Discussion at the OD blog

At his blog, Hunter Wallace has been having a very intense discussion with a leftist who responded to a post of Hunter’s, centering on the differences between the left and the (alt)-right, or the alt-right as was. I think it’s one of the most in-depth discussions of the respective belief systems or outlooks, and worth reading. As of now it looks like Hunter and his interlocutor are on part 3 of the exchange. I found it very thought-provoking. Hunter has certainly done his homework with respect to history, especially Southern vs. Northern viewpoints.

I think this series of posts is one of the best I’ve seen on the OD blog. This is the kind of thing that should be done more. It’s always good to put the truth out there even though the left seems incapable or unwilling to hear or accept it.

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.

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.

What ails us?

“It is character that rules in nations as in individuals. Only in loyalty to the old can we serve the new; only in understanding the Past, can we interpret and use the Present; for history is not made but unfolded, and the Old World is ever present in the New.”

— Benjamin Ide Wheeler.

I constantly hear it said that ‘America is dead’, and that we should just get over it, not even grieve for what was lost, or what is being lost.

These flippant statements, I suppose, are just more proof that America is, in fact, dead. A country cannot survive if the people of a country no longer care if their homeland survives, or if they greet its demise with no apparent feeling of regret, grief, or sign of bereavement. There are even people who seem glad to hear of the death of their country because they saw only its flaws and none of its strengths. This category of people includes not just embittered, rage-filled malcontents like those we’ve seen in the news of the past couple of weeks, but people who call themselves right-wing.

In the normal state of things, the right represents the patriotic and loyal element, while the left often has no feelings of loyalty to country and citizens, nor do they feel much attachment to the land. And they are not ethnopatriots, which to my mind is the only real patriotism; they are often the kind who hate their land of birth.

I see a lot of the same inverted sentiments among the disaffected right (the alt-right as was). Some of the young right are among those who want to see their homeland fall and be no more. What do they think will replace it? They seem indifferent about what will replace the U.S. The idea that something much worse may fill the vacuum doesn’t seem to trouble them.

The left, however, have plans and their ‘utopia’ will be everyone else’s nightmare.
The situation in Seattle, with the ‘Chaz’ charade, may be a laughable attempt at creating an enclave or even a separate ‘state’ within a state but it is not something we should just shrug off. Never underestimate the left’s ability to create destruction and chaos. I hear people saying we should just let them go on with their plan and ignore them because it will fail anyway. Or people talk about the ‘optics’ of interfering; it will make Trump ”look bad” if he acts (which he has not shown signs of doing anyway) so let them do what they like so nobody can condemn Trump.

As I understand it, both the lefty Mayoress of Seattle, Miss Durkan, and the governor of Washington State, were pointedly nasty and disrespectful in talking to the President about the situation in Seattle. My readers know that I was a Trump skeptic but I abhor the way in which all the enemies of Trump address him or talk about him. They are uncouth, ill-bred, coarse, and ignorant — this kind of openly hostile and crude discourse is something new in our increasingly nasty political scene. Maybe this low behavior went on behind closed doors but not in the public square. It is not good; it further degrades our political discourse and it makes us that much less civil and mature a people.

Politics of course is war by other means, but some degree of collegial civility used to be de rigueur, but now there are no holds barred. Another sign of a moribund America.

I don’t question that the America I loved is gone. I have always said, though, that the people make the place. Bad people, bad country, no matter its wealth or natural beauty; if the reigning spirit is that of hostility, suspicion, anger, vindictiveness, division — which are all increasing in this country — how can such a country continue? And if there is no public will to reverse the dangerous trends, there’s not much hope of salvaging a country. However, it seems a lot of Americans now have a kind of passivist/fatalist attitude, as if no human effort can change things; it’s all ‘Karma’, which many post-Christian Americans think, or Fate. Hence it’s beyond any human effort.

The guilty-minded and mind-conditioned Americans think America is deserving of death because Reasons. (Politically Correct reasons, of course.) Some embittered young rightists think we deserve destruction because we shouldn’t have fought the two world wars. We were the bad guys in all cases. Hence we deserve the death penalty as a nation. The left — well, we know what they “think” and why they want America destroyed. They’ve been slowly killing the nation and destroying the minds of its people for generations — the Gramscian approach.

