Genocide, ethnocide, suicide

I’ll confess I had never come across the word ‘ethnocide’, until I read a post by commenter Pierre at Morgoth’s blog.

You might think that the word ‘ethnocide’ would mean the same thing as the ubiquitous term ‘genocide’, but apparently it means, according to the man who coined it, destruction of a people’s distinct culture and way of life. Right, as in what we are seeing with the destruction of historic statues and monuments in this country.

By the way did you know that the word ‘Genocide’ was coined by (((Raphael Lemkin))), in 1943? No surprise, then, that it seems to have been coined to create a word that might be indelibly associated with Jewish history, that is, until it became used for just about anything deemed detrimental towards a member of a protected ‘victim’ group, as categorized at any given moment.

But as to what constitutes ”ethnocide”, we get an inkling of it in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, from a 1994 document:

“Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;
(e) Any form of propaganda directed against them.”

The ethnocide passage was ultimately not included in the official declaration.

So if (((Lemkin)) came up with the weapon-word ‘genocide’, which is applied very loosely and readily on behalf of designated ‘victim groups’, coined the word ‘ethnocide’? It was Robert Jaulin, a ‘social scientist’, and like most people in that kind of career, he was/is a leftist and xenophile. So he likely meant for his word to be used to accuse Whites of destroying the cultures of the noble savage ‘indigenous’, rather than the indigenous peoples of, say, Europe.

Of course Americans, that is, non-“vibrant” Americans, are not counted as indigenous, no matter how many generations we’ve been here, because only the American Indians Amerindians Native Americans are indigenous to North America. White Americans don’t count as indigenous; we’re invaders, though somehow the many nonwhite interlopers in Europe or Australia or Canada don’t count as invaders.

But as to what amounts to ”ethnocide”, it’s elaborated further here:

“Collective and arbitrary murder, systematic abduction of children to raise them away from their parent’s culture, active and degrading religious propaganda, forced work, expulsion from the homeland or compulsory abandonment of cultural habits and social structure, all these practices, described by Robert Jaulin, have in common a deep despise [sic] for the other man and woman as representatives of a different cultural world.”

But if we look at the above descriptions, it all sounds familiar from recent history in our country, since, say, the 1960s and the Civil Rights coup. The first item, collective and arbitrary murder — well, the powers-that-be haven’t got quite to that stage yet, but give them time. “Active and degrading religious propaganda“? How about the teaching of evolution in schools? That’s a religious belief for atheists, I would say. And then there’s the constant, implicit or explicit, anti-Christian atmosphere. And what about teaching our children about sexual deviancies, promoting the idea that it’s perfectly normal and healthy, even cause for ‘pride’?

Systematic abduction of children to raise them away from their parent’s culture” — well, wasn’t that the idea behind compulsory state-run education? It seemed more benign in a majority-White, majority Christian America, but as ‘our’ government moved further to the left and more overbearing, then compulsory education was used to program our children in another direction, and this led to the famed ‘generation gap’ of the 60s and 70s. “Compulsory abandonment of cultural habits“? Think busing, and forced school integration — this broke down the social practice of the races keeping to themselves, and compelled the students of all races to mix together, while they were being taught that any separation or distinction was morally wrong. White children were forcibly bused to schools in nonwhite neighborhoods in some cases and black children brought to White neighborhoods.

People were also forbidden by law to exercise freedom of association: landlords and those selling their homes were not allowed to exclude anyone based on race, religion, etc., thus compelling certain White neighborhoods to open themselves to others, with the result being the decline of many once-safe and pleasant neighborhoods. Many Whites felt compelled, then, to uproot themselves and to try to find a more suitable and safe neighborhood or town — until the same process repeated itself in their new home.

The ‘breaking up’ of our neighborhoods via enforced diversity has weakened our cultural and social cohesion, causing more anomie and isolation amongst our folk. We have lost a sense of who we are as a distinct people.

Does this not fit the description of ethnocide?

