Memorial Day

I know I'm a day late, but maybe that's good, because my thoughts on Memorial Day are somewhat tangled and complicated.  I greatly appreciate those who are willing to sacrifice for their country and serve in the Armed Forces.  I understand the love of country and people and willingness and desire to serve them.  So my complication with regards to Memorial Day does not have anything to do with my respect for those who serve, especially those who have served in combat, or who were willing to serve when the likelihood of combat was high.

No, rather, it has to do with the following two points:

First, what is the job of the military?  To protect the homeland of the people, and, as the Oath of Service says, to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Neither of those are being done; we have been subject to a ridiculous invasion of bandit hordes who invade our homeland in massive waves, immediately sign up for welfare and other programs, get their kids declared "Americans" and live off of more of our largesse—all of which is another way of saying that they are using our own system to demand, and be paid, tribute.  They are literally bandits preying on Americans, and the Armed Forces does absolutely nothing to stop them.  The H1-B visa system is only marginally better; while not actually illegal, it is designed specifically to allow corporations to act like bandit captains themselves, preying on the American people that were, or should be, their customers and employees both.  Meanwhile, treasonous judges and bureaucrats in Washington (and also at the state and local levels, for that matter) mangle the Constitution on a regular basis, interpreting it to mean the exact opposite of what it says, or just plain ignoring it.  The Armed Forces does absolutely nothing about that either; military arrests and tribunals being necessary.

If the military isn't doing squat all on the only two missions that really justify it's existence, then why do we even have a military?  We'd do better disbanding it and going back to armed civilian militias.  I have a funny feeling that with armed civilian militias we'd get both our government and our population of invasive predatory Fake Americans under control rather quickly.

Which brings up the other point; without a standing military, our Federal government would be obviously unable to utilize it in fruitless wars of Imperialism and plunder.  See, on Memorial Day there's all kinds of talk about Freedom Isn't Free, and stuff like that, but there hasn't been a war fought for Freedom by Americans since the Civil War, and unfortunately, those who stood for freedom lost to those who stood for Imperialism and conquest.  Of course, because they lost, the victors have written a new Narrative, a dishonest Narrative, in which the Civil War was fought on behalf of the slave population.  This Narrative is a bigoted and racist one; it has cemented the hatred of the Puritan Yankee for the southerner and justified it (although dishonestly, if anyone knows very much about the history of the time. Read chapters 7-9 in particular, although honestly, you should read the entire work, even though it's obviously extremely long.)  It created a founding myth about Abraham Lincoln and America 2.0 that's every bit as legendary and fictional as the story of Romulus and Remus being raised by wolves, and it does so by continuing to villainize a portion of our own people into exaggerated caricatures

In reality, and that book is a condemnation exactly matching this point (among other things), there hasn't been a justifiable war fought by the American Armed Forces in well over a century and a half.  The blood of those who we celebrate on Memorial Day will cry out in condemnation against those who sent them to die under false or scurrilous pretenses.  And while that's certainly a cause worth Memorializing, Memorial Day has rather been coopted to try and harden and strengthen our resolve to continue in exactly these unjustifiable wars rather than remember these soldiers who were so casually and senselessly sacrificed by our hostile and malicious government in behalf of goals that do not even benefit the American people in any way whatsoever.  The Babylon Bee, a kind of Christian version of The Onion, aptly satirized this point by suggesting that in Honor of Memorial Day, John Bolton announced seven new unnecessary wars, with "Canada, Mexico, England, France, Russia, India, and California, all in honor of the memory of soldiers who have died in past American wars."  It went on;

"The best way we can remember the fallen is to launch a bunch of new wars and make more fallen," he said solemnly. "Remember the sacrifice of the soldiers who fought in foreign wars, so that we would have the freedom to launch more foreign wars. They died for your freedoms, they died for your sins. They died so we could attack Iran again." 

"Amen."