Still, despite our country being under siege and denounced every day on the ”News”, there seems to be little response from the public other than sporadic grumbling but little will to do anything more practical. It seems the right has us stymied, and people seem resigned. The left finds ways to box us in, or to silence us and we have no counter-response of any significance. It seems the President embodies this stance; he spoke of ending the Seattle situation but after his ‘conversation’ with the spinster Mayoress of Seattle and the governor, nothing was done.

Sometimes I half-wonder if those ‘witches’ who say they are directing curses at the President(and probably the rest of us) are having some success in with their efforts to harm this country as well as those in authority. It seems like we’re all under some kind of spell making us apathetic.

I started out blogging as a patriot, or as one early commenter called me, a ”Hyper-Americanist.’ Maybe that’s what I was. This country was once a great country in which to grow up and to raise a family. Sure, it was never perfect; nothing run by human beings can be. But it was a wonderful country; it’s a shame that all who criticize and jeer at the ‘old America’ didn’t live there and see it as it was. But the sour grapes approach is just wrong. My heart breaks to think that America is gone, and can never be what it once was. But must we sit and passively watch it happen, like some kind of Eastern fatalist? We used to be a can-do people, a people who believed in being more pro-active and willing to give it the old school try. If we hadn’t been that kind, this country would never have existed. My ancestors and many of yours would have never survived the first winter or the first famine or epidemic or Indian attack — but they did, by sheer grit and by faith in God. Do we still possess the genes or the will for that kind of determination and fortitude? Maybe not. I have less and less faith in us.

We are also missing what some philosophers said a nation needs: pietas, what blogger Cambria Will Not Yield often writes of. It seems a lot of us don’t like our fellow Americans. The young — not all, but many — have developed a loathing for their elders. POCs blame Whites for all their difficulties or problems, or just dislike the latter because of their successes. Envy, in other words. Men and women are at odds as never before. And then people blame outside forces for this: ”They want us divided” — so Q and his/their followers say — but nature divides us. Others may stir up more division or exploit existing division, but what’s the answer, Q? More forcible ‘multiculturalism and inclusion” under the guise of ”Unity” ? More of what ails us? Globalism? More concessions? We’re on that road now, where we will be under greater pressure to conform to the multicult and cultural Marxism. More weakening of America.

I don’t know the answers, except that I am certain that going further down the treacherous road we are on is not the answer and will only lead to far worse situations.

And if we can’t bring back ‘dead’ America? Well, let’s not pronounce the patient dead while there’s still a pulse, and let’s not administer euthanasia yet.

This world is not ”home” for Christians; we’re pilgrims and strangers — but we’re called to ‘occupy’ until the final curtain rings down.

Unnecessary and preventable

If only. If only the majority had not turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to what was obviously happening over the past several decades.

The old (and unfounded, it now seems) idea of American exceptionalism, the idea that “it [lost freedom] can’t happen here; we’re the Shining City on a Hill, we have a Special destiny; we’re God’s people here. True democracy and freedom and liberty. Above all, in this day and age, we are tolerant and inclusive and we welcome everybody who wants some of our Freedom and Liberty and Equality.”

Can’t it happen here? Are we a charmed country where bad things are prevented from entering our space, where we have some kind of magic immunity to being subverted, invaded, deluded into false belief systems, or just plain conquered, as people grow complacent and self-centered?

Those of us who started blogging after 9/11, or in the early 2000s, hoped we might get the word out, that there were some ominous clouds on the horizon, mostly manifested in massive, uncontrolled immigration, much of it (if not all) from countries which were hostile to our interests. In addition, there was a long series of terror acts (now forgotten by many or never known by the younger generations). The homegrown left was becoming increasingly vicious (in both the old and the current usage of the word) and more hostile and threatening toward anybody who differed from them. Increasingly they not only hated the “rich” but White people, particularly Christians, especially males, and their rhetoric was increasingly violent.

