Polite Kid

One of the issues which I see as being a huge problem to ethnonationalists is this plague of infighting and division.
It would probably be best for my state of mind if I just left off reading comment threads on any of the blogs or forums out there. It's just disheartening. I've mentioned before that I have had to talk myself into believing that many of the divisive people who are serial commenters on the ethnopatriot blogs are provocateurs of some sort or another. Sometimes I almost think there are about 14 individuals at most who make up most of the commenters out there, so limited is the range of ideas that is discussed, and so frequently are certain memes repeated, and certain arguments and canards bandied about.
First, there's the ever-present Anglophobes, who go out of their way to inject blame for Anglo-Saxons into every discussion. At one blog one of these Anglo-haters said that the Communist agents who were named in the McCarthy era were mostly Jews -- and WASPs. As an example of 'WASPs', he named one Lauchlin Currie (good old English name, there. I mean you can't get more Scottish than Lauchlin Currie). Then he mentioned Alger Hiss, and the only 'Hiss' name-bearers I've found were German. Nice try, though.
Next up, the Christian-haters. AmRen in particular has its own resident anti-Christian who makes his home on all the comment threads. I've objected to his constant shots at Christians and most often my comments are not accepted. Yet this person has free rein to slam Christianity every day of the year. I can only conclude AmRen's moderators agree with him.
So far, we have 'ethnopatriots' or WNs taking shots at Anglo-Saxons and Christians, and that covers the majority old Americans, I think. Nice way to alienate the greatest number of White Americans.
In passing, I'll mention the doomsayers, who usually show up to make their dark pronouncements, predicting defeat and oblivion.
Then there are the libertarians, the 'every man is an island' crowd. I don't know why they are there on ethnonationalist blogs or forums; I thought libertarians scorned all 'collectivism', believing only in the Individual or the sacred Market.
Actually the libertarians are a minor annoyance. The real problem is that libertarianism in its most demotic form has just about consumed all of what was once called the 'conservative movement.' There are few 'gentleman conservatives' who care about the old order of things, of preserving what is best of our past and our heritage; there are only worshipers of the Market and the Self, and these people are most often social liberals who fully support most of the agenda of the 1960s, even while they profess to loathe 'liberals' ahd 'hippies.' And they can't even see the absurdity of that position.
Here's a puzzle. There are those who note the hand of Jews in just about every radical idea or destructive trend in our society. Sometimes Christianity is condemned by the Judeo-skeptical because they say it is a 'Jewish cult', it's an 'alien belief system' forced on us and alien to us.
But here's the paradox: the same people who say this often idolize Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and the rest of the gang. Anybody notice anything about the makeup of the libertarian pantheon? It looks to me as though Libertarianism truly is a 'Jewish cult' and an alien belief system.
I occasionally agree with libertarians on isolated issues, and I have quoted from some libertarian writers like Albert Jay Nock. But overall, I think libertarianism has been almost as much of a destructive force to Western Christian values and society as Marxism and all its permutations. It has promoted more social atomization and more libertinism, more contempt for our fellow man and more selfishness, more abandonment of loyalty, all things which our de-Christianized society already possesses in excess. It has sort of counterculturalized many who might otherwise be resistant to leftism in its social forms.
The dearth of loyalty towards our folk is really at the heart of this everybody-for-himself attitude which dominates our society now.
Most on our side claim to care about our folk and our survival, and our posterity, but when you come right down to it, there is a sort of every man his own king approach, wherein everyone wants to prescribe his own personal utopian vision of how things should be -- if we ever manage to recover our sovereignty and self-rule. Few seem able or willing to accept things that go against their personal, tailor-made philosophy and ideology. The unbelievers will not accept Christians or Christ in their utopia-to-be, the non-Anglo-Saxons say that 'WASPs' should be kept away from power or authority. The Yankees generally hate the Southrons. The young hate the old. Some of the young adults do not like children, and would live in a state of perpetual adolescence if they had their way.
How can all these squabbling groups and factions ever agree and come together in any kind of common allegiance? It would seem there cannot be any kind of larger nationalism (such as a generic American identity). I don't see enough affection or loyalty, or even as much as a grudging tolerance, that could keep it together. What kept us together in the past was a commonality based on blood and a common religious/cultural heritage. Now, the latter has been splintered, and our blood bonds seem weakened.
Everybody thinks that the 'other guy' has to bend and give in for the sake of agreement.
The left has succeeded in making many of us hate our American heritage, and to consider our history and our past heroes and myths as tainted and corrupt. I get the sense that only a Jacobin-like overthrow of all that the past contained will be enough for many of the younger and more indoctrinated of our people. I can imagine that the young would try to reinvent the wheel, to start with some sort of ideology to try to create a new nation from whole cloth, because they consider the existing cultural remnant to be not worth saving. And yet if a new ''nation'' was created around new belief systems and ideologies, it would be more or less a 'proposition nation', which I think most of us have agreed to be an untenable idea.
If we must overthrow any belief system, if we must pull anything up by the roots, it should instead be all the rotten fruits of the 1960s, all things that are associated with leftism and radical individualism. The tried and true is the most sensible path to take, rather than starting from the ground up and conducting some new utopian experiment and trust that it will work out. We are now living out the results of a few generations of social engineering. It's that which must be rooted out of our culture, not the millennia of custom and tradition which served us well for such a long time.
I can't help being reminded again of Jeremiah 6:16
''Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.''
All the same, I can't join the doomsayers. As long as there are a faithful few, there's hope. It's always the few, not the many, who make history. The question is, which few will it be?

Labels: Atomized Society, Divide And Rule, Divisiveness, Hyperindividualism

The other day I blogged about a piece at AmRen, and I've been following the lengthy discussion which has continued there.
The discussion has gone off in a decidedly anti-Christian direction, with a few posters going back and forth and cheering each other on in their slams at Christianity. Or is it one poster or two under several names?
This kind of stuff is not new on the right; I've alluded to it in the past and tried to give substantive responses to it. But it seems to be ramping up. I am sure most of you are familiar with the 'argument', such as it is. If for some reason you aren't, I'll sum it up: Christianity is the cause, or a main cause, of the dying of the West and all of its various symptoms, such as multiculturalism, mass immigration from the Third World, and the replacement or displacement of White people everywhere.
What do the anti-Christian zealots over there hope to accomplish? A lot of people on our side are Christians. The 'Bible Belt' has probably the largest proportion of people who are pro-White of any part of the country. What is accomplished by attacking the faith of many of your allies? I know it's certainly alienating me from that site and from those people who are constantly harping on how Christianity has to go.
The only people they are likely to persuade are people that are already 'post-Christian' or doubters.
I'll probably have more to say on this later, as it is deserves an answer. However, where are the pro-Christian responses over at AR? Apart from an occasional half-hearted defense, there's very little. And for every pro-Christian response, one or two anti-Christians pop up and go into their song and dance about how Christianity is an alien religion not fit for Westerners, and that we should go back to our pagan roots.
I've been given to understand that AR is strictly moderated. I don't post there, and haven't in the past, but I've heard that many comments don't pass muster, sometimes for less than obvious reasons. I have also heard that AR is very strict about not allowing criticism of certain religions, so why is it permanent open season on Christianity over there?