If you read about Just War theory, and read the Book of Mormon with an eye for understanding Just War theory, it becomes very clear that none of our wars were fought under the auspices of Just War theory in many years.  Even World War II, often called a just war, was not, and as the First Presidency at the time: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark and David O. McKay said to the US Federal Government on the eve of the war,

However, we do thoroughly believe in building up our home defenses to the maximum extent necessary, but we do not believe that aggression should be carried on in the name and under the false cloak of defense. We therefore look with sorrowing eyes at the present use to which a great part of the funds being raised by taxes and by borrowing is being put. We are much impressed with the views of those military and naval men who say we are not militarily threatened. We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from that underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe. We feel that our defenses should be built against this danger even more than the touted danger of foreign military invasion which many responsible military men tell us cannot come. 

(Also read chapters 15-17, but especially 16 from the link above.)  It's true that Freedom Isn't Free.  And we won't be free again until the zeitgeist reaches a point where people are truly willing to sacrifice in order to tear down and root out the corruption in our government, which has stolen our freedom, which even moreso than the land itself, should have been our inheritance from the Founding Fathers.

Old Facebook post

I reactivated my Facebook account temporarily because of an issue with my Instagram account (which I never cancelled.)  I decided to stick around briefly because of graduation and summer vacation and whatnot; I'll have lots of pictures and stuff to look at.

Anyway, found this that I posted in my "memories" thingy from two years ago.

Teaching moment: Earlier today, I got in a discussion with a liberal. Although I think she thinks that she scored some points, she actually made five grievous category errors that made it impossible to take anything she said seriously. I have no interest in calling this person out (and we're not facebook friends anyway) but if you are a liberal or a cuck and want to try to argue with someone about politics, avoid these errors if you want anyone to treat you like you're tall enough for this ride. 

Category Error #1: Trump/Russia is a thing, because of rumors. Now, granted—I don't mind following a good rumor to ground. There's enough evidence for both Pizzagate and Seth Rich to open serious investigations, although not enough to convict (that will have to wait until the swamp is sufficiently drained that they're not actively hindering the investigation) but until more evidence shows up, those are just rumors. I'm happy to admit as much. But when several prominent DNC operatives, including Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Yates and Feinstein have ALL publicly said that there is no evidence of collusion other than that they're sure that there MUST be because they simply cannot believe that Hillary lost otherwise, then you're entering into cargo cult delusional territory. If all you've got is rumors and you can't even admit that they're rumors, you've already lost before you started. 

Category Error #2: When I suggest that Donald Trump is the best president since Andrew Jackson and Calvin Coolidge, don't try to convince me by telling me that most people disagree with me, and all the cool kids really don't like him. What am I, a thirteen year old girl? C'mon, that's not even an argument. 

Category Error #3: When I suggest that Donald Trump is popular with Americans, and only Fake Americans are unhappy with him, you're seriously going to pull up a Gallup poll? The guys who confidently predicted on the eve of the election that Hillary had a 90-something percent chance of winning? Discredited! Especially ironic given that the whole discussion was happening in the comments thread of a post about how the media can't be trusted. Get some credible data from a credible source, not data from a source that's KNOWN to be non-credible. 

Category Error #4: Don't assume you know more about the election and political data than I do. I've actually dissected it by every category known to man. When I say that Americans (as opposed to Fake Americans) are happy with Trump, that's because I've gone an order of magnitude deeper into the data than that stupid Gallup poll. I read polls diced by age set, race, sex, religion, and many more categories. It's always dangerous to assume that because you have one data point that supports your thesis that that's all you need to know. It never actually ends up being true. 

Category Error #5: Don't try to demand that I define Fake Americans for you. It's a straightforward term, and everyone knows exactly what it means. This also ain't my first rodeo, I'm quite familiar with the tactic of trying to distract and the nitpick to death a tangent, and I'm not going to fall into a trap that obvious or clumsy. I know what Fake Americans means. YOU know what Fake Americans means. You're just triggered by it, because it's not exactly a flattering term. I deal with this stuff almost DAILY—someone who DELIBERATELY misses the point and tries to bushwhack me from the weeds with some minor pedantic detail that means nothing. Try it on that 13 year old girl; she'll probably fall for it. I won't. 

Seriously; if you're going to try this kind of stuff, bring your A game. 

And keep in mind the narrative of Captain Moroni and the Lamanite wars. When Captain Moroni had to lead his armies in defense of his people against a totalitarian, violent, savage horde of barbarians who had invaded their land and tried to seize the Nephites' birthright for themselves because they coveted it, he FIRST had to deal with the quislings and traitors among the kingmen. He marched on them with his armies and fought them, and when he defeated them, any who refused to renounce their loyalty to that failed, treasonous cause were immediately put to death. No trial. No appeal. Just the sharp end of a sword. 

