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.


Popular music and race

In a recent post I linked to Steve Sailer’s piece about the race card being played at the Grammy awards. The question was raised whether Whites should apologies for winning awards, with the implicit assumption being that the awards are ‘stolen’ from blacks, who are of course the rightful winners, or would be in a ‘colorblind’ society.

I’ve often pondered how it is that our popular music (and popular culture in general) is so dominated by blacks. Most people — even those who are somewhat racially aware — would defer to blacks by saying that blacks are just more talented at music, as they are supposedly in athletics. But the black ascendancy has black people accusing Whites of “cultural appropriation” when they emulate, even unconsciously, black styles.

Could we not say rightly that blacks have a kind of cultural hegemony in our society, in all Western societies, given their disproportionate numbers in entertainment and their pervasive influence on White performers and composers of music?

This is not a new thing. I came across an article in an old (dated 1927) article in an Argentine magazine, Cine-Mundial. The article was titled ‘Melanomania‘, a term that the writer, R. De Zayas Enriquez, apparently coined himself to describe the craze among White people for black entertainment. Maybe we should use that word; the ‘-mania’ suffix is apt, and it has become a more pronounced trend since the time that the article was written.

As we are in black history month, wherein many claims are made about blacks having invented just about everything, we are bound to hear that blacks invented, among other things, rock ‘n roll, a claim which is usually conceded by most Whites. Yet it could just as convincingly be argued that rock ‘n roll derives more from country music in the form of old-time string-band music, via what was called ‘rockabilly.’ Chuck Berry’s music shows more influence from White country/rockabilly than vice-versa. Does it matter who invented it? Rock ‘n roll is something I grew up with, as did most of us today, and I enjoy a lot of it, but it isn’t exactly our crowning cultural achievement. Still, the truth matters, and it does serve the cultural Marxist, anti-White agenda to claim that blacks are the source of all our popular musical genres, as does the writer of this following excerpt. The writer is Isaac Goldberg (are triple parentheses even necessary there?) in a book called Tin Pan Alley, from 1930. [NB: the language in the following is the author’s;  everyone was politically incorrect in 1930].

“Before the various types of jazz was the modern coon song; before the coon song was the minstrel show; before the minstrel show was the plantation melody and the spiritual. It is safe to say that without the Negro we should have had no Tin Pan Alley; or, if this sounds like exaggeration, certainly Tin Pan alley would have been a far less picturesque Melody Land than it is to-day.

Why has the coon song become so representative of our popular music? Why is it impossible to think of our street songs for long without encountering the influence — whether pseudo or real — of the black? Why, whether in the early days of the southland, or in the contemporary life of Gotham, is the rhythm, the lingo, the accent of the Negro so persistent?

The Negro is the symbol of our uninhibited expression, of our uninhibited action. He is our catharsis. He is the disguise behind which we may, for a releasing moment, rejoin that part of ourselves which we have sacrificed to civilization. He helps us to a double deliverance. What we dare not say, often we freely sing. Music, too, is an absolution. And what we would not dare to sing in our own plain speech we freely sing in the Negro dialect, or in terms of the black. The popular son, like an unseen Cyrano, provides love phrases for that speechless Christian, the Public. And the Negro, a black Cyrano, adds lust to passion.

Can this be one of the reasons why the American Anglo-Saxon has held aloof from the exploitation and particularly the creation of songs in the musical vernacular? Can it be only a coincidence that the three races who have contributed most to our popular song — the Negro, the Irish and the Jew — should be the familiar example of oppressed nationalities, credited with a fine intensity of inner life and with passions less bridled than those of the more conventional — not necessarily the more frigid — American Anglo-Saxon?”

We can see the politics showing through the writer’s statements involving ‘oppressed’ races, and his biases towards Anglo-Saxons.

I will explore this further in future posts, because it seems that the cultural revolution has been more insidious and more important than the gradualist political revolution.



Tech companies for open borders

Amazon and Microsoft, along with other tech companies, are joining in a lawsuit over President Trump’s immigration measures. Bill Gates et al have long been known as double-dyed leftists/globalists.

