What’s in a name?

I’m glad someone addressed this issue, though it seems to be a hopeless cause to change the politically correct terminology that dominates our language.

Jmsmith at The Orthosphere blog writes about the varying names given to followers of Islam, with ‘Muslim’ being the politically correct usage employed by the media, the educational establishment, the lefties — by everybody, in fact, left or right, except for a few ornery people who say ‘Mohammedan’ or ‘muzzie’ or some other less-than-reverential term.

A Mohammedan is not a Christian or Jew because he is: “one who accepts the proposition that an Arab named Mohammed or Ahmad, son of Abdallah, of the city of Mecca, in Central Arabia, who died in A.D. 632 is the main and indeed ultimate channel whereby the will of the Creator of the world has been revealed to mankind.”*

If you accede to calling this man a Moslem (i.e. Truly Religious), I believe that you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. If you accede to calling his religion Islam (i.e. True Religion), I believe you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. To draw this to its sharpest possible point, a Christian who accedes to using the words Moslem or Islam is at least flirting with apostasy.**

Well, then as a Christian I might be apostate because I have held to using ‘Moslem‘. However I have a different recollection as to which term was considered ‘offensive’ to Moslems, besides ‘Mohammedan,’, that is. I was not sure if my memory was accurate so after a little searching I came across this:

“According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,”Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word.” But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means”one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means”one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

[…]Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.”

From what I recall, that pressure came from the militant ‘Black Muslim’ sect back in the late 1960s when the ‘establishment’ was leaning over backwards (as now) to placate minorities, especially militant blacks. I doubt that many people today are aware of the origins of that sect, and how outré their belief system was/is. To think that we automatically kowtowed to them on the issue of what we are “allowed” to call them or their faith is pretty shameful for us. It shows how ‘cucked’ we were, even back in the late 60s when all this nonsense began.

“But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP–the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World–published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut–is still The Moslem World.”

Interesting; I didn’t know anybody officially still used ‘Moslem’, apart from me and a few others. Incidentally a friend of mine began using ‘Moslem’ after hearing me use it only to be scolded by her leftist millennial offspring, who, of course, know everything since attending college (and a Christian college, at that).

I am not looking to be contentious here or to argue with Jmsmith; I am in agreement  that we should not simply give in to pressure from those of a religion which is contradicts with our own Christian beliefs, a group which is essentially at war with us, and has been since its inception. We should not accede automatically and go along with their terminology and definitions. In doing that we are being less than true to our Christian beliefs.

There are lots of terms for followers of Mohammed: Musulman, Mahometan, Moslem, Mohammedan. They served us well for many centuries. Why change just to placate those who are never going to be appeased by anything less than total submission? Because that is what Islam means: submission.

Who are the ‘real’ deplorables?

In a recent blog post, I used a variation on the “14 words”, paraphrasing that formula with something to the effect of ‘if we can secure the existence of our people and a future for our children.”

I suppose that would make me a White Nationalist, according to the consensus? Donald Trump supposedly came close to using the ”14 words” in a recent public speech, though apparently his words were much more vague. But even a hint of a resemblance is enough to send his detractors into hissy fits and his supporters into transports of bliss because he sort of said something similar to the “14 words.” But Trump is hardly a ‘White nationalist”, much less a “White supremacist”, the name the lefties are applying to everybody who is even mildly pro-White or even just politically incorrect.

As for myself, about ten years ago when I was still relatively new at blogging I saw, via Lawrence Auster’s blog, that I was among the right-wing bloggers classified as ‘White Nationalists’ by Mencius Moldbug. At that point I had never heard of nor read Moldbug, and I had no clue, still have no clue, how he decided I was one of the White Nationalists. I have never been a doctrinaire type, never been one to go all-in for ”isms” of whatever kind, especially political ‘isms’. I considered myself just an old-fashioned American, following in the footsteps of my elders, of the Southron generations who had very realist attitudes on race and ethnicity. I still consider that Christian, Southern cultural grounding to be the basis of what I believe. However I do consider myself a ‘nationalist’, an ethnonationalist, rather than a White Nationalist.