Do you REALLY think that when it all hits the fan in America, which it inevitably will (and both the scriptures and the modern prophets have made this quite clear that it will—to say nothing about the political and economic inevitability that you can see even without the benefit of that) that we'll have someone as righteous and understanding and merciful as Captain Moroni that you'll have to answer to? 

You really might want to be careful about publicly proclaiming how much you enjoy stabbing Americans in the back in favor of the savage hordes of invaders. Someone awkward might remember it. 

Also keep in mind what the prophets have said about where you should turn for aid, and in turn, where you should be giving aid. There's a heirarchy: first, your family, then your friends, your local congregation and community, then you can turn to the national/federal level. 

It's very fashionable to go jet-setting around the world posting pictures on Instagram of doing something useless and pointless that really does very little for anyone in some Third World dump. Or better yet, agitate to bring them here so it's not so expensive to take fashionable pictures giving them your old clothes or whatever, without even having to fly to Africa or the East Indies or Central America. And while I'm sympathetic to the plight of people in Third World dumps, to some degree, these same people who take these fashionable pictures are not doing much to help their OWN people. Why is the highest suicide rate in the country middle-aged white men? Why are people with STEM degrees unable to find work in America, after getting expensive degrees to make them qualified? Or why are they getting laid off to be replaced by Indian H1-B visa workers?
There are people in your OWN COMMUNITIES who need your help, and you're ignoring them, because they're not fashionable to help. This isn't virtue; this is virtue SIGNALING, an altogether different proposition. 

Matthew 6: "1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 

"2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 

"3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 

"4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."

Anti-Christian blasphemy laws brought to bear against Christians

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7039783/Israel-Folau-SACKED.html

Israel Folau was today officially sacked from the Australia rugby union team for a homophobic Instagram post. 

The decision makes the devout Christian the first Australian athlete dismissed for expressing religious beliefs.  

Folau, 30, has the right to appeal and have his case heard at a second code of conduct hearing by a new panel. 

But he will reportedly skip that process and head straight to court to argue that he is being persecuted for his religion. 

In a press conference this afternoon, Rugby Australia CEO Raelene Castle said Folau was a 'great player' but that everyone has the right to be respected regardless of sexuality, race, gender or religion.  

After Folau was sacked, former Wallabies coach Alan Jones said Rugby Australia had 'internationally destroyed his name for quoting a passage from the bible'. 

[...] 'Our clear message today is that we need to stand by our values and the qualities of inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork.' 

Ms Castle said she had told all rugby players in Australia that RA supports their rights to their own beliefs. 

'But when we are talking about inclusiveness in our game, we are talking about respecting differences as well,' she said. 

'When we say rugby is a game for all, we mean it. People need to feel safe and welcoming in the game, regardless of their race, background or sexuality.   

'When players sign a contract with the Wallabies, they sign up to the values of the team and the sport.

As a recovering libertarian myself, I'm somewhat slow and loath to admit that this is probably true, but "free speech" is a failed concept, caused by secular over-reach.  In reality, nothing is ever "free" of course; freedom is constrained by the expectations of the community, and free speech as a concept, at least in America and much of the Anglo-world, was about the freedom to criticize political leaders without being persecuted by the government because of it.  You were never free to run around insulting people right and left and expecting no consequences, for instance.  Christianity used to maintain blasphemy laws within Christendom as well.  It's now obvious that lacking Christian blasphemy laws, society will eventually establish secular, SJW-inspired, Satanic blasphemy laws, and use them to persecute Christians and Christianity.

Of course, free speech worked quite well in America and in the rest of the Anglo-cultural world when our communities were not adulterated by non-Anglo-cultural individuals with non-Anglo-cultural values.  It's easy to blame the arrival in particular of the Jews (but also the Papist Irish and Italians, to a lesser degree) for this conflict, especially with their habits of 1) seeking out rentier careers such as judges who deliberately misinterpret what the Constitution actually says in order to favor their own cultural values, 2) took over other rentier careers to propagandize their own cultural values at the expense of the native cultural values, i.e., media, entertainment, academia, and politics, and 3) have hated and persecuted Christianity since the time of their Pharisee ancestors.  And that would be correct, but also insufficient.  They should be free to live according to their customs as well as they please, although they needed their own homeland in which to do so, so they could be unmolested by others in their community who did not share their values, and vice versa.  (Of course, now the Jews do have their own homeland again, established and maintained under the auspices of their culture.)

