Yes, they were always White

Steve Sailer links to a Washington Post piece which takes on the claim that the Irish were not always considered White.  Funny, I had a post ready to go in which I mention, once again, that silly canard. (My post was to have been about widely-believed myths.)

I had wondered how and why this idea became so widely repeated, and it appears that the source, at least in our time, is the notorious anti-White academic Noel Ignatiev with his book How the Irish Became White. Apparently that book’s use in the de rigueur ‘whiteness studies’ movement on campuses has spread the canard.

I’ve written about the claim in past posts, usually in exasperation with somebody spreading this idea on ‘right-wing’ blogs or forums. Now, we know the left loves to assert anything that makes Whites look bad, or casts the past in a bad light. The belief that other Whites refused to include the Irish (or the Italians, or whatever other ethnic White group) makes us look exclusionary and mean-spirited.

Usually the claim is bolstered by things like old political cartoons, satirical images like those in Punch magazines of long ago. There’s this exampleJudy, Or The London Serio-Comic Journal, 1876a.


from an 1876 British magazine, Judy, Or the London Serio-Comic Journal.

Some people see depictions like the one above as ‘simian’ in appearance. Whatever. I think it depicts a certain ‘type’ of Irishman, but I don’t see how the man in the above picture could be called non-White.

As for the Italians and Jews being considered non-White, well, if one’s standard of Whiteness is based on the Northern European type, then obviously Italians and Jews differ from that phenotype in certain ways, sometimes by darker skin.

The Jews (and the writer of the WaPo piece is named Bernstein) are another story, apparently considering themselves White when convenient and ‘Other’ when it serves a purpose. I have personally heard some Jewish people using the term ‘White folks’ or ‘Whites’  in the third person, and they certainly seem to side, in most cases with ‘The Other’, against Whites. The DNA studies reported by Johns Hopkins in 2013, to which I’ve alluded a couple of times, show a mixed origin for Jews. However when it came to immigration they were evidently considered White.

As the article points out, and as a commenter on the Sailer blog astutely points out, none of the above-mentioned ethnicities were excluded from marrying Whites, during the time when miscegenation was illegal, and interracial marriages forbidden. I’ve noted that before, too.

So why exactly is this idea that the ‘Irish weren’t considered White’ so popular these days, cropping up repeatedly amongst even ethnonationalist or ‘WN’ commenters?

My instinct is to say that it’s popular, in part, because the victimhood card is so often played these days; why not jump on the bandwagon? It amounts to trying to shame the alleged victimizer and to claim the moral high ground, having been unjustly treated and wronged. And who then is the target of the shaming? As usual, the WASP, the Angl0-American, because he was the dominant one in America in the days when this wrong was alleged to have happened. WASPs are often pictured in fiction and in leftist history books as snobs and haughty bigots who saw everyone else as inferior. They kept certain people out of their exclusive clubs! No doubt snobs exist in any group, but for people who were so intolerant, they oddly opened up the gates to admit millions of supposedly ‘non-White’ peoples in the past.

As far as the left is concerned, they spread these kinds of false ideas to divide White Americans along ethnic lines, as if we aren’t already divided in many ways.


The ‘melting pot’ disproved?

There was an interesting comment (of many) on a thread at Vox Day’s blog. It addresses something I’ve thought about considerably, and the writer’s experience parallels my own, regarding ancestral lines and the ‘gaslighting’ that we are subjected to regarding American ancestry and thus American identity. I trust that the commenter, ‘Harris’ won’t object if I excerpt:

“I have been working on my genealogy lately, and I’ve discovered something about the lack of mixing with other races in my own bloodline. So far, in the 400 years since my family settled in North America from England, there are only 4 non-Anglo women that have married into the family (out of over 4500 currently in the extended family tree) and the female descendants of those 4 women have NEVER married a non-anglo male. Those 4 women were 1 Irish woman, 1 German, 1 Cherokee woman, and 1 Swiss woman.

