Trump’s choices

I know my point of view is out of step with much of the right, but I am not happy with some of the choices Trump is making for his cabinet. They seem decidedly politically correct to me.

At first glance it might seem that Jeff Sessions was a sound choice, but given how he is leaning over backwards to prove he is ‘not a racist’, citing his bona fides as a champion of desegregation/civil rights activist, we’re going to be seeing a lot more of the ‘mainstream’ right posturing and marginalizing of the traditional South. It’s already happening, with the usual ‘Democrats are the real racists’ articles.

Sessions was born in 1946 so he is old enough to have grown up amongst unreconstructed Southerners. Truth be told there were very few Whites back in those times who broke rank with fellow Whites — even in the North — to make common cause with blacks; usually only the most liberal would do so. Did he really have an epiphany then or is he just being a typical politician and going whichever way the winds blow? He is also a Methodist by faith and it does seem that Methodists today are a very liberal denomination, given to ‘social justice’ crusading.

Surely, also, Sessions must know something of that certain ‘taboo’ organization, which he ‘broke the back’ of in his state; that at least at its inception it was not a terrorist mob, but a self-defense organization, made necessary by the fact that there was no law and order or justice for the disenfranchised Whites in the South. They were preyed upon by carpetbaggers from the North, traitor ‘scallywags’ from amongst their own, and by the newly-freed slaves, who ran rampant. That now-proscribed organization was at first made up of respectable men, of the upper classes, who simply wanted to protect their families and lives in a lawless situation, that of Reconstruction. There is no excuse for a man like Sessions not to know that history, and I am certain he does know it. He chooses to participate in the anti-White, PC interpretation of the past.

The organization of that same name is apparently not the same now, being mostly composed of agents and operatives, according to what I’ve heard. Even so, how much violence have they committed, such as they are, as opposed to BLM? Or foreign terrorists?

Will anyone ever step forward to try to correct the popular delusions about that era of history? Trump, according to some of the faithful, has destroyed PC — but from where I stand it looks to be as entrenched as ever.

Maybe Sessions will be ‘good’ on immigration. Maybe. But I’m not taking that on faith.

Then there’s Nimrata “Nikki” Haley, who presided over the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag in South Carolina. Trump was aware of the CBF controversy, and I thought he had said something that vaguely indicated support for ‘free expression’ where the flag was concerned. But why, then, pick this woman?

Surprisingly quite a few Southrons, because of what I see as unwarranted blind faith in Trump are giving him a pass on this.

This evidently makes me a ‘purist’ or ‘hard-liner’ in some people’s eyes because I don’t have that kind of faith. So be it; I’m used to this being the case. Despite the amount of time and space I devote to these political things, I have less and less belief in our political system, or in politics per se; everyone these days says politics is all about compromise and dissimulating if need be to trick the enemy (and the constituencies). If so, then there’s no hope of real solutions there. If lying and dissembling is intrinsic to politics, necessarily, then it won’t save us. I have thought more and more that the culture is where the battle is to be fought. As long as the edifice of lies that is our society is still mostly unchanged, politics won’t be the solution. It only reflects the wider world, corrupt as it is.

As far as the endless defenses of moves like this by Trump, I get a definite feeling of déjà vu, taking me back to the ‘W’ years, in which everything G.W. Bush did was rationalized as ‘he’s gaming the system‘, or ‘it’s strategery‘, or ‘it’s rope-a-dope.’ Everything was a brilliant move shrewdly disguised as blundering. No one wanted to admit that his actions were exactly what they appeared to be, rather than some clever, cunning maneuver. I expect that kind of pattern with Trump; the true believers are so invested in him that there will be literally no end of the rationalizations.

Minorities voted Trump?

