'People Power' in the UK

For once, an encouraging story out of the UK. The people of one town are defending their own community as their leftist, PC authorities fail to do so.

In a landmark action to stop the blight that has hit so many communities, residents of a housing estate that now occupies the former RAF Locking have barricaded themselves into the 100-acre site and mounted a 24-hour guard. Every car coming in or out of the estate near Weston-super-Mare was checked.

Anyone lingering outside the perimeter fence was stopped and politely questioned. At random intervals, the unlikely figure of an elderly man in a high-visibility jacket patrolled the grounds in a four-wheel-drive vehicle, checking for breaches of security.

To anyone who has never experienced a traveller invasion, all this may seem a little over the top.

But last weekend, after 15 or 20 caravans were evicted from a nearby field, some of the ‘gipsies’ drove around the Locking site and took photographs.

One of them let it be known they had targeted the privately-owned estate and intended to set up camp on some of the open, grassy landscape where children play and people walk their dogs. He reportedly warned residents not to resist, adding: ‘We’ve got guns.’''

As in this country and all Western countries, seemingly, the authorities side with the 'Others' and privilege them over the citizenry, refusing to carry out their primary duty to protect the townspeople. The 'Others', in this case Roma gypsies, have learned to work the system and claim their 'human rights' to camp where they please:

The local council – which has a legal duty anyway to provide formal sites for travellers – said it could not intervene at this stage.

That left only one option – people power. And so, the estate’s residents banded together to man the barricades and put RAF Locking back on active service again.''

A recent news story related how the Roma gypsies were given priority in health care services in the UK.

At least half of all Gypsies and Travellers in Britain are Romany in origin and are officially placed above indigenous British people in a range of National Health Services, according to an official guideline.

The shocking anti-British document emerged in the wake of anti-Gypsy violence in Belfast following months of criminal activity by the Romanian Gypsy community which drove local people to the breaking point.

The NHS Primary Care Service Framework: Gypsy and Traveller Communities document, a copy of which can be downloaded by clicking here, states that many of these “Roma Communities” are recent arrivals, and “possibly comprise half of all Gypsies and Travellers” in England.

According to the NHS, there are up to 300,000 Gypsies and Travellers in Britain in total, which means that there are possibly 150,000 Romany Gypsies living here.''

It seems the UN Refugee Agency has been meddling on behalf of the Roma who are considered a homeless people. And as a 'victim group' par excellence, they are now among the privileged groups whose 'rights' are placed above those of the rightful people of the host countries where they decide to settle. The UN's 'Human Rights' policies ensure this. One more reason why the UN is an organization that is disastrous for the people of Western countries.

With a biased and complicit media, who consistently write sob stories about the ''plight'' of these ''persecuted'' ones, nobody seems to take much notice of the rights of the people who are unwilling hosts to the gypsies.

The biased, leftist media are full of propaganda intended to provoke sympathy for the gypsies, and to vilify the peoples of Europe for objecting to the presence of gypsies in their midst.

There is considerable confusion about the origin of the Roma, perhaps caused by their name, 'Roma', and the traditional designation of them in Britain as 'Romany gypsies', when in fact they are not from Romania or Romany, but believed to have originated in the Indian subcontinent. Still, many of the news stories have them described as 'Romanian' or in some cases, as 'Albanian', if that is the country from which they arrive in the UK.

Why does their presence often precipitate conflict or trouble? The typical media story would have you believe it is 'prejudice' and 'racism' and (as always) 'hate'. However, if you juxtapose two or more unrelated and very disparate groups of people in the same space, there will be conflict -- especially when the 'outsider' group is prone to antisocial acts as a way of life.

Inevitably, the bleeding-heart champions of the downtrodden always deny that there is any basis in the popular stereotypes of gypsies as dishonest and troublesome. To believe this, however, requires dismissing generations of people in just about every Western country who report having had trouble as a result of an influx of Roma.

In the UK these people are euphemistically called 'travelers' in some cases. In Ireland there are also native Irish 'travelers' who live a similarly itinerant lifestyle, though they are not related by blood to the gypsies. Roma or gypsies are an identifiable people, with a distinct appearance, while Irish travelers (some of whom immigrated to America and settled in the Southeast) look Irish.

I've had some experience with Roma gypsies in various parts of the U.S., specifically in urban areas, and in general it seems they choose to live outside our society and to obtain their living by some kind of confidence game or other pursuits such as car 'dealing' or fortune-telling.

I understand that some gypsies send their children to schools now, though in the past, they did not educate their children, and the adults were generally illiterate. In several instances, I was pressed into service to read or explain some written material for Roma women who could not read or write. Still, somehow they manage to handle money despite being illiterate. Perhaps there is more of an effort to integrate them now, though I think they are an unassimilable people.

In a way, they illustrate the problems of multiculturalism and lax immigration policies. They seem to be a disruptive presence wherever they go, and yet political correctness places them off limits for criticism. They can do no wrong, officially, because they are a persecuted group, and the fact that just about every country has found them to be a problem is blamed on widespread 'racism'. The politically correct must convince themselves that the gypsies are always victims, and never catalysts or causes for the conflict that follows wherever they go. It must take some mental contortions to believe that. Common sense would indicate that the fact that they have been chased out of so many countries tells us something about their character. It stretches credulity to believe that they have been so universally unwelcome, through no fault of their own. If someone is, say, fired from every job they've had, or evicted from everyplace they've lived, would you believe all their employers and landlords were 'prejudiced' or that the 'victim' may in fact have been the cause of his own misfortunes?

And before somebody says it: yes, there are always exceptions to every rule -- but the exceptions are just that. That exceptions exist does not invalidate the rule, or disprove it.

There may be some well-behaved, law-abiding Roma people here and there, but if so they are renegades who've cut ties with their people.

Political correctness has decreed that there is no such thing as a dysfunctional group of people, or a culture that is at its core antisocial. But the fact is that some cultures and peoples are just that. I wish it were not so, but experience and history seem to indicate that it is so, and denying it does not change the reality.

Every community, every town, every country, has a right to determine who they wish to come to live among them. The influx of a group of disruptive and hostile, antisocial people is something every sane community wishes to avoid. When a community, or a country, refuses to enforce any kind of standards as to who enters and who stays in their home, that community is inflicting a potentially fatal wound to itself, as chaos will ensue sooner or later.
We are seeing that in this country, and throughout the West.

Maybe what will be necessary is for people to control things at the local level, absent any kind of state or federal willingness to enforce laws and standards to protect the integrity and safety of a community.

I wish these brave people in England the best in standing up for their right to live peacefully and unmolested in their own land.

"Thou shalt not kill, but..."

The promoting of euthanasia is, as of now, a little more open in the UK than here in America, where the powers-that-be are soft-pedaling the passive euthanasia aspect of the health 'reform' bill. Laban Tall at UK Commentators links to a Guardian piece by Polly Toynbee, who thinks that 'assisted' suicide is a right which should be granted to all British citizens.

Read the rest at the link.

Elsinore at Cordelia For Lear has been writing about this issue, which is truly being ignored and downplayed by the useless media. Old Atlantic Lighthouse, too, has been doing a good job of covering this.

Even the 'right-wing' media figures are not covering this aspect of the health care bill. Why? Is it too potentially inflammatory? Are they being warned away from it? Or are they afraid they will be ridiculed as 'fearmongers' or 'extremists' if they mention it at all?

