Feb. 1, 1861: Texas Secession

On February 1, 1861, a Secession Convention was under way in Texas for the purpose of determining what Texans should do in light of the ongoing crisis in the South. Read about it here.

As the linked page notes, Governor Sam Houston was not in favor of secession, and spoke out strongly against it, mostly for pragmatic reasons. He warned:

"Some of you laugh to scorn the idea of bloodshed as the result of secession, but let me tell you what is coming! Your fathers and husbands, your sons and brothers, will be herded at the point of the bayonet. You may, after the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, as a bare possibility, win Southern independence. But I doubt it. I tell you this: While I believe, with you, in the doctrine of state rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South."

Houston thought that Texas would do better as an independent republic, as she began, than as a member of the Confederacy.

As the Lone Star Junction link tells us, the delegates to the Convention voted in favor of secession, despite Houston's gloomy prognostication.

''The convention met on January 28, 1861. Four days later, on February 1, it's members voted by a margin of 166 to 8 to secede. They drafted and signed an Ordinance of Secession, which "repealed and annulled" the Texas annexation laws of 1845. The Ordinance of Secession was subsequently approved by popular vote in a statewide election.

As planned, the convention reconvened after the popular election and adopted another ordinance uniting Texas with the Confederacy. Sam Houston subsequently refused to take the oath of allegiance to the newly organized Confederate government.''

And the rest is history, as they say.
Despite the great cost of the War Between the States and the dreadful outcome of 'Reconstruction' in the later decades, I can't say I've ever known anyone who felt that Texas should have heeded Sam Houston (admired though he is) and stayed aloof from the Confederacy.

But Houston's remarks about the differences in temperament between North and South, and the grim relentlessness of the Yankees (the Union forces, that is) give us pause to think, in light of what has happened since.

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Article 1, Section 2, Texas Constitution of 1876

The sincerest form of flattery

''Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery.''

That quote is attributed to Jack Paar, who was a TV host back when I was a child. Other people have repeated it since then, and it seems to be the actual belief of many Americans.

But is immigration flattery? Is it really a tribute to our attractiveness or virtue?
Many Americans seem to think immigrants come here because they admire us, want to be 'us', want to be part of our family, and adopt our way of life. Is it true?

And if it were, would we want it to be true?
Would we want to add just anybody and everybody to our 'real' blood family, if they admired us and want to be like us? Would they be able to fit in, even if they liked us and tried to emulate us?

Many Americans suffer from the need to be admired and liked. Most Americans are immensely flattered, seemingly, when they believe an individual immigrant came here out of admiration for us and a desire to adopt our ways.

I think of an episode from the old Andy Griffith Show, called Stranger In Town
in which a stranger arrives in Mayberry, and proceeds to act and speak as though he has always lived there, and knows everyone by name. At first, people are suspicious -- even those open-hearted Mayberry folks are 'xenophobic' -- but as they learn his 'touching' story, decide that they want to make him part of the Mayberry family. He was a lonely, rootless individual longing to be part of the Mayberry he came to 'know' via reading the hometown paper, and hearing of the town from his Army buddy. He had found his 'home', and was accepted. Is this the story of the millions who come here to live in our hometowns every year?
I doubt it. Most have little interest in, or regard for, us.

But the American need to be flattered by thinking that the huddled masses immigrate here because they long to be among us and to be part of us, is an almost pathological need in many cases Much more is it true now, than at earlier times, at least in my own personal recollection.

I remember reading a news story, back in the 1980s, I think, about a Russian immigrant coming to a small town in the Northwest. This was at a time when immigration to such towns, especially from so enigmatic a place as Russia was then, was a rarity, a real curiosity. Back then, the cold war had still not ended, though the end was drawing near, and because of the Cold War, the media had been full of stories about the poor Russians, mostly Jews, seeking to get out of the Soviet Union and come to the 'freedom' and opportunity of the West. We were encouraged to idealize, even idolize Russian dissenters, probably for narcissistic reasons: obviously these dissenters were smart people who recognized the superiority of our 'free market system',capitalism and the American people, and therefore we should cheer their escaping the USSR and coming to live among us. And the fact that Russians wanted to come here was a confirmation of the superiority of our system, so people thought.

This heralded Russian immigrant, given the star treatment by the small-town weekly paper, was inundated with offers of help. He was given a rent-free place to live, a free car, a job, and was the recipient of the largesse of the townspeople generally. He even made the daily newspaper of a nearby big city. All because he was from Russia and had a story that tugged at the heartstrings, or at least played on our desire to be flattered and liked by foreign people.

I wondered bitterly at the time -- liberal though I was -- whether the townsfolk had ever offered such generous help to one of their lifelong neighbors or acquaintances who had fallen on hard times. I concluded that they would not go to such lengths for one of their own hometown folk. They might even resent him as a deadbeat, a shiftless moocher, or a feckless no-good, but as the feted immigrant was exotic and a novelty, he was gold.

