Raspail interview

There’s a very interesting interview with Jean Raspail, author of Camp of the Saints, at Gallia Watch, with an English translation. Of course if you read French the original interview is at Nous Sommes Partout, here.

It’s well worth reading, in my opinion; Raspail, at 94, seems still very lucid and he has some ideas to offer about our current situation in the West. He speaks of ‘islands of survival’, which is something to ponder.

I recommend reading the interview, and I’m interested in any thoughts it might stimulate.

The importance of word choice

I was just about to write a piece on the usage and misuse of the word ‘genocide‘, when I came across Thomas Dalton’s very helpful piece on that very subject, on TOO.

Dalton, in a very apropos essay, addresses how the word is very vaguely and broadly defined, and he delineates the origins of the word, as well as the current definitions as laid down by the likes of the U.N.

I recommend the Dalton piece, but I will add my own thoughts as to the questionable utility of a word whose meaning is so elastic that it can include both ‘lethal’ and ‘non-lethal’ meanings and outcomes. For example, any attempt or ‘conspiracy’ to eliminate, or even damage or harm another group is ‘genocide’, per the existing and widely accepted definitions.

However, consult a dicitionary and you will see that the suffix “-cide” as in ‘suicide‘ or ‘homicide’, etc., describe killer, or act of killing. Hence words like ‘regicide’, ‘pesticide’, parricide, and on and on. So it seems we are wresting the meaning by applying it to other situations in which there is no death implied.

There is no half-measure with death; no-one can be sort of killed or somewhat dead. It’s one or the other.

I’ve asked rhetorically in the past: how can there have been ‘genocide’ against American Indians when there are still many living Amerindians, across North, South, and Central America? The rabid left, of course, will say that there were tens of millions of American Indians and that they were ‘all but wiped out’, and would otherwise have represented hundreds of millions. That, however, is just conjecture or plain sophistry. There was never any official census to count the number of Amerindians during the time of the early colonies. How could there have been? And it’s fact that the tribes, being mostly hunter-gatherers, could not have been sustained by that lifestyle had they numbered in hundreds of millions; hunter-gatherers require lots of land and open space to pursue their hunting-gathering way of life.

Amerindians often succumbed to diseases for which Europeans had developed some degree of immunity. This was not intentional ‘genocide’ by Whites, and what about the current situation in which many new arrivals are carrying diseases which are new to North America, and for which we may have no immunity? It’s a fact, but does the left accuse anyone of intentional harm there? Not likely.

In short, it’s fallacious and dishonest to say that ‘genocide’ took place on this continent in the past. And yet, a lot of careless thinkers on the ‘right’ agree with the charges that our ancestors ‘genocided’ Amerindians. But the tribes are still alive and holding their own, so the charge is without validity. Why can’t people grasp that?

To address the question of whether it’s useful or wise, as Dalton questions, to apply the term ‘genocide’ to the replacement of our folk here or in Europe, I would argue, also, for a careful and correct use of language. For many people the word ‘genocide’ seems hyperbolic and hysterical in the current context. I’ve certainly used the term ‘existential threat’ to describe our situation, and I think that’s accurate, but in my opinion it’s about as useful to use the term ‘genocide’ at this point as it is to call the left ‘the real racists’ (the old DR3), in other words, not useful at all. It just rolls of the backs of the targets.

In any case, even if one supposes there’s some utility in throwing these words around in hopes of scoring a bullseye somewhere, there’s this question: considering the history of the word ‘genocide’, its origins and its current definitions (as defined by the United Nations et al), do we really wish to adopt their definitions and their ways of thinking? Since when?

The right can and should do better than to adopt slippery and sophistical rhetoric just because our foes do that so freely.

And far too many on the right, not just the ‘respectable cons’ or cuckservatives have fallen prey to the endless guilt that the left tends to heap on our folk. There is too much ready adoption of undeserved guilt feelings, and the groveling desire to point the finger elsewhere and try to deflect the blame. If we stand on the truth — not easy in this Age of the Lie, we will be much stronger.

The booming South

According to the Washington Times, the South is still ‘booming’ economically, and continues to be a magnet for non-Southrons wanting to find a more congenial home.

The popular wisdom has it that most of the newcomers to the South are ‘conservative’ and looking for a new home with lower taxes, pleasanter weather, and ‘smaller government.’ This may be true in many cases, or even most cases. But is a continuing wave of migration good for the South, or more specifically for the people of the South, that is, the ‘heritage Southrons’ if I may use that term?

And before I go further, I don’t write from any malice towards people from the North. My mother was from the North, and I’m no stranger to that culture.