It's true that a few mainstream media sources have covered it, such as the articles I linked recently, but for the most part the commentary has been centered on the ''it's too costly'' argument, or the tried-and-true ''government-run anything is a disaster'' argument. Those things are important, but should there not be more notice taken when our government is beginning to declare quite openly, though in a quiet way, that some lives are not worth saving?

The fall (and rise) of Anglo-America

At VDare, Kevin MacDonald has a review of the book by Eric P. Kaufmann, called The Fall and Rise of Anglo-America.
The full version of it can be found here.

There are discussions of it here and here, where Prozium says that

It is a sad testament to the decrepit state of American intellectual life that all of two books have been written about the most important subject in American history: the decline of its indigenous White majority. Even taken together, MacDonald and Kaufmann have barely scratched the surface of the subject. In contrast, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and volumes have been written about the Holocaust and can be easily accessed in any decent college library, an event which didn’t even take place on American soil. This fact alone speaks volumes about ethnic constitution of America’s ruling class and their priorities.''

Given the politically incorrect nature of the subject matter it is surprising that even two books have been written on the subject. I'm not sure that it can be laid at the feet of an invisible Yankee WASP elite that this is the case.

As this reviewer points out, however, similar ground was covered in Samuel P. Huntington's Who Are We?,

And speaking of 'Who Are We?', the thought occurred to me to ask: Who is Eric Kaufmann, in other words, what particular axe is he grinding? Sure, I know, there is a presumption that books like this should present facts and not prejudices, but just about everything published these days has some implicit or explicit bias. I make mine known up front on this blog. But who is Kaufmann?

In his final chapter, Kaufmann introduces his own background: a Canadian born in Hong Kong with Jewish, Chinese and Hispanic ancestry but who is, in effect, just another North American Anglo in most social situations. With this mixed heritage established, he proposes a cultural regeneration of America based around what he terms "liberal ethnicity". He suggests that Wasp identity be accepted as just another ethnic option within the range of identities available for American people. He looks to a future in which the state is culturally neutral and all ethnic identities are expressed in cultural rather than racial terms, and are hence open to anyone who wishes to participate in them, on the understanding that those buying into a new culture do not expect it to change to suit them. He even postulates a future mixed-American identity, blending Anglo, African and Indian, akin to the fusion of Aztec and Spanish in Mexico. It is so refreshing to read a generous, open and positive book on this subject - what a pity that it is Huntington who has attracted the attention.''

Ah. One of those men-without-a-country, a real cosmopolitan.
It's clear that the reviewer shares this multicult viewpoint, too.

He betrays his preconceptions in this part also:

Kaufmann opens with an account of the creation of the Wasp culture, showing how American intellectuals, from Thomas Jefferson through to Henry Adams, seized on Dark-Age Anglo-Saxon culture as a mythic point of origin.''

I like his use of the term 'Dark Age Anglo-Saxon culture.' I personally think today is the dark age of Anglo-Saxonry, and I think that tomorrow looks to be darker if people like this have their way.

His implication seems to be that American intellectuals created a make-believe origin for themselves. The reviewer being British presumably shares the same ''dark ages'' culture; is his origin mythical too?

In any case, though I haven't read Kaufmann's book, the reviews don't make me want to go out and buy it (at $60 or so) or even to order it through my local library.

Of all the viewpoints I've read in this discussion, it seems that MacDonald's is the least inimical towards WASPs and Anglo-America. I think his review offers a number of good points. For instance, this part, discussing the declining dominance by WASP intellectuals. Kaufmann sees this as having been effected by both sides, with WASPs abdicating their dominant role, as much as by deliberate efforts of Jewish intellectuals:

Kaufmann also fails to recognize that many of the basic ideas of the New York Intellectuals derived from other Jewish intellectual movements, particularly psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School. For example, the elitist, anti-populist attitudes of the Frankfurt School paralleled the attitudes of the New York Intellectuals and likely influenced them, and indeed some of the New York Intellectuals are also associated with the Frankfurt School (see Ch. 5 of C of C).

Common themes in this body of writing are hostility to American populism, the need for leadership by an elite cadre of intellectuals, and the belief that concerns about ethnic displacement and the rise of the power of ethnic minorities are irrational and indicative of psychiatric disorder.

This point should be emphasized.''

Not only in this context, but in general, I think the rise of the psychoanalytic point of view has had a massive effect on our society, in our perceptions of ourselves, of human behavior and human nature, the problem of good vs. evil, and moral responsibility. The rise of the psychoanalytic belief system coincided with the decline of traditional Christianity and the worldview that was part of it. The two belief systems are diametrically opposed, but the therapeutic faith has infiltrated much of Christianity, producing this changeling which is now so widely blamed for the fall of the West, and of Anglo-Saxon America particularly.

MacDonald also points out something that I allude to frequently: the fact that fewer people identify as Anglo-Saxon:

Even people of mixed European heritage now tend to identify with the non-Anglo-Saxon side of the family. For example, people of Italian-Scottish descent chose to identify themselves as Italian by a 3-1 ratio.''

It's generally said that only one-fifth of White Americans claim British or English origins. I wonder if someone who is expert with figures would be able to calculate how many British descendants there should be in America, based on the founding populations of English colonists 400 years ago? I should think it would be more than a paltry 20 percent of the population.

I see a tendency to oversimplify the question of what caused the fall of Anglo-America, and a danger of reducing it to 'self-hating WASPs' committing demographic suicide, as an easy alternative to what some see as the excessive blaming of Jews.

In addition, there is a popular caricature of WASPs as some kind of prim, cold, ''judgmental'' people (think: the Puritan witch-trials), and for Southrons, the WASPs have to be Yankees, as in the War Between the States. In recent years many people in the South have changed their self-identification to Celtic as a way of distancing themselves from those Yankees who were all WASPs. Actually, by the time of the War, there were many ethnic Northerners, recent immigrants or their sons, in the Union Army. They were by no means all WASPs wearing that blue uniform. And there were in fact plenty of Anglo-Normans in the gray uniform, including my kin. I think there is far too much caricaturing regarding WASPs going on.


I see also a trend toward considering the Puritan colonists as somehow a separate people from the Cavaliers who settled Virginia; again, I think that's oversimplifying. Is there that much innate difference between East Anglians and men from the South and West of England? I agree that today's Southron people are different in important ways from Northerners -- but the latter are by no means mostly WASP now, as many Southrons are. But that's another question that would need a separate blog entry.

There is a tendency to attribute excessive power to WASPs, which is absurd given that they have been underrepresented in influential positions for many decades now. Is there a vast WASP conspiracy, with crypto-WASPs passing themselves off as ethnics, controlling everything behind the scenes? Perhaps some leftists believe that, but I hope people on the right know better.

In the end does it really matter who is/was to blame for what happened in the past? As our ship is taking on water and looks ready to sink, does it help us to blame Anglo-Saxons in general, or prim Yankee Puritans? There is no identifiable Anglo-Saxon elite to hold to account. All that need concern us is: what do we do to reverse things? If we believe either that our destruction is inevitable or deserved, then let's just resign ourselves, and eat, drink, and be merry as the ship goes down.

Otherwise, it seems mostly counterproductive to verbally assail Anglo-Saxons for what has happened to America. I suppose, however, they are an easy target as so few will rise to their defense. A few bloggers out there will defend our Anglo heritage, and I give them credit (Old Atlantic, for one) but they are thin on the ground. So yes, it's easy to beat up on a group that does not even perceive itself to exist as a group, or see themselves as a group worth defending.

