The uniformed ‘protesters’ at Stone Mountain, Georgia?

In my previous post I linked to a Reuters story about apparently armed black men (and at least one woman) who were photographed marching in the Stone Mountain area. I wondered about their purpose in being there. Well, it’s come to light through an eagle-eyed Twitter ‘activist’ that the people who were photographed were actors.

The AJC calls them ‘charismatic young people.’ Would they be described so flatteringly if they had less than the requisite amount of melanin?

Their role and purpose is being treated as just a matter of representing a ‘vision of hope’ for their people. Again, would others be treated with equivalent tolerance if they acted a similar role?

The questions are rhetorical, of course, as always we know what the answers are.

More thoughts on ‘American icons’, and on Stone Mountain

I have more irate thoughts about the ‘American icons’ chosen to be commemorated in this ‘National Garden’: a blog commenter called our attention to the fact that Trump chose from a list of NON-Confederate origin. Confederates or anyone associated with the Confederacy was apparently eliminated in advance. I have a feeling Trump will eventually cave and remove the names of Confederate officers from the military bases, though he left it alone — for now. He is not favorably disposed towards the Confederacy though generations of people both North and South believed in reconciliation and in burying the hatchet as it were. That policy seems to have died the death, curiously on Trump’s watch. Why did it happen just now? Why did things suddenly change so that our the government was so anti-South and anti-Confederacy?

I also have questions about why some of these ‘icons’ were chosen. Amelia Earhart? A nod to feminists? What did she do to earn her fame except disappear? Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain? I had to look him up; I honestly never heard the man’s name though he was evidently a Union army hero. I guess a lot of books will have to be rewritten to make him eclipse Gen. Lee, who was considered a great soldier and military strategist who was admired by (unbiased) people North and South. My English acquaintances hold General Lee in high esteem, while America is now going to remember him, if at all, as a “slave-owner” and “racist” and probably literally Hitler.

Sad.

So Dolley Madison is now an icon, because married to James Madison. Another nod to the ladies.

Harriet Beecher Stowe: author of the maudlin ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’. Lincoln himself reputedly said of Miss Stowe, “So this is the little lady that started the War.’‘ He was right; her fantasy-based book led to the deaths of over half a million.

Miss Stowe never set foot in the South; her book was based on lurid hearsay and fantasy, though the schools make her out to be heroic.

The whole list is a civic nationalist’s dream list; appropriately ‘diverse’, people who are famous for being famous, and the usual Political Correct ideas of what constitutes a ‘hero’ or an icon. This list alone makes me see how the U.S. is mired in PC and cannot extricate itself. Until we can find our way out of this dead end philosophy of the ‘rainbow’ egalitarian society we will sink slowly into the quicksand and not even know how we got there.

I have to quote Solzhenitsyn again, with his famous admonition: Live not by lies. That’s the trouble with our country now; lies are part and parcel of the American hagiolatry, with ‘heroes and icons’ like these.

Postscript: Reuters reports a large number of armed black ‘protesters’ marched through Stone Mountain Park in Georgia. Is this meant to be intimidation, or a prelude to destroying the carved images of the CSA heroes on the Mountain? What next?

About messages

This post is for those of you who messaged me: I apologize for having missed your messages. For a while I was unable to access the e-mail through which I get those PMs but if you would like to try again, the button to send me a message is at the bottom of my archive links on this page. Again, my apologies for being out of touch. Health problems have had me preoccupied.

New ‘American icons’

I’ve just read the list of “American Icons” whose statues will supposedly be erected in the proposed ‘Garden of American Heroes.’

It’s just as I imagined or expected: Political Correctness, Republican version. I knew instinctively that figures such as MLK would surely be there before anyone else. I would bet that he was the first chosen ‘icon’, for political reasons where some are concerned, and for sentimental reasons with those who really believe the aforesaid individual was a “Saint.” Many GOPers fall into the latter category.

Did anyone, anyone on the ‘right’ read the document dumps from the USG a while back? I remember on Steve Sailer’s blog, when those documents were discussed, someone naively asked “I wonder what the Left will think about these documents?” Answer: they will say nothing and think nothing: they close their eyes and their minds and “deny, deny, deny”, as Bill Clinton urged Democrats to do in general.

And it appears that the ‘right’ is practiced at denying, too, as MLK passes into the pantheon of American Heroes.