I wonder what became of him years after all the attention. Does he speak English now? Has he Americanized? Has he moved on to greener pastures after his exotic-ness wore off? I picture him living in a Russian-speaking enclave with more recent arrivals, among them, probably his parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, and the rest.

Russians are not so exotic these days. In our neck of the woods, small town though we are, we have quite a few, and a nearby town is dominated by Russian immigrants, and has a high level of, ahem, social dysfunction. Drugs, crime, the usual.

But the same Americans who love to be liked and flattered by immigrants have now turned their attentions to the even more exotic: Somalis, Southeast Asians, Haitians, as well as the commonplace Central Americans. The love affair has not worn off for many Americans, even though more of the less sentimental people are becoming outspoken in their ire about the influx.

It appears to be something innate in Americans, this puppy-dog desire to be liked by everyone, and conversely, to like and to fawn on everyone. Is this a display of  insecurity on the part of such people? Are we so in need of outsiders' validation of our 'specialness' and superiority that we need to bring the whole world here to confirm it for ourselves?

The 'conservative' mainstream type is often guilty of this excessive dependence on the opinion of others; they are the ones who are hyped up on the idea of 'American exceptionalism' and the idea that America has the market on 'freedom and opportunity' cornered. And since we have it all locked up here in America, how dare we even think of closing the door to the rest of the world, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free? How dare we deny them their share of our own special sauce, our secret stash of 'freedom'? It's our duty, not only to wage wars abroad to deliver a shipment of freedom to the poor moslem world, but to open the doors to everybody so as to give them their handouts of freedom. After all, it can only be had here. We own it and have the patent on it.

And we get the gratification of being the Santa Claus to the world, and to receive praise and thanks for it, so that we can feel good about ourselves, and to congratulate us, ourselves on our great generosity and open-handedness. The Republican faithful eat this kind of thing up.

Apparently these same people fail to notice that we are not thanked and praised for anything we do; we are treated with contempt by many of those to whom we've extended largesse, abroad and here at home. We are seen as fools, gullible chumps, and worse. Yet few seem to notice.

And it's ever more obvious that those who come in ever-growing numbers do not respect us, much less admire or seek to emulate us; they treat us as a convenience to be used, and they see our generosity as no more than their due. They feel entitled. It's clear that they will show no largesse or generosity of spirit to us when we are outnumbered and under their domination. So far, this has not sunk in for many of the Welcome Wagon Americans. I was talking to one today, and it certainly has not sunk in for that person, despite all the events of the last year or so: assaults, mob violence of the ugliest sort, and the usual list of woes: bankrupted hospitals, whole states on the verge of insolvency, overcrowded schools and jails, the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and even whole towns.

A few years ago, 'worse is better' was the catchphrase for many ethnonationalists. I'm still waiting for the 'better' part.



But as for the witty saying which is the title to this post, no, it is not immigration but imitation that is the sincerest form of flattery. And few immigrants are imitating our American ways. And perhaps they can't; there is no magic assimilation dust that can transform people into something different.

So be it; never the twain shall meet -- even though in our multicultural paradise, we are living side by side at the moment, we are still distinct from one another.

At all costs, again

Seeing this story about firefighters in the UK and their mandatory ''diversity'' called to mind the illustration above, by Harrison Cady. The title is 'When Women Vote.'

It would be exaggerating somewhat to say that our fire departments are starting to resemble the illustration. After all where's the diversity? The ''ladies'', I mean, womyn, in the picture seem to be White. And diversity, we now know, is crucial to fighting fires as it is to everything else, for that matter.

I noticed when I still watched TV that on news footage, female fire chiefs seemed to be very prominent on camera, as are female police chiefs, and usually they are twofers, that is 'womyn' as well as non-White, which is actually what 'diversity' means if truth be told.

But what's truth got to do with it, or common sense? It is diversity for its own sake. It placates the gods of political correctness. It prevents calamities from raining down on our heads because of our non-diverse past. Don't expect rational arguments; diversity is good -- because it just is.

But read the article linked. Having firefighters like the assortment of ladies in the illustration is one thing, but recruiting people who are non-English speakers (who must be spoken to via sign language or placards) as well as the deaf, blind, and disabled is truly mad. But we expect nothing less these days.

The Vanishing Englishman

Along the lines of my earlier post 'What it means to be diverse', this piece from the UK Independent shows the massive confusion that apparently exists among citizens of the UK. The notion that 'the English don't exist' is one that has apparently been promulgated by the regime over there, and those who feel at odds with the English (who do exist, by the way) are seizing on this idea of Englishness being a 'social construct' or a fictitious label for a 'race of mongrels'.

The author of this piece says he is English, and advocates some form of English nationalism, though how he can reconcile that notion with the delusion that Linton Kwesi Johnson ("Inglan Is a Bit*h'') is ''English'' is more than I can fathom.