And if we completely demolish and discredit Anglo-Saxons as some kind of congenitally self-hating neurotics, as Austin Bramwell depicted them in a recent piece, then how can we salvage what is left of our Anglo heritage, or any kind of American identity that does not substantially include Anglo-Saxons?

What is left would be a hollowed-out America indeed.

It is, however, useful to try to unravel what is still going on now that prevents people from defending their people and their heritage, and their children's future. Along those lines, I would like to examine a lot of unexamined things, certain sacred cows of our time, one being that psychoanalytic belief system, and the way it has changed our society and our thinking in destructive ways. We might find more under that rock than poking around trying to find ways in which those old Puritan fathers caused this mess that we find ourselves in.

'When did information...become a bad thing?'

That's a pertinent question, and it was put in an Andrew McCarthy article on the subject of the president's citizenship/birth controversy.

I am loath to use the term ''birther'' because it's a stupid word, coined with the specific purpose of ridiculing and discrediting those who simply want to know the facts on the subject of where the president was born, and whether he is a natural-born citizen, per the Constitution.

I haven't written much about this subject, though I've followed it with some interest, if only because so much effort has apparently gone into making this a secret or a mystery. As I said last year during the campaign, the secrecy alone was sufficient to raise suspicions and to generate a lot of speculation and theories. And wasn't this presidency supposed to be 'transparent'?

This whole controversy need never have developed, and it ballooned into a much bigger issue simply because so much information was obviously being withheld and sealed. McCarthy points out the falsehoods or fabrications in 'Dreams From My Father', as also being indicative of a tendency to conceal or deceive. This alone should be enough to make a quest for verification perfectly justifiable and understandable.

Thomas Lifson provides a good overview of the issue here.

Guilty till proven -- guilty.

I suspect we're all tired of reading and hearing about this story, but we turn away from it at our peril. It's indicative of how bad things have become here in the former United States between blacks and Whites.

The woman who called the police to report a possible crime in progress is now distraught because she has been accused ''unfairly'' of being a racist.

I suppose I sympathize with her because she is the target of the loathsome PC vigilantes, most probably White, who take it upon themselves to sniff out any political incorrectness and to bring the 'offender' into line, by threats and harassment if need be. On the other hand, her reaction to the (no doubt unpleasant) treatment she's gotten illustrates that she, too, is a believer in political correctness and all its works and pomps.

Her reaction reminds me somewhat of the response by an arch-liberal friend who reported troublesome neighbors in her apartment building, and was accused by said neighbors of 'racism.' She was mortified and aggrieved because she has spent her entire adult life doing and saying everything 'right', playing by the rules of PC, being so careful not to utter a wrong word or offend anyone of a victim group. This friend never dreamt she would be called 'racist' one day; I can only think she imagined that somehow, minorities could divine that she was ''on their side'' and that she was one of the 'good' Whites, not to be confused with those evil racist Whites who lurk around every corner in America. I think she was quite indignant that she was not immediately recognizable as 'friend' and not 'foe.'

I don't know Mrs. Whelan, but her statement seems to show that she is very much a liberal.

When I was called racist and I was a target of scorn and ridicule because of the things I never said, the criticisms hurt me as a person, but it also hurt the community of Cambridge," Whalen said. "Now that the tapes are out, I hope people can see that I tried to be careful and honest with my words," she said.''

Bless her heart, I am sure she is an honest and decent woman, and she was doing a citizen's duty in calling police, but she does not seem to understand the rules of PC. Under those rules, the minority is always the victim, the White always the guilty party. Always. No exceptions.

Whites, in these interracial situations, are to be presumed guilty until proven otherwise, contrary to our general 'innocent until proven guilty' principle. Of course most of us who think at all about these things know that there is literally no way to disprove one's ''racism'', when one has been accused by an offended 'victim.' Guilty. Off with his head, is the instant verdict.

Will James Crowley stand his ground, or will he become another 'typical White person' who is used as an object lesson?

It is through incidents like this, ''teachable moments'' so-called, that the politically correct dogma is reinforced and further driven home to Whites. The fact that a woman can be driven to tears by name-calling and 'unfair' accusations of something called 'racism' is proof that the PC vigilantes are far too powerful.

And yet, how much power do they have, if we no longer react to their threats and their name-calling? They have only the power we accord them. Unfortunately, they have succeeded in getting more 'hate' legislation passed, which will potentially give authorities power to prosecute people for their thought crimes or 'hate speech', but for now, we still have the ability to stand up to these bullies and petty tyrants, and to stop their coercion.

As to the ''unfair'' accusation of racism, I have a big problem with Whites who go on the defensive in cases like this, protesting that they are not 'racists'. I would instead love to see Whites stand up and reject the whole category of thoughtcrimes called 'racism' or 'prejudice.' I would like to see more people simply shrug off the label, or better yet, to challenge it, to dismiss it as an invented 'crime'.

There was no word 'racism' or 'racist' in the English language before the World War II era, at least. We did just fine without an invented word to describe the various and sundry behaviors that are now lumped together as 'racism.' When the word did enter our vocabulary, it meant more strictly acts of violence or physical harm, based on the race of the victim. The word 'racism' is one of the most elastic words in the English language, expanding to include any number of behaviors, thoughts, acts, and words, or even looks. The word has been rendered absurd by its overuse and its increasingly arbitrary and subjective use.

Maybe this is why some well-intentioned liberal Whites get caught in their own trap: it has become increasingly likely, given the expanding definition of 'racism', that every White will be accused/convicted of it at some point. It's almost reached those absurd, almost comic, proportions now. But I think very few liberals realize that they will unwittingly transgress the constantly-changing PC codes, and be hauled before the PC police for it. Even then, they don't seem to get it.

So is there such a thing as a 'fair' accusation of racism? Mrs. Whelan apparently did not violate the unwritten rule 'thou shalt not mention the race of a suspect unless he be White.' She did not refer to Gates and his unnamed companion (what happened to the second man, anyway?) in her 911 call. But if she had, would she then be a 'racist'? No, she would just be doing what a citizen should do: giving a description of the people in question.

I think what bothers me the most about situations like this is that too many Whites have no instinct to stick together and defend their own; even worse, there are too many who will actually point at another White while proclaiming their own ideologically pure views on race.

Even on the right this happens. Just read any thread on a rightwing forum on the issue of slavery or reparations. Most will protest their innocence: ''my ancestors didn't own slaves! I'm not from the South! My ancestors were still over in Europe then! My ancestors fought for the Union to free the slaves! Not guilty!' The implicit message is ''not me! That other guy over there is the one who's guilty.''

Why do so many Whites feel the compulsion to essentially throw some of our own to the wolves as a kind of sacrifice, and expiation for our (subjective) guilt? Why not show some solidarity? Yes, that too would be called racism, but then it's unavoidable. You will be called that at some time or another, and in fact, you've already been tried and found guilty simply by heredity.

Once we realize that we're considered guilty anyway by virtue of who we are, and who our ancestors were, that should free us considerably from the ''need'' to prove our moral rectitude and PC bonafides.

All in the transracial family

Another episode in the 'just one big family' series.

According to the news media, Henry Gates and the Cambridge policeman who arrested him, James Crowley, are distant kin -- both being descended from the 4th century Irish king, Niall of the Nine Hostages.

