Reconstruction, part 3

Africanization_The New Dictionary of Americanisms1902

In my perusals of the many old books on Archive.org, I came across a book called The New Dictionary of Americanisms, published in 1902. The above is from that book. It’s interesting that there was a term coined back during the ‘Reconstruction’ era, just after the War for Southern Independence, describing the South’s situation of being “under the control and domination” of the black race.  People saw it for what it was then; why do so few see it now?

Few people today, White or black, seem to know that this was the state of things after the War Between the States. The whole point of the ‘Reconstruction’ regime was to place the White citizens of the South in an inferior and degraded condition, and to punish the White Southerners for attempting to go their own way. The freedmen were loosed on the disarmed and disenfranchised White folk, and the latter were at the mercy of this unholy coalition of  the Northern exploiters, or ‘carpetbaggers’, traitorous Southern ‘Scallywags’ — and black freedmen.

Now we seem to be in a continuation of Reconstruction, and this same sort of unholy coalition is attempting to deliver a coup de grace to the South, its history, heritage, and culture — and to fully subjugate the traditionally-minded Southern White folk, or at least the remnant thereof. I am glad to see, though, that some are showing signs of resistance to this all-out assault on the South that is now under way.

Facing the reality of what is happening is a necessary part of mounting a defense. As long as some Southron folk are in denial about it, or oblivious to it, then we will continue to be under the domination of those who despise us and our ancestors.

‘Austria’s richest man’ vs. PC

It seems that ‘Austria’s richest man’ has spoken out, in an interview with Kleine Zeitung,  against mass immigration to Europe and has denounced Political Correctness. According to Breitbart London:

“In the interview, Mateschitz took a stand against the “destabilisation of Europe”, which he said threatens the “uniqueness of [the continent’s] diversity and individuality with its different cultures and languages”.

“I hope I’m not the only one who’s worried that one of the highest officials in Brussels said that countries which aren’t multicultural should be wiped off the map”, Mateschitz told the newspaper, possibly alluding to comments made by European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans in 2015.”

How is it, I wonder, that Mateschitz is not spouting the same politically correct mantras we hear from most European public figures? What has enabled him to escape the straitjacket of political correctness?

The information I’ve read about him indicates that he is of Croatian origin, though born in Austria. (I half-expect someone to say that he is a Jew, though there is nothing to that effect in what I’ve read. Still, one never knows; name origins are often confusing. But if he were in fact of Jewish origin that would make his statements even more anomalous, given the fact that the default Jewish position seems to be for open borders and multiculturalism.)

Maybe the difference is that he is of an older generation, having been born in 1944 before ‘political correctness’ spread its poison throughout the West. Only those who remember things as they once were can truly know what has been lost.

Mateschitz alludes to remarks by the European Commission VP Timmermans, indicating that ‘any society, anywhere in the world, will be diverse in the future’, because ‘that’s the future of the world.’ The implication seems to be “or else.” There is to be no choice. That’s already been made clear, even though we’ve seldom heard it expressed so bluntly, and with such seeming finality, before. It’s more than clear that the European officials are totalitarians.

”Of political correctness, Mateschitz said: “It seems that no one dares to tell the truth, even if everyone knows what the truth is.”

“The elites want citizens to be frightened, and easily manipulated,” he added.”

Despite the fact that the occasional brave soul speaks up and says these things, it seems that most people in Europe (and too many here) are unwilling to break out of the mental prison. Are they frightened, or are they just unaware of reality? Surely there has to be an awakening to reality someday — surely?

Some of us have been saying this for years and have we come any closer to that day?

Still, every voice of truth and sanity is welcome, and the cumulative effect may one day be felt, even if it appears that the mass delusion is as strong as ever.

 

 

 

The opposite of political correctness?

At TakiMag, Theodore Dalrymple — I mean (((Theodore Dalrymple))) offers some good points and clever turns of phrase in discussing political correctness. He describes it as a form of mass hysteria — which it does seem to be.  Then there’s this: “…the politically correct speak power to truth.

