Ignorance and apathy

Ignorance and apathy are surely two of the biggest threats to us in our day.

Few people seem to know the truth — they are ignorant — and even fewer care about the truth, being apathetic towards it.

An example: the left and their minority  clients are making hay over Melania Trump’s speech at the GOP convention. They’ve created a tempest in a teapot, something at which they are notoriously adept, claiming that the speech was knowingly ”stolen” by Melania. And this, of course, is a racial issue — after all, what isn’t,  to them? If it isn’t racial, they are absolute wizards at making it into a racial issue.

The shameful New York Times has an article about this, discussed here by Steve Sailer’s commenters. Some person named Yasmin Yonis, good old all-American name, that, says

“White women have spent centuries stealing black women’s genius, labor, babies, bodies.”

Genius? The less said on that issue, the better. Did White women (or men) ‘steal‘ black women’s labor? How, when? Even in the day of chattel slavery, something was given in exchange for labor, namely, food, clothing, shelter, and lifelong care, actually, ,when laboring days were over, in old age. Many White indentured servants had a similar arrangement, the only difference being that they would be unbound from servitude after a prescribed time — but then again the White indentured servants were on their own after that, and could not expect anyone to provide for them in old age or infirmity.

Babies? When did White women steal babies from black women? Oh yes, the old Harriet Beecher Stowe version of ‘history’ again. Somebody on the iSteve thread gives Angelina Jolie, Madonna, and other black-obsessed celebrities as examples. Sadly we could also add Sandra Bullock and several others who are obsessed with having ‘diverse’ children, especially black ones. This, to me, is adulation of blacks, but in the black mind, it is exploitation or perhaps ‘racism’ in the form of paternalism or maternalism. Condescension. Maybe that’s true to some extent. And sadly these aberrant women have imitators among the common folk; a number of women in my area hold fund-raisers now and then to finance their quest for black children from Haiti or Africa. Some prefer Guatemalans or Asian children, but black adoptions carry the most cachet. I would support black efforts to pass some kind of regulation as the Russians did, forbidding foreigners from ‘buying’ orphaned children and taking them away from their natural kin. Likewise, American Indians forbid White adoption of their children, and this seems sound to me. I would be troubled at the idea that our folk’s orphans could be bought by wealthy foreigners and shipped off to another continent or country.

Stealing black women’s bodies: how is that done? Slavery yet again? What about the Barbary pirates (Moslems) stealing millions of White women (and men and children), with many unfortunate White girls and women forced into harems in the Arab world? But oh, no, only blacks and other nonwhites are ever victims.

I am surprised that ‘Yasmin’ in the article does not charge us with stealing black women’s souls as well.

But as to the supposed plagiarized speech by the ‘First Lady’, it appears from what I have read that the speech was cobbled together from bits of other people’s speeches. Does anyone write an original speech anymore? In this age of degeneration of our English language skills, it’s not surprising that no one seems to be able to write a decent speech. Once our children read good literature and were well-schooled in the use of the English language, and they had to learn to write, everything from social letters to essays and poetry; to be well-educated they had to be able to speak extemporaneously when needed and to use, with citation, quotes from great thinkers and writers. Nowadays this is gone.

One depressing aspect of this brouhaha is the quibbling over one phrase in Melania Trump’s speech: the phrase ‘word is bond‘ or some variation. Even on ‘conservative’ forums some say the phrase is from hip-hop. I can scarcely believe that any educated adult would say such a thing; ‘his word is his bond’ or ‘my word is my bond’ are phrases that are age-old. Have Americans become so ignorant of our own idioms and aphorisms, and of the words of past writers, that we think a phrase like that could originate with some hip-hop ‘artist’ with at best, a high-school diploma?

It seems that especially with the younger generations, many old sayings are believed to have come from contemporary popular culture rather than from the long-ago past. An example: ”Revenge is a dish best served cold.” Most people think that phrase was a ‘Klingon proverb’, at best a creation of the writers of Star Trek, when in fact it’s a proverb that is in many old books of proverbs from various cultures. (To me, it’s a cynical and ugly proverb, but it seems to appeal to postmoderns). Then there’s ”Keep your friends close, your enemies closer” which many credit to the TV series The Sopranos. That cynical saying, too, was not invented by a scriptwriter, but has been around for some time. But most people’s knowledge base is limited mostly to current or recent pop culture; the world begins and ends with pop culture. Hip-hop artists are in Bartlett’s Quotations these days, so debased is our culture.