But most people seemed to have tuned all this out, giving all their attention to various distractions, such as social media, sports, gutter Hollywood ‘entertainment’, etc.

Globalism was seemingly not on most people’s radar. Try to talk about the planned One World government and you were ridiculed (“conspiracy theories”) or ignored. Yet it’s here. We can’t laugh it off or pretend it’s a figment of a paranoid imagination. Actually there are people who do still dismiss it that way. Some have an amazing capacity for denial.

So now some of us in this country (and in much of the world) are still under restriction of movement and various other mandates which are affecting our everyday lives, in some cases preventing people from getting vital access to medical care or other needs. The rules and restrictions vary from one state to another. It is worrying — and it should be — that at least one Democrat governor wants compulsory testing, while another thinks people who test positive for Covid should be forcibly removed from their homes and confined who knows where, and for how long. All those little details are being kept vague, but would people object even if they knew about these proposals?

I’ve read varying opinions about these worrying developments. Some of the bloggers whose opinions I respect have speculated that these rules and restrictions are meant to test us (as I suggested when the ‘pandemic’ was supposed to be getting under way) and to be an experiment in how to bring about their desired monolithic governance with the minimum of resistance from us, in those countries where we are used to independence in some degree. It’s all to evident that decades of propaganda and mind conditioning (Mockingbird, Tavistock techniques, etc.) have made us much more pliable in the hands of our would-be overlords as compared with our vigilant ancestors. If our colonial ancestors found King George III an intolerable tyrant, with his little tax on tea, what could they say about our situation?

Oh, yes, I know the American secession from Mother Britain was about more than the tea tax. I’ve mentioned before that my ancestors in both the Southern colonies and the New England colonies had an active part in gaining independence, so I know the story and I also know that a lot of sacrifices were made then so that we might be free people. And no, it was not about ”throwing the monarchy out” — we could have had George Washington as our King — but about not being ruled from afar, from across a wide ocean in a day when an ocean was a real barrier. It was about matters being governed locally, by ourselves and our neighbors, people who knew local issues and needs, people we knew face to face.

However we’ve lost all that, in a country which is too vast, too divided not just by geographical barriers like mountain ranges and rivers and deserts, but divided by innate differences amongst peoples and cultures and religions. We are not, and have for long not been, “one nation, indivisible”.

Neither do we find “liberty and justice for all” when criminals are being turned out of prisons lest they get the virus from other criminal, and all the while, lady hair salon owners are jailed and/or fined for re-opening for business.

Speaking of our Founding principles and of old-fashioned (outmoded?) patriotism, the ‘Q’ movement professes patriotism, and I give them credit for boldness in embracing the label in this cynical and anti-American generation, but sadly they seem to be aspiring to restore not an old America, united by ‘common ancestry’ as the Founding Fathers said but are hanging their hopes on a multicult America, the Proposition Nation writ large. ‘We don’t see borders. We don’t see color. You can’t divide us.’ Sound familiar? It’s just the left’s slogans recycled or refurbished with a “conservative” veneer. I know I risk offending those who follow Q but it is the truth. Watch the patriotic vignettes they run on the website. They have the mandatory quota of diversity; it looks like the U.N., demographically, and their pantheon of heroes seems to juxtapose Abe Lincoln and MLK with Robert E. Lee and a little of everything.

Maybe there is no going back; it seems to me that the future is a big question mark. And if this is a big experiment, it’s anyone’s guess. I can pray for at least a partial restoration of the great country this once was. But as I always say, change the people, change the country. And the generations who made this country so special are now no longer with us.

For now the focus is on what is to happen next.

Divisiveness

Generally it isn’t good policy to explain or apologize for an honest opinion, even when someone is offended. This seems especially true in our age of politically correct tiptoeing, trying to avoid ‘offending’ or ‘triggering’ some hypersensitive person. Some of the ”offense” is faked and staged in order to extract some kind of apology or concession. Still, I will admit my previous post may have been written in a peevish mood, though my opinions were honest. I genuinely don’t like to direct those thoughts at people on our side, so in that respect I hope I may be given leeway to get a little cranky sometimes. I don’t like family misunderstandings and I feel as though my readers are my extended kin.

