Month: February 2020

I’ve been homeschooling my three sons (now 12 and twins who are 11) going on 8 years now. But much of the history curriculum (including Christian materials) either unwittingly or intentionally cheer on what Dr. Paul Gottfried describes as our “secular theocracy,” in which America isn’t defined by tangible commonalities like shared values, faith, and customs, but rather by egalitarian “ideas” like “liberal democracy,” “equality,” and “social justice.” In other words, the Yankee worldview.

It’s a toxic brew of the Social Gospel and Enlightenment preening, giving it the self-righteousness of man-made morality and the self-appointed rule of elitism. In order to promote the “greater good,” individual reason must be sacrificed. In order to build up the kingdom in this world, some individuals must be torn down. In order to grow the new social order, some traditions must be dug up root and branch. Just like the Puritans of yore demanded during their sanctimonious sermons: “Reconstruct! Re-educate! Reform!”

Take the Lincoln mythos. He’s called the “Great Emancipator.” The selfless statesman who was martyred for the “Union.” He’s considered a saint or even a god, according to modern Ameridoxy, and the “multicultural catechism,” as Gottfried might call it, hinges upon the liturgy of “Civil War” revisionism.

“The cause of the South is the cause of us all.”
— Alexander H. Stephens

So if you dare to study “what’s true and valuable in the Southern tradition,” you will be deemed a dissident or maybe even a apostate by a sister in Christ. “Racist!” cry the secular theocrats. But why? Here’s how my smart friend William explains it.

It’s a spot-on encapsulation of why Southern history is so vital to understanding the post-modern society in which we traditionalists are trying to both survive and resist, although I would add that the cultural Marxists pulling the strings know exactly what they’re doing. They simply don’t articulate it because white guilt is a way more effective tool than is honesty. Southern history (and proud Southerners) are simply an impediment to “progress.”

This is precisely why Democrats in Mississippi say homeschoolers “must provide students with an examination of the history of the State of Mississippi from the age of discovery and colonization to the present with particular emphasis on the significant political, social, economic and cultural issues of the 19th and 20th centuries which have impacted the diverse ethnic and racial populations of the state.” The critical-theory reformers must mandate their bad ideas, otherwise, smart people who have already fled from the government-school system may slip through the cracks with some real smarts and grasp what’s really at stake.

So any resistance to what Gottfried terms the “therapeutic managerial state” (centralized government that aims to replace family, God, and localism through subsidization of and interference with every aspect of everyday life) must be crushed. And since it is the archetype – the white, Christian, Southern man – who poses the largest threat to progressive supremacy, he and his symbols must be obliterated. See, if you were to learn some real history, you may start questioning the totalitarian narrative.

“The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”
— Flannery O’Connor

One wouldn’t think that “conservative” Protestant curriculum would fall prey to such idolatrous social-engineering schemes. But unfortunately, it often does.

From the beginning of our homeschool journey, my family participated in Classical Conversations, a Christian home-education program. Although CC was a blessing and we parted on good terms, I decided to try something different this year, as I had grown concerned with the increasing politically correct direction of CC, at least on the national level.

If you’ve ever visited the CC Facebook page, I’m sure you can attest to the hysterical mamas who incessantly complain about how “not diverse” CC is (there’s even a shockingly anti-white “Adding Diversity to Classical Conversations” Facebook group), how the curriculum has a “Southern bias,” and how it must due to the fact that CC corporate is based in North Carolina.

They gnash their teeth about how the Timeline Song states “Lincoln’s War Between the States” and exhibit puerile emotionalism whenever the War comes up. Just get in line with the narrative that the War was about those evil slave-owning Southerners and their selfish wants vs. the noble black-people-loving saviors of the North who fought for justice and freedom. We must ignore facts, suspend our own God-given knowledge, and goose-step with consensus, or else.

Funny thing is that the above two-year-old comment isn’t even PC enough for 2020, since the terms “slavery” and “slaves” have now been revoked by the speech police as they’re deemed too “reductive,” and are now being replaced by “enslaved peoples” and “enslavement.” The crusaders of chaos say that the change is supposed to emphasize “personhood” and avoid a “nonhuman noun.” Meanwhile, Southerners are dehumanized at every turn.

Below you’ll see two past futile attempts I made in an effort to reason with the presentist finger-waggers within homeschooling, who I’ve written about before. It’s enough to make a mama fit to be tied.

