The magic word

I missed this piece when it first appeared. Merriam-Webster Dictionary kowtows to one nonwhite person who thought it her ‘right’ to dictate a more ”correct” definition of that nebulous, all-purpose term, ‘racism.”

Coincidentally I was just working on a piece about that very thing. However I and the lone female who rewrote the Merriam-Webster definition see it very differently.

It must be nice, by the way, to be able to just e-mail the sycophants at M-W and tell them to rewrite the definition to order, tout de suite. And it worked, for her.

What exactly does ‘‘racism” mean? The woman who complained by e-mail, and succeeded in bringing the M-W people to their knees, says it’s ‘systematic.” In other words it’s all coordinated, pervasive, and planned by Whites. Nothing can be systematic if it is a random thing, depending on individual feelings or behaviors.

“I basically told them they need to include that there is systematic oppression on people. It’s not just ‘I don’t like someone,’ it’s a system of oppression for a certain group of people,” Mitchum explained.

The very fact that this woman can simply call Merriam-Webster and be catered to is proof that there is no ‘systematic oppression.’ The systematic oppression is in the other direction: POCs have learned — well, they’ve known it for decades, really — that their wish is our command. All they have to do is call some individual or some institution or business ”racist” and voila, they get their demands.

This is how the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton et al enriched themselves – by means of systematically putting us on the defensive, and inculcating us with a sense of guilt. And words were the most common weapons used against us. This is how Whites end up genuflecting and kneeling at the command of thugs who intimidate them and issue commands.

Most of our folk seem to be scared spitless of the ‘oppressed’ POCs and their magic word, which they have used — systematically — to effectively silence us.

This woman is projecting, as do leftists of all colors, but she and her folk have profited the most from successfully projecting their insidious and systematic manipulation onto us, making us believe we are the guilty ones.

Sooner or later we have to get off this merry-go-round. No matter what is done to appease and mollify these people, their demands only grow. There will never be any kind of agreement or reconciliation. Why would they want that? They surmise that we are weak and frightened by mere words (as well as by physical threats and systematic aggression) which most of us have experienced.

The people who grew up under the present racial caste system don’t know any other reality. They seem to have no desire to reject the current order of things. Those most mind-conditioned are the youngest, and yet even some middle-aged adults are thoroughly resigned to the order of things — which is in fact ‘systematically’ anti-White.

The submissive mindset of Whites in general is becoming more firmly entrenched. How can this unworkable situation continue?

I think Thomas Jefferson was right. Either it will end with us being absorbed into the other peoples who now live on this continent (most of whom resent us at the very least, and they make it known), or there will be conflict, for which we seem to have no will, even verbal conflict.

After all, they have the Magic word at their disposal, while we’ve been disarmed psychologically.

Whatever “systematic oppression” we, or our ancestors of centuries ago were supposed to be guilty of, we are not forcing anyone to stay in this country if they find it so oppressive. But oddly their obvious preference is to stay and continue accusing, condemning, and assigning unearned guilt to us. It pays for them. They have ‘black privilege’ to issue demands and commands and then there’s affirmative action, jobs which don’t require competence, admission to once-elite colleges, and just general deference from weakling White folk who don’t want to be called That Name.

DR3, CivNats — two useless ideas

Louie Gohmert, GOP Congressman “representing” Texas, has moved to ban Democrats from Congress because of their history of ‘racism and hatred.’

At the Amerika blog, Brett Stevens sums up why the Republican fondness for the this DR3 ploy is not helpful.

“Dummy mainstream conservatives think that this is a good idea. Saner people realize that DR3 is always a trap. He has just endorsed far-Left ideas as conservative.”

As it happens I was just reading a thread at Free Republic where the original poster found a quote from Joe Biden that the O.P. thought was proof positive that Biden was a racist and should be exposed as such. One or two posters argued against the DR3 approach but could not get their point across to the original poster, who was champing at the bit to let people know what a horrible racist Biden is (or was, based on an old TV interview).

How does one get across to these people that it’s a useless strategy trying to discredit Democrats or leftists by pulling out the tattered race card? Nobody really believes the Democrats “care” about blacks, or minorities generally, even if they are certified “victims” according to the rules of Political Correctness. Everyone knows on some level that it’s all a cynical play for votes and support, but blacks’ votes are almost always guaranteed to go to Democrats. And no, it’s not that Democrats are ”keeping black on the Plantation” as the DR3 types say; they willingly choose to vote Democrat; they perceive, rightly or not, that that party best serves their interests. Who are we to argue with them? Blacks usually don’t share the philosophy or predilections of most people on the right. Trump is actively wooing the black vote and boasts of having a lot of support from blacks but I think he is overly optimistic or wanting to shore up his support among the CivNat segment who worry and fret about blacks being “neglected” by both parties.

