Digging up skeletons

I see that somebody (undoubtedly one of those ‘DR3’ zealots) has dug up something indicating that some of Biden’s ancestors were slaveholders. I saw this story on a “conservative” blog.

Does this mean that from now on the DR3 so-called conservatives are going to pore over genealogy sources looking for evidence that Democrats had naughty slave-holding ancestors, to ensure that they can disqualify such people from office-holding?

Honestly, is this a good precedent to set, for any ”conservatives” to follow, to emulate? Is it?

We had to watch, helplessly, while a lot of vandals tore down statuary, defacing them with ugly graffiti, and smashing them? The left wants to deface and destroy even the images of our heroes, especially those who participated in the ‘peculiar institution’. Now that ”conservatives” have decided that they want to follow the footsteps of the left and destroy those who trespass against the PC gods it looks as though they are joining forces by targeting some of the same people for destruction.

And do we now believe that the descendants of someone guilty of a PC transgression are to be held responsible, and made to bear blame for it? How can today’s people be blamed for what happened generations ago?

Maybe we should investigate every office-seekers’ ancestry to see what we can find. It’s an old cliche that everybody has a few horse thieves in their family tree. Do horse thieves count? I suppose the ultimate crime nowadays is being ‘racist’ or one’s ancestors owning slaves. If today’s rules and standards prevailed back then, we would never have had many of our best Presidents and other leaders, who are now condemned for practices that were not illegal or necessarily immoral then. But it seems we can retroactively criminalize people, because the issue at the center of it is now the most heinous and evil of crimes. So they say.

Those people who are always trying to point a finger at someone’s hidden ‘racist’ ancestry are as bad — no, worse, because they should know better — worse than the rabid left who are always creating a hue and cry, pursuing the ”real racists.”

We don’t need two political parties who police everybody for PC offenses. Antiracism is not a valid religion, yet both parties seem under that delusion.

If someone in public life has a hidden record of illegal or criminal habits, by all means, we need to know that and such people should not hold office. But this business of character assassination based on people having slaveholders in their family tree is just wrong; worse, it invites more such behavior on the part of the right, who used to be more principled (once upon a time) than the moral derelicts on the other side.

Is there an answer?

I see the vandal mobs have pulled down the George Washington statue in Portland, Oregon. We all knew they would eventually come after all the great men and all the symbols of historical (true) America. Washington would not be spared just because he had no connection to the Confederacy. He was a Southron as well, a fact which is often forgotten, because he was the first President of the United States.

The phrase ‘Genocidal Colonist’ was spray-painted on the statue.

If we didn’t already know how deeply and hopelessly ignorant these destroying thugs are, this phrase ‘genocidal colonists’ shows it. I may be alone in this opinion, I usually am, but when and how did the word ‘genocide’ become so wrongly used?

The word ‘genocide’ derives from the words ‘genos’, meaning race or kindred group, plus the suffix ‘-cide‘, meaning killing or extinction.

The fact that some Amerindians were killed by European colonists — usually in self-defense — does not constitute “genocide” which usually implies root-and-branch destruction of a people or race.

And incidentally, how many Europeans were killed by Amerindians? We probably don’t know the exact count. But many were killed, and how do we not know that a ”genocide” was not intended against them? And they were often killed with a ferocity that was not equaled by the European colonists, who rarely practiced torture as did the Amerindian tribes. Even the so-called ‘Civilized Tribes’ did so; their title as ‘civilized’ referred to their political system, which they claim influenced the Founding Fathers’ model for our system.

The Christian settlers and colonists tried to coexist and form alliances or friendly trading relationships. The English had their families here; they preferred to try to get along. To accuse them of wanting to wipe out peoples wholesale is just wrong. It’s a libel against our folk.

History notwithstanding (and few seem to care about history today) it is just incorrect for us to use the word ‘genocide’ except in cases where a whole people are wiped out intentionally.

Genocide does not mean people are being treated badly or unfairly (as European-descended people are); our foes have made it clear that we should be eliminated. Numerous statements by many ‘white’ leaders as well as Others have made that clear. We are always being accused of being paranoid ”conspiracy theorists” — as if history is not rife with conspiracies and various plots. Do the globalist media masters think that they have dumbed us down to such a low level that we think conspiracies never happen, even in a world full of duplicitous people looking to obtain power and control?

We are undoubtedly in distress and under siege. That is not a figment of anyone’s imagination.

The mob shouting that they are victims of ‘genocide’ is absurd. The suffix of the word (-cide) indicates death and demise; in this case, elimination. It’s a gross exaggeration of the situation. If there were a real ‘genocide’, that is, a wiping-out of a people, would they be here to protest their own demise? The fact is the population of A-As is not declining but slowly growing. That would not be the case if there were a ‘genocide’.

Amerindian tribes experienced a 26.7% population growth between the years 2000 and 2010 — a faster population growth than the country as a whole. Not a genocide to be found there.

Language is important. Words matter.

I remember some years ago a pro-White writer raised a mild objection to this misuse of the word ‘genocide’, remarking on how many pro-White people were using it to describe our situation, wherein we’re diminishing, by design. Soon, as the media keep reminding us, we will be a minority. Or ‘The’ minority, and the rest will be celebrating that.

Personally I think it’s not only an incorrect usage to claim ‘genocide’ — if memory serves it was the UN who loosened up the usage of the word in order to make it sound more dire, or to ramp up the accusations against European-descended peoples. By accusing us of perpetrating this, we are made into the arch-villains of the world. The weak-minded believe it.

There is little chance of the corrupt anti-White alliance called the UN taking up our cause and defending us. We are of use only as a source of funding; otherwise we are the bad guys there.

It’s about time we avoid such a strong word as ‘genocide’ inaccurately. It has no beneficial effect to using it as our foes and enemies (mis)use it.

Most of all we should ignore their hysterical over-the-top rhetoric, especially when they misuse English words. English is our language; we should use the ‘tongue that Shakespeare spake’ with precision and not accede to the misuse and abuse of that language. We know they are using loaded and shocking terms for effect: to silence us or to gain sympathy from the weak simpletons out there who sympathize with wrongdoers.

People crying about being ‘genocided’ when they are very much alive, and are dominating the discourse, should provoke only incredulity, not sympathy.