[…]My point is that while nearly my entire family arrived in the first wave of settlers in Massachusetts & Virginia, there has been very little intermarrying with other Caucasian races, much less non-Caucasians. I’ve noticed that other races also tend to marry their own kind.
Just in my own family, you see the myth of the melting pot disproved. This indicates that the bloodline ties are more than just cosmetic. There is something subconscious about seeking your own. How has the West lost sight of this truth?

There has to have been a determined and conscious effort to undermine the cultural homogeneity of our western societies, and this can be traced back to Darwinism, the progressive movement of the late 19th century, and the emergence of a communist philosophy that sought to undermine the Christian foundations of our various Caucasian civilizations. This was purposeful, and we large did this to ourselves.”

First, just in passing, it’s of interest to me that the writer’s family tree seems to intersect with mine at some points (which is not that uncommon, with colonial-stock Americans), then the rest of his comment (which can be read here) points out what I have often said. Many people make the claim that ”we’re all mixed-up; there are no Americans who are not at least mixed ethnicity if not racially mixed.”  This just isn’t necessarily true, especially as you go back through the generations.  Some parts of the country, having had lots of immigration, were likely to see marriages across ethnic lines, though rarely interracially. Miscegenation was illegal most everywhere until the late 1960s, though the rules slightly differed from state to state. But many places, those with low immigration rates, rural areas especially, did not experience much marriage across ethnic lines. People too often tend to interpret things through their own personal reality and extrapolate that to the rest of America.

Some of the comments on the thread linked above scoffed, to some extent, at the value of genealogy, as being unreliable. It’s true that there is a lot of false or partially-false information on genealogy websites where people upload their own (often mistaken) data, and there is little cross-checking and validation being done. But that doesn’t mean all online data is untrustworthy. It does need scrutiny and verification. But now there is the additional resource of DNA testing — but as in our family’s case, it verified pretty much what our previous information indicated.

But the commenter’s assertion that there has been an effort to undermine the homogeneity of our people and nation is a very plausible one. I think a big part of that has been a conscious effort to foster the myth of the ‘melting pot’ (the term a creation of Israel Zangwill, by the way) and the idea that we are all hopelessly mixed. Why would those ideas be important to implant? Because it fosters resignation to the continuing effort to blend us all together — after all, we’re all ‘mongrels’ as I believe our former POTUS said. I believe this whole process probably was in the works longer than we have realized, and that the Ellis Island experiment was to accustom us to more and more disparate peoples and cultures, as just one stage of the plan to blend Americans into one amorphous “people” and culture, rootless and identity-less, except for our identity in a civic sense.

If Americans could only start to realize that we are not this non-nation “of no race and no culture” as we hear some voices insisting. There is something still to be preserved.



Dwindling and vanishing?


The above was a comment posted on Vox Day’s blog, in response to an earlier comment.

I seem to remember that in the earlier incarnation of this blog, someone took exception to the term ‘Vanishing American’, on the grounds that it was pessimistic or fatalistic. I certainly hope I haven’t given that impression in using that term. I chose it (as many people know) because it referenced not only our precarious status in our country of birth, and also as a reminder of what happened to those who were originally called ‘the vanishing American’, that is, American Indians. No doubt they haven’t vanished altogether, as so many lefties who want to lay a “genocide” charge against Whites imply, but they were outnumbered and marginalized and (to some extent) ‘lost’ by outmarrying.

In the earlier days of this blog I think I focused more on trying to remind our folk of  heritage and history, to try to revive a sense of knowing who we are, where we came from, and of the need for regaining confidence in ourselves in this dark age. I’ve gotten away from that somewhat, maybe sensing that the mood has shifted away from respecting tradition and the past.

So in using the term ‘vanishing’ I think the sense, on this blog, always was ‘vanishing — if if we don’t face up to our predicament and do everything possible to reverse it. There are so many doomsayers and defeatists online (and in real life, depending on where you are) that it’s absolutely self-destructive to give way to that thinking.

I have to say, honestly, I have more pessimistic moods in recent years than I did in 2006, and maybe I have grown more cynical but my aim is always to be cautiously optimistic. Pessimism is not helpful to anyone, including the pessimist.