Labels: Anti-Christianity, Divisiveness, Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness

I feel compelled to address a few of the canards and talking points that the 'colorblind conservatives' return to time and again. One that is frequently heard is that ''Democrat social programs cause all the black social problems. If it weren't for the Democrats/liberals, there would not be so much black crime or illegitimacy.'' Sometimes people elaborate on this one, and claim that black illegitimacy rates were negligible before the social programs of the 60s and onward were introduced. AFDC supposedly caused the number of unmarried mothers to skyrocket, and of course it's implied that were it not for the welfare checks, blacks would be chaste until marriage and monogamous within marriage.
Is there any evidence of that claim? One of the public figures who is most associated with the problem of social pathologies in the ''African-American community'' is Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Although he was a Democrat, he warned of the dangers of family disintegration among blacks. He said:
"The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States."
He was quoted here on the subject:
Mr. Moynihan speaks with passion about a poverty that is inextricably tied to "a volcanic change in family structure, for which there is no comparable experience in human history."
The 'respectable Republicans' say that the volcanic change, which led to a rise in illegitimacy and other social problems, was directly caused by Democrat/liberal bleeding-heart policies, like AFDC and other social programs. However, that is simplistic. The changes were already under way before the growth of the welfare state in the 60s and later. Much of the change resulted from earlier upheavals, first, emancipation, and then the uprooting of large numbers of rural blacks who went to large cities, many in the North, to find jobs. Disconnected from family and familiar surroundings, it was easy for many blacks (and poor Whites, for that matter) to break free of old social constraints and conventional morality.
It must be remembered, too, that many of these rural blacks did not hew as closely to conventional morality as did Whites. Illegitimacy rates and marital breakup rates were always higher than those of Whites.
Morality in general began to become more lax, especially during the years of World War II; this frequently happens because of the disruption caused by war, and the greater mobility and social disarray that accompanies it. Whites, too, had higher rates of social problems in the post-war years, though black problems were significantly more common.
This AmRen article from 1991 points this out.
''Black illegitimacy rates have always caught the attention of observers, even when they were forbidden to draw conclusions from them. As far back as 1944, when Gunnar Myrdal wrote An American Dilemma, he was worried about a 16 percent illegitimacy rate among southern blacks, which was then eight times the white rate. Today, nearly two thirds of all black children are born to single mothers (the figure for whites has risen to 15 percent), and if there is a single statistic that sums up the plight of American blacks today, this is it.''
But is that directly attributable to liberalism, as the 'respectable Republicans' insist? To claim such a thing is to deny that blacks bear any responsibility for their actions, or that they are free moral agents, not puppets of a political party -- or of White people in general, as many of the shriller PC Republicans imply.
Black people are not an inert mass who can be led this way and that by others. Yes, they vote consistently Democrat, because Democrats and their big-mommy government offer better pickings than the Republicans, and because the Democrats anti-White rhetoric and policies appeal to blacks and other minorities. To say that blacks are 'slaves on the Democrat plantation' is silliness. If they are being exploited, which is possible, given the corrupt political system we have, they are also doing some exploiting of their own. The Democrats deliver privileges to nonwhites -- as do the Republicans, but the Democrats go all out, and top Republican pandering every time.
Common sense would support the idea that subsidizing anything produces more of it, so that the easy social welfare benefits would provide an incentive for more single motherhood. This bears on the situation with illegal (and legal) immigrants, too. Subsidizing their irresponsible or illegal actions encourages such actions.
The rest of the talking points being disseminated by the PC Republicans involves a distorted picture of the War Between the States and the Reconstruction era. Their simple-minded scenario depicts Southron Whites as being cartoon villains out of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and makes slavery the sole cause of the rift between North and South. This is a caricature of history, and I cannot refute it in detail here; it would require a book. Unfortunately most Northerners and sadly, many Southron people too, have been weaned on such a caricatured, distorted view of the North-South conflict, and so the PC ''conservatives'' find a ready and gullible audience willing to accept their childish and oversimplified account.
The gullible Republican audience believes that the Democrats represented ''racism'' while the noble and selfless Republicans of the War era and afterward were the friends of blacks and heroic supporters of ''equality'' and freedom. So, believing this, they believe that the only reason the old ''solid South'' voted Democrat for so many years is that White Southerners were evil ''racists''. They show no sign of ever having heard of how Radical Republicans ran rampant in the South during Reconstruction, and how these extremists stripped White Southerners of their civil rights and liberties. They know nothing about the depredations against the White Southron population that took place during Reconstruction. And how can they know, since most schools and history books present a politically corrected account of what happened then, of the excesses and outrages of Reconstruction, of which Republicans were the architects, turned White Southerners against the Republican Party for a century or so. This is why some of my older relatives to this day will not vote Republican.

Actually, the Republican Party has been making the claim that the Democrats want to 're-enslave black people' ever since emancipation and the Reconstruction era, as the above document put out by the Union Republican Congressional committee shows. (Click to enlarge the document)
So now there are two parties, made up mostly of White people, each claiming that the other group of Whites consists of a lot of vile racists who want to ''keep blacks down.'' According to the Democrats, the Republicans are the racists, and according to the Republicans, who want to live down their reputation as being a White man's party, the Democrats are ''the real racists''. So we've got twice as many White people affirming that other White people are hateful racists trying to keep the black man down.
What message does this put out? How does this help the country? It does not; it further cements the minorities' stereotype of Whites as bigots and hypocrites. It hampers relations between the races.
However, that last sentence does not indicate that I am one of those colorblind conservatives who thinks that the races would all get along famously if only ''those other racist White guys'' stopped stirring up hate and division. For Democrats to believe such utopian foolishness is predictable; they are not known for being honest or realistic. But for ''conservatives'', who used to pride themselves on common sense and groundedness to believe this is unforgivable. The Republicans are again proving to be the Stupid Party.
As I type this, I can just hear those objecting that ''but the Democrats are far worse; the Republicans at least have some good candidates!" Yes, I agree to some extent. I plan to vote next week, though my faith in the system is weakening by the day, but I will not have an easy time choosing between the evils.
If the Republican Party is to be salvaged -- and that is a huge ''if'', there will need to be a resurgence of common sense and a repudiation of the childish game-playing and name-calling, and above all, a jettisoning of political correctness and pandering. I know; that's a forlorn hope. But PC and all its attendant lies will have to go; the issues that are at the heart of it are the very issues that will be the death of us if we do not deal with them head-on, minus all the finger-pointing and blame-shifting and name-calling, minus the intra-racial hate and divisiveness.
A rejection of liberalism in its Republican guise is one of the most urgent needs if things are ever to turn around.

Labels: American History, Creeping Liberalism, Cultural Marxism, Divisiveness, Faux Conservatism, North Vs South, Pandering, Political Correctness, Societal Decay

