Celebrating our independence

I trust you all enjoyed a pleasant Independence Day, though with each year the question “just what we are celebrating?” insistently recurs in my mind.

For a lot of Americans it seems as though we are celebrating just out of habit, or just for the sake of celebrating — with the customary fireworks, barbecues, parades — but for some of us the day has assumed overtones of mourning — mourning what has become of our country, mourning for what should have been but now is not.

If we choose, we can look back at the genuine accomplishments and heroism of our forefathers in creating this country, though it seems fewer Americans each year are inclined to do that. Cynicism on the part of many on the right is the order of the day, and I seem to see as much bitterness towards our forebears from the ‘right’ as from the left. No matter which way you cut it, that is sad. No matter how wrong America has gone in this ‘grand experiment’ that we call our country, is there really any comfort in denouncing the Founders of this country? Does it serve any useful purpose? I say it doesn’t; if we are truly ethnonationalists or ethnopatriots there has to be something in our history and our folk that we can love and defend. Of course we have to separate our nation (and our folk; they are one) from our government, which does not represent us, nor does it seem to care about our safety and happiness.

But must we trash the past and the people who made our country? I can’t take part in that, though I am decidedly not one of those people the right (and left) disparage as ‘patriotards.’

Even the use of names like ‘patriotard’ is an example of jaded cynicism, something I dislike, especially if I find it growing in my own heart.

Pat Buchanan, in a very good article, asks the question of whether we are still a nation. In my opinion it’s one of the best things he’s written lately, though I often felt he did not ‘go far enough’ in the past in addressing some issues.

I think most of us would agree that the country, as we know it today, does not embody a true nation, a people descended from a common ancestry and with shared history and culture. But there is still a core, a remnant, that exists. Those who are part of this know it, and it is to this that we should and must be loyal. Cynicism and bitterness are not motivating influences; instead they seem to lead to apathy and resignation, and to a perverse kind of superiority feeling based on being above the simple-minded ‘normies’ or ‘Murkans.’ Nothing positive can be built on this.

I don’t know what the future of this ‘Republic’ of ours holds; I am sorry to say I am not as optimistic as I once was (though my optimism was always cautious and tempered by realism). I don’t know that we have any cause to celebrate on Independence Day except to remember our forebears and their great efforts and sacrifices for our benefit, and the fact that their posterity failed to ‘keep’ the Republic they created for us is to our discredit, not theirs.


Whose posterity?

At Vox Day’s blog, there’s a long discussion on the subject of just what the phrase “our posterity” means when used by the Founding Fathers (“ourselves and our posterity“, as you see above on my blog header.)

To me, the phrase’s meaning is self-evident, but apparently not to a lot of people. Maybe it depends, more than anything else, on ancestry. Those who are descendants of colonial stock, or at least descendants of the Revolutionary War generation, know who they are — or should know. Granted, though, many Americans are still vague about their origins — or worse, are ‘certain’ of what may be incorrect beliefs about their own genetics and ancestry, believing themselves to have some kind of ‘exotic’ ancestry that carries some kind of cachet for them or for the average American. But many people don’t know who their ancestors were, or perhaps know about only one or two lineages, or only the most recent ancestry.

Now for whatever reason, I can’t seem to get comments posted on Blogger blogs, and so I can’t take part in the VP discussion, so I’ll just post my thoughts here.

I am surprised at how many people seem to react negatively to Vox Day’s assertion that only the descendants of the actual Founding generation (and ethnicity) are the real posterity. Some people, as usually happens, feel personally offended if told that their ancestors, still being in the ‘old country’ when the Founders wrote their words, could not consider their own progeny to be the ‘posterity’ of the Founders or their generation.

Because people take this personally they respond with peevish statements along the lines of the following: ‘‘there aren’t any of the actual posterity of the Founders now; there are no ‘pure English’ or unmixed people left“, or there is legalistic arguing that immigrants and their posterity are just as much legitimate heirs as by adoption (naturalization being equated with adoption into a family).