I’ve expounded on why I find White Nationalism unsatisfactory as I understand it, and the gist of it is that I find White Nationalism to be a form of White multiculturalism, or White internationalism, and it is based on the erroneous idea that all White ethnicities are equal. In other words egalitarianism is part of the belief system, but it is limited to White ethnicities only. It is fine to deny equality amongst the different races but all Whites (however one defines ‘Whites’; definitions vary) are absolutely equal, none superior to another in any way whatsoever. As egalitarianism is a false ideology I have to reject any form of it.

However it seems that many of those on the alt-Right for example reject WNism because it is considered déclassé, an embarrassment, a stumbling-block for the ‘respectables’ who tar all on the so-called ‘far right’ as ‘neo-Nazis,’ ‘supremacists’, NS, or some other socially unacceptable label. WNs are the group looked down on by others on the right; nobody wants to be associated with them.

Segments of the right are now very occupied with ‘punching right’, denouncing this group or that for their political and social views. Some of the Alt-Right criticisms of WNs are simply rote repetitions of the slurs made by lefties and SJWs. Is that because the slurs are true, or is it because the motives behind those doing the slurring are the same, that is, to distance themselves from the group that is lowest on the totem pole?

The Stormfront forum is usually used as an example of a White Nationalist forum, and it is often described as filled with ignorant and hateful people. I’m not a member there, nor have I read there lately — but I have read the forum enough to be familiar with the kinds of people who post there. The level of discourse is hardly any more ‘ignorant’ or bigoted than that on the average Alt-Right blogs, though the Alt-Right includes a disparate collection of people with varying levels of education and intelligence. Some commenters are obviously intelligent, informed and civil, other blogs reveal a lot of vulgar language and blunt discourse and little substantive discussion. So it’s unfair to say that a place like Stormfront, (which, last time I looked, banned foul language and racial slurs), is any more uncivil or ignorant than other blogs on the right. At least it’s free of the vile language and discourse that plagues some blogs, and there are more socially conservative ideas on Stormfront, paradoxically.

I could name other ‘WN’-oriented forums that are far worse for rude manners, foul language and flame wars, but that would not be useful. I don’t see the need for trying to make examples of those who are considered by many to be fair game.

Truth be told, I think WNs could and should be allies with the Alt-Right, though the Alt-Right is oddly becoming more of a ‘big tent’, becoming more homosexual-friendly due to certain personalities being lionized, and also more welcoming of other ethnicities who are not usually welcomed by the WN faction.

Both the White Nationalists and the Alt-Right tend to lean towards an anti-Christian viewpoint, with Christianity often denounced as an emasculating influence for White society, and both WNs and the Alt-Right lean toward some degree of admiration for Germany, a willingness to see Hitler in a positive light  (this sentiment is expressed on some Alt-Right blogs, coupled with some degree of anti-American feeling: ‘we were the bad guys in both the world wars’,or ‘our fathers and grandfathers fought on the wrong side‘, etc.)

There is not that much outward difference philosophically between the two groups, in my observation.

And when it comes to my objections to White Nationalism, it seems the Alt-Right also believes, for example, that White people should be able to freely immigrate to any White country, believing that Whiteness supersedes nationality or ethnicity. Many Alt-Righters, as well as WNs, say they would emigrate to some Eastern European country if they could, and some seek out foreign women to marry, thereby making it clear that their own ethnicity is not considered important enough to preserve.

Ethnonationalism isn’t just a statement that one’s own ethnicity is of importance, and should command loyalty, it’s an identity, a felt kinship and affection and bond with kinsmen, those who look most like us, share our history, our language, our manners and customs. Our ethnicity is family writ large. As Steve Sailer said, ethnicity is a slightly-inbred extended family, (I am paraphrasing there).

So how many real ethnonationalists are there? Too often I see expressions of contempt on the part of Americans toward their own folk; Americans (Murkans, so-called) are fat, stupid, lazy, and worthless, if one believes the talk on a lot of forums.

