‘Rating’ ethnic groups

About a hundred years ago, a sociologist did a study of ten ethnic groups in America and rated their ‘relative social worth.’ This was during one of the peak periods of immigration, and nativist tendencies were very much alive then, despite the already-ongoing efforts to promote the ‘melting pot’ and the ‘all one happy family’ sentiment.

Today such a study would be unlikely to be done, unless it was commissioned specifically to paint immigrants in the most favorable light and to convince any skeptics out there to get with the program and celebrate diversity. After all, Latinos are hard workers with good family values, just doing the jobs that you lazy White folks won’t do.

As to the study, done by H. B. Woolston, the ratings of ten ethnic groups went as follows:

  1. Native-born White Americans
  2. Germans
  3. English
  4. “Polish and Russian Hebrews”
  5. Scandinavians
  6. Irish
  7. French-Canadians
  8. Austrian Slavs
  9. South Italians
  10. Negroes

The term “Polish and Russian Hebrews” is the language used in the study.

The sociologist who did this study notes the results with some dismay, remarking that there was, to use today’s lingo not enough ‘diversity’, a “lack of Negroes, Slavs, or Latins” among the study’s observers, so there may have been some ‘Anglo-Saxon prejudice’ at work there, according to the author.  Obviously Woolston was a relativist who thought that applying our standards measured only conformity to our standards of excellence. But wouldn’t the ‘Hebrews’ who rated #4 also have suffered from being judged by alien ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or Teutonic standards?

Obviously those who succeeded in our society were likely to be those from cultures closest to us, and their cultures would be similar because we are genetically similar. The top three ethnicities are more closely related, after all.

Can a study like this be truly objective? Everybody brings some degree of bias to making assessments like this; I’ve noted with some impatience that most White Americans have ‘favorite minorities’ for whom they plead, arguing that this or that group ‘make good Americans’, or ‘they are hard workers’, or in the case of East Asians, the argument is always that ‘they have high IQs and are not crime-prone’.

And then of course there is the more natural bias towards believing our own ethnicity to be preferable to all others, or to have accomplished more, or whatever. Some peoples have pride, apparently,  in claiming victimhood, recognizing the value and the power of victimhood in our ‘oppressor-vs.-victim’ hierarchy.

A study like this one, judging “relative social worth” of various immigrant groups is just too politically incorrect, and even apart from the open-borders, ‘we’re all one race, the human race’ crowd, many people on the right would be irate if their particular ethnic group (or groups) were not at the top of the list.

On a side note, I was reading a thread at Steve Sailer’s blog about ethnic cleansing or ‘White flight’, and someone mentioned the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Whites from Vancouver, B.C., while someone countered that Whites weren’t fleeing their Chinese replacements in Vancouver; after all nobody fears the Chinese because they are not a danger. I would disagree with that. Regardless of whether a group of people is a direct physical threat, the fact that they have a drastically different way of life, and that they change your familiar hometown surroundings beyond recognition, is significant. Nobody, at least nobody with normal feelings, wants to live in a neighborhood where an utterly foreign language is spoken, and people have different customs, habits, and etiquette. I don’t think the most ardent xenophiliac would want to be the ‘only White’ left in his former neighborhood.

As to the Chinese and other Asians having low-crime culture, well, there is crime, and there is crime. They may not be prone to violence (however,  see the story of the Wah Mee Social Club), and then there are Asians, and Asians. East Asians, or Northeast Asians, are not the same as South Asians or Southeast Asians, or West Asians. We too often think of the model minority in connection with all Asians, though the stereotype was based on the behavior of Japanese-Americans specifically.

Returning to the list of ethnic rankings, we might think that the America of 100 years ago was lucky in that most of the immigrants of that day were European at least, but the increasingly diverse European immigrants were getting us accustomed to more exotic cultures and peoples. I am convinced that it was always the plan to open the country to people from every continent and people; they just ‘warmed up’ with European groups, and actually by the turn of the 20th century there were waves of Asian immigration, especially to the West Coast. I think the idea was to do all this by degrees, gradually conditioning us to the idea that America was a place where anybody and everybody seeking ‘Freedom’ or a ‘better life’ could rightfully come.

