Whose posterity?

At Vox Day’s blog, there’s a long discussion on the subject of just what the phrase “our posterity” means when used by the Founding Fathers (“ourselves and our posterity“, as you see above on my blog header.)

To me, the phrase’s meaning is self-evident, but apparently not to a lot of people. Maybe it depends, more than anything else, on ancestry. Those who are descendants of colonial stock, or at least descendants of the Revolutionary War generation, know who they are — or should know. Granted, though, many Americans are still vague about their origins — or worse, are ‘certain’ of what may be incorrect beliefs about their own genetics and ancestry, believing themselves to have some kind of ‘exotic’ ancestry that carries some kind of cachet for them or for the average American. But many people don’t know who their ancestors were, or perhaps know about only one or two lineages, or only the most recent ancestry.

Now for whatever reason, I can’t seem to get comments posted on Blogger blogs, and so I can’t take part in the VP discussion, so I’ll just post my thoughts here.

I am surprised at how many people seem to react negatively to Vox Day’s assertion that only the descendants of the actual Founding generation (and ethnicity) are the real posterity. Some people, as usually happens, feel personally offended if told that their ancestors, still being in the ‘old country’ when the Founders wrote their words, could not consider their own progeny to be the ‘posterity’ of the Founders or their generation.

Because people take this personally they respond with peevish statements along the lines of the following: ‘‘there aren’t any of the actual posterity of the Founders now; there are no ‘pure English’ or unmixed people left“, or there is legalistic arguing that immigrants and their posterity are just as much legitimate heirs as by adoption (naturalization being equated with adoption into a family).

If there are any of my old-time readers here these days, those with long memories may remember that when we had these discussions say, ten years ago, I was actually offering a ‘civic nationalist’ interpretation. As I wrote in a blog post some years ago:

‘[M]y ”we” includes all those who consider themselves ‘old Americans’, regardless of where your ancestors originated. All of you who identify with the America that was, and the America that might once again be.’

Was I really so clueless then?

Obviously many of those who are not of old-stock Anglo-Saxon roots are unwilling to ‘forgive’ those of us who are, judging by their grudging and resentful tone when referring to Anglo-Saxon Americans, even continuing the old denial that we even exist any longer. Many of those who admit to multiple European ancestries seem to want to believe that all White Americans are as they are, with a half-dozen or so different ancestries, and hence no particular identification with any one strain. They choose to believe that everyone must be like them.

For a long time it did seem as if the ‘just-American‘ identity, the old civic nationalist line, worked, at least passably, but sometime around the 1970s there was a kind of resurgence of ethnic identities, maybe in response to the increasing in-your-face ethnocentrism of nonwhites, so many Americans of remote Irish ancestry or German ancestry or Italian ancestry suddenly became more assertive about their roots, and sometimes this newly-found ethnocentrism became a more antagonistic dislike of ‘WASPs’, supposedly for some past imagined wrongs done by WASPs collectively against their immigrant ancestors, collectively. I honestly don’t remember there being as much anti-Anglo sentiment as we see now. My own increasing Anglocentrism is in part a response to that, merely an effort to speak up for too-reticent Anglo-Americans who are used to discreetly ignoring slurs from others.

From the same blog post of mine which I quote above:

“It is getting harder to cling to a ‘just American’ identity when our country is now according what was once a great prize, American citizenship, to people from every corner of the globe, people who speak no English and have no connection with old America. The American identity has been devalued, and stripped of its meaning. To be an American might mean anything and everything, but ultimately nothing when there is little commonality among those claiming the title.

What then? Are we all to identify with our varied European ancestry? Those who have several different ancestries with no clearly dominant one will face a dilemma in such a case.

‘I think those whose families have been here for generations should be able to identify with the historic culture and people of the United States, and that means the Anglo-Celtic identity which has dominated. It used to be that this was the default culture with which everyone identified, and few chose to reject that. Now it’s reversed; it’s cool to be ”ethnic” because that is vibrant and colorful and ‘rich’.

Sadly we seem to be beyond that point. Everybody scents blood where old-stock WASP Americans are concerned; ‘WASPs’ are considered weak or effete, or even (as some claim) extinct altogether, blended out of existence, hence we are fair game, to be discussed in the third person — ”they”– as if Anglo-Americans are like the Etruscans or some other long-gone race. We’ve been pronounced dead, or as good as, by some people, people who have their own ethnic agenda.

One more claim from some ‘civic nationalists’ I meant to address is the claim that ‘other ethnic groups were here from the very beginning’, and usually a litany of nationalities is recited, ‘Swedish, Dutch, German, Slavic, French, Spanish’, etc. etc. The deceptiveness in this line of argument is in implying that these other groups were equal in numbers to the English colonists, or that they were here contemporaneously with the English colonies when they may not have been. Yes. There were these other ethnicities who had colonies here, or who came to the English colonies — in very, very small numbers. But they were fewer, and did not leave the same cultural/social/genetic/political imprint as the English. They were here, but their presence was not as significant, like it or not.