It’s no wonder, then, that so many of our folk don’t know any better than the lies put out by the media and the “victim” classes they serve. And those who do know better seem not to care enough to stand up against the lies and remind people that there is an objective truth which must be guarded and defended in order to keep us strong.




It hasn’t worked yet

And chances are it never will. But still we keep on trying.

A group of police officers at a Pennsylvania restaurant performed one of those ‘random acts of kindness‘ toward some fellow diners.

”A group of policemen from Homestead and Whitaker, eating at a Waterfront restaurant, paid a couple’s bill after the couple made it obvious they didn’t want to sit by the officers on Saturday.

“A table goes to sit down and the guy looks over at one of the police officers and was like, ‘Nah I don’t want to sit here.’ So they got moved completely opposite, away from the police officers,” said Eat N’ Park server Jesse Meyers.”

The police officers even included a $10 tip.

‘The officers wrote, “Sir, your check was paid for by the police officers that you didn’t want to sit next to. Thank you for your support. I left a $10.00 tip too.”

“It just dawned on me, I should do this real quick just to show this guy look, I don’t know if you had bad experience with the police in the past — you may have you may have not — but I just want you to know I never had an experience with you and I’m not here to do anything to you. And neither will my partners,” Thomas said.”

Well, God bless these officers for their efforts. The Bible does say to give to those who are unable (or unlikely?) to repay you; to do good deeds without a thought of recompense. And the officers probably won’t win these people’s trust or goodwill.

The article pointedly omits mention of the race/ethnicity of the ‘fearful’ diners whose check the police paid. So I will assume they were ‘POC’, people “of color”, as the PC terminology calls them. Besides, though many White lefties (and libertarians) detest police, at least if they are White, they rarely fear them, or pretend to fear them.

I don’t know about you, but I can’t imagine the cop-phobic couple suddenly having a change of heart and repenting of their hostility toward the police. Trying to imagine such a scene only produces comic scenes in my imagination, so far-fetched is it.

But the whole effort of the police is so, well, typical of 21st century Whites; “maybe if we just try to understand them, reach out, reassure them, show we care, they will see just how wrong they are about us, how very, very, not racist we are…”

How long do we go on doing the same failed action and expecting a different result?

Hugging the chains

What’s with the people on rightist blogs who feel compelled to advocate for various immigrant/minority groups? It’s been going on for the years that I’ve been reading or commenting on such blogs.

Am I unreasonable to expect that most people who read or comment on such blogs should be unequivocally ethnopatriotic and loyal to their own people, actually putting their own folk’s interests first?

Making the rounds of a number of blogs this evening I kept running across discussions where people were arguing for Hispanics, claiming that they are ‘more compatible’ with our society than moslems. Well, space aliens, if they exist, would probably be more compatible with us than moslems, but does that mean we should welcome them if they ever land on our soil and start setting up housekeeping here? Is anybody who is ‘preferable to moslems’ automatically a desirable addition to our country?

Where is the loyalty to our own folk, the natural preference for our own kin? I ask this because it’s absolutely essential to reclaiming what’s left of our divided country, and to re-establishing a relatively harmonious, well-functioning society. Yet it seems that there is a significant faction of people even on the right who seem to accept that a mixed, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multiracial society is unavoidable, or even desirable.

In the past I’ve described this as the ‘favorite minority’ syndrome. It seems there is this tendency for people to select a favorite ethnic group and to plead on their behalf. For many Americans this role is filled by Hispanics. Why? I think it is because Hispanics have had a long-established presence in this country, especially in the border states. Many younger Texans, growing up in the multicult society, had Hispanic classmates/friends. Interracial dating and mating is hardly stigmatized as it once was in Texas. Others, who grew up in mostly White areas are pro-Hispanic because they have had little real experience of them, and the kinds of people who tend towards thinking the best of everyone simply blind themselves to negative evidence, and have a knee-jerk habit of taking up the defense of minority groups who are criticized by more realistic Whites.

These people could be aptly called (with some irony) ‘White knights’ who will clash with fellow Whites while defending Others.

Then we have the interracial relationship angle; more and more intermarriages are taking place, which is just what the powers-that-be and the media are openly promoting now. That of course alters allegiances and makes loyalties ambivalent.

Another group which benefits from the fact that they have White defenders are Filipinos. There is a set of White Americans, often people with military connections, who think Filipinos are a great asset to America — and as it happens, many men of this type tend to be married to Filipina women and to have Filipino children and in-laws (who generally are brought here to live).

Asian immigrants tend to have more defenders amongst White Americans than even the Hispanics or Filipinos, because of the popular belief that they are all highly intelligent, law-abiding, and more compatible with us and our culture than any other ethnic/racial group.

