The ‘descendants’ speak

I see that Ann Coulter has written a piece about the Jefferson descendant who was quoted in the New York Times as saying his ancestor’s memorial should be removed.

Lest anybody think this is a ”me-too” article, written to compete with Ann Coulter’s piece, I had already planned to write this because I was so exasperated with the Times interview with Mr. Truscott. I remembered a previous such interview with some other self-identified descendant of a Southron hero; it may even have been a descendant of General Lee, who likewise spoke against his illustrious ancestor.

First, before that previous article attempting to tarnish the memory of a good (and great) man, I never considered the possibility of a reputable newspaper trolling for someone willing to condemn his ancestor’s character. In times past this would have been considered low and shameful.

Having ancestors who were people of character and accomplishment is in a way a great burden to carry; hoping to match their levels of success and renown can be daunting and discouraging. Do some people cope with that by disparaging their ancestors’ accomplishments as Truscott or the other ‘Founding Father’ descendants have done? If so it is a poor way to react.

How many descendants could Thomas Jefferson have today? Thousands? Potentially, he could, but he was left with only one child to carry on his line, so there many not be many. But I am a Jefferson descendant (my readers have no doubt heard it enough times) and I get incensed when anyone defames my progenitor. I think that’s the natural reaction.

But the Times think they scored some kind of victory by finding one man (out of potentially thousands) to help smear his ancestor’s character. One man’s opinion is hardly the definitive word on the life and accomplishments of Thomas Jefferson.

So suppose Truscott is an actual descendant; is he a direct, lineal descendant? On which side? As far as I know he is not kin to me, and if he were I would not be proud to claim that kinship, seeing that he seems to have decided to side with the slanderers of his own forefather.

I thank Ann Coulter (though she will not see this post on an obscure, low-traffic blog) for reiterating the evidence that gives to lie to the Hemings side’s allegations. All too often those slanders are given as gospel in the media (as the original CNN story about Truscott). All too often people repeat those unfounded lies. Thanks to Ann for her refutation of the lies.

DACA again

I thought that DACA (the anchor babies ‘Dream Act) was over and done with. From what I can recall it seemed that Trump promised his ‘Hispanic base’ that he was going to do it, to help the ‘Dreamers’ get their college degrees, then he wasn’t going to do it, and now he says he will sign an Executive Order involving the ‘Pathway to Citizenship’ promised by George W. Bush. It was his phrase wasn’t it? Or did good old Karl Rove coin that oft-heard phrase?

Whoever thought up that phrase, it’s being heard again. And to my surprise, even the Freepers, who were mostly Trump loyalists, are dismayed at the prospect of this idea being brought back to life. However among the Q faithful, nobody wants to believe it’s true, so they have some convoluted theories about Trump’s’ Cunning Plan; all is not what it seems, and the President must have some clever ruse to fool the Democrats with this DACA business.

I take it at face value. However I would rather be wrong. But I suppose it’s too late to worry about it; demographically, the die is cast. We are still allowing a great many immigrants (legal, illegal, or whatever; it’s all the same), and ‘refugees’. Can America ever recover from that kind of demographic tsunami?

It would seem that maybe Trump is in fact under the influence of his son-in-law or other family members. Otherwise why the chopping-and-changing?

Discussion at the OD blog

At his blog, Hunter Wallace has been having a very intense discussion with a leftist who responded to a post of Hunter’s, centering on the differences between the left and the (alt)-right, or the alt-right as was. I think it’s one of the most in-depth discussions of the respective belief systems or outlooks, and worth reading. As of now it looks like Hunter and his interlocutor are on part 3 of the exchange. I found it very thought-provoking. Hunter has certainly done his homework with respect to history, especially Southern vs. Northern viewpoints.

I think this series of posts is one of the best I’ve seen on the OD blog. This is the kind of thing that should be done more. It’s always good to put the truth out there even though the left seems incapable or unwilling to hear or accept it.

The uniformed ‘protesters’ at Stone Mountain, Georgia?

In my previous post I linked to a Reuters story about apparently armed black men (and at least one woman) who were photographed marching in the Stone Mountain area. I wondered about their purpose in being there. Well, it’s come to light through an eagle-eyed Twitter ‘activist’ that the people who were photographed were actors.

