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.



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?




Clever coinages

The commenters at Steve Sailer’s blog are somewhat of a mixed bag. Most of the comments there are intelligent and sound, although a few of the people, apparently longtime readers, mystifyingly, still don’t seem to ‘get it’ when it comes to race and HBD. Then again, that’s true on a number of other politically incorrect/race realist/racially aware blogs. Why that is, I am not sure, but that’s another story.

Lately I’ve seen some clever and witty turns of phrase in the comments at Sailer’s blog, such as ‘Tragic Dirt.’ I gather that would be the opposite of ‘Magic Dirt’, which, as we know, transforms immigrants into model citizens of ‘their’ new country, simply by their act of standing on the soil. So ‘Tragic Dirt’ would be the explanation for why these immigrants can never prosper in their homelands; the soil has some deleterious quality that ensures their failure in their own land, or their lack of development.

I suppose it would be akin to the old theory of the ‘miasma’, back in the Victorian era, when supposed noxious vapors in certain places accounted for all kinds of bad things.

But the theory of environmental causes for a people’s lack of advancement, a la ‘Tragic Dirt’ sort of makes me think of Jared Diamond’s belief system.

One more coinage I came across at Sailer’s blog, from a commenter: a reference to ‘Cloven Hoof-Kalergi‘ for ‘Coudenhove-Kalergi.’ I’d say that’s apt.

UVa Profs: stop quoting Jefferson

The ‘Old Dominion’ continues to decay. The usual academic suspects are now, along with their brainwashed adolescent charges, clamoring for the president of UVa to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson. 469 ignoramuses and budding totalitarians signed a petition to this effect.

The school’s president, Teresa Sullivan, said the following, which prompted the demands:

“Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes,’” Ms. Sullivan wrote in the email. “I encourage today’s U.Va. students to embrace that responsibility.”

The students and their academic allies cited Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves, along with his ”racist” beliefs, as reasons for banning his words.

Was Jefferson a ”racist”? We all know that term has been overused and has become so fluid and subjective that it is almost impossible to defend against the charge. As someone at VDare, perhaps, once said, to be accused of racism is to be convicted. It is not possible to prove a negative, especially when one’s accusers are ‘POCs’ or White leftists; both groups are immune to reason, facts, and common sense.

I see that Steve Sailer has a thread on this story, and to my (pleasant) surprise, the comments are mostly defensive of Jefferson, which sad to say is becoming more and more rare, as even many “conservatives”, ethnopatriots, and race-realists (so-called) are willing to pile on and baldly state that Jefferson was a ‘hypocrite’, a ‘race-mixer’ or even a slave-rapist. Examples? I can’t easily locate a specific thread, but I’ve seen such comments on AmRen (a site I long since abandoned, for various reasons) and on the OD blog, where at least one regular commenter pointedly condemns Jefferson at every possible occasion. And no one disputes what he says. I haven’t commented at OD since the comments are now under the Disqus system, so the slanders go unanswered.

Some of you may remember that I used to try to counter all attacks on Jefferson, even attempting to comment on AmRen, where my comments rarely got approved. And I have tried to defend Jefferson not just because I am a Jefferson descendant — it’s personal — but because I believe in his innocence of the slanders made against his character. I realize I am out of step with the cynicism of the times regarding all the Founding generation, and that defending Jefferson is often sneered at as being a ‘patriotard’ and the like, but the fact is there is not any definitive proof that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’ or any slave’s brood of children. Some of the Hemings descendants say they have Jefferson DNA according to tests, but the DNA is not that of Thomas Jefferson, but just of a Jefferson male. That could include many possible sires.

I used to cite a link from Ashbrook Center, Ashland University, which offered the counter-evidence to the Jefferson slander, but it seems they’ve taken that page down. Why? Too politically incorrect?

A link on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog which dealt with that subject, and offered an argument against the claim from an informed commenter, is likewise gone. Why? The comment was from the Jefferson Family historian, Herbert Barger. Why did the Britannica people not consider that this was valuable information?

There’s obviously an effort across the board to re-write history in a way that discredits the Founders, and by extension, the Founding stock of this country and their progeny. Us. Why are so many of ‘us’ going along with this, and even aiding and abetting it?

