An interesting read

At Unz.com there’s a long but very educational piece , of a very politically incorrect nature. It’s about ‘White racialism’, or more properly, I think, about Whites’ lost ethnocentrism. I don’t mean to ascribe this meaning to Unz’s piece, but really when we speak of ‘racialism’ these days, often what is meant, in a White context, is Whites’ consciousness of themselves as White, and of their differences from other ethnicities or races. It also includes, by implication, a loyalty to one’s own kindred. We know who we are, ideally, (we certainly used to know) and we know where we fit in this world and where we don’t.

And now that it’s ”not OK to be White” and it’s not allowed — in fact it’s dangerous to say “All Lives Matter” much less to say the same of White lives, we probably inhibit ourselves from expressing confidence in who we are, and who we could be if only we were freed from the shackles of political correctness.

It is a long read, as Unz’s essays usually are, but it is informative. I was aware of many of the people Unz writes of in the piece, except for E.A. Ross. I wonder why we have never heard much about him?

I have read works by most of the others he includes in the piece. I’ve read Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, Carleton Putnam, Carleton Coon, Wilmot Robertson, — and Boas, while studying Anthropology in college, so I’ve heard the politically correct lies via Boas’ teachings.

The comments on this kind of article are almost always depressing, with the attitude some ‘respectable’ people take towards anyone who is a realist, who sees things as they are, no rose-colored glasses or denialism allowed.

One thing that I noticed is that Anglo-Saxon Americans were at the forefront of this movement, trying to inform and put facts out there in the public sphere. Why are there no such voices being allowed to examine such subjects? Because no dissenting voices, no contradictions to the narrative are to be heard or read. Whoever can break through that PC barrier and say something to challenge the narrative will be disparaged, ridiculed, and marginalized.

And I wonder if the people who were born into this politically correct echo chamber realize that most people, the vast majority of people, North and South, East and West, held the same opinions as those called the ‘r-word’ today? Do people realize that if they had been born back in those days when people were more of a similar mind, and could speak freely, they would have been one of those politically incorrect people who are so despised now. The past is truly another country, and they did ‘do things differently there.’

They were free in that “other country”. Say what you will (and some people hate the past, or hate what they’ve been told it was) but people were freer.

In sheep’s clothing

I had just started to write another post but this one from Bruce Charlton caught my attention. I don’t always find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Charlton because we differ on our religious beliefs. Still I respect his ideas, and I appreciate that he seems to show respect for others — not a very common attitude in today’s world.

But I would love to be able to share this post of Dr. Charlton’s with a certain relative of mine. But that can’t happen; this person is hardened where political opinions are concerned, as are the great majority of people on that side of the politico-spiritual war. That kind of person flies into a rage at any word of disagreement.

I agree with Dr. Charlton on the spiritual state of most ‘believers’ today. I say ‘believers’ because I hesitate to apply the term Christian where it doesn’t express the truth of the matter. That’s where I differ with Dr. Charlton; where he says

“And those who have taken Satan’s side include many people who are (let’s say) 95% or more Good Christians in what they profess and practice.”

But what people profess outwardly may not be true to what they think in their hearts; people can become very practiced at saying — and doing — what is expected, even if it is not wholehearted. The Pharisees and their ilk knew their Scripture inside out and represented themselves as ultra-religious and upright, better than others.

God, however, ‘knows the heart’, so he knows that some people are good at play-acting. I believe the originally Greek word ‘hypocrite’ as spoken by Jesus meant ‘play-actor’ or insincere person. There were ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ in that time. Now that Christianity is out of fashion, many people can’t be bothered to live their supposed faith in order to be respectable. There’s not much of a social payoff now; just the opposite.

I would say that no Christian with a real, heartfelt faith could side with evil.
Edmund Burke is quoted (some say it’s wrongly credited to him) as saying “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I say that a good man, a truly good man — would not be able to sit and ”do nothing” should evil be triumphing, as it seems to be at this very moment. And a real Christian could not side with evil, thus joining himself to it and aiding it. Then the impostor proves himself a false Christian, just as Burke’s hypothetical ‘good man’ would prove himself cowardly by his inaction in the face of a triumphant evil.

Immigration’s effects on host societies

In a recent blog discussion somewhere recently someone expressed skepticism about the effects of immigration on certain types of ethnic groups. While some, especially rural communities were less vulnerable to change, some were more vulnerable.