The AJC calls them ‘charismatic young people.’ Would they be described so flatteringly if they had less than the requisite amount of melanin?

Their role and purpose is being treated as just a matter of representing a ‘vision of hope’ for their people. Again, would others be treated with equivalent tolerance if they acted a similar role?

The questions are rhetorical, of course, as always we know what the answers are.

More thoughts on ‘American icons’, and on Stone Mountain

I have more irate thoughts about the ‘American icons’ chosen to be commemorated in this ‘National Garden’: a blog commenter called our attention to the fact that Trump chose from a list of NON-Confederate origin. Confederates or anyone associated with the Confederacy was apparently eliminated in advance. I have a feeling Trump will eventually cave and remove the names of Confederate officers from the military bases, though he left it alone — for now. He is not favorably disposed towards the Confederacy though generations of people both North and South believed in reconciliation and in burying the hatchet as it were. That policy seems to have died the death, curiously on Trump’s watch. Why did it happen just now? Why did things suddenly change so that our the government was so anti-South and anti-Confederacy?

I also have questions about why some of these ‘icons’ were chosen. Amelia Earhart? A nod to feminists? What did she do to earn her fame except disappear? Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain? I had to look him up; I honestly never heard the man’s name though he was evidently a Union army hero. I guess a lot of books will have to be rewritten to make him eclipse Gen. Lee, who was considered a great soldier and military strategist who was admired by (unbiased) people North and South. My English acquaintances hold General Lee in high esteem, while America is now going to remember him, if at all, as a “slave-owner” and “racist” and probably literally Hitler.

Sad.

So Dolley Madison is now an icon, because married to James Madison. Another nod to the ladies.

Harriet Beecher Stowe: author of the maudlin ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’. Lincoln himself reputedly said of Miss Stowe, “So this is the little lady that started the War.’‘ He was right; her fantasy-based book led to the deaths of over half a million.

Miss Stowe never set foot in the South; her book was based on lurid hearsay and fantasy, though the schools make her out to be heroic.

The whole list is a civic nationalist’s dream list; appropriately ‘diverse’, people who are famous for being famous, and the usual Political Correct ideas of what constitutes a ‘hero’ or an icon. This list alone makes me see how the U.S. is mired in PC and cannot extricate itself. Until we can find our way out of this dead end philosophy of the ‘rainbow’ egalitarian society we will sink slowly into the quicksand and not even know how we got there.

I have to quote Solzhenitsyn again, with his famous admonition: Live not by lies. That’s the trouble with our country now; lies are part and parcel of the American hagiolatry, with ‘heroes and icons’ like these.

Postscript: Reuters reports a large number of armed black ‘protesters’ marched through Stone Mountain Park in Georgia. Is this meant to be intimidation, or a prelude to destroying the carved images of the CSA heroes on the Mountain? What next?

About messages

This post is for those of you who messaged me: I apologize for having missed your messages. For a while I was unable to access the e-mail through which I get those PMs but if you would like to try again, the button to send me a message is at the bottom of my archive links on this page. Again, my apologies for being out of touch. Health problems have had me preoccupied.

New ‘American icons’

I’ve just read the list of “American Icons” whose statues will supposedly be erected in the proposed ‘Garden of American Heroes.’

It’s just as I imagined or expected: Political Correctness, Republican version. I knew instinctively that figures such as MLK would surely be there before anyone else. I would bet that he was the first chosen ‘icon’, for political reasons where some are concerned, and for sentimental reasons with those who really believe the aforesaid individual was a “Saint.” Many GOPers fall into the latter category.

Did anyone, anyone on the ‘right’ read the document dumps from the USG a while back? I remember on Steve Sailer’s blog, when those documents were discussed, someone naively asked “I wonder what the Left will think about these documents?” Answer: they will say nothing and think nothing: they close their eyes and their minds and “deny, deny, deny”, as Bill Clinton urged Democrats to do in general.

And it appears that the ‘right’ is practiced at denying, too, as MLK passes into the pantheon of American Heroes.

