The last taboo?

I was somewhat surprised to find at the Faith and Heritage blog a piece by David Carlton which dares to bring up the issue of the genetic origins of modern-day Jews. This question is one which seems to be deliberately avoided, not confronted. Why?

A recent genetic study reported in the mainstream media indicates that the Biblical Canaanites were apparently the ancestors of today’s Lebanese. But why are the media, as well as mainstream Christians, and even the so-called ”right-wing extremists”, who are not normally afraid to ‘name the Jew’ wary of raising the question of the origins of today’s Jews?  I raised this question before, and it apparently was of no interest to my readers.

I say I was surprised to find a Kinist raising the question of Jewish origins, because on the Faith and Heritage blog, I’ve seen unfavorable comments from readers about ‘CI’ or ‘Christian Identity’; the CI believers seem to be counted as ‘deplorables’ by some Kinists as well as by ‘mainstream’ or Judeo-Christians. And the kinists the are deplored by the politically correct Christians, as the blog article tells us.

The writer of the blog piece says in a footnote:

“The topic of Jewish genetics and descent is a fascinating one. Several different proposals exist for the origin of the Jewish ethnicity. Regardless of one’s opinion on the subject (and my mind is not yet made up), this doesn’t change the fact that Jews have no special status or covenant with God apart from faith in Christ.”

Yet I don’t see that the question of Jewish genetics is still up in the air. I know of no study that definitely establishes Jews as descendants of Biblical Israel.  The Infogalatic article seems only to cloud the issue further. However I’ve read widely on this subject off and on for some years, and I fail to see why scientists can trace the Lebanese to their Canaanite ancestry but we can’t find out who the Jews are with any certitude. Many studies have shown mixed origins for today’s Jews, and Biblically, Israel (all the tribes, not just Judah, that is, ‘Jews’) were not to mix with other peoples,  but to preserve their bloodline. So how can a mixed people be any more legitimately Israel than say, the mixed Samaritans, who were the pariahs in Jesus’ lifetime?

I don’t see why this study, from reputable Johns Hopkins, generated so very little discussion, or why so many have glibly dismissed it if they addressed it at all.

This website treats the study’s findings as accurate, stating that, according to the study’s author, the Jews are descendants, mostly, of the Khazars. Yet he concludes that Abraham’s descendants, wherever they may be, are not relevant, and that there is only ‘spiritual Israel’ now. Yet that does not line up with what the Bible has to say about the scattered ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ being found in due time.

What we are left with, as far as the origins of the Jews, is strictly their word that they are the Israel of the Bible. How do they know this? Word of mouth, through generations? Remember that the Gypsies claimed for centuries (until genetic testing was possible) that they were of Egyptian origin. Now we know they originated in the Indian subcontinent, far from Egypt.

Many Americans maintain stubbornly that they are of American Indian blood, and have told their children for generations that they are of Indian blood — and often were sorely disappointed when DNA testing showed all European blood.

‘Oral traditions’ are not very reliable, in many cases, especially where very long time spans are involved. That’s simple common sense.

Few if any people can account for their ancestry back thousands of years. Yet we accept that Jews somehow know with certainty who their ancestors were. And the fact that Jews do in fact claim to be the people of the Bible, God’s chosen, insulates them from any challenges or criticism, especially with Christians of today. We are not to doubt, much less criticize them because they are God’s people, the people of the Bible. But how can we know that? Don’t ask questions; they’re God’s chosen –and they are at the pinnacle of the pyramid of victimhood.

In the absence of real proof, and with much evidence to the contrary, why do we automatically accept, if only tacitly, claims like this? Should not the onus be on them to supply some evidence of their claim?

Why is the Johns Hopkins study ignored or scoffed at? I can only guess it’s for political reasons; most people don’t want to touch it. And who profits by this discreet turning of blind eyes?

To return to David Carlton’s piece, he mentions a John Weaver, of Freedom Ministries, and though I hadn’t heard of him previously it sounds like he has a great deal more sense and honesty in him than many of today’s Christian teachers, who just seek to ‘tickle people’s ears’ or speak smooth words. I plan to listen to Weaver’s podcasts or read what he has written.

And speaking of Christian teachers and preachers, the late Wesley Swift would be considered a religious ‘deplorable’ by most of today’s timid Christians and churchian SJWs.  Yet his sermons and talks, most of them from the 1950s and 60s, accurately foresaw what is going on in our world in 2017. It is uncanny to read or hear his words and note how relevant and current they are half a century or more later. Say what you will about him, but he seemed to know what was coming.

