The continuing war on the Confederacy

It truly makes me feel sick to write about the recent events in which time-honored monuments in the South have been vandalized, desecrated, and destroyed.  And all of this is being done so as to destroy, finally, the image of the Confederacy and the good name of the White people of the South. It’s being done to appease, to flatter, and to pander to blacks, to reassure them that they, in fact, are THE people now; the time of Whitey has passed, and it is now their turn, their time to exact revenge and to demand homage and ‘respect’ from those who (as they believe) have ‘held them down’.

As I’ve written before, the real ‘dark days’ of the South were the days of so-called ‘Reconstruction’, in  which nothing was rebuilt, but much was savaged and destroyed. Newly-freed blacks were then being instructed by their unprincipled ‘carpetbagger’ mentors and ‘protectors’ that they were now entitled to payback for the past, and that they were now free to behave as they pleased. Search out older history books (if the leftists have not eliminated them all) and you may find that the White population of the South was on the receiving end of a great deal of violence thanks to ‘freedmen’, Northern carpetbaggers, and Southron scallywags, all of whom, together, fomented disorder and fear in the South. Those days, Mitch Landrieu, were really dark days; not the antebellum days in the South as you implied in your recent anti-White speech in New Orleans, justifying the destruction of Confederate monuments.

Mitch Landrieu’s uninformed references to the days of slavery and the whole history of the Confederacy amount to the usual anti-White, anti-Southron boilerplate, and it sounds like history as told via Hollywood scriptwriters looking to sensationalize that era (a la Django, 12 Years a Slave, etc. etc.) as one of incredible cruelty, rape, and inhumanity. I believe Landrieu even uses those words.

Most Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of lies regarding the past, especially concerning racial differences, and Landrieu perhaps believes it all himself; but liberals are much more free to make up ‘history’ as it suits them, believing as they do that there is no such thing as objective truth; nothing is absolute, all is relative. It’s all a matter of whose narrative you choose. Obviously Landrieu chooses the nonwhite version of “history”, in which nonwhites are ever-sinned against, never sinning. Nonwhites, in their own eyes, can never be wrong or do wrong. It is always ‘Whitey’s’ fault; the blame can never lie elsewhere; it can never even be shared. Guilt is exclusively the property of Whitey. No one else. Ever.

I wonder if Mitch Landrieu or any lefty has ever heard of the Slave Narratives? If so, the response is simply to ignore it, and failing that, to deny the truth therein. If any of  my readers have not read from that source, I recommend reading some of the stories. The overall picture is not at all the lurid picture of White cruelty and rapine that the current powers-that-be continue to push. I won’t be surprised when and if the politically correct archivists and historians yield fully to PC and expunge those stories from the Internet as well as from libraries. Can’t allow competing narratives, can we? Only the anti-White narrative must be allowed to be read or heard or seen; all else must be silenced, or, as with the Confederate monuments, pulled down, razed, and turned to rubble.

And now that all those who were actually slaves are long gone, there is no one to gainsay the lying depictions of the South as a cesspool of inhumanity, exploitation, torture, rape, and degradation. So the Mitch Landrieus of the world can spread their mendacious stories likening the antebellum South to ‘Nazi Germany’ or whatever other example of ultimate ‘White evil’ they are hyping.

What makes Landrieu’s posturing especially ironic is that there is at least some doubt about his own ancestry; sources say Landrieu’s family was listed as ‘black’ on past census records, and Mitch’s grandfather altered their identity to White. So is Mitch Landrieu a ‘White supremacist’ because he and his relatives now choose to downplay if not deny any black ancestry? I would say hardly; no ‘White supremacist’ would take such a hard-line anti-White, anti-Confederate stand as he is taking. At worst he is a hypocrite on his racial identity, though why he does not proudly claim any black ancestry is beyond me, considering that he extols ‘diversity’ and the holy ‘melting pot’ in his speech. In fact he praises everybody under the sun in that speech except Whites, for whom he reserves his greatest vitriol.  So is Landrieu White or not? Is he self-hating? I mean, if even Rachel Dolezal can proudly claim her black ancestry, why not Landrieu?

Maybe he enjoys posing as the noble White defender of poor downtrodden diversities, hence the decision to be ‘White.’ But he knows that by the old code of the South — and indeed, of pretty much all of old White America — the one-drop rule was applied. If one was a fraction black, one was black. Period. Full stop. End of story. One drop was all it took. Hence people like Adam Clayton Powell. Or some of these people.

