0 comment Wednesday, November 5, 2014 | admin
I've just come from a forum where a group of people, mostly British, were discussing the question of whether to emigrate from their country (as the media have been telling us they are doing), or to stay and try to defend and preserve their country, or what may be left of it after decades of mass immigration and multicultural madness.
The discussion somewhat mirrored the one(s) we've had on this blog over the last year or so.
I recently read another discussion on Gates of Vienna, I believe, which dealt with the possibility of secession here in our country, as well as emigration. I could not locate the thread when I went back to find the link. In any case, it was an interesting thread, and it turned my mind again towards those issues.
When we last discussed emigration here on this blog, I was somewhat ambivalent. I can understand the impulse to flight, and I at times think it might be the only way to cope with what is promising to be a rather troubled future for our country. But at the same time, I find my views are inclining more in favor of the 'stand our ground' option.
For my own part, I am not in a position to run away. I have family ties and responsibilities as well as other strongly-rooted affections that make me inclined to hold fast in this country. I suppose those who are young, who have few responsibilities and roots as yet, as well as the youthful urge to experience the wider world, might be better candidates for leaving this country and settling elsewhere.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that most other Western or Anglosphere countries have immigration problems and leftist tyrannies of their own to deal with, it just seems to me that the 'flight' option is essentially making it easy for the invaders, and conceding defeat to them.
The departure of a great many of our younger citizens would mean that a great many older people would be left at the 'tender mercies' of the invading peoples, who have no love for us. This is not something that a real 'conservative' or traditionalist would do; respect for elders is a core conservative principle, and a Western chivalrous principle, I would say. And for Christians, honoring fathers and mothers (and to me, this includes our forefathers in general) is incumbent on us. Walking away leaving vulnerable elders behind is not the most honorable choice. I suppose if you subscribe to the 'every man for himself' and 'the devil take the hindmost' principles, it might be just fine.
But to me, it's not worthy of our heritage to take that attitude.
I've always been one who loved to travel, and I enjoyed my time on the other side of the pond, but during my sojourn there, I became acutely aware that it was not home, even though I have great affection for the British Isles as the home of most of my ancestors. I love the people and the way of life, or at least the real cultures of those lands, pre-multicult. I've seen the people as they are, and I love them as my kin, but I love my kin here in America more, and I love this land and its beauties most of all the places I've seen. 'Breathes there the man with soul so dead', as Scott wrote.
And though I met many people on the other side of the Atlantic who were very kind and hospitable to me (along with some who were not, just as anywhere), I was made aware that they regarded me as an American, a 'Yank' if you please, and though they might regard me as kin, I did not really belong there.
Maybe if one emigrates at a very young and malleable age, one might assimilate to the new country's culture and ways and habits. I think older people are not quite so readily adaptable.
A while back, I mentioned those regular commenters at AmRen and other such forums who are always urging people to run off to Europe. The one recent comment which I found particularly obnoxious boasted of going to Costa Rica, and saying that he was leaving the 'white miscreants' in this country to hold off the invading hordes. This poster had a pseudonym (or was it his real name?) which sounded very central European. Maybe that person never really belonged here among us American 'miscreants', or at least his attitude indicates. So good riddance to him; we don't need fair-weather friends or unassimilated ethnics. As for the choice of Costa Rica, or any Central American destination, I can only shake my head. I know some people claim that C.R. is mostly White, but I suspect that the demographics are rather different in reality than on paper. In any case, even if I believed those claims, I would not choose a Latin American country. I have had enough exposure to their culture and ways that I could not feel at home in any Latin country. I have a passable command of Spanish, but the very sound of the language has come to grate on my ears. I would not emigrate there.
But as for these people who post on various forums encouraging flight, I suspect their motives. I wonder if they are not people with an agenda, purposely trying to encourage self-exile of race-realist Whites, so as to remove the biggest obstacle to the complete remaking of this country.
I remember in our earlier discussion the point was made by a commenter that if we run to another country, we will in fact be doing to others what we so dislike being done to us: we would be going to another country, possibly a country to which other Americans have fled, perhaps settling in an enclave. I think that's a valid point. I choose not to be a thorn in somebody else's side, or an opportunist taking advantage of other people and asking for a piece of their birthright. That would, I think, make me a beggar like those who come here asking for a share in our inheritance.
The world has gone insane, it seems, with this mass movement of peoples in every direction -- mostly from the Third World, have-not sector to the successful First World, but also now with a lesser movement of Western peoples towards various destinations. Ultimately it's going to result in psychological as well as cultural and racial dislocation and confusion on a worldwide scale.
Some people say that our Pilgrim/Puritan ancestors were engaging in 'flight' when they set sail from England (or Holland) for the New World. I disagree. The situation was not analogous to present-day Western whites running away from a troubling situation, hoping only to avoid confrontation with the invaders or the tyrants presiding over this debacle. The Pilgrims and other colonists were not running away because they wanted the path of least resistance or the quick way out; they wanted to make a fresh start and create something new from scratch in a pristine new environment, in a sparsely-populated wilderness. If we had a similar prospect now, it might be a positive thing to leave and start a new society, our way. But there is no new frontier, no pristine wilderness in which we can start afresh. There's only the choice of going from the multicultural frying-pan into the multicultural fire somewhere else. Or, at best, it might be a delaying of the inevitable, if we choose to go to a country which, in five or ten years, may well be as bad or worse as what we may have left behind.
Given that there is supposedly a plan afoot to bring 56 million immigrants into Europe, that continent hardly seems the haven that the AmRen 'flight' proponents tell us it is. The same applies to most of the places emigrants might pick as destinations.
This may be it for us; do we make the best of it, and stick together, or do we all head for the lifeboats?
The discussion somewhat mirrored the one(s) we've had on this blog over the last year or so.
I recently read another discussion on Gates of Vienna, I believe, which dealt with the possibility of secession here in our country, as well as emigration. I could not locate the thread when I went back to find the link. In any case, it was an interesting thread, and it turned my mind again towards those issues.
When we last discussed emigration here on this blog, I was somewhat ambivalent. I can understand the impulse to flight, and I at times think it might be the only way to cope with what is promising to be a rather troubled future for our country. But at the same time, I find my views are inclining more in favor of the 'stand our ground' option.
For my own part, I am not in a position to run away. I have family ties and responsibilities as well as other strongly-rooted affections that make me inclined to hold fast in this country. I suppose those who are young, who have few responsibilities and roots as yet, as well as the youthful urge to experience the wider world, might be better candidates for leaving this country and settling elsewhere.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that most other Western or Anglosphere countries have immigration problems and leftist tyrannies of their own to deal with, it just seems to me that the 'flight' option is essentially making it easy for the invaders, and conceding defeat to them.
The departure of a great many of our younger citizens would mean that a great many older people would be left at the 'tender mercies' of the invading peoples, who have no love for us. This is not something that a real 'conservative' or traditionalist would do; respect for elders is a core conservative principle, and a Western chivalrous principle, I would say. And for Christians, honoring fathers and mothers (and to me, this includes our forefathers in general) is incumbent on us. Walking away leaving vulnerable elders behind is not the most honorable choice. I suppose if you subscribe to the 'every man for himself' and 'the devil take the hindmost' principles, it might be just fine.
But to me, it's not worthy of our heritage to take that attitude.
I've always been one who loved to travel, and I enjoyed my time on the other side of the pond, but during my sojourn there, I became acutely aware that it was not home, even though I have great affection for the British Isles as the home of most of my ancestors. I love the people and the way of life, or at least the real cultures of those lands, pre-multicult. I've seen the people as they are, and I love them as my kin, but I love my kin here in America more, and I love this land and its beauties most of all the places I've seen. 'Breathes there the man with soul so dead', as Scott wrote.
And though I met many people on the other side of the Atlantic who were very kind and hospitable to me (along with some who were not, just as anywhere), I was made aware that they regarded me as an American, a 'Yank' if you please, and though they might regard me as kin, I did not really belong there.
Maybe if one emigrates at a very young and malleable age, one might assimilate to the new country's culture and ways and habits. I think older people are not quite so readily adaptable.
A while back, I mentioned those regular commenters at AmRen and other such forums who are always urging people to run off to Europe. The one recent comment which I found particularly obnoxious boasted of going to Costa Rica, and saying that he was leaving the 'white miscreants' in this country to hold off the invading hordes. This poster had a pseudonym (or was it his real name?) which sounded very central European. Maybe that person never really belonged here among us American 'miscreants', or at least his attitude indicates. So good riddance to him; we don't need fair-weather friends or unassimilated ethnics. As for the choice of Costa Rica, or any Central American destination, I can only shake my head. I know some people claim that C.R. is mostly White, but I suspect that the demographics are rather different in reality than on paper. In any case, even if I believed those claims, I would not choose a Latin American country. I have had enough exposure to their culture and ways that I could not feel at home in any Latin country. I have a passable command of Spanish, but the very sound of the language has come to grate on my ears. I would not emigrate there.
But as for these people who post on various forums encouraging flight, I suspect their motives. I wonder if they are not people with an agenda, purposely trying to encourage self-exile of race-realist Whites, so as to remove the biggest obstacle to the complete remaking of this country.
I remember in our earlier discussion the point was made by a commenter that if we run to another country, we will in fact be doing to others what we so dislike being done to us: we would be going to another country, possibly a country to which other Americans have fled, perhaps settling in an enclave. I think that's a valid point. I choose not to be a thorn in somebody else's side, or an opportunist taking advantage of other people and asking for a piece of their birthright. That would, I think, make me a beggar like those who come here asking for a share in our inheritance.
The world has gone insane, it seems, with this mass movement of peoples in every direction -- mostly from the Third World, have-not sector to the successful First World, but also now with a lesser movement of Western peoples towards various destinations. Ultimately it's going to result in psychological as well as cultural and racial dislocation and confusion on a worldwide scale.
Some people say that our Pilgrim/Puritan ancestors were engaging in 'flight' when they set sail from England (or Holland) for the New World. I disagree. The situation was not analogous to present-day Western whites running away from a troubling situation, hoping only to avoid confrontation with the invaders or the tyrants presiding over this debacle. The Pilgrims and other colonists were not running away because they wanted the path of least resistance or the quick way out; they wanted to make a fresh start and create something new from scratch in a pristine new environment, in a sparsely-populated wilderness. If we had a similar prospect now, it might be a positive thing to leave and start a new society, our way. But there is no new frontier, no pristine wilderness in which we can start afresh. There's only the choice of going from the multicultural frying-pan into the multicultural fire somewhere else. Or, at best, it might be a delaying of the inevitable, if we choose to go to a country which, in five or ten years, may well be as bad or worse as what we may have left behind.
Given that there is supposedly a plan afoot to bring 56 million immigrants into Europe, that continent hardly seems the haven that the AmRen 'flight' proponents tell us it is. The same applies to most of the places emigrants might pick as destinations.
This may be it for us; do we make the best of it, and stick together, or do we all head for the lifeboats?
Labels: Demographics, Ethnic Solidarity, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, White Flight
0 comment Friday, October 24, 2014 | admin
The question came up recently in a discussion here as to why there are not more women who are 'race realists'. I think this is a valid question because I think it's true that women tend to be more liberal than men and on questions involving race, ethnicity, and other such touchy matters, women tend to be very liberal and less territorial than men.
But I think the question is really part of the larger issue of why women are more liberal in all respects than men. I speak in a general sense; women just tend to be more liberal, more softhearted, more 'feeling' in their approach, and more prone to sympathize and empathize, and to be 'inclusive' in the best liberal tradition.
Most women will readily concede this fact. Now, I recognize this isn't true of all women, and that there are exceptions. Obviously I'm not typical of women in that respect, and the women who read and post here are also atypical to some degree.
This piece from a dozen years ago discusses the 'gender gap in politics', and the voting patterns of women. I think it's still valid:
STANFORD -- The gender gap in politics, which pollsters expect to be especially large in next week's presidential election, can be attributed to a different stance between men and women toward social equality, says Felicia Pratto, a psychologist who studies political attitudes.
This difference does not consistently show up as a Republican-Democrat or liberal-conservative split, she says. Women voters in this country and elsewhere have been both more conservative and more liberal than male voters in the past, depending upon what the issues of the day were.
"When we ask people in polls to self-identify themselves as liberals or conservatives, we are saying we know what the meaning of those labels are, but I think we are deceived," Pratto says. "That's why it is useful to try to explain differences more explicitly and on a somewhat deeper level."
Gender differences or gaps in those political attitudes also can be explained largely by a tendency among men to want to enhance social hierarchy and a tendency among women to want to attenuate it.
Pratto and her UCLA-based colleague Jim Sidanius and their graduate students consistently find that men are more supportive than women of what Pratto calls "hierarchy enhancing" social policies, such as arresting the homeless for sleeping in public places or increasing military spending. Men are also more likely to endorse ideologies that state or at least imply that certain kinds of people are not as good as others � displaying class, ethnic, national or sexual prejudices, according to their studies.''
Interestingly, researchers who have attributed women's support of social welfare programs to self-interest have not made the same accusation about men's greater support of military and defense programs," she says.
[...]
"Self-interest doesn't explain, for example, why white women are more concerned about racial equality than white men are, and it doesn't explain why women are less opposed to immigration or gay and lesbian rights than men."
[Emphasis mine]
I have noticed this tendency of women to be more liberal on issues like racial equality and immigration, as well as on homosexuality, than men. In conversations I've noticed, too, that even women who can sound very tough and very conservative on issues like illegal immigration might, a short while later, say something very liberal on these issues. I've learned via experience that a woman might sound very conservative one moment and yet the next moment be lamenting 'racism' or 'hate', talking about how horrible we have been to minorities. I have met more than my share of women who are self-contradictory on these issues. I've learned that I have to tread very carefully with the truth when I am talking to such women. I can truly say that it's no wonder that men have tended to accuse women of being inconsistent or illogical; some women seem to waver considerably depending on the circumstances.
I know plenty of Christian women who hold very liberal positions on homosexuality, and who think that it's hateful to call homosexuality a sin. The best I can manage in trying to understand this is to say that it seems that women place a very high premium on being empathetic, and they empathize with the poor homosexuals and believe they are entitled to our compassion and understanding. Similarly with immigrants and ''others'' in general; they tend to feel sorry for the illegals and immigrants generally, and they are quick to believe all the sob stories about the travails and the persecutions of the illegals.
Some women may say something very negative about illegal immigrants, for example, and then a moment later, perhaps thinking better of what they said, will tut-tut about 'hate' towards immigrants, and say that we mustn't give in to 'hate.'
I find such a conversation a hard one to navigate. What does one say in response to that? What can we say that will not sound like a defense of ''hate'' or ''racism''? Nobody wants to defend either of those things.