According to the exit polls I’ve seen since the election, there was no upsurge in minority votes for Trump this time, as contrasted to previous candidates. Yet I keep seeing claims on every other right-leaning blog that ‘Hispanics went for Trump’ or ‘lots of blacks voted for Trump.’ Depends on how you define ‘lots’, apparently. According to the Diversity is Chaos blog, citing Reuters/Ipsos polls, Trump got 8 percent of the black vote, and 27 percent of Hispanic votes.

Now, can we please, please dispense with the wishful thinking, the spin, and the half-truths/half lies? Why is this going on? I thought the right was the realist faction in America. Are people purposely lying or are they just pulling numbers out of their hats? Somebody on a right-wing blog today claimed that 33 percent of Hispanics voted for Trump; of course they cited no source.

It does seem to me to be especially important to many people on the right, even on what is deemed ‘hard right’, to imagine that lots of POCs are, or could be, on our side, if we just make them welcome. Obviously that was Donald Trump’s belief (or strategy), given his constant efforts to court minorities, especially blacks and (legal) Hispanics. But all evidence is that it didn’t work, because according to the Diversity is Chaos post, Trump had less support from Hispanics and blacks than any president in the last 40 years. His percentage of the Hispanic vote was the same as Mitt Romney’s, and less than the alleged 40 percent that George W. Bush got in 2004.

Even in that often-cited 2004 total, there were those who doubted that the 40 percent was accurate, but it seemed as if the GOP was doing some magical thinking, as if saying that Hispanics were coming over to our side would make it true.

And if blacks and Hispanics did join the GOP or a theoretical ‘right-wing’ party (none exists, of course) what would we have then? Eventually two parties where Whites and their interests are marginalized.

Which story to believe?

According to The Hill, Kellyanne Conway denies that Donald Trump “exploded in anger” at media executives and reporters. The New York Post and other media outlets had described Trump’s meeting with these media figures as a ‘firing squad’, with him denouncing the mainstream media in harsh terms as ‘liars.’

“The meeting took place in a big board room and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks…,” the source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong. He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was network of liars.”

If he did say that, he was merely stating facts, as anyone with powers of observation can see. But did he, in fact, ‘rip into’ the reporters and executives as the New York Post and many Alt-Right blogs are saying? I would love to think so. After all the years of the egregious bias and mendacity of the media, after the mountain of lies they’ve heaped up, not even counting their lies-by-omission, it would be justice if at long last someone called them just what they are: duplicitous, manipulative, unprincipled, and malicious. I hope he did in fact read them the riot act.  They’ve apparently never had the truth spoken to them in all these years, thanks to the lack of real opposition from the right. Too many weakling Republicans were only interested in ‘reaching across the aisle’ and currying media favor, so calling the media on their behavior in the bluntest terms would be just a needed start, just scratching the surface of their wrongdoing.

So what is the truth, though? Were the reports of the ‘firing squad’ just exaggerations by the professional media liars, intending to confirm their image of Trump as ‘harsh’, cruel, boorish, and hateful? Is Kellyanne Conway trying to mitigate what she sees as damage done by the reports? Who is telling the truth?

It is a good sign that Trump is bypassing the corrupt, lying media and using other means, such as his recent You Tube message, to speak directly to the people.

If Trump did not ‘explode in anger’ at these media whores, he should have, and in a just world, he would. It’s about time that someone reined in the out-of-control, arrogant media.

No ‘strength in victimhood’

Following minorities’ example in seeking ‘strength through victimhood’ is a losing tactic, according to a good piece by Alexander at West Coast Reactionaries.

The writer explains how the left controls discourse by, among other things, calling banter ‘bullying’, and conditioning Whites in particular to censor their own speech and behavior in relation to minorities and to political enemies. He likens this to putting ‘shock collars’ on Whites, so that they learn, by means of unpleasant consequences, to observe the limitations on our speech and expression.

Read the whole piece at the link; there’s some food for thought there. If only most of the ‘respectable right’, also known as ‘cuckservatives’ would take the advice there to heart. For one thing, Alexander points out the misguided strategy of relying on token black ‘conservatives’ to speak for us, which is obviously (to me, at least) a tactic that screams ‘weakness.’