There are still a great many conservatives who have now, after years of heavy ‘propaganda, come to believe that this nation was always destined to be a sort of rescue operation to save the world’s ‘tired and poor, huddled masses,‘, etc, and so therefore America must be multicultural and diverse.

In effect the social philosophies of the right are coming to resemble those of the left, and it seems that Republicans feel it is their duty to police people for ‘racism’ even though the left usually assumes that role. But what with the numbers of Republicans and their quest for Conservative blacks to display as examples, somehow I don’t think that lack of attention to black people or other ‘protected groups’ is the problem.

Compulsory activism

The following story, by William A Jacobson, out of Cornell University is an example of something I wrote about immediately after the early BLM ‘activism’ Remember the people who were forced by ‘activists’ to kneel or genuflect, or to repeat some shibboleth? I wrote that I thought we would be entering a new phase of this conflict, in which, in order to prove our obedience or ‘loyalty’ to the regime, we would not be allowed merely ‘lip service’ but would have to actively participate in ‘actions.’

I referenced the Book of Daniel, where compulsory worship of the golden image was decreed. Everyone was required to fall down and worship the idol at the sound of the musical cue. It looks like Cornell University is following that example. It seems it isn’t enough to indoctrinate gullible college students into an all-encompassing Leftist, antiwhite worldview. No; they have to actively participate, participating in some kind of action.

This is what I said; it may eventually required of all of us. It has happened in various totalitarian systems. One had to prove one’s loyalty and commitment or be suspected of disloyalty or heresy. I suppose this is a way of weeding out those who are the undesirables.

I encounter young people online who ask how they can ‘help’ the Cause, how they can contribute money from their countries (in Europe, Australia, etc.). The young people are being conditioned to look at this movement as heroic or as a ‘freedom’ movement. Those in other countries have little clue as to what goes on in this country, and it seems that even many of our home-grown young have little idea of reality. If you have college-age children be aware of these things, and of the mental conditioning that they are experiencing.

And it is not just limited to the students and young people. It affects anybody who watches the ‘news’ media or takes in toxic pop culture.

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

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

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

Sad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

A little list

A commenter on Free Republic posted a list of companies and corporations supporting (promoting?) the revolution/insurrection/intifada or whatever it is. Some of the names are the usual suspects, some are more unexpected. But it’s something we should be aware of.

I was surprised to see Chick-fil-A on the list but then they’ve been veering into political correctness for a while.

The list is here.

Why the strange behavior?

During these recent troubled days, we are witnessing a lot of strange behaviors on the part of White people: the obvious acts of submission, the groveling, apologizing, and let’s call it what it is: genuflecting.

It’s pathetic and at the same time repugnant; this is not the way Americans were, in the days before we were persuaded that we’d earned a huge burden of guilt. It seems many people seem to have changed almost overnight.

Bruce Charlton provides an explanation for the sudden change. It makes sense to me, though who can say what will follow. Read Dr. Charlton’s piece at the link.

Enough evidence?

Al Fin’s post here cites some evidence in the form of a leaked dossier out of China, suggesting that the Covid virus did originate in a Chinese lab, and if the information is true, that it was engineered for certain qualities:

“To examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs, we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein — from the RsSHCO14-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats — in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone,” the study states.

One of Dr Shi’s co-authors on that paper, Professor Ralph Baric from North Carolina University, said in an interview with Science Daily at the time: “This virus is highly pathogenic and treatments developed against the original SARS virus in 2002 and the ZMapp drugs used to fight ebola fail to neutralise and control this particular virus.”

Read the whole post. I realize that this claim might be greeted with more skepticism on the part of those who have their minds made up in advance — people, sadly, tend to believe what they wish to believe. But I keep wondering why so many people are reluctant to assume anything but benign or neutral motives on the part of those involved in this. To me it seems just the latest manifestation of Political Correctness on the part of the “just an unfortunate accident” faction. How many coincidences can a reasonable person accept? Infinite numbers? Somewhere there has to be a possibility of intent on the part of somebody. Or?

On some blog where the respectable ‘conservatives’ gather somebody tsk-tsked about the suggestion of a deliberate creation of the virus. The plea they made was that ”remember, it’s just the government, not the people.” It’s very much like the favorite Churchian saying ‘love the sinner, hate the sin.” Which is nowhere in the Bible, but it’s the respectable thing to say, so that no human being can be held accountable for anything. Stuff just happens, without any human intent or moral agency on the part of anyone. Very handy, then we can be safely resigned and passive because no one is to blame.