If there are any of my old-time readers here these days, those with long memories may remember that when we had these discussions say, ten years ago, I was actually offering a ‘civic nationalist’ interpretation. As I wrote in a blog post some years ago:

‘[M]y ”we” includes all those who consider themselves ‘old Americans’, regardless of where your ancestors originated. All of you who identify with the America that was, and the America that might once again be.’

Was I really so clueless then?

Obviously many of those who are not of old-stock Anglo-Saxon roots are unwilling to ‘forgive’ those of us who are, judging by their grudging and resentful tone when referring to Anglo-Saxon Americans, even continuing the old denial that we even exist any longer. Many of those who admit to multiple European ancestries seem to want to believe that all White Americans are as they are, with a half-dozen or so different ancestries, and hence no particular identification with any one strain. They choose to believe that everyone must be like them.

For a long time it did seem as if the ‘just-American‘ identity, the old civic nationalist line, worked, at least passably, but sometime around the 1970s there was a kind of resurgence of ethnic identities, maybe in response to the increasing in-your-face ethnocentrism of nonwhites, so many Americans of remote Irish ancestry or German ancestry or Italian ancestry suddenly became more assertive about their roots, and sometimes this newly-found ethnocentrism became a more antagonistic dislike of ‘WASPs’, supposedly for some past imagined wrongs done by WASPs collectively against their immigrant ancestors, collectively. I honestly don’t remember there being as much anti-Anglo sentiment as we see now. My own increasing Anglocentrism is in part a response to that, merely an effort to speak up for too-reticent Anglo-Americans who are used to discreetly ignoring slurs from others.

From the same blog post of mine which I quote above:

“It is getting harder to cling to a ‘just American’ identity when our country is now according what was once a great prize, American citizenship, to people from every corner of the globe, people who speak no English and have no connection with old America. The American identity has been devalued, and stripped of its meaning. To be an American might mean anything and everything, but ultimately nothing when there is little commonality among those claiming the title.

What then? Are we all to identify with our varied European ancestry? Those who have several different ancestries with no clearly dominant one will face a dilemma in such a case.

‘I think those whose families have been here for generations should be able to identify with the historic culture and people of the United States, and that means the Anglo-Celtic identity which has dominated. It used to be that this was the default culture with which everyone identified, and few chose to reject that. Now it’s reversed; it’s cool to be ”ethnic” because that is vibrant and colorful and ‘rich’.

Sadly we seem to be beyond that point. Everybody scents blood where old-stock WASP Americans are concerned; ‘WASPs’ are considered weak or effete, or even (as some claim) extinct altogether, blended out of existence, hence we are fair game, to be discussed in the third person — ”they”– as if Anglo-Americans are like the Etruscans or some other long-gone race. We’ve been pronounced dead, or as good as, by some people, people who have their own ethnic agenda.

One more claim from some ‘civic nationalists’ I meant to address is the claim that ‘other ethnic groups were here from the very beginning’, and usually a litany of nationalities is recited, ‘Swedish, Dutch, German, Slavic, French, Spanish’, etc. etc. The deceptiveness in this line of argument is in implying that these other groups were equal in numbers to the English colonists, or that they were here contemporaneously with the English colonies when they may not have been. Yes. There were these other ethnicities who had colonies here, or who came to the English colonies — in very, very small numbers. But they were fewer, and did not leave the same cultural/social/genetic/political imprint as the English. They were here, but their presence was not as significant, like it or not.

It’s funny how this subject of national identity continues to come up again and again, despite having been discussed so frequently by so many; we seem to be farther than ever from settling it, and all the while our country continues to be colonized by people who seem to be here just to feast off the carcase of English-speaking America. And all the while we are squabbling amongst ourselves, while others are busy taking our birthright.

Who is an American?

This question is a recurring one on right-wing blogs, and especially so since all the talk and heated rhetoric about deportations (also known as sending people home) and walls.

Because America has had a history of rather promiscuous immigration policies it’s a fact that the homogenous America our Founding ancestors wrote of is no longer a reality — but yet it is also not a reality that the Founding stock, that is, the ‘posterity’ of the Founders, is long gone and irrelevant, or that we are a ‘proposition nation.’