Large-scale migration of people from outside the South began in earnest in the 1970s. When I search on this subject, the vast majority of hits I get are strictly about black migration back to the South in the 20th century. However the influx of Whites from outside the South seemed most visible in the 1970s and later, and with the ‘tech’ industry (Dell, et al) later. I don’t know that the migration ever really slowed down; the presence of Northerners (including many from Western States) is very evident.

Certainly there are ‘conservatives’ migrating there, or at least conservatives in the broadest sense — but no matter how conservative their politics may be they do change the culture of the South, and have changed it.

To be fair, some of the changes were the result of the omnipresent and intrusive ‘mass media’, with the requisite load of propaganda. The media also exerted a big effect on local ways of speaking — the Southron accent has all but vanished amongst most of the younger generations (Gen X on downward). This I find sad.

When I studied linguistics in college there was a lot of discussion of how language, that is, the language we use, affects our thought processes.
I am no professional linguist, but I’m very familiar with the differences between the Southron dialect, as it existed for centuries, and the sort of mainstream American English accents, as modeled in the media. There used to be considerable differences between traditional Southron dialect speakers and Northern American English speakers, though those differences are quickly being erased, with a consequent loss of a great deal of color and nuance in the English language.

There are of course pockets of people here and there in the South who retain much of their dialect and vocabulary, but they are becoming harder to find. The Southron accent has long been an object of ridicule from non-Southrons, with a prevailing attitude that the accent and dialect sound ‘backward’ or ignorant. That attitude has been very harmful and may explain the wish of some Southern-born people to lose or at least downplay their ‘drawl.’

Language is not the only thing that has been changed by the ongoing influx of people from outside the South; the culture of the South was always very Christian by comparison with the rest of the country. Of course the Bible Belt for a long time included parts of the Midwest and the Western, more rural areas, but the South held out the longest as far as their Christian culture was concerned. Now, though, with the great falling-away in most of the Western world, the influence of Christianity is waning in the South, and the presence of so many non-churched people from outside plays a part.

My state, Texas, is these days often erroneously lumped with ‘the Southwest’, though it used to be considered a Southern state — by virtue of its having been settled mostly by Southrons, as well as because of its solid ‘Bible belt’ status, and very importantly, as being part of the Confederacy. Texas has much more in common with the South than with the ‘Southwest’, that is, New Mexico, Arizona, California, et al.

Texas is obviously on the verge of changing to a far less conservative and traditional place than it used to be. I find this tragic, because it need not have happened, yet the change may be irrevocable, just as the changes to our country as a whole may never be reversed.

And yet — those who look only at economics and see ‘booming’ states in the South don’t ever look at the far more important ramifications of this willy-nilly, top-down imposed change: the loss of the culture, of the heritage, and above all, a change in the very people of the South. People, as I’ve said ever since I started blogging, are not interchangeable. The people make the place. The place, once populated by different people — no matter how ‘conservative’ or Republican they are, will never be the same. And a population of people with vastly different languages, religions, and cultures will eradicate the places we once knew and loved, and will make a mockery of the sacrifices of our forefathers. But this is of no moment to the decision makers, who make these decisions over our heads in our ”democracy” demockracy.

But then we’re not supposed to notice, much less question or mention these things. In parts of Europe it’s criminal to criticize such changes, or even to mention them. And how much longer will we be permitted the luxury to speak or write about it?

Is the state the only threat to liberty?

Libertarians usually emphasis ‘the state’ as the main threat to ‘liberty’, and no doubt an overbearing, overpowerful state is inimical to freedom and liberty. But what about private businesses which exercise inordinate power over people’s lives and freedoms?

Today we are hearing about banks and other financial instititutions cancelling the accounts of those with ‘wrong’ political views; of other businesses (lodgings, etc.) banning people for similar reasons. And then there is the de-platforming of those ‘badthinking’ individuals who have politically incorrect opinions and ideas which they expressed on social media. And because of the apparent ambiguity of laws on issues like this (and I don’t pretend to be a lawyer) it seems they are getting away with it. It seems as if the social media giants have more power than the very state itself.

I confess I don’t seek out libertarian views, (although I can agree with more ‘maverick’ libertarians like Hans Hermann Hoppe or the great Albert Jay Nock). So I have no idea really how the mass of libertarian-leaning people address this apparent power of unscrupulous Business as corrosive of liberty and freedom. Are they really able only to see a threat from Statism?

Is there any checking this power of private business to interfere in people’s lives? How can it be squared with our personal freedoms and our constitutional rights? Or are they a dead letter now, as so many pessimists say?

Going, going, gone?

Maybe my choice of a name for this blog, back in 2006 or so, was prescient. Here in 2019, the politically correct commissars at Berkeley (CA) City Council — and Colorado State University are looking to eliminate the word ‘America’ or ‘American’ from their official vocabulary. The term ‘American’ is not inclusive, so therefore it should be eliminated, so they decree. The CSU language guide says that calling our country ‘America’ is taboo because it ‘erases other cultures‘ and makes our country appear to be the dominant one.