Meantime it seems a lot of people are in favor of everybody hiding from the lurking virus which is waiting to pounce on us as soon as we open our doors, while some are visibly chafing under the restrictions on our movements as well as the bans on religious events, etc. Who’s keeping watch over our jeopardized liberties?

The last taboo?

I was somewhat surprised to find at the Faith and Heritage blog a piece by David Carlton which dares to bring up the issue of the genetic origins of modern-day Jews. This question is one which seems to be deliberately avoided, not confronted. Why?

A recent genetic study reported in the mainstream media indicates that the Biblical Canaanites were apparently the ancestors of today’s Lebanese. But why are the media, as well as mainstream Christians, and even the so-called ”right-wing extremists”, who are not normally afraid to ‘name the Jew’ wary of raising the question of the origins of today’s Jews?  I raised this question before, and it apparently was of no interest to my readers.

I say I was surprised to find a Kinist raising the question of Jewish origins, because on the Faith and Heritage blog, I’ve seen unfavorable comments from readers about ‘CI’ or ‘Christian Identity’; the CI believers seem to be counted as ‘deplorables’ by some Kinists as well as by ‘mainstream’ or Judeo-Christians. And the kinists the are deplored by the politically correct Christians, as the blog article tells us.

The writer of the blog piece says in a footnote:

“The topic of Jewish genetics and descent is a fascinating one. Several different proposals exist for the origin of the Jewish ethnicity. Regardless of one’s opinion on the subject (and my mind is not yet made up), this doesn’t change the fact that Jews have no special status or covenant with God apart from faith in Christ.”

Yet I don’t see that the question of Jewish genetics is still up in the air. I know of no study that definitely establishes Jews as descendants of Biblical Israel.  The Infogalatic article seems only to cloud the issue further. However I’ve read widely on this subject off and on for some years, and I fail to see why scientists can trace the Lebanese to their Canaanite ancestry but we can’t find out who the Jews are with any certitude. Many studies have shown mixed origins for today’s Jews, and Biblically, Israel (all the tribes, not just Judah, that is, ‘Jews’) were not to mix with other peoples,  but to preserve their bloodline. So how can a mixed people be any more legitimately Israel than say, the mixed Samaritans, who were the pariahs in Jesus’ lifetime?

I don’t see why this study, from reputable Johns Hopkins, generated so very little discussion, or why so many have glibly dismissed it if they addressed it at all.

This website treats the study’s findings as accurate, stating that, according to the study’s author, the Jews are descendants, mostly, of the Khazars. Yet he concludes that Abraham’s descendants, wherever they may be, are not relevant, and that there is only ‘spiritual Israel’ now. Yet that does not line up with what the Bible has to say about the scattered ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ being found in due time.

What we are left with, as far as the origins of the Jews, is strictly their word that they are the Israel of the Bible. How do they know this? Word of mouth, through generations? Remember that the Gypsies claimed for centuries (until genetic testing was possible) that they were of Egyptian origin. Now we know they originated in the Indian subcontinent, far from Egypt.

Many Americans maintain stubbornly that they are of American Indian blood, and have told their children for generations that they are of Indian blood — and often were sorely disappointed when DNA testing showed all European blood.

‘Oral traditions’ are not very reliable, in many cases, especially where very long time spans are involved. That’s simple common sense.

Few if any people can account for their ancestry back thousands of years. Yet we accept that Jews somehow know with certainty who their ancestors were. And the fact that Jews do in fact claim to be the people of the Bible, God’s chosen, insulates them from any challenges or criticism, especially with Christians of today. We are not to doubt, much less criticize them because they are God’s people, the people of the Bible. But how can we know that? Don’t ask questions; they’re God’s chosen –and they are at the pinnacle of the pyramid of victimhood.

In the absence of real proof, and with much evidence to the contrary, why do we automatically accept, if only tacitly, claims like this? Should not the onus be on them to supply some evidence of their claim?

Why is the Johns Hopkins study ignored or scoffed at? I can only guess it’s for political reasons; most people don’t want to touch it. And who profits by this discreet turning of blind eyes?

To return to David Carlton’s piece, he mentions a John Weaver, of Freedom Ministries, and though I hadn’t heard of him previously it sounds like he has a great deal more sense and honesty in him than many of today’s Christian teachers, who just seek to ‘tickle people’s ears’ or speak smooth words. I plan to listen to Weaver’s podcasts or read what he has written.

And speaking of Christian teachers and preachers, the late Wesley Swift would be considered a religious ‘deplorable’ by most of today’s timid Christians and churchian SJWs.  Yet his sermons and talks, most of them from the 1950s and 60s, accurately foresaw what is going on in our world in 2017. It is uncanny to read or hear his words and note how relevant and current they are half a century or more later. Say what you will about him, but he seemed to know what was coming.

Many of today’s Christians prefer to forget, if they even know, that our forefathers had views much closer to Wesley Swift’s (or probably John Weaver’s) than to today’s politically correct eunuchs. Most of our forefathers were ‘deplorables’ by today’s standards, backward, extremist, bigoted. So today’s wisdom says.

And so we go on, intimidated into avoiding the taboos.

 

 

 

‘Rating’ ethnic groups

About a hundred years ago, a sociologist did a study of ten ethnic groups in America and rated their ‘relative social worth.’ This was during one of the peak periods of immigration, and nativist tendencies were very much alive then, despite the already-ongoing efforts to promote the ‘melting pot’ and the ‘all one happy family’ sentiment.

Today such a study would be unlikely to be done, unless it was commissioned specifically to paint immigrants in the most favorable light and to convince any skeptics out there to get with the program and celebrate diversity. After all, Latinos are hard workers with good family values, just doing the jobs that you lazy White folks won’t do.

As to the study, done by H. B. Woolston, the ratings of ten ethnic groups went as follows:

  1. Native-born White Americans
  2. Germans
  3. English
  4. “Polish and Russian Hebrews”
  5. Scandinavians
  6. Irish
  7. French-Canadians
  8. Austrian Slavs
  9. South Italians
  10. Negroes

The term “Polish and Russian Hebrews” is the language used in the study.

The sociologist who did this study notes the results with some dismay, remarking that there was, to use today’s lingo not enough ‘diversity’, a “lack of Negroes, Slavs, or Latins” among the study’s observers, so there may have been some ‘Anglo-Saxon prejudice’ at work there, according to the author.  Obviously Woolston was a relativist who thought that applying our standards measured only conformity to our standards of excellence. But wouldn’t the ‘Hebrews’ who rated #4 also have suffered from being judged by alien ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or Teutonic standards?

Obviously those who succeeded in our society were likely to be those from cultures closest to us, and their cultures would be similar because we are genetically similar. The top three ethnicities are more closely related, after all.

Can a study like this be truly objective? Everybody brings some degree of bias to making assessments like this; I’ve noted with some impatience that most White Americans have ‘favorite minorities’ for whom they plead, arguing that this or that group ‘make good Americans’, or ‘they are hard workers’, or in the case of East Asians, the argument is always that ‘they have high IQs and are not crime-prone’.

And then of course there is the more natural bias towards believing our own ethnicity to be preferable to all others, or to have accomplished more, or whatever. Some peoples have pride, apparently,  in claiming victimhood, recognizing the value and the power of victimhood in our ‘oppressor-vs.-victim’ hierarchy.

A study like this one, judging “relative social worth” of various immigrant groups is just too politically incorrect, and even apart from the open-borders, ‘we’re all one race, the human race’ crowd, many people on the right would be irate if their particular ethnic group (or groups) were not at the top of the list.

On a side note, I was reading a thread at Steve Sailer’s blog about ethnic cleansing or ‘White flight’, and someone mentioned the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Whites from Vancouver, B.C., while someone countered that Whites weren’t fleeing their Chinese replacements in Vancouver; after all nobody fears the Chinese because they are not a danger. I would disagree with that. Regardless of whether a group of people is a direct physical threat, the fact that they have a drastically different way of life, and that they change your familiar hometown surroundings beyond recognition, is significant. Nobody, at least nobody with normal feelings, wants to live in a neighborhood where an utterly foreign language is spoken, and people have different customs, habits, and etiquette. I don’t think the most ardent xenophiliac would want to be the ‘only White’ left in his former neighborhood.

As to the Chinese and other Asians having low-crime culture, well, there is crime, and there is crime. They may not be prone to violence (however,  see the story of the Wah Mee Social Club), and then there are Asians, and Asians. East Asians, or Northeast Asians, are not the same as South Asians or Southeast Asians, or West Asians. We too often think of the model minority in connection with all Asians, though the stereotype was based on the behavior of Japanese-Americans specifically.

Returning to the list of ethnic rankings, we might think that the America of 100 years ago was lucky in that most of the immigrants of that day were European at least, but the increasingly diverse European immigrants were getting us accustomed to more exotic cultures and peoples. I am convinced that it was always the plan to open the country to people from every continent and people; they just ‘warmed up’ with European groups, and actually by the turn of the 20th century there were waves of Asian immigration, especially to the West Coast. I think the idea was to do all this by degrees, gradually conditioning us to the idea that America was a place where anybody and everybody seeking ‘Freedom’ or a ‘better life’ could rightfully come.

Now, ‘relative social worth’ seems to have been thrown out the window, and the more dysfunctional and divergent from our culture a group is, the more they seem to be sought out by those who make policy for our country.