And it surely would include the constant heavy-handed propaganda meant to instill ‘White guilt”, resulting in White self-hatred which we see in the greatest proportion amongst the young. Now there is a frenzied destruction of physical symbols of our history, our past, our heroes, our symbols, all of which have been attacked verbally and called evil for decades now. If all this was happening to some sacred ‘victim’ group, it would be called ethnocide, genocide, and any other kind of ‘-cide’ they can think of. But when it’s happening to us? It’s just deserts. It’s our “karma” for past evil acts. It’s deserved. Pull them all down; efface every memory of White culture and history.

“Some critiques of the term ethnocide state that it is an unclear term. In addition, when people use the term ethnocide they are unsure of what they are condemning (Mair, 1975: 4). Furthermore, the idea that victims of ethnocide are individuals considered as primitive and indigenous and who are invaded by technologically advanced individuals considered as civilized poses some problems. This is especially problematic when ethnocide is used to describe the abandonment of cultural practices by a group for the practices of others (Mair, 1975: 4). This can be described as a question of cultural change instead of ethnocide (Mair, 1975: 4). Writers such as Jaulin considered civilization as an infectious disease (Mair, 1975: 4). For many, this argument often does not hold ground (Mair, 1975: 4).”

The above quote is from this source.

At least the writer of the above quote acknowledges that sometimes their precious indigenous peoples were not ‘robbed‘ of their unique and vibrant heritage, but willingly gave it up for a few trinkets, much like the Indians who sold Manhattan Island to the Dutch for a handful of beads. Today, however, they sell their culture out for smartphones and ghetto culture, usually.

And sad to say, many White people have not had to have their culture stolen from them; they are happy to jettison it for multicultural trinkets, ethnic restaurants, cheap labor, and the social advantages of being a self-hating ‘world citizen.’

What do we call self-ethnocide?

Was Charlottesville a ‘setup’?

There are allegations that the organizer of the Unite the Right rally was an Obama supporter, and involved with the ‘Occupy’ movement. Suddenly as of November, 2016, he became pro-White and (according to this source) a ‘White supremacist.’

The ZeroHedge blog quotes a statement from the organizer, Jason Kessler, in which he said

“I can’t think of any profession I admire more than the professional provocateur, who has the courage & self-determination to court controversy, despite all slings & arrows of the world.”

Interesting, isn’t it, that he suddenly became a born-again ‘White supremacist’ in early 2017 and founded “Unity and Security for America”.

Several other sources are reporting this story, and the worst of it, to me, is that the whole Charlottesville scenario was allegedly set up, according to an anonymous member of the state police force, for the purpose of touching off a racial war, forcing the pro-White rally participants to be surrounded by violent antifas, with violence the inevitable result.

The Virginia State Police have also disputed or denied some of Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s  allegations about the so-called ‘White supremacists’ at the rally, so it is plausible that some disenchanted members of the VSP have privately spoken to the media about what really happened.

Is this true, or is it just ‘tinfoil hat’ conspiracy-mongering as some of the ZeroHedge comments insist? I will leave that to the reader to decide.

The allegations are made more plausible by the anti-White attitudes and public statements by Gov. Terry McAuliffe and the other politicians involved here.

Early on Saturday evening, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe condemned the white supremacists, telling the Nazi [sic] marchers that “there is no place for you here. There is no place for you in America.”

“Shame on you. You pretend that you are patriots, but you are anything but a patriot,” he continued.

Shame on you, Terry McAuliffe, and on the other politicians who are carrying out this anti-White campaign. You’ve shown your loyalties are not to the people of Virginia as a whole but to the 12 or 13 percent of the population and their (((‘sponsors’))), and you have no respect for the past or to the truly great Virginians who created this state you are now destroying.

It has been obvious to any careful observer that for some years the powers-that-be have been stoking long-existing racial divisions, evidently trying to make them worse, and working the fanatical left and their aggrieved nonwhite allies into a frenzy, making open conflict and violence more and more probable. TPTB seem to be carrying out a continuous campaign of goading White people into action, probably hoping for a pretext to use force against Whites.

Update: also see this piece at The New Nationalist, Bird-Dogging Cutout Operations at Charlottesville Ambush.

