Has conservatism conserved?

This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always — when about to enter a protest — very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it ”in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”  – Robert L. Dabney, Discussions, Vol. 4

Along the same lines, Robert Dabney, in an essay called The Public Preaching of Women, wrote this:
‘In this day innovations march with rapid strides. The fantastic suggestion of yesterday, entertained only by a few fanatics, and then only mentioned by the sober to be ridiculed, is to-day the audacious reform, and will be to-morrow the recognized usage. Novelties are so numerous and so wild and rash, that in even conservative minds the sensibility of wonder is exhausted and the instinct of righteous resistance fatigued.”

Dabney could hardly have imagined how much more ‘wild and rash’ the world would become by this time.

But to return to the question, is it true, as the currently popular saying has it, that ”conservatism never conserved anything?

That statement has become almost ubiquitous on right-leaning blogs, with bloggers and commenters alike repeating it as gospel truth.

Another question which that blanket condemnation should inspire is: should we even wish to conserve anything of our heritage and our history, or is it all dross, all worthless, as many cynical commenters insist?

The statement that ‘conservatism never conserved anything’ may be a paraphrase of  Rev. R.L. Dabney, as quoted at the top of this page. The quote has been circulated quite a bit on pro-Southern blogs and on right-wing blogs generally in recent times. Regardless of its provenance, the quote has certainly spread like wildfire in recent years.

If Dabney were alive, I doubt that he would want his words or his ideas used to declare ‘conservatism’ per se as useless, and as unnecessary as many in our time expressly say.

It may be that conservatism (as we know it, at least) is a failure, but if so, does it automatically follow that we are better off without something called ‘conservatism’? It does not logically follow that such is the case. However it is popular to believe such things in the current year, and for some people, the popularity of an idea is all-important; if it is not the belief of the majority of those we know it must not be true.

How is conservatism defined? If by ‘conservatism’ we mean an organized political movement or a specific party (Republicans, supposedly) then certainly those institutions have failed, or failed the people they supposedly represent. But just as ‘America’ is not a political system or a ‘proposition’ or any kind of abstraction, so conservatism is not. As has been pointed out often, it is not an ideology, so the phrase ‘conservative ideology’ is an oxymoron. Conservatism is not a systematic ideology but more of an attitude. It varies according to the culture it reflects. People living in a monarchy have a different set of priorities and traditions than people in a Republic (or a ‘democracy’). People living in a Christian culture and practicing the Christian faith will differ from those in a non-Christian setting. So there is no one set ideology or belief system for conservatives, except maybe the emphasis on tradition, continuity, and stability over change and innovation for its own sake.

So why are so many Americans, including right-leaning Americans, soured on conserving what little may be left of our traditions and heritage and culture?

We live in a cynical age, and the cynicism has its roots partially in the fact that few people believe in the things that once held our society together, and the things which provided a kind of cement which united us to a considerable extent. It may be that this can never be revived, but it seems many of us feel relieved to know that ‘the past can never be brought back’ because we’ve become convinced that the past was every bit as bad as the leftists say it was; is this merely sour grapes, or are we now possessed of new information about the past which convinces us that the past is dead and that’s a good thing? Are we really sure we can continue as a nation or a people, believing that our history was never what we thought it was? This kind of thinking (if thinking it is) could have come from a Howard Zinn textbook. Everybody  in the bad old days was racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted. It appears as if the left has won the argument and many of us have essentially accepted defeat, conceding tacitly that yes, things are better now that the left has ”fundamentally transformed” America.

How did this happen? Even the younger right was educated in the propaganda factories that pass as our educational system, and whether it’s acknowledged or not, many have absorbed much of the left’s narrative of Evil America. Can this be a good development?

The Republican Party in its present form along with much of the Republican establishment (the ‘conservative’ media) is a disgrace, and if they were actual Trotskyite operatives out to destroy the GOP and conservatism as such, they would hardly have done anything differently. So actually if the GOP is forever discredited by its behavior in the past, that is a good thing, as I’ve said before, long ago.