I am sure we all have, in our own families, some stupid people, some whose politics we abhor, some who are lazy, and yes, some who are fat. I wonder if the anti-White Whites disown their family members because of flaws like that? Human nature would cause us, normally, to be more tolerant of the faults of family members as opposed to strangers; if we love only those of our kin who conform to our high expectations as regards their politics, their intelligence, their appearance, or their social prestige — or their generation, then we’d claim very few family members, I think. Shall we draw a circle that shuts our kinsmen out? Apparently so, but we isolate ourselves in doing that. Are we then embracing this toxic ‘individualism’ that is the plague of our time and our country?

So shall we have ideological litmus tests to determine the desirability of allying with anyone? There are few enough of us that we can’t afford that kind of exclusivism. Many of us have had political views that have changed with experience and with maturity. Only very small-minded and rigid people never change their thinking. There may be hope for some of those we have written off, given time and given a chance to be de-programmed from the brainwashing.

During the recent presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton famously called the newly-discovered Alt-Right a ‘basket of deplorables’, and the Alt-Right, along with even the ‘Respectable Republicans’ and cuckservatives, embraced the label. But yet some segments of the right are intent on using Hillary’s labelling criteria, calling those to their right ‘deplorable’ or other pejorative words. Is this productive or helpful? Everybody has somebody they deem ‘deplorable’ or beneath them, and sad to say, both left, right, and center seem to find the ‘White trash’ deplorable. To many people, even on the right, the White Nationalist is the ‘White trash’ everyone seems to look down on. From what I’ve seen, I think this blanket condemnation is not necessarily accurate, and this mentality makes strange bedfellows, with some on the Alt-Right joining the chorus of the likes of the $PLC and that ilk, along with the cuckservative crowd.

I still think that in the cause to which we are supposed to be loyal, we could and should be allies, at least call a cease-fire.  The Fourteen Words, after all.

 

 

 

 

The ‘racism’ scare and other scares

There’s an interesting piece at TakiMag, called Skeered o’ the Racisms. The writer points out the way in which lefties/SJWs gin up a fear of this mysterious entity, ‘racism’, which is said to exist everywhere, at least everywhere White people (including White babies, according to Time magazine) exist.

And just in case there isn’t enough of this mysterious force everywhere, it has to be conjured, or hoaxed into existence, as the ‘demand for racism exceeds the supply‘ as I think Steve Sailer said. It seems Whitey is slacking off on the job, not committing the requisite number of ‘racist’ acts, so somebody’s got to do it.

Just an aside: there are a shocking number of politically correct commenters at TakiMag; are they ‘cuckservatives’ or SJWs? It’s getting hard to tell them apart these days.

But back to the need for a good ‘scare’ to motivate the Left and their mascots/pets: it’s ironic that the left is very fond of referring to legitimate threats as ‘scares’ or ‘witch hunts’. I read the IMDB website a lot because I watch many old movies, and maybe it’s masochistic on my part to read the reviews there but I do read them. It’s disturbing how very many commenters cannot watch an old movie without scrutinizing a film for the ‘racisms’ and all the other naughty ‘isms’ like ‘sexism’, as well as all the ‘phobias’ like homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia — have I left any of them out?  The IMDB commenters are also unhealthily obsessed with ‘pre-code’ films, which they prize very highly because, as one commenter said, it’s ”delightful” to find salaciousness and ‘corruption’ in old movies. Now, why this should evoke delight in a movie viewer is somewhat baffling to me, but I gather that it is because it confirms the lefty’s ‘faith’ that the popular image of the wholesome past is in fact false; that people were really hypocrites sinning it up behind closed doors, while putting up a false front of respectability. Human nature being what it is, certainly there were people who feigned innocence in public while being perverts, drunks, or druggies in private. But to say that ‘everyone’ was a liar and a hypocrite back then is just not true — still, it’s what the left believes. So they do love to see the pre-code movies in which we see drug usage (movies like ‘Three on a Match’) or other perversions (‘Wonderbar’).

Most of all, though, the left loves to uncover ‘racism’ in old movies, for example, a black character playing the role of a butler, maid, or janitor. And the SJWs are beside themselves with satisfaction if they spot an Oriental character (yes, I did say ‘Oriental’; it’s a perfectly good word) speaking pidgin English. One commenter on IMDB was shocked and troubled by the ‘‘degrading Chinese music‘ played in some movie with scenes of Chinese people or the Orient. I wasn’t aware that a musical score could be ‘degrading’ in and of itself. I actually found that complaint amusing.