General Lee, of course, will not be an American icon; it appears most Southrons don’t meet the criteria. To think that a great Christian gentleman like General Lee or General Thomas Jackson were passed up for lesser men. The South should never have rejoined the Union.

Interestingly Trump’s version of American history and its handpicked ‘icons’ matches the ‘rainbow, diverse and inclusive’ vision put forth by ‘Q’. The Q patriots have a distorted picture of the War Between the States; they seem to have learned their history from the $PLC and Hollywood. They are supposedly researchers and ‘diggers’ who ferret out information but they need to ferret out some factual history. Instead they learn it from each other.

And yes, I know Trump is the best we are going to get, which makes me sad. Once we had lots of great men who were inspired leaders.
And some will think a little compromise with Political Correctness, a little more compromise with the race-hucksters is a small price to pay if we can all just ‘try to get along’ but that is precisely how we got to where we are now. This continuing compromising and accommodating will just turn the clock back a tiny bit if we try it. But we are still on the same path, going the same direction, and we will end up just as boxed-in as we are now. Even more so, as demographics inexorably change.

I honestly wish I felt more optimistic as we just celebrated (!) our independence but there it is.

Who will defend the truth?

Anybody?

So far Patrick Buchanan has been one person at least offering a sort-of defense of Woodrow Wilson, who is now another name and face being banished from our public square and our national memory, thanks to the aggression and venom from BLM and Antifa and all their little helpers.

Among their ‘helpers’, though they are probably too clueless to see it, are the unthinking Republican faithful, for whom the greatest good is always the good of the Grand Old Party, even when it is obviously against the ordinary people of this country. People like those strange creatures who are always shrilly concerned about the Democrats; it appears that (in their eyes) the Democrats are “Keeping African-Americans On The Plantation”, forcing them to vote Democrat and believe in leftist politics. I will say that they themselves, these ‘concerned’ people who see themselves as the champions and protectors of victims everywhere, are being paternalistic and treating a group of people as though they are children, in need of White folks to speak up for them and fight their battles, and it seems as if the enemy is other whites — Democrats, to be precise.

So Wilson was a “Progressive’ but in his time, though we find it hard to envision, most ”Progressives” or ‘liberals’ held social views much like those of normal people; in other words they were much more socially traditional and not fond of the crazy-quilt of radical ideas they hold now. As Buchanan points out in his article, most Democrats, most people then supported segregation. Today’s uninformed can’t fathom this; anybody who supported such policies are now equivalent to Nazis, and the battle flag that flew over the Confederate states is now regarded with the same contempt as the German flag of WWII.

But Wilson lived in a time in which there was not one monolithic worldview and people were not threatened with ‘hate crime’ charges for differing from the acceptable dogma, as today. In other words they were freer than we are now.

I’ll say it again — it needs to be said: people of 100 years ago were freer people than we are, and that was so before our modern Jacobins started their mob rule. People could speak their minds more freely than we can. Look at all the de-platformings and bans that have just happened, and probably more to come.

I think Woodrow Wilson will go down the leftist memory hole because he was ‘one of them’, meaning a ‘progressive’ in most ways,, but his crime was being a ‘thought criminal’ according to the distorted vision of today’s left. He not only viewed the film “Birth of a Nation” but praised it as a great film. Incidentally the film was a box office hit, and was revived again in the 1920s I believe. Wilson also presided over a parade of members of a certain ‘secret society’, though that organization was not illegal or secret then, contrary to some confused stories. In its beginnings it sought to protect those who had been disenfranchised and disarmed. I refer here to the Whites. I know some will disbelieve me but the information is in old history books, which of course will probably go down the memory hole too.

In fact a lot of Americans are now repeating falsehoods about that history and who is correcting this? I don’t hear any such voices. Southrons?

Some of the self-righteous Republicans who promulgate the ”Dems R the Real Racists’ silliness are now denouncing anybody to their right. It is just wrong that these same people have worked up a hatred for the Founding Fathers (because they were ‘slave owners’, all of whom were evil) and many prominent and accomplished people who helped make our country what it was at its best. If we condemn them we condemn most of our Founding Fathers; even the Northerners participated. Do we regard them as human trash to be discarded because of this? Why are we required to use a single lens, a single criterion, with which to judge (and condemn) people of the past? Why are we not granted the ‘right’ to judge by our own standards, and why are we compelled by ourselves or others to condemn our own folk so quickly and harshly?

