Is this effective?

I came across this ”meme” via Tumblr. It was evidently made by a Republican, and the message it’s trying to convey is obvious; it is meant to persuade someone that Republican Party ”cares” about the disenfranchised POCs. The Democrats are “The Real Racists.”

What this “meme” reinforces to the would-be voter is that somehow or other, White people kept them from voting. It reinforces the idea that all Whites oppress POCs, which is exactly what the militant groups say anyway. The Republicans or “conservatives” who use this kind of rhetoric appear to be trying to divert criticism from themselves, lest they be accused of being part of the ”systematic oppression” (of which we read yesterday). It’s a way of proclaiming innocence while pointing the finger at other White folk. We see the selfsame kind of thing with those who say ” my family never owned slaves,’ or ”my family weren’t even here until after the war.” Remember, the War Between the States was generations ago for most people alive today; can all of us account for, say, all sixteen of our great-great grandparents, that many generations ago? I doubt it, so unless it’s provable it won’t convince anybody.

But back to the ‘DR3’ business: do the DR3 people want to become the party of POCs? Do they covet that status? It sure looks that way from the outside. Do they not realize that the GOP would, if ”successful” in their courtship, become responsible for keeping their new members happy and satisfied? Are the DR3 advocates prepared to lobby for that trillion or quadrillion dollars in reparations, or to deliver on it?

As far as Democrats disenfranchising blacks back in the post-abolition days, or during Jim Crow, keep in mind that American Indians, who at least have a longer history here, were not allowed to vote until the 1920s, I think, though many were literate, having had a basic education via Indian schools. Blacks were not the sole ”victims” of disenfranchisement.

And come to that, White former Confederates were subjected to deprivation of the right to vote and bear arms. Many lost all they had in the War, as happened in my family. Whites did not have the protection of the law when attacked, as they and their families were after the War; they had to resort to self-defense though their legal right to do so was ignored. A bit like today.

There were literacy tests for voting after the Reconstruction period, in the last century, and many liberals (including Republican bleeding-hearts) found that terribly oppressive — but is the universal franchise good if the voter is not literate, not conversant with the laws of the land, or if they are being manipulated to vote a certain way? It was the Republicans, yes, the (still)-Radical Republicans after the WBTS that pushed for the vote for freedmen, with the purpose of nullifying the votes of the Whites when they regained the vote.

The history here is more complex than the ”Democrats bad, Republicans good.” The Republicans of the War era, particularly the scallywags and carpetbaggers, were extremists, scoundrels and race-baiters, manipulators who sowed division, thoroughly anti-White. That’s the gist of it; the Republicans of that time are not interchangeable with the Republicans of today — or are they? The political parties of the mid to late 19th century were pretty corrupt and I’d say they are more so today.

I’ve just about given up on trying to correct these upside-down versions of history in which Confederates are now being depicted as ‘literally Hitler’, and everything associated with them is being destroyed. At the same time the media and a lot of maleducated people are trying to make the South into some kind of evil regime, while the Radical Republicans are supposed to have been knights in shining armor.

And that’s at the heart of ‘DR3’, with both deluded parties smearing the South and really, White folk as a group, in an attempt to win the coveted black vote. Good luck with that, DR3 enthusiasts.

Another day, another accusation

So now someone wants to change the name of the Texas Rangers. That is the baseball team. This time the accuser is one Karen (!) Attiah, who is employed by the Washington Post, a paper not known for impartiality.

And Ms Attiah is not really accusing anyone (of what else? Racism, of course); shes just making a bald assertion that the Texas Rangers of legend were guilty. After all, nowadays the accusation is all that’s needed to convict someone. So Ms Attiah, who is from Africa, apparently found some information (sources?) that made the Rangers out to be “cruel” and “racist”, “oppressing black people”. And did she look at other sources which might provide another side to the story? She found what she wanted and probably stopped looking.

It strains credulity to think that MsAttiah and her family never suspected that White people might not have had modern-day Politically Correct attitudes back in the era after the War for Southern Independence. I doubt she was that ingenuous that she never heard of the Rangers having to subdue the very warlike Comanches. That was why and how the White settlers came to Texas. There was a lot of bloodshed. Had the Rangers and the Texas colonists had submissive attitudes like today’s, there would now be no Texas; it would be still a part of Mexico. But then most immigrants don’t learn history. They learn only about how ‘racist’ America is, and how easily most of us ‘take a knee’ when accused or intimidated.

The idea that Texans, after the War, mistreated nonwhites with impunity is just false. Texans, that is, White Texans, were under Occupation during the Reconstruction era, about which I’ve written now and then. Texans, White Texans, were not ‘free’ people really, during that era. Few Americans know anything about that time and the Reconstruction regime. So I don’t expect non-Americans or paper Americans to know about it, though they should.

Just for disclosure’s sake, I am not impartial here either; one of my great-grandfathers was a Ranger in the days of Sul Ross, a name recognizable to most Texans. Sad to say, Sul Ross, a great man, has also been ‘controversial’, being attacked for not having the present-day attitudes demanded of us all.

Incidentally, the black slaves in Texas were mostly concentrated in East Texas. They were not exactly omnipresent in the state. I don’t think my great-grandad had much contact with black slaves nor did many Rangers.

How many more of these scripted denunciations and accusations are there to come? Infinite? It just goes on and on, and the ‘R-word’ is the most overused, worn-out word in the English language. And to think, the word wasn’t widely known until post-WWII, though it was supposedly made up by leftists in the 1930s.

But that word may ultimately bring the demise of our civilization, by death of a thousand cuts, since we seem to be rendered powerless when someone wields that word. It’s the magic weapon; it seems to hit home every time. Guilty.

“And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight:…”

King James Bible, Leviticus, 26:8

Now, it seems to be the reverse; one person, armed with ‘that word’ and that accusation, can put a hundred — or ten thousand — of us to flight. So another name will be made taboo on the strength of one person’s complaint. Again our folk are adjudged guilty. Is there no breaking the pattern?

Who will defend the truth?

Anybody?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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