For some bizarre reason, The Atlantic seems to insist on Landrieu’s ‘white’ identity; wait — I thought race was just a social construct anyway.

Mitch Landrieu is a politician, and they come and go. So he is not really the issue here; he is just one of many. There are plenty of other anti-White ‘Southern’ politicians today, who deserve the shameful label ‘scallywag’ that our Southron ancestors used for them. When Landrieu and that whole clan are no longer in office (if Louisiana ever runs out of Landrieus to run for office) there will be others, by other names, just as much scoundrels, to take their place.

I don’t know how North and South,black and White, can coexist under the same government, but for some reason the perverse pro-Union types insist, demand, that live together we must, whether we like it or not. Some people, strange though it may seem,  believe that this hideous ‘shotgun (re)marriage must continue, despite divisions and, increasingly, open violence. Is this abstract thing called the ‘Union’ really worth coercing people who distrust and despise and resent each other to live together? And how is that called ‘freedom’?

 

 

A propos of the New Orleans vandalism

On Confederate soldiers_from God's War by Wilson Vance

The above is a quote from Wilson Vance, in the book God’s War.

It is ironic how quickly our society descended from a kind of burying the hatchet between North and South, to absolute hatred and intolerance of anything to do with the Confederacy. The younger folk out there may not believe this, but before the Civil Rights Revolution (or would coup be a better word?) the great men of the Confederacy were not vilified but mentioned favorably in school textbooks used in the North, and the official position was to treat the Confederate dead as honored fallen, much as were the Northern soldiers. However since the malicious talebearing of certain ‘civil rights’ organizations since the 1980s, the left (and much of the ignorant political ‘center’ in this country, if such a segment even exists) have become as people possessed. I say ‘possessed’ is not too strong a word; it is not hyperbole by any means, judging by the foaming-at-the-mouth attitudes and behavior of the anti-Southern left. They are possessed (I would say truly, in a Biblical sense) by malice and destructiveness when it comes to all the symbols and heroes of the Confederacy. Like their ‘daddy’ and exemplar, Satan, they never rest, and never will stop in their fury and vandalism until every last Confederate symbol and monument is pulled down, trampled on, spat on, burnt, or crushed. Next to be the target of their destructiveness will be the few people who even attempt, peaceably, to oppose their ugly rampages.

Wilson Vance was right when he said the graves and monuments of the Confederate fallen should be guarded, cared for, and honored. Instead mobs of ignoramuses and historical illiterates are committing their acts of cultural vandalism. Those who stand by and watch, without feeling so much as a twinge of outrage, are just as bad as the ones wreaking the destruction. Not to take a stand is itself taking a stand. There won’t be any neutrals in the conflict that is seemingly brewing.

 

A persistent myth

Recently I made a list of a number of popular myths or canards of the ‘realist’ right. I wrote them in no particular order, and the last one on the list is the myth that goes something like this: ‘Mormons are the remnant of the old America. They are racially conscious and Utah is a mostly White state.’

This idea in some form crops up in the comments on this article. Oddly enough only a couple of commenters seem to disagree with the idea that Mormons are somehow the last guardians of the old White American ethos. Are so few people aware of what is happening within the Mormon fold in this decades-long reign of PC?

I have no grudge against Mormons; of course most of them are ‘nice’ people, as most Americans seem to agree, but then I am not a great admirer of ‘niceness‘. Modern ‘Churchianity’ is often little more than a cult of niceness, and I am seeing that phrase being used more often. Niceness is simply a counterfeit goodness, or at best, it’s a feeble, skin-deep form of goodness; goodness minus strength and conviction. Niceness is a passivist, pacifist simulation of goodness. Niceness won’t fight for its principles.

I say this as someone who has a close blood relative who converted to Mormonism, as well as another close relative who married into a strongly observant Mormon family. I’ve also known other Mormons in real life, and I know that in recent years they are very actively converting Third Worlders to Mormonism, championing ‘open borders,’ objecting to border enforcement, and welcoming refugee/colonists to Utah.

The last frontier is usually interracial marriage, and that, too, is becoming more visible and accepted, with White Mormons of both sexes marrying Third Worlders they have met on their sojourns in those countries.  The old religious taboos against miscegeny have been officially repudiated, though some apparently resist this change, as can be seen in this online discussion.