That last assertion is now the official dogma of the multicultists in both the GOP and the Democrat party. The fact is it was never true.

Those who object to any mention of sending foreigners back to their homelands protest that many of them are ”as American as you and me”, fully American in their culture and their tastes and their speech — in some cases. Some of these immigrant advocates go so far as to say that even the new arrivals are more American than the Americans themselves because ”they [immigrants] appreciate this Free Country; they love liberty”, unlike most spoiled, jaded native-born Americans.

But loving ”liberty”, whatever meaning that has for individuals who come here, does not an American make.

To my mind, it comes down to this: those of kindred stock to the original colonists, whose ancestors have been here since pre-Revolution times, are American. Those who are genetically and culturally more distant, and whose ancestors have not been here for at least several generations? Not necessarily. Assimilation is not an automatic and natural process; greater genetic and cultural distance may mean that they never fully assimilate to the original stock population or share our mores and standards.

Those belonging to some ‘victim’ group, holding grievances and nursing grudges about what their sometimes-distant ancestors suffered at the hands of the ‘xenophobic WASPs’ or whatever — are not Americans in any real sense. Here’s what it comes down to for me: if you don’t and apparently can’t identify with, or have some regard or loyalty to the original stock population, you aren’t of us, by your own choice. Loyalty to this nation would seem to imply identifying and sympathizing with the majority of ‘legacy’ Americans, and our national story. Absent that loyalty to the folk, you have defined yourself as being Other, with a capital ‘O’. These types of people, even if their ancestors came here 5 0r 6 generations back, still harp on the unfair treatment they imagine their distant forefathers suffered:”My great-great-grandfather wasn’t even considered White! I deserve reparations just as much as blacks! More so!”

Not American.

It’s also this group of perpetual-grievance-holders who most often champion today’s mass immigration, and support open borders, multiculturalism, and the Democrat Party — though one can be a GOPer and be all for those things, sad to say. These are the people who say “How can I be against immigration? My ancestors would never have been allowed in if the xenophobes had their way.” And how would America have even existed without these people and their ancestors having been admitted? America just wouldn’t have been America without them. So they flatter themselves.

In a sense they are right; America as it is now would not be the same country had we not let in millions of such immigrants in the past; it was the old melting pot philosophy, the proposition nation, Emma Lazarus ideology, that led to today’s ethnically and racially divided, conflict-ridden America. Immigration led to more immigration; it’s a perpetual cycle.



UVa Profs: stop quoting Jefferson

The ‘Old Dominion’ continues to decay. The usual academic suspects are now, along with their brainwashed adolescent charges, clamoring for the president of UVa to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson. 469 ignoramuses and budding totalitarians signed a petition to this effect.

The school’s president, Teresa Sullivan, said the following, which prompted the demands:

“Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes,’” Ms. Sullivan wrote in the email. “I encourage today’s U.Va. students to embrace that responsibility.”

The students and their academic allies cited Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves, along with his ”racist” beliefs, as reasons for banning his words.

Was Jefferson a ”racist”? We all know that term has been overused and has become so fluid and subjective that it is almost impossible to defend against the charge. As someone at VDare, perhaps, once said, to be accused of racism is to be convicted. It is not possible to prove a negative, especially when one’s accusers are ‘POCs’ or White leftists; both groups are immune to reason, facts, and common sense.

I see that Steve Sailer has a thread on this story, and to my (pleasant) surprise, the comments are mostly defensive of Jefferson, which sad to say is becoming more and more rare, as even many “conservatives”, ethnopatriots, and race-realists (so-called) are willing to pile on and baldly state that Jefferson was a ‘hypocrite’, a ‘race-mixer’ or even a slave-rapist. Examples? I can’t easily locate a specific thread, but I’ve seen such comments on AmRen (a site I long since abandoned, for various reasons) and on the OD blog, where at least one regular commenter pointedly condemns Jefferson at every possible occasion. And no one disputes what he says. I haven’t commented at OD since the comments are now under the Disqus system, so the slanders go unanswered.