However, I felt as one of the commenters on the article said: this piece is an example of ‘bait-and-switch.’ It goes from being a scathing piece about PC to bemoaning and lambasting the responses to PC. The examples of rightist ‘hate speech’ which he cites,  are pretty over-the-top.

Did he cherry-pick those extreme examples, or are they more common than I realize?

I wouldn’t deny that some of the comments, ostensibly by ‘right-wing’ commenters online, can be callous, ugly, and sometimes objectionable even to many of us on the right. For example, I’ve seen comments over the years recommending that certain people be ‘incinerated’. I’ve seen comments from those ostensibly on the right  expressing approval over the rape or murder of certain people. I found this appalling. But these comments about ‘incineration’, rape, and murder were not directed at the traditional protected groups according to the PC hierarchy: they were directed at White people — but White people who are among the ‘out-groups’ for some on the right. The ‘incineration’ comment, for example, was directed at fat people  — and it was posted on that hotbed of ‘extremism’, Free Republic, of all places. Now, it may be that the comment or comments were later deleted by mods there, after all, the mods used to ban even mild posts perceived as ‘anti-Hispanic’ in the days before most people were so incensed about illegal immigration. The comments approving of rape and/or murder — by immigrants, actually, were in reference to baby boomers — who, according to many on the young right, deserve such a fate. However it appears that Dalrymple’s outrage about the ‘vile’ comments he cites was an outrage on behalf of minority groups/nonwhites. So who’s being politically correct?

Dalrymple should know that the left engages in worse rhetoric, or at least rhetoric equally bad, in reference to Whites/Christians/heterosexuals. One example of anti-White hatred on another blog was a social media post — Facebook, I think — calling for White women to be caught and killed before they produced more White babies. What’s that law about ‘equal and opposite reactions?’

All that aside, no one on the comment thread seems to question the authenticity of some of the over-the-top bloodthirsty comments Dalrymple gives. Considering what we know of the left, of their duplicity and dirty tactics — and the fact that they are known to employ online operatives to provoke, to derail and disrupt, and to deceive and slander, could it not be that the worst of those comments were written by lefties in order to direct anger at the right? The comments seemed almost to border on parody or caricature.

Whether or not some of the extremist sentiments are justifiable or understandable, it does seem that it’s counterproductive, at the least, to indulge in that kind of rhetoric. I don’t recommend being mealy-mouthed or so genteel as to be feeble in our self-expression, I think there’s a way to express strong sentiments without going beyond certain limits. Adopting the tactics of the left only escalates this trend of abandoning all discretion.

‘Hinduphobia’

A Free Republic poster links to an article from a news source in India, reporting that Hindu activists in America are demanding an apology from CNN. CNN’s crime? Hinduphobia.

To thinking Americans, CNN is synonymous with left-wing, anti-White and pro-multicultural content, at which it outdoes just about all the other purveyors of ‘news’ and commentary. So it’s hard to imagine that they would be anti-Hindu.

And just what did CNN do that was ‘Hinduphobic’? They had a series called ‘Believer’, in which correspondent Reza Aslan focused on Hindu religious figures and practices. The article does not seem to mention this specifically, but I would guess that the Hindu activists objected to a depiction of a guru and his followers who were shown eating human brains. Reza Aslan, the CNN reporter, apparently also consumed some of this unappealing meal, under coercion, some said.

So is it ‘xenophobic’, or more specifically ‘Hinduphobic’ to be shocked or repelled by a spectacle like that? We will have become a jaded people for sure if we can no longer be horrified at the thought of cannibalism, much less by the sight of it.

CNN displayed very bad judgement in showing that clip, even if they had displayed a warning before any such ‘graphic’ scene. What could have been their purpose in showing it? I doubt very much that they wanted to stir up antipathy towards Hindus, as dedicated as they are to the ‘all cultures/races are equal’ dogma. So what motive was there in showing it?

CNN’s faithful audience are no doubt mostly of a like mind. So I doubt that they would react to these scenes with disgust or shock or ‘phobias’ toward Hindus. Many leftists are very familiar with the various manifestations of the Hindu religion and culture. There are pictures online of some sort of Hindu cult members eating charred human bodies they pulled out of the Ganges. So this kind of thing is not completely unknown.