Many of today’s Christians prefer to forget, if they even know, that our forefathers had views much closer to Wesley Swift’s (or probably John Weaver’s) than to today’s politically correct eunuchs. Most of our forefathers were ‘deplorables’ by today’s standards, backward, extremist, bigoted. So today’s wisdom says.

And so we go on, intimidated into avoiding the taboos.




‘Rating’ ethnic groups

About a hundred years ago, a sociologist did a study of ten ethnic groups in America and rated their ‘relative social worth.’ This was during one of the peak periods of immigration, and nativist tendencies were very much alive then, despite the already-ongoing efforts to promote the ‘melting pot’ and the ‘all one happy family’ sentiment.

Today such a study would be unlikely to be done, unless it was commissioned specifically to paint immigrants in the most favorable light and to convince any skeptics out there to get with the program and celebrate diversity. After all, Latinos are hard workers with good family values, just doing the jobs that you lazy White folks won’t do.

As to the study, done by H. B. Woolston, the ratings of ten ethnic groups went as follows:

  1. Native-born White Americans
  2. Germans
  3. English
  4. “Polish and Russian Hebrews”
  5. Scandinavians
  6. Irish
  7. French-Canadians
  8. Austrian Slavs
  9. South Italians
  10. Negroes

The term “Polish and Russian Hebrews” is the language used in the study.

The sociologist who did this study notes the results with some dismay, remarking that there was, to use today’s lingo not enough ‘diversity’, a “lack of Negroes, Slavs, or Latins” among the study’s observers, so there may have been some ‘Anglo-Saxon prejudice’ at work there, according to the author.  Obviously Woolston was a relativist who thought that applying our standards measured only conformity to our standards of excellence. But wouldn’t the ‘Hebrews’ who rated #4 also have suffered from being judged by alien ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or Teutonic standards?

Obviously those who succeeded in our society were likely to be those from cultures closest to us, and their cultures would be similar because we are genetically similar. The top three ethnicities are more closely related, after all.

Can a study like this be truly objective? Everybody brings some degree of bias to making assessments like this; I’ve noted with some impatience that most White Americans have ‘favorite minorities’ for whom they plead, arguing that this or that group ‘make good Americans’, or ‘they are hard workers’, or in the case of East Asians, the argument is always that ‘they have high IQs and are not crime-prone’.

And then of course there is the more natural bias towards believing our own ethnicity to be preferable to all others, or to have accomplished more, or whatever. Some peoples have pride, apparently,  in claiming victimhood, recognizing the value and the power of victimhood in our ‘oppressor-vs.-victim’ hierarchy.

A study like this one, judging “relative social worth” of various immigrant groups is just too politically incorrect, and even apart from the open-borders, ‘we’re all one race, the human race’ crowd, many people on the right would be irate if their particular ethnic group (or groups) were not at the top of the list.

On a side note, I was reading a thread at Steve Sailer’s blog about ethnic cleansing or ‘White flight’, and someone mentioned the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Whites from Vancouver, B.C., while someone countered that Whites weren’t fleeing their Chinese replacements in Vancouver; after all nobody fears the Chinese because they are not a danger. I would disagree with that. Regardless of whether a group of people is a direct physical threat, the fact that they have a drastically different way of life, and that they change your familiar hometown surroundings beyond recognition, is significant. Nobody, at least nobody with normal feelings, wants to live in a neighborhood where an utterly foreign language is spoken, and people have different customs, habits, and etiquette. I don’t think the most ardent xenophiliac would want to be the ‘only White’ left in his former neighborhood.

As to the Chinese and other Asians having low-crime culture, well, there is crime, and there is crime. They may not be prone to violence (however,  see the story of the Wah Mee Social Club), and then there are Asians, and Asians. East Asians, or Northeast Asians, are not the same as South Asians or Southeast Asians, or West Asians. We too often think of the model minority in connection with all Asians, though the stereotype was based on the behavior of Japanese-Americans specifically.

Returning to the list of ethnic rankings, we might think that the America of 100 years ago was lucky in that most of the immigrants of that day were European at least, but the increasingly diverse European immigrants were getting us accustomed to more exotic cultures and peoples. I am convinced that it was always the plan to open the country to people from every continent and people; they just ‘warmed up’ with European groups, and actually by the turn of the 20th century there were waves of Asian immigration, especially to the West Coast. I think the idea was to do all this by degrees, gradually conditioning us to the idea that America was a place where anybody and everybody seeking ‘Freedom’ or a ‘better life’ could rightfully come.

Now, ‘relative social worth’ seems to have been thrown out the window, and the more dysfunctional and divergent from our culture a group is, the more they seem to be sought out by those who make policy for our country.

