Polarizing and sifting

The alt-right is a small movement; apparently it’s growing, but it’s still, in the context of the larger society, a small grouping of people. Maybe its aspirations toward gaining more widespread acceptance will lead it towards something like the GOPe’s ”big tent” approach: we have to curry favor with everyone and we can’t afford to exclude whoever seems to be ‘on our side.’

This ‘inclusive’ urge seems not to extend to social conservatives (oh, I momentarily forgot that ”conservative” is a dirty word in the eyes of many today, and it has no doubt been tainted) and traditionalists who hold to conservative versions of Christianity. Why? Because the alt-right has found a new darling in Milo Yiannopolous and a couple of others who are openly homosexual. So, forced to choose between homosexuals and more traditional normal people, the former will be preferred.

From what I am reading, it seems that Milo being assailed by the BLM and other riff-raff at DePaul University has given him a sort of hero status as of now. Before that I got the impression that he was, at best, a controversial figure on the alt-right scene.

I wrote just the other day about the disgusting spectacle of the lefties attacking Milo and denying his right to be heard. I stand by that; I think he has a right to be heard and those who attacked him are thugs and would-be tyrants. However, Milo is not alone in having been treated this way; think back to Ann Coulter, Jared Taylor, even the mild Tom Tancredo; all were attacked on stage by the usual rabble. I am sure there are many others if we bother to search online for such stories. Yet Milo is singular in being hailed as some new icon for the right (the alt-right, at least) after this incident. Why?

I am reading that he is a ‘fighter; he’s fighting for us’ and so on. But so are all the others who’ve been abused an attacked. Why is Milo suddenly so important that people are flaming each other on certain blogs and, in the case of at least one Christian blogger, rushing to Milo’s defense, while castigating his Christian critics?

No doubt even my questioning this situation as mildly as I am doing here will raise some hackles, given that Milo is now the new star and celebrity. But then I generally don’t understand when some people, whoever they are, are put on pedestals. I don’t ‘get’ the celebrity thing, or the effect that some people have on others which causes their followers or admirers to defend them to the extent of attacking known allies and even their friends who don’t share their adulation of said figure.

What this situation makes me think of is the ‘black conservative’ phenomenon among mainstream conservatives. We all know how Republicans and mainstream conservatives will run after every black personality who says some semi-conservative things. We saw it play out with Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Bill Cosby (who has proven to have feet of clay, though some still claim he was ‘framed’), Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and so many others. These ‘conservative black icons’ are hailed as being a way to ‘bring other blacks on board; if only they could see that all they need is conservative values’. They are seen as being a way to signal our ‘inclusive and welcoming’ philosophy. “See? We’re not racist, really, we’re not! Please believe us!” This may be because deep down, some, apparently many, on the right feel guilty about their supposed ‘bigotry’, and perhaps they need to prove to themselves that they are not ‘haters’. So when they think they have found a kindred soul in a black politician or candidate, they are thrilled; ”maybe I’m not really a bigot after all! I really like this guy!” I suspect they breathe a sigh of relief when they find blacks they admire. And it seems to really disturb them when their former idols prove to be less ”conservative” than they thought — and actually more faithful to their race than to ”conservative values”.

Time will tell whether Milo will be the gay counterpart of the ‘conservative black hope’ or whether he will continue to be a rising star on the alt-right — and possibly lead the already socially-liberal/libertarian alt-right towards general ‘gay acceptance’. After that? LGBT-friendly stances? After all, what was the saying? ”any group that is not consciously conservative becomes more liberal over time’?  Inertia always takes us towards the left.

And especially so if it sifts out those whose views are ”too” right-wing.

Advertisements

Facts in black and White

Those who are interested in HBD issues should take a look at this information on black Americans’ genetics, in a study on The Great Migration and African-American Genomic Diversity.

It’s summed up here.

It’s interesting in that it supports what I have said about the percentage of White ancestry among American blacks. According to this study the average amount of European ancestry among them is relatively small.

“An estimated 82.1% of ancestors to African-Americans lived in Africa prior to the advent of transatlantic travel, 16.7% in Europe, and 1.2% in the Americas, with increased African ancestry in the southern United States compared to the North and West.”

