“Signed, White America”

Another hate hoax, this one with a slight twist.

“CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WLOS) – Police arrested a man who is accused of arson, ethnic intimidation, and committing a hate crime at Central Market in Charlotte on Thursday.

Curtis Dwight Flournoy, 32, is charged with burning a building of trade, malicious damage by use of an incendiary material, felony breaking and entering, ethnic intimidation, and anonymous or threatening letters.

Police searched for the man seen in surveillance video leaving a racist note, breaking a window at the business, and then setting a fire.”

When I read this, and saw the name of the accused, Flournoy, I jumped to the conclusion that the man charged was of Huguenot French ancestry; there are a number of people with names that are known as Huguenot names in that part of the South. My conclusion was wrong, as you can see by the photo of the accused.

In any case, it’s a relief to see that this ‘hate crime’ was likely not done by a White, but note this part of the story: the threatening note concluded with the signature “Signed, White America.”

Even without a signature like that, the media always, always assume that it is some White ‘hater’, when all too often the ‘hate crime’ turns out to be a ‘hate hoax.’ This fact is almost always swept under the rug by the mendacious media; when the crime is found to be a hoax, (usually by the person claiming to be the ‘victim’) they carefully bury that story on the back page somewhere.

In this case, it was not the victim who was the hoaxer, but Flournoy, pretending he represented ‘White America.’

But ultimately that’s the case with most of these kinds of hoaxes; the purported victim usually fakes the ‘hate crime’ with scrawled threats, ‘symbols of hate’ (so-called), usually a noose or a swastika or other such incendiary symbol. The point of claiming to have been victimized by some anonymous ‘hater’ or ‘nazi’ or [something]-phobe is not just to draw attention as we often assume, but to further the all-important ‘narrative’. As actual ‘hate crimes’ by White ‘bigots’ are pretty rare, once we subtract the many fakes, we see why it’s necessary, if you must have a ‘hate crime’, to act it out oneself. Pretty pathetic. Just doing the ‘hate crimes’ White bigots won’t do. If you want something done right, gotta do it yourself, as they saying goes.

In this case, the signature reveals the motive was not necessarily as much for the sake of threatening or driving out the Bhutanese man, but to keep the ‘White hater’ narrative alive. I would say that the perpetrator was targeting ‘White America’ more than he was this store owner. Just my opinion.

 

A persistent myth

Recently I made a list of a number of popular myths or canards of the ‘realist’ right. I wrote them in no particular order, and the last one on the list is the myth that goes something like this: ‘Mormons are the remnant of the old America. They are racially conscious and Utah is a mostly White state.’

This idea in some form crops up in the comments on this article. Oddly enough only a couple of commenters seem to disagree with the idea that Mormons are somehow the last guardians of the old White American ethos. Are so few people aware of what is happening within the Mormon fold in this decades-long reign of PC?

I have no grudge against Mormons; of course most of them are ‘nice’ people, as most Americans seem to agree, but then I am not a great admirer of ‘niceness‘. Modern ‘Churchianity’ is often little more than a cult of niceness, and I am seeing that phrase being used more often. Niceness is simply a counterfeit goodness, or at best, it’s a feeble, skin-deep form of goodness; goodness minus strength and conviction. Niceness is a passivist, pacifist simulation of goodness. Niceness won’t fight for its principles.

I say this as someone who has a close blood relative who converted to Mormonism, as well as another close relative who married into a strongly observant Mormon family. I’ve also known other Mormons in real life, and I know that in recent years they are very actively converting Third Worlders to Mormonism, championing ‘open borders,’ objecting to border enforcement, and welcoming refugee/colonists to Utah.

The last frontier is usually interracial marriage, and that, too, is becoming more visible and accepted, with White Mormons of both sexes marrying Third Worlders they have met on their sojourns in those countries.  The old religious taboos against miscegeny have been officially repudiated, though some apparently resist this change, as can be seen in this online discussion.