From a 1913 book called The Races of Europe, containing a series of lectures by the Lowell Institute:

“A summary view of the class of social phenomena seemingly characteristic of the distinct races in France, if we extend our field of vision to cover all Europe, suggests an explanation for the curious coincidences and parallelisms
[…] In every population we may distinguish two modes of increase or evolution, which vary according to economic opportunity for advancement. One community grows from its own loins; children born in it remain there, grow up to maturity, and transmit their mental and physical peculiarities unaltered to the next generation. Such a group of population develops from within, mentally as well as physically, by inheritance. Such is the type of the average rural community. Its evolution is surely “monotypic,” to borrow a biological term from Romanes.

It is conservative in all respects, holding to the past with an unalterable tenacity. Compare with that a community which grows almost entirely by immigration. Stress of competition is severe. There is no time for rearing children; nor is it deemed desirable, for every child is a handicap upon further social advancement. Marriage even, unless it be deferred until late in life, is an expensive luxury.

Population grows, nevertheless; but how? By the steady influx of outsiders. Such is the type known to us in the modern great city. Between these two extremes are all gradations between the progressive and the conservative type of population. To the former are peculiar all those social ills which, as Giddings has rightly urged, are the price paid for such progress.

Suicide is a correlative of education; frequency of divorce is an inevitable concomitant of equality of rights between the sexes, and the decline of the religious sanction of patria potestas. Marriage, no longer a sacrament, becomes merely a legal contract, terminable at the will of the parties concerned. The individual will is of necessity subordinated to that of the body politic. Crime changes in character, becoming a matter more of business or necessity, and less of impulse.

A decreasing birth rate almost always attends social advancement. To prevent such a fall in the birth rate, and at the same time to overcome the devastations of disease, is held by many to be demographic ideal to which all states should aspire. Not postponed marriages, nor childless families, not a high proportion of celibates; not, on the other hand, reckless and improvident unions with a terrific infant mortality as a penalty therefor [stet] but a self-restrained and steady birth rate in which a high percentage survives the perils of infancy.”

  • The Races of Europe, pp 528-529

Birds of a feather

I see that the usual personages are sounding warnings about alleged ‘White supremacists’ causing trouble in North Texas or elsewhere. Really? What with actual violence that has gone unimpeded for months, the people in power are worrying about theoretical threats to the peace?

Democrat mayors and governors have released uncounted numbers convicted felons and essentially protected them, enabled them. By the way, how did these jumped-up nonentities acquire that power? By someone’s decree? Certainly not by any ”democratic” means.

Oh, but by all means let’s sound a warning about ‘extremist Whites’ , apparently those with unapproved opinions or political stances — especially the phantom White supremacists who are ever and always the problem. Or so we’re led to believe.

Now our president feels compelled to denounce said White troublemakers and thought criminals, so he has denounced all the groups he was pressed to denounce. That includes the group known for wearing white hoods, and also the group known as The Proud Boys. But wait: the latter are not necessarily White. Some of the individuals involved are, but prefer to be a diverse-and-inclusive group, so the Proud Boys include blacks and other races. In fact it appears they have had a meeting with BLM, no less, and come to some kind of agreement. At their conference they made it a point to denounce ‘White supremacy’. So much for ‘allies.’

I suppose this is the inevitable result of civic nationalism and this artificial ‘unity’, but the popular version of unity and ‘equality’ seems to culminate always in a distancing from White folk.

“Diverse-and-inclusive” will never be happy to accommodate Whites, never make peace with anything titled “White” . The denunciation and disavowal is becoming de rigueur .

And I do wonder how the President can make these renunciations and denunciations with such apparent ease. I think all the politicians know White folk have very weak ethnic loyalty and less sense of identity than other groups; they take it for granted that we will vote for them even if they take us for granted.

The campaign to further discredit the South’s history

I see that the misnamed ‘American Thinker’ website is at it again, spreading rank falsehoods about the South, specifically about the Democrat Party as it existed during the mid-1860s, around the time of the War Between the States.

The piece which is up there on the website is dated 1 October, although I could swear that this is the same slanderous piece which was posted a week or two ago.

The truth matters. I know I always say this but it needs saying. And the American Thinker website, along with other Politically Correct Republican-run websites, seems to be on a campaign to besmirch the reputation of the South.

Why? Don’t we have the Left to do that kind of dirty work? Are the liberal Republicans joining up with the left? Since when are ”conservatives” or Republicans out to make the people of the South into “racist” monsters? I suppose since the Republican mainstream has adopted, wholesale, the antiracist fervor that resurfaced with militant leftists back in the 1950s and 1960s. Now the Republicans seem to be Democrats Lite since they’ve adopted the left’s causes and rhetoric.

