Clear Thinking Family, Race, Religion, Culture, Politics

September 25, 2016

Consensual Spanking, a Response to Cultural Marxism

Filed under: Progressivism,Society,Women — Editor @ 10:37 am

This may seem a stretch for many who don’t associate sex with politics. But politics is all about society and society is all about sex. So, what happens when a particular political philosophy skews sexual relations, making women into men and men into women?

All State Texas Spanking Party

Texas All State Spanking Party

There have always been sadists and masochists indulging in spanking; they show up in Greek and Roman pottery and frescos, in illustrations through the Middle Ages, in Victorian literature (and how) and today in the thriving BDSM and Kink lifestyles. Google “spanking” or “spanking parties,” or check out what’s available on Tumblr for kink fetishists, and you’ll get your eyes opened.

But something’s changed. What was a private obsession, a secret shared with often anonymous  partners, has started to go mainstream. It appears to have been gradual; a move from private clubs to paid public performances, from small scale spanking parties to large spanking clubs, like the Spanking Club of New York which has regular events, including a bi-annual mountain resort weekend in the Spring and Fall.

This, in turn, has morphed into multi-day spanking conventions, like the Texas All State Spanking Party and the Lone Star Spanking Party which book major hotels and have hundreds of participants.

All this is by way of introduction. What I’m describing, without positive or negative comment, is a trend towards greater participation in spanking as a lifestyle choice by both single and married individuals across the United States. In particular, I’m referring to greater participation by women, many of whom show they are willing to be disciplined by men in private, semi-private and public settings.

This means something and I think that something is that women are reacting in response to social pressures over the past fifty years that have feminized men and masculinized women. This is something of a rebellion against the women’s movement, against safe spaces, and micro-aggressions, against women being forced to “have it all” by working and homemaking. This is an attempt, I’m arguing, to find through infantalization a return to the patriarcial society abhored and deplored by Cultural Marxists.

In effect, in accepting a bare assed spanking, women are making a political statement. They are showing what they think of feminism.

Too far? Am I making a leap into psychological darkness? Maybe not. We know the Frankfurt school, and its followers, sought to end war by ending the patriarchy. To do this this, they suggested the family unit needed to be destroyed through sexual licence, homosexuality, women’s rights, birth control, state support and a variety of other ways. If male dominance could be removed from the family, they argued, then male control of nations—and national warmaking—could be ended as well.

God knows they’ve been remarkably successfull, first taking control of educational institutions, then the media and finally politics. Everything you hear today that is “politically correct” is being described that way by the sheep-like followers of Cultural Marxism. So, given this, how can we account for cosensual spanking? How can women, so marinated in feminism they prefer dildos to the real thing, how can they pull their skirts up and present their backsides to be smacked?

I suggest what’s happening is that the society preferred by feminists feels unnatural to many women, perhaps most when you get them to peel off layers of pc pandering. Down below, on some level, women want someone else to be in control of them, their lives and their families. Being spanked, allowing some man to spank them, is a way of rebalancing the norms they’re forced to accept in day-to-day life.

I’ll conclude that there is another actor in this drama; the internationalists who have through globalization and free trade, shipped millions of manufacturing jobs overseas. By removing jobs from middle class men they have destroyed the ability of these men to be the breadwinner in millions of families. Women, mostly in service jobs, have been forced to wear the pants in the family.

For years they’ve been told this is great, wonderful, empowering. Now, finally, they see it ain’t great at all. It sucks. No wonder they’re taking their pants down. No wonder they want to be spanked.

September 19, 2016

Britain Lied about the Reason for WWI

Filed under: Government,Nation State,WWI — Editor @ 4:05 pm

We will be remembering the terrible carnage of WWI soon, but we will not be remembering the cause. The reason is that the British government misled its people, and the Empire, about why it started. It lied and the lie lies buried because it’s so embarassing.

Treaty of London used in a propaganda poster

The 1839 Treaty of London used in a propaganda poster

You know the story; Britain declared war on Germany because the latter violated Belgian territory in its attack on France using the Schlieffen Plan. The official line was that Britain had guaranteed Belgian neutrality, along with other European countries, in the Treaty of London which ended the Dutch-Belgian civil war in 1839.