“This weakness is also on the Alt-Right in how they wheel out black conservatives to fight B.L.M. (e.g. Thomas Sowell). They have their own personal mandingos in reserve because they believe that having a black man support their arguments makes them innocent of any thought crime, but they accept the crime and so are being mentally dominated — the same can be said of Milo Yiannapolous‘ fans. The fact that Milo is a liberal Jewish homosexual with a fetish for black men is perceived as a form of armour in the Alt-Right. God forbid if a straight white traditionalist asserted himself, he’s totally exposed with no victim status. The Alt-Right has accepted the maxim of “strength though victimhood” and “weakness is strength.” P.E.G.I.D.A. view Europeans as victims, and even well known YouTuber Millennial Woes seems to be falling into the trap of “save the white race” nonsense.”

As this piece points out, many Whites, even segments of the Alt-Right, have come to embrace the minority strategy of using weakness and ‘victim’ status as a means of wielding power in an underhand, manipulative way. The subtle manipulative approach is, obviously, often a typical feminine method of wielding power while appearing helpless. To me, it’s disturbing that some of the right, which tends to express masculine energy in contrast to the feminized left, has fallen for this idea. As the writer points out, this does not work for the majority, because the White majority cannot outdo minorities at this game. Some people instinctively recognize this, but the effort to use victim status on the part of Whites persists in some quarters.

The ‘liberals/Democrats are the real racists‘ cliche is still in active use. When will the right learn that this does not work, and that it merely displaces blame onto other Whites, which still leaves Whites in general (not just liberals) in the villain role? It’s conceding, in effect that [some] Whites are to blame for the woes, real or imagined, of blacks and other POCs.

There has to be an effort to try to overcome this mental/verbal domination of the right by the left and their minority minions. We’ve all been so thoroughly conditioned to this frame of mind, that many of us don’t realize that we, too, are not exempt from it.

Our monuments come down, while…

Blacks and their supposed role in “growing Texas” are being honored by a monument to them in Austin. This, in a time when Confederate monuments, even those dedicated to heroic gentlemen like General Robert E. Lee, are being pulled down at the behest of blacks and their pet ‘White’ lickspittles.

At the dedication ceremony, a small group of protesters from a group called White Lives Matter clashed with a group called Smash Fascism Austin. The ‘Smash Fascism’ crowd shouted ‘No Nazis here‘ and ‘Nazi Scum!’ at the pro-Whites. Amusingly, the ‘Smash Fascism’ mob said their purpose was to “drown out the [Whites’] message of hate.” With what? Anti-White hate messages, like ‘Nazi scum‘? Irony, anyone?

Austin has long been a cesspool of liberalism and general counterculture lunacy, with the slogan ‘Keep Austin weird’. Over the last few decades that city in particular has been invaded by people from everywhere but the South, so that it has become increasingly ”diverse” and increasingly detached from reality and sanity. It has certainly become detached, too, from its actual roots, from the heritage of the earliest Texas colonists and from its Confederate, Bible belt traditions. It is in a sense not the same city, but a universe unto itself. I am sure the ‘Smash Fascism’ brownshirts represent the new, ‘weird’ Austin, and not the historic Austin. If these deluded people could be transported back in time to Austin, or any part of Texas, as it was a century, or even half a century ago, they would flee. There would be no place for them in the Austin of the past, in a time which did not tolerate the intolerable. They would be appalled that their anti-White message would mark them as deranged and possibly dangerous. Which is what they are.

I have happy memories of the Austin I knew as a child, but that Austin is gone, perhaps forever, thanks to the ugly scars of leftism and its policies — and the engineered demographic changes.