The un-Civil war continues

Ignorance on parade: read the following comment from a dissident-right blog, by one ‘anonymous’, in which an urban Northeasterner vilifies and slanders Southrons. Nobody replies, at least as of now.

anonymous on Savant's blog_2017-08-15_230157

One thing which truly riles me is when someone spouts lies and unfounded assertions, and nobody takes issue with any of it. Surely somebody from the South read this person’s diatribe, but evidently felt no need to respond. I know that many people from the U.S. read the blog in question, many, from the South. As for why I don’t respond on the blog myself, Blogger rejects 99 percent of my attempted comments on their blogs. Blogger is not my friend.

Anonymous’s comment illustrates the real animus that many people from outside the South feel towards Southrons. It constitutes real prejudice, meaning that it’s a viewpoint formed from hearsay, false information, and from pre-existing, visceral dislike rather than from wide, firsthand experience. ‘Anonymous’ begins his slur-fest against the South by saying ‘no offense to Southerners…’ and then lets fly a long list of disparaging assertions about the South and its people, past and present.

I’ve said before that I descend from both Yankees and from Southrons, so I know both peoples and regions well. I am “bilingual”, being familiar not only with Southern speech and dialects but also Northern, having grown up with both. I’ve been to all corners of these United States and lived on three of this country’s coasts: the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic, and the Pacific. I’ve lived in urban areas, the suburbs, and small towns, even in a little hamlet of a few hundred souls. There’s no particular pride in having lived in disparate places; many nomadic Americans in our day have lived similarly.

But I do know North and South better than this Anonymous person, whose words bespeak the arrogance and smugness — and insularity — of an urban northeasterner. Nobody, in my experience, is more provincial and insular than a New Yorker, born and bred. To them, the world is bounded by the East and Hudson Rivers; beyond which ‘there be monsters’ or at least backward yokels who are decidedly inferior. Many native New Yorkers have never been outside the State or the Northeast, unless they travel to Europe or some exotic destination, perhaps to the homelands of their recent immigrant families.

The commenter describes Southerners as ‘backwards and inherently ignorant.’ I am aware that some statistics on IQ scores by state show the Southern states as at the bottom. But I would bet that if the scores of Southern Whites — or native born Southern Whites — were compiled separately, we would see something very different. Some of the stats showing states like Mississippi at the bottom of the list reflect the large percentage of blacks in that state, likewise the other states at the bottom. In this study California, New Mexico, and Mississippi were at the bottom. Two of those states are not Southern, obviously, and the third, Mississippi, is about 38 percent black. California is a very ‘diverse’ state, meaning more nonwhite, populated by many Latinos, blacks, Middle Easterns and Asians.

Subtract the nonwhites and non-Southrons (the many, many Yankees who’ve moved to the South though they probably look down on the native people of that region) and then see the Southern IQ scores climb. As to why the Northeast has a higher IQ average despite the presence there of so very many low-IQ third-worlders, I have no explanation for that. Maybe the presence of so many high-achieving Whites from various regions who moved to the Northeast for career reasons? Or so many Ashkenazi Jews who purportedly have the highest IQs?

Ignorant people from the South? Maybe the writers of our founding documents, who were well-educated and highly literate people — like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, George Mason, and so many others? ‘Anonymous’ and his many counterparts out there have seen too many anti-Southern movies and TV shows.

Anonymous makes a sweeping statement that Southrons hate Northerners. He says that Northern whites are not welcome in the rural South. Having lived in the rural South, I say that’s exaggeration. Once upon a time the people of the South remembered, through their grandparents or great-grandparents accounts of how the Yankee soldiers swept through our land destroying, raping, killing, and looting. This is a matter of record and fact; it is not falsehood.

If the South had done that to the North, then perhaps the North’s seeming hatred for the South would be justified, too. But this didn’t happen. No great city of the North was burned to the ground.

There was no Rebel army on a ‘march to the sea’ in the North, destroying all in their path. No northern cities, those Towers-of-Babel, were razed, there was no widespread crop destruction to cause starvation, nor stealing of the crops and foodstuffs to feed the ravenous invading army — which by the way, was a rabble containing many, many immigrants, drafted to fight for Abe.

And when so many Yankees, even those who move to the South, display at best condescension, or at the very least, disregard for the rightful people of that region, their culture and way of life, can you wonder that some of them resent this and show it? What is really remarkable is that the Southern people, with a tradition of openness, courtesy, and hospitality, are usually friendly towards Northerners, even Northern transplants. I say Anonymous has never been South of the Mason-Dixon line, or if he has, his arrogant attitude brought unfriendly reactions.