That war, in turn, was a product of the fallout of the Napoleonic wars when Protestant Holland wound up with Catholic provinces to the south. The south revolted, the north tried to impose its will and France marched in to protect it. The London conference which sorted out the mess started in 1838 and continued into 1839.

Most of the treaty has to do with the borders of the new country and the rights of citizens and businesses who wanted to move to the other side. There is nothing in it guaranteeing Belgian neutrality. What there is, is an injunction on Belgium to respect its own borders (notably with Holland). Here’s the section:

Article VII.

Belgium, within the limits specified in Articles I, II, and IV, shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe such neutrality towards all other States.

A similar treaty was signed on the same day with Holland and the guaranteeing powers. In other words, the powers were guaranteeing Holland that they would not allow Belgium to invade it, and guaranteeing Belgium they would not allow Holland to invade.

This is pretty simple to understand. The two sides had had a civil war and now the great powers were telling them the war was over. They would live within the borders described and that was that. If it meant anything else, it was an admonition to Holland not to try another Ten Days Campaign.

How do we jump from that document 75 years previous to a reason to declare war on Germany? Belgium had remained neutral. It had not invaded Holland or anyone else. Quite the contrary, it had been invaded by Germany, one of the signatories to the Treaty.

Clearly, and I mean this, clearly the document did not stipulate any obligation on any of the guaranteeing powers. The obligation was on Belgium, no one else.

When you stand in remembrance this Nov. 11, just remember this one fact: it was a put up job, completely unnecessary, a self-inflicted wound on European civilization by a nation that was envious of Germany as it had been a hundred years earlier of France.

Belgium had nothing to do with it.

September 11, 2016

What the American Response should have been to 9/11

Filed under: Islam,Nation State — Editor @ 8:32 am

The September 11, 2001 attack was a national tragedy, but not just for the dead and their families. It was a tragedy because America hit out at the wrong enemy.

The north face of Two World Trade Center (south tower) immediately after being struck by United Airlines

The north face of Two World Trade Center (south tower) immediately after being struck by United Airlines Flight 175

Yes Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were the direct cause of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. But they weren’t the reason it was attacked, any more than the first German soldiers into Poland were the reason for WWII. Osama was merely the commander of a tactical operation. Who was the actual leader? Who stood to gain from it? Who should America have taken down?

On this 15the Anniversary of that horrible day, let’s look at the facts and pin them to the wall. Here they are.

  • Islam tells its followers to kill unbelievers wherever they are found. Saudi Arabia is the home of islam and guards the two holy city of Islam.
  • Saudi Arabia promotes the most aggressive and fundamentalist version of Islam.
  • Osama bin Laden was a Saudi millionaire, son of the founder of the largest construction company in the Kingdom.
  • Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
  • A recently de-classified congressional report says “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government.”
  • Money was sent from the Saudi Royal family to the hijackers, among other alleged links.

Well, I could go on, but this is very clear and most of it was clear on the second or third day after the attack when the names and origins of the attackers were determined.

Instead of immediately seizing Saudi assets in the United States and detaining the members of the bin Laden family in the United States, the U.S. government flew them out of the country during the air shutdown.

Instead of declaring war on Saudi Arabia and bombing Mecca and Medina, the U.S. launched a kind of police action in—wait for it—Afghanistan, a poor, landlocked country in central Asia that hasn’t got the infrastructure, equipment or military capable of attacking anyone.

In the wake of the attack, Ann Coulter said, “”We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” She was right then, and she’s right today. America hit out at the wrong enemy.

That enemy is still there, still working to destroy America, still pushing its militaristic, expansionistic and exclusionary religion on the world. The guilty men have yet to be punished. It is time they were.

September 9, 2016

Race is just Family writ Large

Filed under: Multiculturalism,Race,Society — Editor @ 8:44 am

Discussing race is a dangerous, even toxic, topic. Any suggestion that one race should be preferred over another is considered heresy. So let’s discuss what race really is.

Yes, it's a family

Yes, it’s a family

It should be obvious that whatever else members of a race have in common, the basic linkage is genetic; that is, members are linked however remotely, by biology. Pointing out this distinction is now considered politically incorrect, socially unacceptable and possibly even illegal.