Now, ‘relative social worth’ seems to have been thrown out the window, and the more dysfunctional and divergent from our culture a group is, the more they seem to be sought out by those who make policy for our country.

Advertisements

Secession: would it work?

Colin Woodard made the case for his vision of the United States as divided into a ”country of regions.” Woodard’s map shows his idea of the ’11 countries” or nations that make up today’s United States.

woodard's eleven nations
I’ve expressed my skepticism about Woodard’s classification of the regions of the United States, because, among other things, it’s an oversimplification. I think that the uncritical way in which many people have seized on Woodard’s ideas and his map to press an agenda of their own is not a good thing. It’s helped to popularize this oversimplified, and I think inaccurate, way of seeing the U.S.

Another problem I have with Woodard’s ideas, (and those of his predecessors who pushed similar ideas in earlier decades) is that Woodard is apparently of a liberal bent, and he obviously does not take racial/ethnic realities into account in his ideas about the future of the Dis-United States.

One thing about his ideas which I find absurd is his classifying the regions according to the people who settled there many generations ago. In the past I questioned how it could be argued that ‘Yankees’, or Puritan Anglo-Saxon stock, could still exert influence over the Northeast when in fact there are, percentage-wise, relatively few of them still in the Northeast. In the article I link above, he argues that somehow all succeeding waves of immigrants have assimilated to Yankee norms, just as his Danish ancestors assimilated to ‘Midlands’ culture. But yet after so many waves of immigrants have washed over parts of these once-United States, surely the footprint of the original settlers has been trampled over so as to be effaced and lost. He is arguing for some kind of quasi-mystical influence that lives on after the actual people who shaped the place are dead and their posterity moved thousands of miles Westward.

I find it hard to believe that the Somalis, for example, who are now being shipped en masse to, say, Minnesota, are absorbing the good old Scandinavian Lutheran ways of the early White settlers. But if one believes Woodard or his followers, this must be what is happening.

Some years ago, I wrote a good bit about secession, and in recent years that subject has become a much more discussed — and popular — topic. And finally someone has written a good piece discussing the improbable situation of our current United States of America breaking up along state lines, or even regional lines, per Woodard et al. From Where the Strongest Evidence Leads blog:

Secession Must Be on the Basis of Race and Beliefs, Not Existing State Borders

“Secession at the state level solves few major problems. Huge divides exist within blue and red states. If California secedes, New Democrats will run it, or at least be the public face of power, until Marxian Hispanics take over, then Muslims take over, including Hispanic and other converts to Islam. If Texas secedes, Rick Perry’s donors will run Texas until the likes of Hugo Chavez take over, then the likes of Ibrahim Hooper replace them, with much violence resulting.

It is more accurate to call the left a coalition of incompatibles than what Steve Sailer calls a coalition of fringes. The same goes for the right.”

Read the whole thing at the blog. The writer takes into account the existence of many factions, including political/ideological as well as ethnic and religious groups who would not, or could not, coexist peaceably should the country break up into separate entities along existing state borders.

The obvious fact is that the powers-that-be have engineered much of the ‘diversity’ which resulted in the presence of so many incompatible and mutually hostile groups. This may indicate that they are hoping to control how a break-up of the United States would play out, should it happen.

It does seem that the more ‘diverse’ our country becomes, with so many competing if not warring groups, the less likely secession would be to change the situation to our advantage, as we would hope.

And maybe those in power are trying, among other things, to insure themselves against secession moves by irreparably breaking the cohesion of the country, sowing seeds of dissension and disunity, so that there can be no threat to the power of those in charge.

Update: I just found this related piece from The Roper Report, called Coloring within the lines. Written from the perspective of racial and ethnic divisions, it also questions the standard view of secession. It would seem that there is no easy solution, and that racial rifts would foil any attempt at a clean separation by region or state.

Poland rejects mass immigration?

The Daily Caller reports on Trump’s planned visit to Poland, where he will praise the Polish government’s decision to reject ‘refugees and mass immigration.’