Yesterday's brief entry, about the different categories of people who call themselves 'conservative', did not address a large group of conservatives (or ''conservatives'') frequently mentioned on this blog: the 'colorblind conservatives.'
As I read the usual blogs and forums I check every day, I notice that among the mainstream Republican ones, the 'colorblind conservatives' are out in full force. It seems that they are quite irate about the Gates brouhaha, and about the president's biased reaction to it. Hell hath no fury like a colorblind conservative scorned. The overwhelming impression I get from these people is that they are angry. They are angry that despite their publicly professed ''colorblindness'' and their willingness to ''put race behind" them, and their willingness to show remorse for the evils done by their ancestors, their feelings are not reciprocated nor even acknowledged by the objects of their affection.
Some of these pieces I have read are fawning, expressing their admiration for various black athletes or performers, or perhaps some virtuous black co-worker or colleague. The message seems to be: we like you, we love you, why don't you love us back?
Some Republicans are almost angry about the escalating racial quarrels in this country, but their anger is directed only at the 'race-hustlers' or the 'liberals' who are keeping the racial conflict alive. As if it would go away, as if all the differences would disappear, if not fanned into flames by the race-hucksters or Democrats.
This is rather reminiscent of a relationship gone bad, in which one person still holds onto a misguided and unrequited affection for the other party, who in turn wants only to exact some kind of payback, or to keep the dysfunctional and abusive relationship alive for self-centered reasons.
I almost feel sorry for these 'colorblind' conservative types; they continue to cling to what is essentially a liberal mindset, based on leftist distortions of history.
Ever since I used to post frequently on a mainstream Republican forum, I've noticed that the most angry and vituperative people, in regards to political incorrectness, are the Republicans. I learned some years ago that if you violate the PC norms among the ''colorblind', they will excoriate you in a way that makes liberals look mild.
I mean specifically those Republicans who have bought the liberal, politically correct viewpoint on race. If they are not out-and-out race deniers, who believe 'we're all the same under the skin', they are people who think that race differences, insofar as they exist, are mostly superficial. They rationalize the undeniable conflicts that exist between races as being ginned up by liberals or minority opportunists. Remove the liberals and the race-hustlers, and we would all live in harmony, and all blacks would think and behave like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, or Tiger Woods.
In other words, they are in a practical sense race-deniers, since they don't seem to believe that racial differences of any importance exist; they accept the liberal idea that we are all pretty much blank slates, and that 'culture' makes all the difference. Given the right education and societal influences, there would be complete harmony and racial amity, they think.
This group of people, I'm afraid, are keeping us stuck with the unacceptable status quo between the races. They are largely responsible in that they represent a fairly big group of people, a voting bloc, who find their political home in the officially 'colorblind' new GOP, embodied in Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal. And despite their power, they seem content to keep things as they are, rather than rock the boat, and think forbidden thoughts.
Without the delusions of these people, perhaps we could break this stalemate that exists. As it is, it seems we are destined to go round and round, with the perpetual misguided hope of 'moving beyond race'. And the idea that we can move beyond race by catering to and flattering and favoring minorities is essentially self-contradictory, but yet it seems as if that is what they are resigned to doing.
In that respect, they are very much cut from the same cloth as outright liberals, because they are people who will doggedly keep repeating the same failed action in hopes that ''this time, it will work!" It fazes them not at all that it has not worked in the past; we just have to try harder, longer, more fervently, and it will work.
It never seems to occur to them that for minorities, it would be unprofitable to 'move beyond race.' Why would they want to 'move beyond race' when harping on race and racial guilt has worked like a charm for them? It has made them the center of attention in this country (and now in other Western countries too, by example) and it has made billions (or is it trillions?) of dollars flow to their ''communities.'' It has put them in the privileged position of being above criticism; the captive majority can only speak fawningly and deferentially about them in public; doing anything less has dire consequences, such as job loss, career destruction, loss of money and social status, and public humiliation. Being able to inflict consequences like that on someone just by saying the word is real power.
These colorblind ''conservatives'' are a hindrance, to put it charitably. There are a few glimmerings of hope that some of them are beginning to open their eyes; the FReepers, for example, are getting a little more politically incorrect these days, but there is still some of the fawning over ''favorite minorities'' that is so common.
I shake my head at this servile behavior among a lot of our people; some will defend it as being just generous and magnanimous behavior that comes from our heritage. I can only see it as either guilt-driven, or as an example of peer pressure; nobody wants to be the one to violate the consensus and say the forbidden truths.
I think there has to be a great deal more re-educating of our people, and a deprogramming in order for them to come to their senses. Maybe it will take a few more ''teachable moments'' like this present one in order for the scales to fall from some eyes. Maybe not; maybe ''worse is better'' is simply wishful thinking. However, I would certainly like it to be true.

Labels: Conservatives, Divisiveness, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race Denial, Race Renegades

The theme of the "house divided" has been a recurring one on this blog, and as a result of a conversation today, it's been brought home to me once again.
It seems I was talking to a relative, and the subject of the economic crisis came up. Actually I brought it up. After we discussed today's events on Wall Street -- about which neither of us are experts -- I merely said it seems that all those "in charge" have lost their minds. Little did I think that would be an opening for this relative of mine to unload on me, and start shouting "I hate that -- that woman! McCain has lost his mind. I can't stand that woman, that Sarah Palin!" This was said with an explosive vehemence that really caught me off guard, because the conversation to this point had been fairly low-key.
The anger and contempt in her voice shocked and annoyed me, I confess. I have been reading wall-to-wall bashing of Sarah Palin on many blogs and forums, both left and (especially) right, and I am worn out with it.
At any rate, I merely asked this relative: "what is it exactly that you hate so much about her?" She merely said "Everything! Everything." I said: give me some rational reasons.
She struggled and finally said ''she has no experience. She's stupid. She HAS FIVE KIDS!" I calmly said, "my mother had five kids." She said, "Well, I mean Palin wants to be leader of the free world, and she ought to be at home with those kids." This, mind you, from a feminist who taught her own daughters to shun marriage and family commitments.
And besides, as I pointed out, it's McCain who is running for President, not Palin.
But she answered 'McCain is old. He may not last long, then SHE'LL be President.''
I told her that she should be more afraid of Obama being elected than Palin. By this time hysteria was creeping into her voice, and she said, ''well, I'm not! I'm not!"
I simply don't understand the intense anger this relative of mine displayed, and even less do I understand why many ''conservatives'' show the same kind of anger and disgust towards Sarah Palin.
So now I have this relative with whom I have had a falling-out (she hung up on me, after some harsh words) and I begin to see how it was back in the days leading up to the War Between the States, during which it is always said that it was, in some households, brother against brother. It seems to me that the rhetoric is ratcheting up and feelings are running inexplicably high. It seems that for some people politics is thicker than blood, and it seems we in this country, as a national family, are becoming about as polarized as this angry relative and I. And if we think that our liberal counterparts are already, by their choice, no longer part of our national family, it seems that the ''conservative'' family is about to break apart, too, as people are willing to fight and separate rather than give up their particular viewpoints.
And maybe it's a good thing in the long run, this sifting. Sometimes any unity is illusory, and rifts -- or schisms -- like this one merely show the split that already exists, below the surface. When the dust clears we will see who is who and who is where.
I don't know how to mend this spat with my relative; we don't live in the same town and we don't see each other often, so for now I am letting it lie. I am not quick to apologize when I do not feel in the wrong, but if we are to reconcile, I know it will take an apology on my part, along with a large helping of humble pie, before I will be 'forgiven.' Still, since this relative of mine has such irreconcilably different views of life and of values and of what the future should be, I see little common ground between us, which is sad. I believe that family ties are just about the most important bonds we have in this life, and I don't take things like this lightly. I am a loyal person.
Along the same lines, I have a good friend since college days that is a political and religious liberal, and that fact has strained our friendship. It has certainly put a damper on our spontaneity in speaking our minds to each other. And yet if we cannot speak freely and honestly among friends, much less family, there is not much of a bond there. We can't have much of a relationship if we are afraid to speak our minds and to be open about what we believe and what we value.
It seems when people are so at odds about the important matters, any relationship between them can only be of the most superficial nature in order to avoid open clashes, and that is surely not what family relationships and friendships are supposed to be.
My impulse today, and maybe this will pass, is to shun all things political until this horrible election cycle from Hell is over, and then we shall see what we shall see.
I would love to think that my relative will learn from her mistakes, and see that an Obama presidency will be a disaster for majority America, but do you know, I don't think anything will cause her to have a change of heart, or say ''you were right; I was wrong. Now I see." No, liberals don't do that. No matter how bad things become, there will be a way to blame it on the Republicans or the 'racists' or whoever else. Similarly, the Republicans who don't see now will likely never see. Worse is better? No, people find a way to explain away the 'worse' and to blame it on the wrong people, 90 percent of the time.
I have no faith in the possibility of mass awakenings on either side of the aisle, in the event Obama is elected.
And I'm having to work hard at mustering up some faith in my brethren right at this moment, and without that faith, as I said, we stand in danger of becoming embittered or alienated from each other.
I don't even know if I would call myself a ''conservative'' since there are so many varieties of belief and opinion under that label now. I am opposed to what is called liberalism or socialism or leftism, and that is about all I seem to have in common with those who are called 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists.' And I don't know if being anti-liberal or anti-leftist or anti-multiculturalist is enough to bring us all together, if we disagree on so many basic themes. There has to be more agreement among us if this house is to be kept standing.