And yet, if you go from the general to the particular, from the macro to the micro, the whole picture changes.

The micro version of race is the family; a father, mother and their children. They are linked very closely genetically and this produces strong personal bonds. What mother doesn’t love her children? What father doesn’t want his sons and daughters to succeed in life? Well, it’s obvious.

So why does this change when we move back up the scale? Why shouldn’t the extended members of a family want to help each other, to offer student loans, put someone up for the night or drive a relative to a hospital? Isn’t this what families do? Don’t you feel a need, indeed, a desire, to help members of your family?

Isn’t it true that when a family member dies you feel the hurt personally? Don’t you go to weddings to celebrate family and to funerals to provide comfort and support? Sure it is. So why are these same feelings wrong when expressed over the whole family in the nation? Why is it wrong for European Canadians to support and encourage other European Canadians, just as they would if they were more closely related?

How have we so upended reality and morality to turn a virtue into a vice?

While you consider that question, let’s look at the science. William Donald Hamilton (W.D. Hamilton) is one of the most significant evolutionary theorists of the 20th Century. He argues there is a genetic basis for the existence of altruism; the fact that an individual may sacrifice itself for the good of its group. Frank Salter is an Australian academic who has popularized Hamilton’s work and expanded it, particularly in his book On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration. Salter says groups who share a greater percentage of their genes form what he calls “ethnies,” biological populations that share feelings for each other. Thus ethnic kinship becomes a natural extension of family kinship.

After laying the scientific groundwork for ethnic genetic interests, Salter discusses their ethical and political implications. He writes, “It is parents’ duty to care for their children. Do we have a similar duty to nurture our ethnies? . . . When ethnic competition is high, as is the case in competition between members of different races, failure to show ethnic loyalty is the genetic equivalent of betraying a child or a grandchild.” He argues that “it would be prudent for a population to defend its most precious collective interest—distinctive genes carried by the ethny—with the most powerful means at its disposal.” Yet to date, “no state yet developed has reliably kept its promise as an adaptive ethnic group strategy.”

This is going to be a very hard pill to swallow for left-wing progressives and cultural Marxists because it means there is an historical, biological and genetic reason for race consciousness and that reason is that members of a race or sub-race are actually members of our own family. Racial consciousness is thus no longer a mental construct, it is demonstrably part of human biology and you know what happens when laws and good intentions come up against human biology.

Perhaps the best example of this is prohibition where millions of Americans were turned into criminals by law when they refused to stop drinking alcohol, something the body enjoys. Eventually social progressives threw in the towel and repealed prohibition in 1933 through the 21st Amendment. Race mixing, or to use the modern word for it, multiculturalism, is equally an attempt to deny human nature. It flies in the face of genetics. It is, in short, anti-scientific and will fail, perhaps spectacularly.

Love of family, community, the ethnic nation: now, that is scientific!

The next time you hear someone describe white people in a negative way, ask them if they feel the same way about their parents and children? Ask them how and where they draw a difference between their family and the other European Canadians in Canada? Ask them to explain how illogical, unreasonable and uncaring they are.

Ethnic nations are the only solution to world peace and prosperity. In the same way you want to live in your own home with your own family, national families should live in their own homes, their own nations. And no nation should interfere in the affairs of another, just the same as your neighbours shouldn’t tell you want to do in your own home.

This should be our goal and our guide. It’s only natural.

August 28, 2016

Why the Sun is setting in Europe

To coin a phrase, the lights are going out all over Europe. The carnival is over. Our civilization is coming to an end. And there’s a reason it is.

Arras, France at duskArras, France town square at dusk 2015

There is a trifling amount of butterfat in milk—3.9 percent in Holstein milk, 5.4 percent in Jersey and Guernsey milk—and yet without it milk tastes like chalk dissolved in water, there would be no French cooking, no butter to put on your bread, no cheese and no milk chocolate from Switzerland. It’s the same with hops in beer; a trace amount transforms barley water into the world’s most popular beverage.