There used to be an older gentleman, another Jefferson descendant, who tried to combat these stories online, but maybe he has passed on now. I used to try to take up the slack and answer as many as I could, but it seems such a vain effort, and I have begun to feel that if nobody else cares to preserve Jefferson’s name and his legacy, then why should I waste my time and energy? Yet here I am doing it again. I guess I am a sucker for lost causes.

But back to the original charge of those ‘scholars’ at UVa and wherever this kind of nonsense is being encouraged: was Jefferson a ”racist”, whatever that means on any given day? He was definitely a ‘realist’ in that he (being something of a scientist and “HBD” man in his time) observed and noted the many differences between the two races, black and White, and he predicted — accurately — that the two races would not be able to live side-by-side in harmony, and that it would all end in conflict.  In other words, he was a truth-teller. And that’s the crime nowadays.

And Jefferson’s statement that the students of UVa would be those who would govern the country in the future is unfortunately true — and frightening, given the obvious fact that those ignorant and fanatical misfits will in fact be in charge one day, if we go on that long. I think that reality would dismay Thomas Jefferson if he had but known.

The ultimate in xenophilia

Some of us have used the term ‘xenophilia’ to describe the attitudes and behaviors of the multicultists, the diversity maniacs, those who value every race and people except their own. But it is not by any means limited to those people, as it is common across the political spectrum, as witness the tendency for men in different parts of the world to seek wives/brood mares from outside their ethny or race. The article tells of Chinese men, facing a shortage of potential mates in their own vast country seeking out Russian women in particular.

‘All the girls who we invited are under 35 years old. Initially men want to see brides with white skin and blue eyes – funnily enough, though, last year the girls who got into a relationship were brunettes with brown eyes.’

It’s odd that we often read how Asian people are ethnocentric and prefer their own kind, but this seems to belie that idea.

Meanwhile, back in Russia, the men seem to passively accept that their women are being spirited off to marry men in far-off countries — including the United States, Australia, and Europe, as well as China. Why this is, I haven’t got a clue; is it because Russian men have learned to devalue their women?

Speaking of devaluing one’s own females, read the first comment below the linked Siberian Times article. A young man from Louisiana states his intention to find a Chinese bride because he is “done with white women.” Does the whole situation not strike anyone as crazy? American men increasingly dislike American women (“fat, ugly, shrewish, masculinized”) while they seek Asian wives while Asian men seek Russian wives, while Russian men — seek what? Talk about games of musical chairs.

I am sure Count Coudenhouve-Kalergi is rejoicing wherever he is. His ‘dream’ for the future of Europeans is now being played out in bizarre ways.

On another blog, Morgoth’s Review I believe, someone expressed the idea that the antagonism and outright antipathy between the sexes seems like part of the cultural Marxist agenda, to drive a wedge between the sexes and thus to decrease intraracial marriages within White countries. Even having European-descended peoples marry outside their ethny (but still vaguely within their race) serves the agenda of mixing people up, breaking bonds of kinship and culture, decreasing the rootedness and stability within nations and ethnic groups. Whether we get the slow treatment of gradually ‘diversifying’ nations by inter-ethnic marriages first, leading to acceptance of further outmarrying, outside racial boundaries, or jump straight to miscegeny, the destination is the same, ultimately. I do believe that the gradual breakdown of boundaries in this country, first, by inter-European marriages and the trend toward people with mixed European heritage over time led to the gradual weakening of kinship loyalties and bonds. The melting pot idea and the idea that ”we’re all Americans, that’s all that matters” led inexorably to the present levels of interracial mating.

On the Al Fin, Next Level blog where I found the link to the Siberian Times story, he discusses the reasons why so many Russian women are being exported (or exporting themselves) to various places around the world,  for the purpose of either sexual exploitation or relatively benign ‘marriage bureaus.’ Why aren’t their men — fathers, brothers, boyfriends, or simply Russian men wanting good wives — making more of a fuss about their women being commodities sought out by foreign men? It sounds as though, from the information presented, the men are demoralized and suffering from what social scientists call ‘anomie’, often alcoholics or using drugs. They seem to be less physically healthy than their women, having a considerably shorter life expectancy. I’ve observed in some Russian immigrants living in our country that they tend to be heavy smokers and drinkers. (Notice I didn’t say ‘most’ or ‘all’, but it’s a noticeable tendency).

