“What you mean, ‘we’?”

For those of you who may be too young to get the reference in the title, it’s from the punch line of an old, pre-PC joke. It went something like this:

The Lone Ranger says “Looks like we’re surrounded by hostile Indians, Tonto.”

Tonto replies: ”What you mean ‘we’, White Man?

In this latest from Fred Reed, he uses the word ‘we’ in a similarly questionable way. Writing about the recent political/racial violence directed at Trump supporters, and looking at the overall context — illegal and legal immigration out of control, warring ethnic/religious/racial groups, Reed says:

Somebody needs to take command to end this nonsense before it becomes irremediable. But is it possible? There is no nice way to do it. The scum will ignore niceness. The police would have to beat the living dog-snot out of rioters, charge them with assault, and put them in slam for the maximum. Controlling them would require martial law in cities in insurrection and the shooting of arsonists and looters. Universities would have to expel without recourse of misbehaving college children. These would take stomach, which we do not have.”

While I can find little with which I can disagree there, I can’t help questioning the word ‘we’ as he uses it. What you mean ‘we‘, Fred? Most of your readers are still in this country, while you are ensconced in Mexico — the land from which many of our enemies are coming — and you are married to a Mexican and raising Mexican children. So who is this ‘we’?

Maybe my patience has long since worn too thin but I consider that anybody who appears to have thrown in his lot with Mexico and the Mexican people is no longer part of the American ‘we’, or the White ‘we.’

Most pro-White men condemn White women who marry outside our folk and who bear children of another race, and rightly so. But strangely few people mention the irony of Reed implicitly including himself in the American ‘we’ or the White, Anglo ‘we’ when his choices say that he prefers Mexicans over his own folk.

Actions speak louder than words. Marrying and producing children with a genetically distant mate says that you have no real loyalty to, or even real regard for the future of your own folk. I suspect at heart, despite Reed’s blunt way of writing, he is more of a libertarian — even a ‘colorblind’ libertarian than a nationalist: you know, the right of the individual over the duty to the kin-group, the people to whom you belong by blood.

Deny it though we might, we’re part of an unbroken chain: we are part of our ancestors and we owe them allegiance. We owe it to them to follow their example and carry on the heritage, to keep faith with the past. We are not ‘islands’, entire of ourselves.

And we owe our posterity something. We owe a future to the unborn generations. We have no right to let their future be stolen.

Reed’s children, Mexican as they are (by birth, genetics, and very much by phenotype) have a home and a people in Mexico. Will our progeny have a national home at all? Will their children be absorbed into the ‘huddled masses’ eventually, or be despised in the country their ancestors founded?

Loyalty to our own folk is something that must be rediscovered. In these times we will see testing of this loyalty, and find out who is ‘of’ us and who is not.

5 thoughts on ““What you mean, ‘we’?”

  1. I agree about Reed. While I read him occasionally and agree with a fair amount of what he writes his outlook is tainted. He basically is suggesting we can’t or shouldn’t do anything about the invasion.

    Many right leaning places like Freepers have similar problems. More than a few have miscegenated so their views on racial matters, like Reed, are highly suspect.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, I’ve noticed that about the Freepers; in the past JimRob used to shut down any thread having to do with race (especially interracial marriage) and on one such discussion that somehow was allowed to stand, an amazing number of White men spoke up and said they had black wives and children with them, or wives of other races, especially Asian, Filipino, and Hispanic.
      it does end up having an effect on our society; so many people think that it is just a private matter between two people but we don’t just marry an invididual we marry another family — and/or another race or culture, and the effects spread outward.


  2. As you know VA, I love your blog and read it frequently and as often as I can. I agree with virtually everything you say. I was cast out of a local Catholic University in the heart of Houston, Texas. This University advertised itself as a conservative, Catholic liberal arts school educating leaders of faith and character.

    Having grown up in the Protestant church, I had some discrepancies about attending a Catholic School but I also was deeply aware that the Catholic educational system has been, for the most part, strong.