I also note that contrary to what some say, the blacks in the South actually have less White ancestry on average than those in the Northern and Western states. Oftentimes people with an anti-Southern axe to grind (and this unfortunately includes some people who consider themselves pro-White) assert, without any backup of course, that Southern blacks are noticeably ‘whiter’ or lighter skinned than Northern ones. Or someone just makes a bald statement that ”there was more mixing in the South”, and they make insinuations about ‘slave-owners raping their slaves’, an unproven assertion if ever there was one.

Quite a few online commenters say that black Americans must have lots of White blood because ‘they’re much lighter-skinned than blacks in Africa‘ so there must be lots of White blood in American blacks. Actually, no. You need only look at lots of pictures of Africans of various regions and see the variations of skin tone. Not all Africans are of the darkest hues. It depends on their region or tribe. Lighter skin is relative, and lighter skin in Africa need not denote ‘European blood’, just as it means no such thing here.

But the maddening thing is this continued insistence from some Whites (including those who should know better) that rape had to be involved in all past cases of mixing between the two races.

Unfortunately this scientific study makes similar insinuations about the White ancestral traces found in some blacks, as in this passage:

…the historical record of early admixture occurring predominantly through coerced sexual interaction between European-American males and African-American females…

Please. These scientists should surely know that this is supposition. Presence of European DNA in blacks does not testify to ”rape” or  excuse me, ”coerced sexual interaction“; it only says that there was sexual congress. There is no way ”coercion” can be established by any scientific means. That’s why rape accusations today can’t be proven simply by the presence of some male’s DNA in a female, or even by the fact that a child might be born carrying DNA from that male. It is somehow assumed that any White DNA proves rape by a White male of a black female. Why is this automatically assumed by ”scientists” who supposedly deal only in known facts, provable evidence? I can only think it’s assumed because our mass-delusional, PC society says that minorities can do no wrong; that they can’t lie or deceive, and that if any wrong is done, they are always victims and never the guilty parties, never even complicit in any wrong.

These scientists lose respect in my eyes because they are dealing in popular urban legends which cannot be proven when they assert that ‘sexual coercion’ was involved in centuries-past acts, by unknown people.

Did rapes happen? Given fallen human nature, it’s possible. But keep in mind that the act of miscegeny, even on a casual or occasional basis was highly stigmatized by most White people in the South, and to a lesser degree, even in the North. Was it similarly taboo on the part of blacks? I suppose if you believe, like many of today’s generation, that all White men, especially slave-owners were diabolically evil, wantonly cruel, brutal, and depraved, then you will assume that rape was the only way in which sexual contact would occur between Whites and blacks. In fact most slave-owners did not beat and brutalize their slaves; it would have made little sense, and beyond that, most were Christians, and the Bible teaches slaveowners to treat their slaves humanely. And yes, the Bible did not and does not condemn slavery nor recommend that it be abolished and condemned universally. Anyone who says otherwise is ‘adding to’ the words of the Bible, which is condemned as a serious offense to God.

Just as with ‘sexual harassment’ charges today, there are, truth be told, cases of women who barter sex for a good grade in college, or for a promotion or better treatment at work.  I know that feminists angrily deny that such things could possibly happen — but happen they do. Many, many young women develop crushes on their professors in college, and many have had affairs, willingly, with them, not always with the aim of passing a course or getting an A or a recommendation for grad school. For many it’s simply a rite of passage. Nowadays with most young women being fairly lacking in inhibitions, there are no doubt many who proposition their profs or bosses, though there are true cases of harassment, of course. It happens. But there are plenty of women who are consenting to sex as a quid-pro-quo with men in authority, or women who just enjoy casual intimacy with whoever. Is it impossible that slave women consented to overtures from the White overseer (a much more likely partner than the plantation owner)? Or with anyone who might offer something they wanted? With Yankee soldiers, in fact, since oftentimes the slaves tagged along with the retreating Yankees, wanting to go to the Northern land of milk-and-honey?

It’s also a fact that even today many blacks look down on darker skin amongst their own. There’s even a name for it: “colorism.” I had a female black co-worker who was unsure about marrying her very dark-skinned boyfriend — she said it was because of his color. She had fairly dark skin herself but wanted lighter children. Many women of other races openly pursue White men for this reason, though my co-worker did marry her ‘too dark’ boyfriend.