Labels: Conservatives, Disunity, Divisiveness, Liberals, Partisanship, Party Politics

It seems to me that I recently wrote a post on this subject, but it never seems to go away.
Upfront, I will say that this is my definitive statement on the subject. If it is raised in the future, I will just refer readers to this post, rather than saying it all again.
Yet again, I am being challenged as to why I focus on Anglo-American or WASP roots on this blog.
The implication is generally that I am excluding others, and failing to foster general American unity by focusing on one group, even if that group is the founding stock and the creative force behind the Republic that was established here in 1776.
The argument is made that Americans are all mixed, deracinated people who identify only as Americans, and that to identify with any particular ethnicity is to be divisive.
To what extent that is true, I don't know. I know that the 'generic American' identity is embraced by many people of mixed European ancestry, and I know that in many areas people are rather hopelessly mixed so as to identify with no particular ethnicity. That's a problem.
Is it possible to identify as just American when everybody else, especially minorities, have a strong ethnic identity?
Do I have to bring up yet again that many people outside the U.S. sneer at us because we are 'a people of no race or identity'? That is a common view of us in Europe. To expect Europeans to acknowledge us as cousins or even distant kin is often to be disappointed and rebuffed, as they hold us in low regard in many cases, and consider us mongrels, compared to themselves. Yes, there are Europeans who are more welcoming of us, but there are also many who regard us with a blend of scorn and condescension -- because we are a mixed people of no fixed origin.
The word 'American' once meant something. I was quite happy to call myself just American for many years, although I have had a strong Southron identity too. But over the years, the American 'brand' has been cheapened and made meaningless for many people because we are told that the many alien peoples residing here, who speak not a word of English in most cases, are ''new Americans''. Being an American is just a geographical condition, just an address, which tells nothing about who a person is. Remember those 'Ad Council' spots that ran on TV after 9/11, with many foreign people saying 'I am an American'? That's what 'American' has come to mean: anybody who is occupying some spot on American territory.
If America consists of an idea or a proposition, what then are Americans? Just anybody who says they believe in 'freedom' or 'equality'? Is it just a matter of pledging allegiance to a flag or a political system, as many Republicans would have it?
People need more than that. People need roots. They need a sense of kinship and belonging, a sense of who they are in a biological sense, where their actual ancestors came from, how they lived, what they accomplished. They need a sense of their place in history and in the human family.
I put it to you that Americans who feel themselves to be of no particular race or ethnicity, identifying only with a flag or a geopolitical entity, are a people prone to be deracinated, to lack an anchor, to lack confidence. Deracinated and confused people are ripe to be colonized and subjugated, as is happening now.
Such a people, I believe, are also more prone to miscegenation, to want to lose their weak 'identity' by interbreeding or intermarrying with any exotic group of people with an aggressive sense of ethnicity and race, hence you have young people becoming 'wiggers', talking Ebonics, or intermarrying with Hispanics and raising their children as Hispanic. Hardly ever do intermarriages result in the transmission of any kind of White identity. I can think of many cases, and all of them result in Whites becoming renegades to their own race, and 'going native', along with their children.
I firmly believe that we are in a time of re-tribalization. The world will become more ethnically divided, with smaller groups asserting, or re-asserting, their tribal or clan identities. If 'America' in its present form falls apart, which many have predicted will happen, what, then, will be left of an 'American' identity?
People may choose to align with some kind of regional identity. The South has a strong regional identity, or has had, until the recent immigrant influx, along with an earlier migration of Yankees during the Reagan era.
And as to the South, the fact that it had, before the recent Latino invasion, received relatively few immigrants meant that the people of the South were far more homogeneous than those in most of the Northern states. The Northern cities in particular had received most of the Ellis Island immigrants, and the heartland North had many Northern European immigrants (German, Scandinavian, some Dutch) who later formed the sort of generic White European core group.
However, the South had experienced less demographic change than the North. Southron Whites were fairly cohesive, perhaps partly in reaction to the presence of many blacks, and because of the history involving the War Between the States and Reconstruction.
Most of the old-stock Southron people were of British Isles descent. Many colonial stock Southron people identified as Anglo-Norman or Anglo-Saxon. It was understood among most people that there was no racial division between those two groups of people; the Angl0-Normans were generally thought of by Southrons as being the more aristocratic strain, although now there is a negative image of Normans as being some sort of foreign interlopers, with whom few want to claim a connection -- much the same as with the WASP identity in America, ironically.
My particular family line is mostly Anglo-Norman, with some Huguenot French and Ulster Scots roots, but by far, mostly Anglo-Norman. In this, I think my family tree is quite typical of old-stock Southron families. The idea that all areas of these United States are equally mixed in terms of descent is erroneous. The South preserved its original makeup for considerably longer than the North.
The much-criticized New England WASP colonial stock was actually 'ethnically cleansed', to a great extent, from New England as the Ellis Island immigrants fanned out across the East Coast. Many of my Yankee family members went West, settling the vast wilderness that awaited. Some stopped in the Midwest, settling there, others went far West, as far as they could go. The idea that there is some powerful yet strangely invisible 'WASP elite' in New England is persistent but lacking in basis. The old WASP colonial stock moved West, for the most part, preferring not to live in an overpopulated Northeastern megalopolis as the immigrants kept arriving.
A commenter asked why I had alternately referenced and criticized 'Albion's Seed' by David Hackett Fisher. It is an interesting book with much good information, but I find fault with it because I think it has fostered an oversimplified view of Southern ethnicity. Fisher I think has done a great deal, along with writer Grady McWhiney, to popularize the unproven notion of the South as being mostly Scots-Irish. The Scots-Irish, it is claimed, gave the 'warrior spirit' to the South. And were the Anglo-Normans not likewise formidable warriors?
This kind of thing, this unwillingness to credit Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman people with any accomplishment or talent (other than 'oppressing' the victim groups of the world) is one of the things which prompts me to champion the Anglo-Saxon heritage of America. It's only fair to give credit where due.
And for some reason, perhaps because of media portrayals (Braveheart, for example) the Scots are seen as a glamorous, tough, admirable people, while the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman is seen as sneaky, cold, ruthless, and vicious. That pattern is repeated time and again in movies and novels. The same kind of stereotype of the English was seen in another Gibson movie, The Patriot. That movie, like others, takes liberties with history.
For the record, quite a few of my ancestors lived in the area of Carolina where the story took place, and they were in the thick of the revolution. Some of my ancestors died fighting the British, but I don't accept the stereotype of the British as being evil and cold-blooded -- and foppish, as well.
It's no wonder that few Americans want to identify with any British ancestry they may have; who wants to be connected to the bad guys, the perpetual villains? We see similar stereotyping in recent PC movies in which White Americans are the villains: remember 'Dances With Wolves', with its ugly stereotypes of dirty, bloodthirsty American cavalrymen? The only good Whites were the renegade Whites who went native.
This kind of propaganda has led to Americans being so reticent to defend themselves in the face of relentless attacks by all and sundry. We are a demoralized people who have been schooled to think we have no defense to offer for ourselves and our ancestors; they were bad people who oppressed and plundered the poor weak peoples of the earth, and we are equally bad, because we have a unique kind of original sin called 'innate racism.'
It's 'racism', supposedly, for us even to feel an identification with our White kin group. All other groups can be aggressive in their identity, while we alone can only safely call ourselves ''Americans'', and even that is now considered hateful and 'nativist.' Latin American interlopers in our country tell us that they are just as 'American' as we are. Some liberal educators propose we call ourselves 'United Statesians' so as not to wrongly appropriate the label American, which belongs to everybody from the North Pole to Cape Horn.
Where to, America? Our identity is too exclusive, and it doesn't really belong just to us -- just as America 'belongs to everybody' as many immigrants brazenly claim.
And our European cousins tell us, as one European commenter haughtily told me on this blog, we are neither a race nor a people. We are nonentities. We are ciphers. It's no wonder many of us are eager to lose ourselves in some exotic new culture or identity.
Where to, in this re-tribalizing world, where ancestry and race will become more important in deciding where we stand? Those Americans who think they can sit it out by declaring that they are 'world citizens' or cosmopolitan planetary citizens, are mistaken. They will have to pick a side, and even if they decline to, they will be assigned a side in the conflict, based on their skin color.
Yes, I agree that White people should unite and feel kinship. We are a dwindling proportion of the world's peoples, and some predict our demise, one way or another. Were it not for my religious faith, I think I would predict that European-descended peoples would be blended away in a few generations. However I believe there is a reason why 'peoples, nations, kindreds, and tongues' were created, and it is not in the Divine plan for the Tower of Babel to succeed this time, or ever. The hubristic plan to create one mingled race will not succeed. That's just my personal faith, and I cannot prove it. I believe we, our kin group, will continue, but we are under siege as apparently our rulers want to eliminate all inequalities, including and especially innate racial inequalities.
I am all for uniting with all ethnic groups in the European family. However I cannot unilaterally make that unity happen. I don't have that kind of influence or power.
There are a great many people whose ethnic grievances against Anglo-Saxons make them hostile towards anyone who claims descent from that group. Just check out any message board where Irish, Ulster Irish, or English people congregate. There is an incredible amount of bitterness over the Irish 'troubles' and remote historical events. Irish-Americans in many cases who have never been to Ireland hold grudges and curse the English. That has got to stop if there is to be any unity.
If I am hard on the ethnic 'Ellis Island' descendants, it is because all too often they tend to be open-borders sentimentalists who identify with immigrants more than Americans. and in many instances they hold grudges towards old-stock Americans (which as I've said includes more than just English.)
If they are willing to stop accusing America I am willing to accept them as brothers. The animosity does not start with me; my animus toward grudge-bearers is defensive, not offensive.
So, do I, and this blog, have enough influence to 'unite' Americans or White people generally? This is not one of those mega-blogs which gets thousands and thousands of hits, and which wields considerable influence. What I write here is unlikely to 'divide' Americans (who are already quite divided, thank you) nor to unite Americans. I am just one isolated voice, and I don't particularly wish to be anything else. I write what I write for the few; you, the readers, decide if you are one of the few I write for. If my words speak to you, then this blog is for you. If my words antagonize you and irritate you, perhaps you are looking for something I don't provide.
This blog is my individual attempt to cry out against what I see happening to this country, and to my people, and as I seem to have to repeat often, 'my people' are all of you who identify with old America, and who hold dear what I hold dear, all of you who wish to defend the 'land where our fathers died.' I am a partisan of the South. because I feel that it embodies the real, original America best of all, and potentially may represent a resurgent 'America.'
Does that alienate my Northern readers? It should not. Because I prefer the South, having lived in both North and South, that does not mean I have animosity towards those of you from the North. So likewise because I write about the Anglo-American culture and heritage, which is neglected and despised by many people, that does not ''exclude'' those of you who have little commonality with that. I find this idea that particularism is somehow hostility towards others to be a curious, and rather liberal idea. It's the essence of political correctness, actually, this idea that we are to 'include' everybody and water everything down so as not to offend or 'leave anybody out.'
The nature of the world is that people group together in various ways, all of which include some and exclude others. That is also the essence of love: love excludes most, and prefers one, or the few, above the many.
Just because I love my particular heritage does not mean that I hate others' heritage.
I do find it hard to understand why my expression of my particular affinities is considered offensive. by anyone, unless it rubs salt in wounds based on past perceived resentments.
I write this blog partly for myself, because I feel compelled to write what is in my heart. This is one person's blog, not an attempt to speak to the whole world. This world, and even this country, is much too big and too complicated and too divided for me to be able to 'speak to' everyone or appeal to everyone. No doubt I offend some, but I cannot alter my message or my preferences because they 'turn away' some people. I cannot tailor my message to everyone.
Few people speak up for old-stock Anglo-Americans. Yet if this country ever succeeds in re-establishing any kind of unity, it will have to rally around a common heritage, and in old America, that common identity was the Anglo-based one. What else, pray tell, can we rally around? Like it or not, the Founding Fathers were Englishmen. English and male.
If any ethnicity or heritage deserves to be preserved as a cement which holds us together, the Anglo-Saxons heritage is the obvious choice. It served us well for many generations.
However, it looks as though a balkanized America is in the cards, with regions dominated by different peoples, but we will all have to decide to unite or separate. It is up to the other ethnicities, including the 'just Americans,' to decide with whom they will stand.