Every time one of these articles appears, chronicling the latest over-the-top edicts of the far left, I think it couldn’t possibly go much further, but sad to say, that is not true. Looking back over how political correctness has grown ever more restrictive and censorious, and noting how somehow most people seem to passively accept and adjust to the nonstop demands of PC, it seems we are getting deeper and deeper down this bottomless pit.

Read more of the list at the links.

But will people stand for having our country’s name changed, because of arbitrary rules made by people with no real authority over us ? Do we still have an actual first amendment? Or will the name of this blog be more fitting than I ever imagined?

Who said “America: love it or…”

What with all the furor over the President’s comments — suggesting that those who ‘hate’ our country might like to leave — those of us who were around in the 1970s likely remember the saying ‘America: love it or leave it.’

That phrase seems to be along the same line as what the President said, but somehow I don’t remember that older phrase stirring up such a hornets’ nest of anger and invective. It seems we’ve changed since those relatively peaceful days of the 1970s. I seem to remember that later, during the Reagan years, the phrase ‘love it or leave it‘ enjoyed a certain popularity, though the usual legions of the disgruntled may have muttered and grumbled about ‘jingoism’ or something.

People back then, even the leftists, hadn’t yet developed the habit of throwing the ‘r’-word around with such profligacy. It’s hard to imagine it was ever like that in America.

Incidentally, it seems that the phrase ‘America: love it or leave it‘ was coined by old-time radio reporter Walter Winchell, back in 1940, before Pearl Harbor and our entry into World War II.

The slogan persisted and was revived during the Vietnam War era, as a response to the far-left’s constant agitprop.

It may be that the President’s words were a little more incendiary than the Winchell slogan, but it seems that he has some ‘Wormtongues” close to him who are trying to induce him to recant what he said. I think that would be a mistake and it wouldn’t appease those who say they are offended. Apologies in cases like these appear as weakness.

And if any of us were resident in a foreign country whose people and whose policies we harshly criticized, I think we’d expect to be given a rough reception by the leaders and citizens of said country. And in the first place, why would anybody want to move to a country which they saw as ‘racist’ and oppressive? That’s the height of irrationality, or sheer perversity. Yet it seems that many of our new ‘neighbors’ and newly elected officials don’t like us very much, despite their determination to settle down amongst us deplorable people. I find that really odd, yet nobody ever asks the obvious question ‘why’? I suppose it would be too politically incorrect. Truth and frankness are dangerous these days.


Once again, administration spokesmen are saying that “1 million illegal immigrants” are scheduled to be sent home when the order is given. It seems we’ve heard something like this before, and not too long ago. And it seems that the person who announced similar plans before is accused by some of having leaked the plans. As some blogger (I don’t remember who it was) said at the time, why does the man in question still have a job?

Now I am having doubts as to whether the accused man was guilty of ‘sabotaging’ the deportation plan, because the administration again seems to be purposely giving a sort of general heads-up to let interested parties know what the plans are. Or are we being led up the garden path? Is there even a plan for sending anyone home, or is this all just theatre?

While we’re at it, what about that ‘1 million’ number: there must be at least 40 or 50 million here, given that they’ve been arriving for decades now, year round, (not just during ‘picking season as they did when they were officially just ‘migrant workers) and given that all 50 states, yes, including Alaska and Hawaii, have a population of the groups in question. Some parts of the Northwest have towns with all-Spanish-speaking town councils. Even New England, which many seem to think is populated by WASP yankees still, has burgeoning communities of immigrants. They can’t all be legal, as we supposedly admit only (“only”?) 1 million a year.

Ten or more years ago it was said by some group that maybe 30-40 million illegals were here. Just going by stolen Social Security number statistics, 40 million is possible.

But if there is an actual plan to give these people tickets home, and wish them godspeed, then doing is more important than talking about it. Talk is cheap, and a lot of credibility is being squandered by all the talk.

America, 2019

Another Independence Day gone by, and with it a lot of hand-wringing or lamenting from the right — because many think there’s no reason to celebrate our independence. Why celebrate our non-existent (as many see it) independence or even our existence as a nation, since July 4, 1776?

Along with the usual Fourth picnic and cookout fare, it seems a lot of rightists dined yesterday on sour grapes; our country, according to them, was a fraud or a misbegotten notion from the get-go. Our Founders, so they say, were all atheists/freemasons, frauds who had no intention of giving their progeny a free republic. And so on.

Since we can never know the inmost thoughts of our Founding Fathers or our own ancestors, why choose to view them in the most negative and cynical light? We can be generous and give the benefit of the doubt to those people, many of whom left a body of writings that seems to show them as honest, God-fearing men, and men of principles and integrity, traits which are much rarer in our era.

