A people ‘in good shape’?

Alain de Benoist quote

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

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

Reconstruction, part 3

Africanization_The New Dictionary of Americanisms1902

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

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

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

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

A propos of the New Orleans vandalism

On Confederate soldiers_from God's War by Wilson Vance

The above is a quote from Wilson Vance, in the book God’s War.

It is ironic how quickly our society descended from a kind of burying the hatchet between North and South, to absolute hatred and intolerance of anything to do with the Confederacy. The younger folk out there may not believe this, but before the Civil Rights Revolution (or would coup be a better word?) the great men of the Confederacy were not vilified but mentioned favorably in school textbooks used in the North, and the official position was to treat the Confederate dead as honored fallen, much as were the Northern soldiers. However since the malicious talebearing of certain ‘civil rights’ organizations since the 1980s, the left (and much of the ignorant political ‘center’ in this country, if such a segment even exists) have become as people possessed. I say ‘possessed’ is not too strong a word; it is not hyperbole by any means, judging by the foaming-at-the-mouth attitudes and behavior of the anti-Southern left. They are possessed (I would say truly, in a Biblical sense) by malice and destructiveness when it comes to all the symbols and heroes of the Confederacy. Like their ‘daddy’ and exemplar, Satan, they never rest, and never will stop in their fury and vandalism until every last Confederate symbol and monument is pulled down, trampled on, spat on, burnt, or crushed. Next to be the target of their destructiveness will be the few people who even attempt, peaceably, to oppose their ugly rampages.

Wilson Vance was right when he said the graves and monuments of the Confederate fallen should be guarded, cared for, and honored. Instead mobs of ignoramuses and historical illiterates are committing their acts of cultural vandalism. Those who stand by and watch, without feeling so much as a twinge of outrage, are just as bad as the ones wreaking the destruction. Not to take a stand is itself taking a stand. There won’t be any neutrals in the conflict that is seemingly brewing.

 

Another ‘Earth Day’ come and gone

EarthDay1990.jpg

Earth Day, 1990, as described by a contemporary news article. Actually I was there that day, in 1990, in Central Park. (Yes, I’ve admitted I was ‘liberal’ in the past, in my misguided younger days.) The article above sums up the hypocrisy of most ‘progressives’, in that it’s always ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ They give themselves a pass on ‘disrespecting Mother Earth’ by scattering literally tons of litter and garbage as they bemoan ‘harming’ the planet by our throwaway culture.

Earth Day in 2017 apparently featured their ‘March for Science’, which I understand was an occasion to focus on ‘climate change denialists’, and to proselytize for their ‘Climate Apocalypse Cult’, as someone in the dissident-right  blogosphere (accurately) calls it.

But speaking of denialists, where is the progressives’ devotion to holy Science when people like Nobel-winning scientist James Watson say things they don’t like? When it comes to matters of HBD and race/ethnicity, ‘progressives’ simply silence those who speak honestly about it. They like to pick and choose which ‘Science Truths’ they accept and which they will acknowledge.

Hypocrisy and double standards are always the order of the day for the left.

One little Earth Day factoid: one of the co-founders of Earth Day was (((Ira Einhorn.))) Some of you may remember him as the radical who killed his unfortunate girlfriend, whose body was found in a closet in Einhorn’s Philadelphia apartment. The news stories referred to his ‘composting’ her body. Maybe he was thus showing his respect for sound environmental principles. But true to form, the left denies that Einhorn was one of the founders of their sacred Earth Day. Don’t like a fact? Just “deny, deny, deny,” as Bill Clinton famously advised those caught in some wrongdoing.

Oh — and just for the record, (((Einhorn))) was not a ‘boomer’; he was born in 1940, so he was part of that ‘Silent Generation’ which produced people like (((Abbie Hoffman))), Tom Hayden, and many other lefty icons.

‘Dear boomer-bashers’

At the Saboteur 365 blog, Paladin Justice re-posts and discusses a rather ugly meme directed at — who else? — baby boomers. Who composed this little ‘love letter’ to boomers is not clear, but it’s a good example of the kind of venom that is so routine on the rightward side of the Internet.

As my long-time readers know, I’ve made efforts in the past to counter this nasty rhetoric, based as it is on some kind of visceral resentment and animus. I’ve posted actual data based on polls and surveys,  and argued based also on historical facts. Yet it seems a waste of time and effort on my part; this blog is too obscure to make any headway. Or my point-of-view is out of step with the postmodern zeitgeist.

Obviously much of the young right shares with their leftist age-cohort the unwillingness — or is it inability? — to consider facts and reality, preferring instead to respond by ‘la-la-la, I can’t hear you‘ and by continuing the barrage of name-calling. Example: calling baby-boomers ‘retarded.’ Such wit; such repartee!