Still, the writer expresses a longing for a feeling of pride in England and a ''guilt-free positive sense of belonging' to his own country. Coming from someone who is evidently very liberal and 'multicultural' by ideology, that is a hopeful sign.

The comments, as always, are worth reading; there are definite strains amongst the commenters, based on whether or not they are English, or whether they have swallowed the multicult kool-aid.

'Rollingstone' writes some good comments, in my opinion.

David Hewson says:

England and the English are fast disappearing thanks to the divisive nonsense that is Multiculturalism, I loved England, but it doesn't really exist any more, in just 13 years labour open the immigration floodgates and destroyed the make up of the nation, wanna know what the future looks like? see the East End of London now, a totally foreign country.''

'King Baratheon' asks:

Do you HAVE to believe in Multiculturalism to be considered an "acceptable patriot"? I believe in a multi ethnic society, not a multicultural society.
However, if you believe in neither of those things, does that mean you have to be lumped together with the skinheads? Can we accept there are SOME decent White English patriots that love English folk music, love English Literature, love the English landscape and all of English culture...but perhaps do not believe in Multiculturalism? Is that form of patriotism utterly unacceptable in certain nations, yet promoted in others?''

The above commenter apparently doesn't see that multiculturalism and 'multiethnic societies' go together, and moreover, that it should not be compulsory for anyone to give assent to 'multiethnic society' in order to be acceptable, either.

Notice that the 'Scottish' commenter tartanse says this:

Scots come in many forms. Have you not seen Hardeep Singh Koli on telly recently? He's been on quite a lot.
[...]
Think Hardeep Singh Koli in a kilt. We both know he's not descended from Scots, but to me he is a Scot.''

This is apparently the SNP's idea of 'Scottish nationalism' ("One Nation, Many Peoples") illustrated for us. Take note.

The following is an illustration of what happens with people of mixed (though related) ancestries:

''I think that the concept of the United Kingdom is helpful in that it makes it easier for those of differing cultural and sometimes racial backgrounds to become part of the whole. I am English of Irish and Scottish descent so it is easier for me to think of myself as British than of the English who were the sometimes cruel conquerors of my ancestors. The term British is all-embracing. If I am English then I have to take on that identity alone, which would not feel comfortable,  though I have many of the characteristics of  an Englishman. I am sure this is just as true of other British people from the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies, China, Africa etc etc.''

Confusion twice confounded. "British" includes absolutely everybody born on, or inhabiting, the soil of the United Kingdom. English people do not exist, and/or they are a mongrel, multiracial people. Britain has always been multiracial -- so the party line goes. And people now believe this. How can a people who are not a people reconstitute themselves?

We have a parallel situation here, but ours, of course, is worse because we have so much ethnic confusion here, even more than in the UK.

More and more, I believe that 'smaller is better', in terms of ethnic and kin allegiances; it is a mockery of 'nationalism' to try to forge disparate peoples -- even people of close kinship like those of the British Isles -- into one agglomerate of people under a political ''Union.''

We have a similar situation with our North/South divide.
Let each people be distinct. Peoples with historic grievances against each other should not be thrown together and kept together in shotgun 'marriages', as multiethnic societies tend to be.

Same old 'new man'

The Library of Congress recently announced their annual list of films added to the National Film Registry, which is a list of those films selected for preservation ''as cultural, artistic and historical treasures...''

Read through the list of films here. Just as I would have expected, it's obvious simply from reading a few of the titles that the films are selected in large part because of their 'politically correct' content and messages.
See the list at the link, and the descriptions of the titles as well.

For example:

''Crisis: Behind a Presidential Commitment (1963)
Robert Drew was a pioneer of American cinema-verite (a style of documentary filmmaking that strives to record unfolding events non-intrusively). In 1963, he gathered together a stellar group of filmmakers, including D. A. Pennebaker, Richard Leacock, Gregory Shuker, James Lipscomb, and Patricia Powell, to capture on film the dramatic unfolding of an ideological crisis, one that revealed political decision-making at the highest levels. The result, "Crisis: Behind a Presidential Commitment," focuses on Gov. George Wallace’s attempt to prevent two African-American students from enrolling in the University of Alabama—his infamous "stand in the schoolhouse door" confrontation—and the response of President John F. Kennedy.''

and:

El Mariachi (1992)
Directed, edited, co-produced, and written in two weeks by Robert Rodriguez for $7,000 while a film student at the University of Texas, "El Mariachi" proved a favorite on the film festival circuit. After Columbia Pictures picked it up for distribution, the film helped usher in the independent movie boom of the early 1990s. "El Mariachi" is an energetic, highly entertaining tale of an itinerant musician, portrayed by co-producer and Rodriguez crony Carlos Gallardo, who arrives at a Mexican border town during a drug war and is mistaken for a hit man who recently escaped from prison. The story, as film historian Charles Ramirez Berg has suggested, plays with expectations common to two popular exploitation genres—the narcotraficante film, a Mexican police genre, and the transnational warrior-action film, itself rooted in Hollywood Westerns.''

