We were just saying...

Following my post of the other day about inbreeding and the way the anti-White left uses that fear against us, there's this about Moslem inbreeding in Britain.

‘Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there.’

Studies have shown that  55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins – and in Bradford, this  rises to 75 per cent.''

And when, predictably, the angry Moslems denounced this, saying it 'demonises Muslims', Professor Jones -- equally predictably -- feels compelled to mention that inbreeding also occurs in the UK:

In his talk, Prof Jones said inbreeding was not confined to Muslims, and historically had occurred in every part of society, including the royal family.

He said: ‘We are all more incestuous than we realise. In Northern Ireland lots of people share the same surname, which suggests a high level of inbreeding.

‘There’s a lot of surname diversity in London but if you look at the Outer Hebrides there are rather fewer surnames in relation to the number of people.’

Well, the good professor should know that pointing to an exceptional area like the Outer Hebrides does not mean that the British are just as prone to inbreeding as Pakistani Moslems. Shame on him for implying that.

And as for his notion that the same surname indicates inbreeding -- is he that clueless? People named 'Smith' descended from people who were smiths by trade. Were they all related? Many people have surnames based on where their ancestors lived; are they all kin? And since some of these surnames have been around for many centuries, the relationship may go back dozens of generations. It's silly to suggest that a common surname indicates a close enough relationship to classify it as inbred.

And I know that a lot of people, even in the UK, like to bash the royals, and royalty in general, for various reasons. But the inbreeding that did occur among royals was not as 'incestuous'. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are second and third cousins several times removed, being connected by descent from Queen Victoria -- four generations back.

No doubt there have been royal marriages between closer cousins but those marriages seem far less common today. Again, shame on Jones for implying that the royals are 'incestuously'  inbred.

Why is it now some kind of unwritten law that when criticizing a 'protected' group in some way, or when some ''insensitive'' third party criticizes them, White people must say that we are just as guilty? That is getting very old, and somebody has to speak up about it. Just tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

Can we re-direct the impulse to do good?

Several years ago, when I first began blogging, there was a 'border blogger' who wrote about the effects of illegal immigration on his area. His blog doesn't exist now, but at one point, in a post about the do-gooders who set up 'water stations' for the illegals or otherwise aided and abetted them, he likened the do-gooders to animal hoarders. He referred, of course, to the people you hear about in your local news: those people -- often women -- who take in unwanted pets. Then the animals continue to multiply from a few to a few hundred, until things get hopelessly out of hand, and start to affect the neighborhood.

At TOQ Online, Matt Parrot uses the 'cat lady' analogy to good effect in this piece on illegal immigration. There is no doubt an element of misplaced or perverted altruism among the people who want to take in all the hard-luck cases who can find their way into our country. These people, in addition to misguided altruism, also suffer from an inability to see down the road to the long-term consequences of their need to do good deeds.

I suppose the most charitable analysis of why the immigration enthusiasts do what they do is that they have an unfulfilled do-gooding impulse. But there seems to be more to it than that. I can only wonder why they do not satisfy their urge to do good by helping neighbors and people in their own community. I was talking about this with a friend, and discussing the way that most if not all local churches divert their charity monies to the perpetually helpless third world. Wells have been dug and re-dug in Africa umpteen times, and yet there is a constant solicitation for money to dig wells in Africa. Lately, there is money being collected for Haiti, and for people to go to Haiti and bring home children, or to Africa or Guatemala.

Yet nobody seems to want to pour their time and energy into funds for local people. There are many unemployed people down to the last of their savings,  and people who can't afford urgent dental work, and other such needs. Meanwhile, everybody is focusing on immigrants and on 'outreach' to them, and of course the Third World.

Is there a way that people's charitable impulses can be turned towards their own people? Do people just think that doing for 'Others' has more cachet and prestige than helping our own, what with all the celebrities making pilgrimages to the Third World? Is it possible to even bring this up in one's church without being called 'racist' and 'hateful'?

Is this all just a sort of overreaction to the race card, a way of demonstrating emphatically that one is not 'racist'? It seems we've gone towards xenophilia in reaction to the fear of being 'xenophobic'. Will the pendulum ever swing back?

G.K. Chesterton, b. May 29, 1874

Today is the anniversary of G.K. Chesterton's birthday. Although today he seems to be remembered mostly by Catholics, as he was a Catholic himself, he has a lot to say that is valuable for all of us. You may notice I have a quote from him in my blog header, and here are a few more quotes, the first being one of my favorites.

'Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
         
"The great ideals of the past failed not by being outlived (which must mean over-lived), but by not being lived enough. Mankind has not passed through the Middle Ages. Rather mankind has retreated from the Middle Ages in reaction and rout. The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."

"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it."

Southron English lesson

What do you call a carbonated drink?
The video does not mention the Texas older generation's term: ''sody (soda) water.'' At least that was what my elders called it when I was a child, and many of my age group did also. Or maybe we were more 'country' then some.

But yes, 'coke' is probably the most common generic term for a carbonated drink in most parts of the South now.
In the Northeast, they call it 'soda', and when I was growing up we knew a couple from Boston who referred to coke as 'tonic'. When these people invited me to have a 'tonic' I had no idea what they were talking about. To me, a tonic was some kind of old-timey medicine.

There are other videos in this series, including one on the 'modal verbs' in Southron English. For example, phrases like 'used to could,' or 'might should' or 'might ought to.' I find myself using those terms now even though in my younger days I thought them old-fashioned.

Are we too homogeneous?

At Vox Day's blog there is a discussion around Vox's question ''Why do white women choose black men?''

One comment brings up a common argument:

NateM

Also, not to be a threadsh***er, but couldn't it be argued that interracial breeding could actually be beneficial for a group, as a way of avoiding eventual flourishing of a genetic disorders that large numbers of a racial group are carriers for due to relative inbreeding? In a way, fresh blood in a group is a long term benefit for the strength of that group. Hell, look at the Russians, they are a mixture of a number of ethnic backgrounds, thanks to years of war between them before eventually settling down to relative homogeny. That's not to discount the cultural strife that usually happens with the process though. I would even say that could be the rhyme or reason behinds mankinds natural tendency towards war and conflict: it puts them into new areas in contact with new groups, and prevents genetic stagnation.''

This is often asserted by proponents of 'diversity' and miscegenation, and it often goes unchallenged, implying that many people accept this claim as having at least some truth.

How do we define 'inbreeding', though? There seems to be no hard-and-fast definition; many of the online definitions I found said only 'breeding between close relatives.' Well, what is a close relative? Judging by what I've read and heard in various discussions, many Americans consider a first cousin as too close a relative to mate with, though many countries and cultures around the world actually favor first-cousin marriages.

Half of the states in our country prohibit first-cousin marriages, reflecting the widespread belief that such marriages are incestuous or at least 'trashy'. Unfortunately, though, many Americans have associated such marriages with 'White trash' from the South. However, looking at the list of states which prohibit such unions, there is no clear breakdown along North and South  lines.

Steve Sailer, in an article from 2003, says

''American society is so biased against inbreeding that many Americans have a hard time even conceiving of marrying a cousin. Yet, arranged matches between first cousins (especially between the children of brothers) are considered the ideal throughout much of a broad expanse from North Africa through West Asia and into Pakistan and India.

In contrast, Americans probably disapprove of what scientists call "consanguineous" mating more than any other nationality. Three huge studies in the U.S. between 1941 and 1981 found that no more than 0.2% of all American marriages were between first cousins or second cousins.

Americans have long dismissed cousin marriage as something practiced only among hillbillies. That old stereotype of inbred mountaineers waging decades long blood feuds had some truth to it. One study of 107 marriages in Beech Creek, Kentucky in 1942 found 19% were consanguineous, although the Kentuckians were more inclined toward second cousin marriages, while first cousin couples are more common than second cousins pairings in the Islamic lands.''

Some people mention Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt as being cousins who married, though their relationship was not that close. They were fifth cousins once removed.

Most of us have little contact with cousins that distant from us, unlike with first or second cousins with whom we grow up, and who seem more like close family.

In earlier eras in New England, there was some cousin marriage; my genealogy researches showed that it was not at all uncommon but most of the marriages that I've found were third or fourth cousins, never first cousins, although that probably happened now and again. Massachusetts permits first cousin marriags. The reason for this marriage pattern was their relative isolation in the 17th and 18th century. Travel was arduous, there were few colonists, and most people did not even meet people from distant towns. The fact that they married cousins does not indicate immorality or backwardness. Over time as more colonists arrived, and isolation decreased, there were fewer such marriages. However, reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft, we see that he often alluded to 'inbred' and degenerate families up in the hills or in the remote areas. This is not to say they were the rule; if it were so, then there would be no disdain or social stigma attached to it, as there obviously was.