Yes, I know it’s only rhetoric, immature though it is; surely these people know that standardized test scores have declined steadily since the boomers were in school, as I suspect IQ scores have. Certainly boomers got a better education, having had to learn actual history, geography, spelling, grammar, and maths — before the educational system was politically corrected and dumbed down. But that’s irrelevant; boomers are ‘retarded‘ because the “younger” people say so. So there. Nothing to do with facts or actual intelligence levels.

What response can I offer, or do I let this childish tantrum-throwing go unchallenged? Personally I hate lies; I’m surfeited with lies in this age of falsehoods. We should all hate lies.

But it would really require a book to refute even some of the falsehoods and canards that are spread around the Internet. One person cannot do an adequate job. I have noticed that fellow blogger ‘dfordoom‘ does a valiant job of trying to answer these bashers, for instance, on a recent thread at Sailer’s blog, where the accusations against boomers cropped up. If I could easily find that thread and ‘dfordoom’s comment, I would quote it, but I can’t locate it.

As best I can recall, he answered that boomers were not old enough to have ‘fought for” for the ‘civil rights’ movement, desegregation, etc., as the linked meme falsely asserts. Boomers (as Paladin Justice could confirm) were mostly still in school when these things were well on their way to being accomplished fact. The ‘Greatest Generation’ were largely in charge in those days. Just how could an age group who were teenagers or elementary-age children be held accountable? Thus anybody who blames boomers for those events shows their woeful ignorance of history. In this day and age of the Internet, there’s no excuse for that. Yet these historically illiterate statements just go on and on.

Multiculturalism? The 1965 Immigration Act (the Hart-Celler Act) ensured that the demographics of this country were to become more non-white. Boomers were not involved in that. Teens and children do not pass laws in Congress or ‘fight for’ racial integration.

For the record, once again, boomers did not account for a large percentage of people in high political office until the 90s, when the Clintons rose to power in 1992. And at 43 or so, Bill Clinton was a mere boy compared to most of the politically powerful then. Congress was still dominated mostly by older people, as was the Supreme Court and much of the media.

I could go on, but I am sure this is all in vain, as the postmodernists who make up the younger generation are mostly uninterested in the truth, and focus on ‘feelings’, whether they are left or right-wing. The boomer-bashers are making up ‘history’ to rationalize their gut-level resentment and loathing of their elders. They do not have facts on their side — but that doesn’t matter to them, apparently.

I’ve often said to those who cheer for the impending deaths of their hated elders, (as illustrated in that meme wishing elderly boomers to be at the ‘tender mercies’ of “all those diversities”) that they need only wait for the demise of the old folks they despise; boomers are already dying.

And by the way, millennials oddly idolized David Bowie, who was a counterculture boomer, as well as Alan Rickman, likewise of that age group. Illogical, huh? If I’m not mistaken, another recently deceased boomer icon was Prince, a ‘late boomer.’

Yes, boomers are dying off — most real-life boomers being decent people who lived responsible lives, worked, and brought up families, and I expect these callow critics to celebrate their passing by mockery and sneering — and cheering, like that displayed in these memes. Those memes are a testament to how unfeeling our society, once Christian, has become. They reflect a hard-heartedness and callousness that would shock our grandparents and great-grandparents. Am I really alone in this feeling?

To mock the dishonest conventions of Political Correctness is one thing;  to repudiate all the euphemisms and willful denials of racial realities is brave and heroic, even,  in our age of lies. But wishing suffering (at the hands of ”all those diversities”) on our helpless elders is not brave or heroic or admirable; it’s petty, cold-hearted, and cowardly, directed as it is at people who are ailing and weak. That sentiment is something that is ‘not very White’ of those who harbor such animus. If that sentiment is the majority feeling, maybe our folk don’t deserve to continue as a people; maybe we should capitulate to the ‘diversity’ where fellow-feeling is an aberration. Maybe we are already becoming like those who were once subject to us. They’ve assimilated us, if we’ve lost our ‘hearts of flesh.’

No, Whites were not savages who abandoned our dying elders on ice floes or in the desert, though it seems that practice suddenly appeals to some of ‘us’ in this age of decline.

(For those who are not familiar with the older idioms, it used to be a compliment to a White man to say ”that’s mighty White of you,” or ‘You’re a real White man”, meaning someone who was honorable and decent.  Maybe the idiom has died out not just because of PC but because few people merit the compliment now.)

But let’s suppose hating boomers for their coarsening of the culture is justifiable — even though most boomers were not part of that debasing process. But suppose we decide all boomers are culpable. Then by all means, repudiate them and all they stood for. Show integrity; be honest and reject all that the worst of the boomers stood for, including the ‘sexual revolution’ and the plague of obscene language and deviancy.

But that’s not going to happen. Why? Because the critics paradoxically ‘hate the sinner and love the sin.