Africans also have a great fan following among the Whites who have a favorite minority because — well, because racism. And because colonialism. We owe it to them because they have been so wronged, and by our ancestors and people who look like us. So let’s welcome them in and save them from ebola, FGM, Islam, and all the vagaries of life in Africa. The same principle applies to Haiti. They are victims of bad government, racism, and ‘unforgiving environment’, or whatever force of nature is causing their problems.

So between the compulsive altruists who think we have to fix every human ill and bring everybody to America to let them share our ‘free air’ and ‘magic dirt’, and those who simply have some kind of attraction for various ethnic groups, we have quite a number of people who, even as our country is being swamped by immigrants (legal and illegal) and ‘refugees’, will insist on arguing for welcoming this group or that group.

If, in a restored America, we made ”exceptions” for everybody’s favorite ethnic group, we would end up with de facto open borders, and the same old multicultural, polyglot Babel scenario that is being forced on us.

Are Americans really so inured to, or maybe addicted to ”diversity” that they unconsciously seek to argue for it, even as they claim to want to stop the politically correct insanity? Many people say, especially since Trump began his campaign, that they want us to build the fence, limit moslem immigration, and ‘take back America’ yet they cling to ‘diversity’, or at least their own preferred minority group.

For me, this situation calls to mind a quote from G.K.Chesterton, who spoke of people ‘hugging the chains of their old slavery.’ Why hug the chains of ‘diversity’ dogma and political correctness if we can choose to break our bonds?

The real Ali

Jim Goad at TakiMag writes about The Greatest Anti-White Boxer of All Time, namely Muhammad Ali, of course. He notes the (ahem) whitewashing of Ali now that he is dead, and the fawning eulogies. Even on the ‘realist right’, people seemed to focus solely on Ali’s famous (or infamous) interview in which he spoke out bluntly against interracial mating/marrying. In the 1970s no doubt that statement made a lot of liberal Whites uncomfortable but it did not carry the incendiary potential that it does in 2016.

The ‘colorblind’ portion of the White population seemed to regard Ali as a sainted hero,  in the tradition of most black celebrities, not quite as exalted as Nelson Mandela (terrorist, ex-convict) and not nearly as revered as MLK, but still a hero. I wonder how the sensitive teens at Tumblr would react to the quotes Joad offers at TakiMag?

“Integration is wrong. The white people don’t want integration. I don’t believe in forcing it….”
1964 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal

“The white man want me hugging on a white women, or endorsing some whiskey, or some skin bleach, lightening the skin when I’m promoting black as best.”
1966 interview with Sports Illustrated

“My enemies are white people, not Viet Congs or Chinese or Japanese.”
1967 interview regarding the draft

“All Jews and gentiles are devils….Blacks are no devils….Everything black people doing wrong comes from (the white people—drinking, smoking, prostitution, homosexuality, stealing, gambling—it all comes from (the white people).”
1969 interview with David Frost”

On that last quote, shades of Thomas Sowell who resorted to blaming ‘Southern redneck culture’ for ”everything black people doing wrong” as Ali bluntly put it.

Meanwhile it seems that Ali will become another black ‘icon’ revered by the likes of the Tumblr teens, along with Nelson Mandela, MLK, Rosa Parks and the rest of the pantheon. And it seems that ‘race realist’ Whites will remember Ali solely by his statements against interracial marriage. The trouble is, it’s likely nobody but White people will ever see or hear of his remarks, as the controlled media will never publicize anything that deviates from their agenda. Illusion wins over reality again, at least for now.

‘Suspects’ arrested in San Jose

Police in San Jose, California got around to doing their job of arresting some of the attackers who assaulted attendees at a Donald Trump rally. Better late than never, but better still if they had done their job as the attacks were in progress, rather than standing by as people were being brutalized by the riff-raff. Had they done so, then maybe there would not have been any crimes committed against innocent people.

Speaking of riff-raff, was there any doubt about the demographics of the ‘anti’s?

The suspects have been identified as Ahmed Abdirahman, 19 of Santa Clara; Robert Trillo, 18 of San Jose; Antonio Fernandez, 19 of San Jose; and Michael Kitaigorodsky, 19 of San Jose.[…]Abdirahman, Trillo, and Fernandez were arrested on felony charges of assault with a deadly weapon. Kitaigorodsky was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of failure to disperse.”

So, two of the attackers were Hispanic, probably Mexican, one a Somali (refugee? likely) and the last, Kitaigorodsky, (presumably the grinning idiot with blue-green hair) could be Russian? Ukrainian? Jewish? Another likely immigrant or son of immigrants. Emma Lazarus’s kind of people.