Labels: American Heritage, Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Balkanization, Divisiveness, Ethnic Division, Ethnic Identity, Ethnic Solidarity, Regional Differences, Secession, South

The list of blogs I read is shrinking. Why? Because it is hard to keep one's morale up and one's spirits high when the mainstream (so-called) media bombard us with propaganda, lies, and character assassinations all day, every day. The mainstream media are a disgrace to our society and to humanity. I wonder how they sleep at night. They have made themselves the enemy, the declared enemy of traditional America, specifically White America, even though many of the individuals who work for the media are themselves White. For that reason, they are also traitors to their own people.
The blogosphere has been something of an oasis in this wasteland of lies. But for whatever reason, it seems there is more and more division on our side, among those who dare to defend their own people against the constant slanders and manipulations of the powers-that-be and their media arm. The most obvious divisiveness is on the subject of religion, specifically Christianity. I've been reading race-loyalist blogs and forums of various kinds for a few years now, and the religious rift is coming more and more to the surface, with more out-and-out attacks on Christianity and on the person of Christ, as well as on Christians as a group.
I know there must be others beside myself who are Christian and race-loyal, but nobody raises a voice in defense of Christianity or Christ on those blogs and forums, usually. Occasionally one person might raise a half-hearted defense and get shouted down. Usually no one speaks up.
One such blog (whose name I won't mention; I don't want to start a back-and-forth with the blogger or his commenters) had such a discussion and it was disheartening enough to me that I don't care to visit that blog despite the blogger's interesting and articulate posts. I've already crossed AmRen off my list, as the moderator(s) let it be perpetual open season on Christianity there. So the blogs I visit are fewer now.
I don't see this as a good thing. I like to read what others are saying. Some will say I should overlook the attacks and let it roll off me; it's harder and harder to do when the media already bombard us with hostility. I go to the Internet to find like-minded people with whom to exchange ideas and to get my moral bolstered, if possible. I try to do that here, albeit imperfectly I'm sure. So I really don't see much of value in reading attacks on my faith and my Savior.
I will tolerate (though not without offering a defense) attacks on my ancestral origins -- people perpetually attack Anglo-Saxons in the far-right blogosphere; they, too, are a whipping boy. Southrons are another target. However, that can be chalked up to differences of opinion. That kind of criticism is far less virulent. I can take it, though I disagree with it and don't like it.
However when I see that a considerable percentage of pro-Whites seem to hate Christianity and Christians, that causes me to feel dispirited and alienated from these people. I can't in good conscience give my support or acquiescence to that. It makes me feel as if perhaps America, White America, has already been destroyed spiritually and mentally. I say this because it seems they have now declared war, as it were, on the traditional faith of America and on our ancestors -- their ancestors in some cases, although I wonder how many of these people are ethnic Americans who feel no kinship with old America. Why on earth should I put my heart into a cause which may in fact want no part of me or mine? I would be insane to do so. If the 'racial right' hates my Christian faith, and perhaps me, as much as the infernal left, what would I gain by supporting that cause? I and other Christians would be persona non grata in either a far-left atheist world or a far-right atheist/pagan society. Heads, they win, tails, I lose.
It's evident that some don't even want the support or help of Christians, considering us the enemy because they see our faith as an 'alien', Middle-Eastern, or 'Jew' faith. Here's a news flash: most Jewish people do not consider Christianity a Jewish religion, nor do they consider us their brothers in faith.
So I find myself feeling less welcome at many of these blogs and forums where Christianity is raked over the coals, sometimes in a less-than-gentlemanly manner. This is not intellectual, scholarly discussion we are talking about. If it were, and if my opponents were open to being reasoned with, I would not be nearly so bothered. But they are not open to any honest debate, and they don't acknowledge any other side to the story.
For instance: not one person has ever offered any answer to my question about why Christianity did not 'kill' Europe and Western civilization 1500 years ago? Why is the 'poison' so slow to act if poison it indeed is?
Why did Europe (and the United States, and all of Christendom) excel at the martial skills and why was Christendom so powerful throughout the earth when Christianity was at its zenith?
How on earth do Christianity's detractors blame Christians for 'killing' the West, when Christians are fewer and weaker than at any time since Europe was converted?
Why is it that countries which have largely abandoned their Christian faith are the farthest-gone? The Netherlands, once a staunchly Christian country, but now post-Christian, is being lost rapidly, and for a long time, has abandoned Christian morality and social values. Likewise the UK, where very few profess Christianity or attend church, much less read the Bible. Likewise, Scandinavia, where they have for decades been a secular society, known for their libertine sexual habits. Go down the list of Western countries: without fail, the most secular or nonbelieving are the most leftist, politically correct, and decadent.
And the fact that we still have a few shreds and fragments of our freedoms is only because, I am convinced, we still have a remnant (albeit a small remnant) of believers in this country. The fewer that are left, the weaker and more Orwellian will our society become. Be careful what you wish for; you may get it.
Another paradox: those on the left hate Christianity because it was 'militant' and is 'intolerant', while critics on the right say just the opposite: Christianity is a wimpy, feeble religion which is too tolerant.
I am convinced that most of those vocal critics (to use a kind word) of Christianity are people who have already rejected Christianity, who have personal ''issues'' with it. From personal experience, I've noted that many such people are the intellectual type, in love with their own reason, who find Christianity childish and a sign of weakness (as that great intellectual Jesse Ventura characterized it.). There are others who hate authority and rules, and who are rebels against all authority, and since God is the ultimate Authority, they hate him. These same people don't find exotic religions objectionable because they perceive these as having little moral content. It's easier to follow some 'god' who does not lay down rules about sexual behavior or drug use. Others are pagans, sometimes followers of 'sages' like Aleister Crowley, and his famous ''do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.'' For some people, that's the only kind of religion they want: one which gives its seal of approval to their selfish or self-destructive behavior.
Many of these people are young, callow people for whom anti-Christianity is a rebellious, hip pose that they strike; it plays very well among their college classmates or the coffee shop crowd. I suppose they may grow out of it, but given that our society is itself of this tendency, they may never grow out of it.
Christians know that we will be hated; that's a given. But it's getting very ominous when both sides hate us with a virulence that I don't remember seeing in my lifetime. And perhaps we may have to withdraw from active life and go underground as the Christians in Rome did, or be locked up or worse.
And speaking of Rome: did Christianity cause the fall of Rome? Or did the importation of many aliens and barbarians have some part in it? Did the widespread debauchery have some part in it? I believe it was Lycurgus of Sparta who warned that licentiousness and moral decay were fatal to a people and a country. I've always believed Lycurgus had it right on that score, and I believed that long before I became a Christian.
I don't expect I have won anybody over; those on the other side, as I have said, do not want to listen to an opposing opinion, or any arguments. They want a scapegoat. They are angry at Christians already, or resent them, and this goes even for some who profess Christianity in some form. Looking for a scapegoat is not what is needed right now, and the last thing that is needed is more division within our ranks. I wonder how many of the divisive people, especially those who despise Christianity, are actually plants or operatives trying to cause division?
I am, however, disappointed with the lack of response from Christians, who should be offering some kind of defense of their faith. I am disappointed with those Christians who give space in their comments sections to people who attack their faith and their Savior. I am disappointed to see Christians linking to blogs which habitually post anti-Christian screeds or bloggers who take potshots at Christians in veiled ways.
Perhaps some of these Christians believe they can 'witness' to these people, but I don't think that it is possible in most cases. There's a time for shaking the dust from one's feet and moving on.
I'll say it explicitly, though it should not have to be said: I am a Christian. I express a Christian point of view here. Those who are opposed to Christianity or who have some grudge or vendetta against the faith of their fathers, will not be treated accommodatingly here. Anti-Christian axes will not be ground in the comment section. Generally I don't suffer leftists attacking me or my ideas here, and the same goes for hostile comments from the right. Life is too short, and our time is short.
I want this blog to be edifying, not a place for division.
What is the answer to this rift, if any?
One thing is sure, in the context of the post below: if this country ever disintegrates, the unbelievers should separate from those of us who are Christians. It looks as though the religious division is as deep as the racial one.

Labels: Anti-Christianity, Christianity, Divisiveness, Liberal Christianity, The Right

These days I am not likely to doubt much that I read when it comes to the powers-that-be and their antics.
I think we've discussed similar things in passing here, the idea (which has been admitted in various places) that paid operatives or provocateurs or disinformation agents stir things up on blogs, forums and other places. Why not do the same in the most popular internet venues, the social networking sites?
''The US government is offering private intelligence companies contracts to create software to manage "fake people" on social media sites and create the illusion of consensus on controversial issues.
[...]
According to the contract, the software would "protect the identity of government agencies" by employing a number of false signals to convince users that the poster is in fact a real person. A single user could manage unique background information and status updates for up to 10 fake people from a single computer.The software enables the government to shield its identity through a number of different methods including the ability to assign unique IP addresses to each persona and the ability to make it appear as though the user is posting from other locations around the world.''
The impression is given that this new software is still in the development stage, when it appears that this kind of thing is being done already.
The article states that one of their purposes is to ''create the illusion of consensus'' on certain issues.
Peer pressure works on the Internet as in 'real life', after all. Too many people will simply follow the lead, taking cues from what 'the majority' seem to be saying on a given issue, and the bandwagon effect kicks in.
The article does not say this, but I say that there is also the opposite going on: people fomenting disssension, attacking other groups or viewpoints, so as to break up a developing consensus and set people against one another. I believe this serves their purposes very well. The technique of breaking up incipient activist groups is something that is well-practiced. And even the very act of discussing something like this serves the purposes of the sowers of discord; the fact that people may not be what they purport to be causes us to be wary and to distrust people more.
And there are individuals who are probably stirring up distrust and bad feeling on their own, out of malice or just to watch the fireworks when everybody starts squabbling and name-calling. There is something about the Internet, the anonymity perhaps, that encourages the worst instincts in some people, and makes them bold to say things that would not be acceptable in face-to-face contacts among people.
Thoughts?