Rape or not (and I doubt it was always the case) there were more likely White partners for the female slave than slave-owners. As I’ve said I’m particularly galled that the Jefferson family name is forever tarnished by the repeated urban legends about Thomas Jefferson ”raping” his slaves. Since the 1990s, when that loathsome Bill Clinton and his sleazy sycophants re-started 19th century rumors about the Sally Hemings, the story was that ‘Jefferson fathered a child by Hemings’, and it got worse: he fathered ‘all her children’ and then it went on to ‘Jefferson slept with his slaves [plural]’ and worse yet, ‘Jefferson raped his slaves.’ I suppose few people care; hardly anyone respects the Founding Fathers these days. They are now seen as culpable for the disaster America has become, rightly or wrongly.  However I care because it’s my family heritage and my blood kin who are being slandered, and they are not alive to defend themselves.

More than that, I care about the ‘good name’ or what is left of it of my larger group of blood kin, and that is old-stock Americans, generational Americans. More of us should care about it and try to counter all the lies and slanders, and to correct the falsehoods, urban legends, and falsehoods regarding race, HBD and the reputation of our own people.

Leftist ‘tolerance’

This is the result of 50 or so years of ‘skin color privilege’, of exempting people from scrutiny because of race (and supposed ‘racial guilt’ on our part). When you don’t hold certain groups of people to any sort of standard, when they are protected from any criticism, however valid, when they are allowed to name-call, accuse, threaten, while we are browbeaten into silence by means of political correctness, this is the end result.

Add to this the numbers of deluded White ‘progressives’ who somehow side with these examples of ‘black privilege’ and you have these emboldened mobs who shut down any speech with which they disagree.

By the way, the young female in the video wearing the ball cap is apparently the daughter of someone in the Chicago Department of Police.

We’ve seen this kind of thuggish behavior happen with increasing frequency in the last decade or so. The left, fronted by their immune-from-criticism minority mascots, are displaying the fact that they are not the champions of ”tolerance” at all; how they can utter the word with straight faces is beyond me. The ”tolerance” is all on the other side, but there can be such a thing as too much tolerance, and we’ve shown this crowd far more tolerance than is desirable. At this point, to tolerate this kind of thing is only to encourage more of it.

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.

Too good to be true

I thought it was too good to be true. The headline at RT (Russia Today) said ”…handover of Russian territory to foreigners.”

Russia Today has somehow become a preferred news outlet for disenchanted alt-righters, just as the country of Russia and its current leader, Vladimir Putin, are now the good guys mainly because Russia was once our enemy. The knee-jerk tendency by which people seem to reason : ‘our country is now the Evil Empire, as Russia was in Reagan’s time, so now Russia Today is the voice of truth, because Western media are lying presstitutes.’ But what if both sides are wrong in different ways, and what if Russia Today and other Russian news sources are also lying? Is that not possible?

In at least this one case, Russia Today either deliberately or accidentally misinterpreted the offer of land to Russian nationals and compatriots as being a ‘come one, come all’ invitation. Some of the blog discussions of it that I read seemed to think there was an invitation meant to aid those under siege in the West, like White South Africans or Europeans. I am sure that a number of unhappy Americans were packing up and getting ready to claim their free land in Russia. But it was not true.

The New Observer reports this misunderstanding, saying

The Duma spokesman had no explanation why RT had misinterpreted the bill to mean foreigners, as, he said, it had never been a point of discussion in the text.”

This makes it sound as though RT was unlikely to have made just an honest mistake, especially considering that the ‘journalists’ there certainly have access to all the reports and information on the finer points of the offer.

I did have the RT app for Roku at first and I found that channel to be staffed with what appeared mostly left-wing Western expats, from Britain or New York, and it also appeared, for those who keep track, that many of the on-air personalities are Jewish. Given that many on the alt-right are skeptical, to say the least, of Jewish influence in the media and elsewhere, it has always struck me as odd how quickly RT became a go-to news source. I no longer read it or watch it; they may occasionally report on something that ”our” media have blacked out or hidden, but they do so only when there is a chance to make the West look bad. Some say the cold war is over; I think it’s just taken on a slightly different form. Russia and our country are not friends and I believe there is still plenty of distrust and suspicion on their side as well.  I do understand that many people seem to need some country to look up to, as our country’s regime has become openly hostile to us and inimical to our interests, but just because Russia was once our open enemy (though some doubt even that) does not mean that the truth must be the exact opposite.