We let them come here.  We let them take those positions.  We didn't challenge their obviously anti-American, anti-Christian and anti-American bias.  While those who brought those calamities on us will certainly be responsible for their own sins in eternity, those who refused to stand with Christ, defend his values, and allow themselves to be swayed by the flattering words of temptation are also responsible for their own decisions.

Matthew 7: "13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Those who followed Nehor, or Korihor, or Sherem or any of the other anti-Christs during the Nephites time may not have been the instigators that those named individuals were, but they were still in gross need of repentance.

As an aside, the Church has itself just recently stepped into this issue a bit, obviously very concerned for the threats to righteousness and freedom that the SJW heresy represents.  I personally believe that while this position is of course correct, it will only work with a reasonably righteous people with a reasonably homogenous cultural context to work together.  That does not mean, of course, that the Church shouldn't establish a line in the sand for righteous behavior, because of course that is exactly its role, but as members of the Church, we should not be surprised to find that in our increasingly wicked world, finding those willing to abide by the precepts of righteousness will be increasingly difficult, and we should expect serious and significant challenges to successfully establishing or even maintaining society based on such precepts.  I just recently (yesterday even) finished reading Moroni chapters 7-10 and then turned around and started the Book of Mormon over again, but reading Mormon's words to his son Moroni, and Moroni's own words about conditions among the Nephites when they were fully ripened in iniquity was quite discouraging (no doubt considerably moreso to them than to me, but seeing the parallels with my own people was not fun.)

On the other hand, I don't believe that Americans are fully ripened in iniquity yet either.  I think many have been blinded and led away by false prophets of SJWism, and I think many in naivety and foolishness (and maybe to some degree lacking in courage) have made foolish decisions and made unwarranted assumptions of good intent of those who clearly do not have good intent, and this combination of 1) lack of courage, 2) naivety and blindness, and 3) failure to adopt the true, unadulterated Gospel and build their faith and hope on it will yet be the source of a great deal of suffering amongst our people.  But I can hope and pray that it will also spur them to remember their God and soften their hearts to accept the full Gospel represented only within the Church and that a portion of my people will be preserved in righteousness through the coming calamities.

Because in the meantime, even within the Church, there is a distressing separation of the wheat from the tares that is readily and easily observable.

Wolves in Sheeps Clothing

A lot of people of my acquaintance have been big fans of little Benny Shapiro.  I've noted for a long time that he's a snake in the grass, a Jewish supremacist who's idea of "conservatism" in America is to make sure that all (non-Jewish) Americans need to make sure to support Israel's goals with their blood and treasure.  Anyway, two points of view (that are largely in agreement with each other) about Ben Shapiro's recent debacle that should (but probably won't) be the end of his career.  As the Z-man says, it's Shapiro's Milli Vanilli moment, when it's been proven that they're fakers lip-synching their shows.

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=17345



We've been warned to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing.  Ben Shapiro (and Jordan Peterson, and a number of the rest of "Conservative, Inc.") absolutely qualify.

Also:  https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/16/ben-shapiro-destroys-ben-shapiro/

The Church on Socialism (and its many Hydra-like heads with different labels)

A portion of a letter written by the First Presidency to Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration about the New Deal and it's obvious ties to communism, socialism and fascism.  Fascinating stuff, for those who try to reconcile the theft of our rights and freedoms and virtue-signal about it even as they do so, regardless of political party (although of course, most of that apologia comes from Democrats, but Establishment Neoconservative Republicans are really not much better.  Both have thoroughly embraced the principles condemned in this letter, and sometimes using the dishonest and facile shield of a "private corporation" doing the oppression is OK, because hey, it's not the government.  This is beyond stupid.  Corporations are creations of the government; they literally can't exist except that law has brought them into being, and their lobbyists own most politicians and actually write the text of most bills). Bolded text has been highlighted specifically by me.  The notes following each highlighted portion are my own words maintained below.