Some of you may remember that I used to try to counter all attacks on Jefferson, even attempting to comment on AmRen, where my comments rarely got approved. And I have tried to defend Jefferson not just because I am a Jefferson descendant — it’s personal — but because I believe in his innocence of the slanders made against his character. I realize I am out of step with the cynicism of the times regarding all the Founding generation, and that defending Jefferson is often sneered at as being a ‘patriotard’ and the like, but the fact is there is not any definitive proof that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’ or any slave’s brood of children. Some of the Hemings descendants say they have Jefferson DNA according to tests, but the DNA is not that of Thomas Jefferson, but just of a Jefferson male. That could include many possible sires.

I used to cite a link from Ashbrook Center, Ashland University, which offered the counter-evidence to the Jefferson slander, but it seems they’ve taken that page down. Why? Too politically incorrect?

A link on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog which dealt with that subject, and offered an argument against the claim from an informed commenter, is likewise gone. Why? The comment was from the Jefferson Family historian, Herbert Barger. Why did the Britannica people not consider that this was valuable information?

There’s obviously an effort across the board to re-write history in a way that discredits the Founders, and by extension, the Founding stock of this country and their progeny. Us. Why are so many of ‘us’ going along with this, and even aiding and abetting it?

There used to be an older gentleman, another Jefferson descendant, who tried to combat these stories online, but maybe he has passed on now. I used to try to take up the slack and answer as many as I could, but it seems such a vain effort, and I have begun to feel that if nobody else cares to preserve Jefferson’s name and his legacy, then why should I waste my time and energy? Yet here I am doing it again. I guess I am a sucker for lost causes.

But back to the original charge of those ‘scholars’ at UVa and wherever this kind of nonsense is being encouraged: was Jefferson a ”racist”, whatever that means on any given day? He was definitely a ‘realist’ in that he (being something of a scientist and “HBD” man in his time) observed and noted the many differences between the two races, black and White, and he predicted — accurately — that the two races would not be able to live side-by-side in harmony, and that it would all end in conflict.  In other words, he was a truth-teller. And that’s the crime nowadays.

And Jefferson’s statement that the students of UVa would be those who would govern the country in the future is unfortunately true — and frightening, given the obvious fact that those ignorant and fanatical misfits will in fact be in charge one day, if we go on that long. I think that reality would dismay Thomas Jefferson if he had but known.

Immigration: planned or coincidence?

Steve Sailer posted the same video of Bill Clinton which I posted in my previous entry, asking the question ‘Is it too late for Hillary to stop being so extremist on borders?’ Commenters discuss how back in the 1990s it was not unheard of for even Democrats to express immigration restrictionist views, albeit more middle-of-the-road ones.

Nonetheless, I think Bill Clinton’s words were meant mostly for effect, not as a sincere intent to restrict immigration, legal or illegal. I think the fix was in even then, and when G.W. Bush came into office, his plan was to accelerate the demographic change. Maybe he was chosen to push for amnesty for the millions of illegals who had already entered our country because his being a Republican would make it easier for pro-border enforcement Republicans and conservatives to accept an amnesty bill. Just as ‘only Nixon could go to China.’

Still there remain lots of immigration skeptics who doubt that there was a plan to flood this country and all Western, historically White countries with millions upon millions of immigrants, legal or not. Why there is such stubborn resistance to this idea baffles me, except that there seem to be a great many Americans who are skeptical to a fault, shunning anything that smacks of ‘conspiracy theories’, preferring to believe that most things are coincidences, random events. As if those in high places, those with great power and wealth and ambition, are content to sit around and hope things go their way accidentally.

Despite the evidence of the reality of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan (which some doubt) there is also this piece, from 2006, which I posted way back then on the blog, by Fredo Arias-King. He was a Mexican national who was an aide to Mexican president Vicente Fox in 1999-2000. I post the link again in case that there may, just may be someone looking in on this blog who is not familiar with the piece.