Utah may still have a high percentage of Whites, but that is rapidly changing with immigration, legal and illegal. Hispanics are a growing percentage within the Mormon Church and in the state of Utah. There are Hispanics in the Utah legislature. Another group whose numbers have grown are Polynesians (Samoans), as someone on the Sailer thread noted. Remember the case of the Salt Lake City mall shooting ten years ago? The shooter was a Bosnian refugee. And more recently, another mall shooting was perpetrated by an apparent Southeast Asian shooter. Utah is not a ‘Whitopia’, and the Mormons appear just as ‘cucked’ as the most hopelessly feeble Churchians.

Yes, Mormons are ‘nice’ people but niceness is not something we need at this time in our history. Niceness is in part what is killing us. ‘Thou shalt be Nice’ is not one of the commandments on those stone tablets.

And if I were looking for a place to hide from mandatory Diversity, Utah would not be on my short list. Mormons, at least the hierarchy, are working hard to escape their reputation as ‘racist’ and ‘too hideously White.’ They have no will to defend their ethnic/racial heritage, only their religious system, which for them takes the place of ‘tribe’.

‘The carnal idea of Nation’

Tiberge at GalliaWatch posted an important piece, one which hasn’t gotten the attention it merits, in my opinion. The title is Protecting and promoting French heritage. However it is really about something deeper than that, something that is brought out in the article which cites Marion Maréchal-Le Pen as well her better-known aunt, Marine Le Pen.
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen wrote a piece for Le Figaro in which she argued for cultural and historical preservation, in which government officials would play a part. Unless nationalists and reactionaries gain power in France, the role played by French government seems wishful thinking at this point, but who knows?

Marion says of her aunt, Marine:

“When she drew up her cultural platform in the shadows of the stones of Mont-Saint-Michel and the abbey of Conques, Marine Le Pen brought into the campaign the carnal idea of Nation.”

I am not sure if there is an alternate translation to the phrase at the end of that quote — “the carnal idea of nation.” However I think I grasp what she means, at least in the context of the speech referred to.  To me, it suggests what I’ve alluded to in a post on the other blog. It implies — to me, at least — the ‘people’ implicit in the very word, ‘nation’. It implies their physical works and achievements — as with the great architecture of old Europe, as well as their works in all the other arts, their intellectual and spiritual heritage.  Their folkways, their language, their customs. This is all of paramount importance in a people’s survival, and it’s not given enough thought and attention, as it has become second-nature for many of us to think of political parties and the whole governmental apparatus along with the economic system. However the latter is not the real nation; a nation is its people, and that people are not economic units or interchangeable consumers or raceless, rootless ciphers.

The entity that is often thought of when we think of a ‘nation’ or a country is only the outer aspect, the physical, whereas the culture is the soul of the people. If that culture is damaged or destroyed, or altered beyond recognition, then it leaves a people bereft of meaning, of continuity, of a sense of identity and of rootedness in the past.

“I can already hear society sarcastically describing us as embittered nostalgia-seekers. In her latest book, Le Crépuscule des idoles progressistes (The twilight of progressive idols) published by Stock, author Bérénice Levet summarized it brilliantly: “The past is not a program, it is a resource.” The past, in truth, is a compass of meaning, a breeding ground of experiences, a haven in which we can take refuge, and even console ourselves in these uncertain times. And our heritage constitutes precisely this past incarnate, this “petrified History.”

With (Marine Le Pen’s) platform we will perpetuate the national pact, that of the common possession of our dead, their dreams, their hopes and their prowess.”

Marion refers to cultural ‘vandals’ in government ministries:

“Their vision of a disincarnate France led them, false right and true left alike, to organize the historic amnesia of our children. They went after our intangible heritage: instilling in our minds the shame of our ancestors, refusing to transmit the national history in the schools, depriving our children of mastery of their own language or abandoning it for “globish”. Then they attacked our material heritage by allowing the stones and tiles to collapse. All the components of our national identity have been the object of their assaults. The whole chain of transmission has in this way been broken.”

Yes, these ‘cultural vandals’ have been at work here in our country, and in all Western, White countries. These vandals obviously know what they are doing; this is not all by accident or happenstance. It’s deliberate.

The political front is one part of this one-sided war against us; I believe that if we lose the spiritual/cultural side of this struggle, we will have little to no chance of restoring our countries. I begin to think more and more that the non-material aspect of the struggle is more important. The political tide may not turn in our favor enough to save us. I think recovering the idea of a nation of flesh-and-blood, of people, is essential to restoring and preserving our folk.