The GOP could disappear tomorrow and the right would not be worse off, if we have some kind of representation, some real counter-force to the leftist juggernaut. To say that we don’t need conservatism may sound radical and hard-nosed, but it is just not wise to say that we don’t need any sort of efforts to preserve the last shredded remnants of our heritage. Can we just improvise some new kind of culture to replace the old system, just re-invent the wheel? What we will get, if we don’t work towards a new and healthy counter-culture of the right will be just a post-modern dog’s dinner, with the default being a muddled mixture of the left-wing nonsense with a few ‘right-wing’ ideas. Something has to fill the vacuum if we declare that we have no need of, no use for, tradition and history and the ”old paths”.

Political correctness, with its fantasy ideology of ”equality” has to go as do many of the ideas which even many right-leaning people accept unquestioningly.

To even dream of creating some kind of new culture and society out of whole cloth is just absurd; doing so would be a perfect example of left-radicalism in action, and would risk being a replay of the whole obscene Jacobin experiment. And we know how that worked out. Or do we? Most people educated in our schools have not been taught about the failures of the egalitarian ideologues, or they were taught that the failures were actually triumphs for The People. Santayana warned about the dangers risked by those who do not learn the lessons of history.

As to whether conservatives ever conserved anything, I would cite the modest example of the Hays Code in old Hollywood. Just read comments on any old ‘Hays Code era” movie reviews on IMDB. You will find that almost everyone hates Mr. Will H. Hays just as they hate Joe McCarthy — without knowing why. They just know that any kind of limit on ‘freedom of expression’ or so-called ‘art’ is evil. But imagine, if there had not been a code that prevented the irresponsibility and excesses of the Hollywood movie industry, we would have been led down the slippery slope to today’s kinds of degenerate ‘entertainment’ much sooner, half a century sooner, likely.

Some think it would be better if today’s kind of movies had always been allowed rather than limiting Hollywood’s elites ‘artistic expression.’ But Mr. Hays and his code, vilified though they were and still are by some, fought a kind of rear-guard action and at least delayed the corruption process that led us to today’s ‘entertainment’ industry. However today’s right seems to differ little from the left in their entertainment preferences. No wonder our society has been turned upside down with the loss of our former moral system.

Among others, I think it was Lycurgus of Sparta as well as Sir John Glubb who pointed out that decadent, dissolute societies were inevitably weakened and often conquered once the rot set in, and if only for survival’s sake we should take note.

Some believe that our society just ‘fell’ on its own, but I think most believe that our decline has been engineered. If we have to contend with those who are bent on destroying what our forefathers so arduously built, the least we can do is to try to halt the destruction and to preserve what is good. To say that we need no such efforts (“conservatism”) is to concede defeat.

More accurately, though, we need a restoration, but we must know what it is we are restoring, rather than take the attitude that we should pull it all down, adopting the ‘order from chaos’ idea from the destroying faction.

Dealing with heresies

If you’ve ever watched local newscasts (which I admit I no longer do, myself) you have seen how, when there is a rare report of a UFO sighting,  the ‘news’ anchors snicker and jeer at the report, dismissing it with knowing looks at the camera, and lame jokes. How humiliating for the people who saw and reported a UFO.

And how dishonest. It’s all too obvious that the so-called news media are not merely reporting events objectively, but pushing a point of view. Whose point of view? That of the powers-that-be, which is evident because the coverage is the same no matter where you are in the U.S. If the coverage were honest, and if it were up to the local news people, there would be more variation and more evidence of the input of individual minds with ideas of their own.

But then we know that no such freedom of thought or expression exists in our news media these days. And what little there is left amongst individual people is being eroded as people are increasingly exposed to that single, received point of view pushed by a monolithic media.

Now, in mentioning UFOs, my intent is not to argue for acceptance of the ‘flying saucer’ or ‘alien abduction’ theories; I’m merely using an example of the kind of dishonest and slanted manipulation exercised by the media when they report the news, whether in print, online, or on your local TV channel. In sneering and ridiculing certain ideas, they shame people into agreeing with the official narrative, because a great many Americans don’t want to be outside the consensus or the dictated popular opinion. Hence, people who think there are unidentified craft seen in the skies occasionally have to develop thick skins to cope with the ridicule dealt out to those who are simply open-minded about such possibilities.

The same applies to people who believe there is more to, say, the JFK assassination or the events of 9/11/2001 — or the existence of any sort of conspiracy or cover-up. The respectables among us wouldn’t be caught dead espousing any belief that is sneered at by the opinion-dictators.