Then there's this one:

Growing Up Female (1971)
Among the first films to emerge from the women’s liberation movement, "Growing Up Female" is a documentary portrait of America on the brink of profound change in its attitudes toward women.''
Enough said about that one.

More:

Hester Street (1975)
Joan Micklin Silver’s first feature-length film, "Hester Street," was an adaption of preeminent Yiddish author Abraham Cahan’s 1896 well-received first novel "Yekl: A Tale of the New York Ghetto." In the 1975 film, the writer-director brought to the screen a portrait of Eastern European Jewish life in America that historians have praised for its accuracy of detail and sensitivity to the challenges immigrants faced during their acculturation process.''

A few more examples: The Iron Horse, a silent film which ''celebrated the contributions of Irish, Italian and Chinese immigrants although the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country legally was severely restricted at the time of its production.''

Further, 'The Negro Soldier', from 1944. 'Stand and Deliver', from 1988, I am sure is familiar to most of you. Likewise, 'Porgy and Bess.'

I am not sure how films like Forrest Gump and Silence of the Lambs qualify for this list; do they have a PC angle of which I'm not aware? I did not see either of those movies but I have heard plenty about them. Neither of them would qualify as great artistic achievements by my standards, but then I am not on the same page with the people who select these films, obviously.
The 'Librarian of Congress' says of the films, generally:

"These films are selected because of their enduring significance to American culture," said Billington.

It's clear that 'our' government is very much in line with the cultural Marxist agenda, and very committed to furthering that agenda and the multicultural viewpoint, celebrating anybody and everybody except old-stock Americans. All governmental bodies that supposedly have to do with preserving our history or promoting the arts in this country exist, apparently, only to push the cultural Marxist, anti-White, anti-traditional agenda.

It's all redolent of the Soviet propaganda promulgated via the arts in the days of Stalin, described here.

''The visual culture of the Stalin era was both a façade and an instrument of power.
[...]
Because of its realistic form, this art seemed to be agreeable, unproblematic, and easy to understand for the masses, yet it was a completely ideological venture both in terms of contents and objectives. It does not present itself as a portrayal of life but visualizes the collective dream of a new world and a new man.''

[Emphasis mine]

It seems the 'hopes and dreams' are not unlike those of the Stalin era, in which the goal was to promote the idea of 'a new world and a new man.' The 'new Soviet man' was to be part of ''a new Utopian mass culture that comprises all mankind.''

Here, the 'new man' is described:

This man was to be free from ethnic affiliations, see no sense in private property, be always ready to sacrifice himself for the benefit of society, have no doubts that he originated from an ape or something like it (certainly from a beast) and that nothing will remain of him after his death. In other words, he was to be a one-hundred percent materialist and atheist and must know that the meaning of life is in the person's usefulness to society and the supreme goal is in a better, wealthy and happy life of future generations. Recognizing this, he would necessarily be happy.''

However, as certain classes of people would impede such plans, they were made objects of vilification:

''They were made a bugbear, an object for mockery, incited against each other by encouraging their mutual denunciations and accusing them of deviating from the ideology.''

It seems that the powers that be, via subtle means in many cases or by flagrant and obvious means, wants to recast our society and people into the utopian one-world mold. It is now identified by catchwords and phrases like 'diversity and inclusion' or multiculturalism, or 'global citizenship.' But it's all the same old 'new man' effort to recreate human nature along lines that are anything but natural.

If the LOC and other governmental bodies wanted to show real ''diversity'' and ''tolerance'' they would choose materials that represented more than just the 'celebrate diversity or else!' school of thought. They would not be attempting at every turn to rewrite history with our ancestors either airbrushed out, or cast only as hateful villains.

Usually when I bring up the subject of propaganda in the arts and popular culture, there are a few people who object that ''it's just entertainment', and that I should 'lighten up and just enjoy it.' But it is obviously taken seriously by the powers-that-be, or they would not go to such lengths to present a monolithically PC point of view, and to disparage and exclude all differing points of view. They take it seriously, and so must we.

Christianity accused

I really grow tired of the constant allegations that Christians, (usually described as 'Evangelicals' or some derisive approximation of that word) are big proponents of 'diversity', mass immigration, and other anti-White policies. If you read AmRen, there is a constant chorus of people who say these things about 'Evangelicals' or Christians, or Protestants generally. Of course none of these comments ever cite any supporting statistics or polls or any evidence beyond their say-so, and they seem to go unchallenged every time.

There are a few ethnonationalist or WN blogs where the same refrain is heard all the time; sometimes the accused are called ''Rapture Bunnies'' or other such mocking apellations, and again, it is enough for them to say that Christians are culpable, regardless of their lack of evidence that such is the truth.

I remember this by the Center for Immigration Studies, which gives some actual data on what members of various religious groups think about immigration, vs. what the leadership of the religious groups say. Just as with politics, it seems that there is a disconnect between the rank-and-file members and the 'leadership.' It's evident that many religious leaders are of the elitist mentality, just as our elected officials are.