Yes, they were always White

Steve Sailer links to a Washington Post piece which takes on the claim that the Irish were not always considered White.  Funny, I had a post ready to go in which I mention, once again, that silly canard. (My post was to have been about widely-believed myths.)

I had wondered how and why this idea became so widely repeated, and it appears that the source, at least in our time, is the notorious anti-White academic Noel Ignatiev with his book How the Irish Became White. Apparently that book’s use in the de rigueur ‘whiteness studies’ movement on campuses has spread the canard.

I’ve written about the claim in past posts, usually in exasperation with somebody spreading this idea on ‘right-wing’ blogs or forums. Now, we know the left loves to assert anything that makes Whites look bad, or casts the past in a bad light. The belief that other Whites refused to include the Irish (or the Italians, or whatever other ethnic White group) makes us look exclusionary and mean-spirited.

Usually the claim is bolstered by things like old political cartoons, satirical images like those in Punch magazines of long ago. There’s this exampleJudy, Or The London Serio-Comic Journal, 1876a.

 

from an 1876 British magazine, Judy, Or the London Serio-Comic Journal.

Some people see depictions like the one above as ‘simian’ in appearance. Whatever. I think it depicts a certain ‘type’ of Irishman, but I don’t see how the man in the above picture could be called non-White.

As for the Italians and Jews being considered non-White, well, if one’s standard of Whiteness is based on the Northern European type, then obviously Italians and Jews differ from that phenotype in certain ways, sometimes by darker skin.

The Jews (and the writer of the WaPo piece is named Bernstein) are another story, apparently considering themselves White when convenient and ‘Other’ when it serves a purpose. I have personally heard some Jewish people using the term ‘White folks’ or ‘Whites’  in the third person, and they certainly seem to side, in most cases with ‘The Other’, against Whites. The DNA studies reported by Johns Hopkins in 2013, to which I’ve alluded a couple of times, show a mixed origin for Jews. However when it came to immigration they were evidently considered White.

As the article points out, and as a commenter on the Sailer blog astutely points out, none of the above-mentioned ethnicities were excluded from marrying Whites, during the time when miscegenation was illegal, and interracial marriages forbidden. I’ve noted that before, too.

So why exactly is this idea that the ‘Irish weren’t considered White’ so popular these days, cropping up repeatedly amongst even ethnonationalist or ‘WN’ commenters?

My instinct is to say that it’s popular, in part, because the victimhood card is so often played these days; why not jump on the bandwagon? It amounts to trying to shame the alleged victimizer and to claim the moral high ground, having been unjustly treated and wronged. And who then is the target of the shaming? As usual, the WASP, the Angl0-American, because he was the dominant one in America in the days when this wrong was alleged to have happened. WASPs are often pictured in fiction and in leftist history books as snobs and haughty bigots who saw everyone else as inferior. They kept certain people out of their exclusive clubs! No doubt snobs exist in any group, but for people who were so intolerant, they oddly opened up the gates to admit millions of supposedly ‘non-White’ peoples in the past.

As far as the left is concerned, they spread these kinds of false ideas to divide White Americans along ethnic lines, as if we aren’t already divided in many ways.

 

‘Hinduphobia’

A Free Republic poster links to an article from a news source in India, reporting that Hindu activists in America are demanding an apology from CNN. CNN’s crime? Hinduphobia.

To thinking Americans, CNN is synonymous with left-wing, anti-White and pro-multicultural content, at which it outdoes just about all the other purveyors of ‘news’ and commentary. So it’s hard to imagine that they would be anti-Hindu.

And just what did CNN do that was ‘Hinduphobic’? They had a series called ‘Believer’, in which correspondent Reza Aslan focused on Hindu religious figures and practices. The article does not seem to mention this specifically, but I would guess that the Hindu activists objected to a depiction of a guru and his followers who were shown eating human brains. Reza Aslan, the CNN reporter, apparently also consumed some of this unappealing meal, under coercion, some said.

So is it ‘xenophobic’, or more specifically ‘Hinduphobic’ to be shocked or repelled by a spectacle like that? We will have become a jaded people for sure if we can no longer be horrified at the thought of cannibalism, much less by the sight of it.

CNN displayed very bad judgement in showing that clip, even if they had displayed a warning before any such ‘graphic’ scene. What could have been their purpose in showing it? I doubt very much that they wanted to stir up antipathy towards Hindus, as dedicated as they are to the ‘all cultures/races are equal’ dogma. So what motive was there in showing it?