Anonymous goes on to ridicule the Southern dialect — which, by the way, is dying out, thanks to the media and their ‘midlands’ Yankee accent. But to many of us, the upper Midwest accent, with its nasal harshness, is more than grating to the ears, or the New Yoahk urban accent, with its ethnic variations. It’s all relative to what one grows up with.

But anyone who says that Southern Whites sound just like blacks has no ear whatsoever, or is too lazy to discern the very obvious differences. Anybody, North or South, would, if honest, say that they can tell a black speaker on the phone versus a White Southron. Anybody. The accents are decidedly not the same, the vocabulary is not the same. And voice timbres are very distinct between black and White speakers. You don’t have to be a dialect/speech expert to discern one from the other. Black people themselves can tell the difference. Anybody who can’t tell needs the services of an audiologist or a hearing aid.

Anonymous is just flinging one last insult, one which he expects will be a stinging insult to Southern Whites. He doesn’t even believe what he says.

His parting remark about how Southern Whites ‘should have picked their own cotton’ — oh, what a witty and original remark! Touche! Why hasn’t someone come up with that barb before?

Actually, the fact is that Whites, especially the recent English colonists in Virginia and the other Southwestern colonies, did pick their own crops until the slaves arrived (via a Dutch ship, or through Jewish traders as some insist) and there was a high mortality rate amongst colonists through heat stroke, and tropical diseases;  malaria and the like. The colonists from the British Isles were ill-adapted to the scorching heat and high humidity of the Southern colonies, whereas the African slaves were well-adapted to it, hence less susceptibility to the heat and disease.

Then there is the simple, obvious fact that many White people did pick their own cotton; if they could not afford slaves or chose not to employ slaves they did pick their own crops, cotton included. Up until modern times, especially post-emancipation, many, many poor Whites picked cotton and did all the backbreaking stoop labor we associate (pityingly, of course) with black slaves. Many poor Southern Whites suffered greater hardships and suffering than blacks. And they did not have do-gooding Northern ‘altruists’ crying over their plight. No, it was the Northerners who agitated for the war and who were hellbent on emancipating millions of slaves who were not in any way prepared for freedom, and damn the consequences.

One last truth: Anonymous and his ilk think that slavery was practiced only in the South. Before Northerners got abolition fever, they too had slaves, black slaves. Some of my Northern ancestors had slaves, and this is known through the records, through their wills. Slavery was not unique to the South. How can any adult American not know this fact?

Since people like ‘Anonymous’ have nothing but contempt and disdain for the South and its people, then let the South go. But I believe people like this would gladly unleash an invading army against the South once again, and kill masses of people, just to force the South to come back.

The Union can’t continue to hold with these kinds of differences and resentments. And that is probably for the best.


At TakiMag, Jim Goad has a good piece titled ‘Dividing the White’, and he suggests that the goal of the left is exactly that, to divide Whites. Read the whole piece at the link.

I agree that the powers-that be are at all times working to divide White people, and now to divide White people within the right or the alt-right. Now we are seeing a lot of finger-pointing and ‘punching to the right’ as people accuse those to their right of being the problem.

It’s understandable, I suppose, that people condemn those wearing Nazi symbols; those have long been controversial in this country. But where does this condemnation stop? Some on the right, even on the ‘alt-right’, classify the Confederate Battle Flag as in the same category with the swastika, and would bar the flag or other Confederate symbols, some even agreeing with removing the monuments to the Confederacy. So where does this stop, and who gets to decide what symbolism is ‘acceptable’ (for the sake of ‘optics’, you understand)? Whose standards are to be used?

To me this is just conceding to the enemy, and to the people who are not just our enemies but the enemies of truth. Once we give in and accede to their demands we get moved farther leftward, which is just what has happened in this country for the last half-century and more. Gradually we have all been pushed farther leftward, what with the acceptance even among many on the right of ‘gay marriage’, and now the condemnation of all things Confederate and actually all things Southern. Where does this end?