As for Amazon, I personally have been less inclined to do business with them; I find their business practices not the most advantageous to the average customer, so I now look to buy things elsewhere when I buy online. I also dislike their practice of profiling customers (yes, I know that they all do it, probably). An example: I had bought, some years ago, Andrew Fraser’s book The WASP Question. (I also promised to review it at his request, a promise I’m embarrassed to say I neglected to keep, but that’s another story). In any case, I rarely buy new books online or elsewhere, because there are few new books that are of any interest to me; if I need books on history or any other subject I choose to turn to old books which are sounder and more trustworthy.

So I have bought few new books from Amazon, but I kept getting recommendations for other books they ‘thought’ would interest me. One such book was a book with ‘White Supremacy’ in the title. I wondered how they came up with the idea that I was ‘White Supremacist’, if they were basing that on my history of purchases from them. All I could think of was that the Fraser book, on the ‘WASP Question’ somehow equated to ‘White Supremacy’ according to their twisted reckoning.

Yes, the Amazon people have long been known as politically correct and leftist. I remember when they were boycotted by some for stocking ‘how-to’ books for pedophiles: basically, how to lure children. So Amazon is boycott-worthy as far as I am concerned, and doubly so since their choosing to take a pro-open-borders position and to oppose President Trump.

The linked article also mentions other Seattle-based tech companies that are likewise anti-Trump, and for open borders/globalism. Another like-minded company is Reddit, whose co-founder Alexis Ohanian, says Trump’s measures on immigration are ‘anti-American.’

I’m well-past tired of people (such as people named ‘Ohanian’ or other non-American names) telling me what is ‘American’ and what is not. Shall I go to Armenia and tell them what Armenians should think or what constitutes the ‘Armenian way’? Why is it always someone from a profoundly alien immigrant background lecturing me and people like me about what our country stands for, or should stand for? Or telling me that our traditional, time-honored ways are ”un-American”? I believe there is a certain other ethnic group that refers to this attitude as ‘chutzpah’, a term which implies brazenness and unmitigated gall.

Many immigrants and their descendants (like the Armenian millennial Ohanian and many others of immigrant stock) have been filled so full of fawning propaganda about the noble immigrant and his immeasurable value to America that they have come to believe their own publicity. P.S.: that publicity was nothing more, at least at first, than a patronizing and condescending effort on the part of misguided Americans to make the mendicant newcomers feel ‘included and welcome.’ It was born out of pity for the immigrant. It was simply an early attempt, on the part of some, to impart “self-esteem” to the immigrants, and it backfired on us enormously. The immigrants’ descendants came to believe that their ancestors did America a huge favor by coming here; we original settlers were actually their inferiors. They, the immigrant descendants, are ‘vibrant and colorful’, and oh-so-genuine and exotic, while our ancestors (and we, of course) are dull, bland, ‘white-bread’, plain vanilla, boring, and in desperate need of their enriching presence.

Sad to say, many old-stock Americans have come to believe that pro-immigrant hype, and to be self-abasing and given to sentimentalizing the Ellis Island crowd. That will have to stop if we are ever to regain our rightful primacy and pride in the very real accomplishments of our ancestors.

Boycott all these companies: Microsoft (if possible), Amazon, Reddit, Starbuck’s, all of them.

Sam Francis on globalism, and…

From The Social Pathologist, a very good quote from the late Sam Francis on the subject of globalism. I’ve long admired Sam Francis, and consider him one of the most lucid and sound thinkers on our side.

However, read the comment below the quote at Social Pathologist. The commenter ‘refutes’ Francis by an extensive quote from Mencius Moldbug, and the seeming gist of Moldbug’s words, quoted as gospel apparently, are that Puritans/”Brahmins” and ultimately Christians are the real ‘elites’, not those considered elites by most of us.

Really? Who are these ”Brahmins”? That word was traditionally used to refer to primarily Bostonians, old-stock Anglo-Saxons, usually ‘Mayflower descendants’ or at least the most prominent families in the Boston Social Register. Famous people like the Lowells, the Cabots, and related families.  Read this PBS piece on the ”Brahmins” and you get very much the same jaundiced view of them as the one advanced by Moldbug.