As for the ‘contributions’ made by black people in “growing Texas”, whatever that awkward phrasing means, name some of them. The articles I read mention vague things like ‘exploration and emancipation’ — were there black explorers involved in that part of the world? I’m not aware of one, and I did study Texas history in school like all schoolchildren did. Were there black crew members with the Spanish or French explorers? I guess Whitey blotted those adventuring black explorers out of our racist textbooks. Yes, that’s it.

Emancipation? Blacks were passive recipients of that; it was not done by their own initiative or effort unless slave uprisings involving killing their masters count as ‘winning’ emancipation.

The ‘White’ protesters who spoke out against their fellow Whites as ‘hateful’ are the usual dupes whose prideful self-image is based on their getting offended on behalf of others — a very odd thing, when you stop and think about it. These people are aberrant in their tendency to feel aggrieved on someone else’s account, and feeling compelled to denounce their own heritage and ancestors to side with people who care nothing for them; less than nothing. And they truly cannot see how twisted and weird this is.

Our heroes and heritage are being pulled down while the perpetual victim groups are being honored at our expense. The protesters who showed up to speak up for their own folk are to be commended, and maybe they are a harbinger of our people regaining their voices and their courage to speak up for their own interests — and not just for our selfish interests but because the Truth matters.

The left has hijacked the idea of ”justice” and perverted it to mean nothing more than revenge and payback. Real justice honors that which is deserving of honor; it honors merit and achievement and accomplishment. It rewards that which excels; it does not exalt as a means of compensation for alleged past wrongs.

Yet more hoaxes

Breitbart reports that a recent supposed ‘hate crime’ has now been found to be a hoax.

The article also mentions other recent ‘hate’ crime allegations, usually with fictional ‘Trump supporters’ as the perpetrators, that are now admitted to be lies. The other fabricated incidents occurred in various places, from Lafayette, Louisiana to Santa Monica, California, New York City, and Fort Pierce, Florida.

Is this all coincidence? Are the fake ‘victims’ just the usual histrionic attention-seekers or deranged lefties? Or is this all coordinated by the same people who organize all these supposedly spontaneous protests, with bused-in protesters carrying professionally-made signs? Is Soros behind this?

Notice that the hate-hoax stories all involve not just garden-variety ‘bigotry’ wherein somebody is assailed with ”racial epithets and slurs” or ”hate symbols”, but the tall tales in these cases all involve vicious ”Trump supporters” going around harassing and beating POCs.

If the bogeyman doesn’t exist, they are forced to make up these stories. I don’t even think the lying media believe these things; they know it’s all agitprop. Shame on everybody involved in this. It’s a transparent campaign of lies, meant to further criminalize Whites, especially those ‘badwhites’ who voted for the latest incarnation of “Hitler.”

Hate hoax story

The other day I intended to post a link to this story, in which two students (now apparently ex-students) at Northwestern were charged with vandalism, in an alleged ‘hate crime’ incident.

It appears that the article as it appears on Gateway Pundit was ‘updated’ to correct some information; for instance, the article identified both students as Jewish, and I think the fact that the incident happened in March, and not after the recent election, was not made clear in the first version of the story.

I see now that the Thinking Housewife blog has removed the link to the story because of the confusion over some of the facts of the case.

I can only surmise that some dispute was made over whether the two ‘men’ were Jewish. Actually, I did wonder about the one on the left, who has a common Hispanic surname. The other student I would guess by surname and appearance to be Jewish — although some people do insist that there is no ‘Jewish look’, and that even a surname may be deceiving as to origin.