It seems to me that this is reminiscent of the campaign-era stories in the mainstream media which trumpeted 'Obama distant kin to Presidents' or 'Obama's Irish roots', all transparently intended to further convince readers that race is just skin-deep, and that we're all just one big family, one race, 'the human race.'

How that line fits with the whole storyline in these headlines: 'A historic first! America's First African-American President!' A Milestone! Moving beyond race! -- I don't quite understand.

I've read conflicting stories on Gates' alleged European ancestry, and it's all as may be. I question how these 'experts' in the article can say with certainty that 'x' number of men today descend directly from a 4th century individual. Do they have his DNA, or just DNA from those who think they are descended from him? It all sounds rather iffy to me, but I am not a genetics expert.

I do know something about genealogy, and I know that once you get back in time that far, the recorded information is pretty sketchy. If you come from a prominent family in Europe, one that has maintained careful records down through the centuries, there is more solid evidence of descent, but this kind of record-keeping was mainly limited to the more prominent families, in which ancestry and descent and family lineage were all-important because of lands, titles, and status in society. I just don't quite buy how it's possible to claim this kind of lineage without something more solid than the say-so of a researcher, and I have my doubts; is Niall's DNA available for comparison? My doubts are confirmed by the linked article.

The biggest caveat of this research is that without testing DNA from Niall’s remains, it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that Niall is the ancestor (and some argue that there never was a real Niall). For instance, Mrs. Niall could have only reproduced with the friendly neighbor, or a large fraction of the men with the signature Y chromosome could be descended from Niall’s promiscuous uncle George (I don’t know if there was an uncle, or if his name was George - it’s just an example).

I've expressed my skepticism here before about the validity and reliability of some of these DNA testing companies, which for a fee will pinpoint what your ancestry is down to fine details. Do we really possess complete enough samples to make such exact claims? For example, remember the story of Oprah claiming she learned of her Zulu ancestry, which was later contradicted by other testing. Would any American of black ancestry descend from just one tribe? Was there not considerable blending of several West African tribes among black slaves?

I'm skeptical on this whole subject, but open to being corrected.

In so many of these media stories about some famous figure's purported noble ancestry, there seems to be a political agenda at work, sometimes publicity, to make the celebrity or politician more glamorous by asserting his descent from some famous or infamous historical personage. It's just hype, in other words.

In even more cases, the media jumps on any opportunity to push their ''one planet, one people'' trans-racial propaganda. Look! We are all just kissin' cousins anyway, so let's all join together. Race is an illusion, we're all mixed and mingled hopelessly anyway, so embrace it.

Sorry, but this does not resonate with me. In reading some of these genealogical stories during the campaigns, I learned I was (likely) kin to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and John Edwards. I say likely, because if the family trees given are correct, I am probably distant cousin to these people though that does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy towards them.

As I recently quoted Proudhon as saying 'if everybody is my brother, I have no brothers', that applies here; if we are all cousins, then kinship is pretty meaningless. It's hard to love people in the abstract, on that kind of scale. We are not made for that kind of attenuated, stretched-thin 'brotherly love.' It has to be limited in scope or it is not love at all.

What racial lessons are we supposed to take from this latest absurd story about Gates and Crowley and their supposed common ancestor, Niall of the Nine Hostages? That Gates is an Irishman? To believe such is to stretch the definition of Irishman beyond recognition. Gates clearly bears grudges against his White ancestors and kin, and probably feels little fellow-feeling for medieval (or modern) Irishmen. That illustrates how race is not just a matter of mind, but a primal identification; blacks who are half White, as Gates is said to be, still feel and think black. And those on the left and on the right who would like that to change are dreamers. Having some White ancestry, particularly if it is further back in the family line, does not change one's essential identification.

Certainly the multicultists would like to deconstruct the whole notion of nationality and ethnicity, at least where European-descended peoples are concerned. And this serves that purpose. As I don't trust those who write these stories, nor the motives of the left, I can't take this story seriously. Beware of the multicultural agenda.

Outnumbered

This was posted over at Western Voices World News.

I agree with the WVWN folks that the man in the video is brave and that he conducts himself very well, considering. All the same, it is a vexing thing to watch and to listen to. I don't know what TV program this is, but it seems to be on a par with 'Jerry Springer' (same type of audience and atmosphere) and the female hosting it is obnoxious and flagrantly biased -- which is usual for TV here and in the UK. The fact, though, that this one lone Englishman is having to stand his ground against an audience stacked with hooting and jeering ''Britons'' from various corners of the Third World hardly constitutes any kind of fair discussion. The few Whites in the audience (if indeed they were White) were acting as outraged by what the man said as the minorities were, with all their gesticulating, pointing (bad manners; hasn't anyone told them that?) and eye-rolling.

In fact, they actually made some of his points for him, but the brainwashed ex-Whites in the audience and their ''new Briton'' companions won't be able to see that.

However, I give the English guy enormous credit for speaking his mind amongst a hostile mob, and seeming to do so very calmly.

For the rest, shame on them. They don't know, or probably care, how badly they came off in that clip.

The blind leading the blind

Yesterday's brief entry, about the different categories of people who call themselves 'conservative', did not address a large group of conservatives (or ''conservatives'') frequently mentioned on this blog: the 'colorblind conservatives.'

As I read the usual blogs and forums I check every day, I notice that among the mainstream Republican ones, the 'colorblind conservatives' are out in full force. It seems that they are quite irate about the Gates brouhaha, and about the president's biased reaction to it. Hell hath no fury like a colorblind conservative scorned. The overwhelming impression I get from these people is that they are angry. They are angry that despite their publicly professed ''colorblindness'' and their willingness to ''put race behind" them, and their willingness to show remorse for the evils done by their ancestors, their feelings are not reciprocated nor even acknowledged by the objects of their affection.

Some of these pieces I have read are fawning, expressing their admiration for various black athletes or performers, or perhaps some virtuous black co-worker or colleague. The message seems to be: we like you, we love you, why don't you love us back?

Some Republicans are almost angry about the escalating racial quarrels in this country, but their anger is directed only at the 'race-hustlers' or the 'liberals' who are keeping the racial conflict alive. As if it would go away, as if all the differences would disappear, if not fanned into flames by the race-hucksters or Democrats.

This is rather reminiscent of a relationship gone bad, in which one person still holds onto a misguided and unrequited affection for the other party, who in turn wants only to exact some kind of payback, or to keep the dysfunctional and abusive relationship alive for self-centered reasons.

I almost feel sorry for these 'colorblind' conservative types; they continue to cling to what is essentially a liberal mindset, based on leftist distortions of history.

Ever since I used to post frequently on a mainstream Republican forum, I've noticed that the most angry and vituperative people, in regards to political incorrectness, are the Republicans. I learned some years ago that if you violate the PC norms among the ''colorblind', they will excoriate you in a way that makes liberals look mild.

I mean specifically those Republicans who have bought the liberal, politically correct viewpoint on race. If they are not out-and-out race deniers, who believe 'we're all the same under the skin', they are people who think that race differences, insofar as they exist, are mostly superficial. They rationalize the undeniable conflicts that exist between races as being ginned up by liberals or minority opportunists. Remove the liberals and the race-hustlers, and we would all live in harmony, and all blacks would think and behave like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, or Tiger Woods.

In other words, they are in a practical sense race-deniers, since they don't seem to believe that racial differences of any importance exist; they accept the liberal idea that we are all pretty much blank slates, and that 'culture' makes all the difference. Given the right education and societal influences, there would be complete harmony and racial amity, they think.