Utah may still have a high percentage of Whites, but that is rapidly changing with immigration, legal and illegal. Hispanics are a growing percentage within the Mormon Church and in the state of Utah. There are Hispanics in the Utah legislature. Another group whose numbers have grown are Polynesians (Samoans), as someone on the Sailer thread noted. Remember the case of the Salt Lake City mall shooting ten years ago? The shooter was a Bosnian refugee. And more recently, another mall shooting was perpetrated by an apparent Southeast Asian shooter. Utah is not a ‘Whitopia’, and the Mormons appear just as ‘cucked’ as the most hopelessly feeble Churchians.

Yes, Mormons are ‘nice’ people but niceness is not something we need at this time in our history. Niceness is in part what is killing us. ‘Thou shalt be Nice’ is not one of the commandments on those stone tablets.

And if I were looking for a place to hide from mandatory Diversity, Utah would not be on my short list. Mormons, at least the hierarchy, are working hard to escape their reputation as ‘racist’ and ‘too hideously White.’ They have no will to defend their ethnic/racial heritage, only their religious system, which for them takes the place of ‘tribe’.

Dangers of ‘good intentions’

Where I live, it’s become not at all uncommon to see White parents, often with two or three obviously ‘natural’ children of their own, with one or two nonwhite children in tow. Sometimes I’ve seen well-to-do White women with a White child or two, plus a Central American or Asian child, plus a black child, a la Angelina Jolie.

Another common sight are the signs advertising yard sales/garage sales ‘to fund a trip to Africa to adopt’ or to go to Guatemala for the same reason.

I wonder how much money is spent on this quest?

The people involved in this are most often Churchian types, often those who are members of one of the ’emergent’ churches, which tend to be very liberal and to follow the world’s fads and trends, including rampant xenophilia in all its forms.

Odd, considering that once this town was known for being conservative socially and religiously. This area did go big for Trump, by the way, if that means anything.

No doubt these people have been convinced (by their liberal ‘ministers’? By the media? By pop culture?) that they are doing a deed which will earn them extra rewards in heaven. Or maybe just winning the praise of ‘the world’ is all they’re after, but they think they are doing good, saving the Third World, modeling ‘colorblind’ behavior to shame the ‘racists’. Or something.

We’ve all heard the proverb about ‘good intentions’ paving the road to a certain place. Good intentions often have unintended consequences.

Is it all happy-ever-after with these ‘rainbow’ families, these ‘all-sorts’ families? Nobody thinks about what it may be like when these cute toddlers grow to adolescence and experience identity crises. The media predictably avoid stories about unhappy adoption outcomes, especially trans-racial adoptions. But an occasional story is published that highlights the problems. I’ve certainly heard of adolescent or adult adoptees from the Third World rejecting their White adoptive families and choosing to leave their ‘White’ upbringing in favor of their genetic kin group.

Then there’s the Rachel Dolezal story. Over at the middle-of-the road Republican forum Free Republic, they are ridiculing Dolezal, or as she now styles herself, “Nkechi Amare Diallo”. She is mentally ill, they say, and she herself has written a book detailing her alleged abuse at the hands of her ‘Jesus Freak’ parents (her term for them) and her biological brother. But few people seem to be aware that these parents of hers adopted four black children. Mind you, they did so decades ago, when she was a child, in a time when it was not so common or so ‘hip’ and au courant as it seems to be now. They must have been in a rather odd sect of Christianity in those days; back then, Jim Jones and his cult were among the few who pioneered the ”rainbow family”.  Jones himself called his ‘diverse’ family his ‘rainbow brite’ family.

“Did You Know? Jim Jones and his wife Marceline were the first white couple to adopt a black child in Indiana in 1961.”

Now that fact is not proof that adopting outside one’s race is evidence of insanity. But it does illustrate that the idea was once, not that long ago really, considered a ‘fringe’ idea, not something that was to be casually done, and not something one did as a way of ‘virtue-signalling.’

And what is the cost to the White siblings of the adoptees? Rachel Dolezal, or Diallo, or whatever, may be a sad example. Maybe her black adopted siblings absorbed the lion’s share of the attention of the parents and extended family and ‘church’ family. Maybe they posed domestic problems, by the fact of their exotic birth and origins, that created a more troubled home. Considering the ‘colorblind’ White tendency to fawn on other races, which is exhibited by our society in general, no doubt Dolezal and her natural sibling did not get the attention or possibly the affection children need, hence her ‘identifying as black’ since childhood.