I also understand that Putin presents an attractive public image as a strong and patriotic leader of his own people, and that some people admire him more than any of our own public figures, but I think he is a complex man who may or may not have friendly intentions towards us as a people or “our” government. Perhaps he is a real nationalist leader, or it may be that he too is ultimately on board with the globalist plan as he has repeatedly said that Russia has always been multicultural and that it will continue to be.

However it is in his favor that this land offer was apparently meant only for Russian people or at least citizens (of whatever ethnicity, not just Russians). For him to open up Russian territory to outsiders would be a dead giveaway that he was not a real ethnonationalist leader after all.

Meanwhile all over the West our ”leaders” have a standing invitation to anyone, anywhere in the Third World, regardless of their suitability, to come and claim their piece of our hard-won countries. If Putin refrains from offering his country up to whomever from wherever, then in that sense he is head and shoulders above Western leaders.

Racial identity: a social construct?

Most people on what is broadly called the political ‘right’ in America laugh at the liberal proclamation that ‘race is a social construct’, just as we ridicule (rightly) the idea that ‘gender’ is not a fixed biological reality.

In a post the other day I wrote about people like Elizabeth Warren, the daffy college professor/politician who believes she is “Native American”. Then there was another college professor, Ward Churchill,  who claimed to be (what else?) Cherokee — but lacking any proof of that assertion, just as with Warren.

We tend to think of this kind of thing as being peculiar to liberals/progressives, with their Rousseauian “noble savage” admiration, their reverence for all things nonwhite and Third World and primitive. But it isn’t just liberals who somehow feel the need to claim some kind of ‘diverse’ ancestry; there are plenty of people around the right-wing blogs who also insist that they have some vague, remote nonwhite ancestry, usually American Indian, most often Cherokee, via the ubiquitous Cherokee princess great-great grandmother. Were there that many Cherokees several generations back, and that many Cherokee ‘princesses’ who married White men? If you believe all the anecdotal claims, the Cherokee must have been a very numerous tribe and most of their women (princesses or otherwise) must have married White men.

See the list on this blog of just some of the many celebrities who claim to be partly Cherokee. I am sure there are many more who are not listed.

I wonder why these oral traditions (most of which prove to be legends, or at least cannot be proven true) persist, and more importantly, why so many White Americans cherish these fables? Why is this so important, even to ‘conservative’ Whites who are somewhat less in awe of nonwhites?

For what it’s worth, many Southrons believe they are ‘part Cherokee’ and I am not sure why that story is so common, and so cherished, among White Southrons who are supposedly so ”racist.”

I notice that on the list linked above, there are many Southron celebrities (like Johnny Cash) among those who believed they had Cherokee blood. I did read that Cash, when his family tree or DNA were checked, found no Indian blood, but British Isles ancestry.

I think that most Southrons do not see American Indians as really so much nonwhite, as there seems to be little stigma against Indian-White unions, at least several generations back in the family tree. Even now, many race-realists seem to think Asian-White pairings are not only all right, but desirable, as also with Filipino-White unions. It seems there is a ‘race-realist’ hierarchy of which groups are more Other, and which are appropriate to mix with. Which proves that many race-realists are not as much pro-White as anti-black.

The South used to hold to the one-drop rule, but I see a lot of confusion these days, with some people saying that ‘half-black is not black.’ Things have changed; the left has confused a lot of us about racial identity, and that is their goal: to create so much doubt and confusion that we will all eventually buy the idea that race does not really exist, as there are no “pure” races. We are all mixed-up, so they say. Well, yes, we are, in the sense of being confused.

If you read the comments at that blog I linked in this post, you will find a few White Americans who are incensed that their claim to Cherokee blood is being questioned, despite their lack of proof. So it’s obviously important to them and to their sense of identity. This is sad.

Can we blame this racial confusion on just the recent years of propaganda or is it something much deeper-rooted than that? Is it that White Americans have been so stripped of a sense of identity, in an ethnic and racial sense, and now so vilified for it, that we would rather borrow somebody else’s identity and heritage to feel important? To feel as if we actually have an identity? Or do we, like most liberals, find races and cultures distant from ours to be especially appealing because they are so exotic, so ”other”? Do we want to return, in our minds at least, to an idyllic ‘noble savagery‘ of the kind idealized (falsely) by Rousseau, Gauguin, and so many others?