This group of people, I'm afraid, are keeping us stuck with the unacceptable status quo between the races. They are largely responsible in that they represent a fairly big group of people, a voting bloc, who find their political home in the officially 'colorblind' new GOP, embodied in Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal. And despite their power, they seem content to keep things as they are, rather than rock the boat, and think forbidden thoughts.

Without the delusions of these people, perhaps we could break this stalemate that exists. As it is, it seems we are destined to go round and round, with the perpetual misguided hope of 'moving beyond race'. And the idea that we can move beyond race by catering to and flattering and favoring minorities is essentially self-contradictory, but yet it seems as if that is what they are resigned to doing.

In that respect, they are very much cut from the same cloth as outright liberals, because they are people who will doggedly keep repeating the same failed action in hopes that ''this time, it will work!" It fazes them not at all that it has not worked in the past; we just have to try harder, longer, more fervently, and it will work.

It never seems to occur to them that for minorities, it would be unprofitable to 'move beyond race.' Why would they want to 'move beyond race' when harping on race and racial guilt has worked like a charm for them? It has made them the center of attention in this country (and now in other Western countries too, by example) and it has made billions (or is it trillions?) of dollars flow to their ''communities.'' It has put them in the privileged position of being above criticism; the captive majority can only speak fawningly and deferentially about them in public; doing anything less has dire consequences, such as job loss, career destruction, loss of money and social status, and public humiliation. Being able to inflict consequences like that on someone just by saying the word is real power.

These colorblind ''conservatives'' are a hindrance, to put it charitably. There are a few glimmerings of hope that some of them are beginning to open their eyes; the FReepers, for example, are getting a little more politically incorrect these days, but there is still some of the fawning over ''favorite minorities'' that is so common.

I shake my head at this servile behavior among a lot of our people; some will defend it as being just generous and magnanimous behavior that comes from our heritage. I can only see it as either guilt-driven, or as an example of peer pressure; nobody wants to be the one to violate the consensus and say the forbidden truths.

I think there has to be a great deal more re-educating of our people, and a deprogramming in order for them to come to their senses. Maybe it will take a few more ''teachable moments'' like this present one in order for the scales to fall from some eyes. Maybe not; maybe ''worse is better'' is simply wishful thinking. However, I would certainly like it to be true.

What kind of conservative are you?

Someone posted a link over on Free Republic, to a list of various types of conservatives. The three broad categories are Secular Right, Religious Right, and -- 'Xenophobic Right.' I don't quite appreciate their designation of that last category, for obvious reasons. They are putting a label which implies some kind of pathology on what is essentially a normal desire to live amongst one's own, and not to be dominated by nor surrounded by people of differing origins and ways.

A few years ago, before I started this blog, I might have been in a different category, but I definitely fall into the third category, which needs to be re-labeled with a less disparaging and condemnatory name.

The list does illustrate, if nothing else, the disparate strains within what is called 'conservatism' in this country, and it emphasizes why it is hard to create any kind of unity. How can we unify all these strands, or can it be done at all?

Which category do you belong to, if any?

Some music for you

Those of you who are fans of the Andy Griffith Show will probably remember the 'Darling Family', and a song they performed on the show called 'There Is a Time.' It's a song I particularly like; it sounds like a traditional song, though it was written by The Dillards, and it has a haunting melody and beautiful words, I think.

The video is of a Dutch bluegrass band, believe it or not, and I think they do a superb job on this song, the best version I've found on YouTube. I hope you enjoy it as I did.

There is a time for love and laughter
The days will pass like summer storms
The winter wind will follow after
But there is love and love is warm

There is a time for us to wander
When time is young and so are we
The woods are greener over yonder
The path is new the world is free

There is a time when leaves are fallin'
The woods are gray the paths are old
The snow will come when geese are callin'
You need a fire against the cold

So do your roaming in the springtime
And you'll find your love in the summer sun
The frost will come and bring the harvest
And you can sleep when day is done

'We will never have a perfect society'

That part is right, but the rest of the remarks are just more of the same old, same old, which got us where we are now.

Cambridge Mayor: 'We will never have a perfect society'

I am very pleased that the charges of disorderly conduct levied against Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. have been dropped. The City of Cambridge, the Cambridge Police Department, and Professor Gates have released a joint statement that acknowledges “….the incident of July 16, 2009 was regrettable and unfortunate.” As the parties involved have placed this matter behind them, it seems appropriate for our community to do the same.
[...]
I genuinely believe that by bringing people together, by airing our differences, and by challenging our attitudes, we can foster a more tolerant, more inclusive society. I shall continue my efforts to help bring that about, and while we will never have a perfect society, we should never stop striving.

And as for dropping the charges -- well, I suppose it was predictable.

Alarming

It's becoming more and more open and brazen.

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free.
[...]

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).''

This bill is not getting the attention it deserves. Many of the op-eds that are appearing are more focused on the costs of this monstrosity, not the alarming ideas about the (non)-value of human life that are becoming more and more explicit as we find out more about this thing.

This should concern all of us; it does not matter if you are young, or relatively young. Even the young and fit might at any time be in a disabling accident or be diagnosed with a serious illness which these leftist social engineers deem too 'costly', especially if treatment will only sustain the life of someone who would no longer be 'productive' or of any use to the State.

So this is not just something that will affect older people, who are unfortunately regarded as useless by many people in this callous age. It might affect people of any age, and even if it does not affect you personally now, it will at some point.

It's ironic in the extreme that the very people (leftists and pseudo-compassionate liberals) who pose as ''caring'' people, and who constantly call those to the right of them ''Nazis'', are willing to support a plan like this, with its totalitarian priorities.

Back during Ronald Reagan's terms of office, the news media constantly featured stories about Republican cold-heartedness. Those of you who remember that era will remember the stories about how the evil Republican budget cuts meant that children were given ketchup in their school lunches in place of a vegetable. Then there were the cries that poor elderly people were going to be out on the street under the budget cuts, and that many old folks were forced to eat cat food because they could not afford real food under the harsh Republican administration.

Obviously that was all hyperbole, but now these same tender-hearted people are nonchalantly proposing that we write off many old and disabled people because it is too costly and 'unfair' to keep them alive.

I plan to send this article to some of the liberals I know; I would bet that many of them, being rather ill-informed except for what they hear on NPR, are not aware of the provisions in this health care bill. This needs to be discussed.

Just in case

We are under a severe weather warning here, and I am hearing the thunder rumbling outside. So I may be offline this evening if the storm is as bad as they say it might be.

Otherwise I will post later.

CNN vs. Fox News

Rick Sanchez, affirmative-action reporter on CNN, thinks that minorities who work for Fox News are 'sellouts.'

I've wondered about just what Sanchez's ancestry may be, since he appears 100 percent European. I guessed he was probably of (White) Cuban descent, meaning mostly Spanish, and I was correct, according to Wikipedia.

The son of Cuban political exiles who came to the United States in the 1950s from Cuba, Sanchez grew up in the city of Hialeah, Florida. He graduated from Hialeah High School in 1977 and accepted a football scholarship to Minnesota State University Moorhead. He transferred to the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis on a CBS/WCCO Journalism Scholarship in 1979."

There you go, another one of those arch-conservative Cuban-Americans of whom the Republicans like to brag, like Bob Menendez who is also a liberal son of Cuban immigrants. So much for that myth, right? No, I am sure the Republicans will cling to it, just like they cling to the idea of the precious Hispanic vote on which they are staking their political fortunes.