In a sense our society, at least the media-influenced side of our society, has the ‘Rachel Dolezal’ syndrome, with so many White young people, in particular, copying black culture and even the black phenotype to some extent, with the ‘lip enhancement’ fad of celebrity women, and with intermarriage by women who then can proudly display black children of their own.

As for Christians, or more accurately, Churchians being seduced by this melanomania, I could cite Scriptural reasons why interracial adoption is not Biblically sound, nor sanctioned. But then the Churchians are not big on following Scripture, only in cherry-picking some passage — or just going by society’s whims and preening about their do-goodery.

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?

 

 

 

Do winners have to apologize?

Steve Sailer asks, in discussing the recent Grammy awards, ‘Do all white award-winners have to apologize to black losers from now on?’

The short answer: yes.

Because isn’t this the story of our whole society in 2017? The unspoken requirement for the winners, the most successful, to apologize to those who come in second,  or third, or last? Isn’t that the whole essence of the relationship between blacks and Whites today, or in fact between all ‘victim minorities’ and Whites?

What is affirmative action, but an apology to blacks for our being more successful, and having been at the top of the heap?

And why do we so readily concede this to them? Is it a misguided generosity? Fear? Fear of what, public opinion?

The loser in a contest, unless he has the character to display good sportsmanship, often claims the winner ‘cheated’ him out of his rightful victory. The winner must have ‘played dirty’, and won by unfair means. This is the whole ‘White privilege’ scam. We have too readily conceded.

If we believe in the ‘equality’ pretense in which we are all made to take part, then we have to agree that it isn’t fair that we win more often and others lose. But those who haven’t bought the equality fairy-tale must at times admit to themselves that ‘the best man wins’ and yet – if we have some kind of innate edge, then it truly isn’t ‘fair’ that we win against weaker competition. That’s where the whole White guilt thing kicks in.

‘Dear Netflix’

I recently got an e-mail from Netflix, with a plaintive statement along the lines of ‘we miss you; won’t you come back?’

I ignored the e-mail, because I have no intention of renewing my subscription, and besides I told them the reasons for my cancellation when I cancelled some time ago.

Since that time, this controversy over the Netflix series ‘Dear White People’ has hit the news.

More than 250,000 ‘dislikes’ were registered for the Dear White People preview on Friday, just 24 hours after it was officially uploaded to YouTube.

But the true scale of the discontent could be much higher after claims the online broadcaster deleted both a million views and 100,000 accompanying negative comments.”

I haven’t seen previews or trailers for the series; the title alone tells me what I need to know. No major media outlet uses the phrase ‘White people’ in anything but a pejorative sense in these dark times. And all that I have read or heard about the series indicates that it is meant as yet another in an endless series of racial lectures from nonwhites to Whites. I’ve heard it all before, too many times, and I don’t partake of television or recent movies because they are all rife with such propaganda and arrogant moralizing.

So here is my ‘Dear Netflix’ response to their plea for my patronage:

Dear Netflix,

You don’t really want my business or my money or you would have heeded my explanations for cancelling my Netflix subscription. You, like other purveyors of ‘entertainment’, such as Amazon Video and Turner Classic Movies, have deliberately removed many classic older movies and TV series, and have increased the number of pornographic as well as other objectionable films.

The reason for your dropping of many older films while still offering other content with a very limited audience is likely political and racial, as the old films show modern audiences a world which was very unlike today’s dystopian world. In American films we get a glimpse of a world which some of us remember, and from today’s vantage point that world, while not perfect, was almost idyllic compared to what we see looking out our windows today — or looking at our TV screens at the dark and disturbing content and milieu of the 21st century.

And maybe it’s just coincidence that the world shown in the classic movies was mostly White. The ‘reel world’ we saw, contrary to the claims of leftist, multicult ideologues, did match to a great extent the real world. No, it was not a lie that people really did live wholesome lives in peaceful, tidy neighborhoods and towns. It was not false to show a world in which neighbors knew neighbors, and people looked out for each other. It was not whitewashing to show a world in which people lived safely in their neighborhoods, and in many cases did not have to lock their doors at night.

The powers-that-be, and their media outlets, are becoming more and more averse to showing today’s people the world of the past, lest people begin to question why things are not the same, and why today’s often-ugly world has come to exist in its place.