The article is titled Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will. It is just as timely now as it was then.

In that article, Arias-King discusses possible reasons why American politicians were willing to go against the will of their constituents in supporting mass immigration and demographic transformation of America.

“While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.”

He also noted that Republicans saw this engineered demographic change as a means to enabling them to escape from the constraints of the existing political system as planned by the Founding Fathers, and to further enlarge their own power at the expense of the people. It’s also telling that these same politicians and elected officials seemed to actually cheer on the demographic transformation of this country by the influx of Mexicans and other third-worlders.

“While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.”

This seems to me to be a very accurate and plausible picture of how “our” representatives regard us behind our backs, while, like Bill Clinton and so many others of both parties, they stand before the cameras and mikes lying about their intentions to enforce our laws. Behind our backs they are metaphorically or actually high-fiving our supplanters and apologizing for our ‘redneck’ ways.

Since Arias-King wrote his piece over a decade ago, things have worsened appreciably — and yet there are still those who refuse to believe that there is intent behind this situation, and there is still intent to thwart the will of the people.

The people: that’s us, the Founders’ posterity.

The dominant American ethnic group

For once, those are not my words, but a quote from a comment at the iSteve blog:

“I’ve noticed that they talk incessantly about minority cultures: their music, their food, and so forth, and how we “appropriate” it. But they act as if there’s no such thing as culture amongst white people. Unless they’re part of specific groups, like Italians or the Irish. The dominant American ethnic group in U.S. culture were and are the English. But we so take them for granted it’s as if their influence isn’t there, even though blacks, for instance, have “appropriated” more of it than we could ever hope to appropriate of theirs should we try.

A similar fate befell German culture. I guess the Irish survived because they were oppressed, or whatever. But there’s a whimsical quality to Irish-American culture, which I find artificial. Anyway, the point is that mainstream American culture is there, while people brought up in its slain yet undying influence pretend it isn’t.”

[Emphasis mine above.]

This will be cross-posted at the other blog, as it is very much the theme of that blog.

A conservative says this?

A poster on a ‘conservative’ forum shared an e-mail which he got from the Ted Cruz campaign, apparently one of those mass e-mailings that solicit support and money.

From the text of that e-mail, ostensibly written by Cruz himself:

“If we choose freedom, our future will be brighter.
Freedom will bring back jobs and raise wages. Freedom will lift people out of dependency and to the dignity of work.

47 years ago today, America put a man on the moon. That’s the power of freedom.
Our party was founded to defeat slavery.
Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
We passed the Civil Rights Act, and fought to eliminate Jim Crow laws.
Those were fights for freedom, and so is this.”

Then the request for money followed. Cruz is (I hope!) delusional if he expects people to send him money for his failed campaign now, especially after his reneging on his promise to endorse Donald Trump. But does anybody see the obvious contradictions in the above quoted text? Couldn’t anybody with conservative instincts (and I mean that in the classic sense, not in the political sense, as in today’s Republican party) see the glaring, blinding contradictions in Cruz’s invoking ”freedom” while expressing support for liberal, egalitarian principles?

There is a well-known quote attributed to both John Taylor of Caroline and John Randolph of Roanoke, two great Virginian statesmen, who said “I love liberty; I hate equality.” Today’s conservatives (or cuckservatives?) would probably object strongly to those words. But there is sense in those words, and truth, though that truth is  mostly rejected today, especially by the likes of politicians like Cruz and unfortunately many self-described ‘conservatives.’ These people apparently fail to see, or refuse to see, that the Civil Rights Act and the elimination of Jim Crow laws (which Cruz boasts of) were anti-freedom, at least for the majority in this country. It was the beginning of the end of traditional America, in which we still had freedom of association, and in which we could still speak relatively freely, uninhibited by what we now call political correctness. We could still unabashedly care about our folk, and act in our own interests. Was that ‘unfair’ to the others in our society? Possibly, but is the current situation fair to us?