It’s funny how this subject of national identity continues to come up again and again, despite having been discussed so frequently by so many; we seem to be farther than ever from settling it, and all the while our country continues to be colonized by people who seem to be here just to feast off the carcase of English-speaking America. And all the while we are squabbling amongst ourselves, while others are busy taking our birthright.

On ‘national degeneracy’

“A people is said to be degenerated, when it is badly governed, abuses its riches, is fanatical, or irreligious; in short, when it has lost the characteristic virtues of its forefathers. This is begging the question. Thus, communities succumb under the burden of social and political evils only when they are degenerate, and they are degenerate only when such evils prevail. This circular argument proves nothing but the small progress hitherto made in the science of national biology. I readily admit that nations perish from degeneracy, and from no other cause; it is when in that wretched condition, that foreign attacks are fatal to them, for then they no longer possess the strength to protect themselves against adverse fortune, or to recover from its blows. They die, because, though exposed to the same perils as their ancestors, they have not the same powers of overcoming them. I repeat it, the term degeneracy is correct; but it is necessary to define it, to give it a real and tangible meaning. It is necessary to say how and why this vigor, this capacity of overcoming surrounding dangers, are lost. Hitherto, we have been satisfied with a mere word, but the thing itself is as little known as ever. The step beyond, I shall attempt to make.

In my opinion, a nation is degenerate, when the blood of its founders no longer flows in its veins, but has been gradually deteriorated by successive foreign admixtures; so that the nation, while retaining its original name, is no longer composed of the same elements. The attenuation of the original blood is attended by a modification of the original instincts, or modes of thinking; the new elements assert their influence, and when they have once gained perfect and entire preponderance, the degeneration may be considered as complete. With the last remnant of the original ethnical principle, expires the life of the society and its civilization. The masses, which composed it, have thenceforth no separate, independent, social and political existence; they are attracted to different centres of civilization, and swell the ranks of new societies having new instincts and new purposes.

In attempting to establish this theorem, I am met by a question which involves the solution of a far more difficult problem than any I have yet approached. This question, so momentous in its bearings, is the following:

Is there, in reality, a serious and palpable difference in the capacity and intrinsic worth of different branches of the human family?

For the sake of clearness, I shall advance, a priori, that this difference exists. It then remains to show how the ethnical character of a nation can undergo such a total change as I designate by the term degeneracy.

Physiologists assert that the human frame is subject to a constant wear and tear, which would soon destroy the whole machine, but for new particles which are continually taking the form and place of the old ones. So rapid is this change said to be, that, in a few years, the whole framework is renovated, and the material identity of the individual changed. The same, to a great extent, may be said of nations, only that, while the individual always preserves a certain similarity of form and features, those of a nation are subject to innumerable and ever-varying changes.”

From Gobineau, The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races

“They” will not divide “us”

Just who are the ‘they‘ in this meme, and who are the ‘us‘ to which this meme alludes?

The ‘they’ who are supposedly out to divide ‘us’ are, presumably, hateful haters who don’t accept the multicultural ‘we’, the pretend unity that the lefties are invoking in the wake of the latest terror attacks.

I guess the ‘they‘ would be ethnonationalists, realists, anti-globalists, anybody who is not conforming to the official multicult dogma, anybody who dissents. People like me, obviously, and presumably people like those who may be reading this blog or others like it.

The enemy, according to the PC meme-makers is not Islam or any other foreign group; it is the citizenry of one’s own country who are not sufficiently submissive to the official party line dogma issued by the globalist overlords and their puppet-rulers in Western countries. Foreign enemies are not in fashion now; what does the Bible say in Matthew 10:36? A man’s enemies will be those of his own household? The left designates us, the dissidents and recalcitrant ‘old Americans’ as their enemy, while expressing solidarity with militant Islam, even as Islam carries out violence against us. Yet some of our folk can’t get it through their heads that we are the enemy to the powers-that-be and their leftist ‘useful idiots.’

In that sense, we are deeply divided already, within our own ‘household’. The divisions are political as well as ethnic, regional, class, religious, sex/gender, generational, and (last but far from least) racial.

We could hardly be more divided than we are.

The left and their globalist bedfellows know this, yet they have the gall to invoke this nonexistent ‘unity’ and to piously proclaim that ”They” will not divide ”us.”

There is no ‘us’ in this country that encompasses all of us, across all the boundaries that I mention above. The powers-that-be and their media stooges have made sure of that. Their constant divisive rhetoric, their ‘divide-and-rule’ memes have left their mark on our society. Sadly few people recognize that these divisions need not exist in the extreme form in which they’ve taken shape even in the last 10 or 15 years. I have to say, when I started blogging only 11 years ago, we were not nearly as riven with dissension and intra-racial animus as we are now.