Viewing all of these things it will be easy for you to understand that the Church has not found it possible to follow along the lines of the present general tendency in the matter of property rights, taxes, the curtailment of rights and liberties of the people, nor in general the economic policies of what is termed the “New Deal”. The great bulk of what these people are trying to do is, in final analysis, absolutely contrary to the fundamental principles of which we have spoken. It is the considered, long considered opinion of President Grant and those who are associated with him, that our nation cannot be preserved if the present governmental policies shall continue. We do not believe that any other great nation or great civilization can be built up or maintained by the use of such policies.* As we see one liberty after another encroached upon, we look with deepest anxiety toward the possibility of an attempt to take away religious freedom from the American people. We went through this experience in our early days. We know from the stories of our fathers and our grandfathers what it means to be deprived of the right to worship God according to the dictates of our consciences, and of the hardships and tragedy that accompany such a denial. We face this situation and this possibility, we repeat, with deepest apprehension. 

As we see it, there is no way in which we can, to use your own words, “preserve and perpetuate our freedom—freedom to govern ourselves, freedom of speech, and freedom to worship God according to our own light,” except we shall turn away from our present course and resume the normal course along which this great country traveled to its present high eminence of prosperity, of culture, of universal education, and of the peace and contentment which we enjoyed prior to the inauguration of the “New Deal”. 

These things are not matters of partisan politics with us. We care nothing as Church leaders about partisan politics as such, nor about the dominance of one party or the other. We grant to every man  the right to vote as he wishes, and we would not control his vote even if we could. But we do reserve to ourselves the right to tell our people what we think is right regarding politics as affecting the fundamentals of our government system, to warn them of the dangers that lie under the present  course, and to try to persuade them that their peace, their happiness, and their security do not lie along the path of the present trends of government. 

Truly, we do not believe that—again to quote your own words—we can “preserve and perpetuate our freedom—freedom to govern ourselves, freedom of speech, and freedom to worship God according to our own light” unless we turn squarely about and return to the old-time virtues, and reenthrone our liberties and free institutions. 

We have done in the past, we are doing now, and we shall continue in the future to do everything within our power to secure this turning about of which we speak. We confess to you that it has not been possible for us to unify our own people even upon the necessity of such a turning about, and therefore we cannot, unfortunately, and we say it regretfully, make any practical suggestion to you as to how the nation can be turned about. But the President of the United States could do it in good part if he were willing to exert his effort along that line, but this he appears not to be willing to do. 

We pray—and when we say we pray, we mean we offer a supplication to our God and your God who we believe can hear and answer prayers and does do so—that wisdom will be given to our national leaders to the end that we may face about and return to the old virtues. We shall continue our supplication and to our supplication we shall add such works as we are able to do, to bring this about. 

Now we have said all of the foregoing with a complete understanding in our own minds that we have said nothing or little of anything that may now be of practical value, but this much we feel we can definitely say, that unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government, there will be no exaltation for them spiritually, and politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions.

Returning to our your original letter and our reply thereto regarding the selling of Defense Bonds. The Church as a Church does not believe in war and yet since its organization whenever war has come we have done our part. Our members served in the war with Mexico, not such much in the Civil War because we were so far away, but our members went into the Spanish-American War and they went into the World War, and the records will show that they acquitted themselves honorably. But, nevertheless, we repeat, we are against war. We believe that international difficulties can and should be settled by peaceful means, and that America’s great mission in the world is to bring this about. We believe that our entry into this present war by sending our men abroad (and this seems now to be deliberately planned) would constitute not only a mistake but a tragedy. We believe that the present war is merely a breaking out again of the old spirit of hatred and envy that has afflicted Europe for a period of a thousand years at least. We do not believe that this war will settle anything when it is over because we believe that the peace, whoever dictates it, will be primarily the outgrowth of hate, and hate never settled anything righteously. 

However, we do thoroughly believe in building up our home defenses to the maximum extent necessary, but we do not believe that aggression should be carried on in the name and under the false cloak of defense.† We therefore look with sorrowing eyes at the present use to which a great part of the funds being raised by taxes and by borrowing is being put. We are much impressed with the views of those military and naval men who say we are not militarily threatened. We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from that underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe.‡ We feel that our defenses should be built against this danger even more than the touted danger of foreign military invasion which many responsible military men tell us cannot come. 