I would like to find a way to get across to people that it isn't about ''hate'' but about a zeal for defending what is ours: our people, our kin, our neighbors, our homes, our way of life, our heritage. It's about loving and protecting and preserving all those things. It's about wanting the best we can provide for our own, and sometimes, like it or not, that has to come at the expense of others, others who are trying to wrest away what we are trying to hold on to. We can't all have what we want. Sometimes, it is a zero-sum game. It isn't about hate or ''racism''; it's about justice and about boundaries and about protecting and defending and preserving. Ultimately it's about love, love for those nearest to us, and about placing them in the favored position. Maybe most women don't have these protective instincts in the same way that men tend to, or perhaps women tend to want to nurture and help everybody indiscriminately. And it's true, conversely, that there are far too many effeminate men these days who are like the women in that respect. The blurring of gender roles affects all of us.
And yet there are women who think as I do, and who are more hard-line, women who ''get it.'' However I think they are rather few and far between; many women vacillate between defending their own and empathizing with the 'stranger' and the perceived underdog. But what makes some women less prone to that? Maybe I and women like me are some kind of aberration, but then I know there were many more women like me in past centuries. Plenty of colonist and settler women had to be strong, and had to even take up arms to defend the homestead if danger threatened when the menfolk were away. Had women of the past been as wimpy and as promiscuous in their empathy as many of today's women, we simply would not be here today. Women once had more of that 'territorial' instinct that is getting rarer these days among both sexes, it seems.
Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I keep looking for signs that things are turning around, and that the old 'tribalism' which enabled us to survive and prevail in the past is resurgent. We have to hope that it is.
But I think the question is really part of the larger issue of why women are more liberal in all respects than men. I speak in a general sense; women just tend to be more liberal, more softhearted, more 'feeling' in their approach, and more prone to sympathize and empathize, and to be 'inclusive' in the best liberal tradition.
Most women will readily concede this fact. Now, I recognize this isn't true of all women, and that there are exceptions. Obviously I'm not typical of women in that respect, and the women who read and post here are also atypical to some degree.
This piece from a dozen years ago discusses the 'gender gap in politics', and the voting patterns of women. I think it's still valid:
STANFORD -- The gender gap in politics, which pollsters expect to be especially large in next week's presidential election, can be attributed to a different stance between men and women toward social equality, says Felicia Pratto, a psychologist who studies political attitudes.
This difference does not consistently show up as a Republican-Democrat or liberal-conservative split, she says. Women voters in this country and elsewhere have been both more conservative and more liberal than male voters in the past, depending upon what the issues of the day were.
"When we ask people in polls to self-identify themselves as liberals or conservatives, we are saying we know what the meaning of those labels are, but I think we are deceived," Pratto says. "That's why it is useful to try to explain differences more explicitly and on a somewhat deeper level."
Gender differences or gaps in those political attitudes also can be explained largely by a tendency among men to want to enhance social hierarchy and a tendency among women to want to attenuate it.
Pratto and her UCLA-based colleague Jim Sidanius and their graduate students consistently find that men are more supportive than women of what Pratto calls "hierarchy enhancing" social policies, such as arresting the homeless for sleeping in public places or increasing military spending. Men are also more likely to endorse ideologies that state or at least imply that certain kinds of people are not as good as others � displaying class, ethnic, national or sexual prejudices, according to their studies.''
Interestingly, researchers who have attributed women's support of social welfare programs to self-interest have not made the same accusation about men's greater support of military and defense programs," she says.
[...]
"Self-interest doesn't explain, for example, why white women are more concerned about racial equality than white men are, and it doesn't explain why women are less opposed to immigration or gay and lesbian rights than men."
[Emphasis mine]
I have noticed this tendency of women to be more liberal on issues like racial equality and immigration, as well as on homosexuality, than men. In conversations I've noticed, too, that even women who can sound very tough and very conservative on issues like illegal immigration might, a short while later, say something very liberal on these issues. I've learned via experience that a woman might sound very conservative one moment and yet the next moment be lamenting 'racism' or 'hate', talking about how horrible we have been to minorities. I have met more than my share of women who are self-contradictory on these issues. I've learned that I have to tread very carefully with the truth when I am talking to such women. I can truly say that it's no wonder that men have tended to accuse women of being inconsistent or illogical; some women seem to waver considerably depending on the circumstances.
I know plenty of Christian women who hold very liberal positions on homosexuality, and who think that it's hateful to call homosexuality a sin. The best I can manage in trying to understand this is to say that it seems that women place a very high premium on being empathetic, and they empathize with the poor homosexuals and believe they are entitled to our compassion and understanding. Similarly with immigrants and ''others'' in general; they tend to feel sorry for the illegals and immigrants generally, and they are quick to believe all the sob stories about the travails and the persecutions of the illegals.
Some women may say something very negative about illegal immigrants, for example, and then a moment later, perhaps thinking better of what they said, will tut-tut about 'hate' towards immigrants, and say that we mustn't give in to 'hate.'
I find such a conversation a hard one to navigate. What does one say in response to that? What can we say that will not sound like a defense of ''hate'' or ''racism''? Nobody wants to defend either of those things.
I would like to find a way to get across to people that it isn't about ''hate'' but about a zeal for defending what is ours: our people, our kin, our neighbors, our homes, our way of life, our heritage. It's about loving and protecting and preserving all those things. It's about wanting the best we can provide for our own, and sometimes, like it or not, that has to come at the expense of others, others who are trying to wrest away what we are trying to hold on to. We can't all have what we want. Sometimes, it is a zero-sum game. It isn't about hate or ''racism''; it's about justice and about boundaries and about protecting and defending and preserving. Ultimately it's about love, love for those nearest to us, and about placing them in the favored position. Maybe most women don't have these protective instincts in the same way that men tend to, or perhaps women tend to want to nurture and help everybody indiscriminately. And it's true, conversely, that there are far too many effeminate men these days who are like the women in that respect. The blurring of gender roles affects all of us.
And yet there are women who think as I do, and who are more hard-line, women who ''get it.'' However I think they are rather few and far between; many women vacillate between defending their own and empathizing with the 'stranger' and the perceived underdog. But what makes some women less prone to that? Maybe I and women like me are some kind of aberration, but then I know there were many more women like me in past centuries. Plenty of colonist and settler women had to be strong, and had to even take up arms to defend the homestead if danger threatened when the menfolk were away. Had women of the past been as wimpy and as promiscuous in their empathy as many of today's women, we simply would not be here today. Women once had more of that 'territorial' instinct that is getting rarer these days among both sexes, it seems.
Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I keep looking for signs that things are turning around, and that the old 'tribalism' which enabled us to survive and prevail in the past is resurgent. We have to hope that it is.
Labels: Conservatives, Ethnic Division, Ethnic Solidarity, Gender, Group Cohesion, Liberals
0 comment Wednesday, September 17, 2014 | admin
Via Steve Sailer's blog, a post from the Stuff White People Like blog, called Being Offended:
To be offended is usually a rather unpleasant experience, one that can expose a person to intolerance, cultural misunderstandings, and even evoke the scars of the past. This is such an unpleasant experience that many people develop a thick skin and try to only be offended in the most egregious and awful situations. In many circumstances, they can allow smaller offenses to slip by as fighting them is a waste of time and energy. But white people, blessed with both time and energy, are not these kind of people. In fact there are few things white people love more than being offended.
Naturally, white people do not get offended by statements directed at white people. In fact, they don�t even have a problem making offensive statements about other white people (ask a white person about "flyover states"). As a rule, white people strongly prefer to get offended on behalf of other people.
It is also valuable to know that white people spend a significant portion of their time preparing for the moment when they will be offended. They read magazines, books, and watch documentaries all in hopes that one day they will encounter a person who will say something offensive. When this happens, they can leap into action with quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Once they have finished lecturing another white person about how it�s wrong to use the term "black" instead of "African-American," they can sit back and relax in the knowledge that they have made a difference.''
I originally found the Stuff White People Like blog via Steve Sailer, and I blogged about it then. As I said then of the blog:
Is it all in good fun, or does it contribute further to the disparaging of white people which is so popular today? And assuredly this kind of self-ridicule (I am going on the assumption that the blogger is in fact white) is hardly fresh or new; I've (unwillingly) watched parts of movies of the last ten years or so in which caricatures of white people were a central basis of the 'humor', movies like 'White Chicks' or 'Undercover Brother'.
Reading the many, many comments following, I am still left asking myself who the target audience of the blog is. Is it the upper-middle-class or affluent liberal whites who seem to be the subject of much of the ambiguous 'humor'? I suppose such people would greatly enjoy laughing at themselves, or at somewhat grotesque caricatures of themselves; after all, their lives are centered around guilt and self-examination, and seeing themselves satirized or lampooned feeds into their sense that they are flawed, morally inadequate people, and also at the same time very important people. They like being the center of attention, even if the attention is unflattering to some degree or another.
Am I stereotyping white people? I hope not, because the stereotyping is one of the things I find unenjoyable about the blog, SWPL. One segment of white people, mainly liberal, PC, urban or suburban, affluent, educated, (probably over-educated) and mostly young, is made to represent all white people, and that is grossly inaccurate. White people are so much more varied than the blog implies, and the people described therein simply as 'white people' or 'whiter people' (whatever that means) are a small and unrepresentative segment. Yet they are made to stand for all white people. What is the message behind that? It could be that the blogger is himself part of that group, and feels more comfortable aiming barbs at his own group, or it may be that the blogger is part of that group and, having had contact mostly with that rather ingrown group, really considers them to be representative of the white race.
Is the blogger secretly pro-white and politically incorrect? Some claim this to be so, but I'm not convinced. The commenters (and there are many) all seem to see something different in the blog: some see it as an indictment of liberal political correctness, while others think, seemingly, that the satire of liberal young whites is meant to discredit them, deservedly. Some seem to think that the blog is rather anti-white, and therefore hip, since anti-whiteness is hip these days. Most of the young (white) people in my vicinity seem to think that anything which humiliates or caricatures whites is high hilarity, and well-deserved by whites.
The approach of the blog is successful, certainly, in terms of the traffic it draws, and the attention it has gotten. The blogger has also obtained a sweet book deal. However, I think the quality of the comments leaves much to be desired; I don't enjoy reading the comment threads at all.
Nevertheless, despite the uneasy feeling the blog evokes in me, the post in question makes some good points about white people (I would say liberal, PC white people) and their exasperating habit of taking offense on the behalf of their non-white 'wards'. Or should I say their non-white charges? Clients? My previous blog entry about 'The White liberals' burden' relates to this habit of theirs. They are so caught up in being the advocates or self-designated protectors or champions of minorities that they react as if they themselves are wounded when they perceive any slight or slur against their dependent clients, non-whites.
For some whites, specifically liberal/leftist PC whites, their protectiveness of nonwhites extends as far as wanting to adopt them, literally, and thus make non-whites part of their literal family, under their tutelage and protection. Is this a God complex? A desire to be the Savior or saint? For many liberals, their political and social belief system is a substitute for a non-existent religious faith, and in the cases where the liberal is actually a churchgoer, they affiliate with a church which serves their liberal agenda, so their social gospel beliefs are the center of their religious practices.
But just as with all the other manifestations of this attitude, this taking of offense on behalf of others is condescension, and it should be seen as somewhat of an affront to the one who is supposedly the target of the offense, real or imagined.
Taking offense for somebody else assumes that the person supposedly being defended cannot judge for himself when offense has been given, or that he is unable to speak up for himself, being either too ignorant or inarticulate -- too childlike.
I suppose a more generous assessment of these self-righteous liberals is that they have so fully identified with the minority groups that they truly do take offense at some careless word or phrase, feeling personally wounded by it. Even if that is the case, however, it's still unnatural and rather weird. There is a significant sub-group of (mostly young) white people who seem to have convinced themselves that they are non-white, adopting the styles, speech habits, and tastes of non-whites, usually blacks. I have always found that behavior somewhat embarrassing; I feel embarrassed for the whites who try their best to appear non-white. There are many manifestations of this; we see a lot of it on college campuses with young liberals sporting dreadlocks, piercings, and tribal tattoos, who get involved in drumming or other multiculti 'arts'. And there are those who dress in thug style and listen only to rap or other black styles of music. There are those who wear kaffiyehs, in solidarity with Palestinians.
It's not a new phenomenon; back when I was in college, however, whites who wanted to be non-white usually chose to be 'Native American' but apparently that has fallen from popularity somewhat, although Ward Churchill has stayed true to his calling to white Indianhood all these years.
In the 1970s there was a comedy movie, 'Made For Each Other,' in which actor Joseph Bologna, playing a confused young Italian-American man, goes to college and takes up black militancy, and harangues his baffled Italian-American parents about the wrongs done by 'whitey.'
I found that scene especially laughable in the context of today, wherein such attitudes among liberal young people are not as incredible as they appeared when the movie was first shown. There are plenty of young liberal whites who have been convinced by years of indoctrination at school, by the media, and by their deluded peers, that whiteness is a mark of Cain. It's these young people who are out marching alongside illegal Latinos, throwing projectiles at their white elders and calling them names. It's these who are trying to assuage their guilt and attain redemption from the stain of whiteness by swooning over Obama, listening to rap music, dating interracially -- and excoriating anybody who utters a politically incorrect word.
These people are not so much something to be laughed at or about; they are the scourge of anyone who wishes to practice free speech and to utter truth. We all complain about the controlled, PC media, and about our one-world, globalist ideologue politicians, but a bigger part of our problem is that the professional offense-takers, those who have made it their personal crusade to censure and vilify those they disagree with. This 'democratic censorship' only makes the job of the thought police that much easier. At this point, people are more or less being kept in line by these PC vigilantes who will make a citizen's arrest, as it were, of those who utter heresies. The result is a much more cautious conversation among people in general; many of us have to censor our speech closely or risk having someone publicly condemn any forbidden thought we express out loud.
The offense-takers are a plague in our society.
Yet they are our own people -- aren't they? Or by their willful choice to side with everybody but their own, have they in effect renounced their citizenship among whites? These days I am inclined to say the latter. They won't own any connection with people like me because they see us as the enemy; so be it.
Maybe interracial adoption isn't such a bad thing; those who have chosen to identify with others, and only with others, should be adopted into their chosen group and make their home there, instead of staying behind to antagonize and work against their biological kin.
To be offended is usually a rather unpleasant experience, one that can expose a person to intolerance, cultural misunderstandings, and even evoke the scars of the past. This is such an unpleasant experience that many people develop a thick skin and try to only be offended in the most egregious and awful situations. In many circumstances, they can allow smaller offenses to slip by as fighting them is a waste of time and energy. But white people, blessed with both time and energy, are not these kind of people. In fact there are few things white people love more than being offended.
Naturally, white people do not get offended by statements directed at white people. In fact, they don�t even have a problem making offensive statements about other white people (ask a white person about "flyover states"). As a rule, white people strongly prefer to get offended on behalf of other people.