Really, this makes Trump’s point about immigration for him.



Canonizing and demonizing

At SBPDL, there is a post about the recent media canonization of celebrities who have died in recent years, namely Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Prince, and now Cassius Marcellus Clay (better known by his Moslem name, Muhammad Ali.) Incidentally, how many are aware that Cassius Clay/’Muhammad Ali’ was named after another Cassius Clay, a White Southron politician? I would suspect very few. I suppose one motive for the name change was the fact that it was seen as servile for a black to be named after a White politician, even though that politician “saw the light” and became an abolitionist.

But back to the main point: the people we are being encouraged (almost required) to honor and speak reverently of, now that they are dead, were people that in previous times would not have earned public respect and approval; quite the opposite. I agree fully with Paul Kersey on that point.

I would include David Bowie in the list of people who are being unjustly praised as some kind of heroes, though he was a White Englishman, but he too is being canonized for his ‘service’ in advancing the cause of transgenderism/androgyny and general subversion of traditional morality. In a way, too, I wonder if he is not being given the same adulation as the black celebrities because he, after all, was married to a black woman, so he was an early poster boy for the miscegeny agenda, which is now being very blatantly and obviously pushed on the White population.

Bowie’s ‘race-realist’ fans insist that his interracial marriage ‘doesn’t count’ because the children he fathered were White. Whatever. I do notice that the alt-right/pro-Whites who join in the praise for these people are quick to find ways to rationalize to themselves their admiration for these people, and to defend that loyalty against fellow Whites who challenge it. It’s amazing how adept people can be at rationalizing and compartmentalizing — but “a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways” as a certain Book says.

Though I agree with the overall message of Kersey’s post, I am disappointed to note that he is of the growing body of alt-right/pro-White bloggers who blame the post-war Baby Boom generation for everything that is wrong.

“It’s becoming increasingly obvious the Baby Boomer generation offered absolutely nothing of value save their slavish devotion to their own racial dispossession.”

All right, but what, exactly have succeeding generations offered? All the statistics I’ve seen on racial attitudes, immigration, and general political orientation show that each generation is more liberal in every way, especially on race and immigration matters, more politically correct, and yes, more ‘cucked’ than their Baby Boom elders (parents or grandparents).

The polling finds that older generations – Boomers and especially Silents – do not fully embrace diversity. Fewer in these groups see the increasing populations of Latinos and Asians, as well as more racial intermarriage, as changes for the better. For many Silents in particular, Obama himself may represent an unwelcome indicator of the way the face of America has changed. Feelings of “unease” with Obama, along with higher levels of anger, are the emotions that most differentiate the attitudes of Silents from those of the youngest generation.

Critics of boomers, from what I’ve been witnessing, don’t offer any statistics or facts to back up their sweeping assertions and broad-brush generalizations. I have never yet once seen any facts or data to back these assertions, which a lot of people make. I’ve written blog posts asking for some specifics, and though people on the right pride themselves on dealing with facts and reality rather than emotion, no facts have been brought out to support the ‘boomers are guilty’ claims.

I always wonder just why, exactly, the Baby Boom generation is despised by the later generations. Is it because of their hedonistic, juvenile lifestyle? If so, why do the succeeding generations appear to be outdoing the boomers in hedonism and extreme behavior?

Were boomers more liberal than the Gen X, Gen Y/Millennials on racial matters? Not if you go by the numbers of people who marry outside their race and who have children who are racially mixed. The younger generations far surpass the older people this way.

Or was it the boomers’ opposition to the Vietnam war? I’ve noticed that today’s alt-right is more anti-war than even the boomers were, so that can’t be the cause of the animus.

As to who passed all the laws which led to today’s civilizational train wreck, the ‘Civil Rights’ act, Brown vs. Board of Education, the Hart-Celler immigration travesty of 1965, Roe v. Wade in the 70s, and feminism — those were the work  of earlier generations; the post-war baby boomers were not of age and did not control Congress or government, not by a long shot, when those things were inflicted on us.

Even the ‘counterculture’, whose principles still guide the younger generations (recreational drug use, legalizing drugs, ‘free love’, easy abortion, idolizing the Third World, tattooing, body piercing, the general vulgarity of our culture today) can’t be called the work of the sixties youth; it was originated by older generation members, people like Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsburg, the so-called ‘Beats’, Owsley the LSD apostle — all of them well past their youth in the 1960s. Some of these people are known to have connections to Intelligence, and the whole counterculture was likely conceived by people in high places; it was a great vehicle for subverting everything good in America.