The surname ‘Kafker’ is found on this Jewish genealogy website, so that certainly makes it possible that the one accused student is Jewish. How does it matter? Well, that’s obvious; it helps the ‘narrative’ and the cause to cry ‘hate crime’ after creating the incident oneself; there have been many instances of hate hoaxes, in which those making the allegations have proven to have done the vandalism or scrawled threats or ‘hate symbols’ themselves. I try to draw attention to that fact because time and again these things are shown to be faked. There are websites devoted to exposing these but the lying media still shamelessly treat each and every allegation as gospel truth — why? Because victim groups cannot lie or deceive, can they? Only White Christians lie. Everyone else is above scrutiny and suspicion, even when we consider that the ‘victim’ groups have something to gain by such hoaxes. First, the libel against the “oppressor” group is itself revenge. Then there is the attention such individuals crave, and the crocodile-tears sympathy they get from guilt-ridden White lefties, and fellow ‘victims’. And it advances their fictitious worldview in which there are evil White right-wingers and ‘Nazis’ (these days, wearing Trump caps, no doubt) hiding around every dark corner to attack and abuse them, if not outright kill them. This is the excuse for much of the hysteria and the whimpering and crying emanating from college campuses and Tumblr blogs lately.

Anybody who fuels the flames of this insanity and paranoia (and it is paranoia, not reality) is guilty of inciting bloodshed, as the left and its various minority constituencies act out against random Whites. This stuff should not be taken lightly, and should not be allowed to go on.

The incident in the linked story happened seven months ago, but it is part of an ongoing pattern which has contributed to today’s out-of-control situation. It needs to stop. And it has to be exposed and talked about more.

Note: See the website Fake Hate Crimes for information on these hoax incidents.

On the uses of genealogy

I often urge people to investigate their family tree, if they haven’t already done so. It’s becoming more common for people to be DNA-tested, and that has its uses, but genealogy really brings our ancestors to life by giving them names, locations, and many other details that make them flesh-and-blood people to us.

The following quote is from a book published in 1881, and oddly it seems especially appropriate for our time in which there is so much confusion about nationality, ethnicity, and our place in this multicultural Babel in which we live.

I’ve bolded the parts I find most pertinent to our situation:

“Ought any one to be entirely indifferent to the channels in which his own blood has come to him?

Whether it has flowed down in the veins of nobles or peasants, whether he has a reason before his fellow-men for honest pride in the exploits or for satisfaction with the mere respectability of his ancestors he surely has ground for desiring to know for himself what are his connections with the past. But irrespective of all reference to the utility of such knowledge, there is an instinct in all right minds which constrains them to such an interest. A part of the same respect and love which every true man feels for the father and mother who bore him is carried back to the whole line of his progenitors. The pleasure which most persons take in such studies springs therefore from one of the profoundest and most useful of human instincts. It deserves encouragement, among all classes of society.

There is nothing to make it more appropriate for the rich than for the poor. An honored and virtuous ancestry is quite as much a source of pride to such as have no other inheritance, as those who glory in large ancestral titles and estates. And it may be as powerful an incentive so to live as to command the veneration and esteem of coming generations. There may be some exaggeration, but there is truth in the motto of the American College of Heraldry, “He who careth not whence he came, careth little whither he goeth.”

It is for this reason, we think, that there are instincts in nature which prompt to this as to all moral duties. The common proverb, “Blood is thicker than water,” expresses a truth which is almost universally felt, and implies an affection seldom appealed to in vain. It may at times need development, and often may be overborne by stronger passions, but such a fortune it shares with all other mental qualities. It is, therefore, one of those deep principles which are “the inspiration of the Almighty that giveth understanding.”

Americans have sometimes been tempted to speak contemptuously of family descent and family history. An interest in such matters has not infrequently been reproached as if it were inconsistent with republican simplicity. If what we have said be true it is inconsistent only with an arrogation to oneself of those titles which come from royal or aristocratic prescription. The time is coming, and has already begun, when many must take a pure delight in recollecting the part which those dear to them took, not only in establishing our national independence but in maintaining our national unity. “Beyond the stimulus which the desire of distinction gives to those who are rising in the world there is an important benefit derived from the sentiment of family antiquity, in the tendency it has to unite and hold together the mass of those families which have a stake in the country for their mutual preservation. Those who look upon the nation as composed of its honorable and patriotic families will feel bound together by a sacred tie, and communities will no longer be regarded as an incongruous mass of adventurers, but as a brotherhood animated by a kindred spirit.”