General Lee, of course, will not be an American icon; it appears most Southrons don’t meet the criteria. To think that a great Christian gentleman like General Lee or General Thomas Jackson were passed up for lesser men. The South should never have rejoined the Union.

Interestingly Trump’s version of American history and its handpicked ‘icons’ matches the ‘rainbow, diverse and inclusive’ vision put forth by ‘Q’. The Q patriots have a distorted picture of the War Between the States; they seem to have learned their history from the $PLC and Hollywood. They are supposedly researchers and ‘diggers’ who ferret out information but they need to ferret out some factual history. Instead they learn it from each other.

And yes, I know Trump is the best we are going to get, which makes me sad. Once we had lots of great men who were inspired leaders.
And some will think a little compromise with Political Correctness, a little more compromise with the race-hucksters is a small price to pay if we can all just ‘try to get along’ but that is precisely how we got to where we are now. This continuing compromising and accommodating will just turn the clock back a tiny bit if we try it. But we are still on the same path, going the same direction, and we will end up just as boxed-in as we are now. Even more so, as demographics inexorably change.

I honestly wish I felt more optimistic as we just celebrated (!) our independence but there it is.

Who will defend the truth?

Anybody?

So far Patrick Buchanan has been one person at least offering a sort-of defense of Woodrow Wilson, who is now another name and face being banished from our public square and our national memory, thanks to the aggression and venom from BLM and Antifa and all their little helpers.

Among their ‘helpers’, though they are probably too clueless to see it, are the unthinking Republican faithful, for whom the greatest good is always the good of the Grand Old Party, even when it is obviously against the ordinary people of this country. People like those strange creatures who are always shrilly concerned about the Democrats; it appears that (in their eyes) the Democrats are “Keeping African-Americans On The Plantation”, forcing them to vote Democrat and believe in leftist politics. I will say that they themselves, these ‘concerned’ people who see themselves as the champions and protectors of victims everywhere, are being paternalistic and treating a group of people as though they are children, in need of White folks to speak up for them and fight their battles, and it seems as if the enemy is other whites — Democrats, to be precise.

So Wilson was a “Progressive’ but in his time, though we find it hard to envision, most ”Progressives” or ‘liberals’ held social views much like those of normal people; in other words they were much more socially traditional and not fond of the crazy-quilt of radical ideas they hold now. As Buchanan points out in his article, most Democrats, most people then supported segregation. Today’s uninformed can’t fathom this; anybody who supported such policies are now equivalent to Nazis, and the battle flag that flew over the Confederate states is now regarded with the same contempt as the German flag of WWII.

But Wilson lived in a time in which there was not one monolithic worldview and people were not threatened with ‘hate crime’ charges for differing from the acceptable dogma, as today. In other words they were freer than we are now.

I’ll say it again — it needs to be said: people of 100 years ago were freer people than we are, and that was so before our modern Jacobins started their mob rule. People could speak their minds more freely than we can. Look at all the de-platformings and bans that have just happened, and probably more to come.

I think Woodrow Wilson will go down the leftist memory hole because he was ‘one of them’, meaning a ‘progressive’ in most ways,, but his crime was being a ‘thought criminal’ according to the distorted vision of today’s left. He not only viewed the film “Birth of a Nation” but praised it as a great film. Incidentally the film was a box office hit, and was revived again in the 1920s I believe. Wilson also presided over a parade of members of a certain ‘secret society’, though that organization was not illegal or secret then, contrary to some confused stories. In its beginnings it sought to protect those who had been disenfranchised and disarmed. I refer here to the Whites. I know some will disbelieve me but the information is in old history books, which of course will probably go down the memory hole too.

In fact a lot of Americans are now repeating falsehoods about that history and who is correcting this? I don’t hear any such voices. Southrons?

Some of the self-righteous Republicans who promulgate the ”Dems R the Real Racists’ silliness are now denouncing anybody to their right. It is just wrong that these same people have worked up a hatred for the Founding Fathers (because they were ‘slave owners’, all of whom were evil) and many prominent and accomplished people who helped make our country what it was at its best. If we condemn them we condemn most of our Founding Fathers; even the Northerners participated. Do we regard them as human trash to be discarded because of this? Why are we required to use a single lens, a single criterion, with which to judge (and condemn) people of the past? Why are we not granted the ‘right’ to judge by our own standards, and why are we compelled by ourselves or others to condemn our own folk so quickly and harshly?