In a sense, the decision to make the older films scarce is a racial one; Whites are not to be shown in a good light; no, they are meant to serve as arch-villains or ignorant bigots as in favored old films like ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ or ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ or ‘Roots’ or any number of such politically correct propaganda pieces. Today’s films are even worse in their anti-White, past-hating tone. And it is that kind of content you are interested in foisting on your customers, culminating for the present in propaganda like ‘Dear White People.’

I have no intention of paying only to be subjected to your propaganda. I hope the cancellations increase and that Netflix, like all the other media outlets, meets its deserved end, that is, that it fails and disappears. I hope that the backlash to this series is a sign of a long-needed return of self-respect on the part of those “dear white people” to whom you condescend.

Sincerely,

An ex-customer

Our PC prison

So much has been written and said about how we have reached this state of things wherein certain truths are ruthlessly stifled and banished from public discussion, and worse, there are civil and/or criminal penalties for those who violate the taboos on discussing these truths.

Brainwashing, mind-conditioning, 24/7 propaganda, much of it under the guise of ‘entertainment’, sugar-coating for the lies. But is there not at least another factor at work, a simpler and more familiar factor?

During the latter part of the last century, during the heyday of the social ‘sciences,’ someone coined the term ‘peer pressure’. Most often it’s been used in describing adolescents, who are generally the age group most susceptible to seeking security within their age-group, over against adults. Adolescents tend to be the most conformist in their thinking and dress and behavior, even their language; most slang terms seem to start as youth argot, specifically black youth argot which quickly permeates the speech of White teens as well as that of others who emulate blacks.

But let’s be honest: it isn’t just teenagers or over-aged adolescents who succumb to peer pressure; Americans in general, in my observation, are very prone to be followers and to ‘go along with the crowd’, not wanting to be the odd ones out, or to be thought weird.

In my lifetime I’ve seen time-honored social standards and taboos disappear almost overnight, as in the early 70s when the ‘old morality’ regarding sexual behavior went out the window. Cohabitation, premarital sex? No problem. Crude, obscene language? No big deal.

How could the old standards and mores crumble so easily and so completely? Obviously people’s ideas of right and wrong were not firm principles; they were merely ‘outward professions’. The majority seemed entirely flexible with their morality; whatever their peer group appeared to accept, they would acquiesce in.

As sexual morality (derided as ‘puritanism) became a non-issue for most conformist Americans, the focus shifted to one’s attitudes on racial issues. One’s character became defined by attitudes toward Others — mostly blacks and Jews. If one did not hold the ‘right’ attitudes towards the protected Others, one was declared a bad, immoral, undesirable person. As time went on this criterion for judging people became, seemingly, the be-all and the end-all. It became a requirement that we praise and honor groups that had formerly been ‘victims’ — (think: MLK Day, and the ‘White Guilt Month’ of February).Lack of adequate praise or deference toward blacks and other minorities, including Jews, as well as homosexuals, ‘womyn’, etc., would be considered proof of ‘hate’ or bigotry.

It still amazes me, how thoroughly many Americans accept that our attitudes towards a group (or groups) of people are allowed to define our very worth and character. Nothing else seems to matter in defining us as good or bad.

Obviously as this monster called ‘political correctness’ was fed and coddled and allowed free rein, it has grown ever more insistent and tyrannical, and a greater price is being exacted from those who violate its sacred commands.

Granted, the election of our President has ‘shifted the Overton window’ and emboldened quite a few people to stand up to the PC dictatorship, but only because there is safety in numbers (and the publicity given to the Alt-Right gives an illusion, perhaps, of greater numbers than actually exist) and sadly most people seem to need to have ‘permission’, from those they deem their peers or from some admired authority to deviate from the group mind or the Crowd.

In other words they are still, in a sense, servile where the opinions of others is concerned. Few people will stand alone and defy a taboo, and when they do, they find few others that are willing to risk condemnation by taking an unpopular stand.

It could be said that this passive and dependent attitude that has allowed PC to grow and to cow us into submission is nothing deeper than simply following a ‘fashion’ or a custom; to be accepted people feel they must adopt the shibboleths, go along to get along. A need for others’ approval is the factor that has allowed us to be tyrannized by the ‘PC vigilantes’ as I used to call them.