These attitudes match those of the antifas who are demolishing the statues of many of these great individuals, most of whom were Christian men. So when these self-righteous Republicans think they are being chivalrous toward the downtrodden, they are simply further discrediting our history, our great men, and our culture. They are helping the violent left to do their ugly job of ‘burning it all down’, as they promised they will do.

There is more than one way of destroying a society and a people and a nation. The self-righteous ‘right’ ought to think about what part they are playing. In the name of political correctness they are aligning, whether aware of it or not, with our enemies.

From R.L. Dabney’s Defence of Virginia

For various reasons, the South has suddenly been the target of some venomous statements from ‘conservatives’ lately; it seems that overnight the cause of the South in the Late Unpleasantness is now considered as immoral and evil. It appears that people born in the last half-century or so either were not taught the history of that conflict or they did not comprehend it. No one in the North seems to want to defend the Confederacy, though there was a time when the South was formally “forgiven” and cleared of the North’s accusations of ‘treason’, and even formally pardoned for their actions in fighting against the Holy Union Army, I mean, the Grand National Army. But now that period of reconciliation seems to have disappeared, shall I say ‘gone with the wind?’

Just to see what I mean, do a web search and look at the kinds of condemnatory statements being made about the South. Maybe I’ve been asleep but I haven’t seem this kind of harsh judgment before. It looks as though a new Reconstruction/Punishment phase is being rolled out.

Obviously we are only allowed to look at that chapter of history through one viewpoint, and it is not a matter of freedom of conscience; our viewpoint is given to us, and we accept it and parrot it, or we are subject to being silenced and called names. We are not given the option to take the side of our own forefathers, especially as they have been made villains.

History classes seem to be in order, especially for the young ones, but I forget that schools are not there to teach history or facts. Few people seek out the truth for themselves. But for those who have ears to hear, I will quote some Dabney passages.

The Rev. R.L. Dabney was a brilliant man and a staunch defender of his state and of the South. I’m afraid he is too truthful for this present time, in which even the mildest lapse of ‘political correctness’ (which is in no way correct) brings down serious consequences, tension rather than understanding.

Dabney also predicted that equality would bring about escalating racial tension rather than racial harmony.

Davis Carlton, Faith and Heritage

As our society seems to be plunging toward more stringent subjection to political correctness Dabney seems to have been right about the escalation of tensions.

From the introduction to Dabney’s Defence of Virginia, his thoughts about ‘subjugated nations’ and ‘victims of arbitrary rulership’:

“The weapon of arbitrary rulers is physical force; the shield of its victims is usually evasion and duplicity. Again: few minds and consciences have that stable independence which remains erect and undebauched amidst the disappointments, anguish, and losses of defeat, and the desertion of numbers, and the obloquy of a lost cause. Hence it has usually been found, in the history of subjugated nations, that they receive at the hands of their conquerors this crowning woe — a depraved, cringing, and cowardly spirit. The wisest, kindest, most patriotic thing which any man can do for his country, amidst such calamities, is to aid in preserving and reinstating the tottering principles of his countrymen; to teach them, while they give place to inexorable force, to abate nothing of righteous convictions and self-respect. And in this work he is as really a benefactor of the conquerors as of the conquered. For thus he aids in preserving that precious seed of men, who are men of principle, and not of expediency; who alone (if any can) are able to reconstruct society, after the tumult of faction shall have spent its rage, upon the foundations of truth and justice. The men at the North who have stood firmly aloof from the errors and crimes of this revolution, and the men at the South who have not been unmanned and debauched by defeat — these are the men whom Providence will call forth from their seclusion, when the fury of fanaticism shall have done its worst, to repair its mischiefs, and save America from chronic anarchy and barbarism; if, indeed, any rescue is designed for us. It is this audience, “few but fit,” with which I would chiefly commune. They will appreciate this humble effort to justify the history of our native States, and to sustain the hearts of their sons in the hour of cruel reproach.”

Hampden Sidney, Virginia, June 1867

Words

We live in a very peculiar age, in which using a word can condemn us as individuals or as groups. There are certain words which are almost universally condemned in our society. But somehow the wrongness of a word hinges on who is using the word. One group of people can use such words with no objection from hearers, while others are castigated and perhaps even charged with crimes, and subject to legal sanctions, even imprisonment. Isn’t this a weird state of affairs? Why should this be?

How many people ever ponder the oddness of this situation? Surely if a word is wrong or forbidden, then it should be wrong for anyone to use the word.