I keep reading these tropes in various opinion articles about the division in our country. The QAnon posts say that ‘they’ (TPTB?) want us divided every which way. It does seem to be the case that they certainly want to exacerbate the issues that divide us. They want the divisions worsened and deepened, but it does seem that most of the divisions exist naturally and can’t be avoided. The “Democrats are the Real Racists” (DR3) according to the liberal Republican crowd and now are the Democrats are the Real Dividers, meaning that without them we would not have any dissension in our midst in this country? It seems some people believe that.

There are liberal Republicans who honestly think that things were fine between the races until the agitators came along and created trouble where there was none. This is not true; history books (and the long memories of some older citizens who are still with us) inform us that there were serious disturbances in the not-so-distant past. The riots in Detroit, for example. And there were earlier serious riots in Tulsa, I believe. Crime did exist; not everyone lived in a stable ‘monogamous nuclear family’as the pollyannas think was the case. There is a mistaken belief that the Democrats caused the sociological problems such as unstable homes, illegitimacy, poverty, crime, and so on. Yes, the social programs may have made things worse but the problems existed independently of, and before, all the programs like EBT, Medicaid, welfare, etc. There has always been a rift between certain groups of people because of essential differences. HBD, anyone?

Nature created differences. The differences are innate.

There was less friction between or among the various races in some cases but that does not mean that everyone ‘got along’ just fine. That idea is fallacious.

Regional differences existed to a lesser extent. I remember school textbooks treated Southron heroes with respect, people like Robert E. Lee and General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson . The Confederate dead were spoken of as men who were defending their country, though people were still taught that slavery was a great evil. The South itself was not ”demonized” as it is now. So that division has worsened greatly, and we can thank the Left for that escalation of hostility. They have equated the South with Nazi Germany, and that, in their minds, makes the Southern cause irreparably evil in the minds of the Left and of the sheeplike people who absorb every lie of the left unthinkingly. The traitorous media have become nothing but tale-bearers, blood-libelers, wormtongues, bearers of false witness against the Right, against the founding generations of this country and especially the South, with White people generally seen as the pinnacle of evil. The media are essentially agitators and trouble-stirrers, passing on false accusations and allowing no defense or response from those they accuse continually.

Women and men are also much, much more at odds than ever, thanks in great part to the Left/Media and their feeding a constant diet of lies to both women and men so that both misandry and misogyny are rife. It’s no wonder our birth rate is collapsing and families are broken.

Ethnic divisions are increasing within the White fold; there never used to be such animosity on the part of so many towards Anglo-Saxons (“WASPs”) in particular. Christians are now being essentially persecuted in some places as we see Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, forbidden to speak publicly in the UK.

I don’t want to criticize blogs which are essentially on our side, but one prominent blog which is meant to be pro-South is frequented by more avid anti-Christians, who offer only condemnation and false statements about Christianity. Those far outnumber Christians on a blog which is pro-South.

The South has historically been the most Christian part of this country, as well as the most traditional. Paganism has nothing to do with the South or its history or its culture or its people. I know there are colonies of pagans in places like Asheville, N.C. but such is not the traditional South; it is alien to the South; it is people who hope to undermine and subvert and change the South. I would not be surprised if this is part of a studied effort to de-Christianize and de-culture the South. Likewise with Internet agitators who do nothing but attack Christianity. I don’t know why that is even tolerated on a blog meant to be about the South and its history and future.

Another such blog is also similarly inclined. Why? The South, despite the presence of so many who don’t belong to the South, is still Christian, at least for now. The South and Christianity cannot be separated without taking away the very spirit and soul of the South.

Where are the people who love the South, or who still love this country, who will speak up against all the dividers all the subverters who are, if not creating the divisions, at least exacerbating them? Have so many people learned to hate their own country that they really don’t object to the obliteration of our country, its people, its history and its future? Does nobody want to help mend the division, and if they can’t be mended, at least try to stop the bleeding?