I thought the original intent of the rally was to defend the statue of Robert E. Lee and Confederate symbols generally, as well as to make a showing of unity. Now I am seeing a lot of maleducated people online making very anti-Confederate and anti-Southron comments. Ignorance and left-wing politics go hand in hand and it seems many on the right haven’t ever learned the history of the War Between the States, of abolition and above all, what happened during Reconstruction. These people need to hear the truth or else continue to be duped by the left and used as conduits for the anti-White, anti-Southron narrative.

Those leftists attacking the South and its landmarks and symbols and heritage are by extension attacking Whites, all Whites. Why give credence to their lies or echo their propaganda?

On Vox Day’s blog there was a long discussion in which these subjects were raised and at least this time there were a couple of people correcting misstatements of fact.

southern history_VP commenter_2017-08-14_232521

Yes, and as someone else pointed out, the association of the KKK with the Democrats is just a variation on the feeble ‘DR3’, that is, ‘Dems R the Real Racists.’ Similarly with the ‘Margaret Sanger was a genocidal racist‘ meme.

It seems few people are aware that the Democrats, at the time of the War Between the States and Reconstruction were a de facto White people’s party, while the Republicans were the champions of radical abolitionism and were actively involved in the ‘governing’ of the South while that region was under the occupation government after the War. This is why the South remained Democrat for a long time after the War and Reconstruction; later, the Democrat Party was no longer a friend to White people and is no longer a supposed champion of the ‘Working Man.’ The parties are not the same parties as in the  post-WBTS era.

As divided as Whites were during that era, it seems even more so now.

So the strategy is more than just dividing White against White, which is a longstanding ploy of the left, but dividing the right against itself, as evidenced by this echoing the criticism and name-calling of the left.

More attention needs to be drawn to the ways in which we’ve all been pulled to the left in recent decades, often without realizing, because the left has so permeated our culture with their lies. At this moment I have more contempt and resentment of the anti-White left than ever, because the effects of their dominance have poisoned our culture and environment. There is practically no place we can go to escape their constant propaganda; it’s in the very air we breathe. Worst of all it’s been absorbed by so many passive minds, even among people who identify as ‘right-wing’ in some form. We all need to search out any hint of their influence in our ways of thinking and speaking and judging one another. Don’t let them further ‘Divide the White’ or divide the right.

In the wake of Charlottesville

It still remains to be seen what the effect of the weekend’s clashes in Charlottesville will be. There is a lot of discussion and argument on the right about whether the Unite the Right rally was a disaster for us or a ‘win’.

Much of the discussion centers on the ‘optics’ of the rally. Did the presence of some participants, who displayed swastika flags or other NS trappings sabotage any chance of getting a fair shake from the media or the ‘normies’ who might be observing? A large number of people think that any such provocative symbols alienate or scare off many possible sympathizers, and lead to a PR disaster for the right generally.

Whatever side you take in that dispute, it is obvious that the media, controlled and biased as they are, will always paint even the mildest right-wingers as ‘Nazis’, fascists, haters, bigots, etc. Always. On the other hand why make it easy for them to condemn nationalists or pro-Whites by displaying symbols that they can use as evidence that yes, all right-wing people are in fact Nazis and fascists and ‘White supremacists.’

Nonetheless if we were truly in a free country, there would not be repression of certain symbols because of historical or political associations. In fact, that takes us back to the original reason for the Unite the Right rally: to defend the presence of symbols of the Confederacy (in this case, the equestrian statue of General Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville). The regime is hellbent on erasing our past, and this statue of General Lee is in their sights, as eventually they will obliterate all such monuments and symbols which they say represent ‘hate’. The only hate here is the constant hate emanating from the possessed lefties, whose behavior justifies my description of them.

As to the optics, I know that the rally organizers specified a dress code which they asked participants to follow, though of course not all followed the guidelines. Bizarrely, the ‘respectable Republicans’ on certain forums are saying that the fact that many participants were dressed neatly and similarly indicates that they were all fakes, all “bused in by George Soros” and were all antifas there to discredit the right by waving Nazi symbols.

