Election speculations from the peanut gallery

Naturally there is a lot of speculation and conjecturing from voters on the eve of the election — well, almost the eve of the big day. I won’t be bold or foolish enough to make any predictions of my own; I think the crystal ball looks a little too cloudy for that just now. In today’s wild atmosphere, almost anything might happen.

I did notice some comments made by readers of various blogs, and there are some non-factual remarks. Example: the assertion that most women will not vote for Trump. I think if you look at his rallies you will see lots of women, and they appear very enthusiastic in support of the President. If anyone thinks those women are there because their pro-Trump husbands dragged them along against their will — well, that’s an unlikely scenario in the very pro-feminist world of 2020; the non-liberal women have bought into feminism if only in a milder form than the pink-hat-wearing leftist women.

So yes plenty of right-leaning women do support Trump.

Another ‘iffy’ statement: Trump will lure away many POC voters, so many that it will give Trump a boost and a new POC voter base. But if we go by historical voting patterns I don’t believe those patterns can be overturned just like that, just that easily. What was the percentage of blacks voting for Obama in 2012? 90 per cent. It remains to be seen whether the GOP will achieve their longstanding dream of winning over black voters, wooing them away from the “Democrat Plantation” [their phrase, not mine].

The GOP is a so-far rejected or jilted suitor for the black vote. But they remain confident of winning over the object of their apparent affections.

And here’s where I see some wishful thinking: some voters are saying that even if women don’t come around to supporting Trump, maybe the young men (millennials and younger, as well as Gen X-ers) will make up for it by voting for right-ish candidates. (How many real right-wingers, or even mildly conservative politicians, are on ‘our side’?)

A Washington Post – ABC News Poll prior to the 2016 election showed that among voters, those who opposed Trump’s ‘harsh enforcement policies’ (as they described them), were 75 percent of Hispanics, 79 percent of Democrats, and 57 percent of voters overall. And what about the young voters just champing at the bit to come in and save the day? Two-thirds of them opposed Trump’s policies on immigration.

The only age group that supported Trump’s plans were the over 65 age group.

Trump himself is of that age group.

And that age group is growing fewer in number by the day. I don’t know how many of those people are still alive and thriving; I keep hearing that they are the group most likely to succumb to the pandemic, as the youngest of them are 74 years old. Who will take their place, demographically? Newly-minted voters from the third world? People who entered illegally but who are being made legal by amnesty schemes?

What does this mean for America, or what used to be America? What will the demise of the older age group mean to the political landscape?

How is ”democracy”, falsely so-called going to be affected by our own Grand Remplacement?

By the way, I’ve just read on the Internet that the Grand Remplacement is a ”right-wing conspiracy”. I am trying not to laugh here, but it’s no laughing matter. Someone must inform Canadian PM Trudeau about it; I think he ought to be informed about this conspiracy by Whites to replace Whites.

The election, though, is a serious issue, and I hope it proceeds without any disorder or conflict. How it unfolds will indicate whether we are still a relatively civilized country with rules and standards and order, or whether we are en route to banana-republicdom.

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?

Immigration history visualized

At metrocosm.com you can see an animated graphic of immigration to the U.S., by country of origin. Even if you are familiar with the dramatic changes in immigration to this country in the last century or so, it’s illuminating to see it depicted this way.  (H/T to poster “eah” at Sailer’s blog.) Take a look.

Coincidentally I was recently looking at government statistics on immigration over the latter part of the 20th century, and if you like old-fashioned charts here are a couple of examples, showing the demographic changes in immigration.

I didn’t realize, until I looked at these,  that at some point in the late 20th century, the Philippines became number 3 on the list of countries sending immigrants to the U.S.