The same can be said of other once-White countries, to a greater or lesser extent. This is a big part of why we are so vulnerable to what is happening to us now. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (Sadly that last sentence is often attributed to Lincoln when he was merely quoting Jesus Christ).

As far as poisonous memes go, I have to mention another one: this ridiculous idea that if we alter our lives in response to terrorism, if we show fear or even sensible prudence and caution, we are ‘giving in to the terrorists’, because taking precautions against terrorism means, bizarrely, that ”the terrorists will have won.”  So go right out and take chances and risks, as a way of defying those terrorists, whose aim is only to ‘make us change our way of life‘ because they ‘envy our freedoms.

It seems to me that their aim is to kill as many of us as they can and to terrorize us, to make us passive. Incidentally this latter seems to be the goal of the powers-that-be, and our governments. Maybe they are just using Islam and its intrinsic aggression and violence to keep us resigned and passive. False flags? Why bother? Just let the moslems do what comes naturally to them, and there’s no need for complicated false flag conspiracies and crisis actors, etc.

But to return to the original theme of this post, the main work of dividing the once-homogeneous societies was done years ago by the architects of multiculturalism. We tend to blame the leftist parties and politicians, people like Emmanuel Celler and Philip Hart, or Teddy Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. But the GOP has been complicit in this too.

The George W. Bush administration was the main promoter of the meme about how ‘the terrorists will have won’ unless we learn to be oblivious to the terror attacks going on around us.  That meme is seeing a lot of service these days, along with ‘they won’t divide us.’

At the Smash Cultural Marxism blog there’s a very good piece dealing with the ‘unity’ memes, pointing out that we are already divided thanks to ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism, via mass immigration. The time for the ‘they won’t divide us’ mantra would have been pre-1965 in America, before they ripped apart the fabric of our society with mass immigration and slow-motion ethnic cleansing/race replacement.

The time for Britain to have defiantly said ‘they won’t divide us’ would have been pre-1948, before the arrival of the Windrush. As Andrew Joyce points out in the article on the Windrush, the role of Jews was very prominent in that event, which should come as no surprise. So perhaps the roots of the multicultural divisiveness go back much further.

They have divided us already; the division is an accomplished fact. How we can walk things back and restore the cohesion and commonality that once existed is a complicated question.

We’ve already been divided, so pretending that there is some kind of imaginary unity between us and Islam — or us and Jews, or whoever else — is very hollow.

The defiant proclamation ‘they won’t divide us’ should be directed toward those who are responsible for shredding our society every which way, and that ‘they‘ is not nationalists or nativists.

 

Theresa May: no more ‘safe spaces’ online

Tiberge at GalliaWatch reports that Theresa May issued a communique in Arabic, of all things. A translation is at that blog.

Here’s one of the salient parts:

“Third, while we need to deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online, we must not forget about the safe spaces that continue to exist in the real world. Yes, that means taking military action to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But it also means taking action here at home. While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.

So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out – across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations, but the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism – and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities but as one truly United Kingdom.”

What jumps out here is not just the call for some kind of censorship of the Internet, but also the carefully parsed language which condemns ‘extremism‘ — not Islam, of course, and not just ‘Islamic extremism’ or ‘extremist Islam’, which are favorite weasel-phrases of our politicians, but extremism per se. Whatever that may mean to people like Theresa May, and however they define it. Obviously they are implying that the rightful people of the UK, the indigenous White people whose country the UK is, are also among those in the sights of the government — if they dare to criticize Holy Diversity (particularly, but not limited to, moslems) or immigration. We’ve seen how the governments in Europe have gone after their native indigenous White citizens if they so much as questioned immigration policy, or said an unflattering word about immigrants themselves. Twitter (and probably other social media sites) have colluded with the totalitarians in charge to zero in on people who said impolitic things online.

If Theresa May is proposing this, likely all the Western governments are going to act in concert to clamp down on the free speech of their own citizens who are deemed ‘extremists’, and that would include dissident bloggers and commenters.

I’ve said it before, and never yet got an ‘amen’, but I am becoming more convinced that most Western leaders, those in Europe especially, have already surrendered to Islam. Look at May herself, with her headscarves, her obsequious attitude toward her Islamic ‘constituents’, and now, communiques in Arabic. More and more it looks to me like surrender is a done deal, a fait accompli, (how does one say that in Arabic, Madame May?) and the hapless citizens who are to be made dhimmis are going to be the last to catch on, the last to be told.

Even Italy, which Italian-Americans have often boasted would never tolerate what the weaklings in Western Europe have allowed, is ferrying ‘refugees’ to their country, not just fishing them out of the Mediterranean for humanitarian reasons, as we were told. Italian ships are still going obligingly to North Africa to fetch these ‘refugees’ and deposit them in their new home in Europe.