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said of the President’s upcoming speech:

“McMaster said that Trump will deliver a “major speech” in which he will “praise Polish courage” and its “emergence as a European power.” The nation is currently ruled by a nationalist Christian party that has rejected refugee resettlement and mass immigration.”

As everybody applauds the Poles for their resistance to the globalist program, I have to spoil the party by asking, if the current ruling faction in Poland is truly nationalist (and anti-globalist, which to me, go together) why are they insistent on colonizing parts of Western Europe? Ask the people of Britain or Ireland, or even France, as I’ve heard, into which countries a total of millions of Poles have immigrated.

Now, for the sake of fairness, I will say that there are people in the receiving Western European countries who say they don’t  mind the mass immigration by Poles, because they are “hard-working”, “Christian (Catholic)”, and “they assimilate better than the others.” Yet on the other hand, many, many Americans say identical things about Latin Americans settling our country en masse, changing neighborhoods and towns, taking jobs and making the English language even more rarely spoken. (How many people are aware that Polish is now the second most spoken language in the UK?)

And I will concede, on the other hand, that Poles probably are preferable, if one must have mass immigration, to Moslems from whatever country or Third Worlders generally.

But if enough foreign people keep arriving to Western European countries, the countries, their culture and genetics, will change just as surely, regardless of who the colonizers may be.

And then, there’s the question, as I say above, of whether we must have mass immigration of anybody from anywhere. The answer that I keep coming up with as I ponder this is NO. It is not an imperative, not morally or demographically or economically or whatever else. The pro-immigration people, whether they call themselves conservatives or progressives, imply that we have no choice; it’s inevitable, and besides it’s the right thing to do in all the ways listed above, and not to do so is backward and mean-spirited and bigoted. And short-sighted, because we ‘need’ immigration.

The moral claim is made that the Middle Eastern and African ‘refugees’ descending on Europe, those presumably being refused by the Poles, are in fear for their lives, or are so destitute and desperate that it’s inhumane not to allow them in and welcome them.

The same claim was and is being made even for the Mexicans and assorted Latin Americans entering our country: ‘they’re poor; if I lived in Mexico I’d try to sneak into America to feed my family; wouldn’t you?’

But the same claim can’t plausibly be made for Poland’s emigrants who go to Western Europe; there is no mass starvation or want in Poland that I’m aware of. And though their people hold mass rallies chanting ‘Poland for the Poles’, if they are true nationalists, why don’t they recognize the theoretical right of the people of Britain and Ireland or France to limit or refuse immigration from any or all countries?

It seems to me they should, as nationalists, not be colonizing others’ countries, taking advantage of the anti-indigenous policies elsewhere. It seems to me that they should admit their own double standard and hypocrisy, and call their emigrants home. Poland should want its people to stay home and raise their families there.

Incidentally there have been calls from some quarters in Poland for ‘guest workers’ or immigrants — to replace the native Polish workers who are colonizing other countries.

One other issue that this leads to: there is a discussion on several blogs about the question of whether White Nationalism is just a form of multiculturalism or whether it implies (as I’ve said) a White egalitarianism, with all Whites equal and interchangeable, or a pan-European, ethnically homogenized form of identity. Some commenters vehemently deny that WNs believe we should ideally erase national and ethnic boundaries amongst European-descended people and allow open borders for all such people to emigrate/immigrate freely.

Yet these kinds of ideas are propounded on some forums and blogs I’ve visited. Oftentimes it came up when some nationalistic British people would complain of the increasing Polish presence, and others would tell them that they should be glad to have Poles because they are white. So this certainly implies that skin color determines who should be welcomed into a country; if this philosophy were adopted then Britain, for example, would be a polyglot country of various White ethnicities — a tower of Babel, but ‘as long as it’s a White Babel, then what’s the problem?’ is the implicit assumption.

The problem is that a nationalist believes that a country embodies a particular people, an extended kin group with a shared history, culture, and (preferably) religion. Skin color alone is not sufficient to form a cohesive nation. Being European alone, or European-descended, is not enough to bind a people together; it never has been.

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.

Who ‘runs’ America?