Perhaps we might close with a statement that should be unnecessary to make. We love America; we love the Constitution; we love the Government that has been established under it; we love our liberties and our free institutions; we believe in them; we believe that God actually ordained this in order that we, the Mormon people might be set up and established, for our revelations declare we hold the true plan of life and salvation. We wish to do all that is humanly possible to do to preserve our free institutions and this Constitution and the Government as it was set up under it; we do not wish knowingly to do one act or to say one thing that will tend to destroy these divinely given privileges and blessings. 

We trust you will pardon this long letter, but we feel we must say that you invited it. 

Trusting that the Lord will point out some way, will somehow bring about a rejuvenation of the American spirit along with a true love of freedom and of our free institutions, and for Constitutional government, we are, 

Faithfully yours, 

Heber J. Grant
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency

* You should be familiar with the policies of the New Deal and the philosophy behind them to understand the context here.  And it's not specifically the New Deal that he's talking about; he's talking about the socialist spirit which animated the New Deal, and which (ironically, as we were "fighting communism" during the Cold War) we normalized and adopted wholesale in America.  Few people even pay attention to the vast encroachment of the government into our lives these days, but back in the time of Heber J. Grant, the only interaction anyone had with the Federal Government at all, unless you worked in politics in D.C. was with the Post Office.

† Invasion, no.  This may seem like the prophet was wrong about the attack on Pearl Harbor, but he wasn't.  Even if you discount the various theories of advanced knowledge that FDR may have had about the attack, he was deliberately provoking a reaction from the Japanese because he desperately wanted to get involved in the war.  President Grant's warning is completely and entirely appropriate, even in light of what we know happened.

Moreover, when you see the war-like and bloodthirsty calls of the so-called conservative "Neoconservatives" who have had our army overseas fighting all kinds of wars in our "defense"; few if any of them wars in which we can point to clear defensive objective, we can see even how far the so-called Right has come from the wisdom of the prophet and the Old Right to which he, and almost everyone in America who wasn't a seditious de facto foreign agent belonged.

‡ You can see also that he wasn't fooled by the rhetoric that Nazism (spelled with two i's in those days, I suppose) was a Right-wing ideology.  It's absurd to think that a socialist ideology would ever be considered Right-wing, and yet, there you have it.  The only choices we have had during most of our life time in terms of political options, are Radical Leftism from a generation ago, and new Crazy Insane Radical Leftism of today.  There hasn't actually been an active Right in America in generations, in spite of the fact that that's the natural inclination of Americans.  But after generations of brainwashing and propagandizing, few even recognize what the Right is anyway, or they think that common sense normal Right Wing ideas are some kind of radical extremism.  This sad state of affairs won't change until people stop being afraid of dishonestly being called "racist" "sexist" "anti-semitic" or "extreme" and normalize those ideas all over again.

Americans and Diversity

Another Roissy post, cleaned up for language and presented by me.

For a long time, a super majority of Americans opposed increased immigration.  And yet, they got it, good and hard, against their wishes.

1/n Updated immigration-level preferences graph with some data from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Interesting that support for increasing immigration was so low the very year (1965) that Congress loosened immig. restrictions, which led to one of the largest immig. waves in US history pic.twitter.com/z3iiJ7Q9l0

— Zach Goldberg (@ZachG932) April 9, 2019

More:

Support for increasing immigration was flat and low for decades until around 2000, when it slowly rose among cucks and shot upward among Democortezes.
Support among Whites:

Wow. Amazing to think that as recently as 1995, less than 5% of Whites OF ANY POLITICAL AFFILIATION supported open borders.

So…what happened?

First, note that a majority of White Americans STILL oppose open borders, even in this age of runaway virtue sniveling. Don’t let the insular chaimstream media gaslight you.

Second, the slow increase in open borders support began during Dumbya’s first term, just around the time of 9/11.

This makes no sense until you consider that a proper virtue signal needs a self-discrediting calamity to signal against. Whites in happy homogeneous nations don’t conspicuously virtue signal until there is Diversity in place to start the sanctimony feedback loop. It isn’t until status-striving Whites have a little misbehaving Diversity to exploit as props that they begin to posture against “racist” Whites who bitterly cling to outmoded concepts like wisdom and common sense.