Bruce Charlton, an always interesting and thought-provoking blogger has written several pieces on the topic of conspiracy theories.

His latest one is here. In it he explains why it is necessary to the System, as they seem to see it, to suppress such speculations or beliefs, and his explanation is convincing.

Even on the right, where we consider ourselves realists, more open-minded than the dogmatic and totalitarian left, the attitude of ridicule and condescension acts to stifle some of the discussion of such matters, and often there is a kind of posturing as superior on the part of those on the right who dismiss conspiracy theories. Even the very idea of any individual conspiracy is thus seen as evidence of stupidity or ‘paranoia’, resorting to the left’s favorite tactic of psychologizing unpopular points-of-view, labeling them as some kind of disorder or ‘mental illness.’ Thus certain ideas are beyond the pale, preventing any sort of rational and open discussion of the possible facts.

It’s true that some people carry ‘conspiracy theorizing’ too far, finding some dark plot at the heart of any mysterious or unexplainable set of facts. However it’s also nonetheless true that in a theoretically free society there should be room for open discussion, unhindered by sneering and ridicule directed at the people who simply want answers, or at least, free exchange of ideas.

Would those on the right support official suppression of conspiracy theorizing?
Should we be ‘protected’ from ‘dangerous ideas’ or simply ideas deemed deranged, like ‘hollow earth’ or flat-earth theories? Who has the power to declare certain ideas off-limits, to proscribe them? To create penalties and punishments for ‘wrong-think’? Who would hold the power to determine which ideas are crazy or dangerous? Is it crazy or should it be illegal to believe that the moon landing was staged, fake? Is it morally desirable for anyone in authority to infiltrate online discussions in order to discredit or stop conspiracy theories, as per the information in the link above?

And who would decide what constitutes a ”conspiracy theory”? Would the belief have to be definitively proven false before being labeled as such? Or would such labeling, as now, be completely arbitrary?

These days, the idea of climate manipulation in the form of aerosol spraying from aircraft is derided as a conspiracy theory by those who consider themselves arbiters of what is a ‘wacko conspiracy theory’. But yet information about such plans was discussed in Congress years ago, more than once, though not much publicized.  Still the very idea is still laughed at by the respectable arbiters of fact vs. ‘paranoia.’

It’s possible to be too credulous, but erring in the opposite direction is even worse in some ways, leaving us to be manipulated by those with an agenda who think they must not only monitor but dictate what we must believe, or more likely, disbelieve.

The left vs. truth: Who’s winning?

If more proof were needed, the recent story about the Covington Catholic High School boys ”harassing” an Amerindian man illustrates how truly unhinged and rabid the left has become. I know I’ve used those adjectives for years to describe the left, and at the time it seemed as though the words were apt, but then until recently we had no idea how much more crazed and virulent the left could actually be. They’ve long since lost their moorings and are utterly adrift from reality — and have long ago lost any ability  — or desire — to recognize truth.

The latest on this story about the Covington students, who ‘provoked’ people by wearing MAGA hats, has taken several turns since it first broke, with the first reports accusing the students of deliberately provoking an innocent ‘native American’ man, who was surrounded by the boys and supposedly harassed or insulted — why? Just because of his ethnicity or race. The original video was disingenuously edited so as to make the boys the villains of the story, but later, more contextualized videos showed a different story. Meanwhile, hordes of Twitter users tweeted threats to the boys, their families, and their school; the leftist perpetrators did not stop short of death threats.

So far no real consequences have ensued, unless you count a few reluctant, unconvincing apologies from the guilty parties, and maybe a few Twitter bans.

The Indian man has since claimed that his behavior was an attempt to defuse a conflict between the high school students and some ‘Black Israel’ cult members who apparently were present on the scene. The Indian, Nathan Philips claimed he served as a Marine in Vietnam (his story has been picked apart since) seeming to think this would win him sympathy or credibility, but he does not come across as credible, given the facts as they are unfolding.

The whole story seems to become more complicated by the minute, with the only obvious truth being that the media are desperate to create, if they cannot find, a story casting White Trump supporters as evil and hateful. In their overeagerness to write such a story they got more careless than usual in picking their villains and heroes/’victims’. It looks as though it’s backfired on them, which is very satisfying to watch.