Lord, why do people homeschool if your history is just going to promote the progressive paradigm? Just grab a government textbook and be done with it, and leave the rest of alone.

The woke CC mamas would benefit greatly from McClanahan’s podcast. But maybe first they should be deprogrammed by reading Gottfried’s indispensable Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, in which he explains how post-modernity and post-Christianity are overwhelmingly “liberal Protestant.”

It’s a “religious worldview [that] gives direction to the managerial state’s progress toward a therapeutic regime concerned with the self-esteem of victims” … and the “persistence of the American Protestant establishment in churning out confessions.” In other words, white guilt and virtue-signaling.

I agree with Gottfried, which is why I (as an Orthodox Christian) have written posts like White souls aren’t worth much these days, White Christians should feel guilty, and Keep on protesting, Protestants. I’ve tried to expose the anti-white cancer gobbling up the organs of Evangelicalism because it’s heretical. It’s damaging spiritually and intellectually, but also socially, since it has dangerous cultural ramifications, which affect us all.

Let me just state for the record Orthodox home-educators are not immune. “Liberal Christian theologians and clergy have contributed to this [transformational] culture but are not its only creators,” writes Gottfried. It’s really an American phenomenon.

The deleterious dogma is so ingrained in people through our “managerial state and its media-academic priesthood” and our progressive rituals, but it’s mostly mainline religious leaders who’ve made its “inverted positions” more palatable. After all, Protestantism is still highly influential, both religious-wise (being the most popular faith in America) and homeschool-wise (being the pioneers of the American home-education movement and consequently the most prominent publishers of said curriculum).

If good Christians don’t defend biblical morality, true justice, and God’s Kingdom in their churches, why should we expect them to fight against humanist precepts, “social justice,” and the worship of the nation-state in our culture? And just like our centralized government miseducation, many Christian materials are just as bad was what U.S. Senator James A. Bayard, Jr., described as the “Yankee school system” and “the teachings of a licentious, sensational, and corrupt press.”

Southerners were forced to accept this progressive model of schooling at the point of a bayonet, eventually submitting to it over the course of the 20th century. But homeschoolers today now understand the pernicious aims and effects of the education-industrial complex and have therefore already personally seceded from the menace, so why still parrot so much of the cultural-Marxist creed?

They have succumbed to the “false theory of progress,” which leads to what G.K. Chesterton called the “suicide of thought.” It befuddles the Word, and encourages people into self-censorship and softheadedness. Chesterton said that such a devolution in critical thinking is “an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind.” But I believe it’s both, since truth (and the healthy pursuit of it) is a product of man having been made in God’s image and every human being’s innate yearning to know our Creator.

So, today’s puritans don’t build Christ-centered churches, they build government schools and infiltrate homeschooling with government-centered doublethink. They don’t evangelize the Good News, they proselytize social-gospel propaganda. They don’t seek a close-knit community of like-minded brothers and sisters, they demand collective control over all of society. Or else.

Now let me be clear: My local CC community of seven years was filled with smart, faithful, conservative families. The tenor wasn’t Southern-without-apology when we began attending in 2012, but it certainly wasn’t anti-Southern either. I would like to think that my kids and I had a little something to do with decreasing knee-jerk trust of the therapeutic state and the Lincolnian-nationalist narrative. Or maybe it’s just because the intellectually curious tend to get red-pilled when they stop to consider real history and real evidence.

But as my children moved up in the levels of the CC program, I became increasingly concerned about the bad history in some of the source texts, so much so that I ended up using my different materials, which were typically adult works and much more difficult for my sons to understand. Sure, this was a teaching opportunity for me. “Hey, let’s read this together, kids, and I’ll decipher it for you.” But then I thought, “Why the heck am I paying for this expensive History-Based Writing Lessons book when I’m not even using it?”

Couple this with the fact that CC is an international for-profit company, I was fearful that the evangeleftists would eventually win, since progressives shriek and stomp their feet and have ceaseless tantrums to eventually get what they want. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, right? So we opted to make an exit before that could happen.

“My understanding of Marxist Communism is that … its necessary result is the extinction of the memory of the past,” wrote Professor Harry Jaffa, a Straussian who knew a thing or two about twisting history. I don’t want to erase history, any history. In fact, I want to shine an even brighter light on all history, most notably that which is deemed “consensus,” “conventional wisdom,” or “settled social science.” And I’m not willing to ask permission to do it. I say to hell with the triggered mamas and all the other adherents of Ameridoxy.