It may be that the same propaganda forces are at work there; I do believe that there truly is an effort on the part of the powers-that-be to divide every group in society, and the antagonism between the sexes in our country — even more so than in Europe, as I see it — is being egged on and manipulated. Men blame women; some women blame men. Why can’t we split the difference and say both sides bear their share of blame? Each side, or at least the extremists on both sides of the sexual divide, want to put 110 percent of the blame on the opposite sex. That’s not realistic.

Feminists are wrong, but to some degree so are their male counterparts.

But back to the Russians: Al Fin often describes the demographic decline in Russia. If we, that is we ethnonationalists, want all the various European peoples to survive and flourish, we should care about Russia’s future, and we should hope that their women would be able to stay at home (Russia is their rightful home) and not have to be basically sold off to men on the other side of the planet. We should hope that all Russian men who want to marry Russian women (the optimum choice), then this game of shuffling women around the planet should ideally be stopped.

Or do some of us believe that the Russian men shouldn’t mind their women being poached, as long as the poachers are ‘White’? That seems to be the strange rationalization on the part of many WNs.

As much as I take a contrarian, somewhat skeptical view of Russia, I truly do wish the Russian people well, and hope that they will not have their distinctive heritage, their DNA, and their particular talents and gifts, diluted by being mixed in with many nations. I wish that for all of our European peoples. Ethnicity does matter. Ethnicity is also not a social construct.

Why pan-Europeanism is wrong

There’s been a kind of low-grade ongoing debate over the merits of ‘pan-Europeanism,’ or nationalism based only on broad racial classification vs. ethnonationalism, in which our immediate ethnic kinsmen are our ‘nation.’

Obviously I come down on the side of the latter. I think the idea that we can unite promiscuously with all those of European descent (wherever the borders of Europe may end, anyway; that can be argued) is misguided and would not work.

For an illustration see what’s going on, and has been going on in Britain, a country which has recently shown that it wants to be more self-determining.

Just for some perspective, this map:

immigration England Wales

In the number one position, immigrants from Poland. And this is only to England and Wales, not including all of Britain.

If you are a real ethnonationalist, you would say that all mass immigration is harmful to the peoples of England and Wales. If you are a pan-European (“we’re all white”) or White nationalist you will likely say, as our Freeper brethren do here, that the British should stop worrying about Polish immigrants because at least they are White. But whether the face of the United Kingdom is transformed by Polish immigrants coming en masse, or by Moslems (who, granted, are a threat) the country is nonetheless being changed into something else by the mere presence of masses of immigrants of ANY origin. To say “but they will assimilate” is to affirm your belief in ‘magic dirt.’ Poles are Poles. Welsh folk are Welsh, English are English.

The Poles have a very different language and culture. Britain has had immigrants from every corner of the globe thrust on her, and it is time they might have a chance at being themselves in the land of their ancestors, true to their own heritage and traditions.

And I ask this question to those who side with the Poles: do you think the Poles ought to accept half a million English, or Welsh, or Irish or Italians into their country? if not, why not? We’ll revisit that question at the end of this piece.

Recently some pro-White blogs have noted the fierce national pride and resurgent nationalism in Poland. “Poland for the Poles!” was mentioned as the rallying cry — doesn’t anyone see the irony in that, when the Poles have sent millions of their people to Britain and to Ireland and wherever else they are accepted as ‘guest workers’? Poland for the Poles should also imply England for the English, Wales for the Welsh.

Any other option means more of the ‘melting pot’/proposition nation/magic dirt scenario, and we’ve seen how that works out.

One more hard fact to chew on: Eastern Europeans in Britain and in Ireland seem to commit more than their share of violent crimes, and I’ve posted links corroborating that in the past. I won’t do so this time because those who doubt can google it up for themselves, and need not be spoon-fed. Some apologists for the Eastern Europeans (and BTW, note the high numbers of Lithuanians in Britain as well) claim that the criminals are not Poles or Lithuanians or Romanians, but Roma gypsies posing as non-gypsies. Nice try, but no, surely not in every case. I have speculated whether some countries are not sending their undesirables West, just as I’ve said about the ‘refugee’ flood into Europe generally, and the Latin American onslaught. I find it hard to believe that this is not being done by some countries wanting to get rid of their bad apples by dumping them onto the ‘richer’ countries, thus saving themselves some expense.