Labels: Divide And Rule, Divisiveness, Internet, Propaganda

It's pretty hard to keep on keeping on when there is so much of this kind of rhetoric (please read the many comments) out there. Can this (our) people be saved from oblivion?
Many of the people in the discussion profess Christianity. Apparently they never read the part of the Bible which says 'a house divided against itself cannot stand.'
One example of the rhetoric about Baby Boomers:
"I say we Logan's Run them. Stick a disc in their hand, and when the retirement money runs out, it turns black."
Kill them ,and then what?
Turn them into food, as in "Soylent Green'?
Sorta of Un-Christain, [sic] is it not?Actually, suffering from the results of your choices is quite a Christian concept. While I may not advocate "Logan's running" them, I can certainly understand how younger generations might view disposing of the Baby Boomers as an act of self-defense. The Boomers screwed over their own children and grandchildren to live as they pleased. They are despicable. If anything, allowing them to participate in society until their disk turns black rewards those who were sensible while limiting the damage done by the majority.''
I don't suppose there is any point whatsoever in laying out my arguments for how all this decay started out decades before the Boomers (born from 1945 onward) were born. I've tried, and to no avail.
I throw out this challenge: what have the succeeding generations done, beside blame everybody else (a very childish trait, by the way). What have they done to right things?
At least I can say I did not vote for this present regime, unlike most 'millennials' and others.
But it's getting very hard to convince myself that our people are worth saving.
Can anybody make a case that they are? I need to hear it just about now.