It is also valuable to know that white people spend a significant portion of their time preparing for the moment when they will be offended. They read magazines, books, and watch documentaries all in hopes that one day they will encounter a person who will say something offensive. When this happens, they can leap into action with quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Once they have finished lecturing another white person about how it�s wrong to use the term "black" instead of "African-American," they can sit back and relax in the knowledge that they have made a difference.''
I originally found the Stuff White People Like blog via Steve Sailer, and I blogged about it then. As I said then of the blog:
Is it all in good fun, or does it contribute further to the disparaging of white people which is so popular today? And assuredly this kind of self-ridicule (I am going on the assumption that the blogger is in fact white) is hardly fresh or new; I've (unwillingly) watched parts of movies of the last ten years or so in which caricatures of white people were a central basis of the 'humor', movies like 'White Chicks' or 'Undercover Brother'.
Reading the many, many comments following, I am still left asking myself who the target audience of the blog is. Is it the upper-middle-class or affluent liberal whites who seem to be the subject of much of the ambiguous 'humor'? I suppose such people would greatly enjoy laughing at themselves, or at somewhat grotesque caricatures of themselves; after all, their lives are centered around guilt and self-examination, and seeing themselves satirized or lampooned feeds into their sense that they are flawed, morally inadequate people, and also at the same time very important people. They like being the center of attention, even if the attention is unflattering to some degree or another.
Am I stereotyping white people? I hope not, because the stereotyping is one of the things I find unenjoyable about the blog, SWPL. One segment of white people, mainly liberal, PC, urban or suburban, affluent, educated, (probably over-educated) and mostly young, is made to represent all white people, and that is grossly inaccurate. White people are so much more varied than the blog implies, and the people described therein simply as 'white people' or 'whiter people' (whatever that means) are a small and unrepresentative segment. Yet they are made to stand for all white people. What is the message behind that? It could be that the blogger is himself part of that group, and feels more comfortable aiming barbs at his own group, or it may be that the blogger is part of that group and, having had contact mostly with that rather ingrown group, really considers them to be representative of the white race.
Is the blogger secretly pro-white and politically incorrect? Some claim this to be so, but I'm not convinced. The commenters (and there are many) all seem to see something different in the blog: some see it as an indictment of liberal political correctness, while others think, seemingly, that the satire of liberal young whites is meant to discredit them, deservedly. Some seem to think that the blog is rather anti-white, and therefore hip, since anti-whiteness is hip these days. Most of the young (white) people in my vicinity seem to think that anything which humiliates or caricatures whites is high hilarity, and well-deserved by whites.
The approach of the blog is successful, certainly, in terms of the traffic it draws, and the attention it has gotten. The blogger has also obtained a sweet book deal. However, I think the quality of the comments leaves much to be desired; I don't enjoy reading the comment threads at all.
Nevertheless, despite the uneasy feeling the blog evokes in me, the post in question makes some good points about white people (I would say liberal, PC white people) and their exasperating habit of taking offense on the behalf of their non-white 'wards'. Or should I say their non-white charges? Clients? My previous blog entry about 'The White liberals' burden' relates to this habit of theirs. They are so caught up in being the advocates or self-designated protectors or champions of minorities that they react as if they themselves are wounded when they perceive any slight or slur against their dependent clients, non-whites.
For some whites, specifically liberal/leftist PC whites, their protectiveness of nonwhites extends as far as wanting to adopt them, literally, and thus make non-whites part of their literal family, under their tutelage and protection. Is this a God complex? A desire to be the Savior or saint? For many liberals, their political and social belief system is a substitute for a non-existent religious faith, and in the cases where the liberal is actually a churchgoer, they affiliate with a church which serves their liberal agenda, so their social gospel beliefs are the center of their religious practices.
But just as with all the other manifestations of this attitude, this taking of offense on behalf of others is condescension, and it should be seen as somewhat of an affront to the one who is supposedly the target of the offense, real or imagined.
Taking offense for somebody else assumes that the person supposedly being defended cannot judge for himself when offense has been given, or that he is unable to speak up for himself, being either too ignorant or inarticulate -- too childlike.
I suppose a more generous assessment of these self-righteous liberals is that they have so fully identified with the minority groups that they truly do take offense at some careless word or phrase, feeling personally wounded by it. Even if that is the case, however, it's still unnatural and rather weird. There is a significant sub-group of (mostly young) white people who seem to have convinced themselves that they are non-white, adopting the styles, speech habits, and tastes of non-whites, usually blacks. I have always found that behavior somewhat embarrassing; I feel embarrassed for the whites who try their best to appear non-white. There are many manifestations of this; we see a lot of it on college campuses with young liberals sporting dreadlocks, piercings, and tribal tattoos, who get involved in drumming or other multiculti 'arts'. And there are those who dress in thug style and listen only to rap or other black styles of music. There are those who wear kaffiyehs, in solidarity with Palestinians.
It's not a new phenomenon; back when I was in college, however, whites who wanted to be non-white usually chose to be 'Native American' but apparently that has fallen from popularity somewhat, although Ward Churchill has stayed true to his calling to white Indianhood all these years.
In the 1970s there was a comedy movie, 'Made For Each Other,' in which actor Joseph Bologna, playing a confused young Italian-American man, goes to college and takes up black militancy, and harangues his baffled Italian-American parents about the wrongs done by 'whitey.'
I found that scene especially laughable in the context of today, wherein such attitudes among liberal young people are not as incredible as they appeared when the movie was first shown. There are plenty of young liberal whites who have been convinced by years of indoctrination at school, by the media, and by their deluded peers, that whiteness is a mark of Cain. It's these young people who are out marching alongside illegal Latinos, throwing projectiles at their white elders and calling them names. It's these who are trying to assuage their guilt and attain redemption from the stain of whiteness by swooning over Obama, listening to rap music, dating interracially -- and excoriating anybody who utters a politically incorrect word.
These people are not so much something to be laughed at or about; they are the scourge of anyone who wishes to practice free speech and to utter truth. We all complain about the controlled, PC media, and about our one-world, globalist ideologue politicians, but a bigger part of our problem is that the professional offense-takers, those who have made it their personal crusade to censure and vilify those they disagree with. This 'democratic censorship' only makes the job of the thought police that much easier. At this point, people are more or less being kept in line by these PC vigilantes who will make a citizen's arrest, as it were, of those who utter heresies. The result is a much more cautious conversation among people in general; many of us have to censor our speech closely or risk having someone publicly condemn any forbidden thought we express out loud.
The offense-takers are a plague in our society.
Yet they are our own people -- aren't they? Or by their willful choice to side with everybody but their own, have they in effect renounced their citizenship among whites? These days I am inclined to say the latter. They won't own any connection with people like me because they see us as the enemy; so be it.
Maybe interracial adoption isn't such a bad thing; those who have chosen to identify with others, and only with others, should be adopted into their chosen group and make their home there, instead of staying behind to antagonize and work against their biological kin.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Identity, Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Treason
0 comment Tuesday, September 2, 2014 | admin
Many of you may have already read it, but the subject under discussion is the selection of one Tino Cuellar to head up the new administration's working group on immigration.
"Cuéllar has been described as a close adviser to Obama on immigration, and the American Bar Association recently suggested he could be on the short list to head the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency." In other news, president-elect Obama has announced that: a Mr. Fox will be placed in charge of the US Department of Hen Houses; The US Sheep and Lamb Protection Agency, will have a Ms. Wolf as its new head; the CIA will be co-chaired by Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale (of Bullwinkle fame;) and that the Department of Homeland Security shall have either Osama bin-Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as its new secretary. It is believed that Mr. bin-Laden is the stronger contender of these latter two potential appointments, since President Ahmadinejad is currently running his own country and might have conflicting interests� As always, God help us all! Posted by John PM at 6:28 PM on November 24 Amen.
This would be funny were it not so tragic.
"Cuéllar has been described as a close adviser to Obama on immigration, and the American Bar Association recently suggested he could be on the short list to head the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency." In other news, president-elect Obama has announced that: a Mr. Fox will be placed in charge of the US Department of Hen Houses; The US Sheep and Lamb Protection Agency, will have a Ms. Wolf as its new head; the CIA will be co-chaired by Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale (of Bullwinkle fame;) and that the Department of Homeland Security shall have either Osama bin-Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as its new secretary. It is believed that Mr. bin-Laden is the stronger contender of these latter two potential appointments, since President Ahmadinejad is currently running his own country and might have conflicting interests� As always, God help us all! Posted by John PM at 6:28 PM on November 24 Amen.
This would be funny were it not so tragic.
Labels: Borders, Ethnic Conflicts, Ethnic Solidarity, Illegal Immigration, News
0 comment Wednesday, August 27, 2014 | admin
I had plans for a different blog entry today, but as I was surfing the blogosphere, I came across a 'conservative' blog, which is one I only recently found via a link, which had a lengthy post in response to the Colin Powell endorsement. The post was one very long and detailed timeline of every pro-black measure promoted by the Republican Party and every pro-black act by Republican presidents and congressmen.
The point being made, evidently, was that Powell and other blacks should be properly grateful and loyal to the GOP because it has steadfastly advanced their interests, ever since the War Between the States.
The comments echoed this kind of sentiment: ''don't the African-Americans know that the Democrats only hold them back? Why don't they realize that they need to vote Republican? It's the Democrats who are the real racists. We just have to make blacks realize that!" --- and so on.
Not one of the posters, apparently White Republicans, looked at the long list of Republican 'achievements' in the area of 'racial equality' and said, hey, it looks as though our interests are being disregarded in favor of courting blacks, and to no avail. What good has it done? What party represents me and my people and our interests? Not one said that or anything like that. It was all about crowing over how colorblind Republicans are and how racist the Democrats are, and why don't blacks join us in the GOP where they belong?
I collect ephemera, as I've mentioned before, and I've come across old documents and broadsides from the late 19th century and early 20th century when, almost comically, each party is claiming to be the friend of the black race, and pointing the finger at the other party to accuse them of neglecting blacks. On the other hand, there is a tract called The Short Catechism of Negro Equality, in which Republicans point to Democrats as being the chief architects of racial equality, while Democrats were apparently denying it. I suppose it all depended on which group's votes were being courted; each party tried to call the other 'bigoted' when it served them to do so, and later tried to claim the title of the most pro-black, pro-equality party.
Here is part of that undated 'Short Catechism"
Who made the Negro a citizen of the State of Maine? The Democratic Party.
Who enacted a similar law in Massachusetts? The Democratic Party.
Who permitted every colored person owning $250 in New York a voter? A General Assembly, purely Democratic.
Who repealed the laws of Ohio which required Negroes to give bonds and security before settling in that state? The Democratic Party.
Who made mulattoes legal voters in Ohio? A Democratic Supreme Court, of which Reuben Wood was Chief Justice.
[...]
Who, with the above facts, and many others, staring them in the face, are continually whining about 'negro suffrage' and negro equality? The Democratic Party.
All these things were done by Democrats, and yet they deny being in favor of negro equality, and charge it upon the Republicans -- just like the thief who cries ''stop thief" the loudest."
There is also this tract published by the Union Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, D.C. called The Position of the Republican and Democrat Parties: A Dialogue Between a White Republican and a Colored Citizen.
You can see a glimpse of it above. Notice the picture of Lincoln, captioned 'The Martyr For Liberty.'
The pamphlet features a question-and-answer format, and from page 2:
Q. "Who freed the slaves in the South?
A. Abraham Lincoln, the Republican President, by proclamation.
[...]
Q. Who gave us the Civil Rights Bill?
A. The same Republican Congress.
Q. What party gave us the right to vote?
A. The Republican Party.
Q. What has the Democratic, Copperhead, or Conservative Party ever done for the colored people?
A. It has tried to keep them in slavery, and opposed giving them the benefit of the Freedmen's Bureau and Civil Rights bills, and the right to vote.
Q. Why cannot colored men support the Democratic Party?
A. Because that party would disenfranchise them, and if possible, return them to slavery -- and certainly keep them in an inferior position before the law.
Q. With whom do the disloyal white men of the South desire the colored men to vote?
A. With the Democratic Party.
Q. Would not the Democrats take away all negroes' rights?
A. They would.
Q. Then why do they pretend to be the best friends of colored men?
A. Because they contend they are fitted only for slavery, or an inferior position, and are happier in either condition.
Q. How would it suit them to be served in the same manner?
A. They would not endure it. They call themselves a superior race of beings, and claim they are born your rulers.
Q. Why do they not do unto others as they would be done by?
A. Because they are devoid of principle, and destitute of all sense of justice where the colored man is concerned.
[...]
Let me say to you further, that the Democratic Party will use all means to get the colored people to put it in power again, but you must remember what has been its past record, and see to it that you do not trust it in the future.
[...]You want to be so organized that you will act as one man, lest your enemy gain the victory.''
What I take from reading these things is that the two parties, Republican and Democrat have switched places, with the Republicans originally being the party which adopted the most punitive, harsh policies towards the South, specifically Southron whites, after the War Between the States. This is the reason why the older generations down South considered the Republican Party anathema. Reconstruction was a chaotic and violent time, and the radical Republicans were bent on revenge against Southron White men.
Today's Republicans, in the mainstream at least, like to boast about how pro-black the party was during the Civil Rights era, and they like to jeer at people like Democrat Senator Byrd for his past politically incorrect positions on racial 'equality'. But they would do well to remember that the Republicans have taken both positions as it suited them. Both parties seem to be made up of mostly craven opportunists who would go wherever they sensed there was a bonanza of votes to be had. Principles and loyalties be damned.
And the present day is no different. Both parties jockey to be seen as the most politically correct and 'inclusive', and just as the men who wrote the tracts quoted above, they are more than willing to sell their own people and kin for thirty pieces of silver, or for access to more power. Notice the writer of the second tract (who is not identified) speaking to blacks and referring to White Democrats as ''your enemy". Nothing like trying to turn blacks against your own people for political gain.
And it's still going on now. Right now, the [White] Democrats are outdoing themselves to try to throw their own kin overboard in favor of minorities, and guess what, the Republicans are doing it too. But while I think the earlier generations were less blameworthy because their pandering was cynical (in many cases), using blacks to undermine their enemies politically, today's liberals truly don't see what they are doing to their own people or perhaps are not even able to care. They have truly become taken in by their own propaganda, and they have become blind to their own interests and deaf to their own people. They truly know no other tune but the politically correct one.
How else can you explain today's alleged 'conservatives' who are all exercised because they can't gain the approval of black voters? How can you explain the fact that they truly believe that blacks and Whites surely, surely have the same interests and needs, if they but knew it?
