘read out’ of the conservative ‘movement.’ Personally I hate that term ‘the movement’ because I associate it with the radical left. The Sixties left always referred to itself as The Movement.
So the conservatives being condemned in the discussion thread are really liberals or ‘neocons’ in conservative clothing, not people who would have been by any measure considered ‘conservative’ in previous eras. They simply subverted the Republican Party (and that was one of the stated ‘Goals of the Communists’ as reported by Cleon Skousen in his writings) and proceeded to destroy it from within and discredit the very label “conservative” by polluting it with their own un-conservative policies and, yes, “ideology.” The neocons are ideologues par excellence, as are their leftist brothers.
Part of the neocons/cuckservatives ideology is the idea that everybody everywhere is capable of ‘democracy’ and that if we only send our armies in and ‘give’ them democracy, they will be good Jeffersonians in no time. Another tenet is that blacks and all immigrants can be real Americans if they salute the flag, wave the Constitution (like Khizr Khan, that good American) and thus celebrate Conservative Eye-dee-ology.
Obviously, their “conservative ideology” shares the blank slate, magic dirt tenets with leftist-liberals.
One of the better conservative thinkers, Russell Kirk, was adamant that conservatism is not an ideology, though I see that the commenters on the VP thread don’t like Kirk for the most part, lumping him in with today’s ‘cuckservatives’. But if you read Kirk, which I have, he was very opposed to multiculturalism, globalism and political correctness, and he was racially aware, though in the context of his time. I recommend reading his work if you haven’t already, though he must be read with an open mind, not a mind already made up against him.
Kirk, while not ‘perfect’, perhaps, in the eyes of today’s impatient Alt-Righters, could be seen as a forerunner of Neo-reaction. He was not a ‘neocon’ by most measures.
In the earlier years of this blog, we had some lively discussions among the then-regulars; hard to believe, I know, but true. Many were young, and there was kind of generalized clamor among some of them that ”we need a manifesto.” I disagreed with that sentiment. I find the clamor for an ”ideology of the Alt-Right” to be the same, and while it’s understandable to a degree, I think it’s unnecessary and wrong-headed. There would no doubt be many different opinions as to what would constitute a codified set of Alt-Right principles or beliefs. There would be squabbles, considering that the Alt-Right or Neo-reaction includes some very different groups, groups who do not play well together. There are so many divides, even among American Alt-righters, for example the pro-Confederate Southrons vs. many Northerners who still blame slavery on the South, or consider Southrons ‘traitors’ for seceding. Then factor in religion or lack thereof, the divisions based on sex, ethnic nationalists vs. WNs or pan-Europeanists, Identitarians, and so on. Could such disparate groups with so many inter-group grievances work together and agree on much of anything?
It has to boil down to making survival a priority; what is good for us at this point in history — this very crucial point.In essence, our gut instincts have to take over; our natural, God-given affinities, not some set of abstract principles. People who put abstractions and disembodied human reason above gut, natural instincts are what I call ideologues.
People won’t naturally sacrifice for abstractions; will not defend abstractions to the last man. Ideas cannot unite people, not for long anyway. Our country worked as long as it did (and yes, it did work, for a good while) because it was founded by a people with a common origin, sharing common ancestors, and a common religion — paraphrasing John Jay.
At Morgoth’s Review, a commenter links to a piece describing the idea of something called the Lancaster Plan, ostensibly something put together by the British government in conjunction with Islamic leaders. The source of this information is this piece at The New English Review.
The writer describes a weekend party at a friend’s house, at which an acquaintance, apparently someone ‘in the know’, described how the government has a plan in place to avoid the kind of terrorism that has happened in France and other European locales.
“He stated quite plainly that the situation in Britain would not be allowed to get out of hand as had happened, in his humble opinion, on the continent. What was more, he asserted, the British government had a Plan to keep the Muslim situation in the U.K. under control, and had had such a Plan in place since it was drawn up under the Blair Labour government back in 2005, after the bombings in London, when it had been known as the Lancaster Plan, named, he explained, after John of Gaunt who, although never king himself, sired the line of English Kings that came after him, kings who kept England together and at the forefront of world developments.
[…]It was simple, he informed us. The Lancaster Plan contained several different provisions that could be brought into play to defuse the threat of Islamic violence in the U.K.
[…]He informed us, with no special tone in his voice, just in a matter-of-fact way, that the first two provisions of the Lancaster Plan had already been activated and were proving to be successful. Further provisions could be activated when necessary and in that way Muslim violence in Britain could be contained or minimised, or maybe even staved off indefinitely if the plan came to be implemented in its entirety.
[…]He carefully explained to us the two stages that he’d just mentioned. The first stage was, so he said, the careful use of legislation to make any criticism of Islam, or Muslims, almost impossible. Many in government, he stated, were a little upset that in order to do that they had also made it legally very difficult to criticise other faiths such as Christianity or Hinduism, but their concerns about this had dissipated over recent years as it had become obvious that the police and the judiciary simply treated any criticism of a faith other than Islam, or criticism of a believer other than a Muslim, as being far less serious than criticism of Islam itself or of Muslims. The careful positioning by many NGOs, and left-wing thinkers, of criticism of Islam and Muslims as racist had not been entirely co-incidental either, so he averred, but had been initiated and encouraged by government officials in furtherance of the first stage of the Lancaster Plan.”
The rest can be read at the link.