In my earlier days of blogging someone mentioned my blog in the same sentence with Moldbug’s Unqualified Reservations blog, somehow likening us. Some people criticized Moldbug’s tendency to verbosity, thus compared me to him. In any case, though I looked in on his blog I never read it habitually. Maybe it was his manner of expression that was a little opaque and hard to follow, but from reading others’ analyses of his work, I gathered that he had a very idiosyncratic view of the world which I found hard to relate to. For one thing, his constant references to ‘The Cathedral‘, a term which to me seems a very Christian reference, and it seems that ultimately he blamed Christianity, or ‘Puritanism’ in particular for all that has gone wrong in the West. Now of course there are all those influenced heavily by him who perpetuate this meme. Personally I object to the references to ‘The Cathedral’ and I think his idea that these shadowy ‘Brahmins’ are controlling the world behind the scenes is ridiculous.

Some people like this bizarre idea that there are all these Anglo-Saxon Mayflower descendants, all obscenely wealthy, who are somehow, somewhere, exerting all kinds of power. Who and where are these all-powerful Brahmins who have managed to survive the centuries? Some think they are still living in Boston, but have any of these people been to Boston lately? Most of the old stock Anglo-Saxon Puritan descendants (having lost their Christian faith and became Unitarians or agnostics) are moved to happier climes, having gone to the Midwest and the Far West long ago, ethnically cleansed by the immigrants who came in waves, starting before the War Between the States. My own ‘Puritan Yankee Brahmin’ great-grandfather came to the far West long ago, as did many cousins. So where are these elusive ‘Brahmins’ and ‘Puritans’?

It seems to me that for Moldbug, the Brahmins are invoked as a way of deflecting blame from the Jews, and that is their function for many people looking to redirect the criticism of Jews.

Moldbug, whose name is Curtis Yarvin, is Jewish by ancestry though probably an atheist or agnostic. But then one can be an ethnic and cultural Jew though one professes no belief in God.

Yarvin, I think, is a pied piper, and I find that a great many people quote his words as if he were an infallible source, the last word. And most oddly, these are often people who profess awareness of the Jewish influence in the anti-White, anti-nationalist tyrannies with which we have to deal today. I can name at least one other Jewish blogger who also has a loyal and almost reverential set of followers among Alt-right or ‘pro-White’ readers and bloggers on the internet.

This is one of those paradoxes which always keep me shaking my head. Is it not wise to treat such writers as at least potentially working an agenda which is against our interests? I don’t understand this uncritical embrace of those who probably have some anti-White, anti-Christian axe to grind.

Harvard Republican Club rejects Trump

I see that the Harvard Republican Club has refused to endorse Donald Trump. According to their own statement, this is the first time in 128 years that they have rejected the Republican nominee for the presidency.

The statement spells out their reasons for taking this unprecedented position.

Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses –from racist slander to misogynistic taunts– is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.”

There’s a lot of hyperventilating exaggeration here, all laced with political correctness or ‘virtue signalling’, if you prefer.

Our” values? “our” conservative principles? What universe do these self-important adolescents inhabit? Not mine, and not the same universe as all previous generations of Americans.

Some of the comments online about this Republican Club statement imply that the members of this Club are ‘elitists’, probably old-line WASPs, because everyone knows that is who goes to Hahvahd, right? Well, maybe not. Harvard, like just about every university in this corrupt society, courts diversity. They have many special fellowship and scholarship programs set up specifically for ‘diversity’ of one sort or another, probably everything from LGBTQ-whatever to immigrants, (especially illegal immigrants), for Womyn, for American Indians. I think the percentages of old-stock Americans, especially WASPs, at Harvard are dwindling all the time.

The statement by the Club is a collective one, with no spokesman or leader named or quoted. From a 2013 list of some members’ names it appears that it’s the usual ‘diverse’ and multicultural cast of characters, as is found on just about every campus in this country, thanks to mandatory diversity admissions. For example, a Jewish name, a Chinese name, a Hindu name, and a couple of American-sounding names that may or may not belong to White students. In other words, this statement is not coming from an all-White ‘elite’ club as some are insinuating.