However, do the general public, the people who don’t really pay that much attention to facts and fine details, know or care what the truth is here? Or will the inattentive news consumers simply absorb whatever of this story confirms their existing biases or ignorance? Does anyone not on the right even care about truth, or acknowledge that there is such a thing as objective, verifiable truth?

Stories like this one make me wish the late Dr. David Yeagley were still with us to offer his cogent commentary, and to offer a sound, non-leftist, politically incorrect opinion on this story.

For those who don’t know who David Yeagley was, he was a Comanche Indian (and yes, he said ‘Indian’ and not ‘Native American’) and an academic, a professor, but that rarest of rare birds, an academic whose mind was not eaten away by political correctness and left-wing cant. He spoke somewhat dismissively of ‘campus Indians’ who were completely captive to political correctness and progressive dogma; he knew that it was not always the case that Indians were militantly anti-White as in recent years.

Dr. Yeagley was a true friend of ‘heritage Americans’ and he often expressed his wish that we prevent our country from being taken from us by mass immigration and replacement.
Indians like those Dr. Yeagley called ‘campus Indians’ are somehow oblivious to the fact that the existential threat to them is not from the dwindling ‘heritage Americans’ but from the constant stream of immigrants from the four corners of the globe, who seem not to care that they are displacing the existing populations of this continent, including American Indians. And the Hispanics who are trying to capitalize on this controversy by making demands for obeisance from White Americans are utterly disingenuous; they expect everyone to believe that they, being ”indigenous” are somehow the same as the American Indians who were here when our ancestors arrived. What brazenness; and yet so many people are taken in by that particular falsehood.

Although this incident has stirred up so many ugly feelings on the left, it could result in some good if it illustrates for the few perceptive people remaining that the left is on the verge of losing the last shreds of sanity — and decency.

Free speech disappearing

No matter what those responsible may say, it seems as if there is a determined effort to squeeze those with politically incorrect (non-leftist, non-globalist) views out. I notice that whenever I try to visit certain blogs, one of them being Anonymous Conservative, I am blocked from accessing it. Today, clicking on a link to another blog which I normally don’t visit, I am likewise blocked. It appears Cloudflare is responsible.

This blog’s traffic is now all but nonexistent — maybe not surprising since I’ve been posting more rarely and also losing readership it seems — but it looks as though I now get no traffic from search engines.

It appears as though generally, blogs with viewpoints outside the dictated range of opinion are being squeezed out of existence. The idea is to starve blogs of traffic and/or discourage bloggers who have ”wrong” political opinions, (those not approved by the self-elected gatekeepers), from bothering to blog at all. Mind you I’m not blaming the ‘censors’ or our ‘moral betters’ for this blog’s seeming failure, not completely, but it certainly doesn’t help that there are those who want non-left politics silenced all the way around, and they seem to hold all the cards.

What’s the answer to this?  I really have no idea. Meanwhile some right-wing blogs continue to thrive despite the extremely hostility towards free speech for those who are deemed to be ”thought criminals.” The way things look now, it would seem very easy to silence all non-approved free speech.

And where is ”our” president on this? Just asking….


Russian emigration

A report from Russia indicates that the numbers of people leaving Russia are greatly underestimated. The most recent data available, from 2017, shows that 377,000 Russians left that year, which is a six-year record.

Where are they going? My guess would have been that the most popular destination countries would be the U.S., and Israel. It turns out that those countries are among the most popular for Russian emigrants. Also among the most popular is Germany.

Apparently there is a ‘diaspora’ of 25 to 30 million Russian speakers — quite a large number of people.  Unfortunately for Russia many of those leaving are the young, and this is contributing to an ‘aging Russia’.  This of course leads to a shortage of labor, and can become justification for accepting large numbers of immigrants. We hear this excuse frequently, from those who favor open borders for our country and for historically White countries — we need ‘hard-working’ immigrants to do the jobs that our supposedly lazy populace won’t do. European countries are also subjected to this line of propaganda.

Russia does admit large numbers of immigrants. According to this article from 2013, the Russian Federation is the world’s second largest immigration haven. Many of the immigrants come from kindred Eastern European countries, which does not pose as much of a problem for Russians.