So far, Eastern Europe appears to be a holdout against this kind of insanity, but will that last? Will the globalist powers-that-be truly be content to let Eastern Europe alone, or are they just biding their time, or getting Western Europe subjugated first, hoping that the rest will fall in line in due time, when they too are targeted for dhimmitude?

In any case it looks like much of Europe has in fact thrown in the towel, and the quislings are firmly ensconced as the puppet ‘leadership’, May and Merkel being pre-eminent.

May speaks ominously of “one truly United Kingdom.” There can be no naturally united kingdom in Britain that is a hybrid of Islam/Sharia Law and the true English tradition. Oil and water cannot mix. Kipling was right in saying (of East and West) that ‘never the twain shall meet.’

The latest attack in the UK

The most recent terror attacks in London come very close on the heels of the Manchester attack.

Are people really becoming jaded to all these things, inured to them, incapable of being shocked or (imagine!) outraged, finally?

Katie Hopkins, Daily Mail columnist, tweeted to the mohammedan ‘mayor’ of London that ‘London bridge has fallen down, on your watch’, and she said that the people did not want to hear one word from him on the situation. I wonder why? Maybe because he said, in a jaw-dropping comment after one of the (many) attacks that terrorism was just ‘part and parcel of life in a big city’ today? They are part and parcel of life in Western countries — if those countries have moslems residing in them. It’s not ‘life in the big city’ as such, but life in any locality with mohammedans. Just the truth.

The media coverage of these ongoing bloodlettings is becoming very ritualized and rote. What new thing can be said on these depressingly familiar occasions? Whatever one says in these situations, it has to be suitably politically correct, carefully crafted to avoid offending any nearby moslems, or moslem-symps, who might be in the vicinity, or there will be weeping and wailing and talk of ‘hate speech’ and ‘Islamophobia’, or talk of dismissals and firings for some if they are in a public position.

And that last point should be kept in mind when people are jumping on the bandwagon to condemn the English/the British, as always happens when Americans discuss these events.  Americans are often very quick to condemn and sneer at ‘the Brits’ as being cowards, weaklings, and a beaten people.

In defense of the British one could say ‘but they are disarmed by their laws and their government’, but that too is taken as proof of the ‘whipped’ nature of the British, or the English in particular.

But are they in worse shape than we are? Sure, we have the First Amendment, but it’s increasingly being weakened, and ‘hate speech’ laws, formal or informal, are being used to deny our freedom at every turn. We still have a First Amendment on paper, but…

As to our right to bear arms, which I fully support as did our Founding Fathers, ‘they’, that is the forces of subversion who seem to be in the drivers’ seat, are working night and day to take that right away.

Are we doing enough to counter their frenzied, non-stop, round-the-clock efforts? Are we? Or are we showing signs of being jaded and resigned ourselves?

Many Americans online express an idea that there is some genetic deficiency among the British or the English, which makes them more passive and less militant than we Americans. Some do acknowledge that the English were once a mighty people with the world’s largest empire, but they think the English aren’t the same people they once were. Sadly that could be true — but it could also be said of our folk too.

I ask myself, what have our many terror attacks in this country done to galvanize us to close our borders, especially to those of the ‘Religion of Peace’? Trump talked a good game but has upped the refugee numbers considerably since taking office.  All the while more mosques and ‘Islamic centers’ sprout up around our country.

9/11 inaugurated the age of large-scale terror attacks in the West. Granted there had been the occasional attack before, including the somewhat unsuccessful attempt on the World Trade Center. But there had been terror attacks going on regularly against Western people since the 70s at least. So we have had years to deal with this problem and to recognize the nature of Islam, and the threat it poses. Why are people still surprised when they do these things? There is still a layer of denial on the part of many complacent Westerners.

The Fort Hood massacre should have had greater repercussions as far as awakening our folk — but now it seems mostly forgotten. Texas, once one of the most conservative and common-sense states in the country, is now the home of many moslems. Texas, too, is now being demographically changed, mostly by Hispanic immigrants, but then today’s Texans are now much softer on accepting our long-time foes as ‘fellow Texans.’

Diversity of whatever kind weakens us, damages our social and cultural integrity, and sets us up for predators to come in and finish us, psychologically if not physically.

Some years ago, before most of us had become accustomed to Islam in our midst, and when most of us gave little thought to the possibility of terror in our own country, I was visiting friends in London, and they were expressing displeasure with the increasingly visible immigrant colonies in their city. They wryly talked of all the ‘robes and turbans’ that they saw in their city, but to me it seemed a minor thing at the time. It took some years for me to start to notice that Americans were being surrounded by ‘diversity’, and from increasingly alien cultures. There are English people who feel just as many honest Americans do about this situation, but because of draconian ‘hate speech’ laws and a more totalitarian government, they are not able to have their voices heard — just as we aren’t heard in the controlled media here, and people who think as we do are relegated to the ‘dissident’ wing of the blogosphere, while outlets like YouTube, FB, Twitter, and even Pinterest make their venues inhospitable to politically incorrect (read:truthful) ideas.