According to this poll, it is 'born-again Protestants' who have the most ''right-wing'' views on immigration and immigration laws.

Born-Again Protestants: 76 percent support enforcement; 12 percent support conditional legalization.''

Born-agains are more likely than mainline Protestants (traditionally very liberal churches), Catholics, and Jews to support enforcement of immigration laws and not to support legalization of illegals. Born-agains are the most conservative among the groups surveyed.

But according to the internet's self-professed experts, ''born-agains'', who are probably considered ''Rapture Bunnies'' in most cases, are the most PC and liberal of all groups. And I am sure that any data to the contrary will be ignored or denied by these people.

The survey reported here says

Yet, among evangelicals, three out of every four (72%) describe themselves as mostly conservative and a mere 2% say they are mostly liberal. Just one out of four evangelicals (24%) says they are in the ideological middle ground.''

It has to be said, though, that many people who describe themselves as ''conservative'' today are raving liberals on issues like immigration, and are becoming more liberal on racial matters, in response to the leadership of many denominations becoming ultra-liberal and globalist.

Despite those unfortunate trends, I think it's still accurate to say that the more religiously conservative Christians tend also to hold old-fashioned, politically incorrect views rather than being diversity-philes as so often alleged.

I maintain that the people who constantly rail against Christians on AmRen or other similar blogs and forums are people who already have an antipathy to Christianity. These people, in my opinion, are seizing on a convenient pretext to further accuse and discredit Christians, the pretext being that Christians are dimwits and dupes who are aiding and abetting the globalist/anti-White agenda.

The remark is also often made that ''rapture bunnies'' or Evangelicals are people who are indifferent to what is happening in the world because they expect to be 'raptured' at any moment. Some ignorant critics claim that rapture-believers think that they should hasten the end times so as to force Jesus' return. This is simply not true, but it's another handy weapon to use to bash Christians.

If my own personal beliefs are relevant (an unfriendly commenter a few years ago accused me of being a ''rapture bunny'') I am not convinced of the notion of the 'rapture'. It is not a view that is held by all Christians, contrary to what critics and accusers of Christians say.

I truly wish that those who rant about 'Evangelicals' would tell us what, exactly, that term means in their minds. It is evident that they often do not know the meaning of the word; it is their curse word to be used against Christians whom they find bothersome. I also wish they would show some evidence that they know anything at all about the 'rapture' business, which they delight in condemning. Misunderstandings of such beliefs are rife, and most people who condemn those beliefs know next to nothing about them.

As for AmRen, I've concluded that they consciously allow and thus encourage anti-Christian comments. They seem to exercise tight control over comments, even more so since the revamping of the website and the new commenting system. So any anti-Christian comments are there because the AmRen folks want them to stand.

I have to wonder, frankly, if the free rein given to the critics of Christianity is meant to try to placate potential Jewish members. It seems that Christianity is like kryptonite to many Jews, even when the Christians in question are pro-Zionist and philo-Semitic. In the past, I wondered why that was so; why they didn't reciprocate the admiration. I just accept it as fact now.

Another paradox about many of the anti-Christians on various blogs: they often oppose Christianity because they say it is 'Semitic' or 'Jewish', never explaining why Jews would oppose a religion which is supposedly so Jewish. It seems that the same pople who oppose one of those religions opposes both. Odd, because the two religions are very different, not Siamese twins by any means.

But the Christian bashing will go on at AmRen because it suits somebody; it serves some purpose, though I am not sure what.
And the critics and bashers will go on doing their thing. It would be nice if sometimes, someone would speak up in defense of the faith of our fathers. Or perhaps any such comments just would not pass moderation on most such blogs.

What it means to be diverse

What it means to be Australian

A sickly-saccharine piece about how diverse, vibrant, colorful, inclusive, and lovey-dovey today's Australia is, in honor of Australia Day. See the pictures for examples of textbook political correctness; all races in happy harmony, mixed groups of people featuring the 'vibrant' newcomers alongside the now-obsolescent European-descended Australians. Celebrate diversity!  Celebrate cultural suicide, as the graphic above says, ''because your ancestors were evil anyway.''

In other words, 'Surrender, Dorothy!'


The comments on the article are not much better than the propaganda churned out by the journalist who wrote the article. See below (spelling errors as they appeared in the original comment):

''Anyone who defines Australia in racuial or cultural terms knows little. The so called 20 years "endured" does not understand post war immigration at all nor the fact that immigration was the start of Australia anyway. Even a superficial understanding of history would show the constant change. Even the flag has not always been there as it currently stands, and even though England ruled the range of ethnicity in Australi has been broad since teh first fleet. To be an Australian has always been about acceptance, diversity, equal oportunity and people being judged by what they do not what they look like or class or creed. Australia day is neither about an invasion nor about a static ancient culture. Australia is young and free. The challenge of any immigrant is to make a new life. This requires change - all aroyund  but change with the basic principle of making it better! Being a proud Aussie requires omething to be proud of. Australi has much to be proud of and tolerance and an open mind should be one of them.''

colin g of southbank:

"listening to the young australian of the year, what it means to be australian is being sexist and self interested. . we need more immigration of all persuasions because that is what made australia. wish we could get rid of the flag and the monarchy and be a real nation without sexism, racism and discrimination. full equality for ALL including marriage.'