This is why I am an independent and not a Republican. The Republicans are running scared from labels like ‘white supremacist’ which the left is now using to describe anyone to the right of Mitt Romney, so the Republican liberals are on a tear, railing about how the Democrat party of the mid-19th century were some kind of terrorists. How’s this for overheated rhetoric:

“The Rebellion, in which Democrats played principal roles in causing, was a century in the rearview mirror. Goes the spin: Democrats vanquished their post-Civil War record of virulent racism, which expressed itself in Jim Crow (Southern apartheid) and the atrocities of the nightriding Ku Klux Klan — the party’s white-garbed brownshirts — who ranged beyond the South, terrorizing blacks in states where Democrats concentrated. As we view the Democratic Party from the vantage point of October, 2020, we see that the party’s character is unchanged. The party of slavery, rebellion, and Jim Crow has found new expressions for its darker inclinations. Antifa and BLM are knockoffs of the KKK.”

American Thinker, 1 October 2020

Connecting antifa and BLM to KKK is absurd. Read any history book written in that era and you will see that the writer has it backwards.

I will write this slowly so the left-leaning Republicans can read it: John Brown (probably a hero of the writer of the American ‘Thinker’ piece) is the one who bears the closest resemblance to Antifa. There is even a John Brown Brigade made up of leftist antiracists. Remember that John Brown committed five murders in the name of antiracism and abolitionism. John Brown thought he was protecting innocent blacks from evil Whites, just as today’s antiracists do, and they believe the end justifies the means, always. Always.

It was Brown, the self-styled savior of the ‘oppressed’, the self-righteous self-appointed ‘hero’ who killed innocent people in Kansas and in Virginia. He was convicted of treason and hanged.

Brown was on the same side as those who, today, insist on idealizing MLK Jr., despite the many damning revelations about him which were in government document dumps of a few years ago. But the liberal Republicans, inspired by the likes of John Brown, refuse to hear any of those revelations about their Saint. It appears a lot of people watched or read the fictional (and plagiarized) series ‘Roots‘ and mistook it for truth. Hollywood and the educational system have force-fed America a lot of lurid fiction about slavery and ‘Jim Crow’ (does anybody even know what Jim Crow was?) and the masses, especially the out-of-touch Republican liberal antiracists, have the real-life history backwards.

If White people were so evil and dangerous as the writer states (‘atrocities…brownshirts…apartheid’, etc.) then separation would be a good thing for the oppressed blacks, would it not? If the White Democrats were just ‘brownshirts’/nazis with Southern accents, why would you ‘integrate’ helpless blacks with evil Whites? There is a big flaw in that narrative.

Brown and his ilk were the wild-eyed zealots and the radicals, and they were the ones with blood on their hands. The Republican Party, with which the writer insists on defending, was radical. It was not just anti-slavery, but anti-White. By contrast, the Democrat Party of that era was reasonable, not fanatical as were the obsessed, monomaniacal abolitionists.

John Brown tried to persuade blacks to murder Whites; some whites died at the hands of Brown and his random rabble. That is beyond dispute. It’s pretty hard to idealize murderers if you have any scruples about violence and killing. So does the end (emancipation and integration via a lot of violence) justify the means? Does this highly divisive rhetoric accomplish anything good?

At the very least it misinforms people. And it further divides an already fractured nation.

And how hard is it to grasp that the two political parties are not the same parties as those of the same names which exist today? Is it necessary to misstate the facts in order to make the Democrats look even worse than they are, and to tie the Democrats’ evil (which is undeniable) to the Democrat party of last century? This tactic is deliberately misleading and inflammatory. This kind of rhetoric and propaganda is just what it would take to ignite another conflict like that of the WBTS. If that’s the case, just let the South secede this time, and don’t keep them in the ‘Union’ by force. If the South is so bad, let them secede.

I don’t understand why there is so little pushback from Southron people; nobody, except for one or two people commenting on this article, responds with any kind of defense, and the responses on the article are half-hearted. Why? Has the negativity become that widespread? Does no one like to defend an unpopular cause? There used to be, not long ago, a group of articulate, even eloquent, defenders of the South who would step up and make a very spirited case. I think that generation has died, leaving no real ‘heirs’ to take up the side of our ancestors. And their likes may not be here again. I miss those older generations.

We do have truth on our side; Reconstruction (which few people seem to know of) was cruel and unjust to the former Confederates, who were stripped of their civil rights and their right to self-defense, and the new ‘freedmen’ were sat in the legislatures and were given the run of the former Confederate states, along with White scallywag partners. That was an era of violence toward Whites, including women and children. The writer of the American Thinker piece depicts an exactly opposite reality, in which evil White men were in command during Reconstruction and were behaving as terrorists. Read history books of that era; the very opposite was true.

It may be that I am wearying some people with my attempts to defend our heritage, but the truth must be upheld. And the uninformed, willfully or not, need to be informed.