When are these 'conservatives' going to awaken to the obvious fact that the minorities have two parties and we have none? Where is the party that stands for us and our interests, or must we submit to being exiled forever from political power in favor of the aggrieved 'victims' and their White advocates?
And when will these same White advocates for the poor victims, like the Clintons, ever see that they are being used and thrown away by the people they championed all these decades? And the Republicans, too, are being used and manipulated, while mewling that they want credit for all their altruism and good deeds?
It's a cynical saying, but probably true in this fallen world: no good deed goes unpunished, and both parties are being punished for all their racial self-sacrifice. Unfortunately the American people, who either opposed the do-gooders or were oblivious, are also being punished along with our sorry politicians.
Labels: American History, Ethnic Division, Ethnic Solidarity, Political Correctness, Political Parties
0 comment Saturday, August 16, 2014 | admin
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the
principle of free thought�not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. .
. . We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe. '' -Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
My regular readers may want to skip this entry; it's meant for the self-righteous visitors who felt themselves to be 'victimized' or offended by words I wrote here the other day. This is meant for those who think that I and those who think as I do are their personal enemies. So please, indulge me in a little venting.
I want to clarify, first, what I said in the blog entry about Richard Nixon's politically incorrect conversations, which have caused some stir recently. In regard to abortion, I do not support abortion, at all. I was not suggesting I agreed with Nixon's views on the appropriateness of abortion in certain situations.
I did say that his politically incorrect views regarding interracial unions represented the prevailing majority opinion at the time he expressed them. And this is factually true. In fact, those views seem to be the prevailing consensus now, at least in practice, as statistics show that even in this politically correct, ''race-transcending'', colorblind age, the vast majority of people marry within their race.
That's fact, which can be supported by statistics, as well as by impartial observation of real life.
Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7 percent of America�s 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970.''
In other words, about 93 percent of America's married couples are of the same race. This indicates that preference for one's own race in marriage is still the norm, still the preference of the great majority.
That this fact bothers some people, or hurts their feelings, is not the issue, and it is certainly not my fault, much less my problem. The facts are what they are. Human beings are what they are, and racial cohesion (as well as racial loyalty, until recently) are simply intrinsic to human nature.
The fact that such a substantial majority of people marry those of their own race says something, especially in the face of a half-century or so of nonstop propaganda meant to break down racial consciousness and intra-racial loyalty and cohesion.
My comments about the majority opinion was not meant to express approval of abortion in whatever circumstance, nor to claim that the majority of Americans believed abortion permissible, then or now. My comment was merely to indicate that today's politically correct received opinions on race were not popular opinions back then. And that's fact, even though some like to call facts they dislike ''hate''.
What is really at issue here is not facts, but 'feelings'. A commenter bemoaned that there is 'so much evil in the world', meaning that certain politically incorrect ideas are not merely mistaken or wrong, but ''evil'', and possibly a threat or a danger to others. And not only that, but I myself and perhaps the people who agree with me are 'evil' as individuals. Collectively, ''evil'' people with ''evil'' ideas constitute a dangerous group to the emotional forces of the left.
My recent entries on the subject of 'hate and extremism' touched on that idea: the attempt to make thought-criminals of all those who disagree with the PC regime which dominates all thought and discourse in public. It does not matter to the fearmongers on the left that these 'extremist' opinons are nothing more than your parents' or grandparents' ideas, and certainly the ideas of our Founding Fathers and past generations in general.
Suddenly, traditional, widely-held, time-honored ideas are 'evil.' What kind of mind looks at their own history and their own people, seeing only 'evil' and threats lurking around every corner?
Ultimately, I've found that it's a waste of time and breath to argue with the indoctrinated and the PC pharisees of the left, most especially where racial matters are concerned. I believe I've said that one in 1,000 liberals might be willing to be honest and listen to the other side. I take that back. I now think it's more like 1 in 10,000 or in 100,000.
For liberals, it's all about their feelings, and if you hurt their feelings with an idea or opinion, you are evil and should be silenced, or rounded up, as Bonnie Erbe and her ilk propose.
I've had people on the Internet literally wish me dead because of my opinions. How's that ''stop the hate'' thing going for you liberals? It looks to me as though the hate is mostly one-way, coming from your side towards ours.
Liberals, and all politically correct censors and self-designated vigilantes, remove the plank from your own eye first, rather than searching for the mote in your conservative brother's eye.
Here's an idea: try arguing ideas or facts when you disagree with someone. Implying that your interlocutor is 'evil' because you disagree with his ideas is immature, childish, and unworthy of a thinking adult. I will not engage in any kind of debate with those who attack my character because they hate my ideas, and therefore hate me.
Should it not be possible for a grown-up to dislike someone's ideas or opinions without calling that person 'evil'?
Please know that your ideas are as odious to me as mine seem to be to you, the difference between us being that I do not troll liberal/leftist/minority blogs looking for a fight, or for a chance to verbally assail those I differ with. Nor do I try to silence them, as they would love to silence those to their right.
One more thing which needs to be said: liberals tend to loathe conservatives and particularly Christians because they think Christians ''want to impose their morality'' on everyone. Hello? All that liberals do involves ''imposing their morality'' on the rest of us. A prime example is the subject at hand, the subject that so offended my delicate commenter yesterday: race and freedom of association. Because liberals deem it a good and moral and high-minded and 'enlightened' thing to pretend that race does not exist, or to condescend to associate with people of differing races, nothing will do but to force everybody to partake in that association. No one is to be allowed to refrain from associating with others, and no one is to be allowed to be left alone. The government must, by use of force and coercion, compel association with all and sundry, regardless of the wishes of those involved.
What on earth is this but imposing your morality on someone else?
I mean, it's nice for you that you have this enlightened 'egalitarian' religious faith, which enjoins you to pretend there is no such thing as race, ethnicity, or gender, but must you impose that religion or ideology on me and mine? What gives you that right? And under what Constitutional principle is the government to force people to associate with any given group, or to forbid people to assemble with others of their free choosing?
Even if you find some Constitutional justification for this, it is not ethical or moral.
Liberals relish calling conservatives ''judgmental'', and yet you liberals reserve all judgment to yourselves, judging and condemning willy-nilly, as if you are the voice of God himself. And isn't it you who claim that there are no moral absolutes? Then your absolutism about equality is meaningless and arbitrary. If there are no absolutes, then my views are just as valid and just as moral as yours are.
Your self-righteous, often self-pitying moralizing has no legitimacy, especially coming from those who say everything is relative, there are no absolutes.
The kinds of comments I get from the left, from their various offended'' victim-clients, and from the 'mainstream respectable conservatives' only serve to convince me that this country cannot endure under one government; we are far too polarized, not only along racial, ethnic, and religious lines, but also across philosophical and ethical lines. If my good (racial loyalty, love for my own and my fathers) is someone else's ''evil'', then what hope is there of sustaining such a society?
principle of free thought�not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. .
. . We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe. '' -Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
My regular readers may want to skip this entry; it's meant for the self-righteous visitors who felt themselves to be 'victimized' or offended by words I wrote here the other day. This is meant for those who think that I and those who think as I do are their personal enemies. So please, indulge me in a little venting.
I want to clarify, first, what I said in the blog entry about Richard Nixon's politically incorrect conversations, which have caused some stir recently. In regard to abortion, I do not support abortion, at all. I was not suggesting I agreed with Nixon's views on the appropriateness of abortion in certain situations.
I did say that his politically incorrect views regarding interracial unions represented the prevailing majority opinion at the time he expressed them. And this is factually true. In fact, those views seem to be the prevailing consensus now, at least in practice, as statistics show that even in this politically correct, ''race-transcending'', colorblind age, the vast majority of people marry within their race.
That's fact, which can be supported by statistics, as well as by impartial observation of real life.
Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7 percent of America�s 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970.''
In other words, about 93 percent of America's married couples are of the same race. This indicates that preference for one's own race in marriage is still the norm, still the preference of the great majority.
That this fact bothers some people, or hurts their feelings, is not the issue, and it is certainly not my fault, much less my problem. The facts are what they are. Human beings are what they are, and racial cohesion (as well as racial loyalty, until recently) are simply intrinsic to human nature.
The fact that such a substantial majority of people marry those of their own race says something, especially in the face of a half-century or so of nonstop propaganda meant to break down racial consciousness and intra-racial loyalty and cohesion.
My comments about the majority opinion was not meant to express approval of abortion in whatever circumstance, nor to claim that the majority of Americans believed abortion permissible, then or now. My comment was merely to indicate that today's politically correct received opinions on race were not popular opinions back then. And that's fact, even though some like to call facts they dislike ''hate''.
What is really at issue here is not facts, but 'feelings'. A commenter bemoaned that there is 'so much evil in the world', meaning that certain politically incorrect ideas are not merely mistaken or wrong, but ''evil'', and possibly a threat or a danger to others. And not only that, but I myself and perhaps the people who agree with me are 'evil' as individuals. Collectively, ''evil'' people with ''evil'' ideas constitute a dangerous group to the emotional forces of the left.
My recent entries on the subject of 'hate and extremism' touched on that idea: the attempt to make thought-criminals of all those who disagree with the PC regime which dominates all thought and discourse in public. It does not matter to the fearmongers on the left that these 'extremist' opinons are nothing more than your parents' or grandparents' ideas, and certainly the ideas of our Founding Fathers and past generations in general.
Suddenly, traditional, widely-held, time-honored ideas are 'evil.' What kind of mind looks at their own history and their own people, seeing only 'evil' and threats lurking around every corner?
Ultimately, I've found that it's a waste of time and breath to argue with the indoctrinated and the PC pharisees of the left, most especially where racial matters are concerned. I believe I've said that one in 1,000 liberals might be willing to be honest and listen to the other side. I take that back. I now think it's more like 1 in 10,000 or in 100,000.
For liberals, it's all about their feelings, and if you hurt their feelings with an idea or opinion, you are evil and should be silenced, or rounded up, as Bonnie Erbe and her ilk propose.
I've had people on the Internet literally wish me dead because of my opinions. How's that ''stop the hate'' thing going for you liberals? It looks to me as though the hate is mostly one-way, coming from your side towards ours.
Liberals, and all politically correct censors and self-designated vigilantes, remove the plank from your own eye first, rather than searching for the mote in your conservative brother's eye.
Here's an idea: try arguing ideas or facts when you disagree with someone. Implying that your interlocutor is 'evil' because you disagree with his ideas is immature, childish, and unworthy of a thinking adult. I will not engage in any kind of debate with those who attack my character because they hate my ideas, and therefore hate me.
Should it not be possible for a grown-up to dislike someone's ideas or opinions without calling that person 'evil'?
Please know that your ideas are as odious to me as mine seem to be to you, the difference between us being that I do not troll liberal/leftist/minority blogs looking for a fight, or for a chance to verbally assail those I differ with. Nor do I try to silence them, as they would love to silence those to their right.
One more thing which needs to be said: liberals tend to loathe conservatives and particularly Christians because they think Christians ''want to impose their morality'' on everyone. Hello? All that liberals do involves ''imposing their morality'' on the rest of us. A prime example is the subject at hand, the subject that so offended my delicate commenter yesterday: race and freedom of association. Because liberals deem it a good and moral and high-minded and 'enlightened' thing to pretend that race does not exist, or to condescend to associate with people of differing races, nothing will do but to force everybody to partake in that association. No one is to be allowed to refrain from associating with others, and no one is to be allowed to be left alone. The government must, by use of force and coercion, compel association with all and sundry, regardless of the wishes of those involved.
What on earth is this but imposing your morality on someone else?
I mean, it's nice for you that you have this enlightened 'egalitarian' religious faith, which enjoins you to pretend there is no such thing as race, ethnicity, or gender, but must you impose that religion or ideology on me and mine? What gives you that right? And under what Constitutional principle is the government to force people to associate with any given group, or to forbid people to assemble with others of their free choosing?
Even if you find some Constitutional justification for this, it is not ethical or moral.
Liberals relish calling conservatives ''judgmental'', and yet you liberals reserve all judgment to yourselves, judging and condemning willy-nilly, as if you are the voice of God himself. And isn't it you who claim that there are no moral absolutes? Then your absolutism about equality is meaningless and arbitrary. If there are no absolutes, then my views are just as valid and just as moral as yours are.
Your self-righteous, often self-pitying moralizing has no legitimacy, especially coming from those who say everything is relative, there are no absolutes.
The kinds of comments I get from the left, from their various offended'' victim-clients, and from the 'mainstream respectable conservatives' only serve to convince me that this country cannot endure under one government; we are far too polarized, not only along racial, ethnic, and religious lines, but also across philosophical and ethical lines. If my good (racial loyalty, love for my own and my fathers) is someone else's ''evil'', then what hope is there of sustaining such a society?
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Freedom Of Association, Leftism, Leftist Hypocrisy, Political Correctness, Racial Division, Racial Guilt
0 comment Saturday, June 28, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment | admin
Please, make it stop.
The above is my reaction to the tiresome phrases and ideas offered up by many well-intended but ill-informed Americans when discussing immigration.
Example: "At least Hispanics are Christians like us, and share our European heritage."
Are these people blind? There is little or no European heritage, at least where genetics are concerned, among the Latin Americans who are now entering our country. As to their being Christians 'like us', well, speak for yourself; I don't believe in Saint Death or 'Santa Muerte' and I don't buy magic supplies for casting spells down in the barrio stores. I don't believe in 'curanderas' or in going to fortune-tellers. In other words, their form of Christianity bears scant resemblance to ours. To believe that their faith and ours are a source of commonality is to be deluded.
Another example: your interlocutor is a Republican but he feels compelled, for some reason, to defend Mexicans because they are 'social conservatives' or because they have 'good family values.'
Social conservatives ? Who have a higher illegitimacy rate than Whites and blacks? Who have a high rate of abortion? Social conservatives who commit far more crimes than our native-born citizens? Who drive drunk habitually? Who cheat, defraud, and exploit our system daily?
Another common cliche is that they ''work their [posteriors] off." The only thing I can say to that last defense is that it's irrelevant. Does ''working hard'' automatically give anyone the right to enter our country and to stay here? Since when does ''working hard'' become the magic open-sesame to our country and all its benefits? How many hard-working people are there in the world? Do they all get a pass if they enter this country illegally, or does our government issue visas and residency papers to everybody that ''works hard''?
These knee-jerk defenses of Latinos are especially common among the mainstream Republican types, and much as I hate to say it, among mainstream evangelicals who seem to think that being a good Christian involves sugar-coating everything and seeing only good, even when confronted with bad behavior.