On ‘national degeneracy’

“A people is said to be degenerated, when it is badly governed, abuses its riches, is fanatical, or irreligious; in short, when it has lost the characteristic virtues of its forefathers. This is begging the question. Thus, communities succumb under the burden of social and political evils only when they are degenerate, and they are degenerate only when such evils prevail. This circular argument proves nothing but the small progress hitherto made in the science of national biology. I readily admit that nations perish from degeneracy, and from no other cause; it is when in that wretched condition, that foreign attacks are fatal to them, for then they no longer possess the strength to protect themselves against adverse fortune, or to recover from its blows. They die, because, though exposed to the same perils as their ancestors, they have not the same powers of overcoming them. I repeat it, the term degeneracy is correct; but it is necessary to define it, to give it a real and tangible meaning. It is necessary to say how and why this vigor, this capacity of overcoming surrounding dangers, are lost. Hitherto, we have been satisfied with a mere word, but the thing itself is as little known as ever. The step beyond, I shall attempt to make.

In my opinion, a nation is degenerate, when the blood of its founders no longer flows in its veins, but has been gradually deteriorated by successive foreign admixtures; so that the nation, while retaining its original name, is no longer composed of the same elements. The attenuation of the original blood is attended by a modification of the original instincts, or modes of thinking; the new elements assert their influence, and when they have once gained perfect and entire preponderance, the degeneration may be considered as complete. With the last remnant of the original ethnical principle, expires the life of the society and its civilization. The masses, which composed it, have thenceforth no separate, independent, social and political existence; they are attracted to different centres of civilization, and swell the ranks of new societies having new instincts and new purposes.

In attempting to establish this theorem, I am met by a question which involves the solution of a far more difficult problem than any I have yet approached. This question, so momentous in its bearings, is the following:

Is there, in reality, a serious and palpable difference in the capacity and intrinsic worth of different branches of the human family?

For the sake of clearness, I shall advance, a priori, that this difference exists. It then remains to show how the ethnical character of a nation can undergo such a total change as I designate by the term degeneracy.

Physiologists assert that the human frame is subject to a constant wear and tear, which would soon destroy the whole machine, but for new particles which are continually taking the form and place of the old ones. So rapid is this change said to be, that, in a few years, the whole framework is renovated, and the material identity of the individual changed. The same, to a great extent, may be said of nations, only that, while the individual always preserves a certain similarity of form and features, those of a nation are subject to innumerable and ever-varying changes.”

From Gobineau, The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races

‘In the New World Order…’

“In the New World Order, there will be neither national sovereignty nor national identity, and just as the population of the nation is to be replaced by Third World immigrants, so the culture of the nation is to be replaced by one suitable only for rootless and deracinated people—a people that can be deluded that what it is told to think and believe is really ‘universal’ and ‘culture-neutral’ because it has long since ceased to have any real culture of its own.”Sam Francis

One (European) world

After reading yet another plea for White ‘internationalism’, in other words, White multiculturalism, I find myself compelled to reiterate why I believe this idea is wrong-headed and moreover, unlikely to be workable.

Looking at the practical side of it, how could all the disparate peoples of European descent (and they are disparate) be compelled to unite? By simply the threat of an outside enemy? That is the main argument usually; the White race is under dire threat from outside enemies who want us gone, or more accurately, under threat from enemies within and without. However it’s useful to remember that the European Union, once euphemistically called the ‘European Economic Union’ or ‘The Common Market’, was proposed as the way to shield Europe from an external threat.
propaganda poster, 1951

Poster above: from 1951

The storm clouds above the little girl have hammers and sickles, representing Eastern bloc Communism, obviously.

And how did that work out? Europeans under the EU have shown no greater resistance to outside threats, and in fact the Communist threat was simply internalized, while the European peoples still retain their differences. Many differences are good, but old grudges and grievances persist along with the healthy differences.

But suppose a ‘new and improved’ right-wing EU arose, with all the European peoples under one government, determined to amalgamate themselves into some kind of generic European. Putting aside the big cultural and genetic gaps that exist even within Europe, assuming that could all be dealt with easily, whose culture would be the dominant one? We’ve seen in all multicultural experiments, even with White American multiculturalism, that some group’s culture, by design or simply by natural strength, will dominate — or will be perceived as dominating. Whose would that be? In America, as Anglo-Saxons were the original and dominant group, theirs was the default to which newcomers were expected to assimilate and conform. And how did that work out? Centuries later, certain groups nurse grievances over things that they imagine (or read in a history book) their great-great-grandparents ‘suffered’ at the hands of the oppressor. Even ethnicities who appeared to have assimilated successfully have in recent decades suddenly ‘remembered’ or been taught that their ancestors were ‘done wrong’ by the WASP elites, and now they are born-again partisans of a nationality and culture that their ancestors left behind 100 or more years ago.