Harvard is not what it used to be.  In fact, every American institution, even those going back to colonial days like Harvard, is not what it started out to be, nor even what it was 30 years (or less) in the past.

This ritual denunciation of Donald Trump is just what would be expected, considering the source. It is not an indication of anything except the callow opinions of indoctrinated millennials in a very left-wing institution.

Pre-‘diversity’ diversity

At the Atlantic Centurion blog, there is a piece titled ‘Anglo-American Diversity’, which deals with the American identity, and civic nationalism vs. ethnonationalism.

The way in which, under the Cultural Marxist regime, artificial civic nationalism has taken the place of organic nationalism, with the original stock of this country being declared to be no people, with no culture, is outlined in the piece. Also we are given an ironic summary of how the post-American generations are taught American ”history.”

Even if you buy that White people are bad and diversity is good, there is still a powerful ignorance being espoused. Though the founding stock of this country was overwhelmingly British, within that context there was substantial cultural as well as ethnic heterogeneity that continues to have an impact on American culture and society. Ironically, we wuz diverse. And in a lot of ways, we frankly still are.”

I agree, as I’ve written before of what I referred to as simply ‘American diversity’, the diversity that was present even within the Anglo-American population. There was regional diversity, encompassing differing customs from one region to the next, and within that category, linguistic diversity, with a variety of dialects of English being spoken. There were differing customs depending on one’s religious background as well. And there was ethnic diversity of a certain degree existing even amongst colonial stock Americans. Think of the Cajuns; they are colonial-stock, having been in North America since at least the 1700s, though they first settled in what is now Nova Scotia. They came to Louisiana when it was still a French territory and became Americans by annexation. They kept a great deal of their culture, language, and customs and yet, unlike most ethnically distinct ‘Americans’, they are very much a part of our country and are loyal Americans who are not in conflict with others as with many immigrant groups.

The fact that the Cajuns blended into our society while keeping a distinct culture and heritage does not mean that we can expect other groups to fit as comfortably — yet today’s variety of ”diversity” seems to imply that the more exotic and “Other” a group, the more desirability for our country. Pre-1965 ‘diversity’ is not the same creature as post-1965 diversity. We are seeing the fruits of that now.

One problem I have with the piece is that it ends with a paean to David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed.

I don’t know Fischer’s ancestry; his last name implies some German ancestry. But if his work is mostly about the seed of Albion, it does us a disservice, in my opinion, by further encouraging divisions among English or British-descended Americans. In following many discussions of that book online, I see it being used  most often as a way for especially Southrons to distance themselves from possible English roots, and identify as ‘Scots-Irish’ or ‘Celtic’, while claiming the South for ‘Celts’, saying baldly that the South, especially anything worthwhile about it, is the product of Celts, not those effete, evil Englishmen. Every virtue of the Southron people — their love of life, their sense of humor, their family closeness, their love of music — is proof positive of their ‘Celtic’ origins, so they claim. I listened to a podcast in which a Southron academic said that it’s obvious that the Southrons are Celtic (Scots-Irish) because they are fun-loving, rollicking people, generous, bold. This is hardly a persuasive argument against their Anglo-Saxon roots. It’s also very odd in that the Scots are not known as being exuberant, outgoing people; the old image was the ‘dour Scotsman‘, and the ‘thrifty, frugal’ Scot.

I’ve met and known real-life Scots and Irish and English people, and each group has its good qualities. Neither the Scots nor the Irish have a monopoly on the positive qualities. And believe it or not, it’s the English who are widely known for their distinctive sense of humor. Think of the writings of Dickens, or Shakespeare. Think of all the British film comedies from Ealing studios. Or the TV ‘Britcoms‘ Americans have enjoyed, including Monty Python.

So it’s absurd to try to assign humor or good nature to Celts (Scots, Scots-Irish or otherwise) only. But this is an example of the result of taking David Hackett Fischer’s tome as gospel. That book has driven a wedge between the distinct varieties of Angl0-Americans. The “Puritans as ultimate villains” thesis also owes a lot to Fischer’s writings, though maybe readers are taking his ideas beyond his original intentions.