Who is in charge in our country? This is an important question for those who (like many of us) are appalled and horrified by the direction of our country. Who is to blame? To whom can we assign responsibility for the decisions that are being made, ostensibly in ‘our’ name?

Most of us who grew up in the old America, the America that was and is no more, were imbued with the idea that we, the people, were ‘in charge’; that elected officials were ‘working for us’, being paid by us. Most of us no longer believe that; how is it possible to believe that the American citizen has power in this country, when we’ve seen our elected officials, at the highest levels, ignoring our expressed will, and seemingly doing the bidding of other interests?

For some people, The Jews are the real power, albeit indirectly or covertly. Others (strangely) still identify some kind of mysterious WASP ‘elites’ as being in control. Some people refer to ‘New England Yankees’ as a powerful cabal, though there are few colonial-stock Yankees in New England anymore.

Lately a great number of people on the right subscribe to the idea that ‘Boomers’ are and have been in charge, and that they are therefore to blame for the situation we are in. This idea is a recent one, relatively speaking. I started blogging in 2006 and I don’t remember hearing this meme then. It’s only caught on in the last several years at most. Yet it’s become strongly ensconced in the minds of many on the right.

It would be interesting to trace this meme, to follow it back to its source. I posted a comment from another ethnonationalist blog which named a few bloggers (on the right) as the likely source, but who knows? Lacking any other explanation I might accept it; I know it has been reinforced greatly through constant repetition on certain blogs, though it’s everywhere now.

I’ve tried, without success, to argue via data (polls, survey results, etc.) to refute the idea that boomers are far-left and that they constitute some kind of powerful force. However I’ve found that approach to be a failure. People seem to be operating out of a visceral dislike rather than a rational antipathy toward their favorite villains. Facts don’t matter; data does not persuade people who don’t want to believe the data.

If boomers were a monolithically leftist group, the gut-level loathing would be understandable.

And even if the charges against them were true, do they ‘run’ America? If so it would be logical to assume that they must be firmly in control of Congress and other such institutions. But at no time does one age group or cohort have exclusive control of Congress. There is always a cross-section of age groups and different generations in seats of power. The 115th Congress, which is the one sitting now, has quite a few very old members, people like Rep. Conyers, who is 87 years old (and thus not a Boomer), or Reps. Young and Johnson, from Alaska and Texas respectively. I am sure there are other octogenarians in Congress; what about Dianne Feinstein, the oldest Senator, at 83? And how old is John McCain?

The youngest Senator, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, is 39. I think that would make him a late Gen-Xer, for whatever that’s worth. So there is a mix of ages and generations in Congress. More demographic data on Congress members is here; it’s of interest that more immigrants are now sitting in Congress, as well as record number of nonwhites and women.

And what of the Supreme Court? Aren’t the ubiquitous Boomers dominating that institution? I think most of us know that there are a couple of octogenarians (pre-Boomers) on the Supreme Court, and according to this article the average age at which they are projected to retire will be 83.

Where else can we look for Boomers? They surely dominate college faculties, don’t they? They are being accused of ‘holding onto’ their jobs past the age when they should be forced out to pasture.

But does anyone seriously profess to believe that one age group can exercise so much influence in the important spheres of life? Some ‘anti-anti-Semites’ have accused those who warn against Jewish influence of attributing near-superhuman powers to Jews. It seems there are just as many people who must think Boomers have superhuman powers to exercise so much control over our society.

Simply reading a history book would make it clear that the crisis that has beset all the Western, formerly White-majority countries has its roots far back. It did not originate with Boomers, or even the Silent Generation (many of whom participated in the 60s countercultural movement). It is too facile to accuse any one age group or generation of being solely — or even mostly — to blame. Were all the other generations asleep or completely inert and passive when the Boomers were supposedly doing the dirty work of destroying Western Civilization? Even millennials have for years had the right to vote and to make their voices heard, yet only now are we seeing a percentage of them taking to the streets to oppose the left. Likewise with Gen-X. What was the saying attributed to black militant Eldridge Cleaver? “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem”? Everybody who is of age has the ability to ‘get involved’ in some way when they see things going down a dangerous path; people of every generation have had their chance to stand up and be counted, to play some part. It’s easy to point the finger at somebody else, and demand ‘why didn’t you stop it?’ or to say ‘it’s all your fault’.