Likewise, with language. Whose language would be the ‘official’ language in some kind of White multinational empire? English would be the most plausible, given that a great many Europeans are fluent in it (Scandinavians and Dutch, for example) but imagine the Francophones, just to name one group, quietly accepting English as the, ahem, lingua franca of the new Empire?

And religion? Catholic and Protestant seem more divided than at any time in my lifetime, and then there are growing numbers of proponents of paganism or some form of ‘nature worship’ supposedly based on the legendary ‘old religion’ who are very eager to proselytize and push for the elimination of Christianity as being an ‘alien’ faith as they often insist. What then? Invent a new religion out of whole cloth, as some people propose? As if religion is something that one can cook up to order, to serve a purpose. A religion professes to be true. If it is not true, and is just an invention of some human mind (a la L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology) then it is no religion and would not answer people’s needs for truth and meaning.

And then there are the militant atheists, who seem to exist mostly amongst White people, for some reason.

Culture, language, religion, these are all important components of a working civilization. To lack cohesion or a common basis would be fatal to the success of constructing a new ‘union’.

Can we say that, at minimum, the people (I would say more properly, peoples) of that proposed new entity should have a common blood origin, based in kinship? Because at heart that is what a nation is: a people united by a common origin and ancestry.

And along with that common origin and shared ancestry goes a shared history, a shared heritage and memory, which is naturally passed down in a body of folklore and custom and legend and tradition: holidays, commemorations of past triumphs and trials. Every nation has its heroes (and villains, too), people who are real or semi-legendary who embody the nation’s archetype, the archetype of the unique character of that particular kin-group and people. America, despite the frequent sneers that America is not a ‘real’ nation and never was, once had all the above things, and those things I tried to re-introduce into the common consciousness when I first began to blog, but that doesn’t ‘sell’ anymore.

Absent a desire to remember our past, we seem to have died a little more since the days I first began blogging.

But are we in a real sense equal kin with all European-descended peoples? Maybe more Americans (or Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders) would feel more ‘inclusive’ towards Whites who are distantly related to us, but that is because we have been given infusions of multiculturalism from relatively early in our history, and have come to believe that people who are very different can ‘become us’ just by acquiring citizenship papers, or by learning a halting version of our language.

Many Europeans are not as ‘welcoming’ that way, because they have not been made to acclimate to ‘diversity’ as the Anglosphere nations have been. And, I suppose, good for them. The Eastern Europeans fit this category as of now, but suppose they too are made to acclimate to having very different people living in their midst?

Russia, remember, is a polyglot, multicultural, multiracial empire, even post-Soviet Russia.

I’ve lately begun to wonder if some of what is happening to the Western countries is in part happening because the globalists, who still sit firmly in charge, want European-descended peoples to react by willingly uniting and amalgamating. Obviously they have tried, via the EU, to do this, but it seems not to be proceeding as they want, and the Anglosphere still remains recalcitrant to some degree (Brexit, for example) and America’s (failed?)attempt to turn the clock back, to ‘Make America Great Again’.

White internationalism, or some kind of transcontinental Empire of Europeans would just be one more step, intentional or not, toward forming a ‘region’ which would fit nicely into the globalists’ theoretical One World system, divided into several ‘regions.’

It’s more centralization, which is not good.
It’s an attempt to fit disparate things and peoples together by political means. It is thus unnatural.

And most importantly, to me, it is based on the utopian idea that all European peoples are, or can be treated as, equals. This is a false idea, and a false god, truth be told. Since most Western countries have become hopelessly infected with the idea of ‘equality’ and egalitarianism, this would doom the project from the start. It is not true of nations, or of cultures, and especially not of flesh-and-blood human beings.

The idea of equality, of fungibility, of interchangeability, and of leveling out all differences in the name of the ‘rights of man’ or whatever slogan has been a toxic one on which our nation is mistakenly basing itself. To have a pan-European empire built on that false foundation would be a disaster.

Immigration history visualized

At you can see an animated graphic of immigration to the U.S., by country of origin. Even if you are familiar with the dramatic changes in immigration to this country in the last century or so, it’s illuminating to see it depicted this way.  (H/T to poster “eah” at Sailer’s blog.) Take a look.

Coincidentally I was recently looking at government statistics on immigration over the latter part of the 20th century, and if you like old-fashioned charts here are a couple of examples, showing the demographic changes in immigration.

I didn’t realize, until I looked at these,  that at some point in the late 20th century, the Philippines became number 3 on the list of countries sending immigrants to the U.S.



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.