Interestingly, writer Doris Lessing is quoted as using the same analogy:

“Political correctness is the natural continuum from the party line. What we are seeing again is a self-appointed group of vigilantes imposing their views on others. It is a heritage of communism, but they don’t seem to see this.”

Having read some of Lessing’s books, I judged her to be a leftist, but maybe she was one of the last of a dying breed, an honest liberal.

If people allow the ‘vigilantes’ to impose their views, it is, again, fear of being a heretic or a rebel, declared anathema. For some people, their ideas and standards are completely fluid, and shallow. They will go whichever way the wind blows. This is one of the dangers of democracy; someone described as ‘democratic censorship’ this coercive influence of public opinion. Although the government has become increasingly intrusive and overbearing, it is mostly the force of leftist domination of the popular mind that has led to this state of things.

It seems to come down to something as shallow and slight as ‘fashion;’ Leftism and PC have become ‘the’ accepted posture for most people, especially the sheeplike younger generation. It’s the fashion to be politically correct, to hold racial minorities, Moslems, and ‘The Other’ generally in adulation, and to be an ethnomasochist, a ‘wigger’, a miscegenist.

So we are in a sense being bullied, allowing ourselves to be bullied into silence, by nothing more than political ‘Fashionistas’, for whom it’s all an outward pose, meant to signal not so much virtue, but simply being part of the ‘in’ crowd.

Trump’s choices

I know my point of view is out of step with much of the right, but I am not happy with some of the choices Trump is making for his cabinet. They seem decidedly politically correct to me.

At first glance it might seem that Jeff Sessions was a sound choice, but given how he is leaning over backwards to prove he is ‘not a racist’, citing his bona fides as a champion of desegregation/civil rights activist, we’re going to be seeing a lot more of the ‘mainstream’ right posturing and marginalizing of the traditional South. It’s already happening, with the usual ‘Democrats are the real racists’ articles.

Sessions was born in 1946 so he is old enough to have grown up amongst unreconstructed Southerners. Truth be told there were very few Whites back in those times who broke rank with fellow Whites — even in the North — to make common cause with blacks; usually only the most liberal would do so. Did he really have an epiphany then or is he just being a typical politician and going whichever way the winds blow? He is also a Methodist by faith and it does seem that Methodists today are a very liberal denomination, given to ‘social justice’ crusading.

Surely, also, Sessions must know something of that certain ‘taboo’ organization, which he ‘broke the back’ of in his state; that at least at its inception it was not a terrorist mob, but a self-defense organization, made necessary by the fact that there was no law and order or justice for the disenfranchised Whites in the South. They were preyed upon by carpetbaggers from the North, traitor ‘scallywags’ from amongst their own, and by the newly-freed slaves, who ran rampant. That now-proscribed organization was at first made up of respectable men, of the upper classes, who simply wanted to protect their families and lives in a lawless situation, that of Reconstruction. There is no excuse for a man like Sessions not to know that history, and I am certain he does know it. He chooses to participate in the anti-White, PC interpretation of the past.

The organization of that same name is apparently not the same now, being mostly composed of agents and operatives, according to what I’ve heard. Even so, how much violence have they committed, such as they are, as opposed to BLM? Or foreign terrorists?

Will anyone ever step forward to try to correct the popular delusions about that era of history? Trump, according to some of the faithful, has destroyed PC — but from where I stand it looks to be as entrenched as ever.

Maybe Sessions will be ‘good’ on immigration. Maybe. But I’m not taking that on faith.

Then there’s Nimrata “Nikki” Haley, who presided over the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag in South Carolina. Trump was aware of the CBF controversy, and I thought he had said something that vaguely indicated support for ‘free expression’ where the flag was concerned. But why, then, pick this woman?

Surprisingly quite a few Southrons, because of what I see as unwarranted blind faith in Trump are giving him a pass on this.