The ideas of our founding forebears were sound. The problem is with human nature. If anything, that was the Founding Fathers’ weakness: excessive idealism. But they did tell us that the government they gave us was meant only for ‘a moral and religious people‘ — in other words, it is not suited to 21st-century homo sapiens, not even Americans, with our vaunted love of liberty.

And if human nature is the ultimate cause of our current situation, the ‘fundamental transformation’ of our country, then there’s little sense or usefulness in carping about the mistakes of our distant ancestors — or our closer ancestors, our grandparents and parents. They did the best they could, and our country had a good run until the slow-motion corruption that was working beneath the surface became obvious, and by then it was almost too late.

And is patriotism on our national birthday something to shun, because of the distress our country is now experiencing? And what is patriotism, really? As an ethnopatriot I say that the people are the nation; our loyalty should be shown towards our folk, our kinsmen. That’s what patriotism originally meant, not loyalty to a set of propositions or ideals. Not loyalty or sentiment towards the Emma Lazarus ersatz patriotism, getting misty-eyed over mass immigration, and the huddled masses.

Just as normal people love their families, warts and all, we have to learn to accept and bond with one another, to show solidarity and loyalty to our own. We can still have a country even though it is no longer the country we once knew. Tomorrow is another day. The future may look bleak but without the motivation of a bond shared with our kinsmen, it’s easy to become utterly resigned and pessimistic. Nothing good ever comes of that mindset, and I have to remind myself of that; it happens to most of us at times.

But surmounting the tendency to blame our own, and the divisiveness that plagues even the right is a real challenge; it does seem that blaming others amongst our own is a popular thing, and it seems to fill a need for some people.

It isn’t easy but we must get over the divisiveness and pledge our allegiance not to the ‘changeling’ country we see, but to the America that is us.

Another Founding Father falls prey to the usual suspects

You’ve no doubt read the stories of how the ‘city fathers’ (is that sexist?) of Charlottesville, Virginia have dropped their Thomas Jefferson holiday. Why? Need we ask?

This was bound to happen, given that even George Washington has been declared unfit to be honored, as he once was, as the Father of our Country.

So on Unz.com, there is a discussion thread about the Thomas Jefferson situation, and predictably several people are repeating the slanders about Sally Hemings, treating the allegations as established fact. This riles me. Is it wrong to object to one’s ancestors being slandered in this way? It seems to me that the smears are a blot on the whole family line, not to say on Thomas Jefferson himself. Up until a certain impeached president resurrected the scurrilous allegations (back in the 1990s) few people even knew of the rumors — which originated with some of Thomas Jefferson’s political enemies, who happened to be unprincipled and lewd-minded men.

I’ve begun to be cynical enough to believe that anybody who repeats those rumors and calumnies now is also guilty of being lewd-minded, getting some kind of leg-tingle from imagining the scenario. Some people have read too many of the old-fashioned pulp novels about such liaisons, or seen too many sleazy Hollywood films about miscegeny. Otherwise why are they so eager to believe accusations with no proof? I hope those people never sit on juries; we like to think, perhaps too optimistically, that in our country people are reasonable and objective in their judgments, but I wonder.

From all I’ve read of Thomas Jefferson, the supposed relationship between him and Sally would have been greatly out of character for him. I suspect the people who believe him guilty have never learned much about him, never read any of his correspondence and other writings, never read a biography by an old-fashioned, objective historian. Of course he was not a saint but neither was he an exploiter, a liar, or a man of excessive carnal appetites. But in today’s world, everyone is assumed to be lecherous and lewd because that’s the nature of the society we live in, sadly. People today can’t comprehend that it was not always so, that there were once people of integrity, who lived by standards and morals.

It seems I am one of the last to defend his name, at least online, and I like to think I’d do so even were I not connected to him by blood. There was an older gentleman, also a descendant, who used to speak up in Jefferson’s defense on the Internet, but I think he’s no longer with us, so it seems Jefferson has fewer and fewer defenders these days. It’s sad, because it’s also an indication of how traditional America, along with our old standards, our old culture and its symbols, our heroes, and our history, all are under attack if not destroyed. The young like to label anyone who tries to defend the ‘old America’ as a ‘patriotard’ or (depending on age) as a ‘boomertard’ but someone has to speak up, or just passively watch it all crumble before our eyes.

One of the worst losses of the war on old America is the loss of our free speech, the loss of the right to speak our minds freely, even to criticize the powerful. Of course it’s always politically correct to slander our Founding Fathers and our ancestors generally, or to criticize those who are now society’s underdogs, not quite outnumbered yet, but already all but silenced. Thomas Jefferson was a great champion of free speech, and I think he would be greatly grieved to see the America that has replaced the one he and his contemporaries created for us.