Really, these obsessed lefties, these self-appointed advocates and ‘champions’ of their poor downtrodden minority clients/mascots, seem to need some evidence that their feared bogeyman, the spirit of ‘racism’, does exist now as then. It vindicates, for them at least, the enormous amounts of time and energy they devote to thinking and talking about it — and condemning it.

I think, personally, it’s a very appropriate use of the noun ‘scare‘ to describe their fixation with ‘racism’ as a scare. Interestingly, they almost always use the noun ‘scare’ to designate something they say is nonexistent: like the ‘Red scare’, as they call it, of the 1950s. There was no Communist threat in that era, so they say; it was all in the minds of the ‘far right’, people like Joe McCarthy and any number of others who warned of the presence of Communists in high places.  So it was just a ‘Red scare’, a mythical bogeyman created by the right.

They also favor the term ‘witch hunt’ in describing things like the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) hearings. Just as they say there were no real witches in Salem or elsewhere, they say there were no Communists, the Venona papers notwithstanding.

So it was all a witch hunt, an attempt to harass and punish perfectly innocent people, for their political views. If it was a real ‘witch hunt’ the hunters were pretty inept, because despite the much-hyped ‘blacklists’ and other such measures, the Communist cabal went from strength to strength and they have pretty much enacted all their stated goals from the 1940s-50s. So who was paranoid?

Actually now the shoe is on the other foot; the lefties, despite having the whip hand, and having the media fully in their service, claim that the ‘far right’ is a threat to them.

I think it’s fitting to deploy their own terminology and rhetoric against them; yes, call the racism thing a ‘racism scare‘, in the spirit of their ‘Red scare’ propaganda. Call the racist hunt a ‘witch hunt’ because that, in truth, is what it is. Except that unlike in the past, there are no ‘witches’ on the White right working evil voodoo against the army of ‘victims’ the left has in tow.

I don’t know if the left really believes in their own hysterical rhetoric; some are utterly cynical and habitual liars, who lie to themselves, but it may be that some actually believe in their increasingly bizarre view of the world, especially the past. In any case, the SJWs are the ones who imagine, or pretend to imagine, threats and evil intentions around every corner.

If we’re lucky, in some saner time we will be able to read in honest history books about the ‘hysterical racism scare‘ of this era.

Reconstruction history distorted

With all the shrill clamor for the destruction of all Confederate monuments and images, there should be more examination of the history of the South, especially the Reconstruction era after the War Between the States. But I suspect this history is never taught in our schools, not even in the South, or worse, that some version of the history of that time is being taught, but it is a one-sided, anti-White version.

I am focusing for the moment on Louisiana’s history, because that state is the scene of the latest vandalism of Confederate statuary and monuments — and there are demands from insatiable lefties to destroy even more such monuments. Is anybody trying to counter the propaganda?

For the moment it seems the anti-White left has the megaphone and they are making sure they put their side of the story out there, so that the unthinking and uninformed amongst us will agree that yes, those hateful, odious statues and symbols have to go; because slavery, because Jim Crow.

And why were there these social restrictions that we refer to as ‘Jim Crow’?

If you search the Internet for an incident called the ‘Colfax massacre’ or something similar, you will find a lot of information which presents the familiar pro-black slant on the incident. Was it a massacre? A riot? Whatever happened in Colfax Grant Parish, people died in that incident. According to the PC version, the victims were innocent black people.

But rather than reading the story as told by some hack lefty writer, or some politically correct academic, let’s go back to the report from Joseph Pere Bell Wilmer, who lived during those times and had actual knowledge of the situation. He describes how the Radical Republicans and their ilk, including carpetbaggers, Southern renegade ‘scallywags’, and assorted others, incited fear on the part of blacks and deliberately provoked violence. Sound familiar? Today’s counterparts of those malicious talebearers do the same thing in our media daily.