Foretold in 1932

Towardssovietamerica -Money quote - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0315


Towarssovietamerica - money quote 2 - towardsovietamer00fostrich_0316a

The above is from a book by Communist Party USA Chairman William Z. Foster. The book was titled Towards Soviet America, published in 1932. The writer goes on to describe what the Communist Party planned for America, and for the most part the predictions came true. The feminist movement was part of the agenda, along with the ‘sexual revolution’ which supposedly would ‘free’ women, and allow them a less inhibited sex life, while on the racial front, Foster said that all laws against interracial marriage would be abolished, with racial amalgamation being the goal. Overthrowing traditional attitudes took a few decades to accomplish from the time Foster wrote this book, but they did succeed in making interrracial unions legal. Likewise with their destruction of traditional sexual morality, and they succeeded probably beyond their wildest imaginations there.

However, either Foster was lying or just inaccurate in his predictions about other matters, as when he says that the media will be ‘taken over by the government’ (well, that was probably accomplished as the media appear to be an arm of the leftist establishment) but he further says that the media would then be ‘cleansed of their present trash of sex, crime, sensationalism, and general babbitry‘. On the contrary, the leftist triumph has meant ever more ‘trash of sex, crime, and sensationalism’; they revel in this kind of thing. They have sold it as ‘liberation’ and the ultimate freedom.

Foster seems not to have mentioned one of the fruits of the ‘sexual revolution’, namely the ‘gay rights’ agenda. Did Foster and his generation foresee this part of their plan, or was it just an inevitable result of their destruction of traditional Christian morality and their enshrining ‘personal freedom’ and individual autonomy as a great good?


Old vs. new, past vs. future

Today I was reading a discussion on a blog in which the question was raised: is it more useful to our cause to be ‘forward-thinking’ and future-oriented, rather than take a reactionary tone, focusing on recovering our traditions?

The question, I thought, was loaded in favor of the ‘future-oriented’ option; the way it’s put, of course it makes more sense to try to envision a better future — and given our dystopian present situation, almost any change for the better is preferable.

However — and it will surprise no one that I’m in favor of trying to reclaim as much of tradition as possible — how can we focus on a future which exists only in imagination? And how can we even imagine, much less create from whole cloth something which has never before been, without becoming like the would-be utopian leftists, who have succeeded in creating a nightmare in their quest to make real their bizarre visions of the future?

The Jacobins, like all their leftist/progressivist ideological progeny, thought they could raze everything and build something new and perfect from the ground up. How is that working out so far? Unfortunately some on the ‘new right’ under whatever label they call themselves, are so soured on the past, and on all the works of their forebears, that they are essentially adopting the Jacobin attitude toward junking the past altogether because “it didn’t work”. Why didn’t it work? “It was imperfect.” Why was it imperfect?

The gist of their answer seems to be that the past generations were to blame; they were flawed in a unique and irremediable way, a peculiar kind of original sin, unique only to certain past generations — but absent in the present generation of young people. No; they are exempt from this particular taint; it was confined to certain time periods and generations. Once those uniquely guilty sinners are dead and gone, the present generation of young people, freed of their toxic presence, will then proceed to build their own Future, unimpeded. Many of the younger rightists share this way of thinking with the ‘mad-dog left’ of their age group.

In my early blogging days I wrote a piece asking what happened to the old optimistic America of the 1950s? Does anyone remember how the 1950s vision of the future, as seen in Sci-Fi movies and Disney cartoons, showed triumphant science and technology solving all the world’s problems: we would conquer disease and hunger; Science would show us all how to live together in peace and plenty. The problem was ignorance and want, and Science had the answers. By the 21st century we’d live in ‘Jetsons’-style cities with our own personal sky-cars to fly around in. There’d be colonies on the Moon and Mars, if not in outer space. And on and on. I think many people assumed that given the recent successes of science and technology, this was all guaranteed. Onward and upward; the human race always progresses, and progress is always good, always for the better. We are all ‘evolving’ toward a higher, more enlightened state of being, growing up as a species. So they said. And so some people still say.