I would applaud the Gen X, Gen Y, and all the younger people for loathing boomers — IF they by doing that repudiate and shun all the destructive aspects of the Counterculture, all of the things I listed above. But that doesn’t seem to be happening; the younger generations seem to carry on the worst traditions of the worst of the boomers.

Finally I do find it most ironic that many people who detest boomers are looking to a baby boomer — Donald Trump — as the only possible hope for extricating us from this mess.  And Trump is not that atypical; the ‘hippies’ were a smallish segment of that age group who were hyped and publicized to excess by the media, magnifying their actual numbers and influence. The influence they did have, as a small group, was created by the media, and apparently used by the Powers that Be.



Millennials favor reparations

A new study shows that the ‘millennial’ generation is most likely of all generational cohorts to favor slavery reparations for blacks.


“Americans over age 69 say by an 80-12 margin that reparations should not be paid to those related to slaves. 

Baby boomers between ages 51-69 are similar, with a 79-17 per cent margin against reparations.

The numbers start changing when it comes to Generation Xers, with Americans between the ages of 35-50 breaking 73 per cent to 25 per cent against reparations.

The biggest shift comes with millennials, with a majority — 51 per cent — saying that reparations should be paid or they were unsure of whether reparations should be paid. 

Forty per cent of millennials were in favor of reparations and 11 per cent were unsure, compared with the 49 per cent of the millennials questioned who said reparations should not be paid to slave descendants.”

Not surprising to those of us who are familiar with millennials and their social and political views. This will, however, prove very disappointing to those (and they are legion) who blame the baby boomer generation (those born 1945-1960, roughly) for everything that is wrong with America and the West. But not to worry; they won’t let it deter them from continuing to blame the boomers. They should take heart; the boomers are on the way out; most are nearing their ‘threescore-and-ten’, or a little past that. Donald Trump himself is a boomer, lest some of us forget. He is seventy. But I am sure that boomers will continue to be blamed when they are six feet under.

Generational blaming aside, the discussions of this article online have elicited the usual dismal, depressing responses: blaming others (“the British crown introduced slavery to the colonies” or ”the Dutch brought the slaves here”) or the old excuse that ”I had no ancestors here before the Civil War”. And then there’s the shameful victimhood pleas: “my ancestors were enslaved by the Brits” or ‘The English starved my ancestors out of Ireland, where’s my reparations?” What’s the thinking behind those ‘arguments’? I’m a bigger victim than you? Where’s our self-respect?

The other thing that disturbs me about some of these all-too-common responses is the lack of solidarity amongst White people. So many want to claim personal innocence, shifting the blame by default to those whose ancestors were here before the War Between the States, or making the South assume all blame even though the North did have slavery. Another defense that I find repugnant is that of Northerners who brag that their Union Army ancestors ‘helped free the slaves, so do I get credit?’ or ‘My great-great-grandfather died fighting for the Union; I should get reparations.’ I realize many Northerners thought their role was the patriotic one, but the fact that they think half a million deaths were a reasonable price to pay to preserve some kind of coerced abstract Union is disturbing to me.  The fact that Northerners, most of whom had little personal experience of blacks, would kill their own ethnic/national kinsmen for the sake of ‘equality’ is incomprehensible to me.

And since that Northern viewpoint ‘won’ the war now we have generations who have been utterly mind-conditioned to put the interests of every other people ahead of those of their own kinsmen, their own flesh and blood.

I promise you, when the Boomers are gone, along with the last remnants of the ‘Silent Generation’, this country will, by their absence, move even farther to the Left than it already is. Especially with tens of millions of Others being seeded and planted in what was our Fathers’ country.

Accepting the guilt?

As this is Confederate History Month, I’ve been slow in taking the time to write about the War Between the States and the causes thereof. I won’t attempt to go into that much-documented question here, but only to write about the effects on our country of focusing exclusively on slavery.

It’s usually assumed that slavery was the main cause of the war, and few people think beyond that issue. In a way this works mightily against the South and its image in the minds of the rest of the country, because people in the last few decades have been heavily conditioned to believe in the primacy of slavery in causing the War, and even more, to believe as they have been told: that slavery was an ”abomination” (the most-often used word of condemnation), an unparalleled crime against humanity of which we (White people) and Southrons specifically stand forever convicted.