Morgoth himself expresses disbelief of the story. It’s true that some anonymous person at a party is the source of the information, and that is hardly enough for us to accept it uncritically. And it’s sensible to have some healthy skepticism in this age of disinformation. I am not familiar with the writer of the piece who relays this information to us, and the anonymous source could be a disinfo agent. It does happen that ‘our’ governments deliberately sow disinformation both to demoralize us and to keep us confused. Disinformation has many possible uses.
However, in this age of unprecedented levels of madness on the part of those supposedly ‘in charge’, it seems almost nothing is too bizarre to be true. Many of us still don’t accept that the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan is true, though we see enough evidence to make it believable. And this alleged Lancaster Plan sounds like the kind of collaboration and capitulation which we can see taking place in all Western countries.
So can we say categorically that it isn’t true?
We’ve all read the saying, “To learn who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.” There are a number of protected groups who are held to be immune to criticism, among them blacks, gays, and especially Jews. In fact, though, these groups are not equal in their immunity from criticism; for example people can and do criticize the first two groups without fearing arrest or prosecution, in most cases, but to question the Holocaust can bring arrest and/or prison time, if convicted, and has resulted in imprisonment in some European countries and Canada. But as of now, it is only the criticism of Islam that has led to people being arrested or questioned in some European countries, in the wake of the refugee onslaught and recent terror attacks. Social media like Twitter, to their great discredit, have become an arm of governments in going after people who mildly criticized Islam or the sainted ‘refugees.’
So why is it that Islam is suddenly more of a sacred cow than the other protected groups, even more protected by Western governments than blacks or Jews or gays?
Recently some of us have wondered aloud, in the real world, if in fact ‘our’ governments have in fact capitulated to Islam and agreed to some kind of dhimmi-like status and/or ‘jizya’ in exchange for being allowed to keep their outward power as some kind of puppet rulers or collaborationist regimes? Why else would ‘our’ leaders be so deferential and servile towards people who clearly see themselves as our enemies and who boast of one day conquering us and our lands?
I realize that some people on the right abhor neocons and counter-jihadists, both of whom they regard (maybe rightly) as serving Jewish interests. I personally got fed up with the neocon warmongering many years ago, and soon saw that the counterjihad is a dead-end, ultimately bound by its own version of PC.
However that does not mean we should blind ourselves to the reality of Islam, nor should we understimate the perfidy and machinations of the Western leadership.
From a New York Daily News article about an imam and his assistant being shot in Queens:
“That’s not what America is about,” said local resident Khairul Islam, 33.
You could read the above words (haven’t we heard those words a lot lately, by the way) as being defensive of the real America, as saying that America is in fact not a bigoted country where people are “targeted” just because of the color of their skin or their obvious Moslem appearance and clothing. And in fact the real America, not the ‘America’ of the lurid media coverage, is not a country in which “innocent” people are targeted, willy-nilly, for any reason. But then that real America no longer exists; I used to speak of it as ‘vanishing America’ but now it’s pretty much vanished, because the original population has been diminished and neutered. And if anybody is being ‘targeted’ is it majority America, not the professional ‘victims.’
But no minority or immigrant, especially those of the Religion of Taqqiya, would ever offer a defense of America as being a place where innocent people are not targeted. Now, the aforementioned groups only utter a phrase like ‘That’s not what America is about’ as a way of saying that THEY alone determine what America is about, even though they may have just landed here in this country or crossed the Rio Grande last night. Only minorities, especially immigrants, know what this country is about, and isn’t it coincidental that they tell us that America is ‘for immigrants’ and ‘for everybody’, and that we old-stock native-borns have no special status, because after all, this is a ”nation of immigrants”, built by immigrants (and slaves, according to newly-minted ‘history’). So Bangladeshis in Queens get to tell the rest of us what this country is about. And their America is definitely not a place where grateful immigrants exist.
Meanwhile, that rare creature, an ‘honest’ Moslem, tells us that Islam does intend to conquer Britain, and that Sharia law is coming. He’s emphatic and confident about it, and downright brazen.
And yet Moslems have the gall to play the victim all the time, and to point the finger at us and cry ‘Islamophobia.’ So much so that the tumblr teens have a meme going, ‘Justice for Muslims.’ Because the poor Moslems are so badly treated. Apparently a Moslem tumblr blogger complained of being treated as ‘not human’, so the infidel teens are expressing sympathy and support. The object of their concern speaks:
The idea that the ‘media is spewing out’ bad things about Moslems is laughable. The media do nothing but promote fawning, flattering images of Moslems or the ‘Muslim community’, from the local ‘news’ coverage to the national news outlets. Have the Moslems come to believe their own falsehoods? Maybe, like their liberal apologists and enablers, they do believe these lies.
One more ludicrous claim of theirs: in the story of the Queens imam being shot, the perpetrator is described as being ‘Hispanic’ in appearance, yet the Moslems interviewed blame it on Trump. And the media are happy to run with that, and imply that it is White, Christian America at fault. Actually it would not be surprising if it was one of their own who committed the act, given the Islamic propensity for internecine conflict. What is the Middle East but a hotbed of murderous infighting between various factions and sects? The passage in Genesis about Ishmael’s hand being against every man is all too true. Yet somehow the rest of us are to blame, and we are somehow meant to solve their insoluble problems, and give up our countries to them.
And that, truly, is not what America is about.