Are the Hindu activists defending cannibalism in an oblique way, here, or do they just object to having anyone shine a spotlight on it? That is, are they blaming the messenger?

I doubt, though, that most Americans, hearing of this controversy, would respond by hating Hindus; in fact we have become a very jaded and tolerant people for the most part, hardly blinking at this kind of thing, whereas once upon a time, cannibalism and other such gruesome things evoked real shock and horror among civilized Westerners. But we are a post-Christian people, unfortunately, and Hollywood has helped to desensitize us to all sorts of once-unthinkable things.

And we do seem to have become, overall, very accepting of this diversity which has been thrust on us, as you can see from some of the Freepers’ comments about how they prefer Hindus to some varieties of ‘diversity.’ The usual line is that ‘at least they’re not Muslims’ or some variation of that. Every ethnicity, Hindus included, has its defenders and advocates among White Americans. But how many White Americans are willing to defend their own?

 

 

 

Our PC prison

So much has been written and said about how we have reached this state of things wherein certain truths are ruthlessly stifled and banished from public discussion, and worse, there are civil and/or criminal penalties for those who violate the taboos on discussing these truths.

Brainwashing, mind-conditioning, 24/7 propaganda, much of it under the guise of ‘entertainment’, sugar-coating for the lies. But is there not at least another factor at work, a simpler and more familiar factor?

During the latter part of the last century, during the heyday of the social ‘sciences,’ someone coined the term ‘peer pressure’. Most often it’s been used in describing adolescents, who are generally the age group most susceptible to seeking security within their age-group, over against adults. Adolescents tend to be the most conformist in their thinking and dress and behavior, even their language; most slang terms seem to start as youth argot, specifically black youth argot which quickly permeates the speech of White teens as well as that of others who emulate blacks.

But let’s be honest: it isn’t just teenagers or over-aged adolescents who succumb to peer pressure; Americans in general, in my observation, are very prone to be followers and to ‘go along with the crowd’, not wanting to be the odd ones out, or to be thought weird.

In my lifetime I’ve seen time-honored social standards and taboos disappear almost overnight, as in the early 70s when the ‘old morality’ regarding sexual behavior went out the window. Cohabitation, premarital sex? No problem. Crude, obscene language? No big deal.

How could the old standards and mores crumble so easily and so completely? Obviously people’s ideas of right and wrong were not firm principles; they were merely ‘outward professions’. The majority seemed entirely flexible with their morality; whatever their peer group appeared to accept, they would acquiesce in.

As sexual morality (derided as ‘puritanism) became a non-issue for most conformist Americans, the focus shifted to one’s attitudes on racial issues. One’s character became defined by attitudes toward Others — mostly blacks and Jews. If one did not hold the ‘right’ attitudes towards the protected Others, one was declared a bad, immoral, undesirable person. As time went on this criterion for judging people became, seemingly, the be-all and the end-all. It became a requirement that we praise and honor groups that had formerly been ‘victims’ — (think: MLK Day, and the ‘White Guilt Month’ of February).Lack of adequate praise or deference toward blacks and other minorities, including Jews, as well as homosexuals, ‘womyn’, etc., would be considered proof of ‘hate’ or bigotry.

It still amazes me, how thoroughly many Americans accept that our attitudes towards a group (or groups) of people are allowed to define our very worth and character. Nothing else seems to matter in defining us as good or bad.

Obviously as this monster called ‘political correctness’ was fed and coddled and allowed free rein, it has grown ever more insistent and tyrannical, and a greater price is being exacted from those who violate its sacred commands.

Granted, the election of our President has ‘shifted the Overton window’ and emboldened quite a few people to stand up to the PC dictatorship, but only because there is safety in numbers (and the publicity given to the Alt-Right gives an illusion, perhaps, of greater numbers than actually exist) and sadly most people seem to need to have ‘permission’, from those they deem their peers or from some admired authority to deviate from the group mind or the Crowd.

In other words they are still, in a sense, servile where the opinions of others is concerned. Few people will stand alone and defy a taboo, and when they do, they find few others that are willing to risk condemnation by taking an unpopular stand.