My husband and I decided to home-educate our children well before we had children and became Christians, before we understood how socially engineered we ourselves were to the therapeutic state. Even way back then, we knew that mainstream history is a poison that infects every nerve of society and rips apart every fiber of culture. It clogs the veins of intellectual inquiry.

Like Jefferson Davis opined, “Of what value are paper constitutions and oaths binding officers to their preservation, if there is not intelligence enough in the people to discern the violations and virtue enough to resist the violators?” Bad history deconstructs, dupes, and and destroys.

To me, everything true, good, and beautiful is dependent upon good history. Why do people so greatly misunderstand Americanism and civics? Why do people fall for leftism and morph into foaming-at-the-mouth SJWs? Why do people think warfarism and empire-building are patriotic? Why do people attack the family and tradition? Why do people hate the South and hate themselves (if they’re white)? Why do people get Christianity so wrong and fall for wolves in sheep’s clothing? Why is civilization crumbling? The answer to all is bad history. 

Take a deep breath, pull out the therapeutic-state needle, and detox from the puritanical poison. Real history is the antidote. It will be difficult and uncomfortable, and won’t win you any popularity contests, but seeking truth is way healthier than is being led astray with lies.

Be sure to check out my forthcoming followup about how my family we does history.

Source: Dissident Mama – The antidote for the therapeutic state

David Brooks’ newest for The Atlantic Monthly, “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” has been making the rounds on social media. My initial comment was: “David Brooks pushing subversion? I’m shocked.” I was assured by a couple smart folks that the headline was “clickbait,” the article was “good,” and that Brooks wasn’t “pushing anything.”

Reading a reformer

Still, I was hesitant. I mean, who has the time read a nearly 19,000-word essay by a Never-Trumper, Hillary fanboy, Obama-phile, John McCain-iac, and neocon warhawk in a publication that’s synonymous with blueblood meddlesomeness. “Gotta save the uncultivated multitudes from themselves,” the elitist reformers at The Atlantic have been saying for more than 160 years, and with not a hint of irony.

Finally, I relented and gave the verbose article a read. And as it turns out, the headline was exactly on point: Brooks is indeed pushing for the destruction of the nuclear family, most notably the ones comprised of white people.

Slyly, Brooks matches interspersed truth with contradictory suppositions, a tactic meant to confuse and distract from his propaganda. For instance, he captures the reader’s attention by quite rightly bemoaning decentralization of the family. “This is the story of our times – the story of the family, once a dense cluster of many siblings and extended kin, fragmenting into ever smaller and more fragile forms.” Oddly, he will eventually cry for more centralization as the fix.

“Extended clans” misunderstood

Brooks discusses the sad state of the multigenerational family, with members now living dispersed around the country. This strikes a chord with me, as my husband and I are advising our three sons to marry young, have (lots of) babies while in their twenties, and stay near us for the “resilience” and positive “socializing force” that is fostered within a close-knit tribe. However, our multigenerational stance would horrify Brooks, and maybe even get us pegged as racists, since it’s a personal secession to his ultimate statist schemes.

“We’ve made life freer for individuals and more unstable for families,” Brooks states, but then notes the “exhausting and stifling” aspect of an individual living within an extended family where “individual choice is diminished.” Well, a person living within any group of people can find the experience tedious, but it’s typically less so with family due to both nature and nurture.

After all, you already share genetic traits with biologic family. And then if you maintain close bonds and live within fixed-location proximity, you’ll also have in common characteristics, customs, expectations, attitudes, faith, and a general worldview. It’s a sociological and historical fact that like-mindedness makes for a more peaceable people.

Break down by design

“As factories opened in the big U.S. cities, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, young men and women left their extended families to chase the American dream,” Brooks writes. “The decline of multigenerational cohabiting families exactly mirrors the decline in farm employment.”

I wouldn’t say that the agrarian life was willfully abandoned due to some patriotic principle, as Brooks suggests; rather, it was forced out of the Southern people through invasion, war, occupation, and Reconstruction. Peculiar that he calls it “forced migration” when blacks moved to Northern industrial cities, but chides it as self-centered “mobility [and] dynamic capitalism” when white folks do it for the same exact reason: to deal with the purposeful poverty laid upon the Dixie by federal subjugation.

When central authoritarianism took hold in 1865, the rural/urban split was decided and cities won. The decultured and deracinated ideology of “nationhood” as superior to family and roots was established on shaky, blood-soaked ground but would be normalized by the media, academia, and government throughout the 20th century, until it became the new abnormal.