Being unable to express ourselves freely, we can’t make our voices and our ideas — which are the only ideas that stand a chance to save us — heard. Remember the old Norman Rockwell illustration of an old-fashioned American town meeting? In those days people could say their piece, have their ideas heard — and those ideas could be accepted or rejected on their merits. Nowadays people have been trained to shun ideas that our ‘masters’ have declared anathema, off-limits, and they are no longer mentally free to evaluate ideas independently, especially the young, who are thoroughly indoctrinated, mentally crippled.

Decades of heavy mind-conditioning by the controlled media (including, and especially, the ‘entertainment’ sector) as well as by government agencies, schools, (private and public) and plain old peer pressure have made eunuchs of many people in White countries.

So it isn’t just the British who are vulnerable; we can’t condemn them when we have done so little to try to stop the Islamic threat in our own country. The bell tolls for us too.

Reconstruction history distorted

With all the shrill clamor for the destruction of all Confederate monuments and images, there should be more examination of the history of the South, especially the Reconstruction era after the War Between the States. But I suspect this history is never taught in our schools, not even in the South, or worse, that some version of the history of that time is being taught, but it is a one-sided, anti-White version.

I am focusing for the moment on Louisiana’s history, because that state is the scene of the latest vandalism of Confederate statuary and monuments — and there are demands from insatiable lefties to destroy even more such monuments. Is anybody trying to counter the propaganda?

For the moment it seems the anti-White left has the megaphone and they are making sure they put their side of the story out there, so that the unthinking and uninformed amongst us will agree that yes, those hateful, odious statues and symbols have to go; because slavery, because Jim Crow.

And why were there these social restrictions that we refer to as ‘Jim Crow’?

If you search the Internet for an incident called the ‘Colfax massacre’ or something similar, you will find a lot of information which presents the familiar pro-black slant on the incident. Was it a massacre? A riot? Whatever happened in Colfax Grant Parish, people died in that incident. According to the PC version, the victims were innocent black people.

But rather than reading the story as told by some hack lefty writer, or some politically correct academic, let’s go back to the report from Joseph Pere Bell Wilmer, who lived during those times and had actual knowledge of the situation. He describes how the Radical Republicans and their ilk, including carpetbaggers, Southern renegade ‘scallywags’, and assorted others, incited fear on the part of blacks and deliberately provoked violence. Sound familiar? Today’s counterparts of those malicious talebearers do the same thing in our media daily.

‘The murders and assassinations which have defiled our land with blood, are thus explained. With such elements of mischief seething and raging beneath the surface of society, any other result would be almost a miracle. No complaint is heard of Federal soldiers being murdered or molested through the South as the German soldiers were murdered during the occupation of French territory — no violence, no attempt at resistance to Federal authority. The disturbances are local, and in no instance, within my observation, have the whites been the aggressors.

The safety of the negroes had been as inviolable as that of the soldiers, if their behavior had been as discreet and unaggressive. The melancholy tragedy in Grant Parish has been proclaimed far and wide to the prejudice of the white people in this State. The fact has been strangely withheld, that before this event, so deeply deplored by our citizens, the negroes had rushed to arms, whole families of the white community had been frightened from their homes by insulting forays and threats of extermination; some escaping across the river, and others to the woods — one dear child, to my knowledge, having perished from cold and exposure in the forest — and another already dead and laid out for burial was madly flung into the public street.

“Prior to the attack on the fortification at Colfax,” I quote from a letter addressed to me, by the excellent rector of the adjacent Parish, “the negroes had driven from their homes every white family in the vicinity. A reign of terror has been inaugurated, and they had threatened the destruction of the white race in three parishes. Their deliberation to sack and burn the town of Natchitoches, Alexandria, and Pineville was openly proclaimed. Almost the whole negro population was armed, and prepared to carry into effect this perfidious design against the whites in the event of their being able to maintain themselves at Colfax. They courted the assault, being confident that they could annihilate the attacking party, and this being done, the country would be left defenceless, and they were to sally forth upon the work of destruction.”

I add the testimony of one of the victims, in his dying moments, one of the few white men that were killed, that he had thrown away his arms and had entered the building under a flag of truce raised by the negroes, when he received his mortal wound. Nothing is more calculated to excite a maddened crowd to the work of indiscriminate destruction.”

I mention this incident especially because it is being cited, here and there in the media, as one of the ‘reasons’ why the rest of the Confederate monuments in Louisiana must come down.

But there is another side to the story; their anti-White narrative is the only side that is being offered.