The link above in this piece is to a Free Republic discussion of an Al-Jazeera article. Obviously that is not an unimpeachable source; they are a propaganda outlet and not to be credited with being 100 percent truthful, but no doubt in some areas of Britain where there are large colonies of Poles, there is tension and resentment. And this should not be condemned as ‘xenophobia’ on the part of the British. And to say that just because the Moslems are far worse candidates for British residence, the Poles should be welcomed is just a non sequitur. Not an argument at all, much less a convincing one.

The Freepers on another thread also sputtered that ‘the Poles were brave fighters’ in WWII or whenever; that’s all well and good. But does their bravery give them carte blanche to live in the UK or Ireland or even our country? Here in America we had many Polish immigrants during the Ellis Island era and later, to the extent that large Polish enclaves existed in several cities. Immigrants, especially of that era, tend to become romanticized and a mystique has built up around them. The ethnic kin of those immigrants see them in a rosy glow. Some of that rosy glow has to dissipate, and we have to begin to look at immigration with a colder and more detached eye. We, meaning we in the ‘wealthier’ countries which are destinations for the world’s restless masses, will have to stop being sentimental and think of what is best for our folk, our progeny, not for the world’s hard luck cases.

I wish the Polish people well, in their own country, where it seems they are needed; there are stories that Poland ‘needs’ immigrants to fill jobs that are going begging.

Ironically, the Polish view immigrants with a jaundiced eye. And they are right to do so. But they should accord Western Europeans the right to feel the same.

The real Ali

Jim Goad at TakiMag writes about The Greatest Anti-White Boxer of All Time, namely Muhammad Ali, of course. He notes the (ahem) whitewashing of Ali now that he is dead, and the fawning eulogies. Even on the ‘realist right’, people seemed to focus solely on Ali’s famous (or infamous) interview in which he spoke out bluntly against interracial mating/marrying. In the 1970s no doubt that statement made a lot of liberal Whites uncomfortable but it did not carry the incendiary potential that it does in 2016.

The ‘colorblind’ portion of the White population seemed to regard Ali as a sainted hero,  in the tradition of most black celebrities, not quite as exalted as Nelson Mandela (terrorist, ex-convict) and not nearly as revered as MLK, but still a hero. I wonder how the sensitive teens at Tumblr would react to the quotes Joad offers at TakiMag?

“Integration is wrong. The white people don’t want integration. I don’t believe in forcing it….”
1964 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal

“The white man want me hugging on a white women, or endorsing some whiskey, or some skin bleach, lightening the skin when I’m promoting black as best.”
1966 interview with Sports Illustrated

“My enemies are white people, not Viet Congs or Chinese or Japanese.”
1967 interview regarding the draft

“All Jews and gentiles are devils….Blacks are no devils….Everything black people doing wrong comes from (the white people—drinking, smoking, prostitution, homosexuality, stealing, gambling—it all comes from (the white people).”
1969 interview with David Frost”

On that last quote, shades of Thomas Sowell who resorted to blaming ‘Southern redneck culture’ for ”everything black people doing wrong” as Ali bluntly put it.

Meanwhile it seems that Ali will become another black ‘icon’ revered by the likes of the Tumblr teens, along with Nelson Mandela, MLK, Rosa Parks and the rest of the pantheon. And it seems that ‘race realist’ Whites will remember Ali solely by his statements against interracial marriage. The trouble is, it’s likely nobody but White people will ever see or hear of his remarks, as the controlled media will never publicize anything that deviates from their agenda. Illusion wins over reality again, at least for now.

The ‘evolving’ views of the Dalai Lama

There has been a minor stir created in the last couple of days by remarks made by the Dalai Lama, who is considered a spiritual leader by Buddhists as well as by Western ‘New Age’ types and ultra-liberal Christians who believe all faiths are valid — except for those of old-fashioned Christians.

It seems the Dalai Lama shocked a few sensitive liberal souls by saying that Europe had taken in too many immigrants, and also by saying that Germany ‘cannot become an Arab country.’ The fact that such a statement would shock anybody just shows how strange and illogical the Western world has become in the 21st century.  It’s just self-evident.

The Dalai Lama, of course, is speaking from his experience of seeing his native country, Tibet, conquered by China, and in the process of being re-populated by Han Chinese colonists. However, the Pope obviously sees Italy and all of Europe being colonized by Third Worlders and he doesn’t see this the same way as his Buddhist counterpart does. Instead, he advises that Europeans breed with the ‘refugees’ and produce a new population. Shocking.