Rural folks – both black and white – eventually conformed, redefining themselves more by consumer products and cul-de-sacs, apartment living and immediacy, government projects and materialist prosperity, than by familial heritage, hearth, and home. Still, many tried to hold on to some vestige of tradition and order within the throes of this purposeful chaos by living out the nuclear-family standard.

Yet, Brooks assails the nuclear family as “brittle” and blames this stabilizing institution for further erosion of kinship and “big, interconnected, and extended families.” Funny that he attacks the reaction to people trying their best to piece together some semblance of sanity within the progressive paradigm, rather than the progressive paradigm itself, which created the dystopian reality in the first place.

In 1984, Southern intellectual Andrew Nelson Lytle wrote that industry is “a modification of the Spartan state, which reduced the family to a minimal role.” Industry is meant to uproot. Lytle and the other “Southern agrarians” knew that if the ties that bind are loosened, the nation-state will tighten its grip. Neocons like Brooks will call this “reform,” but I call it genocide.

Pretzel logic

“The period from 1950 to 1965 demonstrated that a stable society can be built around nuclear families – so long as women are relegated to the household” where they were “locked in the kitchen,” Brooks remarks as a gotcha against the nuclear family. But he ends up undoing his own half-truth hyperbole by then blaming “hyper-individualism” (a core tenet of feminism) for the “disintegration” of the family.

“People with an individualistic mind-set tend to be less willing to sacrifice self for the sake of the family, and the result is more family disruption,” asserts Brooks, who then says the nuclear family is the main cause of disruption. This is what you call a cultural-Marxist shell game. Keep your eye on the ball, people!

“Americans now look to marriage increasingly for self-discovery, self-esteem and personal growth,” and being a husband or a wife “is no longer primarily about childbearing and childrearing” but is “primarily about adult fulfillment.” Brooks supposedly laments this social shift yet clamors to institutionalize narcissism and eradicate the civilization-enforcing institution of traditional marriage.

“Though women have benefited greatly from the loosening of traditional family structures – they have more freedom to choose the lives they want – many mothers who decide to raise their young children without extended family nearby find that they have chosen a lifestyle that is brutally hard and isolating.” But somehow still, “We’ve made life better for adults.” So which is it?

If feminism “helped endow women with greater freedom,” shouldn’t they be happy? Everyone can see that women have never been more miserable. It has nothing to do with #MeToo hysteria or the fictional wage gap, but everything to do with the fact that it’s impossible for women to “have it all,” as the left has convinced them to believe. Feminists may deny their nature, but nature still has a way of kicking them smack dab in their ill-fitting yoga pants. This disruption benefits Brooks and his ilk, especially when the duped grrrrls blame white, straight men for all of their self-imposed problems.

“Progressives, meanwhile, still talk like self-expressive individualists of the 1970s: ‘People should have the freedom to pick whatever family form works for them.’ And, of course, they should,” writes Brooks, who then lambastes progressives who “have no philosophy of family life at all, because they don’t want to seem judgmental.” That right there is what you call a neocon hustle; his assertions don’t jibe but seem palatable if you’re not paying close attention.

Race-baiting doesn’t add up

Brooks says “detached nuclear families” only benefit the “privileged.” Translation: only white people can pull off having monogamous, stable marriages and functioning kids without the benefit of extended family or the state. This is both ahistorical and immoral.

Craftily, Brooks doesn’t wear his anti-whiteness on his sleeve. Instead, he uses statistics as a red herring, trying to reinforce the black/white “affluence gap,” so it must be whitey’s fault, either personally or systemically.

On one hand, Brooks states that “African Americans have always relied on extended family more than white Americans do” (a claim that is patently false), while on the other hand saying that “African Americans have suffered disproportionately in the era of the detached nuclear family.” He simultaneously lauds the black extended family for having “survived even under slavery,” giving an unintentional nod to the fact that Southern chattel slavery (unlike most forms of slavery) was overwhelmingly paternalistic and allowed (and sometimes even encouraged) blacks to marry and have families.

“Black single-parent families are most concentrated in precisely those parts of the country in which slavery was most prevalent.” Pay no mind to the fact that that’s where most blacks live. Nah, just keep digesting Brooks’ anti-white narrative. He praises “immigrants,” Latinos, and Asians for their “multigenerational households,” and gives special attention to Native Americans’ “communal culture,” saying that “you can’t help but wonder whether our civilization has somehow made a gigantic mistake.”