I have a particular interest in Louisiana; I have many happy childhood memories of South Louisiana. During recent visits to that state, I’ve noticed that there is a push towards the ‘rainbow’ view that Louisiana is a happy multicultural state where everybody loves everybody and there are no divisions, no color barriers. Yet the events that happened at the time of Hurricane Katrina (now consigned to the memory hole, and denied by the usual media suspects) contradict the pollyannaish multicult version of life in that state.

History cannot be erased completely; the monuments, sadly, can be pulled down, and the politically incorrect and inconvenient facts buried or sent down the memory hole, but the after-effects of the past cannot be waved away. They must be dealt with; they cannot be repressed and wished away forever, not with all the happy-clappy “we’re all one people” mantras.

And certainly, people like Mitch Landrieu, the racially fickle mayor of New Orleans, with their relentless anti-White tone, do not present a ‘one big happy family’ image of New Orleans or Louisiana.

 

‘The load of calumny…’

“My duty will have been discharged, when the load of calumny which rests upon this people is lifted, when the story of Southern outrages against negroes and their allies is explained, and the Church of Christ is rescued from the suspicion of winking at lawlessness and crime — holding the nation breathless at the persecutions endured in the cause of equal rights, without a sigh of remonstrance from those who call themselves Christians.”

So wrote Joseph Pere Bell Wilmer in his ‘A Defense of Louisiana’, written during the troubled Reconstruction era. The ‘load of calumny’ to which he refers has to do with the accusations made against the White citizens of his state, and against the South generally, by the White allies of the black freedmen.

I feel the same burden that Wilmer felt; I somehow feel I have a duty to my folk and to my own ancestors, specifically, to answer the ‘load of calumny’ that not only continues these many decades later, but continues to intensify.

But let’s let Wilmer speak:

“To what is this tending? Nothing is more practicable than the cultivation of harmony among the States of this Union. Not less practicable, is the restoration of amity and affection between the two races in the South. Our hope is to live in peace with the negroes, ourselves and our children — but not while a respectable body of citizens are busy in segregating them and nursing distrust and alienation in their breasts; not while the public journals are teeming with accusations unknown in political warfare and foreign to the spirit of civilization, invoking upon the white race the restraints due to a turbulent and sanguinary people.”

I can’t say I share his optimism about the possibility of restoring ‘amity and affection’ between the two races; things have become that much worse since his words were written, and so much water has passed under the bridge. And I don’t think that it is now just a matter of troublemaking White traitors sowing distrust and animosity between the two races. If only it were that simple.

“Posterity will read with admiration, not unmingled with regret, of the patient struggles of the South to recover its forfeited rights in the Union. The privileges of representation first proffered were rendered imaginary in this State. Its representative men had all been in arms, and these by the will of Congress were excluded. This act of discrimination was not accepted by the people. From motives honorable to their spirit of chivalry, but fatal to their returning prosperity, the opportunity was lost to the Southern States to recover their influence in the councils of the nation.

[…] That the Reconstruction measures adopted by Congress for the South, were punitive in their design, I will not assert; that their aim was to establish the supremacy of a party, it is not my province to judge; that they were disastrous in their results, will be the verdict of history.”

One of the aims was to establish the supremacy of the Radical Republican party in the South, in case the allusion above is not self-evident. The Radical Republicans were the equivalent, in their anti-White tendencies, to the Democrat party of our day — or shall we include today’s Republicans in that category too? Why not?

“A more consuming policy could not have been devised. It excluded the statesmen of the land, and a large body of its ablest and best citizens, from any share in the rehabilitation of the State, and exalted to the highest functions of government, men wholly ignorant and incompetent to the task, bewildered indeed by this sudden transformation from slaves, into magistrates and rulers. So perilous a change was not wise statesmanship. The capacity of the Africans for government had been tested on their own native shores. Again, in the Islands of the Gulf of Mexico. The attempt to transfer to this race the fairest portion of the South, reckoning on their numerical strength to hold it under their sway, was to laugh to scorn the lessons of history. Ought we to be surprised that the inhabitants, — proprietors of the soil, men of our race and lineage — should revolt at this offence to their pride, not to speak of the inevitable spoliation and destruction of their property. Witness the result — in the present condition of this State, vividly, but imperfectly described in the message of the President to Congress, and the testimony before the Committee, in this city. Was anything else to be expected from African supremacy? A state illustrious in history, unrivalled in its resources, intense in its submission to Federal authority, reduced to shame and bankruptcy. Over its ample domain, or the larger portion of it, the eye ranges hopelessly for some object to break the monotony of suffering. Homes dilapidated and deserted, fields stretching far and wide uncultivated as a Libyan desert, schools suspended, churches closed, and when opened, half the congregation left to guard their property and homes from spoliation. No law exists against vagrancy, consequently in many parishes little or no stock is raised, no poultry, not even vegetables, so unsparing is the spirit of depredation. Disgrace is never attached to stealing from the whites, among a large class, and the convict emerges from the penitentiary with no sense of shame, and no loss of respectability. Indeed, the forbearance displayed by the planters under these outrages, if the facts were known as I know them, would often be regarded with amazement.”