Under our system, the will of the majority was to be honored. After all, even in the best of situations not everyone can get what he wants, so is it not preferable that the majority, the greatest number, has its needs addressed? Now, minorities’ wills prevail over the majority, and that is a greater injustice. Many Americans rail against aristocracies and nobility because they feel that rule by a small group is a terrible injustice against the majority. And yet this is exactly what we have now. Yes, I know the real rulers are not blacks, sexual deviants, Hispanics, and Moslems, but the elites rule using them, and for political reasons choose to grant more freedoms and more concessions to those minority groups. Either way, it’s an injustice to the majority population.

Any ‘conservative’ should see that liberal policies such as those Cruz and his ilk boast of are detrimental to the freedoms of the people as a whole. Even if we are talking about ‘freedom’ in the abstract as libertarians are wont to do, egalitarianism comes at the cost of freedom. It is not possible to create ‘equality’ or equal treatment by fiat, or to force association with others at gunpoint, which is what Cruz and the average Republican pride themselves on.

‘Ending Jim Crow laws’ may sound like a great coup for ‘freedom’ because the term ‘Jim Crow’ has been loaded with bad connotations — but let’s admit that ending Jim Crow amounted to forcible ‘integration’ at gunpoint, and it is still going on now, as for example Section 8 tenants are placed into neighborhoods that are ”too White”. People must not be allowed to sort themselves according to their own interests or choices.

‘Equality’, or some semblance of it, can only be brought about by coercion, achieved by an overbearing government. And since the perfect equilibrium of that state cannot be maintained except by outside pressure and threat of force, it requires ongoing coercion.

Ted Cruz is obviously clueless about ‘freedom’ and about the principles on which this country was founded, but then as a foreigner and an immigrant, we can’t expect him to understand. But there’s no excuse for any American with even a basic education not to understand these things.

Cultural Marxists triumphant

Reading many ‘rightist’ blogs, it’s sometimes easy to forget where we are and think we’re reading a leftist blog. Especially when it comes to the treatment given to American history, and the Founding Fathers.

Has the right become just as cynical/nihilist as the left? I’d almost say so. Example:

Thomas Jefferson was the one who opened our borders wide open in 1801 to begin with and he himself said all religions should be welcome here. John Adams had under the Alien and Sedition Act made mandatory a 14 year waiting period for immigrants to become citizens and all of those found guilty of printing or advocating salacious or revolutionary ideas were to be deported. Jefferson and Madison called this unconstitutional preferring instead to give the scum of the earth shelter in the USA.

Jefferson sided with the Priest murdering nun raping French Revolutionaries which caused George Washington to dismiss him. Martha Washington called Jeffersons visit at Mount Vernon in 1801 on the way to his inaguration [sic] the second worst day of her entire life.

Thanks to Thomas Jefferson and his Open Immigration Policies, the USA got hit with a swarm of Jews after 1815 and after 1848 and after 1870 with absolutely no way to deport them nor turn them away as our deportation laws were before 1924 impossible to enforce. Even Emma Goldman who was an anarchist was never deported until after the Red Scare when finally the US Government decided to enforce the Anarchist Exclusion Law of 1903. She was allowed to preach her evil doctrine for years. All Thanks to Thomas Jefferson and the Filthy Democrats for opening our borders in 1801.”

All this venom directed at Jefferson and his so-called ”Open Immigration Policies”, and the commenter manages to even bring Emma Goldman into the screed. Quite a long stretch there.

By the way: the author of the comment appears to have gotten his ‘information’ on immigration from this liberal Catholic site. Please compare the passage about immigration policies. Is the commenter a liberal Catholic? If not, why rely on such a source?

I don’t hold with this tendency to cast the blame backward, holding past generations responsible for consequences far into the future which the people of that era could not have foreseen, or even imagined.

When I read comments of the kind I quoted, I wonder if they are not the work of ‘progressives’ who are admittedly scattered around rightist blogs sowing division, demoralization, cynicism about traditional America, and general disinformation.If they are not the work of ‘progressives’ they are at least influenced by left-wing ‘culture of critique’ slurs.