It could be said that this passive and dependent attitude that has allowed PC to grow and to cow us into submission is nothing deeper than simply following a ‘fashion’ or a custom; to be accepted people feel they must adopt the shibboleths, go along to get along. A need for others’ approval is the factor that has allowed us to be tyrannized by the ‘PC vigilantes’ as I used to call them.

Interestingly, writer Doris Lessing is quoted as using the same analogy:

“Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this.”

Having read some of Lessing’s books, I judged her to be a leftist, but maybe she was one of the last of a dying breed, an honest liberal.

If people allow the ‘vigilantes’ to impose their views, it is, again, fear of being a heretic or a rebel, declared anathema. For some people, their ideas and standards are completely fluid, and shallow. They will go whichever way the wind blows. This is one of the dangers of democracy; someone described as ‘democratic censorship’ this coercive influence of public opinion. Although the government has become increasingly intrusive and overbearing, it is mostly the force of leftist domination of the popular mind that has led to this state of things.

It seems to come down to something as shallow and slight as ‘fashion;’ Leftism and PC have become ‘the’ accepted posture for most people, especially the sheeplike younger generation. It’s the fashion to be politically correct, to hold racial minorities, Moslems, and ‘The Other’ generally in adulation, and to be an ethnomasochist, a ‘wigger’, a miscegenist.

So we are in a sense being bullied, allowing ourselves to be bullied into silence, by nothing more than political ‘Fashionistas’, for whom it’s all an outward pose, meant to signal not so much virtue, but simply being part of the ‘in’ crowd.

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.

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.

Let California secede

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

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

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

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

— Jared Huffman (@JaredHuffman) November 12, 2016

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

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

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

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

 

 

‘What they saw’

The headline on this piece quotes a source saying that investigating NYPD officers were ‘sickened by what they saw’ in the e-mail evidence in the Hillary investigation.

How trustworthy the sources are here is beyond me; I’m not familiar with the websites from which this information comes, so I leave that judgement to those who know more about them.

What I do know, because I remember the late 1990s during the Clinton pre-impeachment scandal(s), is that all the right-wing forums were a-buzz with rumor and speculation every time someone leaked new ‘revelations’ about the Clintons’ misconduct. Every time, the headlines screamed ‘Latest bombshells will finally expose the Clintons! Smoking gun found!‘ or similar sensationalism. Whatever it was, there was always something that was promoted as being ‘the Big One! This is it! This will make Clinton resign!’

As history shows, no matter what was revealed, it was never enough to cause the shameless Clintons and their minions and defenders to admit anything, much less to retire in disgrace. They brazened it out till the bitter end, even being so bold as to trash the White House when they departed. Of course the liberal lying media denied what happened, following their pattern of covering up anything done by ‘their own.’ If you search on the subject you will find the media sycophants calling the damage just ‘pranks’ and mischief, downplaying it, if not outright denying that it happened.

This is what happens with a dishonest media machine; Thomas Jefferson wrote so often of the vital importance of a free and independent press. We are now living the consequences of not guarding against the corruption of the media, and the concentration of media control in a few, very politicized hands.

So, it may be that these latest ‘bombshells’, this time involving much more than ‘juvenile pranks’ like trashing the White House, or worse even than the Lewinski lewdness, will prove devastating to the corrupt Democrat crime machine and all their degenerate associates and contributors. We can hope.

But personally I am not investing too much in this latest story, not until it is actually out in the open, if ever. It may prove to be yet another of many damp squibs, as with virtually all of the ‘explosive revelations’ against the Clintons in the late 90s.

The thing is, our enemies, the ‘progressives’, liberals, Democrats, are people who are generally lacking in morals, especially as regards sexual behavior. Even when sexual behavior becomes transgressive to the point of violating the laws of God and man, they have no sense of shame. They generally can’t be shocked, being very amoral people in a deep sense. Oh, sure, they have perfected the art of feigning shock, when they can find a political enemy caught in some compromising situation  — like when some Christian minister is caught in sexual misbehavior. Then they suddenly are full of high morals, reacting with condemnation, for example, if the misbehavior happens to involve homosexuality — while normally they champion, no, celebrate homosexuality. And look at how they defend, even now, Roman Polanski.

