Reconstruction, part 3

Africanization_The New Dictionary of Americanisms1902

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

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

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

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

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.

Controversial quote?


Quote via Wrath of Gnon.

I suppose that for many Americans and other Westerners, individual ‘autonomy’ or ‘freedom’ is paramount, and this, I’d say, is part of our predicament. Do we see ourselves as ‘rugged individuals’, or part of an unbroken chain, going back through the generations? Do we think of ourselves as self-created, self-determined individuals, beholden to no previous generations and no traditions?

Blogger Cambria Will Not Yield I think rightly emphasizes  pietas, and the importance of regaining that lost virtue.

An oldie

An oldie but a goodie which was posted on my old blog: an excerpt from a magazine piece dating from a 1954 magazine. This is a change from my usual postings on current events and controversial stuff, just some old Americana, from the vanished America of yore.

What Happened to Common Sense?
by Mary Ellen Chase, from Coronet Magazine, May, 1954

“Whenever I return to the isolated Maine village where I spend every summer, I am pleasantly surprised by the way in which my neighbors there hold on to certain old terms.

One of these is grit, with its companion, gumption; another is get up and get, which in Maine means to depend on oneself; yet another is common sense. These words describe the human qualities which my neighbors, fishermen and  their wives, extoll above all others. For fishing is a hard calling. It demands gumption, or in more polite terms, self-reliance, the power of decision and the determination not to be downed by adverse circumstances.

My neighbors are frankly suspicious of anyone who lacks these old American virtues. They voiced their common judgment of a man who had lost his lobster traps in a northeast gale and had been bewailing his fate with too little reserve.

“Why don’t he shut his mouth and pick up his feet?” they said, “You can’t set sail straight by takin’ time to bawl about bad luck.”

They and I stem from the same rural background. In the country school of my childhood, precepts were written on the blackboard, each Monday morning by our “old-fashioned” teachers who knew it to be their duty to instill iron in our souls as well as common fractions in our minds. Through the years those precepts have proved salutary to me in moments of indecision and anxiety. Usually they were in terse prose:

“It takes a live fish to swim upstream, but any old log can float down.”
Don’t expect others to bear your troubles; they have their own.
Life isn’t all you want, but it’s all you have; so have it.”

Occasionally a rhyme enlivened us. One I recall as a favorite.

The mind of man has no defense
To equal plain, old common sense.
This homely virtue don’t despise,
If you would be happy as well as wise.

Parents, too, 50 years ago dealt out such robust aphorisms liberally, sometimes even sternly, in the upbringing of children. I was taught early by both precept and example that a job once undertaken has to be completed whatever the cost, and that no one but the maker of them ought to be expected to pay for mistakes.

[….]During my life as a teacher I have often questioned whether we have discovered any worthy substitutes for those precepts and teachings which, outmoded as they seem, are rooted deeply in our history and our ways of life.

In place of the old sayings we use today new words and terms to describe our states of mind and our meetings of those difficulties and questions which will always beset us. We are now insecure, or ill-adjusted, or frustrated, or made ineffective by a sense of inferiority. These new words lack the optimism of the old. Implicit in them is the notion that we are surrounded by foes difficult to defeat.

The new vocabulary comes into use early. We hesitate to look upon our children as simply ill-mannered or spoiled. We fear that they are problem children who need expert care lest they become neurotics or uncontributive members of society.

In high school and college they are surrounded by advisers on what they would best study, what work in life they are best fitted for. They are too seldom encouraged to face problems by themselves, to make their own decisions and to pay the consequences of their own mistakes.

Nor are adults free from waves of anxiety. Too many of us are looking about for some panacea which will ease the burdens of our past and present errors in judgment and lighten our fears of the future. Something, we feel, is wrong somewhere, and without making any stout attempts on our own to discover what it is, we turn to professional advice which guarantees to show us how to understand ourselves.

Even a cursory reading of such books reveals nothing but what we used to call plain old common sense. They urge upon us a calm and objective weighing of ourselves; a frank and even merciless recognition of our weaknesses and failures, a determination to oust at any cost oversensitiveness, which is but a form of self-indulgence; a sense of personal responsibility for the well-being of our families and communities; a fresh start; in short, reliance on our own powers of self-discipline.

No one in his senses would suggest that such books are not often helpful to the anxious mind. But the assumption that most of us have somehow acquired emotional conflicts which we cannot cope with by ourselves surely has its dangers.

We Americans have since our beginnings been known for our self-reliance, for our gumption and common sense. We are, or at least we were, adventurers and our history is the story of a game played against tremendous odds and gloriously won. Why not recall the tough moral fiber which made the winning possible? Isn’t it about time that we return as individuals to those values and practices which we have not forgotten so much as neglected?

[…]Life may not be all we want, but it’s all we have, as my old school precept said, and it’s high time that we have it. We shall not find its secrets or its possible riches in the advice of others, however wise, unless we complete that counsel with our own grit, gumption, and common sense.”