Another thing I've decried before is the ''favorite minority'' syndrome. We see this in action a lot over on AmRen or also on Free Republic. Sometimes, when someone makes a comment that sounds especially hard-line regarding race, they quickly add that although they object to say, Moslem immigration or Somali or whatever, they have no problem with say, Hispanics -- because they ''work hard'' and they are ''humble''. I see this as another manifestation of the need to compensate for seeming ''racist''; they feel they might ward off the inevitable race card by expressing fondness or sympathy for some minority. Most often, however, the ''favorite minority'' is Asian. Many people on AmRen or on Steve Sailer's blog fawn over Asians. Please note the term 'NAM', non-Asian minority, which separates Asians who are termed desirable immigrants from all the other non-Asians who are a problem. First, the 'NAM' designation bothers me much as the 'non-Hispanic White' category bothers me. Why define someone by what they are not?
For the record I have a fairly high regard for Japanese people and their culture, although they too have their dark side. Still, I've found them to be mostly polite and courteous in my dealings with them. I've known many Japanese-Americans who are pleasant -- still, they too tend to be a liberal voting bloc and hence work against our interests as a group.
As to Asians generally -- I think it's a mistake to lump them together, especially for the purpose of casting them as ''model minorities.'' There is a lot of variation among Asians; some Asians are well-behaved, well-adapted to our country, while others (Southeast Asians, for example) have high degrees of social problems, heavy usage of social programs, etc. They are not all well-suited to our country, but almost all Asians benefit from the positive stereotypes that many Americans, even racially conscious Whites, have of them.
Above all, I just don't understand the need many Whites, especially those on the right, have, to idealize some minority group or other. How about putting our own group's interests first and foremost, and looking for praiseworthy qualities among our own? I see too few people doing that.
As regards our own group, there is a great deal of White-bashing that goes on even on sites like AmRen; Northerners who hate the South and still condemn the Confederacy for slavery and secession, and of course many White men bashing White women and praising Asian women. And my personal pet peeve: ethnic Whites who still cry victimhood because of those Anglo-Saxons who supposedly mistreated their ancestors back when they immigrated here 100 or more years ago. Here's my honest opinion on such complaining: it sounds like nothing else but blacks complaining about ''400 years of slavery'' and ''Jim Crow.'' It sounds like Latinos complaining about their land being stolen by the gringo 150+ years ago. It has the scent of loserdom about it. Stop it.
There is nothing attractive about losers whining about losing; they should take it like men (and women). It happened long ago to people who are long since dead. It does not affect anyone today unless they decide to let it. The mantle of victimhood is not attractive to see on anybody; it is repellent, or should be, for self-respecting people.
Besides which: how does anyone know that great-great grandpa was given dirty looks by Anglo-Saxons all those years ago when he came over on the boat from Europe? Is there any proof of it, or did it all come from a biased history book read years ago, or from a Hollywood movie?
Even worse is those people who dredge up something from distant eras: for example, they saw ''Braveheart'', which is apparently not historically accurate, and bear a grudge against the Saxons for persecuting their Scots ancestors a couple of dozen generations ago. There are two sides to every story, and right now, it is politically correct to exalt all the loser/victims, but again, it is not pretty to wallow in losing or to hold grudges against the opponent who bested you in a struggle for dominance. What ever happened to being a gracious loser? Why must we continue to exalt victimhood? Untold harm has been caused to our Western countries and our way of life by that very attitude. It needs to change.
Again, we come back to the divisions that beset our people so much today. This is a real problem and a real weakness, a vulnerability on our part. It plays no small role in our present dire situation. When will people stop all this ridiculous divisiveness, this need to praise and appease our enemies, and the need to fight old battles amongst ourselves?
Please, make it stop.
The above is my reaction to the tiresome phrases and ideas offered up by many well-intended but ill-informed Americans when discussing immigration.
Example: "At least Hispanics are Christians like us, and share our European heritage."
Are these people blind? There is little or no European heritage, at least where genetics are concerned, among the Latin Americans who are now entering our country. As to their being Christians 'like us', well, speak for yourself; I don't believe in Saint Death or 'Santa Muerte' and I don't buy magic supplies for casting spells down in the barrio stores. I don't believe in 'curanderas' or in going to fortune-tellers. In other words, their form of Christianity bears scant resemblance to ours. To believe that their faith and ours are a source of commonality is to be deluded.
Another example: your interlocutor is a Republican but he feels compelled, for some reason, to defend Mexicans because they are 'social conservatives' or because they have 'good family values.'
Social conservatives ? Who have a higher illegitimacy rate than Whites and blacks? Who have a high rate of abortion? Social conservatives who commit far more crimes than our native-born citizens? Who drive drunk habitually? Who cheat, defraud, and exploit our system daily?
Another common cliche is that they ''work their [posteriors] off." The only thing I can say to that last defense is that it's irrelevant. Does ''working hard'' automatically give anyone the right to enter our country and to stay here? Since when does ''working hard'' become the magic open-sesame to our country and all its benefits? How many hard-working people are there in the world? Do they all get a pass if they enter this country illegally, or does our government issue visas and residency papers to everybody that ''works hard''?
These knee-jerk defenses of Latinos are especially common among the mainstream Republican types, and much as I hate to say it, among mainstream evangelicals who seem to think that being a good Christian involves sugar-coating everything and seeing only good, even when confronted with bad behavior.
Another thing I've decried before is the ''favorite minority'' syndrome. We see this in action a lot over on AmRen or also on Free Republic. Sometimes, when someone makes a comment that sounds especially hard-line regarding race, they quickly add that although they object to say, Moslem immigration or Somali or whatever, they have no problem with say, Hispanics -- because they ''work hard'' and they are ''humble''. I see this as another manifestation of the need to compensate for seeming ''racist''; they feel they might ward off the inevitable race card by expressing fondness or sympathy for some minority. Most often, however, the ''favorite minority'' is Asian. Many people on AmRen or on Steve Sailer's blog fawn over Asians. Please note the term 'NAM', non-Asian minority, which separates Asians who are termed desirable immigrants from all the other non-Asians who are a problem. First, the 'NAM' designation bothers me much as the 'non-Hispanic White' category bothers me. Why define someone by what they are not?
For the record I have a fairly high regard for Japanese people and their culture, although they too have their dark side. Still, I've found them to be mostly polite and courteous in my dealings with them. I've known many Japanese-Americans who are pleasant -- still, they too tend to be a liberal voting bloc and hence work against our interests as a group.
As to Asians generally -- I think it's a mistake to lump them together, especially for the purpose of casting them as ''model minorities.'' There is a lot of variation among Asians; some Asians are well-behaved, well-adapted to our country, while others (Southeast Asians, for example) have high degrees of social problems, heavy usage of social programs, etc. They are not all well-suited to our country, but almost all Asians benefit from the positive stereotypes that many Americans, even racially conscious Whites, have of them.
Above all, I just don't understand the need many Whites, especially those on the right, have, to idealize some minority group or other. How about putting our own group's interests first and foremost, and looking for praiseworthy qualities among our own? I see too few people doing that.
As regards our own group, there is a great deal of White-bashing that goes on even on sites like AmRen; Northerners who hate the South and still condemn the Confederacy for slavery and secession, and of course many White men bashing White women and praising Asian women. And my personal pet peeve: ethnic Whites who still cry victimhood because of those Anglo-Saxons who supposedly mistreated their ancestors back when they immigrated here 100 or more years ago. Here's my honest opinion on such complaining: it sounds like nothing else but blacks complaining about ''400 years of slavery'' and ''Jim Crow.'' It sounds like Latinos complaining about their land being stolen by the gringo 150+ years ago. It has the scent of loserdom about it. Stop it.
There is nothing attractive about losers whining about losing; they should take it like men (and women). It happened long ago to people who are long since dead. It does not affect anyone today unless they decide to let it. The mantle of victimhood is not attractive to see on anybody; it is repellent, or should be, for self-respecting people.
Besides which: how does anyone know that great-great grandpa was given dirty looks by Anglo-Saxons all those years ago when he came over on the boat from Europe? Is there any proof of it, or did it all come from a biased history book read years ago, or from a Hollywood movie?
Even worse is those people who dredge up something from distant eras: for example, they saw ''Braveheart'', which is apparently not historically accurate, and bear a grudge against the Saxons for persecuting their Scots ancestors a couple of dozen generations ago. There are two sides to every story, and right now, it is politically correct to exalt all the loser/victims, but again, it is not pretty to wallow in losing or to hold grudges against the opponent who bested you in a struggle for dominance. What ever happened to being a gracious loser? Why must we continue to exalt victimhood? Untold harm has been caused to our Western countries and our way of life by that very attitude. It needs to change.
Again, we come back to the divisions that beset our people so much today. This is a real problem and a real weakness, a vulnerability on our part. It plays no small role in our present dire situation. When will people stop all this ridiculous divisiveness, this need to praise and appease our enemies, and the need to fight old battles amongst ourselves?
Please, make it stop.
Labels: Ethnic Solidarity, Immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Victimolatry, White Guilt
0 comment Thursday, June 19, 2014 | admin
''Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house''. - Matthew 12:29
At Western Biopolitics , JWH comments on a piece by Anthony Hilton at the Occidental Observer.
Hilton is discussing Jeremy Waldron's review of Anthony Lewis book, 'Freedom for the Thought We Hate'. Waldron is not so sure we ought to grant 'freedom for the thought we hate'
Hilton makes some good arguments as to why we should not criminalize thoughts or emotions like hate, which is an argument that I've made here and here : by passing 'hate speech' laws or hate crime laws generally, we are in essence outlawing emotions or feelings or thoughts.
In Hilton's words:
Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn�t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn�t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.''
Good points, particularly the last point about how the propaganda of past wars was a necessary part of steeling the people to defend themselves against an enemy. Now, I know many people on the right these days seem to be turning into born-again pacifists, indicting all war as bad and unnecessary, but I don't believe we can make that kind of blanket condemnation of war. War is just a symptom of our fallen human condition, as is crime.
And I think that the proscription we have these days against 'stereotyping' certain groups, unless the stereotype is glowingly positive, is working against us. For example: how many times do we encounter the statement that ''of course I have nothing against the illegals themselves; I'd do the same thing they're doing if I was hungry", or 'of course it's all the fault of the white traitors, not the fault of those who are invading our country.' Or this: ''all the Mexicans I know are hard-working, honest, friendly people; I just don't like illegal immigration.' This is all a kind of magical incantation to ward off any accusations of 'racism' or 'xenophobia'. It's nothing more than the 21st century variation of the old ''some of my best friends are [fiil in the blank].''
I just can't go along with this latest spin on political correctness: I have plenty against those who are invading my country, figuratively spitting in my face, and veritably stealing our children's birthright. The blame belongs on their doorstep as much as on that of the shadowy invisible 'elites' who are the only permissible objects of our anger and resentment. Sure, these elusive 'elites' deserve blame, and plenty of it, but so do all the scavengers who are moving in on a weakened America to feast off the remains. I can find little to empathize with where their behavior is concerned.
As long as we carefully fight off any forbidden 'negative' thoughts and feelings towards our enemies -- or if you are too squeamish to call anyone your enemy, then call them competitors or supplanters -- then we will never, ever, have what it takes to defend our own interests, whether verbally or politically or in any other way. The 'stereotypes' of the past -- the war-whooping Indians, the shifty Mexican, or whatever, were ways in which we steeled ourselves to deal with them unsentimentally. We can have good old fashioned anger and dislike towards people who are a threat to us, or who are openly hostile to us. Our parents knew that, but we've had it mostly whipped out of us, and we are the weaker for it.
And this is exactly the point of the 'hate speech' legislation and all the unofficial 'democratic censorship' in which our peers chastise and call us names if we transgress by speaking negatively of protected groups. The idea is to outlaw any negative thoughts about certain groups, and to instead encourage us to blame ourselves or to blame our own people first for what these protected groups are doing to harm us.
The net effect is that we are verbally defenseless, and are fast becoming less able to even think in a critical way about certain groups of people. We have been so conditioned to experiencing some negative effect when we speak our minds in 'politically incorrect' ways that even the thoughts become short-circuited before they are fully formed, let alone spoken out loud.
JWH addresses this 'disarming' effect of political correctness:
An inability to defend group genetic interests inevitably will lead to a diminishment of these interests. After all, in any competition, if one side is prohibited from acting to defend its interests, it is certain that this side will lose. No matter how skilled the boxer, if his arms are tied down to his sides, even a 97 lb. weakling as the opponent will eventually win the fight.
Thus, "hate speech laws" inevitably, and with mathematical certainty, lead to significantly diminished genetic interests for the ("unprotected") majority group. This diminishment of group interests can include actual partial or total displacement and replacement by others. In other words, genocide.
[...]
How can any individual or group accept the social and political legitimacy of a system that outlaws that individual's or group's expression of their interests?''
That's the question.
At Western Biopolitics , JWH comments on a piece by Anthony Hilton at the Occidental Observer.
Hilton is discussing Jeremy Waldron's review of Anthony Lewis book, 'Freedom for the Thought We Hate'. Waldron is not so sure we ought to grant 'freedom for the thought we hate'
Hilton makes some good arguments as to why we should not criminalize thoughts or emotions like hate, which is an argument that I've made here and here : by passing 'hate speech' laws or hate crime laws generally, we are in essence outlawing emotions or feelings or thoughts.
In Hilton's words:
Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn�t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn�t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.''
Good points, particularly the last point about how the propaganda of past wars was a necessary part of steeling the people to defend themselves against an enemy. Now, I know many people on the right these days seem to be turning into born-again pacifists, indicting all war as bad and unnecessary, but I don't believe we can make that kind of blanket condemnation of war. War is just a symptom of our fallen human condition, as is crime.
And I think that the proscription we have these days against 'stereotyping' certain groups, unless the stereotype is glowingly positive, is working against us. For example: how many times do we encounter the statement that ''of course I have nothing against the illegals themselves; I'd do the same thing they're doing if I was hungry", or 'of course it's all the fault of the white traitors, not the fault of those who are invading our country.' Or this: ''all the Mexicans I know are hard-working, honest, friendly people; I just don't like illegal immigration.' This is all a kind of magical incantation to ward off any accusations of 'racism' or 'xenophobia'. It's nothing more than the 21st century variation of the old ''some of my best friends are [fiil in the blank].''
I just can't go along with this latest spin on political correctness: I have plenty against those who are invading my country, figuratively spitting in my face, and veritably stealing our children's birthright. The blame belongs on their doorstep as much as on that of the shadowy invisible 'elites' who are the only permissible objects of our anger and resentment. Sure, these elusive 'elites' deserve blame, and plenty of it, but so do all the scavengers who are moving in on a weakened America to feast off the remains. I can find little to empathize with where their behavior is concerned.
As long as we carefully fight off any forbidden 'negative' thoughts and feelings towards our enemies -- or if you are too squeamish to call anyone your enemy, then call them competitors or supplanters -- then we will never, ever, have what it takes to defend our own interests, whether verbally or politically or in any other way. The 'stereotypes' of the past -- the war-whooping Indians, the shifty Mexican, or whatever, were ways in which we steeled ourselves to deal with them unsentimentally. We can have good old fashioned anger and dislike towards people who are a threat to us, or who are openly hostile to us. Our parents knew that, but we've had it mostly whipped out of us, and we are the weaker for it.