These attitudes match those of the antifas who are demolishing the statues of many of these great individuals, most of whom were Christian men. So when these self-righteous Republicans think they are being chivalrous toward the downtrodden, they are simply further discrediting our history, our great men, and our culture. They are helping the violent left to do their ugly job of ‘burning it all down’, as they promised they will do.

There is more than one way of destroying a society and a people and a nation. The self-righteous ‘right’ ought to think about what part they are playing. In the name of political correctness they are aligning, whether aware of it or not, with our enemies.

From R.L. Dabney’s Defence of Virginia

For various reasons, the South has suddenly been the target of some venomous statements from ‘conservatives’ lately; it seems that overnight the cause of the South in the Late Unpleasantness is now considered as immoral and evil. It appears that people born in the last half-century or so either were not taught the history of that conflict or they did not comprehend it. No one in the North seems to want to defend the Confederacy, though there was a time when the South was formally “forgiven” and cleared of the North’s accusations of ‘treason’, and even formally pardoned for their actions in fighting against the Holy Union Army, I mean, the Grand National Army. But now that period of reconciliation seems to have disappeared, shall I say ‘gone with the wind?’

Just to see what I mean, do a web search and look at the kinds of condemnatory statements being made about the South. Maybe I’ve been asleep but I haven’t seem this kind of harsh judgment before. It looks as though a new Reconstruction/Punishment phase is being rolled out.

Obviously we are only allowed to look at that chapter of history through one viewpoint, and it is not a matter of freedom of conscience; our viewpoint is given to us, and we accept it and parrot it, or we are subject to being silenced and called names. We are not given the option to take the side of our own forefathers, especially as they have been made villains.

History classes seem to be in order, especially for the young ones, but I forget that schools are not there to teach history or facts. Few people seek out the truth for themselves. But for those who have ears to hear, I will quote some Dabney passages.

The Rev. R.L. Dabney was a brilliant man and a staunch defender of his state and of the South. I’m afraid he is too truthful for this present time, in which even the mildest lapse of ‘political correctness’ (which is in no way correct) brings down serious consequences, tension rather than understanding.

Dabney also predicted that equality would bring about escalating racial tension rather than racial harmony.

Davis Carlton, Faith and Heritage

As our society seems to be plunging toward more stringent subjection to political correctness Dabney seems to have been right about the escalation of tensions.

From the introduction to Dabney’s Defence of Virginia, his thoughts about ‘subjugated nations’ and ‘victims of arbitrary rulership’:

“The weapon of arbitrary rulers is physical force; the shield of its victims is usually evasion and duplicity. Again: few minds and consciences have that stable independence which remains erect and undebauched amidst the disappointments, anguish, and losses of defeat, and the desertion of numbers, and the obloquy of a lost cause. Hence it has usually been found, in the history of subjugated nations, that they receive at the hands of their conquerors this crowning woe — a depraved, cringing, and cowardly spirit. The wisest, kindest, most patriotic thing which any man can do for his country, amidst such calamities, is to aid in preserving and reinstating the tottering principles of his countrymen; to teach them, while they give place to inexorable force, to abate nothing of righteous convictions and self-respect. And in this work he is as really a benefactor of the conquerors as of the conquered. For thus he aids in preserving that precious seed of men, who are men of principle, and not of expediency; who alone (if any can) are able to reconstruct society, after the tumult of faction shall have spent its rage, upon the foundations of truth and justice. The men at the North who have stood firmly aloof from the errors and crimes of this revolution, and the men at the South who have not been unmanned and debauched by defeat — these are the men whom Providence will call forth from their seclusion, when the fury of fanaticism shall have done its worst, to repair its mischiefs, and save America from chronic anarchy and barbarism; if, indeed, any rescue is designed for us. It is this audience, “few but fit,” with which I would chiefly commune. They will appreciate this humble effort to justify the history of our native States, and to sustain the hearts of their sons in the hour of cruel reproach.”

Hampden Sidney, Virginia, June 1867