And it will go on; it seems there’s no stopping this trend, not even after the last boomer is six feet under, I suspect.

‘We don’t have to live like this’

The title of this post is the last line from Porter’s post at Kakistocracy, on the subject of the recent jihad attack in Sweden. It’s a very stark and effective commentary; if you haven’t seen it, please read it.

Beware, though, if you are squeamish about pictures of human carnage. Porter has posted a picture of one of the Swedish victims; it will stay in your mind if you see it. Some bloggers have refrained from including such images because they think it is too shocking and disturbing, and some readers have complained about seeing the photos. But unpleasant though it is (and I am one who is not inured to the sight of blood and gore) I think it may be necessary for those in denial to see the results of our stupid ‘welcoming’ attitudes towards anybody and everybody who enters our countries. Such willful openness is an  invitation to this kind of slaughter, given the state of our world.

Some would say that the world has always been an unsafe place to some extent, and they are right up to a point; however in this age of an aggressive and violent Islam on the move, acting out the precepts of their bloodthirsty belief system, it is foolhardy in the extreme to open our doors to them and give them the freedom of our countries.

Among the comments on Porter’s blog post, ‘nilus’ says, that the photo of the mangled victim should stop the cries of ‘false flag! crisis actors! fake blood.’  Yes, and don’t forget that the ‘bodies’ are really mere stuffed dummies.

Yet I fully expect to see those accusations appear on various blogs, if they haven’t already. Are there false flags? No doubt. Have we been lied to by our overlords about these kinds of things? Most likely; why would they make an exception on these incidents, since they habitually lie to us about almost everything?

britain_prophet_drawings_llp117

But it beggars belief to say that all these attacks are staged, acted out by ‘crisis actors’ using red paint and other stage props. If we follow out the ‘logic’ of this line of argument, then Moslems are really not attacking us; they are innocent victims of a blood libel. To believe that these events can’t be what they seem is to believe that Moslems are not capable of, nor willing to, kill us as they repeatedly threaten and promise to do.  Maybe all those hirsute men carrying signs like ‘behead those who insult Islam’, ‘death to Europe‘, etc., were all just actors too.

What’s happening to us is insane in that we are allowing it, as long as we allow those who are perpetrating the acts into our countries and making excuses for them. And a huge dose of reality all the way around is sorely needed, unpleasant though it may be.

We don’t have to live like this.’ Truly.

The opposite of political correctness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ‘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.

Sham altruism

Those who can feel righteous indignation only about things that directly affect them may have some moral deficiency in their character, and it seems that such deficiencies are more common in our postmodern, narcissistic culture.

On the other hand, I’ve commented here that there is something bizarre and unnatural, not to say phony, about the left’s tendency to get outraged about some wrong that they perceive happening to people in far-off lands, or to their minority clientele/mascots. They have this maddening habit, these lefties, of taking offense on behalf of others who haven’t themselves complained of being offended. Example: the ongoing protests of athletic teams with names like ‘Braves’ or ‘Indians’. Polls have shown that many American Indians (‘Native Americans’, in PC-speak) say they find nothing offensive in such names; some even say the names have a positive connotation to them — yet leftist Whites and other minorities often show outrage on behalf of American Indians. Can’t the supposedly offended speak for themselves? Aren’t the lefties being condescending and paternalistic by claiming to be offended for them? The same thing happens when say, White Republicans set up a howl about how the Democrats ‘keep black people on the plantation’ or ‘liberals destroyed the black family/black community.’ I suspect those complaints originated in the minds of politically correct White people, not from black people themselves. I don’t think most black people would bite the (liberal) hand that feeds them, and provides ‘programs’ for them, programs that are the main source of income for many minorities.

On the Reason.com website, there is a piece about this kind of vicarious moral outrage on the part of the ‘social justice’ crowd.

“When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don’t affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.” But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as “moral outrage”—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one’s own status as a Very Good Person.”

Two professors, Rothschild and Keefer, conducted studies which, to sum up, shows a definite self-serving aspect to this phenomenon — which is just what I would think. We give these meddling lefties far too much credit to ascribe ‘altruism’ to them.

“Ultimately, the results of Rothschild and Keefer’s five studies were “consistent with recent research showing that outgroup-directed moral outrage can be elicited in response to perceived threats to the ingroup’s moral status,” write the authors. The findings also suggest that “outrage driven by moral identity concerns serves to compensate for the threat of personal or collective immorality” and the cognitive dissonance that it might elicit, and expose a “link between guilt and self-serving expressions of outrage that reflect a kind of ‘moral hypocrisy,’ or at least a non-moral form of anger with a moral facade.”

It’s a veneer of morality and solicitousness but the motivation behind it is to present a moral pose, a front to the world, and to claim the moral high ground.

Don’t let’s be fooled by it.

H/T to commenter ‘Anonymous’ at Steve Sailer’s blog for the link.