Now most Southron academics are inclined to accept this liberal interpretation of history, and they take a defensive and apologetic tone in writing or speaking about our history. This piece, while mostly fair, does tend towards the defensive approach, and unfortunately, in my opinion, uses the ”liberals are the real racists” defense. In this case the argument is more specifically ”the Yankees were the real racists”. The conclusion that one comes to if one reads this kind of thing is that yes, Whites were guilty as charged, and slavery was a horrible crime against humanity, but it wasn’t just Southrons; the Yankees started it and profited from it so they are as guilty or more so than we are. In other words, White guilt is assumed and accepted; the ‘defense’ just tries to spread the guilt around or focus it more on the ‘other guy’, hoping to deflect blame.

The writer of the linked piece is an academic, a Professor at Emory University and connected with the Abbeville Institute. I allow for the usual academic biases, since it seems that the vast majority of academics are more liberal than the average American. With all due respect to the writer’s credentials I will take issue with some things he says.

For instance he describes slavery as a ‘national enormity’ and says that most Americans saw it as a violation of natural law:

“Most all antebellum Americans believed two propositions. The first proposition is that slavery abstractly considered (that is independent of posi­tive law, circumstance, and custom) is a violation of natural law. This was as true of Southerners as Northern­ers”

Most people in the South were strongly Christian, and knew their Bibles well enough to know that it was not condemned in the Bible at all. Man-stealing was condemned, but the ”peculiar institution” was not forbidden by the Bible, rather it was regulated. There were laws concerning slavery but it was not against Biblical law nor the law of the land — which was, ultimately, grounded in Biblical law.

Some will object that the Founding Fathers were not Christian but Deists or Masons. Thomas Jefferson is often claimed to be a Deist who had very liberal notions, but even he did not argue for immediate emancipation or condemn slavery as such. He made practical arguments against emancipation because he saw the great problems that would result from sudden freeing of the slaves:

“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence [sic] of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

But if one believes that slavery was an abomination or a “violation of natural law” then no price would be too great to pay, presumably. Hence the 500,000+ lives sacrificed in the War.

It is also alleged that the New England Yankees were by this time arch-liberals and egalitarians, though the writer of the linked piece, Professor Livingston, says they were ‘nativist’ (as if that were a pejorative) and some kind of Anglo-Saxon supremacists, racial purists. In fact by the time of the War Between the States the New England states were already receiving tens of thousands of immigrants from Ireland, Portugal, and Italy as well as Eastern Europe. There were also many French-Canadians living in parts of New England. Many of the old Puritan stock had already moved Westward, looking for greener pastures. So there was hardly an Anglo-supremacist society in the New England of the 1860s.

However it is true that most old-stock Americans were what we today call ‘race-realists’, they were not egalitarians in the sense of denying the obvious evidences of their senses. They did not take the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ in the literal way in which people on both left and right take it in 2016.

However Professor Livingston sees this natural ethnocentrism as disreputable, judging as he seems to by the liberal standards of today.

“For two centuries the original Puritan stock had intermarried to form a strong re­gional identity. They thought the blood of the rest of the Union was diluted by foreign peoples who did not have a title to be the “true Americans.” Particularly disgusting was the South with its mixture of French, Spanish, Ab­original and even African blood. The defeat of John Adams and the election of Thomas Jefferson as president was a racial trauma for New Englanders. They referred to him contemptuously as the first “Negro president.” Jefferson had lived with Africans for so long that to New Englanders he had become Af­rican.”

Livingston exaggerates the ‘mixture’ of the Southern states; the South was originally just as Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-Norman) as the New England states, and remained so up until the influx of Northerners in the 1970s and afterward and the later disastrous waves of immigration from the four corners of the globe. I cannot at length argue the case for the preponderance of English blood in the South but even though there were some Huguenots, Germans, and others in the South, they intermarried with the English-descended Southrons and the Scots-Irish. They were not unassimilable peoples. The presence of many black people did not mean that the Southron people themselves were mixed a la the Brazilians of today. The essay might lead to that erroneous conclusion. Black people formed a parallel society alongside Whites. Yes, there was contact between the races but they were not amalgamated and very few people in the South would have proposed amalgamation, as is the case today.

Professor Livingston is contributing to false beliefs about the Southron people by implying that there was truth in some of the misconceptions about the South being made up of ‘mixed’ peoples. The South is not Brazil — not yet, anyway. But if present trends continue, with the South’s defenders adopting defensive postures, adopting liberal rhetoric (our enemies are “the real racists”) then we will have suffered a more devastating defeat than that of 1865.


Co-opting the victim cult?

Can that be done? First, we should ask whether it should be done; what effect would it have on the reactionary or alt-right movement if such a tactic were used and if, somehow, it worked?