Dividing Anglo-Americans, or at least old-stock, British-descended Americans, serves somebody’s agenda — but not ours.

Nevertheless, a good piece at Atlantic Centurion, though I differ about Fischer.

Police chief connected to La Raza

Gateway Pundit reports that the San Jose police chief appears to have some kind of ties to the ethnoracial advocacy group, La Raza. Hardly surprising, given that his name is Garcia. The hard reality is that only hapless, gullible Whites play the ‘colorblind’ game. Only Whites are required to.

I admit, however, to being somewhat surprised to read that the San Jose mayor, Sam Liccardo, is not just Italian by ancestry, as his name and appearance might imply, but he too is of ‘la raza’, of Hispanic origins as well as Sicilian and Irish. Except for his Spanish (not Mexican) ancestor who was in California in its colonial days, he is of fairly recent immigrant stock, and that goes a long way towards explaining his siding with the rioting Latinos rather than with his White constituents.

Like his rival for mayor, Dave Cortese, Liccardo is often assumed to be all-Italian: The paternal ancestors of both men came from the same area on Sicily’s north coast (In Liccardo’s case, one line can be traced to the island of Salina, where the movie “Il Postino” was filmed.)

Melting pot

But Liccardo is only half-Italian, and the rest is an American melting pot: His mother’s mother was Irish, which partly accounts for Liccardo’s stints as master of ceremonies at various San Jose-Dublin Sister City events.”

I’ve long said that recent immigrant origins, especially when the countr(ies) of origin are ‘ethnic’ (non-Anglo Saxon) stock, there is a much greater likelihood of identifying with immigrants more than with the old-stock Western/Northern European Americans. Exceptions may exist, but as a rule, this seems to be a pattern.

Liccardo’s wife has a double-barreled surname (Garcia-Kohl) so her origins appear to be ‘ethnic’ as well, further reason that he seems to feel little allegiance to the old America.

This is the face of Changeling America: Whites becoming increasingly marginalized and power passing to (or being conferred on) not just minorities, but also ethnic Whites who ally with nonwhites and especially with non-American born ‘people of color.’

The mainstream conservatives will insist that this is all just about the Democrat Party and not about tribalism, ethnocentrism, anti-White policies, or anything controversial. According to mainstream Republicans, though, Detroit is in ruins because it was inhabited by a Democrat majority,  and for no other reason. That’s what political correctness does to people’s brains: it blinds people to the obvious.


Another mention of our English origins

I can hardly believe it: there’s yet another blog post which mentions the English origins of America. There have been a few such blog pieces in recent weeks from alt-right bloggers.

That’s the good news: there is renewed discussion of American identity and the loss of cohesion, but the bad news is: the comments. The comments are a depressing lot: please go over and read the piece and the accompanying comments. They are a mix of the usual canards and outright falsehoods mixed with some backhanded quasi-slurs against Anglo-Americans. Examples: the descendants of the English founding stock are ‘elites’ who subverted America, in collusion with you-know-who. This canard is repeated often on alt-right blogs and rarely, if ever, challenged. Another frequently heard comment: ‘there are no [pure] English people’ or ‘the English people are a mixture of peoples anyway, so, what’s the big deal if they are lost in the genetic blender?‘ Just for some perspective, the native indigenous English people in England are being brainwashed with the same falsehoods, and are told that ‘Britain has always been a multicultural multiracial nation’, because The Angles, and The Saxons, and the Danes, and the Vikings and The Normans — never mind that all these people are kindred peoples. Why does most of the world seem not to comprehend that basic fact?

I don’t have time to write a full response but I will do so later — though it seems futile to even try; as I’m just one person writing in obscurity here.



Another blog

As I have mentioned to some readers of this blog, I’ve long planned to start another one dealing with the subject of English America. I have finally got it started though there is not much content there as yet.

The blog is The Old Inheritance, and it’s here.

Those of you who have any interest in the English roots of America, the current state of ”WASPs” (so-called) in today’s post-America, or in American history generally are invited to take a look.