Labels: Divisiveness, Ethnic Loyalty, Ethnic Solidarity, Narcissism

Recently on one of the History channels, in between the obligatory Hitler episodes, was a program about 'hillbillies.' The program, the beginning of which I missed, was titled 'Hillbilly: The Real Story'.
The program was hosted and narrated by country singer Billy Ray Cyrus of all people, and focused on Appalachian history and culture. It did deal with some of the stereotypes: moonshiners, feuding clans, and snake-handling churches, for example. It was fairly interesting; I learned a little about the history of NASCAR, for example. Another segment of the program had to do with the history of violence, and occasionally actual warfare, between coal-miners and mine owners in West Virginia. The 'Battle of Blair Mountain' is apparently covered in depth in this book and it seems worth reading, although the subject matter is grim.
The Battle of Blair Mountain covers a profoundly significant but long-neglected slice of American history - the largest armed uprising on American soil since the Civil War. In 1921, some 10,000 West Virginia coal miners, outraged over years of brutality and lawless exploitation, picked up their Winchesters and marched against their tormentors, the powerful mine owners who ruled their corrupt state. For ten days the miners fought a pitched battle against an opposing legion of deputies, state police, and makeshift militia. Only the intervention of a federal expeditionary force, spearheaded by a bomber squadron commanded by General Billy Mitchell, ended this undeclared civil war and forced the miners to throw down their arms. The significance of this episode reaches beyond the annals of labor history. Indeed, it is a saga of the conflicting political, economic and cultural forces that shaped the power structure of 20th century America.''
These are chapters of history which are not dealt with much in our educational system, although they may be taught more today than they were when I attended school. That era was a troubling time in our national history.
The History Channel documentary seemed to make much of the culture of the West Virginia miners, and the fact that they were largely of Scots-Irish descent. The suggestion overall seemed to be that those of Scots-Irish or Ulster Scots descent are more warlike by nature. Now, isn't that stereotyping? I thought there were no innate differences based on ethnicity or genes. But then again, discussion of innate differences is taboo only in the case of minorities; white people can be stereotyped with impunity.
The documentary states that the term 'redneck' originated with the red scarves or bandanas worn around the necks of the coal miners. I had never heard that explanation given before, and I was somewhat skeptical.
This website, dealing with Scots History, has a different etymology for the terms 'hillbilly' and redneck, tracing the terms to Scotland or Ulster.
HILLBILLY (Hillbillies)
The origin of this American nickname for mountain folk in the Ozarks and in Appalachia comes from Ulster. Ulster-Scottish (The often incorrectly labeled "Scots-Irish") settlers in the hill-country of Appalachia brought their traditional music with them to the new world, and many of their songs and ballads dealt with William, Prince of Orange, who defeated the Catholic King James II of the Stuart family at the Battle of the Boyne, Ireland in 1690.
Supporters of King William were known as "Orangemen" and "Billy Boys" and their North American counterparts were soon referred to as "hillbillies". It is interesting to note that a traditional song of the Glasgow Rangers football club today begins with the line, "Hurrah! Hurrah! We are the Billy Boys!" and shares its tune with the famous American Civil War song, "Marching Through Georgia".
[...]
REDNECKS
The origins of this term Redneck are Scottish and refer to supporters of the National Covenant and The Solemn League and Covenant, or "Covenanters", largely Lowland Presbyterians, many of whom would flee Scotland for Ulster (Northern Ireland) during persecutions by the British Crown. The Covenanters of 1638 and 1641 signed the documents that stated that Scotland desired the Presbyterian form of church government and would not accept the Church of England as its official state church.
Many Covenanters signed in their own blood and wore red pieces of cloth around their necks as distinctive insignia; hence the term "Red neck", (rednecks) which became slang for a Scottish dissenter*. One Scottish immigrant, interviewed by the author, remembered a Presbyterian minister, one Dr. Coulter, in Glasgow in the 1940's wearing a red clerical collar -- is this symbolic of the "rednecks"?
Since many Ulster-Scottish settlers in America (especially the South) were Presbyterian, the term was applied to them, and then, later, their Southern descendants. One of the earliest examples of its use comes from 1830, when an author noted that "red-neck" was a "name bestowed upon the Presbyterians." It makes you wonder if the originators of the ever-present "redneck" joke are aware of the term�s origins - Rednecks?
*Another term for Presbyterians in Ireland was a "Blackmouth". Members of the Church of Ireland (Anglicans) used this as a slur, referring to the fact that one could tell a Presbyterian by the black stains around his mouth from eating blackberries while at secret, illegal Presbyterian Church Services in the countryside.
CRACKER
Another Ulster-Scot term, a "cracker" was a person who talked and boasted, and "craic" (Crack) is a term still used in Scotland and Ireland to describe "talking", chat or conversation in a social sense ("Let�s go down to the pub and have a craic"; "what's the craic"). The term, first used to describe a southerner of Ulster-Scottish background, later became a nickname for any white southerner, especially those who were uneducated.
And while not an exclusively Southern term, but rather referring in general to all Americans, the origins of this word are related to the other three. ''
Scroll down the page for an explanation of the Mexican term 'gringo.' It's all rather interesting.
As for the origin of the word 'cracker', which is now a widespread epithet applied to whites in general, not just poor Southron whites, this page gives a number of conflicting explanations. Your guess is as good as mine as to which is the true origin of the word; what is not in doubt is that the word is used pejoratively by those with anti-Southern biases, or more broadly, with anti-White feelings.
I am inclined to believe in the Scottish or Ulster origin of some of these terms, given the prevalence of this heritage among Appalachian people.
The 'Hillbilly' program also touched on the traditional music of the Appalachian region, from which developed bluegrass and eventually modern country music, although the latter has strayed considerably from its roots. This web page outlines the development of American country and folk music from Ulster and Scottish origins:
The Appalachian mountain people, where Scots-Irish culture is so strong, have maintained a folk song culture for several centuries. Leading balladeers and folk historian from the early 20th century Cecil Sharpe related how he discovered nearly every one he met in the mountain region, young and old, could either sing or play an instrument.
The ballads which Sharp collected in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Carolinas and North Georgia were in the traditional vein, with Scots-Irish influences a very dominant strain.
Popular Appalachian folk songs and times like The Girl from Knoxville, Barbara Allen, The Irish Washerwoman, Haste to the Wedding, The Virginia Reel, The Green River March and Turkey in the Straw are in that tradition. The music of the American frontier was primarily vocal, through the singing of hymns and folk songs. In the very early settlements in Pennsylvania from the 1720s, the fiddle provided the musical background for the reels and jigs which the Scots-Irish enjoyed.
In the austere, and at times lonely surroundings of the frontier, music was the source which brightened the lives of the settlers.
Fiddle styles varied from state to state, even within states. Individual fiddlers differed in the way they held the instrument, the emphasis which they devoted to noting and the manner in which they bowed.