Today, though, when scientists want to study the effects of inbreeding, they look at certain populations who isolate themselves:

Isolated populations with homogenous genes such as the Amish in central Pennsylvania, the Ashkenazi Jews and Indian tribes offer genetic researchers unparalleled insight into disease and genetics.

These closed populations, whether by geography or religion, were created by just a few families — called the "founder effect" — and built on generations of inbreeding.''

We're all familiar with the genetic diseases that have developed among these populations, due to consanguineous marriages.

But it should be obvious that real inbreeding among average White Americans is not a problem; it just does not happen that much. I find it baffling that so many people, usually proponents of multiculturalism and racial blending, believe that being White is itself proof of being inbred. There are, after all, White people of just about every European ancestry in this country. Except for extreme cases of group isolation, as with the Amish, they have all intermingled to some degree. I would say there is less intermingling of European nationalities in the Southern states traditionally, because there was less immigration of non-British Isles peoples. There were of course Huguenot descendants, especially in certain areas, but they arrived in colonial times and quickly began to intermarry with the English-speaking population. The same is true of the pre-Revolution colonists from Germany who came to Virginia. They did not remain a distinct or isolated population.

Today, too, everyone has become so mobile that few people live their whole lives in the place of their birth. There is little geographic isolation in this mobile age. So the thought of inbreeding in a country of 310 million very mobile people is absurd. Still, the multicultists harp on the subject of inbreeding, implying that we have to mate with every race to keep our progeny 'vigorous and healthy' or to attain 'hybrid vigor', as in the comment I quoted from Vox Day's blog.

As Sailer's article emphasizes, inbreeding is hardly a problem among Americans, especially White Americans, who express considerable aversion to it. So any argument that is based on the supposed 'inbreeding' of White Americans is foolish.

The hybrid vigor argument is not always true, even among animals:

In any case, humans cannot be 'bred' in the same fashion as zoo animals, although at times it seems as if the propagandists working with our rulers seem to believe we can -- and should -- be, as witness the blitz of advertising featuring race-blending.

A leftist professor said, when I was in college, that one day everybody will be required to marry someone of another race, and that will effectively end 'racial prejudice.' Some of us laughed at his words, but it looks as though he was prophetic.

Strength in numbers

U.S. Adults Estimate that 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian

This recent Gallup poll shows that Americans tend to overestimate the actual number of gays and lesbians.

The Gallup website, of course, does not say that; they say

There is little reliable evidence about what percentage of the U.S. population is in reality gay or lesbian, due to few representative surveys asking about sexual orientation, complexities surrounding the groups and definitions involved, and the probability that some gay and lesbian individuals may not choose to identify themselves as such.

However they note that

Demographer Gary Gates last month released a review of population-based surveys on the topic, estimating that 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, with bisexuals making up a slight majority of that figure. Gates also disputes the well-circulated statistic that "10% of the males are more or less exclusively homosexual."

This website discusses how the ubiquitous ''10%'' estimate promoted by gays and leftists became the standard. The above-linked article mentions the origins of the 10% figure in the questionable 'researches' of Alfred Kinsey. Why Kinsey has  been treated as a legitimate researcher instead of the fraud that he was is a mystery -- well, actually it's no mystery when we remind ourselves of the dishonesty of our biased media.

It's no surprise that the public overestimates the number or percentage of gays, given that homosexuals are greatly overrepresented in the entertainment media, as well as in 'news' coverage. And the same goes for other 'victim groups.' I occasionally ask people to estimate the percentage of blacks in our country. They often guess 30% - 40%,  rather than the true 12-13%. And they overestimate because of the disproportionate numbers of blacks in commercials, movies, and entertainment generally.

It would seem as if that is part of the intent of overpopulating our media with gays and other minority groups: to give us the impression that said groups are more numerous, and therefore more important in society, while diminishing our sense of ourselves as the dominant or majority group.

"Where are the women," cont.

At the blog The West's Darkest Hour, blogger Chechar weighs in on the ongoing discussion of women in ethnonationalism. It's a very interesting read.