Brooks is using his false sense of compassion for “people of color” as a sledgehammer to try to demean the white nuclear family. Well, I’ll see you and raise you, David. In 1861, the Five Civilized Tribes allied and fought for the Confederacy for the same reason as white (and some black) Southerners: they were defending home, and kith and kin against puritanical-progressive rule, which is the very same draconian ideology that Brooks is suggesting as an answer to society’s problems.

Subsidizing the “capacity of the village”

After all his crocodile tears for the family, what is Brooks’ remedy for curing the broken family? “Redefining kinship … mixed-income communities that are more amenable to the profusion of family forms … co-housing projects … connected ways of living.” In other words, doubling down on the cause of the problem.

See, without the undergirding of real family foundations, those within “chosen” families are more amenable to any statist swindle that comes down the pike, from smart growth and diversity-and-inclusion regulation, to pedo grooming and atheism, to gun control and hate-speech laws. Brooks’ call for increased centralization is precisely the kind of totalitarianism the Bolsheviks tried. He wants you to be “individual” enough to buck tradition, but “collective” enough to do what you’re told.

Predictably, Brooks uses LGBT’s “modern chosen-family movement” with its “extremely fluid boundaries” as the model of how us backwards yahoos should be doing things. Yep, the guy who claims to mourn the destruction of the family promotes the reconstructionist aims of the gay-rights movement as the cure. Yep, the guy who says society “is too detached, disconnected, and distrustful” is promoting even more detachment, disconnectedness, and distrust. And wouldn’t you know: he wants you to pay for it!

Wake up, white folks

Brooks is a great case study in what we traditionalists are up against. He’s an influential cultural critic who talks out of both sides of his mouth. He’s a master at using emotional rhetoric while offering prescriptions that will only worsen the societal problems he allegedly hates.

Please consider the advice I offer students in the current-events class I teach at my homeschool co-op: consider the source. At first glance, one might think Brooks is advocating for families. But upon closer inspection, he’s really asking families (and specifically white ones) to willfully suicide themselves. And he’s banking on white guilt to do it.

“Americans overcompensated with sweeping entitlement programs” and turned “a blind eye to accountability on longstanding values and principled behavior within the African American community,” wrote Dean Kalahar. “Discriminating between proper and bad behavior as a legitimate judgment … is not discrimination or bigotry.” Stop falling for the race-bait, people.

While this Jewish journalist pretends to be white, hobnobs with social-justice evangelicals like Tim Keller, and preaches a strange brand of “morality” to unsuspecting white folks (while holding his tribe to much different conventions), his ideas for fighting poverty all center around “nonwhite … upward mobility” (read: more affirmative action, more quotas, more welfare, and more government-manipulated anti-whiteness and the culture of black victimhood – the very things led to the decline of the black family). If he can just convince conservatives to be self-loathing enough and abandon limited-government principles, he’ll have whitey subsidizing his own demise in no time.

So, should we do as Brooks suggests and blame the snake in the bed: the detached nuclear family, which is a consequence of government meddling and social engineering? Or the person who put the snake in the bed: the statist regime and its comrades who prop up globalism, technocracy, and new-world disorder through the anti-family ethos?

Let’s ignore and ridicule anyone who wants us to further deconstruct our own kinship and change the definition of family, especially a moralizing quack who fails to even mention God in his excessive screed. There’s never been a better time to return to roots and resist withering on the vine. Let’s nurture the Christ-centered nuclear family, which is the foundation of multigenerational connectedness and healthy, fruitful individuals. Let’s not allow ourselves to get bamboozled by Brooks’ sleight of hand. It’s time to rebuild, not break down.

Source: Dissident Mama – Don’t brook Brooks’ bamboozle

Sadly, one might think that the big gun-rights rally in Richmond wasn’t about guns at all. From what I can gather, seems like the only idea anyone (including many of the pro-2A activists themselves) was interested in perpetuating was the alleged “diverse” makeup of the crowd.

It’s as if only black folks were at the event, which was attended by more than 22,000 mostly white gun-rights advocates. Yet, the message went from “We will not comply!” to “See, we’re not racists!” How is this not complying with political correctness and the regime that uses it to push for gun control? You know what that’s called? Gaslighting.