Given what we know about how the leftist/globalist/antiwhite regime has openly admitted to using operatives and shills to infiltrate, of course this is possible. Could the driver of the car which killed an antifa female have been such an infiltrator, given that he was apparently unknown to the people with whom he marched? Certainly, but I don’t hold out hopes for that, especially as the truth would never be revealed if he were a ‘plant’. It may be just what it seems: he was there with honest intentions though he was not a serious nationalist or alt-righter, apparently, and he just panicked when violent antifas wielding sticks and bats surrounded his car and began pounding it. We don’t know.

All we know is the media lies, and so do the powers-that-be. They want us to be confused and misled. They spread disinformation, rumor, character assassination, and they are out to demoralize us and to make us feel hopeless and resigned.

The presence of ‘shills’, operatives, or agents provocateur is well known, yet how many of us really look with a skeptical eye at some of the regulars on certain nationalist or alt-right blogs? I can think of some examples of commenters on certain blogs who consistently promote violence or otherwise use nothing but provocative, over-the-top rhetoric. Despite the ideal of ‘free speech’, which does not really exist anywhere, there are comments which only give fuel to the witch-hunters, to those ‘hate-sniffing’ orgs that monitor ‘wrongthinking’ bloggers and writers. Why make their job easy, obliging them with comments they can point to as ‘dangerous’? It may be that people are just letting off steam but in an increasingly repressive environment this just asks for trouble. And it does alienate some people who are otherwise in sympathy. I can tolerate some pretty hardcore rhetoric if I know that it is not meant as incitement to some kind of violence, but it is hard to determine what is just talk and what is meant to incite or inflame. And then the agent provocateur wants to incite people to act out, to entrap them.

My feeling is that we should not give them what they want. It’s possible to get our ideas across forcefully without using outrageous rhetoric and language.

As to the ‘violence’ that the UTR participants resorted to in resisting the antifa aggressors, using force in self-defense is not immoral, and it is almost always the case that the left commits violence first (and does so with impunity) and the right does so defensively. No moral equivalence there, no matter what the ‘Respectable right’ says.

I am concerned at how this event is being used by the ‘Respectables’ to condemn nationalists and alt-righters. But I suppose it is just part of the ‘sifting’ that seems to be going on in the world now, with people lining up on one side or the other. We are seeing who truly is ‘of us’ and who is on the side of The Lie.



In the wake of the Charlottesville clashes, politicians and political figures on both sides of the political divide (a divide which is probably only apparent, judging by the quotes I post below) are all over the media issuing pious condemnations of the pro-Whites. Notice anything similar in the quotes below?

The white supremacists and their bigotry do not represent our great country. All Americans should condemn this vile hatred.” — Jeb Bush

Ed Gillespie, Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, denounced the protests as “vile hate” that has “no place in our Commonwealth.”

Paul Ryan’s ritual denunciation seems to be the most frequently quoted in today’s lying press: “The views fueling the spectacle in Charlottesville are repugnant. Let it only serve to unite Americans against this kind of vile bigotry.

Racism is vile and the #Charlottesville rally is disgusting. Let’s stand as Americans for the self-evident truth that all are created equal.” – Justin Amash

Justin Amash is a Republican congressman from Michigan, and no surprise, he is of Arab extraction. Reportedly a Christian Arab. Also, he’s the only GOP congressman to vote against Kate’s Law, which proposed harsher punishment for deported aliens who came back.

And even two men, Southerners, who have a reputation as being more right-wing, lined up eagerly to denounce the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally and the violence, which they implicitly blame Whites for.

Jeff Sessions:

“When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated.”

White supremacy has no place in America. When it turned violent in the 80’s, I prosecuted them as U.S. Attorney.  — Gov. Asa Hutchinson

As to the commonality between the denunciation statements, all but the last two contain the adjective “vile”, using it to describe ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’, ‘racism’, and implicitly, the pro-White protesters themselves.

Even the FReepers, who lately have been identifying themselves as ‘Deplorables’ and sometimes even calling themselves ‘Alt-Right’ are eager to get in on the act, so they make their little de rigueur condemnations:

Some thoughts about the horrible events in Charlottesville:

First of all, the ideology of the white nationalists who showed up to protest is vile and unacceptable.”

Too many of the comments implied moral equivalency between the antifas and the pro-Whites, to the effect that both sides are thugs and equally to blame. Others pulled out the feeble ‘Dems are the real racists’.