But surely most of us are seeing Science (capital-S) as hardly the savior of mankind. Science is, as the character ‘Shane’ said in the 1953 movie of that name said of guns:

“…a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

Science is flawed human understanding and reason. It’s served us well in many cases but it cannot save us. The human element alone makes it imperfect, and its discoveries susceptible to being misused or corrupted. Think of the ‘global warming/climate change’ scam, as well as the mountain of lies surrounding the issue of race/HBD.

What then, imparts an aura of ‘magic’ to any of our visions of the future as enlightened by Science? Do we really think that we can conjure up this shiny, antiseptic future world as gleaming utopia, just by thinking positively?

And what good will adopting this as a tactic or strategy for pragmatic purposes (“to appeal to the young”) do? Isn’t such a strategy cynical? Would it not be better to work from what is true — as in tried-and-true — and workable as we know from real experience?

Guido Bruno, writing in 1916, said this:

“It will not do to say that all the ways of old were the only good ways, and that those of to-day are turning us from paths that were good enough for our forefathers, to those that lead, we known not where; but on the other hand we can say, that many of the old ways have been discarded only because they were old, and not because we found something better.

What we call up-to-dateness and modernism is, in the analysis, a product born of excitement, a restless desire for change, a going from one thing to another, and although there is a measured tendency in some directions for a return to some of the ways of old, the fear of being called old-fashioned is the tyrant that speeds us on to seek new activities and novelty in entertainment.”

I’ve lately wondered if some of the obsession with ‘diversity’ and the desire to outmarry is nothing more complicated or profound than just this juvenile seeking for change-for-change’s-sake, coupled with the desire to repudiate one’s old fogy elders. Forget pathological altruism and all the rest; what if it’s just novelty-seeking?

To return to Guido Bruno’s remarks:

“All things up to date have their places, and by invention do we measure progress, but on the other hand a change is often times a going back, rather than a moving forward.”

‘The real fascists’

We’ve all seen the above phrase being used by many Republicans/’conservatives’,  along the same lines as the tiresome “Democrats are the real racists” — as in the statement that the right are not fascists as the left claims; no, ‘the liberals are the real fascists.’

So this post on the Ex-Army-Libertarian Nationalist blog is welcome. In it, we read how the European communists of the last century employed ‘street thugs’ to bully and terrorize opponents, to which the fascists responded by using the same tactic. Yet now the popular belief is that the street thugs, much like those we’ve seen in action in Berkeley (and elsewhere) lately, were originally fascists. Now, of course, anybody to the right of Mao is a ‘fascist’ or a ‘nazi’, deserving of being physically attacked by the hordes of leftist ‘useful idiots’ and organized street thugs.

We’ve seen how ineffectual the ‘conservative’ tactic of calling leftists ‘the real racists’ has been; it seems to roll right off their backs, just as do most of the insults and accusations hurled by the ‘respectable right’ — or even the not-so-respectable right. Like most thoroughly reprobate types, they have no shame, no conscience, and no capacity for reflection or self-examination. They have no honesty. How can anyone expect that calling them a name will shame them, or that it will somehow hit home, causing them to change their ways?

The left is expert at persisting in their lies, saturating our public discourse with certain ideas that come to dominate if only through constant repetition and by the left shouting down anyone who disputes the lie.

Some examples of ‘big lies’ that have prevailed over the last half-century or so: Joe McCarthy was a paranoid drunk who imagined the whole ‘Red Scare’; there were no Communists (big-C or small-c) in high places, or in Hollywood. It was a Witch Hunt, and everybody knows there are no witches. And if there were communists anywhere it was only for the purpose of fighting for ‘social justice, freedom, and equality.’

Another big lie: certain self-defense organizations in the South during Reconstruction were ‘hate groups’, secret vigilante societies that lynched innocent people just because of their skin color.

This, in fact, is sort of a parallel to the lie that it was fascists who started using street thugs to intimidate and attack opponents. The secret societies (which probably have little in common with their present-day counterparts, the ones so ”feared” by the likes of the $PLC) were in response to the reign of terror that was Reconstruction in the South. Those vilified groups arose as a reaction to real dangers to members’ families, neighbors, and property. Not everyone who resorts to force is an aggressor; the left has succeeded too often in blaming those who act in self-defense, in response to the left’s violence and coercion.