Gaslighting is part of a slow and steady leftist strategy that’s been social-engineered into the collective consciousness, apparently, so effectively that even the oppressed will employee it against their best interests. And one of its most sinister symptoms is virtue signaling, a coping mechanism of far too many otherwise smart people trying to exist in our untenable cultural-Marxist reality. But we must stop being those puppets.

Since my husband and sister attended the rally, my sons and I watched live-streams all morning. I originally had the following content in my last blog post, but edited it out because I really didn’t see much of this happening:

“People will spend their valuable air time talking about ‘a few bad apples’ as to shield themselves from being linked to the three alleged white supremacists who were arrested beforehand. Their signs will advertise how ‘diverse’ legal gun-owners are (a fiction, to be sure) and how 2A is good for everyone.”

Most interviews I saw stuck to the point: that Virginia’s gun owners are under assault by the state’s leftist legislators and governor. My husband said that even though he saw many effective signs focusing solely on gun rights and self-defense, there were still too many that trivialized the issue by incorporating in Northam’s “blackface” from 35 years ago. Here’s a good sampling of the disconnect.

And it was precisely these deflecting social-justice images that saturated conservative and libertarian media post-event. “See, we’re not racists! We’re not homophobes!” clamored the white gun owners, purposefully diverting attention way from the true injustice being inflicted upon them. Why give your enemy a red herring that works against you?

The collage above was created by a pro-gun enthusiast who felt the need to defend against racism. Anyone who goes to that extent to showcase diversity really doesn’t grasp the reality that being pro-gun is an overwhelmingly (and I’m talking 99.9999999%) white issue. Just accept it, people. Have you seen the gun owners who show up at the Sanctuary County meetings? Not a black dude to be seen, save for the very few exceptions. And that’s okay.

Moreover, if you dine out on the angle of your movement’s faux diversity, you’re going to lose. What happens at the next rally when there’s 10 black folks, instead of 12? Or none? You’ve already willingly given progressives the ammo they need to crush you by the PC standard you helped foster.

Plus, where are the photo collages and memes of my husband, the protector of his family, or my sister, a lifelong Richmonder? She’s married to a “person of color” yet wasn’t carrying a sign about that. Make no mistake, these two white folks were there to say emphatically, “We will not comply!” Period.

Some people say that my husband attending the rally unarmed was a win for government, perhaps even evidence of gaslighting. Whereas the VCDL was thinking visuals, he likened his decision to pragmatics, similar to Bundy Ranch activists who considered putting women at the front of their standoff with the BLM because they thought it lessened the chances of deadly force actually being used. Additionally, they calculated that if a blood bath had occurred, the world would consider the crime even more abhorrent had women perished at the hands of feds. That’s optics. It’s risky but serves a purpose.

Virtue signaling, on the other hand, only communicates weakness and undercuts purpose. Nigel Farage is an excellent example of how to not distract from a cause. He’s anti-EU and pro-British. He’s for decentralization and against globalism. But do we hear about how Farage is for gay marriage? Or that he has lots of black friends? Nope. Because none of that matters. Farage’s brand is Brexit, nothing else. He’s laser-focused, as he should be.

And talk about gun-owners wasting their precious political capital, some of the chants were too much to bear. Don’t the gun activists realize that “USA” is one of the entities coming for their guns?

From the mere existence of the ATF; to the regulatory reign of already-on-the books federal anti-gun laws; to growing bipartisan support for federal backing of state red-flag laws; to non-military, non-law-enforcement federal agencies stockpiling (on the federal tax-payers’ dime) huge amounts of arms, ammo and military-style equipment; I hate to break it to you, but ‘Murica is not your friend, law-abiding gun-owner man.

My husband told me the rally even involved “National Anthem” and “Pledge of Allegiance” recitations. Do VA gun-owners not understand the origin of the anti-gun movement they’re facing? Do they not get that it’s the empire who wants to disarm them?

I even heard the statist hymn “God Bless the USA” as the rally was concluding. And all the gaslight people sing, “I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free.” But are you really?

After all, it’s the immigration policy of the “glorious Union” which set the stage for gun control in the Old Dominion and beyond. Statistically speaking, “people of color,” especially immigrants, don’t like guns. Neither do women. So, you’re losing your guns specifically because of diversity! Gun rights aren’t gay rights, or women’s rights, or black rights; they’re white male rights. Gasp!