Granted, the Founding Fathers were not saints. They were not perfect. But to act as though any mistakes they made, however honest, or any character flaws they may (or may not) have had, make them evil, worthless miscreants is to do us all a disservice.

What good does it do to tear down the great men of the past, those of our own folk? I ask rhetorically, of course, but I’ll answer my own question. The answer is: none. It does no good. It serves no useful purpose. It is not edifying (that is, building us up) but destructive. It destroys our confidence in both our past and our present and it taints our future. The consensus among the alt-right now seems to be that there is nothing much of any worth in our past; trash it all, and rebuild from the ground up. P.S.: that’s the idea which animates the left. That’s why, in part, they are busily trashing our heritage, our history, our heroes. Leave nothing standing, just rubble amid scorched earth, and build the ‘new utopia’ (multiracial, of course) on the smoking ruins.

Order from chaos, say the agents of destruction.

Is there really nothing left worth preserving or restoring? Are we sure we need to re-invent the wheel, or re-invent ourselves in the process? If our past was one big disgrace or failure, if our revered leaders were scoundrels and lowlifes who betrayed their progeny (as much of the alt-right says) or ”racists” who deserve to be made non-persons and expunged from history books and removed from public monuments, what will we have left? Will there be anything left to preserve continuity with our past and our forefathers? Or are we so wise and so superior that we have no need of a past, no need for exemplars, or men to admire and to inspire us?

The comment I quote above makes sweeping allegations and claims, offering no sources to back them up. A comment following slams Thomas Jefferson for being a ‘slaveowner.’ Is this what Southron nationalism or ethnonationalism has come to, condemning our forefathers for the very same thing for which the left condemns them? I call that betraying our forefathers and kinsmen. Not a ‘nationalist’ position of any sort. Now, if these were isolated comments I would not feel so incensed, but they are far from isolated. They are becoming all too common, and fewer people will offer any defense or counter-statements against them. Thus lies, exaggerations, half-truths, and plain old ‘allegations’/rumors win the day.

And our side loses by that kind of divisive and destructive commentary, the kind which the leftists have perfected.

Facts in black and White

Those who are interested in HBD issues should take a look at this information on black Americans’ genetics, in a study on The Great Migration and African-American Genomic Diversity.

It’s summed up here.

It’s interesting in that it supports what I have said about the percentage of White ancestry among American blacks. According to this study the average amount of European ancestry among them is relatively small.

“An estimated 82.1% of ancestors to African-Americans lived in Africa prior to the advent of transatlantic travel, 16.7% in Europe, and 1.2% in the Americas, with increased African ancestry in the southern United States compared to the North and West.”

I also note that contrary to what some say, the blacks in the South actually have less White ancestry on average than those in the Northern and Western states. Oftentimes people with an anti-Southern axe to grind (and this unfortunately includes some people who consider themselves pro-White) assert, without any backup of course, that Southern blacks are noticeably ‘whiter’ or lighter skinned than Northern ones. Or someone just makes a bald statement that ”there was more mixing in the South”, and they make insinuations about ‘slave-owners raping their slaves’, an unproven assertion if ever there was one.

Quite a few online commenters say that black Americans must have lots of White blood because ‘they’re much lighter-skinned than blacks in Africa‘ so there must be lots of White blood in American blacks. Actually, no. You need only look at lots of pictures of Africans of various regions and see the variations of skin tone. Not all Africans are of the darkest hues. It depends on their region or tribe. Lighter skin is relative, and lighter skin in Africa need not denote ‘European blood’, just as it means no such thing here.

But the maddening thing is this continued insistence from some Whites (including those who should know better) that rape had to be involved in all past cases of mixing between the two races.