And this is exactly the point of the 'hate speech' legislation and all the unofficial 'democratic censorship' in which our peers chastise and call us names if we transgress by speaking negatively of protected groups. The idea is to outlaw any negative thoughts about certain groups, and to instead encourage us to blame ourselves or to blame our own people first for what these protected groups are doing to harm us.
The net effect is that we are verbally defenseless, and are fast becoming less able to even think in a critical way about certain groups of people. We have been so conditioned to experiencing some negative effect when we speak our minds in 'politically incorrect' ways that even the thoughts become short-circuited before they are fully formed, let alone spoken out loud.
JWH addresses this 'disarming' effect of political correctness:
An inability to defend group genetic interests inevitably will lead to a diminishment of these interests. After all, in any competition, if one side is prohibited from acting to defend its interests, it is certain that this side will lose. No matter how skilled the boxer, if his arms are tied down to his sides, even a 97 lb. weakling as the opponent will eventually win the fight.
Thus, "hate speech laws" inevitably, and with mathematical certainty, lead to significantly diminished genetic interests for the ("unprotected") majority group. This diminishment of group interests can include actual partial or total displacement and replacement by others. In other words, genocide.
[...]
How can any individual or group accept the social and political legitimacy of a system that outlaws that individual's or group's expression of their interests?''
That's the question.
Labels: Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Freedom Of Thought, Hate Speech, Political Correctness, Speech Codes, Stereotyping
0 comment Tuesday, June 10, 2014 | admin
The question is often raised, on blogs which discuss issues like those we discuss here, why more women are not on our side. The answer is usually offered by somebody who says that ''women just don't get it'', meaning that women don't ''get'' issues of racial and ethnic identity and interests, or ''women just don't get the 'us vs. them' mentality'' that is necessary to defend our group interests.
I've heard these opinions expressed many times, most recently in an internet discussion elsewhere.
I am not going to take the usual knee-jerk attitude that ''you're wrong! I'm a woman and I have the 'us vs. them' attitude, and I care about our survival as a people.'' Of course the fact that I and some of the commenters here are women and yet we ''get it'' does not disprove the existence of those many women who don't get it, who are the universalist, 'can't we all just get along' types.
Liberalism is apparently the default position for most women. Some may be right-wing on issues like economics or social issues like abortion and homosexual ''marriage'' yet they are far to the left on racial issues. The politically correct view of race is the dominant one, by far, among people of both major political parties.
It's undeniable, though, that when you visit an ethnoconservative or ethnonationalist blog or forum, or even a paleoconservative one, there is a conspicuous scarcity of women in the discussion. Even on this blog, I know there are a certain number of women regulars here, but men seem to be more numerous. Granted, on any blog, only a few readers overall leave comments, while many just read without ever commenting. I suspect, however, that the proportions of readers I have would show the same patterns, with men predominating.
If I wanted to play feminist devil's advocate, I could say that many right-wing blogs or race-realist blogs have a rather curmudgeonly attitude towards women, and this tends to scare women off. However I don't believe that, because if a woman is 'tough' enough to take an unpopular and widely-condemned un-PC attitude, she should not be scared off by a little grumbling about women on the part of some men.
I asked someone (female) if she agreed that there are fewer women who take politically incorrect views on race and ethnicity, and she said yes. Women tend to be less territorial, in her words, and I think I've made similar observations here or elsewhere. Men have traditionally been the defenders of the hearth and the homestead and the clan, and have been the ones to challenge outsiders who may or may not have hostile intentions towards us.
Men are traditionally the protecters against outside threats, while women are the nurturers and the ones who care for the helpless, the children and the old.
Thus women are inclined to feel more empathy or pity or sympathy towards, say, immigrants particularly as immigrants are nowadays shown as helpless, poor, and pitiful. Even the feminists who take a tough line towards men are soft-hearted towards immigrants and minorities in general.
And that brings me to another point: women assuredly are capable of the 'us vs. them' mentality, but it's mostly channeled towards men these days, thanks in great part to feminism. The outsiders, to many feminist-indoctrinated women, are men, not foreign people or those of differing races and creeds. Men. Their own brothers, husbands, sons, fathers, are more ''other'' to many feminists than hostile invaders.
Shame on those women who would side with others, outsiders, against their own people.
Male-bashing is quite a pastime with many women, especially those who've grown up under the spell of feminism. It's true, though, that there has always been the perennial 'battle of the sexes', which in fact goes back to Adam and Eve. It's always been with us, and maybe it always will be. I think it transcends culture and race, too. The leftist feminists like to pretend that there was some kind of matriarchal golden age to which we should return; I remember reading a couple of books by such women back in my own feminist days, long ago. And there is always a misguided notion that only our own Western, White, Christian culture is ''misogynistic'', while primitive cultures supposedly honor women more. A popular feminist belief has it that American Indian cultures exalted women, and that women actually ruled some tribes.
But the male-female division is always with us, and it's not peculiar to our Western society. I do think, though, that at certain times, there was more acceptance of the complementarity of the sexes, and more respect for the division of labor, with the sex roles being differentiated. When that is intact, there is less friction and resentment.
The left has done a bang-up job of dividing everybody, stoking the natural divisions between men and women, and among the races, so as to keep us squabbling among ourselves, unable to unite to act in our own interests. Men and women being divided against each other has been wonderful for our enemies; when households are divided then the whole community and people is divided. The left has split women off and made them believe that their natural interests and sympathies should be with minority races, gays, and the poor, and not with those of their own blood kin. Thus women too often choose to make common cause with other aggrieved groups, believing that they themselves are victims of White males, just like the rest of the self-described victims.
There was certainly a time when White women were certainly racially conscious and ethnocentric, though even then there were probably more women who adopted the bleeding-heart 'one world' approach. I suspect, though I haven't tried to prove it in any way, that many women who were involved in liberal causes in the past were usually ''maiden ladies'', with no families of their own to care for, who turned to helping ''others'', and became universalist crusaders of some sort.
But most women, including my Yankee-born mother, were race-realists, not at all race-blind liberals like many of today's women. My grandmothers, my aunts, all of the older generation on both sides of my family, were certainly ethocentric and racially aware. They certainly did understand the 'us vs. them' mentality when it came to kin and people and race. Today's PC-saturated women would condemn such old-fashioned attitudes, but in doing so they are condemning their own grandmothers, probably, as most women who grew up pre-1950s were not at all liberal on racial matters.
Several factors might be at work here; nowadays, the individualistic attitude is prevalent among both sexes, whereas in the past, women wanted to be mothers and wives, and thus had more of a stake in the preservation of their people and their children's future. But most people of both sexes now seem to be much more me-oriented and present-oriented, rather than thinking of the future and their posterity. This has taken its toll.
I speak to so many people, including women, who say of race and kin, ''what's that got to do with me? I'm an individual, I'm just me, I don't relate to my 'race' or even my own distant ancestors, and I may not have any kids, so why should I care what happens?" I don't know how this attitude can be overcome, if it can be overcome at all. I know it's a very popular attitude not just because it's implanted and reinforced by media conditioning, but also because, as Christians might put it, it 'appeals to our flesh.' It appeals to our natural, fallen, selfish nature. The 'old Adam' (or Eve) in us wants to look out for number one, and let the devil take the hindmost. We naturally prefer to live in the moment and not think about tomorrow.
Feminism, though, must take a lot of the blame for women being less concerned for their people, their roots, their kin, and so on; feminism is a me-first, I-owe-it-to-myself, kind of mindset. Notice how often advertising appeals to this in women. The messages are: ''I deserve the best. Now it's time for me. I take care of everybody else, now i'm going to pamper myself." And so on. Feminism is all about me. I, me, mine. My fulfillment, even if it comes at the expense of my marriage and my children. I deserve it.
But feminism, after all, is just leftism dressed up in special packaging designed to appeal to women and their dissatisfactions.
Is it possible, then, to reverse this situation? Obviously I think women are not congenitally doomed to be multiculturalists -- or traitors to their own people as some apparently are. The fact that past generations of women were race-conscious and loyal shows that they can be.
Would it be desirable to 'tone down' the rhetoric on the nationalist side to make it less 'hostile' to women? Personally, I say no. I'm never in favor of trying to create a more politically correct, ''nicer'' version of something that needs to have a certain degree of toughness to succeed. Some women need to re-learn, or learn for the first time, the necessity for toughness and for dispensing with sentimentality and 'niceness'. We are in a dire situation, and we don't have time to worry about trying to soothe the delicate sensibilities of the potentially offended.
We can only hope that women will come to more realistic attitudes as things grow more dire for us.
What do my female readers think? Please add your perspective, and the same for my male readers. What's your view of this issue? I'd like to hear.
I've heard these opinions expressed many times, most recently in an internet discussion elsewhere.
I am not going to take the usual knee-jerk attitude that ''you're wrong! I'm a woman and I have the 'us vs. them' attitude, and I care about our survival as a people.'' Of course the fact that I and some of the commenters here are women and yet we ''get it'' does not disprove the existence of those many women who don't get it, who are the universalist, 'can't we all just get along' types.
Liberalism is apparently the default position for most women. Some may be right-wing on issues like economics or social issues like abortion and homosexual ''marriage'' yet they are far to the left on racial issues. The politically correct view of race is the dominant one, by far, among people of both major political parties.
It's undeniable, though, that when you visit an ethnoconservative or ethnonationalist blog or forum, or even a paleoconservative one, there is a conspicuous scarcity of women in the discussion. Even on this blog, I know there are a certain number of women regulars here, but men seem to be more numerous. Granted, on any blog, only a few readers overall leave comments, while many just read without ever commenting. I suspect, however, that the proportions of readers I have would show the same patterns, with men predominating.
If I wanted to play feminist devil's advocate, I could say that many right-wing blogs or race-realist blogs have a rather curmudgeonly attitude towards women, and this tends to scare women off. However I don't believe that, because if a woman is 'tough' enough to take an unpopular and widely-condemned un-PC attitude, she should not be scared off by a little grumbling about women on the part of some men.
I asked someone (female) if she agreed that there are fewer women who take politically incorrect views on race and ethnicity, and she said yes. Women tend to be less territorial, in her words, and I think I've made similar observations here or elsewhere. Men have traditionally been the defenders of the hearth and the homestead and the clan, and have been the ones to challenge outsiders who may or may not have hostile intentions towards us.
Men are traditionally the protecters against outside threats, while women are the nurturers and the ones who care for the helpless, the children and the old.
Thus women are inclined to feel more empathy or pity or sympathy towards, say, immigrants particularly as immigrants are nowadays shown as helpless, poor, and pitiful. Even the feminists who take a tough line towards men are soft-hearted towards immigrants and minorities in general.
And that brings me to another point: women assuredly are capable of the 'us vs. them' mentality, but it's mostly channeled towards men these days, thanks in great part to feminism. The outsiders, to many feminist-indoctrinated women, are men, not foreign people or those of differing races and creeds. Men. Their own brothers, husbands, sons, fathers, are more ''other'' to many feminists than hostile invaders.
Shame on those women who would side with others, outsiders, against their own people.
Male-bashing is quite a pastime with many women, especially those who've grown up under the spell of feminism. It's true, though, that there has always been the perennial 'battle of the sexes', which in fact goes back to Adam and Eve. It's always been with us, and maybe it always will be. I think it transcends culture and race, too. The leftist feminists like to pretend that there was some kind of matriarchal golden age to which we should return; I remember reading a couple of books by such women back in my own feminist days, long ago. And there is always a misguided notion that only our own Western, White, Christian culture is ''misogynistic'', while primitive cultures supposedly honor women more. A popular feminist belief has it that American Indian cultures exalted women, and that women actually ruled some tribes.
But the male-female division is always with us, and it's not peculiar to our Western society. I do think, though, that at certain times, there was more acceptance of the complementarity of the sexes, and more respect for the division of labor, with the sex roles being differentiated. When that is intact, there is less friction and resentment.
The left has done a bang-up job of dividing everybody, stoking the natural divisions between men and women, and among the races, so as to keep us squabbling among ourselves, unable to unite to act in our own interests. Men and women being divided against each other has been wonderful for our enemies; when households are divided then the whole community and people is divided. The left has split women off and made them believe that their natural interests and sympathies should be with minority races, gays, and the poor, and not with those of their own blood kin. Thus women too often choose to make common cause with other aggrieved groups, believing that they themselves are victims of White males, just like the rest of the self-described victims.
There was certainly a time when White women were certainly racially conscious and ethnocentric, though even then there were probably more women who adopted the bleeding-heart 'one world' approach. I suspect, though I haven't tried to prove it in any way, that many women who were involved in liberal causes in the past were usually ''maiden ladies'', with no families of their own to care for, who turned to helping ''others'', and became universalist crusaders of some sort.
But most women, including my Yankee-born mother, were race-realists, not at all race-blind liberals like many of today's women. My grandmothers, my aunts, all of the older generation on both sides of my family, were certainly ethocentric and racially aware. They certainly did understand the 'us vs. them' mentality when it came to kin and people and race. Today's PC-saturated women would condemn such old-fashioned attitudes, but in doing so they are condemning their own grandmothers, probably, as most women who grew up pre-1950s were not at all liberal on racial matters.
Several factors might be at work here; nowadays, the individualistic attitude is prevalent among both sexes, whereas in the past, women wanted to be mothers and wives, and thus had more of a stake in the preservation of their people and their children's future. But most people of both sexes now seem to be much more me-oriented and present-oriented, rather than thinking of the future and their posterity. This has taken its toll.
I speak to so many people, including women, who say of race and kin, ''what's that got to do with me? I'm an individual, I'm just me, I don't relate to my 'race' or even my own distant ancestors, and I may not have any kids, so why should I care what happens?" I don't know how this attitude can be overcome, if it can be overcome at all. I know it's a very popular attitude not just because it's implanted and reinforced by media conditioning, but also because, as Christians might put it, it 'appeals to our flesh.' It appeals to our natural, fallen, selfish nature. The 'old Adam' (or Eve) in us wants to look out for number one, and let the devil take the hindmost. We naturally prefer to live in the moment and not think about tomorrow.
Feminism, though, must take a lot of the blame for women being less concerned for their people, their roots, their kin, and so on; feminism is a me-first, I-owe-it-to-myself, kind of mindset. Notice how often advertising appeals to this in women. The messages are: ''I deserve the best. Now it's time for me. I take care of everybody else, now i'm going to pamper myself." And so on. Feminism is all about me. I, me, mine. My fulfillment, even if it comes at the expense of my marriage and my children. I deserve it.