I think that this constant ‘culture of critique’ has eaten away at any positive feelings we have about our country; it seems the leftist loathing of our folk, our history, our traditions, has infected much of the right as well until many people can’t muster up a little loyalty or affection for this country which gave us birth. ‘Patriotism’ has gotten a bad name, and is become a term of derision. Without some kindred feeling or some ‘pietas’ amongst us, without some feeling of pride in who we are and what our forefathers accomplished — despite all the destruction that others have wrought — we seem to have given up on this country and each other.

Breathes there the man with soul so dead…?” Or is the soul of our country itself dead now? Can it be revived, without a spiritual re-awakening?

The importance of word choice

I was just about to write a piece on the usage and misuse of the word ‘genocide‘, when I came across Thomas Dalton’s very helpful piece on that very subject, on TOO.

Dalton, in a very apropos essay, addresses how the word is very vaguely and broadly defined, and he delineates the origins of the word, as well as the current definitions as laid down by the likes of the U.N.

I recommend the Dalton piece, but I will add my own thoughts as to the questionable utility of a word whose meaning is so elastic that it can include both ‘lethal’ and ‘non-lethal’ meanings and outcomes. For example, any attempt or ‘conspiracy’ to eliminate, or even damage or harm another group is ‘genocide’, per the existing and widely accepted definitions.

However, consult a dicitionary and you will see that the suffix “-cide” as in ‘suicide‘ or ‘homicide’, etc., describe killer, or act of killing. Hence words like ‘regicide’, ‘pesticide’, parricide, and on and on. So it seems we are wresting the meaning by applying it to other situations in which there is no death implied.

There is no half-measure with death; no-one can be sort of killed or somewhat dead. It’s one or the other.

I’ve asked rhetorically in the past: how can there have been ‘genocide’ against American Indians when there are still many living Amerindians, across North, South, and Central America? The rabid left, of course, will say that there were tens of millions of American Indians and that they were ‘all but wiped out’, and would otherwise have represented hundreds of millions. That, however, is just conjecture or plain sophistry. There was never any official census to count the number of Amerindians during the time of the early colonies. How could there have been? And it’s fact that the tribes, being mostly hunter-gatherers, could not have been sustained by that lifestyle had they numbered in hundreds of millions; hunter-gatherers require lots of land and open space to pursue their hunting-gathering way of life.

Amerindians often succumbed to diseases for which Europeans had developed some degree of immunity. This was not intentional ‘genocide’ by Whites, and what about the current situation in which many new arrivals are carrying diseases which are new to North America, and for which we may have no immunity? It’s a fact, but does the left accuse anyone of intentional harm there? Not likely.

In short, it’s fallacious and dishonest to say that ‘genocide’ took place on this continent in the past. And yet, a lot of careless thinkers on the ‘right’ agree with the charges that our ancestors ‘genocided’ Amerindians. But the tribes are still alive and holding their own, so the charge is without validity. Why can’t people grasp that?

To address the question of whether it’s useful or wise, as Dalton questions, to apply the term ‘genocide’ to the replacement of our folk here or in Europe, I would argue, also, for a careful and correct use of language. For many people the word ‘genocide’ seems hyperbolic and hysterical in the current context. I’ve certainly used the term ‘existential threat’ to describe our situation, and I think that’s accurate, but in my opinion it’s about as useful to use the term ‘genocide’ at this point as it is to call the left ‘the real racists’ (the old DR3), in other words, not useful at all. It just rolls of the backs of the targets.

In any case, even if one supposes there’s some utility in throwing these words around in hopes of scoring a bullseye somewhere, there’s this question: considering the history of the word ‘genocide’, its origins and its current definitions (as defined by the United Nations et al), do we really wish to adopt their definitions and their ways of thinking? Since when?

The right can and should do better than to adopt slippery and sophistical rhetoric just because our foes do that so freely.

And far too many on the right, not just the ‘respectable cons’ or cuckservatives have fallen prey to the endless guilt that the left tends to heap on our folk. There is too much ready adoption of undeserved guilt feelings, and the groveling desire to point the finger elsewhere and try to deflect the blame. If we stand on the truth — not easy in this Age of the Lie, we will be much stronger.