We have been fed so much glamorized fiction about primitive cultures, and today, about their ‘vibrancy’, that we have been made to feel that our heritage and culture is bland and colorless by comparison. “White bread”, “pale and stale”.

Pride in who we are, who our ancestors were, is all but banned these days. Cultural envy and ‘cultural appropriation’ — and now, racial appropriation, is a consequence.

This writer, writing a dozen years ago, may be onto something, in his essay about the allure of the ‘noble savage’ ideal:

“This powerful and diabolical enchantment has cast its spell over the liberal imagination. We have pagans in our midst. Our culture war masks a deeper struggle against spiritual darkness. Until the spell which Rousseau and Gauguin cast over the west is broken, the imaginary noble savage will be exalted. As long as the savage reigns in the liberal imagination, western civilization in general and America in particular as the leader of the west will be blamed for every human evil. The savage heart of faux primitivism hates civilization.”

‘For whom the bell tolls…’

From Cambria Will Not Yield:

‘And if you think that it is only the white Britons who have succumbed to Satan and that you need not concern yourself with them you are mistaken. Every white nation is facing the same crisis as Britain. There is a cadre of American white nationalists who seem to delight in what they call the ‘death of Britain.’ We’ve all known such individuals: They say they hate to tell you a certain piece of bad news, but the gleeful smile on their face as they tell you the bad news gives the lie to their false words of regret. What does an American white nationalist have to boast about? Our major cities are even more crime-ridden than London, and we have placed a negro on our Presidential throne. We need, within the ranks of white Europeans, more of an ‘every man’s death diminishes me’ attitude toward the satanic overthrow of white governments and white cultures. All whites are in the same boat, and we are all tempest-tossed. Why not leave it at that and give our sympathy and support to our fellow white brethren instead of kicking them when they are down?”

The above words express my sentiments too. I am glad to see at least one person say the same thing, especially someone I so respect, as against the legions who are gloating or reveling in Schadenfreude over the alleged ‘death’ of Britain.

The title of this post is from the words of John Donne, though in the poem which most of us learned in school, the words are altered from Donne’s original rendering. The sense remains the same, whichever way the words read.

‘No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”

[All emphasis above is mine.]

CWNY is right; we are all in the same boat. The English are not more ‘passive’ and ‘stupid’ than we are, though they have been more heavily propagandized and for a longer period of time.  What they have in their favor, among other things, is the fact that the English (and the other peoples of the British Isles) have existed as a distinct and identifiable people, a nation, far longer than we in the United States, we of the Proposition Nation Melting Pot. There are those who falsely say the English were always a ‘mongrel island’ people, as if the various strains which made the English people centuries ago are as disparate as the ”allsorts” immigrants who are said to have ‘built America.’ The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Vikings, and their Frenchified kinsmen the Normans were closely-related peoples.

“Tribe after tribe, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, poured across the sea to make new homes in the Isle of Britain. Thus grew up the English nation – a nation formed by union of various tribes of the same stock. The Dane hardly needed assimilation. He was another kindred tribe, coming later than the others. Even the Norman was a kinsman”.

The English have a long history as a people, a fairly homogeneous people, unlike America. I don’t know what it will take to wake them up from the spell which they are under, but then what will it take to wake our country up? Despite the Trump phenomenon, things go on much as they have for the last several stupefied decades for many, all too many, Americans. We have a long way to go to find our way out of the maze in which we find ourselves imprisoned.

I once held more hope for the Southron folk than for the rest of America but since they too have been invaded and PC-whipped, my faith begins to falter.

Like Cambria I believe that God will not let his remnant be destroyed, but we have to turn to him before he will turn to us and defend us.

“Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.” – Psalm 20:7

As we’ve hardened our hearts against him and relied on ourselves and our ‘horses’, our military strength, in our hubris, God has likewise turned away from us, leaving us to our vain trust in our own human strength or in our military power — and there is no political will to use our military might even to defend ourselves against the invasion. So we are in the same sinking boat as our unfortunate kinsmen in Britain and on the European continent.

For whom does the bell toll? For the so-called ‘dead island‘ called Britain? No, it tolls for me. And for thee.

Unless.

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.