But feminism, after all, is just leftism dressed up in special packaging designed to appeal to women and their dissatisfactions.
Is it possible, then, to reverse this situation? Obviously I think women are not congenitally doomed to be multiculturalists -- or traitors to their own people as some apparently are. The fact that past generations of women were race-conscious and loyal shows that they can be.
Would it be desirable to 'tone down' the rhetoric on the nationalist side to make it less 'hostile' to women? Personally, I say no. I'm never in favor of trying to create a more politically correct, ''nicer'' version of something that needs to have a certain degree of toughness to succeed. Some women need to re-learn, or learn for the first time, the necessity for toughness and for dispensing with sentimentality and 'niceness'. We are in a dire situation, and we don't have time to worry about trying to soothe the delicate sensibilities of the potentially offended.
We can only hope that women will come to more realistic attitudes as things grow more dire for us.
What do my female readers think? Please add your perspective, and the same for my male readers. What's your view of this issue? I'd like to hear.
Labels: Ethnic Solidarity, Ethnocentrism, Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Feminism, Racial Division, Social Divisions
0 comment Tuesday, June 3, 2014 | admin
A few years ago when this blog was still a new adventure for me, I blogged about a piece by John Derbyshire
on the subject of race and conservatism.
Derbyshire, whose work I have admired over the years, seems lately to be taking a rather more pessimistic view of America and its racial dilemma. His latest piece over at TakiMag is, I'm afraid, downright depressing.
Perhaps Derbyshire, with the apparent detachment of an outsider (although he is a naturalized American, I think) takes a more cold-eyed view of Americans and our inability to face racial realities. Perhaps he is more capable of being objective than I am; I am biased, I confess. I love this country, or at least my people, my folk, fiercely, and I refuse to give up on my kin. It may be that he is more right than I am, but I certainly hope not.
I leave it to you to read the piece and judge for yourselves, but the central point of the latest piece seems to be that Americans are too divided amongst ourselves to face up to the stark situation which is our racial conundrum.
He posits that most Americans are unable to work up much strong feeling towards minority races, while holding very strong animus towards fellow Americans of different social classes, or those of other regional origins. He cites as an example the feelings of, say, a liberal academic (is there any other kind?) towards NASCAR fans, and he supposes that his hypothetical professor has few strong feelings towards blacks.
I am not sure I agree with that specific example; most of the academics I know and have known have very positive biases toward blacks, and in fact the liberal's disdain for NASCAR fans is based on his stereotype of 'rednecks' as Southern racist bigots.
Do our American regional biases pre-date the racial divisions of today? I think northern liberals have, since the abolitionist days, perceived Southron people as being the villains in any racial friction. I think the racial question is the main source of much of the northern liberal's antipathy to Southron working-class people in particular.
Derbyshire mentions regional animus among Americans; I think the North-South divide is the most prominent of these, although there is also a very strong urban vs. rural divide, with the urban dwellers looking down on the people in 'flyover' country. Yes, those 'bitter' people who 'cling to guns and religion.'
Secular liberals and atheists have contempt for Christian believers, especially if said Christians actually take their faith seriously, and most notably, if those Christians are 'backward' enough to believe their Bibles.
These divisions have grown much more pronounced in recent years, but the polarization has really increased since the 1970s, picking up considerable speed during the Clinton era in which Democrats/liberals became much more open in their contempt for those who refused to conform to the prevailing liberal orthodoxies.
I've been decrying the divisions among White Americans for some time; there is no denying that the divisions exist. I've mused about how and why these divisions became so intractable. I have wondered whether some of the clashes have intensified simply because a lot of the anger many White people feel is suppressed. We have all been subjected to decades of conditioning, in an effort to strip us of our natural feelings of kin-loyalty and racial/ethnic consciousness. We have all learned through the heavy-handed efforts of the media, the educational system, and government (working together), that we are not to express any criticism of, or negativity towards, minorities. They are, of course, always victims and never villains. They are always sinned against but never sinning. It is not allowed to speak ill of them, no matter what the provocation. Nothing they do may be criticized without risking the accusation of 'racism.'
Given that we are not allowed to direct any honest anger or indignation towards minorities, at least in respectable society, we tend to misdirect our anger at other targets, or perhaps even to assign blame to safer targets. And it is always permissible to attack and malign other Whites, so we bite and tear at each other.
Many Whites have become anti-White racists, sadly.
We have to remember, too, that decades of propaganda have been aimed at us, with the intention of dividing us as a people. Divide and conquer, divide and rule. The left has been very upfront in their intention to sow discord and rancor within so as to further their ends.
Derbyshire concludes that Whites are too hopelessly divided to ever have this much-anticipated 'breakthrough' towards some kind of survival impulse. I've often decried the racial right's belief that ''worse is better'' and that the many outrages of the last year and a half would lead to some kind of awakening among Whites. As yet, pace Jared Taylor, I see little sign of a real awakening; I see 'colorblind conservatives' spinning their wheels in the Tea Party rituals. I see them lauding people like Bobby Jindal, and most lately, Herman Cain as some kind of minority messiahs of the Republican Party. I do see some few signs of life, but they seem to flicker out before they begin.
Still, I hope. I hope because I love my people. I love my folk.
Just as you never give up on a beloved family member, no matter how down and out they may appear, you hope. And as long as there is life, there is hope, as the old saying has it.
So I keep on keeping on, despite my wavering faith at times.
But I will concur that division amongst ourselves is our greatest obstacle. Love of our own has to outweigh any differences amongst us. We can't let the differences that exist weaken us further, because as long as we do, we will continue to be easy prey for those who wish to supplant us or push us aside.
Will their ever be a 'mass awakening'? I rather doubt it; I believe only in the remnant, who, as history shows, are always the few who make things happen. The majority do not move history; it is always the few who do the real work and turn the wheels of real change. The rest just follow along at best, or are swept aside.
on the subject of race and conservatism.
Derbyshire, whose work I have admired over the years, seems lately to be taking a rather more pessimistic view of America and its racial dilemma. His latest piece over at TakiMag is, I'm afraid, downright depressing.
Perhaps Derbyshire, with the apparent detachment of an outsider (although he is a naturalized American, I think) takes a more cold-eyed view of Americans and our inability to face racial realities. Perhaps he is more capable of being objective than I am; I am biased, I confess. I love this country, or at least my people, my folk, fiercely, and I refuse to give up on my kin. It may be that he is more right than I am, but I certainly hope not.
I leave it to you to read the piece and judge for yourselves, but the central point of the latest piece seems to be that Americans are too divided amongst ourselves to face up to the stark situation which is our racial conundrum.
He posits that most Americans are unable to work up much strong feeling towards minority races, while holding very strong animus towards fellow Americans of different social classes, or those of other regional origins. He cites as an example the feelings of, say, a liberal academic (is there any other kind?) towards NASCAR fans, and he supposes that his hypothetical professor has few strong feelings towards blacks.
I am not sure I agree with that specific example; most of the academics I know and have known have very positive biases toward blacks, and in fact the liberal's disdain for NASCAR fans is based on his stereotype of 'rednecks' as Southern racist bigots.
Do our American regional biases pre-date the racial divisions of today? I think northern liberals have, since the abolitionist days, perceived Southron people as being the villains in any racial friction. I think the racial question is the main source of much of the northern liberal's antipathy to Southron working-class people in particular.
Derbyshire mentions regional animus among Americans; I think the North-South divide is the most prominent of these, although there is also a very strong urban vs. rural divide, with the urban dwellers looking down on the people in 'flyover' country. Yes, those 'bitter' people who 'cling to guns and religion.'
Secular liberals and atheists have contempt for Christian believers, especially if said Christians actually take their faith seriously, and most notably, if those Christians are 'backward' enough to believe their Bibles.
These divisions have grown much more pronounced in recent years, but the polarization has really increased since the 1970s, picking up considerable speed during the Clinton era in which Democrats/liberals became much more open in their contempt for those who refused to conform to the prevailing liberal orthodoxies.
I've been decrying the divisions among White Americans for some time; there is no denying that the divisions exist. I've mused about how and why these divisions became so intractable. I have wondered whether some of the clashes have intensified simply because a lot of the anger many White people feel is suppressed. We have all been subjected to decades of conditioning, in an effort to strip us of our natural feelings of kin-loyalty and racial/ethnic consciousness. We have all learned through the heavy-handed efforts of the media, the educational system, and government (working together), that we are not to express any criticism of, or negativity towards, minorities. They are, of course, always victims and never villains. They are always sinned against but never sinning. It is not allowed to speak ill of them, no matter what the provocation. Nothing they do may be criticized without risking the accusation of 'racism.'
Given that we are not allowed to direct any honest anger or indignation towards minorities, at least in respectable society, we tend to misdirect our anger at other targets, or perhaps even to assign blame to safer targets. And it is always permissible to attack and malign other Whites, so we bite and tear at each other.
Many Whites have become anti-White racists, sadly.
We have to remember, too, that decades of propaganda have been aimed at us, with the intention of dividing us as a people. Divide and conquer, divide and rule. The left has been very upfront in their intention to sow discord and rancor within so as to further their ends.
Derbyshire concludes that Whites are too hopelessly divided to ever have this much-anticipated 'breakthrough' towards some kind of survival impulse. I've often decried the racial right's belief that ''worse is better'' and that the many outrages of the last year and a half would lead to some kind of awakening among Whites. As yet, pace Jared Taylor, I see little sign of a real awakening; I see 'colorblind conservatives' spinning their wheels in the Tea Party rituals. I see them lauding people like Bobby Jindal, and most lately, Herman Cain as some kind of minority messiahs of the Republican Party. I do see some few signs of life, but they seem to flicker out before they begin.
Still, I hope. I hope because I love my people. I love my folk.
Just as you never give up on a beloved family member, no matter how down and out they may appear, you hope. And as long as there is life, there is hope, as the old saying has it.
So I keep on keeping on, despite my wavering faith at times.
But I will concur that division amongst ourselves is our greatest obstacle. Love of our own has to outweigh any differences amongst us. We can't let the differences that exist weaken us further, because as long as we do, we will continue to be easy prey for those who wish to supplant us or push us aside.
Will their ever be a 'mass awakening'? I rather doubt it; I believe only in the remnant, who, as history shows, are always the few who make things happen. The majority do not move history; it is always the few who do the real work and turn the wheels of real change. The rest just follow along at best, or are swept aside.
Labels: Anti-White Racism, Ethnic Solidarity, Ethnomasochism, Political Correctness
0 comment Wednesday, May 28, 2014 | admin
An interesting snippet which was written just after the quake in Christchurch, NZ: Benedict Brogan, of the Telegraph UK, says of the New Zealanders
''We may not be able to get rescue teams there quickly to help the life-saving effort, but there are other ways we can show that the historic bonds of family and kinship mean something, and thereby defy that tyranny of distance Mr Hamilton spoke about.''
The mention of 'bonds of family and kinship' are rather surprising as people, that is, White people specifically are not supposed to think in these terms anymore. And above all we are not supposed to speak in these terms. It's excusive and xenophobic, you know.
It's possible to read too much into this, I suppose, but it is a nostalgic thing to see this mentioned, as it was taken for granted in pre-PC times that we of Anglo-Saxon descent were kin, whether we live in Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.S.A.
This talk of blood kinship between nations sets off the radar of a few of the PC patrol on the thread, but it's refreshing to know that these old, and very natural, patterns of affinity are still not forgotten, despite decades of brainwashing and shaming.
I wish our cousins in New Zealand well, and my prayers go out to you in the aftermath of this disaster.
"...Also, we will make promise. So long as The Blood endures,
I shall know that your good is mine: ye shall feel that my strength is yours:
In the day of Armageddon, at the last great fight of all,
That Our House stand together and the pillars do not fall.
Draw now the threefold knot firm on the ninefold bands,
And the Law that ye make shall be law after the rule of your lands.
This for the waxen Heath, and that for the Wattle-bloom,
This for the Maple-leaf, and that for the Southern Broom.
The Law that ye make shall be law and I do not press my will,
Because ye are Sons of The Blood and call me Mother still.
Now must ye speak to your kinsmen and they must speak to you,
After the use of the English, in straight-flung words and few.
Go to your work and be strong, halting not in your ways,
Balking the end half-won for an instant dole of praise.
Stand to your work and be wise � certain of sword and pen,
Who are neither children nor Gods, but men in a world of men!
--Rudyard Kipling, England's Answer
''We may not be able to get rescue teams there quickly to help the life-saving effort, but there are other ways we can show that the historic bonds of family and kinship mean something, and thereby defy that tyranny of distance Mr Hamilton spoke about.''
The mention of 'bonds of family and kinship' are rather surprising as people, that is, White people specifically are not supposed to think in these terms anymore. And above all we are not supposed to speak in these terms. It's excusive and xenophobic, you know.
It's possible to read too much into this, I suppose, but it is a nostalgic thing to see this mentioned, as it was taken for granted in pre-PC times that we of Anglo-Saxon descent were kin, whether we live in Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.S.A.
This talk of blood kinship between nations sets off the radar of a few of the PC patrol on the thread, but it's refreshing to know that these old, and very natural, patterns of affinity are still not forgotten, despite decades of brainwashing and shaming.
I wish our cousins in New Zealand well, and my prayers go out to you in the aftermath of this disaster.
"...Also, we will make promise. So long as The Blood endures,
I shall know that your good is mine: ye shall feel that my strength is yours:
In the day of Armageddon, at the last great fight of all,
That Our House stand together and the pillars do not fall.
Draw now the threefold knot firm on the ninefold bands,
And the Law that ye make shall be law after the rule of your lands.
This for the waxen Heath, and that for the Wattle-bloom,
This for the Maple-leaf, and that for the Southern Broom.
The Law that ye make shall be law and I do not press my will,
Because ye are Sons of The Blood and call me Mother still.
Now must ye speak to your kinsmen and they must speak to you,
After the use of the English, in straight-flung words and few.
Go to your work and be strong, halting not in your ways,
Balking the end half-won for an instant dole of praise.
Stand to your work and be wise � certain of sword and pen,
Who are neither children nor Gods, but men in a world of men!
--Rudyard Kipling, England's Answer
Labels: Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Ethnic Solidarity, Kinship, New Zealand
0 comment Wednesday, May 14, 2014 | admin
Over at the Australian Identity forums there is an interesting thread on the subject of Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism, based on a blog post here.
The blog post being discussed was a commentary on a lecture given by Professor Andrew Fraser, who has had problems with the 'thought police' in Australia due to his truthful observations.
There seems to be no transcript of Andrew Fraser's speech, unfortunately.
The blogger discusses how Professor Fraser thinks that the idea of 'White nationalism' is a reflection of Anglophobia or 'self-weakness' among Anglo-Saxons. This is a rather interesting way of looking at it; I am not sure that I agree.