A certain female politician notoriously said ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child. And it takes more than a ‘village’ to destroy a nation, a people, a culture. There is more than enough blame to go around.

And just a reminder for those who note accusingly that the ‘Boomers’ aren’t out on the barricades in these recent skirmishes: Boomers are now elderly, with the oldest being septuagenarians. Actually in the 1990s there were still a good many Boomers who were actively taking part in rallies and protests in border states, where some were assaulted by immigrants or their supporters. I can think of two such cases involving older people being injured. Do the critics really think grandma or grandpa should be mixing it up with violent young immigrants and antifa types? That’s a job for the young and fit. And the opposition has no respect for the aged or those who are weaker — but then few people on either side do.

Some people openly wish harm to Boomers for their ‘sins’, but be patient; at seventy or so, people begin to die of natural causes, as we’ve seen with a few Boomer celebrities recently. Time is catching up with them as with all of us, and the Boomers will be gone soon enough, vacating the role of scapegoat for someone else. And how does this blame game change anything? It doesn’t. It divides us. It polarizes and paralyzes us. We need to regain a sense of common purpose to unify us. We should, for the greater good, be able to put differences aside.

The American Indians lost control of this continent because they were so lacking in unity; our colonist ancestors benefited from the divisions that kept the different tribes at each others’ throats. Somebody is benefiting from our divisions.

And it ain’t us.

 

 

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.

‘D & C meme’

Divide and conquer, divide and rule, as cited by an English commenter on another blog.

2017-05-25_235410

I noticed that this particular meme began some years ago; it wasn’t always widely used. Was it started because of resentments of parents or grandparents of that generation? Was it based on a simple revulsion toward older people generally?

Was it started because those ‘seeding’ it really believed the popular media stereotype of all boomers as counterculturists and ‘hippies’? Or was it deliberately introduced as a divide-and-conquer weapon?

Or was it, as the comment quoted above implies, used as a diversion from other possible suspects? On at least one blog I used to peruse regularly, the former emphasis on the Jewish role has all but disappeared in favor of blaming ‘boomers’ (who are supposedly 100 percent left-wing and ‘cucked’) and WASPs/Puritans (!) and the opposite sex. Some dislike most of their fellow Americans whom they label with derisive names like ‘Murkans’.

Funny how that works. It distracts the attention nicely from some of the actual culprits. So I suspect the ‘D&C’ memes will continue to be used.

In reading British blogs I’ve found the generational warfare meme to be less common; why should that be? The UK had the Sixties madness as well, but somehow there seems to be less evidence of a virulent anti-boomer sentiment there. The real bitterness seems to flourish on this side of the Atlantic. I find this interesting though very destructive of healthy solidarity and ethnonationalism. I get the feeling that some would like a ‘purist’ movement with only the younger generations who are ideologically correct as members, and the rest be damned.

The boomer-bashing meme is so common on many right-wing blogs that really, a content warning ought to be used so that those of us who are disheartened and put off by this stuff could avoid it rather than finding ourselves mired in it unexpectedly.

Ironically, almost laughably, some of the same people who insist that we have to be as one with our brothers in Europe or wherever (because of our common genetics) can’t find much to like about those closest to them. It’s because of this kind of thing that Roger Scruton coined the term ‘oikophobia’, which he mentioned was often part of the adolescent phase of development. Many of us in adolescence resented our elders, who of course were old fogies, hidebound, out of touch, and embarrassing to us, and many of us thought our own country and heritage were so crass and backward compared with sophisticated Europe. This all sounds strangely familiar, except that it seems to be happening among mature adults in their 30s and 40s who should have outgrown these feelings long ago.

We have to learn to accept our own folk, warts and all, and try to ‘redeem’ those we can, rather than resent or condescend to them — otherwise any kind of ethnonationalism or other nationalism would be a very hollow thing.

 

Note: This blog piece from way back in 2006 deals with oikophobia as well as, in passing, something called ‘Crow-Jim-ism.’ It makes for an interesting read.

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’?