CNN’s faithful audience are no doubt mostly of a like mind. So I doubt that they would react to these scenes with disgust or shock or ‘phobias’ toward Hindus. Many leftists are very familiar with the various manifestations of the Hindu religion and culture. There are pictures online of some sort of Hindu cult members eating charred human bodies they pulled out of the Ganges. So this kind of thing is not completely unknown.

Are the Hindu activists defending cannibalism in an oblique way, here, or do they just object to having anyone shine a spotlight on it? That is, are they blaming the messenger?

I doubt, though, that most Americans, hearing of this controversy, would respond by hating Hindus; in fact we have become a very jaded and tolerant people for the most part, hardly blinking at this kind of thing, whereas once upon a time, cannibalism and other such gruesome things evoked real shock and horror among civilized Westerners. But we are a post-Christian people, unfortunately, and Hollywood has helped to desensitize us to all sorts of once-unthinkable things.

And we do seem to have become, overall, very accepting of this diversity which has been thrust on us, as you can see from some of the Freepers’ comments about how they prefer Hindus to some varieties of ‘diversity.’ The usual line is that ‘at least they’re not Muslims’ or some variation of that. Every ethnicity, Hindus included, has its defenders and advocates among White Americans. But how many White Americans are willing to defend their own?

 

 

 

Foretold in 1932

Towardssovietamerica -Money quote - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0315

 

Towarssovietamerica - money quote 2 - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0316a

The above is from a book by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster. The book was titled Towards Soviet America, published in 1932. The writer goes on to describe what the Communist Party planned for America, and for the most part the predictions came true. The feminist movement was part of the agenda, along with the ‘sexual revolution’ which supposedly would ‘free’ women, and allow them a less inhibited sex life, while on the racial front, Foster said that all laws against interracial marriage would be abolished, with racial amalgamation being the goal. Overthrowing traditional attitudes took a few decades to accomplish from the time Foster wrote this book, but they did succeed in making interrracial unions legal. Likewise with their destruction of traditional sexual morality, and they succeeded probably beyond their wildest imaginations there.

However, either Foster was lying or just inaccurate in his predictions about other matters, as when he says that the media will be ‘taken over by the government’ (well, that was probably accomplished as the media appear to be an arm of the leftist establishment) but he further says that the media would then be ‘cleansed of their present trash of sex, crime, sensationalism, and general babbitry‘. On the contrary, the leftist triumph has meant ever more ‘trash of sex, crime, and sensationalism’; they revel in this kind of thing. They have sold it as ‘liberation’ and the ultimate freedom.

Foster seems not to have mentioned one of the fruits of the ‘sexual revolution’, namely the ‘gay rights’ agenda. Did Foster and his generation foresee this part of their plan, or was it just an inevitable result of their destruction of traditional Christian morality and their enshrining ‘personal freedom’ and individual autonomy as a great good?

 

Female supremacism

After seeing so many ‘International Women’s Day’ stories and memes, I’ve decided that I will refer to ‘feminists’ as female supremacists from now on. For decades, ever since this ‘Women’s Day’ thing has been happening, feminists have becoming ever more strident about their attitude of ‘female superiority.’ So if people who are pro-White, or who believe in nations for White people, are ‘White supremacists’ as the anti-Whites say, then surely the ‘supremacist’ label applies to feminists. They constantly crow about how women are superior to men in various ways, and they openly say that women should rule. There’s a meme going around showing a little girl wearing a t-shirt saying ‘The Future Is Female.’ Imagine if the word ‘Female’ were changed to ‘White.’ What a howl there would be about that, but women get away with that kind of rhetoric, as do non-whites.

Feminists have always railed against the idea that God is male, and we’ve seen this ‘witty saying’: ”When God made man, She was only joking.” So asserting that ‘God’ is female is just fine, while saying God is male is shockingly misogynist.

Feminists don’t see — or do they just not care? — that they are inspiring hatred from many men because of the shrillness of their rhetoric and because of their increasingly obnoxious behavior. The sad thing is that women who are not feminists have to reap what the feminist fanatics have sown.

The other sad thing is that many women on the right have been infected with the loathsome attitudes of feminists. I’ve noticed that online on ‘right-wing’ blogs or forums, where supposedly right-wing women take offense at some comment and go into feminist warrior mode, just like lefties. There are even ‘conservative’ men who defend feminist ideas and who, just like SJWs, take offense on behalf of women if somebody says something anti-feminist or anti-egalitarian.