Tick of Melbourne:

At the end of the day the flag is just a symbol and it is up to the Australian people to create a country which is truly fair and inclusive of all who live here. We are a nation of immigrants occupying a land that was stolen from its indigenous population. Rather than adopt the failed Gallipoli campaign as a dominant symbol of Aussie perseverance and pride, it makes more sense that we all work harder to build a nation which acknowledges cultural diversity and forges strong links with indigenous communities so they too can share in the opportunities and wealth that many Australians have come to enjoy. So what does it mean to be Australian? It means different things to different people and one persons barbie is another persons stir fry. And if we are truly proud of this nation, lets welcome people from all backgrounds, especially refugees arriving on boats. If we can't do this, then we must admit that our call for a 'fair go' is just a marketing exercise without any substance. Australia is now a multicultural nation, so let's embrace our differences and get to know each other better so that we can build a nation that we can all be proud of today and everyday.''

'Tonza of Geelong:

An article about what it means to be Australian and not one mention of a culture that's been here for 70'00 years. No, let's just celebrate a culture imported from the other side of the world 200 years ago. If you want to know what it means to be an Australian, ask an indigenous person living like a squatter on their own land.''

Liz of Geelong:

"australia day to me doesn't mean invasion day or a day for protests and unrest, it means a day of celebrating the fact that each and every one of us who live in this great country has come at some stage from somewhere else in the world and have joined together to make the greatest nation around. we are all unique and have an incredible blend of cultures, but at the end of the day, we are all australian. it doesn't matter the colour of your skin or the religion you follow, we are australian. stand up and be proud that we live in the lucky country where there are no wars and with hard work and determination you can be anything you want to be. we are the luckiest people on this planet and that is something to be proud of and celebrate. happy australia day everyone.''

The propaganda masters have done their job thoroughly; these people know the script by heart.

Meanwhile, we read that also on Australia Day, Prime Minister Julia Gillard and opposition leader Tony Abbott were assailed by aboriginal protesters and were forced to flee for their safety.

''About 200 protesters trapped Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott in a Canberra restaurant, where they were attending the inaugural national emergency medals ceremony, before police arrived to clear a passage for the pair.

The protesters, from the nearby Aboriginal Tent Embassy, banged on the three glass walls of The Lobby restaurant chanting "shame" and "racist". '

Ah, the old, reliable race card. All that's required is to shout 'racist' and that wins the argument.

I wonder if any of the people with the smarmy multiculturalist party line in the comments section on the Australia Day piece have any second thoughts about the beauties of 'multiculturalism' and 'embracing differences'?

Probably no more than their counterparts in America or Britain would have second thoughts; the brainwashed and indoctrinated are like parrots who know a few rote phrases which they recite mechanically on cue. The zombified multicultists are not capable of re-thinking or reconsidering anything; they are simulacra who have been divested of their brains and souls by the multicult, just like the 'pod people' in the Invasion of the Body-snatchers.

I am sure that when the Diversity Hits the Fan, they will still be reciting their rote phrases in praise of 'embracing differences' with their last breaths.

The comments are depressing; I've heard it said by some Americans on various blogs that the Australians will stand up for themselves even if the rest of the European-descended people give up and give in. I had hoped that would be so; I've always had a high regard for Australian people. But it looks as though they are just about as indoctrinated as many in the UK and elsewhere in former Christendom.

We Americans, perhaps because we've stopped believing in our fellow Americans, keep searching the horizons for somebody else who will take up the banner and 'preserve the West' or show the way for the rest of us. Many people look to Russia as the 'future' for European people. I disagree, but people seem to have a need to invest their hopes in some other country, somewhere. It would be nice to see Australia be that country which will show real backbone. But as it stands, I am not so sure.

Perhaps we Americans sell ourselves or our fellows short, thinking that we can't be standard-bearers or leaders. The typical paleocon cynicism about our own country seems to have infected the whole politically-incorrect pro-White right. Or have we grown too lazy to roll up our sleeves and try to preserve what is left? Is that why we look elsewhere for our hope?

Most people seem to have written off Britain (or at least England) and to relish the act of doing so. Likewise with some other countries on that side of the Atlantic. But I think it's premature to do so. And I still believe that there is a remnant in this country who should not be counted out just yet.

I hope the same for our cousins in Australia and in the rest of the English-speaking world, especially.

Big government or big business?