My point is that the key ingredient in some things is critical to their very existence. Take stainless steel for instance. The basic alloy, type 304 (18-8), possesses a minimum of 18% chromium and 8% nickel, combined with a maximum of 0.08% carbon. Take away the chrome and nickel and you don’t have stainless steel anymore.

We know this is also true in biology because of the great discoveries in animal breeding and horticulture where a few individual genetic strains have transformed both plants and animals into stronger, hardier, beefier versions of themselves. And, despite its bad reputation, we know it’s also true with human populations in the branch of science called eugenics. Women tend to marry strong handsome men because they want strong beautiful babies. Women also practice positive eugenics when they abort babies suffering from identified diseases, and for the same reasons, call it eugenics on the micro level.

But what about eugenics on the macro level? What would happen to a society if it selected for passivity and conducted a mass event, or several mass events, to end the genetic lines of the strongest, most aggressive and most virile members of that society? What if we were to call these gigantic, and horrible, human experiments WWI and WWII?


Arras city hall May 1917

In effect, that’s what Europe did, starting with the heady days of August 1914 when everyone thought the war would be over by Christmas and ending with the end of WWII in Reims in the early hours of May 7, 1945. I mention the city because it’s just 180 kms from Arras, which I’ve pictured last year and three years into WWI. You can see from the colour photo the town square and its impressive City Hall has been completely rebuilt, brick by brick.

What you can’t see are the bodies, now decomposed, and the bones, still there, that lie under the wreckage and under nearby Vimy Ridge to the north. Those bodies were first those of volunteers in the German, British, French, and Canadian armies; the men most ready and eager to fight. Then they’re composed of the conscripts, ready but not eager, who followed. Those who were not healthy young males were excluded from military service. Their bloodlines continued, but the volunteers, the first killed in the first battles, their genetic inheritance returned to the earth, blasted to death, bleeding into the chalk of the Somme.

British historian Niall Ferguson made a similar point two years ago in an interview with BBC History Magazine but he didn’t follow his own argument through to a conclusion. Saying WWI was the biggest error in modern history, he continued:

The cost, let me emphasise, of the first world war to Britain was catastrophic, and it left the British empire at the end of it all in a much weakened state … It had accumulated a vast debt, the cost of which really limited Britain’s military capability throughout the interwar period. Then there was the manpower loss – not just all those aristocratic officers, but the many, many, many skilled workers who died or were permanently incapacitated in the war.

All true, but it wasn’t just the men who were wiped out, it was their genetic inheritance, their contribution to the gene pool of Great Britain. Dead men have no children.

Here I must digress into a brief analysis of the technology and strategy of WWI, first the technology. The invention of the machine gun and its combination with barbed wire made the defence dominant over the offense. This meant, other things being equal, an attacking force suffered far more than a defending force. Now the strategy.

The German advance in 1914 was stopped by the British and French armies despite a superiority in attacking numbers. The Germans then retreated to high ground in Northern France. In Central and Southern France, where they hadn’t attacked, the French found themselves on the high ground. This meant that for most of the war Britain and France were attacking positions the Germans had hardened with deep bunkers, pillboxes and multiple defensive zones. In doing so they suffered catastrophic losses.

Where the Germans were doing the attacking, notably at Verdun, they too suffered massive losses, but even these were minor compared to the bloodletting further north. Meanwhile in the East, the German army defeated the Russian army with trifling losses to itself.

The official figures of losses in the war make no distinction between reserve troops, front-line troops and assault troops. Thus they miss the point I’m making here. More of the Allies best soldiers were killed in the fighting than Germany’s. This fact altered the nature of the combatants in the war that followed a generation later.

A reader of history will recall the passivism of the British and French after the war; and, on the other hand, the anger of the German soldiers who had held the Allies away from German soil and who didn’t feel they had been defeated. Twenty years later and the Germans were vastly more aggressive than either of the victorious countries because their genetic inheritance was intact.

A Daily Mail story, looking back at the Second World War, had this to say about the British “Tommy.”

Soldiers and NCOs were far more politicised than in World War I. As a result, a certain trade union mentality influenced attitudes as to what could be expected of them. American and Canadian observers were amazed by the British soldier’s expectation of regular tea and smoke breaks. On the first day of the Normandy invasion, many who felt tired after wading ashore believed that they had earned a rest on the beach simply for having survived the landing.