Unfortunately this scientific study makes similar insinuations about the White ancestral traces found in some blacks, as in this passage:

…the historical record of early admixture occurring predominantly through coerced sexual interaction between European-American males and African-American females…

Please. These scientists should surely know that this is supposition. Presence of European DNA in blacks does not testify to ”rape” or  excuse me, ”coerced sexual interaction“; it only says that there was sexual congress. There is no way ”coercion” can be established by any scientific means. That’s why rape accusations today can’t be proven simply by the presence of some male’s DNA in a female, or even by the fact that a child might be born carrying DNA from that male. It is somehow assumed that any White DNA proves rape by a White male of a black female. Why is this automatically assumed by ”scientists” who supposedly deal only in known facts, provable evidence? I can only think it’s assumed because our mass-delusional, PC society says that minorities can do no wrong; that they can’t lie or deceive, and that if any wrong is done, they are always victims and never the guilty parties, never even complicit in any wrong.

These scientists lose respect in my eyes because they are dealing in popular urban legends which cannot be proven when they assert that ‘sexual coercion’ was involved in centuries-past acts, by unknown people.

Did rapes happen? Given fallen human nature, it’s possible. But keep in mind that the act of miscegeny, even on a casual or occasional basis was highly stigmatized by most White people in the South, and to a lesser degree, even in the North. Was it similarly taboo on the part of blacks? I suppose if you believe, like many of today’s generation, that all White men, especially slave-owners were diabolically evil, wantonly cruel, brutal, and depraved, then you will assume that rape was the only way in which sexual contact would occur between Whites and blacks. In fact most slave-owners did not beat and brutalize their slaves; it would have made little sense, and beyond that, most were Christians, and the Bible teaches slaveowners to treat their slaves humanely. And yes, the Bible did not and does not condemn slavery nor recommend that it be abolished and condemned universally. Anyone who says otherwise is ‘adding to’ the words of the Bible, which is condemned as a serious offense to God.

Just as with ‘sexual harassment’ charges today, there are, truth be told, cases of women who barter sex for a good grade in college, or for a promotion or better treatment at work.  I know that feminists angrily deny that such things could possibly happen — but happen they do. Many, many young women develop crushes on their professors in college, and many have had affairs, willingly, with them, not always with the aim of passing a course or getting an A or a recommendation for grad school. For many it’s simply a rite of passage. Nowadays with most young women being fairly lacking in inhibitions, there are no doubt many who proposition their profs or bosses, though there are true cases of harassment, of course. It happens. But there are plenty of women who are consenting to sex as a quid-pro-quo with men in authority, or women who just enjoy casual intimacy with whoever. Is it impossible that slave women consented to overtures from the White overseer (a much more likely partner than the plantation owner)? Or with anyone who might offer something they wanted? With Yankee soldiers, in fact, since oftentimes the slaves tagged along with the retreating Yankees, wanting to go to the Northern land of milk-and-honey?

It’s also a fact that even today many blacks look down on darker skin amongst their own. There’s even a name for it: “colorism.” I had a female black co-worker who was unsure about marrying her very dark-skinned boyfriend — she said it was because of his color. She had fairly dark skin herself but wanted lighter children. Many women of other races openly pursue White men for this reason, though my co-worker did marry her ‘too dark’ boyfriend.

Rape or not (and I doubt it was always the case) there were more likely White partners for the female slave than slave-owners. As I’ve said I’m particularly galled that the Jefferson family name is forever tarnished by the repeated urban legends about Thomas Jefferson ”raping” his slaves. Since the 1990s, when that loathsome Bill Clinton and his sleazy sycophants re-started 19th century rumors about the Sally Hemings, the story was that ‘Jefferson fathered a child by Hemings’, and it got worse: he fathered ‘all her children’ and then it went on to ‘Jefferson slept with his slaves [plural]’ and worse yet, ‘Jefferson raped his slaves.’ I suppose few people care; hardly anyone respects the Founding Fathers these days. They are now seen as culpable for the disaster America has become, rightly or wrongly.  However I care because it’s my family heritage and my blood kin who are being slandered, and they are not alive to defend themselves.

More than that, I care about the ‘good name’ or what is left of it of my larger group of blood kin, and that is old-stock Americans, generational Americans. More of us should care about it and try to counter all the lies and slanders, and to correct the falsehoods, urban legends, and falsehoods regarding race, HBD and the reputation of our own people.