Still others say the clash was a ‘put-up job’, paid for by Soros. I expect some of the ‘it’s all a hoax‘ crowd will be saying this.

Someone on a blog commented that it was uncanny how the left — and even the so-called ‘right’, will use the exact same words when they make speeches condemning the ”far right.” And shouldn’t all these canting ‘conservatives’ stop and think whenever they find themselves agreeing with the likes of Michael Moore? Or even Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz?

So is it just ‘groupthink’ that produces these mechanical, robotic statements using the current PC terminology, such as the use of the word ‘vile’ to make monsters of the pro-White right? I mean, few people condemn the truly loathsome things as ‘vile’ these days,  instead calling for ”tolerance”  but this shows the inversion of morality in our time.

If I had any of these ‘respectable Republicans’ as friends, I’d like to confront them, to force them to face the fact that America before the 1960s would have had to be condemned, according to today’s warped standards,  as a country because it was, in essence, what today’s mindless masses would denounce as a ‘vile White Supremacist country.’ The Founding Fathers, after all, in the first Immigration act, said that only free White people might become citizens. And these ‘conservatives’ imagine they are conserving the original America.

Once, in my naïve ‘conservative’ days, I would probably have shunned the term ‘White supremacist’ because I, like almost everybody else in this country, had been conditioned to cringe at terms like that and to deny their validity. But would not being simply a majority-White country, governed by Whites (some would dispute that part, but let’s assume it) and for Whites. After all, aren’t all countries run by and for the good of their people? Japan is a Japanese-supremacist country. The African countries are African-supremacist. And so on. It’s so obvious a child could understand it. Yet ‘White supremacy’ alone is singled out vile and is the ultimate evil. Is that not anti-White? Conservatives, are you unwittingly being manipulated into being anti-White in the name of being ‘anti-racist’?

Are people being subliminally brainwashed even to the extent of their parroting the same formula words when talking about these things? How can one account for the way they speak, which seems to indicate some kind of group mind at work? It can’t be just the influence of the controlled media. And the word ‘vile’ is a word that most people seldom use. Especially in America it is just not a common word.

However for years I’ve noticed how in Britain the term ‘vile’ is used most in conjunction with any political group or public figure who is even slightly right wing, but especially applied to people like Nick Griffin, former British National Party leader, and Nigel Farage, who is nothing more than a civic nationalist, very middle-of-the-road. For instance:

‘Farage’s vile views are dominating the Europhobe pitch’ headline from a Nick Cohen hit piece, and “UKIP candidates spouting vile anti-Islamic hate messages” – from the Mirror.

Of the BNP: “If it is not stopped in its tracks and driven back into the sewer from which it has emerged the vile BNP will push its warped agenda of racial purity to the limit, causing millions of loyal British people to live in fear of victimisation and even of deportation from the only country they have ever called home.” That was from a piece in the Express, called BNP’s Nick Griffin, a Disgrace to Humanity.

I begin to think that there is as little hope of awakening or redeeming the ‘cuckservatives’ who see themselves as the standard-bearers of the ”right” and who fear being associated with the ‘vile bigots and haters’ to their right. In adopting this habit they are just being pulled closer to their nominal enemies on the left. Maybe they are not as barking-mad as the left, but they are running scared of being accused by the left’s Inquisitors, so they find themselves now with strange bedfellows.

There really is only one party in this country; the two parties are a sham and a circus put on for the gullible populace, which, sadly, seems to be the majority.

The right needs to combat the constant propaganda and rhetoric from the Left, and from the so-called mainstream right, who are, I think, just as much the enemy to those who reject The Racial Narrative  that they and the Left alike cling to.

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.

Transforming America

A certain political candidate several years ago spoke (ominously, in my opinion) about ‘fundamentally transforming America.” The audience, as I recall, cheered this phrase.

Any sane person should be afraid when someone offers to ‘fundamentally transform’ the world or society, especially when it’s to be an open-ended process, constant change, or what was it Chairman Mao said? “Perpetual revolution”? There’s no end to trying to ‘transform the world’; the people who want to engineer these changes are never happy or satisfied with their work; the revolution must go on. There’s still so much more ‘work that needs to be done.’