And shouldn’t a society generally be in agreement about the intrinsic wrongness or offensiveness of a word? If general agreement should exist, (and it seems to me it should; such things should not be arbitrary and random) then surely the majority should decide which words are not to be tolerated, rather than a smaller group deciding unilaterally. Such a situation is tantamount to having dictatorial ruling groups deciding, if the majority have no say.

Mind you I am not a big fan of ‘democracy’ as it has played out in our current situation, but since our system pretends to honor ‘the will of the majority’ why are we content to kneel to the whim of a minority of — say — 15 percent?

If a small segment of a population can wield so much influence and control over the majority, can we be said to have anything like a ‘representative’ government? Our elected officials are more likely to cater to the loudest and most overbearing group as well as to wealthy factions who ally themselves to this demanding 14 or 15 percent.

So we have given up our freedom of speech in order to appear ‘fair’ to smaller groups who pretend to be harmed or traumatized by certain words. What kinds of words have such power? Mostly it amounts to simple slang terms or abbreviated words describing ethnic groups, regardless of whether those words contain any kind of insult or “slur” as they are usually called. The words designated as offensive and ‘hateful’ are judged as such by purely subjective criteria, and those who pay attention to this attempt to control speech will notice that the criteria change arbitrarily, when it comes to accusing people of wrong-speech or “hate” as it is described.

Is it a sin to call an American a ‘Yank’? Why not? Some of us don’t like the word ‘yank’, especially if the person so labeled is from the Southern states. But when we are in the UK or Australia we are often referred to as ‘Yanks’ or by semi-insulting terms like ‘Septics’ in Australia. (Septic=rhyming slang: ‘Septic tank’) So we could rightly claim offense but we aren’t prone to do that, so we accept it.

There are lots of ethnic designations that are simple abbreviations but yet they are considered OK if the target is of a White nationality. Some ethnic peoples don’t like terms like I-tie (Italian) or Mick or but when the label describes someone non-European in origin, then the term ‘hate speech’ is invoked. Some hapless woman in the Midwest, years ago, was turned in to the police (by some busybody eavesdropping on a private conversation) to report this woman saying ‘S—s should learn English.’ I think a jail sentence was her punishment — for a simple one-syllable word.

People have been killed for uttering a slang name to which someone objects, even saying that being called an ‘epithet’ drove them to kill the offender. Thus people have been given light sentences for murder because of a ‘taboo’ word.

Why are we so easily cowed by the power of these words?

The word that causes more high feelings is the familiar ‘r-word’, which has been given incredible amounts of power in our current day. And yet it is we and our undeniably corrupt legal system that have invested the word with the power to destroy lives, metaphorically if not always physically.

Why?

Why are we willing to condemn ourselves, or if not ourselves, then our kin and kind, because of a word? Some will say ”but it’s not just a word; it implies an evil attitude on the part of the speaker, and fear, plus psychological harm to the person to whom it’s directed.”

Again, how can something subjective be determined with certainty? Many ‘hate hoaxes’ have happened and do happen, and they are documented. In many cases the hoaxsters admit to concocting a false story. Yet such stories are treated as irrefutable right out of the box, because some people are held to be above scrutiny, and are not held to the same standards as the rest of us.

It’s become as if it’s unthinkable to hold certain people to any standard, much less to question their veracity. But any human being is capable of dishonesty, so why exempt anyone? One standard for all. But we know it doesn’t happen that way.

Today, in the wake of recent events, it seems a sizable segment of our population is obsessed with showing themselves to be concerned about the plight of this protected group, worrying that the ‘Democrats aren’t taking good care of” this group of people.

It seems that we are very solicitous and protective of certain groups, especially one, because it would appear that people see them as perpetual children, who need our protection and charity. In their estimation we owe them that, and more, indefinitely.

And now, it’s reached the point where our folk are willing to kneel and prostrate themselves to certain people. This seems like some kind of mental aberration which has taken hold on European-descended folk. Maybe it’s a sign of stress; it’s quite a strain to be under for all one’s life, to be told again and again how evil our ancestors were and how we are responsible for everyone’s troubles and disappointments in life, we and our evil genes.

Yet our reprobate ”leaders” and politicians side against us, and help load us down with more burdens of guilt and blame. These political hacks are not our ‘representatives’ nor are they our advocates nor are they our ‘friends’. If they are leaders, they are leading us to destruction.