Feminism has invaded the ‘right’ in various ways, and much of it is unconscious I’m afraid. Because feminism, like the rest of the left’s causes, has gone so far off the rails, people on the right have to be more vigilant, being careful not to let it insinuate itself into our way of thinking.  Egalitarianism is so taken-for-granted that we have to be on our guard against it. It may ‘sound good’ but the devil’s whispers sounded good back in Genesis 3, apparently, and we are forever paying the price.

 

The ‘preppy’ totalitarians

The story about Charles Murray and his speech at Middlebury College in Vermont is being discussed around the Internet. The fact that a (typically leftist) professor at that college was also assaulted by the ‘student’ thugs adds a twist to it. Surely she is ‘one of their own’, having the correct politics and the kinds of views which are the only kind these apostles of ‘tolerance’ will tolerate.

One thing I’ve noted in the various online comments on the incidents: many are referring to the ‘preppy’ character of the school and the student body, as if it adds to the shocking nature to imagine WASP-y, wealthy students behaving this way. No doubt some of the worst of the ‘social justice’ brownshirts are White students from wealthy homes in the supposedly very White Northeast. But just look at the photo in the linked article; that audience does not look ‘hideously White’ nor very ‘preppy.’ It does not look all that different from the mixed crowd at the community college in the college town near me. So I looked up the demographics of the student body. For a start,  the student body contains only 4% Vermonters. Students come from 42 states, plus the District of Corruption Columbia. They come from no less than 40 countries.

So the student body does not reflect the demographics of the setting, of rural Vermont or New England, or even much of America, come to that.

One other factor: not all the students at that college need be wealthy, considering the prevalence of financial aid. And if diversity is mandatory and of the utmost importance (as these colleges all say it is), then by all means be generous to students without the money to pay the high tuition, but with the requisite amount of ‘vibrancy’, to entice them to come and enrich the diversity-deficient Whites.

If the students of that University are overwhelmingly indoctrinated leftists, as it appears they are, is this because it is in liberal New England, or is that just the nature of college campuses all over America now? I have acquaintances who sent their child to Christian schools (in a non-diverse community) K-12, at considerable expense, and then to one of the most conservative (supposedly) Christian colleges. That college turned their child into a raving SJW in very short order. So it’s everywhere now.

The people who put much stock in Colin Woodward’s conjectures about the ‘nations’ of America place the blame on the old Puritans for the liberalism of New England. In this case, it seems as though the diversity that has been visited on New England since at least the mid-19th century is still having its effect, and the presence of all the ‘diversity’ at Middlebury in 2017 has its effect too. When you introduce outsiders into what has been a homogeneous culture, you make people more self-conscious about the opinions of those ‘Others’ and soon free speech is not so free; we can’t offend anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings. Diversity=death to free discourse and honesty.

Minorities voted Trump?

According to the exit polls I’ve seen since the election, there was no upsurge in minority votes for Trump this time, as contrasted to previous candidates. Yet I keep seeing claims on every other right-leaning blog that ‘Hispanics went for Trump’ or ‘lots of blacks voted for Trump.’ Depends on how you define ‘lots’, apparently. According to the Diversity is Chaos blog, citing Reuters/Ipsos polls, Trump got 8 percent of the black vote, and 27 percent of Hispanic votes.

Now, can we please, please dispense with the wishful thinking, the spin, and the half-truths/half lies? Why is this going on? I thought the right was the realist faction in America. Are people purposely lying or are they just pulling numbers out of their hats? Somebody on a right-wing blog today claimed that 33 percent of Hispanics voted for Trump; of course they cited no source.

It does seem to me to be especially important to many people on the right, even on what is deemed ‘hard right’, to imagine that lots of POCs are, or could be, on our side, if we just make them welcome. Obviously that was Donald Trump’s belief (or strategy), given his constant efforts to court minorities, especially blacks and (legal) Hispanics. But all evidence is that it didn’t work, because according to the Diversity is Chaos post, Trump had less support from Hispanics and blacks than any president in the last 40 years. His percentage of the Hispanic vote was the same as Mitt Romney’s, and less than the alleged 40 percent that George W. Bush got in 2004.

Even in that often-cited 2004 total, there were those who doubted that the 40 percent was accurate, but it seemed as if the GOP was doing some magical thinking, as if saying that Hispanics were coming over to our side would make it true.

And if blacks and Hispanics did join the GOP or a theoretical ‘right-wing’ party (none exists, of course) what would we have then? Eventually two parties where Whites and their interests are marginalized.