‘The murders and assassinations which have defiled our land with blood, are thus explained. With such elements of mischief seething and raging beneath the surface of society, any other result would be almost a miracle. No complaint is heard of Federal soldiers being murdered or molested through the South as the German soldiers were murdered during the occupation of French territory — no violence, no attempt at resistance to Federal authority. The disturbances are local, and in no instance, within my observation, have the whites been the aggressors.

The safety of the negroes had been as inviolable as that of the soldiers, if their behavior had been as discreet and unaggressive. The melancholy tragedy in Grant Parish has been proclaimed far and wide to the prejudice of the white people in this State. The fact has been strangely withheld, that before this event, so deeply deplored by our citizens, the negroes had rushed to arms, whole families of the white community had been frightened from their homes by insulting forays and threats of extermination; some escaping across the river, and others to the woods — one dear child, to my knowledge, having perished from cold and exposure in the forest — and another already dead and laid out for burial was madly flung into the public street.

“Prior to the attack on the fortification at Colfax,” I quote from a letter addressed to me, by the excellent rector of the adjacent Parish, “the negroes had driven from their homes every white family in the vicinity. A reign of terror has been inaugurated, and they had threatened the destruction of the white race in three parishes. Their deliberation to sack and burn the town of Natchitoches, Alexandria, and Pineville was openly proclaimed. Almost the whole negro population was armed, and prepared to carry into effect this perfidious design against the whites in the event of their being able to maintain themselves at Colfax. They courted the assault, being confident that they could annihilate the attacking party, and this being done, the country would be left defenceless, and they were to sally forth upon the work of destruction.”

I add the testimony of one of the victims, in his dying moments, one of the few white men that were killed, that he had thrown away his arms and had entered the building under a flag of truce raised by the negroes, when he received his mortal wound. Nothing is more calculated to excite a maddened crowd to the work of indiscriminate destruction.”

I mention this incident especially because it is being cited, here and there in the media, as one of the ‘reasons’ why the rest of the Confederate monuments in Louisiana must come down.

But there is another side to the story; their anti-White narrative is the only side that is being offered.

I have a particular interest in Louisiana; I have many happy childhood memories of South Louisiana. During recent visits to that state, I’ve noticed that there is a push towards the ‘rainbow’ view that Louisiana is a happy multicultural state where everybody loves everybody and there are no divisions, no color barriers. Yet the events that happened at the time of Hurricane Katrina (now consigned to the memory hole, and denied by the usual media suspects) contradict the pollyannaish multicult version of life in that state.

History cannot be erased completely; the monuments, sadly, can be pulled down, and the politically incorrect and inconvenient facts buried or sent down the memory hole, but the after-effects of the past cannot be waved away. They must be dealt with; they cannot be repressed and wished away forever, not with all the happy-clappy “we’re all one people” mantras.

And certainly, people like Mitch Landrieu, the racially fickle mayor of New Orleans, with their relentless anti-White tone, do not present a ‘one big happy family’ image of New Orleans or Louisiana.

 

The continuing war on the Confederacy

It truly makes me feel sick to write about the recent events in which time-honored monuments in the South have been vandalized, desecrated, and destroyed.  And all of this is being done so as to destroy, finally, the image of the Confederacy and the good name of the White people of the South. It’s being done to appease, to flatter, and to pander to blacks, to reassure them that they, in fact, are THE people now; the time of Whitey has passed, and it is now their turn, their time to exact revenge and to demand homage and ‘respect’ from those who (as they believe) have ‘held them down’.

As I’ve written before, the real ‘dark days’ of the South were the days of so-called ‘Reconstruction’, in  which nothing was rebuilt, but much was savaged and destroyed. Newly-freed blacks were then being instructed by their unprincipled ‘carpetbagger’ mentors and ‘protectors’ that they were now entitled to payback for the past, and that they were now free to behave as they pleased. Search out older history books (if the leftists have not eliminated them all) and you may find that the White population of the South was on the receiving end of a great deal of violence thanks to ‘freedmen’, Northern carpetbaggers, and Southron scallywags, all of whom, together, fomented disorder and fear in the South. Those days, Mitch Landrieu, were really dark days; not the antebellum days in the South as you implied in your recent anti-White speech in New Orleans, justifying the destruction of Confederate monuments.