While I was away from the computer for the past several days, there has been considerable discussion over the ''anti-piracy' legislation, namely the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' or SOPA, and the 'Protect IP Act' or PIPA. It appears that the proposed legislation is now in limbo, but it undoubtedly will not go away.

The one thing I've noticed when reading around the Internet about this issue is that it has been covered mainly by leftist bloggers, especially those with non-political blogs (blogs about popular culture, the arts, and so on). I've seen very little conservative commentary about this issue, and yet does it not seem that conservatives should be just as concerned about this? After all, it may be on the surface about 'piracy' such as file-sharing involving copyrighted material, but it ultimately concerns freedom of expression for bloggers as well as others on the Internet.
 
This piece notes that there are some conservatives working with the liberal opponents of SOPA and PIPA, but this is one of the few mentions that I've found of any conservative involvement.

I know that many conservatives see this issue strictly in terms of people 'stealing' someone's so-called 'intellectual property' or artistic output (as in music or other copyrighted material) but it is really not as cut-and-dried as these pro-business 'conservatives' like to make it.

For instance, there is some dispute over whether those (such as bloggers or possibly people posting Internet comments) are liable for linking to copyrighted material, including embedding videos and linking to written materials under copyright. That kind of thing would apply to most bloggers, including this blogger.

And there is the ever-present possibility that all these kinds of proposals to regulate content will lead inevitably toward the imposition of controls over free speech and free expression on the Internet. The idea of a universal ''internet ID'' for individuals is troubling. And yet few of us, probably, would doubt that the powers that be would love to impose such controls.

Why, then, are conservatives and others on the politically incorrect right not more vocal in opposing these measures? I read blogs by many libertarians and yet even they have been pretty quiet about the proposed legislation. Why? Why is it only the leftists and liberals who are speaking up?

As for the more obvious examples of so-called 'piracy' on the Internet, it seems that the RIAA and others have been excessively harsh in targeting a few offenders, with one person being fined $1.5 million for downloading and sharing a couple of dozen songs. If the guilty party is unable to pay the fine, jail time will be imposed. Call their acts 'theft' if you like, but the punishment does not fit the crime. And those who care about any sort of principles of justice should question why the music moguls should have such clout in getting harsh laws enacted and excessive fines imposed.

With all the outrage among some on the right about the evils of the 'State' or 'big government', what about the excesses of 'big business', which are very real? And why should the government be in the pockets of business, which they undoubtedly are? Conservatives often err in seeing 'business' and capitalism as an unqualified good, which it is not, necessarily. Business which is too big and too powerful politically is just as onerous as 'big government.'

But in the case of Internet free speech, the government and business are working together as an unholy combination to try to control thoughts and ideas which are not permitted, sometimes under the guise of trying to protect business interests.

Back again

I hope to be back to a regular posting schedule soon; I recently had some surgery done (due to an injury) and it may take me a few more days to bounce back.
Stay tuned.

'This will ever be your story'

The video is from the movie Zulu, depicting the besieged British at Rorke's Drift, singing the song 'Men of Harlech.' I thought this was appropriate to post today because in the battle of Rorke's Drift,on this day, January 22, in 1879,  160 British soldiers successfully defended their garrison against thousands of Zulus. Some sources put the number of Zulus at 4000; some say 5000. Eleven soldiers were awarded Victoria Crosses.

Whether they fought off 4000 or 5000, it's an inspirational story, in that the British soldiers prevailed despite their being greatly outnumbered. Something to ponder.

Note: The Mad Monarchist gives a detailed account of that battle here.

'Hired Hands', 1961

For a Sunday morning, here is a video of a TV show out of South Carolina, featuring old-time gospel music. I am very partial to these old songs, and the video itself brings back memories of my childhood. Though I didn't live in S.C., I can relate to this TV program, having watched similar ones where I grew up.

This video is a real piece of vintage Southern Americana. I enjoy the hymns and the singers performing them. I love how they read the dedications from viewers; is that done anywhere anymore?

Even the live commercials brought a few chuckles; I love how the car dealer boasts that his used cars are ''all local cars'', no 'salt-eating Yankee cars.' In those days it seems there were more 'characters' around; real individuals, colorful people.

Last but not least I love hearing the accents, as those kinds of regional accents seem to be fading away.  If you have a good ear, you can tell that there is not just one kind of 'Southern accent'; there were regional variations.

I hope some of you will find this enjoyable.

Paging English-Americans

At AmRen, Robert Henderson writes a piece called
Where are the English-Americans?

Good question, and one which I periodically write about here. Henderson says:

Let us imagine a United States in which every citizen was hyphenated, one in which no group was without of a sense of victimhood. All that would be left was racial and ethnic competition. There would be no stability or sense of social cohesion. The English-descended and English-assimilated part of the population that sees itself as simply American is the ballast that holds their society upright. It is the group with no grievances, with no ethnic axe to grind, and that endlessly submits to discrimination and dispossession. That will eventually change, as whites see their most basic interests threatened, but it is the forbearance of American-Americans that allows the United States to continue to function.
[...]
Unhyphenated Americans, whether of English descent or not, must defend the way of life that starts with English roots. They should reflect on how American society was created and by whom, and consider what it would mean if the customs and institutions of its founding culture are thrown over.''