The idea of 'White nationalism' is declared to be an American idea, and although I don't know the origins of it, it may be an American idea. But is it based on some kind of self-hatred or Anglophobia among Americans of Anglo-Saxon heritage? I don't know. The charge is also made that Anglo-Saxons tend to try to 'ride on' the successes of other groups who are more ethnocentric, which in the case of America (and probably also Australia) would mean groups like the Irish or Italians.
Speaking for America, I would say that it is not a lack of self-confidence that has caused Anglo-Saxons to be less ethnocentric and less apt to organize and agitate for their own ethnicity. I would instead say it's a sign of an overconfidence among Anglo-Saxons in America. Even now, as we hear the news about our coming minority status in our own land, most Americans seem to see this as no threat. After all, we ARE America; we've always been in charge, the most successful and most capable and the most visible group -- until the present age of compulsory 'diversity' and the elevation of victim groups to the highest status. Still, despite the loss of influence and political power, most people live off the social and political capital of past generations and stubbornly believe that we will still come out on top, that the poor Third World waifs can't be any kind of threat to us. Too many of us take our position for granted.
I suppose maybe there is a kind of existential loss of confidence among some Anglo-Saxons at least, but there are a good many who are like the hare in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. The hare, by virtue of his speed and his winning record, can't imagine the tortoise besting him in the race, so he slacks off, letting the plodding tortoise win, due to overconfidence. We are too confident in our luck or talents to imagine that we won't land on our feet.
Is there Anglophobia on the part of Anglo-Saxon Americans? Well, first of all, how many Americans even identify themselves as Anglo-Saxon Americans? I've written at length about this in the past. The regions which had a heavily Anglo-Saxon demographic for the longest time were New England, until the mid-19th century immigration wave overtook them, causing many of the old colonial stock people to flee Westward, and of course the South, which remained demographically and ethnically stable, without much change due to immigration until the current tidal wave from Mexico and Central America.
But neither New England or the South had a strong Anglo-Saxon identity. In both those regions, at least until the 19th century, the people who lived there were descended from colonial stock for the most part, and since the Revolution, most thought of themselves as Americans, first and foremost, conscious of the fact that their forefathers fought a war -- no, two wars -- against the mother country, Great Britain. And in the South, of course, regional identity was especially strong; the Southron culture was the primary identity for many people. So the Anglo-Saxon identity was not dominant, although there was certainly a consciousness of our ties to Mother England, and a respect and regard for that country.
In Texas and other border states, however, the term 'Anglo' is applied more generally to any White, obviously Northwestern European person, so it is not necessarily applied only to people with roots in Britain. So that complicates things, semantically. A person primarily of, say, German descent or Czech descent (and there are quite a few of both groups in Texas) will by default be called an "Anglo", simply by virtue of the fact that they are White, European-descended, and not Spanish-speaking.
Another reason why 'Anglo-Saxon' identity was not as strong even in the most heavily British-descended areas was that even in these areas, many people were aware of having other strains in their ancestry. In the South, many old-stock Americans claimed some French Huguenot ancestry or in some cases German ancestry, or Dutch. Many people in parts of the Northeast likewise had some Dutch or Scandinavian ancestry, and as time went on and the great waves of 19th century immigration proceeded, there began to be admixture with Irish and later with Italian and other, later-arriving ethnic groups. Hence, the present-day Americans who will say they are 'mutts', usually a self-disparaging term for people with several mixed European ethnicities in their family line. Another term these people call themselves is 'Heinz 57' American.
Those who are most likely to be of predominantly Anglo-Saxon stock are also the very people whose ancestors have been in this country the longest, for 400 or so years, enough time to feel a sense of belonging to this land, even though one's ancestors were mostly from Britain.
I suspect it's easier for Australians, for instance, to identify more strongly with their Anglo-Saxon heritage, given that they were part of the Empire and under the British crown historically, as was Canada, without deliberately creating a separate and independent nation as we did. We chose to dissolve the political bonds, and for some people, that distanced us psychologically from our ancestral country.
I believe, too, that there are more people who are first and foremost of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic descent in Australia, and many people there have much more recent roots in Britain than we Americans. That simplifies the question of loyalties for them.
So 'White nationalism', however you define that, is simply a reflection of our less homogeneous population in America; many of us are the descendants of several distinct European peoples. And many of our fellow Americans are not of Anglo-Saxon descent at all, or at least believe they are not. If we tried to rally people to an Anglo-Saxon ethnic banner, we would find few would answer the call. The only way to get our fellow European-Americans together is under a less exclusive category. I think most of us who are born of at least several generations of Americans find a sense of kinship with other European-Americans of whatever descent, knowing that our similarities outweigh the differences. And maybe here in America we are able to recognize, maybe as a result of the dissonance between ourselves and other more distant ethnic groups, that we have more in common with Europeans generally than with people from other parts of the world.
Many Anglo-Americans, as I've said, don't even know their Anglo origins, because they only know their ancestry for a mere two or three generations, and they only know that one of their grandparents or great-grandparents was 'German' or 'Irish' while the more remote ancestry is unknown. So these people are unaware of their roots. Another large segment of Americans are so deracinated as to almost boast that they don't know their ancestry and moreover, don't care. 'What's that got to do with me?' is a line I've heard from some Americans. Some people can't tell you what the origin of their surname is, and care less.
I suspect there are plenty of 'don't knows' and maybe even more 'don't cares' in America, and then there are those deluded people who loathe their oppressive European DNA and actively work against their own kin.
These people are the worst of all; I wish I could say they were more to be pitied than censured, but I would be lying if I said that.
I'm afraid that a specifically Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism would be a non-starter in this country, aside from a very small group of people. I do, however, applaud any such attempt at increasing ethnic solidarity and revitalizing our heritage and culture all over the English-speaking world. I think we could all benefit from trying to revive an interest in and a respect for our common Anglo-Celtic origins. I am lately beginning to realize just how important the cultural aspect is, in our struggle for survival.
Politics alone is not the solution, and under our present system it's a big part of our problem.
Our common cultural heritage is something that might connect us to our cousins all over the Anglosphere.
We do, after all, have a common matrix, as is also true not only with our British cousins but with our European cousins in general. Sadly, many of our kin on the other side of the world don't like us very much; they identify us with the people who run our government, just as we do with them. Too many Americans don't like Europeans. This seems to be a problem; rather than just Anglophobia among Anglo-Saxons, it's a case of Europhobia among all European descendants. We tend to infight and turn all our hostility and suspicion towards kin, whether near or far. This is a huge problem for us.
Primarily, though, we should focus on our most immediate ties; kin, faith, community, in our local and regional area. This should not preclude allying with more distant kin groups but our immediate ties should be first. As we become increasingly outnumbered and marginalized in our own countries, we need to re-find a clannishness that has become lost in our deracinated and atomized age. Our enemies are using the old divide and rule principle against us, and we are falling for it. We must not become isolated in our own communities or isolated from our cousins who are in the same dire position as we are.
Despite our differences, all European-descended people are all under the same Damocles sword, demographically. We need to find ways to re-establish our common ethnic and cultural bonds, and unite in spirit, giving one another encouragement and support. If we all stood together in spirit we would be invincible.
The blog post being discussed was a commentary on a lecture given by Professor Andrew Fraser, who has had problems with the 'thought police' in Australia due to his truthful observations.
There seems to be no transcript of Andrew Fraser's speech, unfortunately.
The blogger discusses how Professor Fraser thinks that the idea of 'White nationalism' is a reflection of Anglophobia or 'self-weakness' among Anglo-Saxons. This is a rather interesting way of looking at it; I am not sure that I agree.
The idea of 'White nationalism' is declared to be an American idea, and although I don't know the origins of it, it may be an American idea. But is it based on some kind of self-hatred or Anglophobia among Americans of Anglo-Saxon heritage? I don't know. The charge is also made that Anglo-Saxons tend to try to 'ride on' the successes of other groups who are more ethnocentric, which in the case of America (and probably also Australia) would mean groups like the Irish or Italians.
Speaking for America, I would say that it is not a lack of self-confidence that has caused Anglo-Saxons to be less ethnocentric and less apt to organize and agitate for their own ethnicity. I would instead say it's a sign of an overconfidence among Anglo-Saxons in America. Even now, as we hear the news about our coming minority status in our own land, most Americans seem to see this as no threat. After all, we ARE America; we've always been in charge, the most successful and most capable and the most visible group -- until the present age of compulsory 'diversity' and the elevation of victim groups to the highest status. Still, despite the loss of influence and political power, most people live off the social and political capital of past generations and stubbornly believe that we will still come out on top, that the poor Third World waifs can't be any kind of threat to us. Too many of us take our position for granted.
I suppose maybe there is a kind of existential loss of confidence among some Anglo-Saxons at least, but there are a good many who are like the hare in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. The hare, by virtue of his speed and his winning record, can't imagine the tortoise besting him in the race, so he slacks off, letting the plodding tortoise win, due to overconfidence. We are too confident in our luck or talents to imagine that we won't land on our feet.
Is there Anglophobia on the part of Anglo-Saxon Americans? Well, first of all, how many Americans even identify themselves as Anglo-Saxon Americans? I've written at length about this in the past. The regions which had a heavily Anglo-Saxon demographic for the longest time were New England, until the mid-19th century immigration wave overtook them, causing many of the old colonial stock people to flee Westward, and of course the South, which remained demographically and ethnically stable, without much change due to immigration until the current tidal wave from Mexico and Central America.
But neither New England or the South had a strong Anglo-Saxon identity. In both those regions, at least until the 19th century, the people who lived there were descended from colonial stock for the most part, and since the Revolution, most thought of themselves as Americans, first and foremost, conscious of the fact that their forefathers fought a war -- no, two wars -- against the mother country, Great Britain. And in the South, of course, regional identity was especially strong; the Southron culture was the primary identity for many people. So the Anglo-Saxon identity was not dominant, although there was certainly a consciousness of our ties to Mother England, and a respect and regard for that country.
In Texas and other border states, however, the term 'Anglo' is applied more generally to any White, obviously Northwestern European person, so it is not necessarily applied only to people with roots in Britain. So that complicates things, semantically. A person primarily of, say, German descent or Czech descent (and there are quite a few of both groups in Texas) will by default be called an "Anglo", simply by virtue of the fact that they are White, European-descended, and not Spanish-speaking.
Another reason why 'Anglo-Saxon' identity was not as strong even in the most heavily British-descended areas was that even in these areas, many people were aware of having other strains in their ancestry. In the South, many old-stock Americans claimed some French Huguenot ancestry or in some cases German ancestry, or Dutch. Many people in parts of the Northeast likewise had some Dutch or Scandinavian ancestry, and as time went on and the great waves of 19th century immigration proceeded, there began to be admixture with Irish and later with Italian and other, later-arriving ethnic groups. Hence, the present-day Americans who will say they are 'mutts', usually a self-disparaging term for people with several mixed European ethnicities in their family line. Another term these people call themselves is 'Heinz 57' American.
Those who are most likely to be of predominantly Anglo-Saxon stock are also the very people whose ancestors have been in this country the longest, for 400 or so years, enough time to feel a sense of belonging to this land, even though one's ancestors were mostly from Britain.
I suspect it's easier for Australians, for instance, to identify more strongly with their Anglo-Saxon heritage, given that they were part of the Empire and under the British crown historically, as was Canada, without deliberately creating a separate and independent nation as we did. We chose to dissolve the political bonds, and for some people, that distanced us psychologically from our ancestral country.
I believe, too, that there are more people who are first and foremost of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic descent in Australia, and many people there have much more recent roots in Britain than we Americans. That simplifies the question of loyalties for them.
So 'White nationalism', however you define that, is simply a reflection of our less homogeneous population in America; many of us are the descendants of several distinct European peoples. And many of our fellow Americans are not of Anglo-Saxon descent at all, or at least believe they are not. If we tried to rally people to an Anglo-Saxon ethnic banner, we would find few would answer the call. The only way to get our fellow European-Americans together is under a less exclusive category. I think most of us who are born of at least several generations of Americans find a sense of kinship with other European-Americans of whatever descent, knowing that our similarities outweigh the differences. And maybe here in America we are able to recognize, maybe as a result of the dissonance between ourselves and other more distant ethnic groups, that we have more in common with Europeans generally than with people from other parts of the world.
Many Anglo-Americans, as I've said, don't even know their Anglo origins, because they only know their ancestry for a mere two or three generations, and they only know that one of their grandparents or great-grandparents was 'German' or 'Irish' while the more remote ancestry is unknown. So these people are unaware of their roots. Another large segment of Americans are so deracinated as to almost boast that they don't know their ancestry and moreover, don't care. 'What's that got to do with me?' is a line I've heard from some Americans. Some people can't tell you what the origin of their surname is, and care less.
I suspect there are plenty of 'don't knows' and maybe even more 'don't cares' in America, and then there are those deluded people who loathe their oppressive European DNA and actively work against their own kin.
These people are the worst of all; I wish I could say they were more to be pitied than censured, but I would be lying if I said that.
I'm afraid that a specifically Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism would be a non-starter in this country, aside from a very small group of people. I do, however, applaud any such attempt at increasing ethnic solidarity and revitalizing our heritage and culture all over the English-speaking world. I think we could all benefit from trying to revive an interest in and a respect for our common Anglo-Celtic origins. I am lately beginning to realize just how important the cultural aspect is, in our struggle for survival.
Politics alone is not the solution, and under our present system it's a big part of our problem.
Our common cultural heritage is something that might connect us to our cousins all over the Anglosphere.
We do, after all, have a common matrix, as is also true not only with our British cousins but with our European cousins in general. Sadly, many of our kin on the other side of the world don't like us very much; they identify us with the people who run our government, just as we do with them. Too many Americans don't like Europeans. This seems to be a problem; rather than just Anglophobia among Anglo-Saxons, it's a case of Europhobia among all European descendants. We tend to infight and turn all our hostility and suspicion towards kin, whether near or far. This is a huge problem for us.
Primarily, though, we should focus on our most immediate ties; kin, faith, community, in our local and regional area. This should not preclude allying with more distant kin groups but our immediate ties should be first. As we become increasingly outnumbered and marginalized in our own countries, we need to re-find a clannishness that has become lost in our deracinated and atomized age. Our enemies are using the old divide and rule principle against us, and we are falling for it. We must not become isolated in our own communities or isolated from our cousins who are in the same dire position as we are.
Despite our differences, all European-descended people are all under the same Damocles sword, demographically. We need to find ways to re-establish our common ethnic and cultural bonds, and unite in spirit, giving one another encouragement and support. If we all stood together in spirit we would be invincible.
Labels: Anglosphere, Ethnic Solidarity, Ethnocentrism, Ethnonationalism, Nationalism, Self-Hatred