Mitch Landrieu’s uninformed references to the days of slavery and the whole history of the Confederacy amount to the usual anti-White, anti-Southron boilerplate, and it sounds like history as told via Hollywood scriptwriters looking to sensationalize that era (a la Django, 12 Years a Slave, etc. etc.) as one of incredible cruelty, rape, and inhumanity. I believe Landrieu even uses those words.

Most Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of lies regarding the past, especially concerning racial differences, and Landrieu perhaps believes it all himself; but liberals are much more free to make up ‘history’ as it suits them, believing as they do that there is no such thing as objective truth; nothing is absolute, all is relative. It’s all a matter of whose narrative you choose. Obviously Landrieu chooses the nonwhite version of “history”, in which nonwhites are ever-sinned against, never sinning. Nonwhites, in their own eyes, can never be wrong or do wrong. It is always ‘Whitey’s’ fault; the blame can never lie elsewhere; it can never even be shared. Guilt is exclusively the property of Whitey. No one else. Ever.

I wonder if Mitch Landrieu or any lefty has ever heard of the Slave Narratives? If so, the response is simply to ignore it, and failing that, to deny the truth therein. If any of  my readers have not read from that source, I recommend reading some of the stories. The overall picture is not at all the lurid picture of White cruelty and rapine that the current powers-that-be continue to push. I won’t be surprised when and if the politically correct archivists and historians yield fully to PC and expunge those stories from the Internet as well as from libraries. Can’t allow competing narratives, can we? Only the anti-White narrative must be allowed to be read or heard or seen; all else must be silenced, or, as with the Confederate monuments, pulled down, razed, and turned to rubble.

And now that all those who were actually slaves are long gone, there is no one to gainsay the lying depictions of the South as a cesspool of inhumanity, exploitation, torture, rape, and degradation. So the Mitch Landrieus of the world can spread their mendacious stories likening the antebellum South to ‘Nazi Germany’ or whatever other example of ultimate ‘White evil’ they are hyping.

What makes Landrieu’s posturing especially ironic is that there is at least some doubt about his own ancestry; sources say Landrieu’s family was listed as ‘black’ on past census records, and Mitch’s grandfather altered their identity to White. So is Mitch Landrieu a ‘White supremacist’ because he and his relatives now choose to downplay if not deny any black ancestry? I would say hardly; no ‘White supremacist’ would take such a hard-line anti-White, anti-Confederate stand as he is taking. At worst he is a hypocrite on his racial identity, though why he does not proudly claim any black ancestry is beyond me, considering that he extols ‘diversity’ and the holy ‘melting pot’ in his speech. In fact he praises everybody under the sun in that speech except Whites, for whom he reserves his greatest vitriol.  So is Landrieu White or not? Is he self-hating? I mean, if even Rachel Dolezal can proudly claim her black ancestry, why not Landrieu?

Maybe he enjoys posing as the noble White defender of poor downtrodden diversities, hence the decision to be ‘White.’ But he knows that by the old code of the South — and indeed, of pretty much all of old White America — the one-drop rule was applied. If one was a fraction black, one was black. Period. Full stop. End of story. One drop was all it took. Hence people like Adam Clayton Powell. Or some of these people.

For some bizarre reason, The Atlantic seems to insist on Landrieu’s ‘white’ identity; wait — I thought race was just a social construct anyway.

Mitch Landrieu is a politician, and they come and go. So he is not really the issue here; he is just one of many. There are plenty of other anti-White ‘Southern’ politicians today, who deserve the shameful label ‘scallywag’ that our Southron ancestors used for them. When Landrieu and that whole clan are no longer in office (if Louisiana ever runs out of Landrieus to run for office) there will be others, by other names, just as much scoundrels, to take their place.

I don’t know how North and South,black and White, can coexist under the same government, but for some reason the perverse pro-Union types insist, demand, that live together we must, whether we like it or not. Some people, strange though it may seem,  believe that this hideous ‘shotgun (re)marriage must continue, despite divisions and, increasingly, open violence. Is this abstract thing called the ‘Union’ really worth coercing people who distrust and despise and resent each other to live together? And how is that called ‘freedom’?

 

 

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.

“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.