Let us bring to test these suggestions by noticing the associations connected with the contemplation of a family tree. There may, or there may not be branches in that tree which have formed a shadow for a nation or a world; but for every one who is a branch in that tree, however insignificant, it will have an illumination to which he cannot be indifferent. As he traces the limbs in various directions, his sympathies will be likely to be drawn forth to a larger circle, his consciousness of capabilities will be deepened by the suggestion of what his own flesh and blood has accomplished, and a respect for a common association will prompt to a higher style of living. He can hardly fail to have his scheme of life enlarged when he becomes conscious of a community animated by “one blood.” He will begin to regard himself, not as a mere accretion upon a dead mass, but as a member of an organism pervaded by a life leaving no minute part without a common sympathy. For want of such a sentiment many a family has never attained its appropriate character and position.’

Conway P. Wing A Historical and Genealogical History of John Wing and his Descendants, 1881

Who is an American?

This question is a recurring one on right-wing blogs, and especially so since all the talk and heated rhetoric about deportations (also known as sending people home) and walls.

Because America has had a history of rather promiscuous immigration policies it’s a fact that the homogenous America our Founding ancestors wrote of is no longer a reality — but yet it is also not a reality that the Founding stock, that is, the ‘posterity’ of the Founders, is long gone and irrelevant, or that we are a ‘proposition nation.’

That last assertion is now the official dogma of the multicultists in both the GOP and the Democrat party. The fact is it was never true.

Those who object to any mention of sending foreigners back to their homelands protest that many of them are ”as American as you and me”, fully American in their culture and their tastes and their speech — in some cases. Some of these immigrant advocates go so far as to say that even the new arrivals are more American than the Americans themselves because ”they [immigrants] appreciate this Free Country; they love liberty”, unlike most spoiled, jaded native-born Americans.

But loving ”liberty”, whatever meaning that has for individuals who come here, does not an American make.

To my mind, it comes down to this: those of kindred stock to the original colonists, whose ancestors have been here since pre-Revolution times, are American. Those who are genetically and culturally more distant, and whose ancestors have not been here for at least several generations? Not necessarily. Assimilation is not an automatic and natural process; greater genetic and cultural distance may mean that they never fully assimilate to the original stock population or share our mores and standards.

Those belonging to some ‘victim’ group, holding grievances and nursing grudges about what their sometimes-distant ancestors suffered at the hands of the ‘xenophobic WASPs’ or whatever — are not Americans in any real sense. Here’s what it comes down to for me: if you don’t and apparently can’t identify with, or have some regard or loyalty to the original stock population, you aren’t of us, by your own choice. Loyalty to this nation would seem to imply identifying and sympathizing with the majority of ‘legacy’ Americans, and our national story. Absent that loyalty to the folk, you have defined yourself as being Other, with a capital ‘O’. These types of people, even if their ancestors came here 5 0r 6 generations back, still harp on the unfair treatment they imagine their distant forefathers suffered:”My great-great-grandfather wasn’t even considered White! I deserve reparations just as much as blacks! More so!”

Not American.

It’s also this group of perpetual-grievance-holders who most often champion today’s mass immigration, and support open borders, multiculturalism, and the Democrat Party — though one can be a GOPer and be all for those things, sad to say. These are the people who say “How can I be against immigration? My ancestors would never have been allowed in if the xenophobes had their way.” And how would America have even existed without these people and their ancestors having been admitted? America just wouldn’t have been America without them. So they flatter themselves.

In a sense they are right; America as it is now would not be the same country had we not let in millions of such immigrants in the past; it was the old melting pot philosophy, the proposition nation, Emma Lazarus ideology, that led to today’s ethnically and racially divided, conflict-ridden America. Immigration led to more immigration; it’s a perpetual cycle.