The booming South

According to the Washington Times, the South is still ‘booming’ economically, and continues to be a magnet for non-Southrons wanting to find a more congenial home.

The popular wisdom has it that most of the newcomers to the South are ‘conservative’ and looking for a new home with lower taxes, pleasanter weather, and ‘smaller government.’ This may be true in many cases, or even most cases. But is a continuing wave of migration good for the South, or more specifically for the people of the South, that is, the ‘heritage Southrons’ if I may use that term?

And before I go further, I don’t write from any malice towards people from the North. My mother was from the North, and I’m no stranger to that culture.

Large-scale migration of people from outside the South began in earnest in the 1970s. When I search on this subject, the vast majority of hits I get are strictly about black migration back to the South in the 20th century. However the influx of Whites from outside the South seemed most visible in the 1970s and later, and with the ‘tech’ industry (Dell, et al) later. I don’t know that the migration ever really slowed down; the presence of Northerners (including many from Western States) is very evident.

Certainly there are ‘conservatives’ migrating there, or at least conservatives in the broadest sense — but no matter how conservative their politics may be they do change the culture of the South, and have changed it.

To be fair, some of the changes were the result of the omnipresent and intrusive ‘mass media’, with the requisite load of propaganda. The media also exerted a big effect on local ways of speaking — the Southron accent has all but vanished amongst most of the younger generations (Gen X on downward). This I find sad.

When I studied linguistics in college there was a lot of discussion of how language, that is, the language we use, affects our thought processes.
I am no professional linguist, but I’m very familiar with the differences between the Southron dialect, as it existed for centuries, and the sort of mainstream American English accents, as modeled in the media. There used to be considerable differences between traditional Southron dialect speakers and Northern American English speakers, though those differences are quickly being erased, with a consequent loss of a great deal of color and nuance in the English language.

There are of course pockets of people here and there in the South who retain much of their dialect and vocabulary, but they are becoming harder to find. The Southron accent has long been an object of ridicule from non-Southrons, with a prevailing attitude that the accent and dialect sound ‘backward’ or ignorant. That attitude has been very harmful and may explain the wish of some Southern-born people to lose or at least downplay their ‘drawl.’

Language is not the only thing that has been changed by the ongoing influx of people from outside the South; the culture of the South was always very Christian by comparison with the rest of the country. Of course the Bible Belt for a long time included parts of the Midwest and the Western, more rural areas, but the South held out the longest as far as their Christian culture was concerned. Now, though, with the great falling-away in most of the Western world, the influence of Christianity is waning in the South, and the presence of so many non-churched people from outside plays a part.

My state, Texas, is these days often erroneously lumped with ‘the Southwest’, though it used to be considered a Southern state — by virtue of its having been settled mostly by Southrons, as well as because of its solid ‘Bible belt’ status, and very importantly, as being part of the Confederacy. Texas has much more in common with the South than with the ‘Southwest’, that is, New Mexico, Arizona, California, et al.

Texas is obviously on the verge of changing to a far less conservative and traditional place than it used to be. I find this tragic, because it need not have happened, yet the change may be irrevocable, just as the changes to our country as a whole may never be reversed.

And yet — those who look only at economics and see ‘booming’ states in the South don’t ever look at the far more important ramifications of this willy-nilly, top-down imposed change: the loss of the culture, of the heritage, and above all, a change in the very people of the South. People, as I’ve said ever since I started blogging, are not interchangeable. The people make the place. The place, once populated by different people — no matter how ‘conservative’ or Republican they are, will never be the same. And a population of people with vastly different languages, religions, and cultures will eradicate the places we once knew and loved, and will make a mockery of the sacrifices of our forefathers. But this is of no moment to the decision makers, who make these decisions over our heads in our ”democracy” demockracy.

But then we’re not supposed to notice, much less question or mention these things. In parts of Europe it’s criminal to criticize such changes, or even to mention them. And how much longer will we be permitted the luxury to speak or write about it?