He quotes from the discussion at the Counter-Currents blog on the subject of women, and he quotes mostly from a commenter named Karsten, who makes very good points, which I generally agree heartily with. This part in particular:

''Focussing on attracting women (or any minority) is the standard recipe for how a movement kills itself. It’s how traditional conservatism was distorted into the abomination known as “neoconservatism.” First, it too asked, “Where are the women?” and became pro-feminist. Then “Where are the Jews?” and became philosemitic. Then “Where are the blacks?” and became “anti-racist,” and so forth, until this more “inclusive” conservatism hadnothing conservative about it, and was just another kind of leftism.

It was the Janelle Antases and their equivalents among Jews, blacks, and other minority groups that destroyed the Old Right, because they whined and whined and wanted the Right to change to suit them, and sure enough, it did, until all of its principles were gone.''

This is such an important point. It's what is weakening, and threatening to destroy, any kind of dissident group in our society, from even the mildest dissenters like the Tea Partiers (with their 'diversity' mania, and their fear of being 'racist), to the nationalist political parties in Europe. And now even the harder-core right is succumbing to this desire to 'expand the base' or bring in more warm bodies, or whatever. In the effort to become all things to all people and thus attract more support, and with it more respectability if not power, the ethnonationalist right risks becoming an empty shell.

And the very fact of needing and craving the support of minorities (or indifferent women) is in itself a symptom, a sad indication of how lacking in confidence most Whites are these days. The apparent need for validation by having minorities on board with us, or even speaking for us, is sad and disheartening.

However, the situation between men and women is a different case.
The difference between the male-female divide and those between races and ethnicities is that to state the obvious, men and women need each other. We can have, and did have, our own societies divided along racial/national lines. But men and women cannot form separate societies and survive, although some fanatical feminists believed that total separation of the sexes was the ideal. But that is not a natural or healthy situation.

My only problem with Chechar's post was nothing to do with the ideas he expressed; it was simply that at times, as I read it, I was confused as to where Chechar's comments stopped and the quotes from Counter-Currents began or ended. Otherwise it is a very thought-provoking post, and you may want to follow the link to the discussion from which the quotes come at Counter-Currents.

I do think it's crucial that people on our side accept that we will likely never be a majority; to attract real mass support would necessarily require a loss of our very identity and an assimilation to the prevailing corrupted society around us.
Pandering or accommodating to women (or minorities) is a losing proposition, in the starkest terms.

And I do have to agree with many of those who say that it should, it must, be men who constitute any kind of ethnonationalist movement. Women can act in supporting parts but 'putting a feminine face' on it would compromise it and render it useless.

Third parties

I've said before that I believe a third party is sorely needed, given the fact that the two main parties in our country share similar ideas about immigration and multiculturalism. Both parties generally are very careful to limit any criticism of immigration to the illegal variety. This is just not honest, and it is just one more form of political correctness and obfuscation of the truth, as with all forms of political correctness.

Both parties support multiculturalism and the 'proposition nation' idea, and a more or less open-ended commitment to perpetual immigration.

A while back I said that I had hopes for the American Third Position Party. I think those hopes were misplaced, after reading this piece and its comment thread a couple of times.

''... we need an immigration policy that makes sense and that protects American jobs.
Before we go any further, it is important for me to make a few points.  It is not a bad thing that people want to come to this nation from another country.  A lot of people that want to come to the United States are really hard working and have really solid character.  This nation has a long tradition of immigrants arriving to build a better life here. At different times this country will need different levels of immigration, but we will always need new immigrants.  People on one side of a border are not more “valuable” than people on another side of a border.  There is a reason why our founding fathers believed that “all men are created equal”.  In every nation on earth there are really wonderful people.  We should love all men, women and children no matter where they were born and no matter what they look like.  God created us all and He loves us all dearly.

This is just more of the kind of thing G.W. Bush was fond of saying, and I am sure various Democrats have said it many times as well.

Before someone says that I am being a purist or ''letting the perfect be the enemy of the good'', please don't.
The hour is late for us; we don't have time to dally with the PC approach and the egalitarian platitudes.

I am sure others will do what they will, but I am crossing A3P off my list of possibilities. I am sure they would not care to have my support in any case.

Decline of Southern English

Recently I read this Daily Mail article on the decline of the Southern American dialect, and of course this is a subject that is close to my heart.

According to a recent study, the upper and middle classes in the South are especially prone to lose their Southern accent or speech pattern.

The article quotes a Robin Dodsworth, the linguistics professor who collected recordings of Southern speech for the study. At the conclusion of the article, Dodsworth says that

''It's not realistic to talk about "saving" a dialect or accent,' she said, 'because the fact of life is that dialects change.