    Towards the end of my college career I was introduced to Lawrence Auster, The Thinking Housewife, Vanishing American, American Renaissance, and a couple of other blogs focusing on similar topics. In the beginning stages, I was mostly scandalized to read all of your thoughts and blog posts, yet I continued to return time and again as if I had been infected by something. Ultimately, it changed me.

    I challenged the college administration system which had been implementing diversity and sensitivity training programs, microaggression awareness programs, a gay club and a Muslim Alliance Club on a Catholic college campus, and was considering an atheist club. I made a public announcement about these things on Facebook and proclaimed that the identity of the University was evaporating due to the inclusion of these groups.

    I was gone soon after – and punished unjustly.

    During my time there, I met a young hispanic girl who have been in a relationship with for two-and-a-half years. You must remember, at the time I had yet to be introduced to Vanishing American or Lawrence Auster or others.

    The idea that miscegenation was wrong was a foreign thought to me. Most of the white women on the college campus were whores (that prefered brown or black men, even the Consetvative white women) or seriously influenced by feminism and other forms of liberalism making them un-dateable altogether. The Hispanic girls were generally far superior in the sense that they were more feminine, servile, less controversial towards men, not as materialistic, and more Conservative. They’re also very ethnocentric.

    I say all this to let you know that I’m very much in tune with what you write here and I’m very much a supporter of the cause. In fact, I’ve lost a lot following your ideas and putting them into practice in my life. I’m permanently locked out of my college transcript. I’ll never graduate. But I still believe in you and the others.

    Yes, I’m with a Hispanic woman and had I encountered you and others before meeting her I would be in a different situation now. But I’m also a man who has made a commitment to another person, regardless of their race, and will not use that one quality alone as the reason to leave her while she’s been faithful to me even as my white brethren buried me and ruined my life as a “racist”.

    Generally you’re probably right about most white men who are with non white women. However, I must believe that there are exceptions and special cases. At the very least, Hispanics have some European Heritage and history. Her and I at least have that commonality. Also it is a custom for Hispanic women to give their children over to the identity of the father and husband (unless the man moves to an entirely different country and wishes to integrate with those people, which seems to be the case in the example above in your post).

    Anyways, I thought I would share my thoughts with you and others. It’s not an easy thing to do, because as I said I agree with virtually everything you post. However, I was also in a relationship with this girl as I started to change my thoughts on these things. It’s not an easy situation to be in…


    • Nick, I won’t condemn you. I realize as I’ve said that I may be stepping on someone’s toes with a post like this one because I am aware that a lot of people in our society have married ‘out’ or have had/are having relationships outside their folk. As I said on the old blog, there are people in my extended family who have intermarried with Hispanics, and I don’t shun these people.
      There have always been some individuals who have married outside the folk in this country, especially in places like the border states, though in my childhood there was not much socializing between Hispanic and White, and even less between black and White. Not due to ‘racism’ but by mutual understanding and tacit agreement.
      The occasional interracial marriage doesn’t affect society much but as it is being aggressively pushed by the governments in the West (in so many words) and by the media arm of the government, and in advertising — it is more of a threat to our continued survival as a distinct people. So that’s why I feel the need to write about it, not to pick on those who are themselves in interracial relationships.
      From observation, though, it does seem to lead to confused identity problems for the offspring, and to conflicted loyalties — for offspring and parents.
      However everyone makes their own choices.


  3. Thanks for your candid response, VA.

    I never thought of this post as an attack of any kind. I just wanted to share my thoughts, because it is something I struggle with. You’re right, as you usually are about these things, and I still agree with you even on this specific issue. Both of us agree that the greater thing for a society is to maintain a common thread and identity.

    We don’t think we’re some specisl relationship and both of us generally think miscegenation should be avoided – and it should never be glorified as something more perfect than homogenous relationships.

    Like I said, had I encountered your blog – and others – before hand it would be a different story. She knows that and doesnt take it personally. However, I agree with you that confusion can happen in these families. But I told her that while she’s not white, she has a Spanish background (we’ve confirmed this). Its important for us to focus on our European identity for the sake of our future children. She agrees – as long as Christianity is the focal point of our home and hearth.

    If you have any thoughts to add, please do so. I’ve actually been eager to ask you about this for some time now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s