How many times a day do we hear or read the ubiquitous ‘r-word’? Hundreds? Surely the word should lose some of its power, given how it is overused, ad nauseam? Or have we decided to surrender to that word?

And is the thing described by that word a ‘sin’ in God’s eyes? Let’s look at what the word is supposed to mean, (though we all know there is no fixed meaning; they keep changing the meaning according to expediency). At its core, the invented word (not in use before 1930s) just means wariness of, or dislike for, a particular ethnic group or people. I am talking about common parlance, not any fluid dictionary definition.

Is it a sin to dislike, or be wary of, a group of people? It may be unfair to judge a people as a group — so we’re told — but is it a sin, much less a crime?

Remember, it isn’t we who decide what constitutes a sin. That’s God’s prerogative. Popular vote, or peer pressure has no say in what is a sin. My neighbor may not approve of an act, as I might, but neither of us has the power to make it a ‘sin.’

So what ‘people’, even the majority say, about the ‘r-word’ holds no weight in a religious sense. That’s just fallible human opinion.

Is it possible to ‘love everyone’ as we’re always told? Is that required of Christians? The Bible condemns hating ‘our brother without a cause.’ Notice that phrase ‘without a cause.’ That phrase is there for a reason.

Most of us would not hate someone without a cause. Yet that is what the Left and the clueless Civic Nationalist right thinks is the case: ”just because of the color of their skin!”

Only an idiot would hate someone because of outward appearance, skin color, etc. Scarcely anybody is guilty of that. Yet it’s what the ‘r-word’ supposedly implies.

Very few on the right judge people just according to their skin color. It is because of drastically different behavioral patterns and cultures that friction, animosity, and misunderstanding happen — and will always happen, based on what history shows.

It is the liberal ‘right’ who think that we can shoehorn everyone into one country and pretend that no differences exist, that ‘we’re all one race, the human race.’

What makes the ‘patriotic civnats’ think that the Others want to be just like us? Our culture and our ways are laughed at by other ethnicities: we are bland, boring, we eat tasteless foods, we can’t dance, we have no coordination, and we’re silly dupes who are easily manipulated. And maybe there’s good reason for believing that last one. Remember ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me’? Yet it seems names and words have got us, in truth, on our knees.

Some numbers

In the midst of all the turmoil, lots of talk about the “Peculiar Institution” which has been frequently discussed.

A number of times in various online conversations (or arguments) the question of just how many people – YT, of course — participated in that same Peculiar Institution.

Probably in an effort to absolve themselves or ancestors of perceived guilt. a lot of people state that a very tiny percentage of landowners or planters actually participated. In any case, even if one had some kind of documentation which would nullify any ascribed guilt, it wouldn’t help. No excuses allowed. YT is being judged in advance and has been found guilty. And there’s no statute of limitations, no pardons or no hope of exoneration.

Anyway, just out of curiosity I looked for some documentation of the number of landowners who did hold slaves. Yes, it was a minority not a majority, but here are statistics from a 1938 book by Almon Parkins titled The South, Its Economic and Geographic Development. In it he presents statistics.

“In 1860 there were in the thirteen Southern states 663,000 farms; only 4,576 had 1,000 acres or more; the total number of slaveholders was about 4,000,000…
[…]

The total white population numbered about 8,000,000. The census data show that only one slave owner in the entire South had 1,000 or more slaves; 13 owned from 500 to 1,000; only 298 held from 200 to 500; 1,980 held 100 to 200. On the other hand, 77,000 held one slave only, 110,000 held 2 to 5, 189,000 held 5 to 50. Only about 50 per cent of the owners of farms or plantations held slaves; and considering both rural and urban population, probably not much more than one-third of the population was slaveholding.

Plantations of 50 or more slaves, if evenly distributed over the South, would number about 7 or 8 to the county. But these large plantations were far from being evenly distributed.
[…]
The percentage of farmers that were slaveholders varied greatly in the [thirteen southern] states. In South Carolina 81 per cent of the farmers held slaves; in Alabama about 60 per cent; in Tennessee about 45 per cent; in Kentucky about 42 per cent; and in Virginia about 56 per cent. Thus the percentage of slaveholders of total owners was largest in the Lower South, in the Cotton Belt, and in the older states of the Upper South.”

p.206, The South, Its Economic-Geographic Development
Almon Parkins, 1938

[Emphasis above is mine]

Parkins’ statistics give us some kind of idea of the numbers. I hear people citing percentages that seem to come out of thin air, no sources cited, just out-of-the-blue assertions. All those who claim it was a minuscule percentage never offer any support for their statements.