'The Southern accent the way we think of it now is different than the way people in the South talked 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and so forth.'

Oh yes, this is the politically correct 'descriptive-not-prescriptive' approach to linguistics, which I learned at the feet of my lefty linguistics teacher in college in the late 70s.

The thinking behind it is that standards are elitist, and that language is organic; it just grows, and nobody should try to control the growth in any direction; just let it follow its natural course like a meandering river. Grammar rules should not be emphasized, says this school of thought, because it stifles natural growth and change. Ebonics should be allowed to flourish, of course, because it is a natural outgrowth from vibrant black culture. Now, I wonder what Dodsworth would say if someone said they wanted to 'save' the black American dialect? I have a feeling the answer would be very different.

I didn't buy the PC view of linguistics back in college and I don't now. I think that 'change' in language, just as in culture generally, should be kept within limits, and that's done by not giving way to every change that comes along, such as ephemeral slang, (as the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary recently did) and by not letting things like social change and mass media influence change the regional dialects willy-nilly. Language would change in a chaotic way if we did not make efforts to preserve existing speech habits.

I've written before about how the Southern American dialect has been declining in recent decades, and how I noticed that the younger generations often speak a kind of generic media English and not the Southron dialect that their parents and grandparents speak. It shouldn't even be necessary to explain why I think that is a shame.

Michael at the Southern Nationalist Network blog writes about the Daily Mail article here. He notes that the media and the schools promote a negative view of our culture and Southron people, and that the message being received by young people about their heritage, including their dialect, is a negative one.

Just as most nationalists from around the world emphasize the importance of language in preserving a sense of identity and heritage, those with roots in the South should recognize that language is vital to a healthy sense of identity and heritage.  The erosion of the dialect weakens the culture and the people of the South.

There's little doubt that many Americans outside the South tend to have a negative perception of Southern people, based on their speech patterns. I recently had someone tell me that she thought a certain new neighbor from the South was 'stupid' when she first met him, ''because of his accent.'' I am not sure why many Northerners think that people from the South sound 'ignorant' or dull-witted. Is it because of the comparatively slow way of speaking, the fabled 'drawl'? Or is it because of different locutions, syntax and grammar among real Southern speakers? Of course these critics take it for granted that their way of speaking is the 'right' way, without realizing that there are actually different dialects that have their own conventions and habits? This same acquaintance tends to think that any deviations from the dialect she speaks are absurd or wrong. That, my friends, is ignorance.

I think it's a shame that many young people think they need to conform to mass media English, as spoken on TV and in movies. They perceive the dialect their forefathers spoke as 'backward' or embarrassing. I understand the desire for peer approval at that age. When I first came up North as a teenager, I succumbed to the pressure to talk like those around me, because of the teasing and giggles that my accent elicited from my classmates. However pride in my heritage eventually overcame the desire to 'fit in'. I can speak 'standard' English if I choose, or I can revert to what is comfortable and speak Southron. It is true, also, that we tend to be influenced unconsciously by the way people speak around us, and being surrounded by 'standard' American English affects everybody, I suspect. And then there is the growing influence of black idioms: words like 'ho' and bling and other such ''enrichments.''

But what can we do? In the Daily Mail article, Dodsworth says that we can just 'keep speaking that way' and thus preserve our ways. It may not be that easy, especially with the societal change going on around us. I think there should be some effort to hold onto our linguistic heritage, and  again, Michael at SNN speaks about such efforts in the video here.

He puts forth some good ideas on how this might be done. One of the projects mentioned is a Southern lexicon or dictionary. I had thought of doing that as a personal project over the last few years, but I think it needs to be a collaborative project with a number of people involved. There are a lot of different variations of the Southern dialect, and input from many different people would be ideal. Michael says contributions to a dictionary are welcome, and I think it's a worthwhile project.

I expect to have more to say about this in another post.

What say you all?

American voters on display

I suppose the responses to the questions about the Fed are predictable; I always had a sense that any talk about the Fed went over the heads of many voters. So we have an electorate that votes for a candidate for the shallowest reasons, and actual information about that candidate goes in one ear and out the other. Especially where White Guilt comes into the picture.

It's hard to maintain any optimism after listening to most of these people.
They are determined not to be 'confused by the facts.'

A special place for women?

There has been an ongoing discussion on various blogs about the role (or the scarcity) of women in ethnonationalist or WN groups.
This article by Michael J. Polignano from TOQ was one of the early ones on the topic that I recall seeing, back in 2010.