I realize many of these facts are known to Southern folk, but I reiterate them for those who never learned of these things in our politically correct, anti-White school system. I happen to know that many private schools, sadly, even Christian schools, are just as derelict in their duties of teaching real history to their students.

And it’s important to provide some context for this controversy over the history of the South, and the wanton destruction and censorship of the history of the Confederacy, and the blackout (!) of any information about Reconstruction.

We need to be aware of the other side to the story rather than relying on the ‘history’ as related by Mitch Landrieu’s speechwriters.

More on this subject to come.

 

 

 

 

The continuing war on the Confederacy

It truly makes me feel sick to write about the recent events in which time-honored monuments in the South have been vandalized, desecrated, and destroyed.  And all of this is being done so as to destroy, finally, the image of the Confederacy and the good name of the White people of the South. It’s being done to appease, to flatter, and to pander to blacks, to reassure them that they, in fact, are THE people now; the time of Whitey has passed, and it is now their turn, their time to exact revenge and to demand homage and ‘respect’ from those who (as they believe) have ‘held them down’.

As I’ve written before, the real ‘dark days’ of the South were the days of so-called ‘Reconstruction’, in  which nothing was rebuilt, but much was savaged and destroyed. Newly-freed blacks were then being instructed by their unprincipled ‘carpetbagger’ mentors and ‘protectors’ that they were now entitled to payback for the past, and that they were now free to behave as they pleased. Search out older history books (if the leftists have not eliminated them all) and you may find that the White population of the South was on the receiving end of a great deal of violence thanks to ‘freedmen’, Northern carpetbaggers, and Southron scallywags, all of whom, together, fomented disorder and fear in the South. Those days, Mitch Landrieu, were really dark days; not the antebellum days in the South as you implied in your recent anti-White speech in New Orleans, justifying the destruction of Confederate monuments.

Mitch Landrieu’s uninformed references to the days of slavery and the whole history of the Confederacy amount to the usual anti-White, anti-Southron boilerplate, and it sounds like history as told via Hollywood scriptwriters looking to sensationalize that era (a la Django, 12 Years a Slave, etc. etc.) as one of incredible cruelty, rape, and inhumanity. I believe Landrieu even uses those words.

Most Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of lies regarding the past, especially concerning racial differences, and Landrieu perhaps believes it all himself; but liberals are much more free to make up ‘history’ as it suits them, believing as they do that there is no such thing as objective truth; nothing is absolute, all is relative. It’s all a matter of whose narrative you choose. Obviously Landrieu chooses the nonwhite version of “history”, in which nonwhites are ever-sinned against, never sinning. Nonwhites, in their own eyes, can never be wrong or do wrong. It is always ‘Whitey’s’ fault; the blame can never lie elsewhere; it can never even be shared. Guilt is exclusively the property of Whitey. No one else. Ever.

I wonder if Mitch Landrieu or any lefty has ever heard of the Slave Narratives? If so, the response is simply to ignore it, and failing that, to deny the truth therein. If any of  my readers have not read from that source, I recommend reading some of the stories. The overall picture is not at all the lurid picture of White cruelty and rapine that the current powers-that-be continue to push. I won’t be surprised when and if the politically correct archivists and historians yield fully to PC and expunge those stories from the Internet as well as from libraries. Can’t allow competing narratives, can we? Only the anti-White narrative must be allowed to be read or heard or seen; all else must be silenced, or, as with the Confederate monuments, pulled down, razed, and turned to rubble.

And now that all those who were actually slaves are long gone, there is no one to gainsay the lying depictions of the South as a cesspool of inhumanity, exploitation, torture, rape, and degradation. So the Mitch Landrieus of the world can spread their mendacious stories likening the antebellum South to ‘Nazi Germany’ or whatever other example of ultimate ‘White evil’ they are hyping.

What makes Landrieu’s posturing especially ironic is that there is at least some doubt about his own ancestry; sources say Landrieu’s family was listed as ‘black’ on past census records, and Mitch’s grandfather altered their identity to White. So is Mitch Landrieu a ‘White supremacist’ because he and his relatives now choose to downplay if not deny any black ancestry? I would say hardly; no ‘White supremacist’ would take such a hard-line anti-White, anti-Confederate stand as he is taking. At worst he is a hypocrite on his racial identity, though why he does not proudly claim any black ancestry is beyond me, considering that he extols ‘diversity’ and the holy ‘melting pot’ in his speech. In fact he praises everybody under the sun in that speech except Whites, for whom he reserves his greatest vitriol.  So is Landrieu White or not? Is he self-hating? I mean, if even Rachel Dolezal can proudly claim her black ancestry, why not Landrieu?