9/11 wasn’t a wake up call; it was a woke up call. The worst of the White race — the benighted, self-righteous universalists — received a lesson from 9/11 that was the precise opposite of the obvious lesson intended. Instead of limiting the invasion of the types of people who plan, cheer, or otherwise excuse gross atrocities against Westerners, White liberals took it as an opportunity to “welcome” more of them here, just so they could ham-fistedly sneer about their elevated moral worldview.

Viewed this way, it’s not a surprise, then, that Moslem migration to the US in the fifteen years AFTER 9/11 was HIGHER than Moslem migration before 9/11. The Runaway Virtue Signal Train was hitting its straightaway stride.

Between the early 2000s and now, open borders hysteria and border denialism among Whites have steadily increased. It really increased in Dubya’s second term (a result of the constant cuckservative agitprop about “religion of peace” and “hard working Mexicans”?). There was a faint pause in the rise of open borders support when Obama was elected in 2008 (“What have I done” White anxiety?), but then it shot up again during the remainder of those dark years years, most pronounced among White liberals. By the end of Obama’s 2nd term, White cucks and moderates were having second thoughts about open borders, but White Dems…they were gonna ride their nation-wrecking religion right to the End Times.

Then Trump altered the cosmic balance.

A disturbance in the force rocked the White liberal self-regard. In response, the White liberals’ stated (as opposed to revealed) preference for open borders skyrocketed, and now sits close to 60% support. Moderates and conservatives also began to show increased support for open borders during this time, but still at very low numbers overall (<25%).

Don’t be disheartened, patriots. What you see is the death rattle of a wheezing Equalist religion on the cusp of total refutation. The body fights hard right before the moment of death, refusing at the very end, in one mighty spasm, to relinquish itself. Trump was the mortal blow to the reigning orthodoxy of Equalism; his symbology dwarfs that of any recent president. White liberals now had their Sith Lord against which to virtue signal like they have never virtue signaled before, and they let it rip with a fury, knowing someplace deep inside themselves that this was the last hurrah for the primacy of their distorted moral framework.

Cucks and moderates got caught up in the hysteria, as well, and one must marvel that they aren’t more converged given the weight of media propaganda and State repression aimed at dissidents to Globohomo doctrine. I am filled with optimism that non-liberal Whites retain so much sanity in the face of what must be history’s largest gaslighting campaign.

Bottom line: don’t expect those rising trend lines in support of open borders to continue much longer. We may be at, or near, Peak Virtue Signal, and when the bubble bursts on this hyper-inflated market the crash will be, in a word, spectacular.

PS The fact that the American public was dead-set against open borders for decades, but got open borders anyway, is proof that we are ruled by a malevolent elite and avaricious oligarchy that does what it wants and mocks our quaint attachment to “democracy”.

A tragedy for Western Civilization and Christendom

I am obviously not a Papist, but the fire at Notre Dame cathedral is a tragedy for Western Civilization and for Christendom nonetheless.  It was a supremely beautiful building, and represented generations of faith, flawed though it may have been, of those who built if and maintained it for many, many years.

Another thing I've learned: the Establishment story is always lying to you in some way.  This is especially true if the story is rushed out before it can possibly be known.  How in the world can they claim that the fire was "accidental" before it even stopped burning and therefore no investigation could possibly have been done?

Here's a grab-bag of quotes from various sources online, mostly Roissy.

If God wanted to send a symbolic warning of the West burning, this would be it. 

Or maybe it was a warning from the invaders and their cabal sponsors, to the effect of, “We’re here, and there’s nothing you can do to stop us taking command of your countries, retconning your history, and razing your monuments”. 

Either interpretation doesn’t bode well for native Westerners. 

The White West was the spire of humanity. It has fallen. 

We’ll rebuild from the ashes, but first, there is the long overdue separation from the corrupted facsimile of the West that holds us back. It’s time to let go of what we have become. 

Not that you would know this from watching chaimstream media news, but there has been a rash of cathedral and church burnings throughout France. One month ago, the second largest church in Paris, the Sulpice, burned. It was instantly memory-holed as an “accident”. 