The Dalai Lama, though he spouts the usual passivist/pacifistic/quietistic teachings that characterize his religion, occasionally says something that seems surprising. Way back in 2001, he spoke out against a new rail link, by means of which the Chinese were colonizing Tibet. The DL said that this rail link was being used to send ‘beggars, prostitutes, the unemployed, and handicapped people’, also ‘people with AIDS.’

In another article, here, he charged that this was part of a plan to ‘forcibly change Tibet’s demography.

“The Chinese are setting up the railway tracks, but it is not for economic development. They have plans to transfer 20 million Chinese population into Tibet. The purpose of the railways is basically to facilitate the transfer of population.”

This is the kind of thing that is being done in Europe, this transferring of millions of people, and the purpose is to forcibly change Europe’s demography, as well as that of all Western, White countries. Surely the Dalai Lama recognizes this. His talk of showing ‘compassion’ to the refugees is predictable, but what about Europeans showing compassion to their own folk and above all, to their progeny, who will have the misfortune of living as minorities in a Third-Worldized slum?

Still, credit to the Dalai Lama for saying as much as he has. None of our Western spiritual “leaders” will say even that much.

Will the Dalai Lama’s Western devotees turn against him for saying something politically incorrect? They usually brook no such comments from fellow Whites but they will give a pass to someone from a non-Western, nonwhite, non-Christian background. And the Dalai Lama has a history of saying politically incorrect things about sacred cows such as homosexuality. Back in 1997, when gay activists were not so aggressive and powerful as they are today, he said some impolitic things.

I won’t excerpt the article as it gets rather explicit, but let’s say that he said certain ‘irregular’ sexual practices, between men and women as well as between same-sex partners, were ‘sexual misconduct’ and not appropriate for Buddhists.

I don’t think most Christian teachers or pastors would dare to express such old-fashioned ideas today, given the way in which the world has annexed the Church, with the Church’s acquiescence.

But the Dalai Lama has since had a change of mind or heart, and now says he is fine with ‘gay marriage’ and that homosexuality is harmless. His views have ‘evolved’, say his followers. What was unacceptable yesterday, or at least in 1997, is harmless today.

The celibate Dalai Lama has thrown his considerable moral weight behind gay marriage, condemning homophobia and saying sex was fine as long as it was consensual.”

Situational ethics and moral relativism are not just Western problems, it seems. Consenting adults, and all that. The slippery slope is everywhere.

Facts in black and White

Those who are interested in HBD issues should take a look at this information on black Americans’ genetics, in a study on The Great Migration and African-American Genomic Diversity.

It’s summed up here.

It’s interesting in that it supports what I have said about the percentage of White ancestry among American blacks. According to this study the average amount of European ancestry among them is relatively small.

“An estimated 82.1% of ancestors to African-Americans lived in Africa prior to the advent of transatlantic travel, 16.7% in Europe, and 1.2% in the Americas, with increased African ancestry in the southern United States compared to the North and West.”

I also note that contrary to what some say, the blacks in the South actually have less White ancestry on average than those in the Northern and Western states. Oftentimes people with an anti-Southern axe to grind (and this unfortunately includes some people who consider themselves pro-White) assert, without any backup of course, that Southern blacks are noticeably ‘whiter’ or lighter skinned than Northern ones. Or someone just makes a bald statement that ”there was more mixing in the South”, and they make insinuations about ‘slave-owners raping their slaves’, an unproven assertion if ever there was one.

Quite a few online commenters say that black Americans must have lots of White blood because ‘they’re much lighter-skinned than blacks in Africa‘ so there must be lots of White blood in American blacks. Actually, no. You need only look at lots of pictures of Africans of various regions and see the variations of skin tone. Not all Africans are of the darkest hues. It depends on their region or tribe. Lighter skin is relative, and lighter skin in Africa need not denote ‘European blood’, just as it means no such thing here.

But the maddening thing is this continued insistence from some Whites (including those who should know better) that rape had to be involved in all past cases of mixing between the two races.