Russia also has received large numbers of refugees, such as Azerbaijanis, Armenians, and Turks, and in more recent years refugees from more far-flung countries — African countries, for instance.  The Russian government has expressed a welcoming attitude towards the Boer descendants from South Africa and Zimbabwe, despite politically correct sentiments in many Western countries who offer no haven for the besieged Boers.

So does this influx of many immigrants and ‘refugees’ cause the exodus of many Russians or is it the opposite situation, where the outflow of younger people necessitates more immigration?

The ironic thing about this situation is that many right-wing Americans see Russia as an exemplar of a strong, nationalistic country, upholding its own culture and historic religion. More than a few Americans harbor ideas of emigrating to Russia, because of their admiration for Vladimir Putin or for Russia itself. Meanwhile, it seems many Russians are intent on coming to this country, or Germany, or the UK.

One question that often occurs to me: given the U.S. government’s policy of preference for non-White, third-world immigrants, almost exclusively, how is it that such large numbers of Russians and other Eastern Europeans are allowed to immigrate, while other White nationalities are not allowed to come here? It’s an exception without an obvious explanation. Many Irish immigrants, by contrast,  come here illegally because of their difficulty in getting visas, likewise with other kindred countries in Europe, yet Eastern Europeans seem to be given preference.

I am neither anti-Russian nor pro-Russian when it comes to immigration; I think Russian immigration can be both good and bad. Russian immigrants are a mixed bag, with a good few becoming dependent on social programs while others are productive. Many are ‘nice’ people, if that is a criterion for coming here.

Nonetheless I’m not in favor of multiculturalism or mass immigration in general. The globalists have been encouraging and funding this vast game of musical chairs in which all the nations of the world are being put together in the ultimate ‘melting pot’, where all cultures, tongues, and peoples are getting blended away.  It’s pretty cold comfort to be told that at least we will be displaced and replaced by ‘nice, hard-working’ people, or that our children will be replaced or blended with people who are ‘more like us.’

Country-shopping is not a way of life; it spells rootlessness, deracination, loss of kin-bonding and culture. If the globalists’ spell is broken,  I hope that in time we’ll see and end to this global shuffle of peoples.






So what?

In a rather strange post at Taki’s Magazine, Jim Goad asks, somewhat truculently, it seems, “So what if Jesus was Jewish?” It seems as though the piece is a response to somebody, I am guessing it’s a response (pre-emptive, maybe?) to those who defend Christianity, while disassociating it from its purported Jewish roots.

Why I so often feel drawn to responding to statements like this, given how thorny and complicated the subject is, I don’t know. Maybe I am just greedy for punishment, and fond of batting my head against a brick wall. Those who insist on making sweeping statements about Christianity, or about Christianity and its supposed ‘Jewish’ roots are determined not to be troubled by facts or truths. It seems most people have made up their minds in advance and are not open to thinking about this, or about questioning the established ‘facts’ or dogma on the subject. So the chances of persuading any given person that the received truths may be in gross error are slim to none. Yet I try, knowing how futile it is 99 percent of the time.

But here we go. Some time ago I posted about this vexed issue, asking questions about some of the widespread beliefs which remain unexamined by most people, some which are more accurately myths which are never scrutinized because of political correctness and what I call the ultimate PC taboo: the question of Jewish identity.

Are the terms ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ exact synonyms? Does the term ‘Jewish’ apply to anyone who originates (supposedly) from one of the twelve (12, count ’em) tribes of Israel? Really? Are we sure? Absolutely — or even reasonably sure?

Does anyone today have solid proof of descent from any of these descendants of Jacob, that is, Jacob who was later named Israel? Or proof of descent from Abraham, who was the grandfather of Jacob/Israel? How would, how could such proof be established, some millennia after the fact?

People often scoff at how some of us of, say, English descent, can ‘prove‘ that our lines of descent from our English forebears are valid, even though that descent is far more recent than the lineage going back to Abraham’s or Jacob’s day.  Why so little scrutiny of much more remote claims?

Multiple DNA tests have been done on modern-day Jews, virtually all of which show distinctly mixed lineages, including half or more European descent, plus some Middle Eastern genetics. (I won’t link this yet again; I’ve done so. It’s easily looked up online. I invite doubters to check for themselves). Needless to say Middle Eastern does not = Jewish, and again, much of the DNA has shown European genetics.