They are not like normal people who recoil from certain things naturally; they are hardened in their amorality; everything is excused as a lack of understanding on our part; everyone is a victim of genes or childhood trauma (child abusers, for example) or their behavior is called good and natural (transsexualism, homosexuality, bestiality).

There is nothing much that can shock them, and when it comes to politics they would defend the Devil himself because after all he is one of their own.

So, we’ll see what develops. It would be a great surprise, and decidedly a good thing if some eleventh-hour revelation brings down the Democrats and all their associates and enablers, especially in the media. That would be the kind of deus-ex-machina we need, but if they are to be defeated it may just be down to the usual factors: let the elections play out, and pray that the vote-rigging does not work this time for the Democrat machine.

Relabeling the South

There’s a blog piece here on the idea of relabeling the people of the Southern States, or at least those of the old Confederacy as ‘Dixians.’ I believe in holding to the old ways, as those who read here know. And the idea of the new flag of the South (the black ‘X’ on a white field) is not one I can be enthusiastic about. I’ve written about this before, and I know that amongst the younger generation, the idea is popular, but that still doesn’t sell it to me.

I do know that the ‘x’ on the flag is not the letter ‘x’ but represents St. Andrew’s Cross, as it appears on both the Scottish flag and the Union Jack, where it is layered with the St. George’s Cross of the English.

Traditionally — and I suspect the younger, secular folk don’t know this, the St. Andrew’s Cross symbolized the Biblical patriarch Jacob, with his crossed-arms blessing on his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh. As many of the young are agnostic/atheist/pagan or just a-religious people from once-Christian families it’s likely this symbolism is unknown to them and that it lacks meaning for them even when explained. Likewise, their black X on a white field is devoid of meaning for me — and I suspect it would have no real resonance for most Southrons. I agree with the following comment from the blog, regarding both new names and new flags:

relabeling_2016-10-25_054930

Yes, definitely — something like a flag, or a name, can’t be just coined out of thin air and imposed on people. It has to come from the folk, and from the heart more than the head.

And the idea of changing the name of the people of the South is very reminiscent of how blacks re-label themselves every so often (or are re-named by the PC commissars who decreed that ‘colored’ had to be replaced by ‘negro’ which had to be changed to ‘black’ which gave way to ‘African-American.’) Obviously it was thought that the negative image was associated with the name, and changing the name would eliminate the “stigma”. Admittedly those who invented the new flag thought that a new name would remove the stigma attached to the South and its symbols.

But will it? Are the left that easily fooled? If the new flag catches on, will that prevent the $PLC from denouncing it as a ‘symbol of hate’? Really? Likewise, with a name change for the people of the South. The people  of the South, however educated, polite, urbane, and ‘respectable’ will forever be depicted as rednecks, bigots, hillbillies, and the rest of the insults. I (and my then-readers) had those slurs hurled at us on the old blog. Nobody is exempt, if they support the South and its history and heritage.

And then there’s the fact that to renounce the old flag, the flag under which our ancestors fought, is essentially conceding defeat to the Left and the anti-Whites. I hope to meet my ancestors in eternity one day, (not just yet, though) and I want to meet them knowing that I kept faith with them, and did not disgrace them in renouncing them and the cause they fought for — the Southern land and people and Christian heritage.

‘Touch not the ancient landmark’. That flag and the statues, they fall under that category, as I understand it.

Look, I know it’s hip and cool to follow after European ‘isms’ like ‘Identitarianism’ but we do not need to look to European intellectuals to interpret the world for us; we are not second-rate European descendants who have to rely on them to impart the truth. Good luck to them; I wish our European cousins well. But their ways of thinking are not those of this country and its heritage. Truth never becomes passe; fashion and popular opinion are passing, trifling things.

Ethnonationalism or ethnopatriotism are things of the heart, not the intellect, when it comes down to it. When we swell with pride hearing a national anthem or see our flag raised in battle — these things have inspired many songs, poems, and stories — that comes from within the heart, and cannot be artificially created.