The rest of the article is at the link, and well worth reading, if you haven't yet done so.

Henderson is right about the role and place of English-descended Americans in this country. And I agree that 'unhyphenated Americans', the only real Americans in my opinion, must defend the English-derived way of life that first formed what we know as American society.

But how is this to happen if the majority of  Americans of English ancestry do not even know their genealogy or origins? This is the case now. Most people, despite a recent surge in the popularity of genealogy, do not know their roots past their grandparents. Most Americans do not know their great-grandparents' names or birthplaces. Many people know only vaguely what their origins are; I've talked to so many, mostly in the Northern states, who say they are 'mutts' or that they don't know their ancestry for certain. They will say 'I'm German and maybe part Irish and part Cherokee.' Or something along those lines. Those of more 'ethnic' origins usually know their family roots. But it is true, as Henderson says, that most of those with colonial English roots have lost any sense of their origins, and therefore can't claim them. Some know that they are of English ancestry but feel no connection, because for generations their families have identified as simply 'American', unhyphenated 'American Americans.'

Some who are of English ancestry scorn that side of their ancestry because of the popular idea of Anglo-Saxons as bland, lacking any real 'culture', or as oppressors of everybody. The arch-Whites, as I've said. Then there's the rich, evil WASP who controls everything, so beloved of Hollywood scriptwriters and others with an axe to grind.

So how can English-descended Americans or American-Americans be mobilized or motivated to defend our common American heritage?

Many in the pro-White movement scorn the idea of any common American heritage, increasingly coming to see America as a sham, or as an Illuminati plot, a mistake, a failed experiment that is better left to perish, and to be forgotten. And I suppose this does not help the cause of the English-descended American; after all, if we were the ones who started this whole 'failed experiment' then it must be largely our fault. Or so I've been reading lately.

So Henderson's proposals are problematic, given the current troubled situation in our country, and the fact that we are increasingly divided along ethnic lines. Everybody claims his ethnicity proudly except for English-Americans, as a rule.
America is approaching the phase Henderson predicts, wherein there is only ethnic competition and rivalry, with everybody claiming to have been the biggest victim, and with no cohesion and no common bonds to hold the atomized ethnic groups together.

The answer? I don't have one, but it seems that we are hurtling toward disintegration, and that 'the center cannot hold.' Perhaps that is for the best, if it can occur with a minimum of turmoil, as with the old Eastern bloc countries. But the outcome could be rendered less chaotic if only the unhyphenated Americans who still have a feeling of kinship with their fellows could pragmatically work together as allies instead of dredging up past grievances and stoking ethnic rivalries amongst ourselves.

Speaking of ethnic rivalries, the comments that are posted on the article at AmRen so far are not as bad as I expected, with only a few critical comments. I expected more of the ''WASPs persecuted my immigrant ancestors'' complaints, but they haven't shown up just yet. But it's still early.

And lately I've been reading extravagant claims about how the American Revolution was won by the Scots-Irish who made up the bulk of the troops. I'd like some concrete proof of that, please. There's no need to resort to that kind of hyperbole in the name of ethnic pride or centuries-long grudges against the 'Sassenachs.'

The Henderson article links to a website about Presidential ancestry. When it comes to the great number of American presidents who are said to be Irish  or Ulster Scots -- well, I won't dispute Woodrow Wilson; you can have him. I also disagree with the linked website claiming Scots ancestry for Thomas Jefferson. As a Jefferson descendant, I know the family tree, and English ancestry predominates by far, with some Welsh and one Scots line that I know of.

One quibble: in the article, a picture of a number of Confederate generals is posted, with the question "How many non-English names can you find in this picture?" Firstly, the names are not legible, though I recognize a number of the men by their faces. But of course someone protests that many of the names are Scottish or Welsh, which in some cases is debatable. Lately it seems that many of these men are claimed as Scots-Irish/Ulster Scots, when they were in reality English. In fact, the great Christian gentleman whose birthday we just noted, Robert E. Lee, is claimed as 'Scots-Irish' by anonymous comments on the Internet. I've corrected this, noting that he was of English ancestry, and I know this to be a fact. But those who want to believe otherwise will continue to believe as it suits them.

The South is probably the home of most of the English-descended Americans in this country, and since the South was not affected as much by mass immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, such people were more likely to remain somewhat unmixed, unlike any remaining Anglo-Americans in New England or the Northern states generally. But since being Anglo-Saxon has gone out of fashion, few people will still claim it.

Henderson's article is one that needed to be written; English-Americans are the real 'vanishing Americans' of today, and although everybody else's ethnicity is honored and trumpeted proudly, and everybody else's group is accounted for, where, indeed, are the English-descended Americans?