An American liaison officer reported: ‘There was also a feeling among many of the men that, having landed, they had achieved their objective, and there was time for a cigarette – and even a brew-up – instead of getting on with the task of knocking out the enemy defences and pushing inland.’

Implied, but unstated, is the fact these soldiers had very little fighting spirit. Why would they? They were mostly the sons of men who didn’t fight in the first war and so had no genetic inheritance to fight with. This fact accounts for series of British defeats in the war: the evacuation from Dunkirk, the fall of Singapore, the defeat at Tobruk, the stalled front at Caen and the failure of Operation Market Garden (featured in the movie A Bridge Too Far).

The Second War was a repeat of the first only this time the Germans stayed on the offensive until they too, like the British and French in the First World War, ran out of manpower. This time there was no question of Germany being “stabbed in the back.” This time Germany was well and truly defeated, its fighting men killed and their genes returned to the soil, mostly of Russia and the Ukraine. The casualties involved are even worse than officially recorded because as many as one million of the 11 Million  captured German soldiers died of starvation, lack of medical care and exposure in Allied (mostly American) camps after the war. This atrocity is documented in the book Other Losses by Canadian author James Bacque.

Now it was the turn of the Germans to become passivists, to avoid foreign military service, to downgrade the army, to downplay any sign of nationalism, to become Europeans in the new European Union.

Seventy years and three generations later we see the result of this gigantic and terrible experiment. Europe is indeed passive; passive to the point of morbidity. Its women no longer want children, no longer want families, no longer want any part of domestic life. And why? Well, isn’t the reason staring us in the face? Isn’t it obvious that all he handsome, virile, self-confident men have been killed? Isn’t it obvious this unintended eugenic experiment has succeeded beyond all expectations?

European women don’t want to become dependent on the new feminized European men. They don’t trust the modern European man to defend them. They don’t marry them. They don’t have their children.

German girls welcome Syrian refugees

German girls welcome Syrian refugees

They appear to be waiting for a new wave of men from a new untouched genetic pool. They are even welcoming this tidal wave of genetic replacement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel being the most welcoming woman of all.

Yes the sun is setting on the Europe we came from, that we know and love. It’s dying because, where it matters, in the bedrooms of the nations, it is already dead. It was killed in Flanders, at Kursk and in Stalingrad.

When we morn at the military graveyards in Europe and at the National War Memorial, we should be grieving not for the dead, but for the unborn children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will never live, never marry, never have children of their own. We did it to ourselves and now, like sickly plants selected instead of the strong, we face the future disarmed in body and spirit.

July 8, 2016

The Lessons of Dallas

Filed under: Multiculturalism,Nation State,Race,Society — Editor @ 8:47 am

The shootings last week in Baton Rouge, Minnesota and now Dallas show that as a practical matter, multi-racial, multi-cultural societies don’t work. Here’s what Wikipedia says happened in Dallas.

Dallas shooting

Dallas shooting

Two shooters opened fire on police near Belo Garden Park at 8:58 p.m. A bystander reported hearing 50 to 75 shots. Reports stated that one shooter shot at the police from an alleyway, while another fired from the upper level of a parking building. Dallas Police Chief David O. Brown said that at least two shooters fired ambush style at the officers. Brown added that some of the officers were shot in the back, and that the shooters, having had some knowledge of the protest route, positioned themselves in a way to get a triangulated firing position. Police stated that at least four snipers located on elevated positions appeared to be involved in a strategic cross-fire attack targeting the police

It’s not just a black and white issue, it’s more profound than that. Civil harmony depends first of all on universal agreement on certain values, modes of behaviour and social norms. When there are different racial groups, no such agreement exists, or can exist, because values come from the people, not from the law. The shootings in Paris and Brussels came not from blacks, but from the same causes; a disgruntled minority, in this case both cultural and racial, which does not share the values and norms of their host society.