Sanchez has apparently been taking potshots at Fox News lately, as ''reporters'' on those ultra-left news channels do regularly, and it's rather absurd, really, since Fox is almost, very nearly, as politically correct as CNN, MSNBC, or any of the others. They certainly abide by the rules of PC and slavishly seek 'diversity' in hiring on-air personalities.

I notice they now prominently feature more black faces and minorities in general than in the past, no doubt partly in response to CNN's sniping, and the most popular one on Fox is the FReepers' pinup, replacing the blonde Laurie Dhue, is Julie Banderas.

Miss Banderas does not look like most Hispanics I've met; she looks more like an Anglo-American with a dark tan, and acording to her biography, her birth name was Julie Bidwell, and she is a descendant of John Bidwell, a prominent pioneer.

Went by her birth name Julie Bidwell while at WHSV-TV in Harrisonburg, Virginia and at WBRE-TV in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. She is a paternal descendent of John Bidwell. Her father's name is Howard D. Bidwell. She is partially of Colombian descent, henceforth the use of the Spanish name.

The biography of Miss Banderas says she is 'partially' Colombian, so I wonder why she chose to drop her birth name in favor of a Hispanic name. I suppose it certainly does not hurt one's career to claim minority ancestry these days. I suspect we will see a lot more of that, as this country becomes majority nonwhite, and Hispanics become the majority. I expect many White Americans will emphasize any ethnic ancestry they may have so as to escape the stigma of being White-bread, and if they have any Hispanic ancestry, even just Spanish, as Linda Sanchez the 'conservative' has, they will pick that as their identity for practical reasons.

Miss Banderas has replied to Sanchez:

As a wise Latina woman, I have no comment other than to say if I were Rick Sanchez, I wouldn’t look in the mirror, period.''

It does seem an ironclad law that just about anybody with one-quarter or more nonwhite ancestry identifies with their minority side; I see it all the time in real life too. I can't think of any exceptions, offhand.

The mainstream 'conservatives' hold to their faith that ''Democrats are the real racists, and they are keeping the minorities on the plantation. But one day they will wake up and see that Republicans are their real friends!"

Sometimes I think the mainstream conservative types are more lost than the liberals. They come right to the brink of understanding, and pull back every time.

Fox News helps keep them in the dark.

Worth reading

Another good post from Iron Ink . It's well worth a read.

Talking about Race in modern America is the equivalent of talking about sex in the Victorian age. Most people have some experience with it but don’t want to talk publicly about it, and when it is brought up by somebody people either begin to blush or they go silent. Historical White America, if you don’t start learning how to intelligently but directly talk about race issues without either being intimidated or crude you’re culture is going to be decimated racially, ideologically, and financially. Historical White America, if you don’t start learning how to intelligently but directly talk about race issues without being either intimidated or crude your culture and your God is going to be replaced.''

Read the entire thing at the link.

A 'teachable moment'

But who's being taught, and who's doing the teaching? Is anybody learning anything?

Does anyone else get the impression that this Gates incident is being used opportunistically to hammer us some more with guilt and to further instill political correctness in the population?

I was disgusted to see that it was all over the news channels today. Early in the day there was coverage of the Cambridge police press conference in which the White House was requested to apologize. Later on in the day we heard that the president had summoned Sgt. Crowley, the latest victim of this race-baiting scam, to a private conversation in which things were smoothed over.

Lou Dobbs, who is one of the more reliable news personalities (though not free of political correctness) said that the president was turning this into a ''teachable moment'', and I thought: uh-oh. That means more lectures, more guilt, about 'racism', 'Jim Crow', 'the legacy of slavery' and Dixie Peach pomade. Please, spare us from such ''teaching.''

So in this typically witty piece from Mark Steyn, we learn that yes, some of that all-too-familiar 'teaching' is part of the script that's now being written for our edification:

Professor Gates is now saying that, if Sgt. Crowley publicly apologizes for his racism, the prof will graciously agree to "educate him about the history of racism in America." Which is a helluva deal. I mean, Ivy League parents remortgage their homes to pay Gates for the privilege of lecturing their kids, and here he is offering to hector it away to some no-name lunkhead for free.''

Maybe Steyn is kidding, but I would not bet on that; it sounds too plausible, and nothing is too silly to be believed these last seven months. More from Steyn's piece:

For everyone other than the president, what happened at professor Gates' house is not entirely clear. The Harvard prof returned home without his keys and, as Obama put it, "jimmied his way into the house." A neighbor, witnessing the "break-in," called the cops, and things, ah, escalated from there.
[...]
As to the differences between the professor's and the cops' version of events, I confess I've been wary of taking Henry Louis Gates at his word ever since, almost two decades back, the literary scholar compared the lyrics of the rap group 2 Live Crew to those of the Bard of Avon. "It's like Shakespeare's 'My love is like a red, red rose,'" he declared, authoritatively, to a court in Fort Lauderdale.

As it happens, "My luv's like a red, red rose" was written by Robbie Burns, a couple of centuries after Shakespeare. Oh, well. 16th century English playwright, 18th century Scottish poet: What's the diff? Evidently being within the same quarter-millennium and right general patch of the North-East Atlantic is close enough for a professor of English and Afro-American Studies appearing as an expert witness in a court case. Certainly no journalist reporting Gates' testimony was boorish enough to point out the misattribution.
[...]
In the Sixties, the great English satirist Peter Simple invented the Prejudometer, which simply by being pointed at any individual could calculate degrees of racism to the nearest prejudon, "the internationally recognized scientific unit of racial prejudice." Professor Gates seems to go around with his Prejudometer permanently cranked up to 11: When Sgt. Crowley announced through the glass-paneled front door that he was here to investigate a break-in, Gates opened it up and roared back: "Why? Because I'm a black man in America?"

Note: If there is no ''prejudometer'' in real life, I am sure there are even now some deranged liberals somewhere trying to develop one. Actually, I suppose it would be superfluous for White liberals and race-baiting minorities -- they already have a foolproof way of detecting 'prejudice': look for White folks, and there you have prejudice.

A side note: I wish 'Peter Simple's' columns might be published in book form; most of us have not had the opportunity to read them in the UK Telegraph over the years. Those of us who enjoy that kind of British whimsy combined with satire would enjoy his writings in book form.

Gates then told him, "I'll speak with your mama outside." Outside, Sgt. Crowley's mama failed to show. But among his colleagues were a black officer and a Hispanic officer. Which is an odd kind of posse for what the Rev. Al Sharpton calls, inevitably, "the highest example of racial profiling I have seen." But what of our post-racial president? After noting that "'Skip' Gates is a friend" of his, President Obama said that "there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." But, if they're being "disproportionately" stopped by African American and Latino cops, does that really fall under the category of systemic racism? Short of dispatching one of those Uighur Muslims from China recently liberated from Gitmo by Obama to frolic and gambol on the beaches of Bermuda, the assembled officers were a veritable rainbow coalition. The photograph of the arrest shows a bullet-headed black cop – Sgt. Leon Lashley, I believe – standing in front of the porch while behind him a handcuffed Gates yells accusations of racism. This is the pitiful state the Bull
Connors of the 21st century are reduced to, forced to take along a squad recruited from the nearest Benetton ad when they go out to whup some uppity Negro boy.''

Does a grown, senior-citizen, college-educated, Harvard professor make comments like the 'yo mama' remark? I thought that was middle-school stuff. And yes, the policemen who responded to this call did look like one of those multicult TV commercials, with 'one of each' distributed among the group. It's absurd that we run our society on such a basis.