I read this piece yesterday on the subject, but I waited for comments and discussion to clarify what the blogger’s thinking was.

From the piece:

The liberal establishment is controlled by a small elite comprised of ideologues and their financiers who command the allegiance of an impressive coalition of victimized groups: Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, women, as well as the varied and aggrieved sects of sexual deviants. It is from these groups of victims that they derive eager foot soldiers and, more importantly, their moral legitimacy.

All of the aforementioned victim groups are merely pawns that dissemble the pitiless class war waged against the white working class.”

I can agree with much of this, except for the final sentence of the quote. It’s much like the occasional commenters over the years on the old blog who said that ‘we mustn’t blame immigrants (or blacks, or whoever) because they are just being used” or the other frequently-heard phrase: “the immigrants are just doing what I would do if I had a hungry family”. I don’t accept that the various victim groups are simply hapless pawns being used — though they are being exploited by the left and by the politically correct right, who try to ‘virtue signal’ or by the business lobby who want open borders for reasons of greed. But they can only exploit these ‘victim groups’ insofar as they are already doing the things to which we object. Blacks, even before the age of political correctness and the modern left, were more socially ‘dysfunctional’ to use the psych-jargon. They have always had higher rates of crime, illegitimacy, family instability, addiction, and so on. Granted, these things were less widespread but in part that was due to ‘Jim Crow’ and the fact that the races did not have as much contact with one another. There is a falsehood often repeated even among many on the ‘right’, that falsehood being that blacks were law-abiding and respectable people before the Left got hold of them and incited them. As with most successful falsehoods, it contains a grain of truth: blacks were somewhat less antisocial in earlier times. The Left does incite blacks and other minorities by constantly repeating stories about alleged ‘racism’ and ‘discrimination. The media magnifies these things and keeps up a constant drumbeat amounting to incitement to violence.

However, a people who are naturally peaceful and not inclined to aggression cannot be made to do things that are not in their nature. If someone wants to hire a hit-man to get rid of someone he hates, he won’t recruit one from among his law-abiding acquaintances; he will look for those who have a history of crime and violence and who are practiced at it; comfortable with it.

Hispanics have longstanding hatreds and grievances against the ‘gringo’; their history books teach that parts of our land (the Southwest, or even much of the Western U.S) belonged rightfully to them, was stolen by us, and they believe they have a right to claim it. There’s no need to manipulate them into invading or behaving antisocially once they are here. They already dislike us and lack respect for us and our right to this country.

In other words, the left, their obvious malevolence notwithstanding, can’t make peaceful, law-abiding people become aggressors and criminals. Those proclivities already existed in their various ‘victim’ client groups. Those groups are not passive or unwilling participants being used by the left. They are allies.

Again, from the piece:

“…the black underclass has filled the same niche of the useful idiot. In exchange for continuous handouts (in the form of lifetime social service benefits) and a series of never-ending affirmative action initiatives, blacks have become the most consistently loyal members of a party’s base in the history of American politics. This is, of course, in spite of the fact that it is the ideologies of their benevolent overlords, i.e., the perverse stupidities of free love and atomized individualism, which have so thoroughly devastated their communities.”

But the left did not introduce the idea of ‘free love’ to blacks, nor compel them to practice it so enthusiastically. That kind of sexual carelessness was long a part of the culture; some apologists blame it on slavery when they were supposedly not allowed to marry (false) or the alleged fact that wives and husbands were torn apart, etc. But after emancipation, the same pattern continued with no slavery to blame for it. Black apologists like the respectable right’s darling, Thomas Sowell, blame “White redneck culture”  for black misbehavior; Sowell argued that ‘rednecks’ have been a persistent bad influence on would-be virtuous blacks, and that blacks’ dysfunctions are from Scots-Irish rednecks. Again, nobody can force someone into a certain way of living.

The left has undoubtedly exacerbated and exploited the dysfunctions of minorities, but they didn’t cause them just to use the people as pawns. They were just shrewd enough to see the existing qualities which they could divert for their own ends. There are materials from the Communist Party from the 1920s and 30s in which they discuss the plan to make blacks the ‘vanguard’ of their hoped-for revolution in America, seeing as how the White working class here was not suitable fodder.

“The beauty of co-opting the culture of victimhood is that, if effectively carried out, it not only provides an effective rhetorical tool but also a host of new allies with which to torment our foes. Imagine being able to watch a group of Black Nationalists deface a progressive Brooklyn neighborhood full of effete white hipsters as a protest against the racist policies of gentrification. Or perhaps a group of veiled Muslim women confronting a group of white, upper middle class feminists over the white privilege that is implicit in their calls for female equality. The possibilities are endless.”