There are several lessons we need to take away from these events. The first is that policing is only possible in a society in which there is near universal agreement on moral, social and cultural grounds. Indeed, in such a society it was and is possible to round up a posse of ordinary citizens, arrest an outlier and convict him with a jury of random individuals. To state that simply; in such a society you don’t even need a police force. The second lesson we can learn is a reverse of the first. In a society riven by a racial divide, there are too many potential perpetrators, too many potential interactions and too many locations to police at all.

You will note that in France, Belgium, Britain, Germany, Sweden and the United States, the police and authorities are still dealing with racially-motivated crime as if it can be dealt with one criminal at a time. Time and again they are surprised by cultural clashes, “instant jihad” or anti-police shootings. They will continue to be surprised because different racial and cultural groups believe in different moral concepts, social values and laws.

There is only one solution to this issue: the ending of multiculturalism and multi-racialism. This is why we support the concept of an ethnic state, or more specifically, an ethnically homogeneous nation state. Let me end with an analogy: imagine a zoo where there was no separation of the animals.

June 24, 2016

Brexit was all Anglea Merkel’s Doing

Filed under: Globalization,Immigration,Nation State — Editor @ 11:46 am

Well, the vote is in and the U.K. is out; or going out, of the European Union. Along with the fishermen and farmers of the United Kingdom, who opted for the Leave campaign, there were a sufficient number of real, honest Britons to outvote the financial gnomes of the City and Globalists like George Sorros and President Obama. And who really started the ball rolling? Yes, Mutter Merkel.

David Cameron quits as British Prime Minister

David Cameron quits as British Prime Minister

If you didn’t stay up to watch the vote unfold, you can get a sense of the wonder and excitement of the Brexit vote from this column by Katie Hopkins. She was, to use a British expression, “over the moon” with joy.

There will be plenty of congratulations all round today, especially for Nigel Farage, who gave the speech of his life last night after first mistakenly conceding defeat.

How did it happen? How was victory snatched from defeat? I believe I know the answer. The answer is that Britons knew full well that in a year or two all those millions of Middle Eastern “refugees” would get German citizenship and be on the train for London. Nothing could stop them. Nothing would stop them. Angela would be at the bahnhof to wave them off to the U.K.

Why did she do it? Was this a 21st Century payback for the attack on Dresden? What was she thinking?

Watever it was, this German attack on Britain has been stopped at the Channel. Once again Britain is an island, a nation. Once again it is Great Britain.

June 17, 2016

U.S. State Department Calls for War with Russia

Filed under: NeoCon — Editor @ 11:03 am

The Most extraordinary document has emerged that shows war with Russia is a lot closer than anyone thinks.

2475718 08/12/2014 The Su-35 fighter performing on Air Force Day in Lipetsk Artem Zhitenev/Sputnik

A Russian Su-35 fighter performing on Air Force Day in Lipetsk Artem Zhitenev/Sputnik

The Globe & Mail reports today that more than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo calling for military strikes against President Bashar al-Assad’s government; that is, against the government of Syria currently under the protection of Russia.

It doesn’t take much of a leap to realize that if this policy were implemented, Russian and American planes would immediately be in an air war. And just where would that end?

Here’s more from the Globe:

The “dissent channel cable” was signed by 51 mid- to high-level State Department officers advising on Syria policy.

It calls for “targeted military strikes” against the Syrian government in light of the near-collapse of the ceasefire brokered earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing copies of the cable it had seen.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, visiting Copenhagen, told Reuters on Friday: “It’s an important statement and I respect the process, very, very much. I will … have a chance to meet with people when I get back (to Washington).”

He said he had not seen the memo.

Military strikes against the Assad government would represent a major change in the Obama administration’s policy of not intervening directly in the Syrian civil war, while calling for a political transition that would see Assad leave power.

Such strikes would put the United States on a collision course with Russia, which is backing Assad with air strikes, equipment, training and military advice.

In Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he had only seen media reports about the memo, but said: “Calls for the violent overthrow of authorities in another country are unlikely to be accepted in Moscow.

“The liquidation of this or some other regime is hardly what is needed to aid the successful continuation of the battle against terrorism. Such a move is capable of plunging the region into complete chaos.”

One U.S. official, who did not sign the cable but has read it, told Reuters the White House remained opposed to deeper American military involvement in Syria.