Maybe he enjoys posing as the noble White defender of poor downtrodden diversities, hence the decision to be ‘White.’ But he knows that by the old code of the South — and indeed, of pretty much all of old White America — the one-drop rule was applied. If one was a fraction black, one was black. Period. Full stop. End of story. One drop was all it took. Hence people like Adam Clayton Powell. Or some of these people.

For some bizarre reason, The Atlantic seems to insist on Landrieu’s ‘white’ identity; wait — I thought race was just a social construct anyway.

Mitch Landrieu is a politician, and they come and go. So he is not really the issue here; he is just one of many. There are plenty of other anti-White ‘Southern’ politicians today, who deserve the shameful label ‘scallywag’ that our Southron ancestors used for them. When Landrieu and that whole clan are no longer in office (if Louisiana ever runs out of Landrieus to run for office) there will be others, by other names, just as much scoundrels, to take their place.

I don’t know how North and South,black and White, can coexist under the same government, but for some reason the perverse pro-Union types insist, demand, that live together we must, whether we like it or not. Some people, strange though it may seem,  believe that this hideous ‘shotgun (re)marriage must continue, despite divisions and, increasingly, open violence. Is this abstract thing called the ‘Union’ really worth coercing people who distrust and despise and resent each other to live together? And how is that called ‘freedom’?

 

 

A people ‘in good shape’?

Alain de Benoist quote

I think Alain de Benoist is right about what constitutes a people ‘in good shape.’ Number one on his list of criteria describes much of what my blog focused on in its earlier days, but it seems much of America has become too cynical to look to our cultural and historical roots; much of the right has bought the Howard Zinn/NPR view of our culture and history, which is not just sad, but it is a huge blow to our sense of who we are — and it precludes Alain de Benoist’s number 2 criterion. How can we have a ‘will to destiny’ if there is no ‘we‘ anymore, or if there is not a ‘we’ worth preserving? We so divided by generation, by sex, by region, by religion, by ethnicity.

Lastly, Alain de Benoist is right on the money about how the left does not want to have an enemy — except for White people, specifically White, Christian, straight people, especially males. That enemy is the only enemy the deluded leftists/deracinated Whites/globalists want to recognize.

And again

rot

 

I am troubled by the latest attack in Manchester, England, and sickened that this cycle goes on, needlessly. I do feel deeply for the families of the victims, and my prayers are for them.

However I am not sharing the above ‘meme’ with the motive of inspiring more teary ‘candlelight vigils’ and statements of unity (“we stand with Muslims”, as the millennials like to say). There have been far too many of those and to what avail?

And as I’ve asked, rhetorically of course, to what ‘god’, exactly, are the usual soppy prayers being offered up? More importantly, to what ‘god’ are the victims being offered up? Because they are, seemingly, being offered up by the powers-that-be, for what? An appeasement? An offering to whatever evil gods of whatever far-off-lands may require the sacrifice of innocents?

To give some of the ‘bleeding-heart’ types their due (if they have that right; I am not sure they have), they may be well-intentioned in their feeble, wet-dishrag way, with their prayers and their ‘standing together’ and their teary appeals. But can they really believe that the true God, the God of the Bible, accounts the perpetrators of these atrocities as just as much ‘his children’ as those who worship him in spirit and in truth? Are murderers and victims all equal in God’s eyes? Does God really love them all the same? Is God really morally neutral? If this is the ‘god’ these bleeding-hearts invoke then they are worshipping some kind of heathen deity who does not differentiate or judge morally. Such a ‘god’ is deaf and blind and offers no comfort or consolation. Above all, such a ‘god’ as these post-Christians pray to does not offer justice. As such, he/she is not a ‘god’ at all. So prayers are of no avail. It is no wonder help is not forthcoming to the nations who have decided to bow down to this god-who-is-no-god.

And to some extent, our nation is prey to this same post-Christian delusion that plagues most of Europe, as well as Australia and New Zealand and Canada.

On a simply human level, why do the nations who are the targets of these attacks not finally get angry that their kinsmen are being killed, picked off randomly, in incidents like this? If someone was picking off their family members like this, would people still react with resignation and tears and hand-wringing, rather than reacting with righteous anger and some attempt at healthy self-defense? There must be some deep mind-conditioning going on to cause this passivity and resignation.

One final note: I am waiting to see the first allegation of a ‘false flag’, and the first claim that there are ‘crisis actors’ and staged scenes to fool us into believing a real attack happened.

If this is true, if the powers-that-be are resorting to having to stage fake terror attacks, then the Moslems are falling down on the job; they aren’t earning their keep in our countries, not doing what they were brought here for.