 

 

UVa Profs: stop quoting Jefferson

The ‘Old Dominion’ continues to decay. The usual academic suspects are now, along with their brainwashed adolescent charges, clamoring for the president of UVa to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson. 469 ignoramuses and budding totalitarians signed a petition to this effect.

The school’s president, Teresa Sullivan, said the following, which prompted the demands:

“Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes,’” Ms. Sullivan wrote in the email. “I encourage today’s U.Va. students to embrace that responsibility.”

The students and their academic allies cited Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves, along with his ”racist” beliefs, as reasons for banning his words.

Was Jefferson a ”racist”? We all know that term has been overused and has become so fluid and subjective that it is almost impossible to defend against the charge. As someone at VDare, perhaps, once said, to be accused of racism is to be convicted. It is not possible to prove a negative, especially when one’s accusers are ‘POCs’ or White leftists; both groups are immune to reason, facts, and common sense.

I see that Steve Sailer has a thread on this story, and to my (pleasant) surprise, the comments are mostly defensive of Jefferson, which sad to say is becoming more and more rare, as even many “conservatives”, ethnopatriots, and race-realists (so-called) are willing to pile on and baldly state that Jefferson was a ‘hypocrite’, a ‘race-mixer’ or even a slave-rapist. Examples? I can’t easily locate a specific thread, but I’ve seen such comments on AmRen (a site I long since abandoned, for various reasons) and on the OD blog, where at least one regular commenter pointedly condemns Jefferson at every possible occasion. And no one disputes what he says. I haven’t commented at OD since the comments are now under the Disqus system, so the slanders go unanswered.

Some of you may remember that I used to try to counter all attacks on Jefferson, even attempting to comment on AmRen, where my comments rarely got approved. And I have tried to defend Jefferson not just because I am a Jefferson descendant — it’s personal — but because I believe in his innocence of the slanders made against his character. I realize I am out of step with the cynicism of the times regarding all the Founding generation, and that defending Jefferson is often sneered at as being a ‘patriotard’ and the like, but the fact is there is not any definitive proof that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’ or any slave’s brood of children. Some of the Hemings descendants say they have Jefferson DNA according to tests, but the DNA is not that of Thomas Jefferson, but just of a Jefferson male. That could include many possible sires.

I used to cite a link from Ashbrook Center, Ashland University, which offered the counter-evidence to the Jefferson slander, but it seems they’ve taken that page down. Why? Too politically incorrect?

A link on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog which dealt with that subject, and offered an argument against the claim from an informed commenter, is likewise gone. Why? The comment was from the Jefferson Family historian, Herbert Barger. Why did the Britannica people not consider that this was valuable information?

There’s obviously an effort across the board to re-write history in a way that discredits the Founders, and by extension, the Founding stock of this country and their progeny. Us. Why are so many of ‘us’ going along with this, and even aiding and abetting it?

There used to be an older gentleman, another Jefferson descendant, who tried to combat these stories online, but maybe he has passed on now. I used to try to take up the slack and answer as many as I could, but it seems such a vain effort, and I have begun to feel that if nobody else cares to preserve Jefferson’s name and his legacy, then why should I waste my time and energy? Yet here I am doing it again. I guess I am a sucker for lost causes.

But back to the original charge of those ‘scholars’ at UVa and wherever this kind of nonsense is being encouraged: was Jefferson a ”racist”, whatever that means on any given day? He was definitely a ‘realist’ in that he (being something of a scientist and “HBD” man in his time) observed and noted the many differences between the two races, black and White, and he predicted — accurately — that the two races would not be able to live side-by-side in harmony, and that it would all end in conflict.  In other words, he was a truth-teller. And that’s the crime nowadays.

And Jefferson’s statement that the students of UVa would be those who would govern the country in the future is unfortunately true — and frightening, given the obvious fact that those ignorant and fanatical misfits will in fact be in charge one day, if we go on that long. I think that reality would dismay Thomas Jefferson if he had but known.