This incident might have, if handled rightly, represented a possible turning point, an opportunity for someone in a nationally-publicized case to refuse to cave in and apologize, to admit wrong where no wrong was done. What the ultimate resolution (if any) will be, isn't clear yet, but it appears that the White House and the race-grievance industry are manipulating this incident to their advantage. If we have to see more 'news' coverage, including the pompous, pretentious 'academic' holding forth on 'racism in America', while Whites once again sit meekly listening and offering mea culpas, I hope that it will perhaps be the cause of a few more people becoming fed up and finally proclaiming the PC emperor has no clothes.

Instead of feeble and futile protests of ''I'm not a racist!" I wish someone of note, someone with the world's attention, might break the ice and reject the whole rigged concept of 'racism' and all the cant and lies it has fostered over the last half century or so.

Ethnicities in America

Above is an interesting map. I would like to cite the source of it, but it's uncertain; I found it some time ago on another forum, and I believe it was credited to Valparaiso University in Indiana.

In any case, it shows a rather different picture of ethnic origins in North America, compared to the U.S. Census map I posted here in the past. The U.S. Census map showed virtually all of the South as being majority African descent.

I think this map, however, is fairly accurate based on what I know.

Notice that South Louisiana has a French-dominant area, and notice the yellow areas in South Central Texas, which does have a very visible German influence there; there are still some in those areas who speak a Texas German dialect, although it's apparently in danger of dying out.

I wonder if the numbers of Scandinavians are underrepresented on this map, however; some parts of the Northwest have large numbers of Scandinavian-descended people, though they don't show up on the map.

The map is not dated, and if it were up-to-date, I am sure there would be a great deal more lavender-tinted areas all over the country. The colors on a similar map a decade from now would look very different, unless things turn around soon.

A day the life of a small town, circa 1952

Someone asked for more 'old America' items, and this makes for 10 minutes or so of pleasant images of small town life back then.

Why I am so 'divisive'

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.

Heath care reform -- by popular demand

Little did I know that the health care plan is being pushed through in response to public demand. That's one thing I learned from tonight's press conference.

First, though, for some balance, one doctor's take on this health-care plan, which is being pushed on us in the media nonstop:

Why I resigned from the AMA

Did any of you see the press conference (yet another one) earlier this evening? The idea is to hard-sell this health ''reform'' plan yet again. I could not bring myself to watch it, but I waited for the transcript to appear online.

It appears as though a lot of time was devoted to blaming the previous administration for the financial troubles, and to establish the ''fact'' that the present regime accepts no blame for any economic disaster, present, past, or future. A lot of self-justification was contained in a rather short speech.

A reporter asks:

Q You've been pushing Congress to pass health-care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that if you don't -- if there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Couple of points. Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health-care costs.

So folks are skeptical, and that is entirely legitimate, because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them.

But my hope is, and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, you know, we can make this happen. We've -- we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the American people.''

First of all, I find it absurd to imagine the president, any president, sitting there by the hour opening letters from every citizen out there with a complaint or a plea for help. Do people really write the president saying 'save us, Mr. President; we can't afford our health care.' And assuming that yes, indeed, there are such pathetic souls who imagine that the president or Uncle Sugar is there to answer their every need and request, does this president expect us to believe that he thinks his role is to give his fans what they want, and say ''your wish is my command''?

I don't imagine that any president even lays eyes on most of the mail that is sent to the White House. But apparently this president thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck, and that he has no choice but to reform health care drastically because John and Jane Doe in Anytown, USA demand it. As if the ''little people'' call the shots in America.

If public demand and the wishes of citizens meant anything at all, we'd have closed borders, lower taxes, and a lot of things that we stand no chance of getting until Hades freezes over.

Another question:

Q But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care.

When you describe health-care reform, you don't -- understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases, on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?''

Watch for the double-talk and the obfuscation here.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.

Look, if right now hospitals and -- and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test; and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money. You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that, because there are tax breaks for health care. So not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer.

Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier?

And here's what I'm confident about. If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works.

If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?''

All this talk of blue pills and red pills seems to bring The Matrix to mind. I never saw it, but I know enough about it to know about the blue pills and red pills.

And as to not paying for things that 'don't work, that aren't making us healthier', would that not include any number of treatments or medications that don't truly 'make people healthier' but merely keep their symptoms under control, or perhaps keep chronic conditions somewhat manageable? It looks very much as if the intention is that many treatments for, say, cancer or diabetes or kidney disease patients would be looked on as 'things that don't work' because they don't reverse or cure underlying disease.

To the recent comments the president made in answer to a question at one of the town halls, he said that a woman with cardiac arrhythmias might just 'take a pain pill' instead of having surgery. Surely it does not take a medical professional to know that cardiac arrhythmias are not helped by 'painkillers', and that resorting to such non-treatments with such a potentially serious condition is downright dangerous.

But again, I am getting hints that those with chronic diseases, and especially older people, will be written off as too costly. Passive euthanasia.

I didn't watch the press conference but from reading the transcript I found it all very unimpressive and unpersuasive. I don't think the case was very well made at all; I found only vague and rambling statements, and little substance. And not having seen or heard this speech, seeing it only in text, I was not likely to be taken in by any alleged 'charisma' or the 'sonorous voice' that so many seem to be captivated by.

But on another topic altogether, a very telling exchange in response to 'hometown' reporter Lynn Sweet's question
(which seems rather like a set-up, a scripted question, so the prez could address the Gates furor):

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.

I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.

So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.

(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.''

And not having seen all the facts, why answer at all? It would behoove him to learn the facts before offering his two cents, and calling the Cambridge police or their actions ''stupid.'' But fools rush in:

And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.

That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.''

Yes, the race card was played by the man elected to lead us. That's you and I who are being accused and convicted.
Not only White Americans and policemen have been accused in this press conference, but doctors and the medical profession also. Is the idea to alienate as many people as possible? I thought the idea was to 'unite'.

I would like some of those people who were so sure that electing this man would 'end the complaints of racism' to step forward and admit, publicly, that they were wrong. Big time.

Race relations are worse because minorities never let up on the grievance-mongering and the power displays. This present regime has exacerbated racial conflicts.

And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.''

If blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, it's for the reason that they commit a disproportionate share of crimes, from traffic violations on up. I won't link to the Color of Crime yet again; anybody who is not familiar may google it.

And ending profiling will make nobody safer except lawbreakers -- if they are of the correct race and ethnicity. For the rest of us, it will mean a less safe America.

Which brings us full circle; the health care ''reform'' plan will also make us less safe and less secure, knowing that arbitrary and capricious decisions made for political reasons will actually be harmful to us and our loved ones over the long term.

During the long election cycle of last year, I spent some time arguing against those who said that 'worse is better'. Now we are about to see which school of thought was right. I can only hope the 'worse is better' proponents were correct, because we've begun to experience the 'worse', and we're about to see if ''better'' ensues.

Self-forgetting Americans

There's a discussion at Audacious Epigone about racial self-identification, by ethnic group, including a table showing the percentage of people from each group who consider race or ethnicity as one of the most important means of self-identification.

The results for minorities (including Asians, that ever-popular model minority) show that they have higher levels of racial self-identification, with Hispanics having the highest, and blacks next. Anyone surprised?

Guess which group is last?
British-descended Americans, with Scandinavian in the next-lowest category.