The official said the cable was unlikely to alter that, or shift Obama’s focus from the battle against the threat posed by the Islamic State militant group.

A second source who had read the cable said it reflected the views of U.S. officials who have worked on Syria, some for years, and who believe the current policy is ineffective.

So, the White House is opposed? Piffle. This is a trial baloon; Obama is testing the water to see if there is a neat way to derail the next election. A world war would certainly do it.

June 4, 2016

Trudeau: Prime Minister of Homosexuals

Filed under: Society,Western values — Editor @ 7:08 pm

Oh man, this is a Meme that’s going to hurt: Trudeau, Prime Minister of Homosexuals. It’s like calling him the King of Clowns and it fits so perfectly.

PM of Homos

PM of Homos

The name (also good in the short form: Trudeau, King of the Homos) comes from Gwen Landolt of the ‘REAL Women of Canada. She said, quoted by PinkNews:

“Justin Trudeau in his boyish enthusiasm for the homosexual agenda fails to understand that he is the Prime Minister of Canada and not the Prime Minister of the Homosexuals.”

Ouch that hurts. And there’s more:

Ms Landolt continued: “Raising a homosexual flag on Parliament grounds displays the narrow, extremist, and exclusive viewpoint of the current Liberal government.

“The rainbow flag represents the views of an activist special interest group only.

“To raise this flag is offensive to all Canadians who have knowledge and concern about Canada’s history, culture and traditions.”

Ms. Landolt has effectively ended Trudeau Jr.’s Camelot act and consigned him to history. His sexy wife can’t save him. He’s toast.

And thank God for that.

May 20, 2016

Let’s Get Back to Self-Determination of Peoples

Filed under: Nation State,Race — Editor @ 12:51 pm

Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt drafted the Atlantic Charter at a shipboard conference Aug. 14, 1941. Among other things, the Charter said territorial adjustments after the war “must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned” and that “all people had a right to self determination.” People in this context meant not only existing nations, but ethnic populations under the control of others who wished to become nations.

Kurdistan: a people without a country

Kurdistan: a people without a country

It should be obvious now to everyone the division of the Ottoman empire and the Austro-Hungarian empire after WWI was a collosal mistake. Borders were drawn willy nilly with no consideration for the people who lived there, many of whom found themselves on the wrong side of the line. Even after the Atlantic Charter stated nations should be created out of peoples, this mistake continued.

In Asia, India split into India and Pakistan, Malaya split into Malaysia and Singapore; in Africa Sudan separated into Sudan and South Sudan; in Europe Czechoslovakia split into Czechia and Slovakia and Yugoslavia split into Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia/Herzegovnia. Where splits have not taken place, but should, wars broke out.

A prime example involves Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey, all of whom should give up land for a new nation of Kurdistan. Wars also broke out in Lebanon, Cyprus and Rwanda due to ethnic and sectarian issues.

What this all means is incredibly simple to understand although very few politicians see fit to admit it. It is that peoples, that is ethnic groups, prefer to govern themselves and if they don’t have that chance, they revolt. The nature of the revolt depends on the numbers involved. If it is a very large percentage, then they opt for separation. If a smaller percentage, they opt for some kind of provincial self-governing status. The Kurds in northern Iraq, for example, have this status as have the French in Quebec.

Where the numbers are smaller still, rioting breaks out. The American example shows that while blacks only constitute 13% of the population, they repeatedly cause civil disturbances of which the Ferguson riots were the most recent. Minority riots have also taken place in recent years in London, England and Paris. Interestingly, it doesn’t really matter what the minority is, the religion or the circumstances. It just seems to be universal that ethnically similar people want self-rule. Period.

In the Canadian context, the First Riel Rebellion by the Métis and the establishment of a Provisional Government is a case in point, one that failed.

This leads me to make a simple suggestion. Canadians, and indeed all peace-loving peoples of the world, should support, as a principle, the idea of ethnic nation states. They could be large like Kazakhstan or small like Singapore, but they should be self-governing. If that principle were applied world-wide, we would sharply reduce the amount of violence, riot and war on this planet.

Of course we would have to ditch some cherished beliefs, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but that would be a small price to pay for world peace.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress