Let California secede

Somebody named Jared Huffman, apparently a California state representative, claimed to be outraged and ‘shocked’ at the sight of Confederate battle flags at a Veterans Day parade in Petaluma.  Peaceful parade-watchers were displaying the flags.

“It was just so out of place that I had to do a double-take,” said Huffman, who appeared in the parade riding an old WWII-era Jeep with Petaluma resident Steve Countouriotis, a decorated war hero.

Huffman implies that his ‘decorated war hero’ companion was likewise shocked. Now, I don’t know how old this veteran is, but one does not have to be very old to remember when the Confederate Battle Flag was a frequently-seen symbol that did not spark any outrage, faux or genuine. Even Huffman, himself a Gen-Xer born in 1964, is old enough to remember that the flag was not always condemned or shunned, much less banned from public display. If he truly has never seen this alien and ‘shocking’ flag in a public place, he is remarkably unobservant. However no sensible person would believe that the flag was so utterly alien to his eyes or so ‘offensive’ that he had to take a photo of the ‘offenders’ holding the flags and immediately tweet his shock and horror to the world, or at least to whoever follows his Twitter feed.

I’ve been in the Petaluma Veterans’ Day Parade for the past 12 years. I’ve never seen anything remotely like this. pic.twitter.com/oU3iXSPycD

— Jared Huffman (@JaredHuffman) November 12, 2016

Mr. Huffman, 12 years ago that flag was not banned in your state or in most states. And to act as though you’ve never seen anything remotely like it? Please! You must not get out much. California (though maybe not your SWPL corner of California) is a state that received many, many Dust Bowl migrants during the 1930s, and has long had a  population of Southron transplants and their descendants. So no doubt you have seen that flag before and maybe even heard a song called ‘Dixie.’ Did you get the vapors then, or is this something new for you?

You are also old enough to have been taught a different version of American History in school, a version in which the mutual bad blood of the War Between the States was put aside, at least officially. For most of America’s post-WBTS history, Southron heroes like Robert E. Lee and Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson had a place of honor in most history texts — up until the age of darkness which Political Correctness brought. Now, of course, suddenly that flag is anathema — why? Because the NAACP launched a campaign to vilify and discredit that flag, which effort went into high gear in the 1980s and is still rolling on. And because Cultural Marxists have gained complete control of education K-12 as well as ”higher education”, not to mention the biased media which relentlessly accuses all Whites, especially those of the South, of ‘racismbigotryhate’.

The town where this event took place is a town that, according to the data I found, is 80+ percent White, and a minute percentage black — less than 1 percent. So who, precisely, would there be there to be ‘traumatized’ by the sight of the Battle Flag? Mexicans, maybe — they make up 19 or so percent of the town now — but then they can display their Vulture-bedecked flag freely as they march down California streets these days. Free speech, free expression — for some.

Tellingly, the SF Gate article tries to blame Trump for ’emboldening’ the evidoers who had the flags. All about the agenda, the narrative, isn’t it? And all about ‘virtue-signalling’ to your fellow travelling progressives.

 

 

The list of ‘dumb phrases’

James Madison University gave its incoming freshmen a list of 35 ‘dumb things well-intended people say“. The list was based on a book by a Dr. Maura Cullen,  which describes such phrases as things that ‘widen the diversity gap’, and which work against the all-important goal of creating a ‘safe and inclusive environment.’

Some of the ‘dumb things’ which allegedly might make certain protected groups feel ‘threatened’, (as in ‘unsafe’) include phrases like:

“I don’t see color,” “I’m colorblind” and “I don’t see difference. We’re all part of the same race, the human race” were all advised against. “If you are going to live in this country, learn to speak the language” also made the list.”

More of the potentially offending or threatening to feelings of ‘safety’ or included-ness were phrases like the following: ‘Some of my best friends are…’, or ‘What do your people think?’ and ‘You speak the language very well.’

I agree with the stupidity of many of these statements on the list — but for different reasons than those given by the Social Justice Warrior makers of the list.

For years the ‘some of my best friends are... [fill in the blank with some ‘special’ group] phrase has been ridiculed as an example of White, straight liberal hypocrisy — but is it always? Some people actually do have good friends (or at least people they believe to be good friends) from among some ‘protected’ group or other. It’s likely the people who use this phrase are naive or foolish but they are not necessarily being hypocritical or condescending; in many cases they honestly consider such people from various races, ethnicities, or religions their ‘good friends’, and genuinely harbor amicable feelings towards these people. However I would never use that phrasing or make any such attempt to ward off accusations of bigotry or ‘racism’ or whatever-phobia — not because it might offend some delicate feelings but because I know it’s wasted effort to try to appease or protest against the label they are trying to pin on you.  The appeasers should save their breath. Nobody should feel a need to apologize for not having a ‘diverse and inclusive’ list of ”friends”; we are still, in theory, free to associate with people of our choice, without regard to whether they represent some fantasy cross-section of every ethnicity, religion, race, ‘gender’ and sexual predilection known to man.

Another phrase which is condemned: ‘I don’t see race; I’m color blind.’ I also condemn that phrase — but because it is just plain stupid and worse, it panders to the liberal/lefty race denialists. It concedes the left the prerogative to control the terms of the discussion.

Anybody who seriously believes that race does not exist or that it is a ‘social construct’ is in need of help; they are deficient in normal human powers of observation as well as so weak-minded as to believe all the shallow, self-contradictory propaganda out there.  But no matter how  many times the White leftists and their minority mascots sneer at the protestations of the ‘color-blind’ Whites, the Whites never get the message, and can only flail around in response, saying ”the Liberals are the real racists! It’s not fair!

Another condemned statement:  ‘I never owned slaves.’ What’s wrong with that sentence? It is absolutely true for every White person living today, as well as our parents and grandparents and so on for generations back. Why then can’t we say the plain truth? Well, though it’s factually true, I object to people saying it because again, it is playing their game by their rules. It does not matter to them that you or I are not guilty of owning slaves personally, and even less does it matter to the lefty ideologues that no black American today was ever a slave, nor that their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on were not slaves. It.Does.Not.Matter. The idea is to emphasize generational guilt, racial guilt, racial ‘karma’ — because most lefties are New Agers who subscribe to the Hindu/Buddhist idea of karma; you inherit bad karma from your forebears. It is a burden you are born with. You carry racial guilt and karma in your DNA and your skin color is the signifier of your bad karma, your guilt, your ‘karmic debt’ as they put it. There is no escape for you, Whitey; no amount of ‘colorblindness’ and adopting children Of Color or going on missions to Africa can wash you clean of your genetic/karmic guilt. So don’t bother protesting weakly about how you never owned slaves, and that your ancestors were poor people who never owned slaves (unlike those rich Cavalier plantation-owners — collect reparations from their descendants! Not me!) or that your ancestors fought to free the slaves in the Civil War or that your forebears were poor Irishmen who arrived long after the Civil War. It won’t absolve you. We’re all in this together, kinsmen, and we have to learn solidarity.

One more ‘dumb phrase’ is the frequently-used ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin.‘ Many Christians are fond of this one; it sounds virtuous, at least in the liberal sense. After all, what’s more virtuous than being ‘non-judgmental’ towards transgressive people?  Being non-judgmental brands one as more-virtuous-than-thou. And there are still Christians who actually believe this statement is from Christ himself, or that it is in the Bible somewhere. But it is not in the Bible, nor was it said by Jesus Christ, or any of the Apostles.

Why, then, is it used as if it were Scripture? Because Christians/Churchians have absorbed the spirit of the Age, and they don’t know their Bibles as they should. I confess that I said it myself in the past until someone gently reproved me and told me that it wasn’t a Biblical command, and it’s not in the Bible. Further investigation showed that it apparently came from Mohandas Gandhi.

So yes, I object to that phrase being used, as it usually is, to avoid a charge of ‘homophobia’ or some ‘phobia’ or other.  The subject deserves a blog post of its own, but suffice it to say I would like to see that quote avoided by Christians or ‘conservatives’. But the SJWs want it to be stopped because, I am guessing, they think it implies that, say, homosexuality and abortion are sins. They believe those acts to be the ‘right’ of everyone, and they don’t want any moral judgment applied to those people who practice those things. In fact they seem to think such things are positive goods, and that homosexuality is proof of ‘courage‘ on the part of the practitioner. Homosexuals ‘coming out’ in churches — in churches, mind you — have been greeted with applause and standing ovations! Such bravery! So perish the thought that such behaviors are sins, or the doers, sinners. No; they are brave and courageous.

Maybe this wrong-headed list of ‘dumb phrases’ can be turned to some good after all, if the ‘conservatives’ and churchians who are guilty of using those phrases realize that these efforts to appease and to dodge condemnation are just backfiring on them. And maybe they might stop and consider that appeasing never works. They might try honesty and integrity for a change, standing by their convictions rather than trying to protest their innocence of these invented ‘crimes.’

Less freedom for honesty

Increasingly, there is no place left for free expression as in politically incorrect (read: honest) ideas, opinions, or images.

On Vox Day’s blog, a report of one Pinterest user having her board on Nationalism deleted as ‘hate speech.’ The fact that it was labeled ‘hate’ indicates, if there was any doubt, that the nationalism at issue was White people’s nationalism. I sincerely doubt that black nationalism or Jewish nationalism/Zionism would be designated as ‘hate’, and such a board would not be summarily deleted, and the owner warned of possible account suspension.

I requested that my Pinterest account be deleted, though it appears that accounts can’t be deleted at the user’s request, only ‘deactivated.’ You can enter but you can’t fully opt out of the Pinterest world. Just as with google, or, come to think of it, with the sacred American Union.

For some time I’ve thought of deleting my Pinterest boards and account, finding it to be time-consuming and rather pointless. Now, I never had a political board there, really, but I did have items related to controversial history and images of the Confederate Battle Flag, which is now being designated as a ‘hate’ symbol. As wrong as that is, the fact is, the enemies of the flag and of the South and her people are now winning, easily, with very little resistance or pushback from our side. Sad. But other than those images (which I expected would sooner or later be the occasion of complaint from some SJW or ‘aggrieved victim’) my boards were innocuous and non-controversial. Actually my reason for being there was for sheer escapism; the desire to divert my mind from all the disheartening news and the lack of an outlet through which to channel my frustration. I just enjoyed looking at, and pinning, examples of beauty in some form or other, something to counter all the ugliness of this upside-down world we inhabit.

And, as John Keats said, beauty is truth, and truth, beauty. Our current world, this present darkness, has banished both.

Am I caving to the politically correct commissars? You might look at it that way, but why just sit and dread the inevitable? I’d rather depart of my own free will and not wait to get my warning letter or notice of suspension. Better to leave by the front door than to be kicked out. Pinterest just isn’t that important to me.

One of my first exposures to Pinterest was when a pro-White woman spoke of it as a possible venue for sharing pro-White views, as she said she was doing. I now have my doubts as to the value of doing that; it seems the majority of users are either apolitical women (from all countries, by the way) and the rest, people with an obvious ‘social justice’ agenda, people who constantly post multicult ‘diversity’ propaganda. I had to unfollow a number of people who constantly pushed that kind of thing. Pinterest may not be as blatantly leftie/globalist/antiWhite as tumblr, but it is still not friendly to White ethnonationalists, as we are seeing.

I don’t think I will miss Pinterest, but the thing that troubles me is that it is becoming more obvious that by design there are fewer and fewer places online where people may speak freely and honestly. I am surprised that the major blogging platforms still allow free speech at all. Soon we may be reduced to speaking in whispers, in secret, as in the old Communist regimes. And with today’s high-tech surveillance, which spares no one, there really is no private communication between individuals anymore — at least if we are to believe the Snowden revelations.

One last thing: the question that occurred to me was: who owns Pinterest?

‘Dixie’ banned at Ole Miss

‘Ole Miss’ has caved again.

The University of Mississippi’s marching band will no longer play any variation of the song “Dixie” – a tradition some seven decades old at football games and other sporting events.

The University’s Athletic Department confirmed to Mississippi Today on Friday that the song, which was the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, will no longer be played at athletic events.”

The Confederate Battle Flag gone, ‘Colonel Reb’, the school mascot/symbol gone, and now the song ‘Dixie.’ What next? What will be banned next? Because, I assure you, ‘they’, meaning the South-hating SJWs, and Southern-born ‘cucks’, plus Northern transplants who should have stayed in their home states where they needn’t be offended — plus the ever-aggrieved blacks, will not rest. They go from strength to strength because they are unopposed. Why are Mississippians, real Mississippians, so passive in letting this go unchallenged? Are there no people who simply want to defend freedom of expression as a principle, even if they don’t care about the South?

What will be next to fall?

The songs “Dixie,” “Dixie fanfare,” and a pregame arrangement containing themes of “Dixie” will no longer be played by the band, known as the The Pride of the South.”

The Pride of the South? How have they let that name stand all this time? The South is not supposed to have any pride, according to the heritage-destroyers and the rewriters of history. If there is any pride of the South, or pride in the South and what it represents, it must be PC-whipped out of the Southron people.  That seems to be the agenda. And it seems to be right on schedule.

The article notes that the Band Directors chose not to comment on this announcement. I don’t know who they are, but I would guess that they are probably not Southern-born or Southern-bred, just as with the Ole Miss Athletic Director, Ross Bjork. It seems that few Southron people are in positions of influence and authority so that outsiders now determine their future, people with little to no understanding of the Southron people and their unique history and heritage. And that is probably by design. The South is now occupied territory, since 1865.

My late uncle, a rather tough Marine, told of one time, back in the 1990s, when he was on the highway driving home and the song, I Sang Dixie by Dwight Yoakam played over his car radio. It was the first time he heard it, and he told of how he had to pull over until he could dry his eyes. The song is a tearjerker for those of us who understand what ‘Dixie’, the place and the song and the people, mean to us. I had the same reaction to the song when I first heard it, and it still affects me, even more so, considering that soon, singing “Dixie” will be ‘hate speech’. Probably even the name ‘Dixie’ will be forbidden, eventually.

Our forefathers are turning in their graves. That they fought so hard and so bravely, against such odds, only to have their heritage erased bit by bit and their descendants demoralized and alienated from them would be more than they could endure.

.

Conservatism and ideology

Where to begin?  This piece is in response to a lengthy discussion here, and as I can’t usually get a blog comment published on Blogger, and as a blog comment can’t cover the subject, I’ll say my piece here.

Recently I wrote a piece about the necessity of some countervailing force to the ‘progressives’ who are demolishing our country. Especially is this true in our decaying society wherein the Left has been careening out of control, unchecked, so that our society is unrecognizable from what it was even 20 years ago. If those who say that ‘conservatism’ per se is useless and must be destroyed offer no alternative to it as a preserving force in society, what will check the hell-bent-on-change ‘progressives’?

Firstly, the comments I linked above seem mostly to agree that conservatism is useless because it has ‘no ideology’, being based only on ‘feelz’. But is this true? Is it true that conservatism has no ideology? The paleocons (are there still any surviving?) would say conservatism has no ideology, because ideology is opposite from conservatism and vice-versa. I’ve never encountered an old-time conservative who said otherwise. It is only the neocon, present-day Republican faithful who always rattle on about “conservative eye-dee-ology“, insisting that it’s what new immigrants (and black Americans) must adopt to succeed. I’ve had my share of disputes with such typical Republican, neocon, pro-war ‘conservatives’ over this ‘conservative eye-dee-ology’ which is a sine-qua-non. In my experience it’s only those now labeled ‘cuckservatives’ who yammer about ‘conservative ideology‘ and its paramount importance. It is the Cruzbots and the Never Trumpers who are the ones who always go on about the ideology of conservatism. Cruz was their guy because he is a ‘strict Constitutionalist’, a devotee of the Ideology.

As they believe in the ‘proposition nation’ they have to believe in ideology; that’s after all what holds a ‘proposition nation’ together, however tenuously.

An ideology is needed where there is no natural, organic bond and consensus among a people.

By contrast, most paleocons (who, for the uninitated, were the conservatives who are most closely akin to the Alt-Right, being racially aware, noninterventionist, against open borders, and anti-free trade and globalism) disagree.

I’ve said that conservatism is an instinct — a gut instinct, nothing to do with feminine-type feelings, or ‘feelz’, but visceral and bred-in-the-bone. Certain peoples are more conservative by nature, just as some individuals. Some seek change for its own sake, seeming to crave novelty and the exotic, loving risk and danger, while some are innately averse to such things. I believe this because it comports with what I’ve observed in my years of living and working, not because a psychiatrist says it and invents pseudo-scientific labels for it. Needless to say, liberals are often risk-taking types with all the ‘dysfunctions’ that implies. Conservatives are people who prefer order and stability over thrills and unpredictability. And though there are exceptions there is still a general rule. And we as a people (even ”conservatives”) show evidence of the risk-taking, thrill-seeking temperament, compared to our forefathers. (Yes, they took risks and braved dangers beyond the endurance of today’s coddled thrill-seekers, but that’s not the same impulse.)

Conservatism is a temperament. But ideology? It’s a systematic set of beliefs codified by some person or persons, not an organic set of principles that grows amongst a  people based on shared innate tendencies. Some modern dictionaries give more liberal definitions, implying that an ideology is more of a spontaneously-arising group consensus.

The word ideologue, for most people, implies rigid beliefs, dogmatic and doctrinaire tendencies. Notice that leftists by whatever name had purges of their peers who are found guilty of wrong-think, violation of the Sacred Ideology which must not be questioned. ‘Correct’ ideology is a must with leftists. And lately we’ve seen ”conservatives” or cuckservatives doing this as Trump and his supporters have been ‘read out’ of the conservative ‘movement.’ Personally I hate that term ‘the movement’ because I associate it with the radical left. The Sixties left always referred to itself as The Movement.

So the conservatives being condemned in the discussion thread are really liberals or ‘neocons’ in conservative clothing, not people who would have been by any measure considered ‘conservative’ in previous eras. They simply subverted the Republican Party (and that was one of the stated ‘Goals of the Communists’ as reported by Cleon Skousen in his writings) and proceeded to destroy it from within and discredit the very label “conservative” by polluting it with their own un-conservative policies and, yes, “ideology.” The neocons are ideologues par excellence, as are their leftist brothers.

Part of the neocons/cuckservatives ideology is the idea that everybody everywhere is capable of ‘democracy’ and that if we only send our armies in and ‘give’ them democracy, they will be good Jeffersonians in no time. Another tenet is that blacks and all immigrants can be real Americans if they salute the flag, wave the Constitution (like Khizr Khan, that good American) and thus celebrate Conservative Eye-dee-ology.

Obviously, their “conservative ideology” shares the blank slate, magic dirt tenets with leftist-liberals.

One of the better conservative thinkers, Russell Kirk, was adamant that conservatism is not an ideology, though I see that the commenters on the VP thread don’t like Kirk for the most part, lumping him in with today’s  ‘cuckservatives’. But if you read Kirk, which I have, he was very opposed to multiculturalism, globalism and political correctness, and he was racially aware, though in the context of his time. I recommend reading his work if you haven’t already, though he must be read with an open mind, not a mind already made up against him.

Kirk, while not ‘perfect’, perhaps, in the eyes of today’s impatient Alt-Righters, could be seen as a forerunner of Neo-reaction. He was not a ‘neocon’ by most measures.

In the earlier years of this blog, we had some lively discussions among the then-regulars; hard to believe, I know, but true. Many were young, and there was kind of generalized clamor among some of them that ”we need a manifesto.” I disagreed with that sentiment. I find the clamor for an ”ideology of the Alt-Right” to be the same, and while it’s understandable to a degree, I think it’s unnecessary and wrong-headed. There would no doubt be many different opinions as to what would constitute a codified set of Alt-Right principles or beliefs. There would be squabbles, considering that the Alt-Right or Neo-reaction includes some very different groups, groups who do not play well together. There are so many divides, even among American Alt-righters, for example the pro-Confederate Southrons vs. many Northerners who still blame slavery on the South, or consider Southrons ‘traitors’ for seceding. Then factor in religion or lack thereof, the divisions based on sex, ethnic nationalists vs. WNs or pan-Europeanists, Identitarians, and so on. Could such disparate groups with so many inter-group grievances work together and agree on much of anything?

It has to boil down to making survival a priority; what is good for us at this point in history — this very crucial point.In essence, our gut instincts have to take over;  our natural, God-given affinities, not some set of abstract principles. People who put abstractions and disembodied human reason above gut, natural instincts are what I call ideologues.

People won’t naturally sacrifice for abstractions; will not defend abstractions to the last man. Ideas cannot unite people, not for long anyway. Our country worked as long as it did (and yes, it did work, for a good while) because it was founded by a people with a common origin, sharing common ancestors, and a common religion — paraphrasing John Jay.

EU war on free speech

The headline here says ‘Death of Free Speech.’ Exaggeration? Maybe, slightly — but this is not a good sign. It is probably a portent of even harsher measures, in my opinion.

The EU has signed a deal with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft designed to curb the use of hate speech online that has been blasted as “ill considered” by the very people who helped draw it up.

Democracy campaigners have warned that the definition of ‘hate speech’ is so vague the EU could end up with the power to get postings critical of the Brussels project removed from the Internet forever in what constitutes a “frightening path to totalitarianism”.

It seems that opposition to the mass relocation of millions of ”refugees” to Europe is the target of this attempt to stop certain kinds of free speech, or as the EU apparatchiks term it, ”hate speech.” And the paragraph excerpted above is correct in noting that the definition of ”hate” speech is vague. It has always been so; that’s nothing new. The people who invented the concept of ”hate” speech as a form of speech that is not to be given protection under the definition of free speech were careful to keep the definition hazy and fluid. So-called “hate” speech may simply be speech which shines a light on the blatant lies told by the EU oligarchy, or speech which is unflattering or insufficiently deferential to any of the designated ‘victim’ groups, who are given special protection under skewed ‘progressive’ policies.

In Europe, at the moment, it appears that criticizing immigration or ‘refugees’ is one of the most taboo forms of free speech. But if this flood of Third Worlders is the great boon that the powers-that-be pretend it is, why do they have to stifle any criticism of it? Would not its benefits be self-evident? Just as with ”diversity” in general, the powers-that-be have to force us to praise it and coerce us into accepting it.  Doesn’t that fact say it all?

This European blogger provides a lot of detailed information on these new edicts, including a link to a PDF file of the new ‘Code of Conduct.’ His commentary is very helpful.

And how long before similar measures are introduced in our country, with the complicity of our ‘friends’ at FB, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft?

Anti-whites ‘fuel nationalism’

…Specifically White nationalism, which someone named David Marcus thinks is a bad thing, a uniquely undesirable form of nationalism. David Marcus says Whites must not tribalize, like every other group of people on the planet do; we must look at others only as individuals, not as members of a group.

I guess that is to be expected coming from someone named David Marcus; there is a definite pattern of Jews discouraging ethnocentrism or ethnopatriotism on the part of White ‘gentiles’, especially Christians, while claiming the right for their own people to be the most ethnocentric and nepotistic people on planet Earth.

As some of you reading this know to be true, I was a latecomer to acknowledging the Jewish role in what is happening to White countries. Maybe I was just unwilling to touch such a radioactive subject, seeing how anyone who criticizes or even notices patterns among Jews is slapped down as an ”anti-Semite” who is thereby discredited.

But at a certain point I could not avoid noticing the part played by Jews in promoting multiculturalism, and cultural Marxism in all its forms, as well as opposing the influence of Christianity in our society. And it is obvious that Jews have, because of the victim culture, been placed above scrutiny heretofore — which is the ultimate form of political correctness.

The Jewish question aside, it is indefensible to deny Whites the simple right to secure and promote their own ethnic/genetic interests, especially in a world in which everyone else asserts their own tribal/ethnic/racial/religious identities, often in the most militant and aggressive ways. And yet we, and we alone, are carefully monitored and censured if we dare to think of ourselves as a discrete group with ethnic interests of our own, or heaven forbid, to assert our identity.

And it is hardly possible for anyone to deny that the percentage of Whites is fast diminishing in this upside-down world in which the most backward countries are seeing their populations explode, hence the spillover into Europe and North America as well as Australia and New Zealand. Wherever White people live, their relative numbers are shrinking in proportion to the population of the undeveloped nations. White people are a small minority of the total world population, and getting smaller. Yet paradoxically only Whites have been hectored about limiting family size or foregoing having children at all. Mother Earth can’t support more people — at least White people, apparently.

We are under an existential threat. And yet we are being told to think of ourselves only as isolated individuals with no kinship ties, cultural heritage, or history. We are just two-legged, tool-using mammals and that’s all the identity we need.

I would love to see this Marcus write the same piece addressed to the people of Israel and see how well it sells there. Or the diaspora Jewish community; are they willing to give up their group identity in favor of being ‘just individuals’?

And let’s not single out Jews; blacks are extremely ethnocentric. Think of the O.J. Simpson verdict; blacks cheered the verdict because one of their ‘own’ was getting off Scot-free, and they thought that was ‘justice.’ Blacks see everything through the prism of their race. Mexicans are nationalistic/ethnocentric to an extreme degree also; let’s see Mr. Marcus preach ‘individualism’ to Latinos, and warn against the extremists in La Raza or MeCha or any other nationalistic extremist organization.

This passe libertarian idea of ‘just individuals’ is inimical to our survival in today’s tribalistic world. Why should we alone be expected to give up our identity (which we have always had; it is not artificially created) and make ourselves vulnerable to the multitude of aggressive ethnic groups who have been introduced without our consent into our national home, our living space?

Mr. Marcus, like many of the deracinated ”right”, tries to make ”nationalism” a dirty word. “White” nationalism is a doubly-dirty term in the minds of such people because to them Whites are congenitally guilty of something. These same people use terms like ‘White nationalism’ promiscuously and inaccurately. They also conflate WNism with ‘Supremacy’, and that is dishonest or ignorant. Scarcely anyone wants ‘supremacy’ in the sense of ruling over other races. We simply want what all peoples have wanted: a place to be ourselves, amongst our own, in a land that is our homeland, our secure place. And the evil ”14 words” are about nothing more than the right to live unmolested amongst our own ethnic kin, the right to live and to ensure a future for our children, our progeny.

That is, after all, what brought our forefathers to this country. And when they established an independent nation here, they said explicitly that it was for themselves and their progeny. Not for the whole world, and most certainly not for those who were openly hostile or incompatible with this nation’s people, or for anyone who openly worked against the interests of the people of this nation.

Below the title of this blog, you will see the words ‘Ourselves and our posterity.’

From the beginning, this country was about securing the existence of our people and a future for their/our children.

Where is the evil in that? And why should we willingly renounce that?

‘Offensive’ names stricken from federal law

The Hill reports that a bill to removed ‘outdated’ terms referring to blacks and Asians sailed through Congress unopposed.

That’s expected; the people sitting in Congress are, with a rare few exceptions, eunuchs who haven’t enough integrity or guts to oppose anything, if opposing runs counter to the Law of Political Correctness.

According to the ever-changing laws of political correctness, anytime any racial or sexual minority claims to feel ‘offended’ or ‘violated’ or ‘threatened’ by any word or action, the offending word or action or person must be stopped, and in most cases apologies must be offered up at length, lest the charge of ‘racism’ or ‘-phobia’ be laid against the person or thing at issue.

We all remember the old schoolyard rejoinder when someone called us a name: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never harm me.” Oh but names can harm minorities; they traumatize people for life, cripple them emotionally, leave them with scars, in ways that sticks and stones cannot. Or so we are told.

“The term ‘Oriental’ has no place in federal law and at long last this insulting and outdated term will be gone for good,” the author of the bill, Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), said in a statement Friday.

Two sections in the U.S. Code written in the 1970s governing public health and civil rights attempted to define minority groups by using the outdated terms.

Thanks to the new law, references to the term “Oriental” will be replaced with “Asian American” and the word “Negro” will be changed to “African American.”

Mz. Meng says that the term ‘Oriental’ will be gone for good, but it might surprise her to know that the word is still used occasionally, and maybe she should be apprised of this fact so that she isn’t traumatized when she unexpectedly hears it used someday. In a neighboring town, just down the road from where I live, there is a business named “Oriental Grocery.” The business sells food items from various Asian nations, including Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. And the town is a college town, its population very liberal — I suppose that business will eventually have to change its name to satisfy the legions of the perpetually aggrieved. The Asian customers of that store don’t seem to mind the ”offensive” and ”outdated” name, Oriental. I guess the word hasn’t filtered down to ordinary people that Oriental is a taboo and racist word.

And what’s this: aren’t Asians the “model minority”, always mentioned by ‘race-realists’ as co-partners of Whites vs. the ‘NAMs’? Aren’t the NAMs the ones who always complain and make demands, while the docile and amiable Asians are on our team, you know, ‘Whitesandasians’? I guess Congressperson Meng has not heard that.

Some internet commenter on this story asks ‘when did Oriental become a taboo name?’ Apparently after the Civil Rights coup, when blacks demanded, first, to be called ‘colored’ and then ‘black’ and later, ‘African-American.’ I remember when I was in college towards the end of the 70s and a Japanese-American (Nisei) professor of mine told us that the word ‘Oriental’ was offensive and must not be used in his class, nor was the abbreviation ‘Jap’ to be uttered or written. We all obediently complied, no questions asked. Because Hiroshima, because Internment camps. Victimhood trumps all.

So yes, the word Oriental has long since been banished though the news hasn’t filtered down to all. But why? Oriental, in old books, was used to describe not just East Asians like Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans, but anyone who came from East of the Mediterranean Sea. Literally. Middle Easterners were called Orientals. Even Eastern European Jews, during the days of the Ellis Island influx, were called Orientals by the German Jews who had arrived in this country much earlier. Oriental just designates a direction.

Offense is in the eye or ear of the beholder. And that’s what’s wrong with a lot of these language-purging edicts: someone, somewhere, declares that they are ‘offended’ by a certain word and on the strength of a few complaints, in a country of 310 million plus, that word is forbidden and its user called a ‘bigot’ or a ‘hater’ or a ‘racist’.

Minorities of whatever sort claim that they cannot be ‘racists’ or bigots because to be a racist necessitates the possession of power, and they claim to be powerless. ‘Racism is prejudice+power’, so the PC commissars have declared. But if being able to complain and get words banned, or have people fired from their jobs and banished to the outer darkness is not ‘power’, I would like to know what is. If having the whole of society cater to you for fear of being denounced is not power, I’d like to know what power may be.

Having that kind of power, and yet mewling about how one is oppressed and helpless and wronged and victimized at every turn is worse than disingenuous; at best it’s play-acting. At worst it’s deception and manipulation. And on it goes, where it stops, nobody knows. Obviously it won’t stop as long as it profits some people in some way, and not just in a monetary way.

As for the word ‘negro’, doesn’t anyone remember how the now-sainted MLK used to use that word in reference to his race in his speeches and writings? Obviously the young don’t know that; they know only what they are spoon-fed in school. They appear not to know that the term ”African-American” was not even used until the mid-70s at least. The term ‘Afro-American’ was introduced, didn’t catch on, and later the seven-syllable and much more pompous-sounding ‘African-American’ was chosen as the correct term.

And just as with the innocuous ‘Oriental’, the word ‘negro’ is a simple designation, meaning ‘black’ in Latin. How is that anything other than just descriptive?

Trouble is, words and names acquire connotations and associations. For example if my surname is one that some heroic person shares, my name gains a certain prestige. If, on the other hand, I have relatives of the same surname who get their names on the police blotter every week, my name’s prestige is damaged. People make a ‘name’ for themselves in a good sense — or not. As people make the place, people can ‘make’ a name, for better or worse. And once that name or brand has been tarnished — maybe a name change is the thing to do. But though people can change a place or tarnish a once-good name, a name can’t change the person who bears it.

Creating ourselves?

Most of you have probably come across this video showing college students giving their views on identity. The students in the video are obviously extremely deluded about the nature of identity. I know that many millennials have been spoon-fed this idea that we are all in the business of ‘creating ourselves’, and that there are absolutely no limitations on who or what we might become if we decide that is what we want to be.

The man who, like Bruce Jenner, believes he is a woman (or simply pretends to believe it) is entitled to be treated as a woman, no matter how grotesque the masquerade may be; any refusal by others to go along with his self-delusion is now practically a “hate crime”, if it is not already so in some places. There are those on the right (usually the libertarians) who insist that the social issues don’t matter; worrying about restrooms or ‘trans-genderism’ is just driving potential allies or converts away. No; it all matters. It goes to very basic issues about reality. How can anyone claim to be sane and sensible if they are willing to humor delusional people who imagine they are something they are not? What does it do to our society and to our consciences and our sanity if we do?

We’ve all seen the ‘slippery slope’ in action over the last several decades. Most people did not react much when the left began their socio-sexual revolution a few decades ago. Nobody thought it was so bad when we began to be more ”accepting” of homosexuality; after all, if it was between consenting adults, behind closed doors, who are we to judge? And so on. Now there is open advocacy for pedophilia, and those closed doors behind which people’s sexuality was to have stayed are now wide open. Now we have ‘gay pride’ parades on public streets, flaunting what until recently was considered shocking and obscene. Sexuality is no longer private; the younger generations in particular see nothing wrong with public sexuality, nor do they even think of anything much as obscene — judging by what one sees on Tumblr.

So now we have this public official telling us that states can’t legislate identity, as she put it. If a man insists he is a woman, he is a woman, although isn’t this ”legislating identity”? Of course it is. And more than that, it is declaring that a falsehood is true, because the almighty State (federal government) says it is true. Never mind the man’s Y chromosome; the State is the arbiter of identity, not Nature, not DNA, not chromosomes, and above all, not our Creator-God.

I’ve mentioned before this odd phenomenon of young people declaring themselves to be ‘gender-fluid’, and what’s even more bizarre, this notion of Otherkins, or people who insist they are something other than human, or perhaps an inanimate object. Some may dismiss this as a kind of freakish phenomenon (which it is) which will be a brief fad (it may not). Considering the other forms of identity-insanity which are now accepted, at least by the young and the delusional Left, we can’t rule out anything as a potential new popular form of madness.

It might not be so unsettling if all this did not have the force of government behind it, telling us that we must be complicit in pretending all this craziness is legitimate, and true — just because the individual in question declares it so. Is Truth that elastic and that subjective?

We know that the postmodern influence has brought about this notion that there is no such thing as objective truth, only competing ”narratives.” My ”narrative” is true for me, and you cannot tell me that it is not. The interviewer in the video could not get the interviewees to deny him his ‘right’ to think he is a tall Asian woman, not a short White man.

Apparently the federal government agrees, and will compel us all to pretend along with the deranged people who think they are inanimate objects, or housecats — or ‘transgender.’

I wonder,though, if this Ms. Lynch would agree with some ‘transracial’ White who, like many young White people, wants to be black? Would, say, Elizabeth Warren, the pretend ‘Native American’ politician be declared legally an Indian simply because she wants to be one, or has delusions that she is? If leftist were logical (and they’re not) then people could assign themselves a race. I think that lots of liberals would decide they are black or Native American. Anime and manga fans might decide they are Japanese. Being White is not very desirable for a lot of mind-conditioned White Americans. Maybe this is why a surprisingly large number of White Americans claim they have ‘Cherokee’ ancestry, even absent any proof. I went to grad school with such a woman, who looked 100 percent European by ancestry, but whose family had an ‘oral tradition’ of some Cherokee blood. She made a pilgrimage to visit the Cherokee tribal headquarters in search of proof of her ancestry — which she never found, but she refused to give up her story of Native American blood. White people often cherish that; why? Why do people identify themselves by a small part of their ancestry which is very diluted — say 1/16th or 1/32? Isn’t that yet another form of delusional wishful thinking? Why not identify with the other 15/16th of your ancestry? Anyone know the answer to that one?

We are what we are born; we don’t ”create ourselves”. We can’t be another ethnicity or race than what we are; genetics are a given. So-called transgenders can’t change their x or y chromosome, no matter how many surgical mutilations they undergo. White women can’t become Native American. Nor can they become black.

Those of us who are Christians should remind ourselves that we can’t be party to a lie, or give assent (or pretend to give assent) to a lie. Those who ‘love and make a lie’ will not enter the Kingdom. The Truth matters. We can’t be complicit in this web of lies.

Before the month is over..

2016-04-19_072712

Before saying goodbye to Confederate History Month, I just wanted to add another post to remind my Southron readers of the need to remember and honor our heritage and our forefathers and kinsmen who were part of that tragic part of our history.

It’s easy to begin to think of our forebears in an abstract way, not thinking of them as distinct individuals with real stories, as flesh-and-blood people, our own kin.

So I personally like to remember my Confederate kinsmen by name and place, and by what I do know of their part in the War. I’ve done this in the past on the old blog, and so I will do the same once again.

Here are the kinsmen whose names and memory I would like to honor. This is by no means a complete list.

Benjamin Farrar Eddins
He was commanding officer of Co. F, 41st Alabama, captured at Murfreesboro, TN, and held prisoner of war until exchanged. He participated in the battle of Chickamauga. He left service to care for his family, but raised a unit to defend the city of Tuscaloosa in the last days of the war. During Coxton’s Raid,which resulted in the burning of the University of Alabama, he was mortally wounded on April 3, and died seven days later.

Zadoc Mitchell Holloway
Killed at Shiloh

Marion Lafayette Nobles
Co. K; 1 (Colquitt’s) Ark. Inf.; Pvt/Sgt
died 22 Jul 1864 – place unknown

Milton Franklin Nobles (Capt.)
Civil War Service in Company K; 1st Arkansas Infantry Regiment; CSA:

Leonard Valentine Nobles
Enl 14 Feb 1862 at Dewitt, AR. Captured 1 Sep 1864 near Jonesboro, GA and exchanged 19-22 Sep 1864 at Rough & Ready, GA. Paroled 28 May 1865 at Greensboro, NC as a member of the 1st AR Consolidated Inf.

William M. Aten
Served in the Confederate Army: 18th Regiment Louisiana Infantry C.S.A.,   Lafayette Parish LA

John Henry Mitchell II
Co. I, Martins Reg. Texas Cavalry, CSA Military Service 1861 Texas

Lewis Summerfield Scruggs

15th MS Infantry, promoted to Captain, Co. B, 17th MS Infantry,
Major, Featherstone Brigade, Army of Northern Virginia

Joseph Howell ‘Jobe’ Scruggs
Served Virginia Enlisted C Co. 44th Inf Reg. VA discharged on December 18, 1861

Samuel Gross Scruggs
Company B, Forty-fifth Tennessee Confederate Infantry

John Allen Barksdale
Died in battle in the CSA, Spottsylvania, VA, 8 Apr 1864

Miles A. Dillard, Lt. Col. – 9th Texas Infantry (Maxey’s)

Henry Lawson Wyatt, first Confederate soldier to be killed in battle

(Note: there is a monument featuring Henry Lawson Wyatt; will it be allowed to stand or pulled down by the PC thought police?)

Colonel James Read Branch – led ”Branch’s Battery” which was called one of the most effective artillery companies in the Army of Northern Virginia, General Ransom’s Division. Colonel Branch (then Captain Branch) was credited with heroic action in the Battle of Malvern Hill, when he, singlehandedly, with his two guns held twenty-four Union Army guns in check for an hour.
Later, in another battle he was severely wounded and his leg broken in three places,which left him permanently disabled.