Yet pretty much all the DNA tests concerning today’s Jews are roundly ignored by most people, including modern Christians who have grown up in churches which consider it tantamount to blasphemy to question Jewish origins or identity.

Why should this be so?

Why do the non-Christian, Judeo-skeptical pro-Whites also ignore the results of the DNA tests? I can only guess that they prefer to lump Christianity and Judaism together (incorrectly) and condemn both together. Jim Goad clearly does not think favorably of Christianity, parroting Nietzsche’s reference to ”slave morality”, and the usual ‘alien desert religion’ canard. So if he thinks Christianity is an alien, semitic religion, not suited to Europeans, then by association he seems also to be judging Judaism the same way.

In a way Goad is seeming to defend Judaism and to accuse some Christians of being anti-Jewish, so this is a strange tack.

Judaism has always been in opposition to Christianity. The oxymoronic ”Judeo-Christian’ tradition’ is a myth. May Jews say as much themselves; look it up.

The core principles of the two religions are at odds. The God of Christianity is a triune God, for most Christians, and Judaism rejects this view, along with the very person of Jesus Christ, believing that he was a false Messiah. Judaism as we know it is Talmudically-based, not based on what Christians call the Old Testament. The two traditions are very divergent, not the same, not even close.

Goad evidently has accepted the glib half-truths of the uninformed Christian ‘mainstream’, rather than investigating thoroughly, and he is not alone in this; most Christians take this approach because they choose to accept what their misled Judeo-Christian teachers have fed them.  I used to be such a Christian before being led towards a deeper investigation.

This subject is important enough to demand some examination.

Does it tell us anything at all to know that our Christian forebears were not believers in a ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition, or in any kind of Jewish-Christian ecumenism or unity? That this is a recent (post-WWII) phenomenon? Were all our Christian forefathers, up to the era of our grandparents, wrong? Are we so sure that they were wrong?

One blog post isn’t enough to even begin to address this question, but it’s worth trying to provoke some thought, even if I step on some toes or make someone angry by raising these questions.

Truth matters. Question popular ‘wisdom’. Use Biblical discernment. That’s basic Christianity when it comes to trying to ascertain truth.

I’ll just quote from a letter-writer to a British magazine, Picture Post, dated 1947.

“The Bible never mentions Jews until II Kings XVI, v. 6, and then refers only to members of the House of Judah.” This era was after the people of Israel were divided into two houses, that of Israel in the North and Judah or Judea in the South. The people referred to as Jews were those of the Southern Kingdom, Judah or Judea.

Until the tribes of Israel (of which Judah, or the Jews, were just one part) were separated by exile and political division, there were no ‘Jews’ mentioned in the Bible. Abraham was not a Jew; Jacob was not a ‘Jew.’ Jacob’s son, Judah, was the father of those later called ‘Jews.’ Not all Israel were ‘Jews’, just as not all ‘British’ people are English (or Welsh, or Scottish). But most people, to make an analogy, insist on conflating the term ‘English’ with the term ‘British.’ One term is inclusive, while one is limited to a constituent people. ‘Jew’ is a category within the umbrella term ‘Israel’, which includes other descendants of Jacob.

Too complicated? Well, then, I can’t help. In any case, DNA tests do not positively prove the present-day Jews to be descendants of Abraham or his sons. Yet we gullibly accept them to be such. Elizabeth Warren is about as likely to be proven Cherokee, maybe more so, than the present-day Jews are to be Israelitish, maybe more so, because her claims are of more recent provenance. (And P.S.: I don’t believe Warren’s ‘family lore.’)

Some readers may wonder if I am a member of some cult, because I raise these issues. Am I? If it matters, the answer is no; I am a Christian, and I am a truth-seeker; I don’t want to be found to have failed in my duty to ”prove all things“, as Christians are charged to do.

And it is tiresome to read so many less-than-informed half-truths about my faith from those who have clearly not delved into the facts and the history, especially when it appears that their efforts are meant to discredit or disparage the Christian faith, not to get to the bottom of things, to thoroughly examine known facts.

Southern tradition: Black-eyed peas on New Year’s

I know New Year’s Day is past, but at Identity Dixie, I read an interesting and historical piece on why Southerners eat black-eyed peas on New Year’s day. I was always told it was ”good luck”, but there is more to this custom.