Some fiddlers stuck resolutely to the melody, while others improvised freely or employed their own prepared techniques -all a very Scots-Irish trait! Richard Nevins, in his Book Old-Time Fiddle Classics, notes that since fiddling was a Celtic art, modern aficionados strain to establish a direct link between Celtic styles and Appalachian in renditions.
Nevins maintained it is likely all the countless variations in southern fiddling are traceable to seven or eight different styles brought over to America by the predominant Celtic-cultured immigrants from various sections of the north of Ireland, southern Scotland and, to a lesser degree, parts of England. While yodelling has its origins in the Swiss mountains, many performers of a Scots-Irish background in states like Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina and Georgia, were adept at raising the tone to a falsetto head voice.
Gospel music was very dear to the Godfearing Scots-Irish and many colloquial hymns, later adopted in mainstream Christianity had origins in the Appalachian region, Methodist evangelical hymns of Isaac Watts, John Newton and John and Charles Wesley struck a chord with those moving along the Great Wagon Road to the frontier.''
Here I will digress for a minute and note that a few years ago, it was claimed, surprisingly for some people, that Gospel music came from Scottish roots and not from 'African-American' traditions, as has been claimed since the 1960s. The connection to Celtic roots is obvious to anyone familiar with the traditional singing styles of Scotland and Ireland; the free-flowing, ornate style which involves bending and 'worrying' the notes is a prominent feature in Scottish and Irish vocal traditions, whereas it has no counterpart in African music.
This article explains how Yale professor Willie Ruff made the connection between Scottish a cappella hymn singing and black gospel styles.
I believe it; it's obvious to me, although political correctness insists that blacks influence whites, whites copy blacks, but never vice-versa.
But to return to the article on Scots-Irish influences on country and folk music:
Bluegrass music is strongly linked to the Scots-Irish folk of Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee and leading Nashville performer Ricky Skaggs is very proud of his roots. "My family on my mother's side were Scots-Irish - they were the Fergusons who left Limavady and East Donegal in the 18th century. They eventually moved to Kentucky, where I grew up with a real taste for bluegrass music, which has its origins in the north of Ireland and Scotland. To me traditional country music had a value in it, a wholesomeness and warmth that some of the other kinds of music don't have. It's our heritage, our roots, it's everything that we're about," says Ricky.''
The above article mentions British ballad collector Cecil Sharpe who traveled the Southeast during the early 20th century collecting folk songs. He noted that many of the centuries-old English ballads which were dying out in England were still preserved in the Appalachian region.
Although it's often claimed that the Appalachian people were mostly Scottish or Ulster Scots, the ballads Sharp collected included many English ballads too, indicating that there was considerable English heritage in the American South.
I tend to be somewhat skeptical of the claims that the culture of the South is mostly 'Celtic'; I think this is an exaggeration, and it downplays the English genetics and culture which also contributed to the American South. I sometimes wonder if the slighting of English heritage is a politically-motivated tendency; the Scots-Irish had an age-old animosity towards the English and there is a grudging attitude toward England that is deep-rooted among Americans of Scots or Irish heritage. In my family tree we have a few Scots-Irish or Ulster Scots ancestral lines, however, little information exists tracing some of these lines back to their origins in Scotland and Ulster. Our English and Welsh roots are far better documented, for many centuries.
Still, there is no separating out the strains of British Isles ancestry in the South; the different cultures have all played a part, and mingled together to make up a rather colorful whole. Unfortunately, the stereotypes still live on. Stereotypes, as I've said, do tend to have a basis in fact, and there is that strain of Southron culture which includes moonshining, and the reckless streak which makes NASCAR popular, and which makes Southern men good warriors. Even now, the South contributes more men (and these days, probably women) to the military than other regions of the country.
The Southern Military Tradition
The South is overrepresented among military recruits. It provided 42.2 percent of 1999 recruits and 41.0 percent of 2003 recruits but contained just 35.6 percent of the population ages 18?24. How�ever, other regions also provide a higher proportion of enlistees. The states with the highest enlistment propor�tional ratings by far are Mon�tana (1.67), Alaska (1.42), Wyoming (1.40), and Maine (1.39). (A proportional rating of 1.00 means that a state?s enlistee and general popula�tions ages 18?24 are exactly proportional to their respec�tive national populations.)
[...]
In addition to confirming the strong Southern military tradition, we also found an exceptional ten�dency for lower than average military participation in New England. The West was underrepresented among 1999 recruits, but its 2003 proportion was equal to the population. For example, the East North Central Census region, conventionally known as the Great Lakes states, had a proportional rating of 0.86, which rose to 0.93 after September 11, 2001. This implies a lower than average interest in joining the military in the region compared to the nation, but it may reflect other variables as well (e.g., relative health and fitness of potential recruits).''
There's no doubt there are regional differences; we have not all been homogenized and blended away yet, although our elites are working night and day to effect that homogenization.
This is something that I've given considerable thought to lately: why is our government seemingly bent on eliminating regional diversity, while preaching to us about the benefits of Holy Diversity on an international, interracial basis? What on earth was wrong with the American diversity we had a few decades ago, in which each region, each state, each little corner of this country, had a recognizable and unique quality? Traveling was then a source of pleasure and the variety which existed made travel fascinating. I vividly remember the first cross-country trip with my family, in the days before freeways existed, when we meandered through many little towns and hamlets and sampled the local color. America was once rich in American diversity. Texas was Texan with its own culture, which was a part of the South; cross the Sabine River into Louisiana and you were in a very different place. Each state had its own history and character. Now it's all freeways, convenience stores (run by Third Worlders), motels run by people named Patel, Mickey D's, and Wal-Marts, from sea to shining sea.
While we are 'celebrating the diversity' of the Iraqis and Burundians and Hmongs who now reside in our little heartland towns, the unique character of those towns becomes monotonously similar all over the country, and in fact, all over the Western world. Small-d diversity, our old American diversity, which included canny down-East Yankees, independent Texans, lively Louisiana Cajuns, laid-back Californians, taciturn Northwesterners, Norwegian bachelor farmers from Minnesota, and hillbillies from Appalachia, has been homogenized and replaced by a disconnected, random collection of strangers, united only by consumer culture.
Still, there is a small remainder of our real American diversity that has not yet been stamped out by the diversity kommissars, so we would do well to savor it and enjoy it and truly celebrate it while we can. Enjoy our NASCAR races and bluegrass festivals and fais-do-dos, and Highland games and rodeos and county fairs before it all vanishes into the one-world memory hole.
Forum comments here.

Labels: American Culture, American History, American Identity, Diversity, Divisiveness, Ethnic Division, South, Southron Heritage