And the social engineers, as we know, are not always politicians.

Look in on Vox Day’s blog, here.  Read the excerpts from a Hollywood story conference which included Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Larry Kasdan.

The year was 1978, and the story being discussed was “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Spielberg et al discuss the idea that the character Indiana Jones and his ‘love interest’ in that movie had a relationship starting when the ex-lover was very much underage. Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan ‘negotiate’ over just how early this relationship started; the age of eleven is suggested by Lucas, (!) and eventually they settle on a compromise: fifteen is settled on. Sixteen or seventeen? “Not interesting anymore.”

Surely they knew they couldn’t get this kind of thing accepted by the mainstream movie audiences — yet — but these people take the long view; it may take decades of slowly pushing the boundaries back, but they do it relentlessly.

The metaphor of slowly boiling the frog, though overused now, is very appropriate here.

Most people would probably classify Spielberg, Lucas, and company as being purveyors of ”family” movies, of wholesome good old-fashioned entertainment. But as someone commenting on the Vox Day thread says, Spielberg was “pushing the envelope” with his ”wholesome” movies like ET, with the foul-mouthed kids in that film. I remember some parents being shocked by the crude talk from the children in the movie, but most were willing to let it go because the movie was “cute”. This is how we’ve gotten to where we are culturally, what with increasingly vile movies being accepted by mass audiences, and our culture reflects what the movies promote: children who are ‘worldly-wise’ at a very young age, and young adults who are very much jaded and experienced before they are out of their teens.

The older generations don’t escape blame; many who grew up in a more civilized society have gradually come to accept the corrupted world that we live in now, and made their peace with it. Few people are willing to reject the values of Hollywood and the entertainment/propaganda business; people love their pop culture and their distractions.

Recently in another blog post here I referred to the fascination many young people seem to have with ‘Pre-Code’ movies, that is, movies that were made in the early talkie days, before the Hays Office began to restrict the content of movies. The Pre-Code movie devotees never get enough of railing against the Hays Office and its namesake, Will Hays. They are, to the leftist post-modern movie fan, the equivalent of the hated Joe McCarthy of the political world. The Hays Office and the McCarthy ‘witch hunts’, so-called, are a favorite bete noire of the left.

The ‘Hays Code’ or the Motion Picture Production Code is often denounced as a heavy-handed, prudish censorship which infringed on people’s ”freedoms” and stifled artistic endeavors, and thwarted creativity. It does seem odd, if these criticisms were valid, that so many of Hollywood’s best efforts were movies made during the era of the Hays Code. It’s also strange that since the rules were first, loosened, then abandoned, movies have declined, becoming ever darker and more nihilistic as well as cruder and more profane.

For years I’ve been saying, when hearing of Hollywood’s latest over-hyped sleaze, ”how much worse can it get”? And I keep being surprised at how the movie moguls seem to outdo themselves in producing something worse, because that seems to be their mission: to drag society down to the gutter level at which the movie industry seems to operate. They are succeeding, and it seems to me that even the fact that movie attendance seems to be declining for some years does not discourage them. They are on a mission, and even shrinking profits don’t seem to daunt them.

The Hays Office and the Code, far from being villains as most movie fans seem to believe, served a good purpose for as long as it lasted. America — and the post-Christian West generally, was already in a moral crisis after World War I in particular. The ‘Roaring 20s’ are an example of how sexual morals became lax; drug and alcohol abuse and all the accompanying problems weakened us in many ways. Societies which are hedonistic and libertine are rarely, if ever, strong and powerful. Dissolute societies are always prey for invasion and conquest.

If not for the Hays Code, Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan would not have been having their discussion about how young the ‘love interest’ of Indiana Jones could have been — because by that time, had not the movie moguls been compelled to ‘clean up their act’, we would long since have had movies featuring “inter-generational love” or ”zoophilia” or whatever other euphemisms they’ve dreamed up for these various deviancies. The Hays Office was fighting a sort of rearguard action against the trends, which were already present in 1930s America. They at least bought us some time in which the worst tendencies of Hollywood were kept restrained to some extent, imperfectly. But that was better than nothing, better than just letting Hollywood and the rest of the ”entertainment” world run amok, as now, transforming our society at will, with our complicity.