This evidently makes me a ‘purist’ or ‘hard-liner’ in some people’s eyes because I don’t have that kind of faith. So be it; I’m used to this being the case. Despite the amount of time and space I devote to these political things, I have less and less belief in our political system, or in politics per se; everyone these days says politics is all about compromise and dissimulating if need be to trick the enemy (and the constituencies). If so, then there’s no hope of real solutions there. If lying and dissembling is intrinsic to politics, necessarily, then it won’t save us. I have thought more and more that the culture is where the battle is to be fought. As long as the edifice of lies that is our society is still mostly unchanged, politics won’t be the solution. It only reflects the wider world, corrupt as it is.

As far as the endless defenses of moves like this by Trump, I get a definite feeling of déjà vu, taking me back to the ‘W’ years, in which everything G.W. Bush did was rationalized as ‘he’s gaming the system‘, or ‘it’s strategery‘, or ‘it’s rope-a-dope.’ Everything was a brilliant move shrewdly disguised as blundering. No one wanted to admit that his actions were exactly what they appeared to be, rather than some clever, cunning maneuver. I expect that kind of pattern with Trump; the true believers are so invested in him that there will be literally no end of the rationalizations.

Our monuments come down, while…

Blacks and their supposed role in “growing Texas” are being honored by a monument to them in Austin. This, in a time when Confederate monuments, even those dedicated to heroic gentlemen like General Robert E. Lee, are being pulled down at the behest of blacks and their pet ‘White’ lickspittles.

At the dedication ceremony, a small group of protesters from a group called White Lives Matter clashed with a group called Smash Fascism Austin. The ‘Smash Fascism’ crowd shouted ‘No Nazis here‘ and ‘Nazi Scum!’ at the pro-Whites. Amusingly, the ‘Smash Fascism’ mob said their purpose was to “drown out the [Whites’] message of hate.” With what? Anti-White hate messages, like ‘Nazi scum‘? Irony, anyone?

Austin has long been a cesspool of liberalism and general counterculture lunacy, with the slogan ‘Keep Austin weird’. Over the last few decades that city in particular has been invaded by people from everywhere but the South, so that it has become increasingly ”diverse” and increasingly detached from reality and sanity. It has certainly become detached, too, from its actual roots, from the heritage of the earliest Texas colonists and from its Confederate, Bible belt traditions. It is in a sense not the same city, but a universe unto itself. I am sure the ‘Smash Fascism’ brownshirts represent the new, ‘weird’ Austin, and not the historic Austin. If these deluded people could be transported back in time to Austin, or any part of Texas, as it was a century, or even half a century ago, they would flee. There would be no place for them in the Austin of the past, in a time which did not tolerate the intolerable. They would be appalled that their anti-White message would mark them as deranged and possibly dangerous. Which is what they are.

I have happy memories of the Austin I knew as a child, but that Austin is gone, perhaps forever, thanks to the ugly scars of leftism and its policies — and the engineered demographic changes.

As for the ‘contributions’ made by black people in “growing Texas”, whatever that awkward phrasing means, name some of them. The articles I read mention vague things like ‘exploration and emancipation’ — were there black explorers involved in that part of the world? I’m not aware of one, and I did study Texas history in school like all schoolchildren did. Were there black crew members with the Spanish or French explorers? I guess Whitey blotted those adventuring black explorers out of our racist textbooks. Yes, that’s it.

Emancipation? Blacks were passive recipients of that; it was not done by their own initiative or effort unless slave uprisings involving killing their masters count as ‘winning’ emancipation.

The ‘White’ protesters who spoke out against their fellow Whites as ‘hateful’ are the usual dupes whose prideful self-image is based on their getting offended on behalf of others — a very odd thing, when you stop and think about it. These people are aberrant in their tendency to feel aggrieved on someone else’s account, and feeling compelled to denounce their own heritage and ancestors to side with people who care nothing for them; less than nothing. And they truly cannot see how twisted and weird this is.

Our heroes and heritage are being pulled down while the perpetual victim groups are being honored at our expense. The protesters who showed up to speak up for their own folk are to be commended, and maybe they are a harbinger of our people regaining their voices and their courage to speak up for their own interests — and not just for our selfish interests but because the Truth matters.

The left has hijacked the idea of ”justice” and perverted it to mean nothing more than revenge and payback. Real justice honors that which is deserving of honor; it honors merit and achievement and accomplishment. It rewards that which excels; it does not exalt as a means of compensation for alleged past wrongs.