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.

 

‘Hinduphobia’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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?

 

Female supremacism

After seeing so many ‘International Women’s Day’ stories and memes, I’ve decided that I will refer to ‘feminists’ as female supremacists from now on. For decades, ever since this ‘Women’s Day’ thing has been happening, feminists have becoming ever more strident about their attitude of ‘female superiority.’ So if people who are pro-White, or who believe in nations for White people, are ‘White supremacists’ as the anti-Whites say, then surely the ‘supremacist’ label applies to feminists. They constantly crow about how women are superior to men in various ways, and they openly say that women should rule. There’s a meme going around showing a little girl wearing a t-shirt saying ‘The Future Is Female.’ Imagine if the word ‘Female’ were changed to ‘White.’ What a howl there would be about that, but women get away with that kind of rhetoric, as do non-whites.

Feminists have always railed against the idea that God is male, and we’ve seen this ‘witty saying’: ”When God made man, She was only joking.” So asserting that ‘God’ is female is just fine, while saying God is male is shockingly misogynist.

Feminists don’t see — or do they just not care? — that they are inspiring hatred from many men because of the shrillness of their rhetoric and because of their increasingly obnoxious behavior. The sad thing is that women who are not feminists have to reap what the feminist fanatics have sown.

The other sad thing is that many women on the right have been infected with the loathsome attitudes of feminists. I’ve noticed that online on ‘right-wing’ blogs or forums, where supposedly right-wing women take offense at some comment and go into feminist warrior mode, just like lefties. There are even ‘conservative’ men who defend feminist ideas and who, just like SJWs, take offense on behalf of women if somebody says something anti-feminist or anti-egalitarian.

Feminism has invaded the ‘right’ in various ways, and much of it is unconscious I’m afraid. Because feminism, like the rest of the left’s causes, has gone so far off the rails, people on the right have to be more vigilant, being careful not to let it insinuate itself into our way of thinking.  Egalitarianism is so taken-for-granted that we have to be on our guard against it. It may ‘sound good’ but the devil’s whispers sounded good back in Genesis 3, apparently, and we are forever paying the price.

 

The ‘preppy’ totalitarians

The story about Charles Murray and his speech at Middlebury College in Vermont is being discussed around the Internet. The fact that a (typically leftist) professor at that college was also assaulted by the ‘student’ thugs adds a twist to it. Surely she is ‘one of their own’, having the correct politics and the kinds of views which are the only kind these apostles of ‘tolerance’ will tolerate.

One thing I’ve noted in the various online comments on the incidents: many are referring to the ‘preppy’ character of the school and the student body, as if it adds to the shocking nature to imagine WASP-y, wealthy students behaving this way. No doubt some of the worst of the ‘social justice’ brownshirts are White students from wealthy homes in the supposedly very White Northeast. But just look at the photo in the linked article; that audience does not look ‘hideously White’ nor very ‘preppy.’ It does not look all that different from the mixed crowd at the community college in the college town near me. So I looked up the demographics of the student body. For a start,  the student body contains only 4% Vermonters. Students come from 42 states, plus the District of Corruption Columbia. They come from no less than 40 countries.

So the student body does not reflect the demographics of the setting, of rural Vermont or New England, or even much of America, come to that.

One other factor: not all the students at that college need be wealthy, considering the prevalence of financial aid. And if diversity is mandatory and of the utmost importance (as these colleges all say it is), then by all means be generous to students without the money to pay the high tuition, but with the requisite amount of ‘vibrancy’, to entice them to come and enrich the diversity-deficient Whites.

If the students of that University are overwhelmingly indoctrinated leftists, as it appears they are, is this because it is in liberal New England, or is that just the nature of college campuses all over America now? I have acquaintances who sent their child to Christian schools (in a non-diverse community) K-12, at considerable expense, and then to one of the most conservative (supposedly) Christian colleges. That college turned their child into a raving SJW in very short order. So it’s everywhere now.

The people who put much stock in Colin Woodward’s conjectures about the ‘nations’ of America place the blame on the old Puritans for the liberalism of New England. In this case, it seems as though the diversity that has been visited on New England since at least the mid-19th century is still having its effect, and the presence of all the ‘diversity’ at Middlebury in 2017 has its effect too. When you introduce outsiders into what has been a homogeneous culture, you make people more self-conscious about the opinions of those ‘Others’ and soon free speech is not so free; we can’t offend anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings. Diversity=death to free discourse and honesty.

Minorities voted Trump?

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

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

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

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

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

Who is an American?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not American.

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

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

 

 

Let California secede

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

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

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

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

— Jared Huffman (@JaredHuffman) November 12, 2016

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

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

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

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

 

 

Secession for some, not others

I see that some Oregonians are talking of their state seceding after the Trump victory. Typical childish tantrum-throwing, sulking and ‘threats’ from the overgrown infants called ‘progressives.’

I thought it was bad enough during the G.W. Bush years, but the left has grown ‘progressively’ more unhinged with each passing year.

Why not let Oregon and California, likewise, go if they no longer want to be part of these United States? If a majority of Oregonians want to secede I believe (as did my ancestors) that they have a right to do so. After all, in a purportedly free country, how can we keep people in the Union by coercion or force?

However it appears that most of Oregon, comprising the rural areas mainly, voted Republican in this election; this Christian Trejbal quoted in the piece is evidently not typical of Oregon residents, though he may delude himself that he is. After all he probably associates only with other ‘progressives’ and lives in a bubble in one of the liberal enclaves: a big city or an academic town.

As for California, as it is now well on the way to becoming a majority Mexican state, maybe there is a case for that state to secede, based on majority sentiment. Some people have been saying for years that we should throw California to the Mexican government and in return they might stop sending their rejects and criminals across our border. I doubt California would be enough to satisfy them; if they could conquer it demographically, by stealth over the years, they can do the same with other states. Why facilitate the takeover? And if the border with Mexico was moved north, why on earth would Mexicans or other Latin Americans respect that border any more than they have respected the current border?

If California became part of Mexico, we would have to get serious about enforcing the immigration laws, and stop leaving the doors wide open for anyone and everyone to come sauntering in. But the thing that exasperates me most about this secession talk is that the media treats the Oregon and California threats as reasonable, while any talk from the South of secession meets with scorn. Even among conservatives online, many Northerners want to re-fight the War Between the States, throwing around words like ‘treason’ when any Southern state or state mentions seceding.

Why the double standard? Many Northerners want to play the role of a control-freak spouse, saying ‘if you leave, I’ll hunt you down and kill you. You can never leave..’ Half a million people died in the War Between the States because, dammit, the South had no right to break up the Holy Sacred Union. They had to be crushed, subdued, and humbled — even to this day, with the destruction of our monuments, the banning of our flag, and even the exhuming of our heroes. So let the northern states who want their ‘progressive multicult utopias leave, and let them live with the consequences of their actions. No sneaking back into our country, no restoration of citizenship. Or maybe if they begged to re-enter the Union they would have to undergo Reconstruction as their ancestors inflicted on the South. It would be fitting.

No predictions, but…

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?