I learned some history from reading the piece. And it makes you think about the importance of ”culture, people, identity.”


Words from R. Carter Pittman

As I’m lately finding it all but impossible to gather much inspiration in what I find on the Internet, I’ve been immersing myself in writings from earlier times. I know that’s all out of fashion now, as popular wisdom has it that our elders didn’t know anything, but then I never cared a hoot about fashion or fad, so I offer you some words from R. Carter Pittman.:

“Those who ride to power, and in power, rough-shod, over the rights of men, seem always to stand in marble on our public squares, while those who carry the torch of human freedom are forgotten, perhaps to be rediscovered centuries later.”

“The masses are prone to exchange an age of freedom for an hour of welfare. Anglo-Saxon institutions were designed to slow down the erosion of rights to give time for a sober second thought. “

“Without exception, despotic rulers have excluded instruction in history from any plan of general education, or they have sought to make history books a mere aggregation of lies. They have sought to substitute abstract thinking, or “new philosophies,” for the stark realities that are cried out by history’s prophetic voice. They have always sought to substitute the worship of man for the worship of institutions and the worship of God. Need we be reminded of Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Peron?”

” The Bill of Rights does not purport to create or establish rights. It shields pre-existing rights. These rights are the gift of God not governments. Each separate provision is a little foxhole of liberty ground into the hard cold face of history by helpless men in an effort to shield their naked bodies from the lash of tyrants. Every liberty catalogued in the federal Bill of Rights could be the subject of a long historical commentary showing that each in its turn has been attacked and suppressed by those who have wanted to exercise unrestrained power.”

“The First Amendment doesn’t say that those rights are given to the people. It says the people never gave them away. That Amendment is based upon the proposition that freedom of religion, freedom to speak, to write and to sigh and to cry, to assemble and to pray for deliverance from grievances, are the gift of God—not governments—and that they are held by the leave of no man and no government on earth. If government can give a right it can take it away or it can license the exercise of it.”

“History explains. Philosophy confuses. John Dickinson put it this way in the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us.”

“The methods of despotic governments have been essentially the same in all ages. Tyranny learns nothing new. It gives new names to the same things and overwhelms the bulwarks of liberty with semantics.”

”Equality beyond the range of legal rights is despotic restraint. Equality may be imposed only in a despotism. Such may be done only through the process now called “social engineering” which holds that the end justifies the means. Those means must ever be force, restriction, terror and a complete loss of liberty.”

“Under our common law and under our Constitution, no man or body of men may make law for freemen except the elected representatives of the people. Every freeman in a republic has the despotic right to veto all laws made by any man or group of men except his own delegates. For 500 years Anglo-Saxon freemen have exercised that veto power. Only a blind spot in our knowledge of history could cause any man to doubt the right of any freeman to disobey the unconstitutional edicts of a judge or king. Only fools and pseudo-socio-doctors contend that the Supreme Court can make law, but of such is the kingdom of tyranny.”

“Constitutional liberty is the child of Anglo-Saxon history, christened by the blood of our fathers. How could we so soon forget that the leading principle of the American Revolution was that only delegates chosen by the people may make constitutions and laws for the people? Every forgotten grave from Lexington to Yorktown is a memorial to that principle.”

“Eternal vigilance is not the only price of liberty. The price of Anglo-Saxon liberty is blood.”

“The federal government is now completing the destruction of state sovereignty. “Oligarchy, masquerading as democracy” is here. The revolution is a fact accomplished. It was simple and bloodless.”

“When a servile and corrupt judiciary abandons the people and enlists in the service of those who would enslave mankind by the age old methods of tyrants, the rifle over the “fire board” is the last slender “security of a free State”.’

“The Anglo-Saxon race must again emulate the Founding Fathers and organize to fight fire with brimstone. “Sons of Liberty” is an honored name for such an organization. “To your tents, O Israel” is an honored watchword.”

Note: the reference in the last sentence above, mentioning ‘Israel’ is not to be understood as having anything to do with present-day geographical locations or peoples, but to the historical people Israel.

And though his words may seem a little incendiary, they were no more so than those used by other public figures of that time; consider that free speech was still allowed in those days.