And from the article:

At any rate, don’t let anybody pull the “the leftists are the real fascists” line on you. They’re nothing of the kind. Fascists had principles, and for all their failings, had a much more realistic and less ideological view of the world than the Berkely thugs do.”

Communism produced a reaction in fascism. Today’s communists (‘progressives’ or whatever they like to call themselves at any given moment) are causing the appearance of a counter-force, the various new permutations of the right, whether they know it or not.


Lindbergh: visionary or ideologue?

During the time I was not blogging, I spent many hours going through old printed material on I came across this transcript in an old radio magazine, Radio Digest, from the year 1930, titled Lindbergh’s Message. It appears that Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator (and ‘America First’ proponent) delivered this address somewhere, or was it written for the magazine in which it appeared? In any case, I found this piece very pertinent to our present-day crisis, in which the West is inundated with immigrants and ‘refugees’, mostly thanks to cheap, easy air travel. Lindbergh foresees this in 1930, and yet seems very sanguine about the consequences. From the piece:

“As methods of transportation improved, it was found impossible for the individual or the community to remain completely independent of other individuals and communities. Contact with foreign countries brought about an intellectual development together with the commercial. Men became no longer content with the bare necessities of existence of a more modern world. The intercourse which sprang up as a result was responsible for the banding together of larger and larger communities under one central government and eventually brought about the comparatively high standard of living.

Every great advance in transportation has forecast a greater unity in world government. Directly or indirectly, whether by peaceful negotiation of by warfare, the demands of commerce have made it both impossible and undesirable for an entirely independent community to exist permanently.
[…]Transoceanic traffic with its worldwide commerce brought about the necessity of international regulation and agreement. In every instance the advantages of cooperation and exchange broke down the barriers of sectionalism.”

Lindbergh seemed to see this as an unqualified good, this breaking down of barriers and the erasure of distances.

“When measured in hours of flying time the great distances of the old world no longer exist. Nations and races are not separated by the traditional obstacles of earthbound travel.”

I’m by no means the only one to note that our present situation, facing an ongoing invasion from the Third World, would not be happening had it not been for the advent of cheap and easy air travel — along with the ‘advertising’ by the global media of the material attractions of the West, luring the ‘have-nots’ plus the ‘have-somes-who-want-more’ to enter our countries bent on conquest, slow or otherwise.

The quoted message from Lindbergh is causing me to re-assess what I thought of his aviation pioneering; I was brought up to see ‘Lucky Lindy’ as simply a rugged individualist, the ‘Lone Eagle’, as he was called, the adventuring spirit in the tradition of our Western European ancestors, driven only by the desire to explore and surmount barriers. Yet in this piece he sounds just like so many of the peace-at-all-costs globalists who were especially vocal in the years between the two world wars. The world was understandably sickened by the ugliness and the destruction of World War I, so that they were determined that the world must be unified, and that an official universal brotherhood of man, institutionalized in something like a League of Nations must be put in place to prevent another war, in fact, to make all future war impossible. So they naively thought.

Was Lindy just another globalist utopian ideologue, and was he conscious that when he made his transatlantic solo flight that he was taking a big step towards unifying the world, and breaking down the barriers, the ‘bounds of nations’ as instituted by God?

I wonder. Nevertheless he did seem to foresee what would happen once worldwide air travel was a reality. Maybe he thought it would be worth it, regardless. Too bad he could not seem to foresee the dire downside to it all.

[To see an enlarged image of the complete text, click on the image below.]


Book dedication from 1931


From the frontispiece of the book The Devil’s Camera: Menace of a Film-Ridden World, by R. G. Burnett and E.D. Martell, published in 1931.

It can be read on, here. It makes for interesting reading. It can be seen that even back in the 1930s, the movie industry was presenting many bad messages.

Quoted by the authors:

“The white man’s world as revealed in the films: ‘A world of crooks and half-wits, morons and sharpers… A world where men and women have instincts, desires, and emotions, but no thoughts. A world, in brief, from which all that gives the modern West its power … has been left out.’ ” – Aldous Huxley

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.