Unfortunately this scientific study makes similar insinuations about the White ancestral traces found in some blacks, as in this passage:

…the historical record of early admixture occurring predominantly through coerced sexual interaction between European-American males and African-American females…

Please. These scientists should surely know that this is supposition. Presence of European DNA in blacks does not testify to ”rape” or  excuse me, ”coerced sexual interaction“; it only says that there was sexual congress. There is no way ”coercion” can be established by any scientific means. That’s why rape accusations today can’t be proven simply by the presence of some male’s DNA in a female, or even by the fact that a child might be born carrying DNA from that male. It is somehow assumed that any White DNA proves rape by a White male of a black female. Why is this automatically assumed by ”scientists” who supposedly deal only in known facts, provable evidence? I can only think it’s assumed because our mass-delusional, PC society says that minorities can do no wrong; that they can’t lie or deceive, and that if any wrong is done, they are always victims and never the guilty parties, never even complicit in any wrong.

These scientists lose respect in my eyes because they are dealing in popular urban legends which cannot be proven when they assert that ‘sexual coercion’ was involved in centuries-past acts, by unknown people.

Did rapes happen? Given fallen human nature, it’s possible. But keep in mind that the act of miscegeny, even on a casual or occasional basis was highly stigmatized by most White people in the South, and to a lesser degree, even in the North. Was it similarly taboo on the part of blacks? I suppose if you believe, like many of today’s generation, that all White men, especially slave-owners were diabolically evil, wantonly cruel, brutal, and depraved, then you will assume that rape was the only way in which sexual contact would occur between Whites and blacks. In fact most slave-owners did not beat and brutalize their slaves; it would have made little sense, and beyond that, most were Christians, and the Bible teaches slaveowners to treat their slaves humanely. And yes, the Bible did not and does not condemn slavery nor recommend that it be abolished and condemned universally. Anyone who says otherwise is ‘adding to’ the words of the Bible, which is condemned as a serious offense to God.

Just as with ‘sexual harassment’ charges today, there are, truth be told, cases of women who barter sex for a good grade in college, or for a promotion or better treatment at work.  I know that feminists angrily deny that such things could possibly happen — but happen they do. Many, many young women develop crushes on their professors in college, and many have had affairs, willingly, with them, not always with the aim of passing a course or getting an A or a recommendation for grad school. For many it’s simply a rite of passage. Nowadays with most young women being fairly lacking in inhibitions, there are no doubt many who proposition their profs or bosses, though there are true cases of harassment, of course. It happens. But there are plenty of women who are consenting to sex as a quid-pro-quo with men in authority, or women who just enjoy casual intimacy with whoever. Is it impossible that slave women consented to overtures from the White overseer (a much more likely partner than the plantation owner)? Or with anyone who might offer something they wanted? With Yankee soldiers, in fact, since oftentimes the slaves tagged along with the retreating Yankees, wanting to go to the Northern land of milk-and-honey?

It’s also a fact that even today many blacks look down on darker skin amongst their own. There’s even a name for it: “colorism.” I had a female black co-worker who was unsure about marrying her very dark-skinned boyfriend — she said it was because of his color. She had fairly dark skin herself but wanted lighter children. Many women of other races openly pursue White men for this reason, though my co-worker did marry her ‘too dark’ boyfriend.

Rape or not (and I doubt it was always the case) there were more likely White partners for the female slave than slave-owners. As I’ve said I’m particularly galled that the Jefferson family name is forever tarnished by the repeated urban legends about Thomas Jefferson ”raping” his slaves. Since the 1990s, when that loathsome Bill Clinton and his sleazy sycophants re-started 19th century rumors about the Sally Hemings, the story was that ‘Jefferson fathered a child by Hemings’, and it got worse: he fathered ‘all her children’ and then it went on to ‘Jefferson slept with his slaves [plural]’ and worse yet, ‘Jefferson raped his slaves.’ I suppose few people care; hardly anyone respects the Founding Fathers these days. They are now seen as culpable for the disaster America has become, rightly or wrongly.  However I care because it’s my family heritage and my blood kin who are being slandered, and they are not alive to defend themselves.

More than that, I care about the ‘good name’ or what is left of it of my larger group of blood kin, and that is old-stock Americans, generational Americans. More of us should care about it and try to counter all the lies and slanders, and to correct the falsehoods, urban legends, and falsehoods regarding race, HBD and the reputation of our own people.

Racial identity: a social construct?