The people who identify strictly as 'Americans' are just a little lower in the rankings than the minorities, and this is not surprising, since many of those who call themselves simply 'American' are often Southron people and even when not from the South, tend to be the proud patriot types.

Others say that many of these who say they are 'just Americans' are in fact those stereotyped Scots-Irish or those of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman descent. The latter groups are usually of colonial stock, and their ties to the ''old country'' are so remote that they tend to think of themselves as Americans, with no hyphen.

My problem with studies like this (and I am no scientist, nor do I claim to be) is that I think most people's self-identification is hazy or inaccurate, with the exception of the later immigrant stock, those who have held to their European identity from, say, Ireland or Italy or Eastern Europe.

Many people who are mixed colonial stock/ethnic immigrant stock don't count their old-stock (usually English) ancestry because it's too remote, whereas they have heard stories of an immigrant great-grandfather -- hence they identify with that ethnicity, because it's the only one they know with certainty,

There are any number of charts and maps and census records which show America as being populated mostly by German-stock people, and that never seems credible to me. The dominance of English surnames or British Isles surnames seems, according to common sense, to indicate that there is quite a bit more British ancestry here than German.

Absent any real documentation of one's ancestry, many people are just guessing, or mentioning the only ethnicity in their background that they are aware of.

I've found in doing genealogy and communicating with many people about family history that many Americans seem to have ancestral equivalents of 'urban legends' or myths which they believe, but which are proven false when the research is done, and records examined. What I am saying is that relying on self-reporting is not a good way to determine who is who, or how many people of a given ethnicity there are in America.

Genealogy is becoming more popular, but many people still don't know their family history or lineage, except in the vaguest sense. I think this is a sad situation that contributes to White Americans' relatively low levels of racial/ethnic consciousness. If you don't know very much about who your forebears were, or how they came to this country, there's little basis for pride or racial consciousness. Neither is there a strong attachment to this country or your neighbor if you think of yourself as just a generic 'American' whose allegiance is to vague things like 'freedom' and 'democracy' rather than to a kin group or ancestral soil.

One thing that becomes very clear when you research your colonial-stock ancestry is that you find that you have many collateral relatives who are of Jamestown founding stock, or Massachusetts colonial descent. You learn just how many living Americans you are cousins to. We are not a nation of random, unconnected , rootless, individuals, but those of us who have been here for a few generations have unimagined connections to many Americans.

Of course, with the mass immigration now being engineered by our rulers, the connections will be broken down and we will truly become deracinated and isolated. That's the intention. The lack of cohesion is becoming painfully evident.

Until Americans either make an effort to learn their own family histories, and until the ''proposition nation'' and ''nation of immigrants'' propaganda weakens its hold, White Americans will be this deracinated and put-upon people who let others walk all over us, while we play genial nice guys with low self-respect.

The comments on the AE article bring up a number of popular notions, such as the idea that Protestantism contributes to a low racial consciousness while Catholicism does the opposite. Someone mentions that the northern European countries which were historically Protestant have the worst immigration problems. But it seems that historically Catholic countries (Spain, Ireland, Italy, and France) have their share of problems with immigration and multiculturalism, although the problem in Ireland is more recent.

One thing that seems always to be ignored in these attempts to link religion to low racial awareness is the fact that few people in Europe, relatively speaking, have a real Christian faith. Though these countries may still be called 'Protestant' or Catholic, they are in fact post-Christian. That fact has already been publicly acknowledged in the UK.

In all European countries (except perhaps for Eastern Europe) the Christian faith is more or less vestigial, with no widespread belief among the populations. Secularism and liberal/Marxist/leftist beliefs have displaced Christianity, or corrupted what is left of it into a parody of itself.

Does the individualism which is popularly said to characterize the northern Europeans, especially Anglo-Saxons, predispose them to be deracinated and hyperindividualistic? I would say these traits were much less common in the days when the Christian faith was still a living faith in Europe. Despite the popular idea that communism or leftism are communally oriented and anti-individualistic, I think there is a paradox there. While many leftists emphasize the ''community'' and 'the people'' at least nominally, the mindset is at least as much influenced by philosophical ideas gleaned from people like Nietzsche and Sartre, which focus on the individual. The average liberal or leftist believes he is a blank slate on which he creates himself. Having an ethnic or racial identity is too constricting, too limiting. The liberal likes to believe he is his own creation, and that any ascribed identity is false or imprisoning. And besides, race is a social construct, and we all bleed red, and there's only one race, etc. etc.

If you ask me, much of what is wrong with the West comes from those toxic ideas, rather than from a feeble and hollowed-out Christianity.

I will never understand why so many keep looking to a long-abandoned religion to explain the attitudes of today's muddled and addled White liberals. Christianity is anathema to them; they probably grew up in secular, or even anti-Christian homes, and today's Western liberals have certainly been indoctrinated with secular dogmas and media propaganda. America still has some faithful Christians, but we can see the rot setting in even in some traditionally conservative churches.

Why then are northern European-descended people so lacking in racial consciousness? The subject has been discussed many times, and the answer is not clear-cut. There's no single answer.

Perhaps one seldom-mentioned possibility is that for a long while in the early days of this republic, the Anglo-Saxons who formed the core of the population, and the majority, were unselfconscious because there was little ''diversity''; the groups who were here at the beginning, such as English, Scots, Dutch, and some Germans, were all close kin, and all assimilated to Anglo-Saxon ways. There was no need for forming a strong identity in competition with others who opposed the majority.

In fact, up until the mass immigration of the Ellis Island era, Americans of Anglo descent were the dominant group with no one to seriously challenge their power. Of course that all changed in the last 60 years or so, and I think many old-stock Americans have only now begun to notice, so secure did they feel in control of this country.

We can argue about whether there is some genetic tendency (or flaw, really) among Anglo-Saxons that makes them more individualist and less racially conscious, However I would say there isn't much evidence of that. Anglo-Saxons, wherever they've lived, used to have a very strong and assertive identity which enabled them to conquer and dominate just about wherever they went. They also had good group cohesion in an ethnic and racial sense when they settled this country, else there would have been widespread mixing with other races, as in Latin America. It looks as though that stereotype is turned on its head, as the conquistadores left mixed offspring everywhere they went, and not just here and there, while the English preserved their own people and customs and faith when they came here.

It's also noteworthy that the English colonists brought families with them when they crossed the Atlantic; they intended to found communities here, and not just to explore or plunder. Jamestown at first had no women, but earlier efforts at settling Virginia did include women. But Jamestown eventually included women who came over from England to marry the colonists.

So the English and the Dutch and the Huguenots tended to bring women and children with them to America, and to found families and communities, while the supposedly more family-oriented Southern Europeans did not do so when they came here, for the most part.

My point is, the idea of English 'Protestant' hyper-individualism is exaggerated. So much of what is said in these discussions is based on cliche and stereotype. Sure, stereotypes have a basis in fact, but in this case, so much of what is said about the founding stock of this country is based on an oversimplified image of Englishmen or Anglo-Saxons.

In fact, I'd say many Americans know too little about the country and people which in essence created America. And this won't change as long as so many of the real-life ''Albion's seed'' don't even know who they are, and are content not to know.

Part of the mission of this blog, since the beginning, has been to awaken some of the dormant racial memory of who we are, where we came from, and then to decide where we are going.

So I will keep returning to this subject of the ''vanishing American', especially the neglected and overlooked and stereotyped Anglo-American.