The people who say that only the richest of the rich had slaves are just trying to put a good face on it. But these figures indicate that slave-owning was not as rife or universal as our enemies want us to think.

History is what it is. The fact that some people are at war with reality doesn’t change anything.

Is there an answer?

I see the vandal mobs have pulled down the George Washington statue in Portland, Oregon. We all knew they would eventually come after all the great men and all the symbols of historical (true) America. Washington would not be spared just because he had no connection to the Confederacy. He was a Southron as well, a fact which is often forgotten, because he was the first President of the United States.

The phrase ‘Genocidal Colonist’ was spray-painted on the statue.

If we didn’t already know how deeply and hopelessly ignorant these destroying thugs are, this phrase ‘genocidal colonists’ shows it. I may be alone in this opinion, I usually am, but when and how did the word ‘genocide’ become so wrongly used?

The word ‘genocide’ derives from the words ‘genos’, meaning race or kindred group, plus the suffix ‘-cide‘, meaning killing or extinction.

The fact that some Amerindians were killed by European colonists — usually in self-defense — does not constitute “genocide” which usually implies root-and-branch destruction of a people or race.

And incidentally, how many Europeans were killed by Amerindians? We probably don’t know the exact count. But many were killed, and how do we not know that a ”genocide” was not intended against them? And they were often killed with a ferocity that was not equaled by the European colonists, who rarely practiced torture as did the Amerindian tribes. Even the so-called ‘Civilized Tribes’ did so; their title as ‘civilized’ referred to their political system, which they claim influenced the Founding Fathers’ model for our system.

The Christian settlers and colonists tried to coexist and form alliances or friendly trading relationships. The English had their families here; they preferred to try to get along. To accuse them of wanting to wipe out peoples wholesale is just wrong. It’s a libel against our folk.

History notwithstanding (and few seem to care about history today) it is just incorrect for us to use the word ‘genocide’ except in cases where a whole people are wiped out intentionally.

Genocide does not mean people are being treated badly or unfairly (as European-descended people are); our foes have made it clear that we should be eliminated. Numerous statements by many ‘white’ leaders as well as Others have made that clear. We are always being accused of being paranoid ”conspiracy theorists” — as if history is not rife with conspiracies and various plots. Do the globalist media masters think that they have dumbed us down to such a low level that we think conspiracies never happen, even in a world full of duplicitous people looking to obtain power and control?

We are undoubtedly in distress and under siege. That is not a figment of anyone’s imagination.

The mob shouting that they are victims of ‘genocide’ is absurd. The suffix of the word (-cide) indicates death and demise; in this case, elimination. It’s a gross exaggeration of the situation. If there were a real ‘genocide’, that is, a wiping-out of a people, would they be here to protest their own demise? The fact is the population of A-As is not declining but slowly growing. That would not be the case if there were a ‘genocide’.

Amerindian tribes experienced a 26.7% population growth between the years 2000 and 2010 — a faster population growth than the country as a whole. Not a genocide to be found there.

Language is important. Words matter.

I remember some years ago a pro-White writer raised a mild objection to this misuse of the word ‘genocide’, remarking on how many pro-White people were using it to describe our situation, wherein we’re diminishing, by design. Soon, as the media keep reminding us, we will be a minority. Or ‘The’ minority, and the rest will be celebrating that.

Personally I think it’s not only an incorrect usage to claim ‘genocide’ — if memory serves it was the UN who loosened up the usage of the word in order to make it sound more dire, or to ramp up the accusations against European-descended peoples. By accusing us of perpetrating this, we are made into the arch-villains of the world. The weak-minded believe it.

There is little chance of the corrupt anti-White alliance called the UN taking up our cause and defending us. We are of use only as a source of funding; otherwise we are the bad guys there.

It’s about time we avoid such a strong word as ‘genocide’ inaccurately. It has no beneficial effect to using it as our foes and enemies (mis)use it.

Most of all we should ignore their hysterical over-the-top rhetoric, especially when they misuse English words. English is our language; we should use the ‘tongue that Shakespeare spake’ with precision and not accede to the misuse and abuse of that language. We know they are using loaded and shocking terms for effect: to silence us or to gain sympathy from the weak simpletons out there who sympathize with wrongdoers.

People crying about being ‘genocided’ when they are very much alive, and are dominating the discourse, should provoke only incredulity, not sympathy.