Most people on what is broadly called the political ‘right’ in America laugh at the liberal proclamation that ‘race is a social construct’, just as we ridicule (rightly) the idea that ‘gender’ is not a fixed biological reality.

In a post the other day I wrote about people like Elizabeth Warren, the daffy college professor/politician who believes she is “Native American”. Then there was another college professor, Ward Churchill,  who claimed to be (what else?) Cherokee — but lacking any proof of that assertion, just as with Warren.

We tend to think of this kind of thing as being peculiar to liberals/progressives, with their Rousseauian “noble savage” admiration, their reverence for all things nonwhite and Third World and primitive. But it isn’t just liberals who somehow feel the need to claim some kind of ‘diverse’ ancestry; there are plenty of people around the right-wing blogs who also insist that they have some vague, remote nonwhite ancestry, usually American Indian, most often Cherokee, via the ubiquitous Cherokee princess great-great grandmother. Were there that many Cherokees several generations back, and that many Cherokee ‘princesses’ who married White men? If you believe all the anecdotal claims, the Cherokee must have been a very numerous tribe and most of their women (princesses or otherwise) must have married White men.

See the list on this blog of just some of the many celebrities who claim to be partly Cherokee. I am sure there are many more who are not listed.

I wonder why these oral traditions (most of which prove to be legends, or at least cannot be proven true) persist, and more importantly, why so many White Americans cherish these fables? Why is this so important, even to ‘conservative’ Whites who are somewhat less in awe of nonwhites?

For what it’s worth, many Southrons believe they are ‘part Cherokee’ and I am not sure why that story is so common, and so cherished, among White Southrons who are supposedly so ”racist.”

I notice that on the list linked above, there are many Southron celebrities (like Johnny Cash) among those who believed they had Cherokee blood. I did read that Cash, when his family tree or DNA were checked, found no Indian blood, but British Isles ancestry.

I think that most Southrons do not see American Indians as really so much nonwhite, as there seems to be little stigma against Indian-White unions, at least several generations back in the family tree. Even now, many race-realists seem to think Asian-White pairings are not only all right, but desirable, as also with Filipino-White unions. It seems there is a ‘race-realist’ hierarchy of which groups are more Other, and which are appropriate to mix with. Which proves that many race-realists are not as much pro-White as anti-black.

The South used to hold to the one-drop rule, but I see a lot of confusion these days, with some people saying that ‘half-black is not black.’ Things have changed; the left has confused a lot of us about racial identity, and that is their goal: to create so much doubt and confusion that we will all eventually buy the idea that race does not really exist, as there are no “pure” races. We are all mixed-up, so they say. Well, yes, we are, in the sense of being confused.

If you read the comments at that blog I linked in this post, you will find a few White Americans who are incensed that their claim to Cherokee blood is being questioned, despite their lack of proof. So it’s obviously important to them and to their sense of identity. This is sad.

Can we blame this racial confusion on just the recent years of propaganda or is it something much deeper-rooted than that? Is it that White Americans have been so stripped of a sense of identity, in an ethnic and racial sense, and now so vilified for it, that we would rather borrow somebody else’s identity and heritage to feel important? To feel as if we actually have an identity? Or do we, like most liberals, find races and cultures distant from ours to be especially appealing because they are so exotic, so ”other”? Do we want to return, in our minds at least, to an idyllic ‘noble savagery‘ of the kind idealized (falsely) by Rousseau, Gauguin, and so many others?

We have been fed so much glamorized fiction about primitive cultures, and today, about their ‘vibrancy’, that we have been made to feel that our heritage and culture is bland and colorless by comparison. “White bread”, “pale and stale”.

Pride in who we are, who our ancestors were, is all but banned these days. Cultural envy and ‘cultural appropriation’ — and now, racial appropriation, is a consequence.

This writer, writing a dozen years ago, may be onto something, in his essay about the allure of the ‘noble savage’ ideal:

“This powerful and diabolical enchantment has cast its spell over the liberal imagination. We have pagans in our midst. Our culture war masks a deeper struggle against spiritual darkness. Until the spell which Rousseau and Gauguin cast over the west is broken, the imaginary noble savage will be exalted. As long as the savage reigns in the liberal imagination, western civilization in general and America in particular as the leader of the west will be blamed for every human evil. The savage heart of faux primitivism hates civilization.”