(Shepard Smith of Fairy News actually cut off a French official who tried to tell his viewers that there have been numerous Churches desecrated in France.) 

Meanwhile… 

Laugh it up, vibrants, it’s all getting stored to memory. 

Twenty minutes into a fire at Notre Dame Cathedral one week before Easter and the French “authorities” said it was caused by a construction restoration accident. 

Whenever they frantically rush out the pat Globohomo-preserving excuse that can’t possibly have been the result of thorough investigation, your suspicions should be raised. 

It could be an accident, but if I had to put money on it…

(In case YouTube intervenes and cans this clip, here's a screenshot of what it had in it:

You can even see the [head scarf], so this is proof there is NO WAY this was an “industrial accident.” 

UPDATE: We know now there were no construction workers on site, and fire brigade wears bright red. This is a Mahometan saboteur. 

DEUSVULT asks, "In islam, it is forbidden and considered a sin to contribute towards the construction of a church. In fact, it is their duty to destroy churches and replace them with mosques. Who are the workers at Notre Dame?" 

I predict we will never get an answer to that question, and any intrepid reporter who dares to investigate will somehow find himself smeared by Globohomo media apparatchiks. 

Sallust eloquently reminds us of the material and symbolic loss of the Notre Dame fire, "In terms of material culture, the loss of Notre Dame is the biggest hit the West has taken in my lifetime. I can think of nothing destroyed in World War II that compares with it. Taking the long view, today’s loss ranks with the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Yet FoxNews is hosting a Bernie Sanders town hall; Lou Dobbs is talking about flags on the side of police cars in Laguna Hills; and the lead story on National Review is another piece of petty partisan crap by David French about Ihlan Omar. I have seen way too many stories in the European media–published with no apparent sense of self-reflective irony–about how the cathedral has been saved because–although its internal supports, its roof, its spiritual artwork, its interior, and its spire reaching up to heaven have all been destroyed–its facade (so well known to the tourists!) still stands. Is it any wonder that those who do not appreciate or even understand the fruits of our civilization are unwilling to defend the peoples and the lands that gave birth to that civilization?" 

Men have lost connection to God and purpose. 

Women have lost connection to men and their own femininity. 

Children have lost connection to their parents. 

Families have lost connection to their relatives. 

Neighbors have lost connection to each other. 

Countryside has lost connection to towns, which have lost connection to cities. 

And Westerners have lost connection to their ancestors. 

The unraveling of Western greatness is a story of disconnection. Of a Great Severing.

Zman writes of the by now banal double standard which applies to the defilement of White glories, "Imagine instead of a masterpiece of Western civilization, it was a mosque or a synagogue that caught fire and burned to the ground. Big tech would already be de-platforming all of us. The EU would rush through laws banning us from the public space.
Instead we’re going to get a week of stories about how accidents happen." 

*Whites utterly dispossessed from their homelands!" 

“Ah, well, accidents happen!” 

I would bet that the crews working on the Notre Dame Cathedral were mostly immigrants. Probably Tunisians and Algerians. The few French working the project would have spent their time making sure the Algerians and Tunisians did not try to kill one another. 

The price of cheap labor is your heritage. 

J.R. quips, "Any sufficiently retarded immigration policy is indistinguishable from terrorism." 

The best case scenario is that the fire wasn’t set on purpose, it’s just that all the Arabs and Africans doing the work were so stupid, lazy, and indifferent to quality and safety standards that it caught fire anyway. 

There’s frequently some animus inherent in gross incompetence, especially when the mercenary laborers are so alien to their employers. Yeah, an African “left” a lit cig on the floor, and that will be recorded in the books as an “accidental fire” but there would have been a callous disregard motivating that “accident”. 

When one small church in rural France burns, “accident” is a plausible cause. 

When a hundred churches and cathedrals all over France and particularly in its biggest city, Paris, burn during Christendom’s holiest weeks, ya gotta start thinking something other than a series of “accidents” are responsible. 

PS Some indie news outlets are reporting that Macron ordered that half the work force on the Notre Dame restoration should be Middle East migrants. I can’t vouch for that bit of news, but honestly would anyone here doubt it?

And I won't quote the Zman's full post specifically on the burning, but here's a link:  http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=17090