While you wax patriotic and laud the Constitution, victim-pyramid shysters use the First Amendment that your ancestors fought to uphold to not only clamor for your disarmament, but to also call for your censorship and to call you a Nazi – and all this is after your diversity virtue-signaling. The narrative is you are the “threat to democracy.” Hence, the dangers of gaslighting.

C’mon, resistors. How about “I’m a Good Ol’ Rebel” instead? I mean, what are you even defying at this point if you’re touting the very political correctness that engenders your demise?

Forget Northam’s blackface. If he’s a white supremacist, he’s the worst one in history, since he fully understands and plays the demographic-replacement game. It’s how he got voted into power, and it’s why his policies take aim at laws that will only subjugate white people, attack Anglo heritage, degrade Christianity, raze Confederate statues, and further erode traditionalism. They’re all battles in the same conflict.

Anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, anti-Islamophobia, anti-whiteness, anti-[fill in the blank] is all about the state pushing forward cultural Marxism, and gun control is one of the largest cogs in the progressive wheel. It’s a high-stakes game to secure the technocratic globalist order. Just ask these billionaire bullies. This is why Boyd Cathey says, whoever wins the culture war, wins everything.

Is it any wonder that the leftist politicians who promised to “wipe out” pro-firearm bills trying to loosen restrictions, “move forward with gun control bills,” and did indeed vote in favor of a red-flag law are the same ones who just a day after the rally approved of “LGBT-friendly legislation” and a bill ending Lee-Jackson Day, and introduced a bill to abolish the electoral college? Self-defense isn’t a right but transgender birth certificates are, says the Virginia Senate. This is the reality of living in a diverse mass democracy. Egalitarianism as far as the eye can see, and guns and their white male gun owners are an impediment to that progress.

Maybe the alt-right gloomers have a point: only 3,000 people lawfully assembled in Charlottesville with absolutely no police protection and still that Lee statue stands, while 22,000 conservatives rallied in Richmond with the full “blessing” of law enforcement, yet draconian gun control and other cultural-Marxist measures stand taller than ever.

Progressive nationalism, or secular theocracy, as Paul Gottfreid calls it, is part of the invisible hand that has moved society toward worshiping the things that smash true freedom and every vestige of historic tradition. It’s American gnosticsim and the “diversity is our strength” creed is part of the poisonous liturgy.

Because white men are economically and materially comfortable, they don’t so much mind being manipulated, at least so far. It’s like to racial sadomasochism. Or Stockholm Syndrome in which white folks have developed not merely an alliance with their captors, but rather, an affinity for captivity itself.

Disarming law-abiding gun owners is about power and is carried out by browbeating the archetype into submission. And if he won’t willingly obey this velvet-glove tyranny in every aspect of his personal and social life, well then, it will be meted out by force. This is why guns are important; they’re key to the great leftist transformation. That’s the message.

But I’m not all doom and gloom. I have a kind of hesitant optimism. I think the rally was an overall success because it showed white, straight men (the most demonized people in America) peacefully protesting. That if the state does its job of protecting citizens and property, people can exercise their freedom of conscience and their right to assemble. That without the cover of cops and corporate media, anarcho-tyranny doesn’t have to be the new normal. That normies are willing to take a risk, to step out of their comfort zone, even when they think it may run counter to the status quo.

The fearful build-up to the real possibility of state-sponsored violence, either from “anti-fascist” radicals or the police themselves (after all, VA Police took part in the Charlottesville stand-down orders), was a huge eye-opener for the typically law-and-order crowd. This is one of the reasons why gun owners were so skeptical about entering into Northam’s illegal, barricaded, unarmed area.

I think being castigated as “white supremacists” also awakened a few more folks to the globalist narrative and expertly illustrated just how unhinged and untrustworthy the corporate media really is. When law-abiding people realize that the apparatchiks in the media are as much a threat to their liberty as is Antifa, this is a huge development. After all, they and their cohorts in academia and the managerial state are the ones who evangelize American gnosticism.

I pray a critical mass of people finally realize there is no pleasing the progressive order. It doesn’t matter if you once consumed the steady diet of misinformation you were spoon-fed by cable news and carefully crafted public perception. We must be realistic and smart, and not rely upon sentimental notions that truly no longer exist. Keep moving the Overton Window, or maybe just smash it altogether.

Eye on the ball, people! There’s only one kind of diversity that matters when it comes to guns, and that’s what kind and how many you have. And the sooner you stop virtue signaling, shed your gaslighting, and start embracing true reality, the better.

Source: Dissident Mama – Stop gaslighting yourselves!