But this is just what the ‘respectable right’ has been trying to do for some years now; the Republicans compete like mad for the ‘Hispanic vote’ by promoting open borders and by castigating people who object to mass immigration. This is part of the reason for the GOPe’s anger at Trump and his followers. We are jeopardizing their plans to ‘co-opt’ the minorities and bring them into the Republican fold, which is of course their natural home. The same Republicans keep telling blacks that they are on a liberal ”plantation” being kept down, and that Democrats are taking them for granted. ”The liberals are the REAL racists”, as they are always saying. Their need for ‘great black hopes’ in the form of people like Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Herman Cain, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Ben Carson, is for this reason; they think they can win blacks away from their Democrat ‘masters’ and turn them as weapons against the Democrats. It will never work unless or until the right promises better handouts to the various groups, and until the right abases itself and repudiates any real non-liberals within the fold.

Lastly, again from the piece:

This, then, should become our aim: (1) establish productive dialogues with vulnerable and underserved members of the liberal coalition; (2) adopt their grievances and slowly peel them away from the herd.

Because the right, the real right, is mostly White, implicitly or explicitly, minorities will never make common cause with us. The whole attitude of the right is not compatible with the attitudes and mindsets of the various minority groups.

Adopting the many grievances of these groups — taking them on ourselves, trying to win these groups over would require that principles be sacrificed on a huge scale; they will demand to be catered to, these victim-clients; they have come to expect it and demand it. They have an attitude of entitlement, and it is not just imposed on them by the Left. It is part of their makeup, seemingly. They have always dismissed any misguided attempts at outreach by the Republican panderers; ”tokenism” they call it. They won’t settle for a pale (!) imitation of the Democrats. And do we want to enter into a bidding war with the Left for the affections of the ‘victims’? We’d never win, though we sold our souls trying.



Speaking of lies…

In a recent post, I was decrying this recurring ‘talking point’ of the open-borders crowd: the claim that sending illegals home is “breaking up families” and ”tearing children from their parents” and other such manipulative nonsense.

Now here we have John Kasich of Ohio, in his bid to become president, spouting just this very lie:

[Kasich]  flatly rejected the idea of the mass deportations Donald Trump has called for.

 “You don’t actually think, folks, that we’re going to drive around in Canton Ohio and yank people out of their homes and ship them to Mexico, leaving their kids on the front porch. You really think that’s going to happen.”

The crowd, overwhelmingly, answered “no.”

Is Kasich ignorant, or merely dishonest? He is the governor of his state; can someone attain governorship of one of these United States despite being so out-of-touch with reality? Really, Mr. Kasich, where has this ever happened in this country when someone is deported? When have children been left alone on a porch or in a house (as per other statements by Kasich which I’ve read), unattended? This would just not happen. Ever.

I defy anyone who makes such idiotic claims to back up their claims with facts: name places, dates, names of those deported and the names of irresponsible authorities who would supposedly leave unattended children to fend for themselves.

And why does nobody ever challenge these kinds of statements? Is there not one honest ”journalist” in this country who would ask such pertinent questions? I know the answer: the ”narrative” matters much more than truth to these mind-conditioned leftist journos and the ‘diversity’ hires who of course have their own ethnic agenda.

And why is there seemingly not one ”conservative” politician who will speak up when Kasich or some other open borders shill spouts this propaganda?

And why does it seem that few to no bloggers ever question that particular bit of propaganda?

There are no children being ”torn” from their doting parents’ bosoms when these few token ‘deportations’ (more like free vacations back home, if the truth be told) happen.There is no way that Mexico or other Latin American countries would refuse to admit the whole family back into their home countries. The United States government is not going to hold ”anchor babies” here against their parents’ will just because they are supposedly ‘citizens’ of this country — which is by no means certain anyway.

The parents can take their large families back home (yes, HOME, to their place of origin and rightful place of residence) when they go. Nobody will stop them from keeping their families intact.

As for Kasich’s support for a so-called ‘path to citizenship’ for illegals, which is amnesty, whether he will call it that or not, some express surprise. But why should anyone be surprised? He has recent immigrant ancestry — either parent(s) or grandparents, depending upon which source you accept. Having recent immigrant origins almost always translates into support for mass immigration and lenient attitudes toward illegal immigration.

So now we have two Cubans, one an immigrant the other the son of immigrants, and an Eastern-European immigrant descendant running for president. Clearly the party bosses want immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants, non-WASPs, as our only possible Republican choices. The globalist element of the GOP is definitely in charge.