There have been recent discussions on other blogs.

The discussions seem to go in circles, whenever this topic comes up.

I have blogged now and again about the subject too. It seems to be an undisputed fact that women are a distinct minority among ethnonationalists and WNs. It also seems to be true that women are less likely to be politically conservative, tending to vote Democratic in larger numbers.

So while some have suggested in these discussions that women have more to lose by identifying with a marginalized and politically incorrect viewpoint, it seems that even in the realm of 'mainstream' politics women are more likely to take the liberal side. I've said, as many people have, that women are simply more likely to make decisions based on feeling than on an intellectual or detached approach. As with any such statement, there are always exceptions to the rule.

With the more hard-line political viewpoints, most of the individuals who identify with these lines of thought are people who are either alienated (understandably, in most cases) from the mainstream, or in some cases just contrarian types who want to go against the consensus. This is also true across the spectrum with various dissenting political viewpoints.

But many on our side are simply unreconstructed 'old Americans', people who have not bowed the knee to the PC Baal. We represent the old America; we are not the aberration; the post-modern, post-racial, post-Americans are.

Some women in the discussions linked above blame 'misogynistic' men among the WNs for the lack of women in the ranks. I think it works both ways; there are women even on the realist right who react in a knee-jerk feminist way to any criticism of women, and that keeps the cycle of misunderstanding going.

Many people have said that the natural role of woman is to mother children and to tend the home. That's true, but in today's society in which many people never marry at all, and many married couples are childless, where does that leave these women? In olden times, unmarried women past a certain age were called 'old maids' or spinsters, and usually remained at home with aging parents or helped to bring up nieces and nephews, or to do charitable work if they had the leisure. But that is not an option in our day. The fact that many women are not in traditional roles in the home is not just due to feminism. The decay and disintegration of the family, thanks in large part to the machinations of the left, is a big factor in displacing women from the traditional role.

And even if women are in the traditional domestic role, does this mean they are necessarily going to hold bleeding-heart liberal ideas about racial issues, immigration, and so on? I don't think there is any reason to believe that the domestic role makes women more soft-hearted or soft-headed about the crises in the larger world.

Some also say that women were never as 'racially aware' as men are. I think that's an exaggeration. I remember in my own childhood that even my Yankee-born mother and her female family members were very much racially realistic. They were genteel about it, but also very frank. All my older female family members on the Southern side of the family, likewise, and they were even more blunt on these matters. I don't know if younger people today are cognizant of this. So I don't believe that there is a lack of the 'gene' or the tendency to ethnocentrism. If anything, the instinctive female gene for preservation of family and home inclines her (or at least used to) to ethnoloyalty and the 'us vs. them' mentality.

We Americans have all heard the stories of how the old frontier women defended home and hearth (with firearms, if necessary) when the menfolk were away. In the South, there are similar stories of the War Between the States when women and servants had to defend themselves and their property against marauding Yankees.

Unfortunately it may be that women are more susceptible to indoctrination, especially that which is delivered by 'entertainment', anything which plays on feminine sympathies. For example Oprah and her soap-opera morality plays about abused victims or oppressed minorities, or movies which have some sentimental feel-good message about 'understanding' and tolerance.

The discussion at OD as well as at TOQ included suggestions for a website on nationalist issues for women, from a woman's point of view, or even a 'place where women can talk.'

There was also mention of the need for a blog or website where women's traditional concerns (home, family, childrearing) would be the focus.

This may be the right approach, although would it be enough to counteract the mass media propaganda directed at women?

Some women do respond to intellectual arguments and enjoy discussing ideas, but unfortunately I've met many women with whom one can't have any kind of rational discussion, and their eyes glaze over when you try to talk about ideas of any kind, regardless of whether they are politically incorrect or whether they 'safe' ideas. Most of the women I know of who fit this category also voted Democrat in the last election, and they can't even tell you why. If they try, their answers make little sense.

I am not being a "female misogynist'' here, just a realist.

Perhaps the female-oriented WN or ethnopatriot blog could work; I think it would be good to emphasize things of a positive nature like our cherished traditions, culture, music, folklore, family issues/childrearing, and so on. I've done a little of that on this blog, though I also include historical notes and trivia, and reminders of our origins and identity.

I don't know if having a group blog with all women would work well or not; at this point I think there might not be enough of a demand for such a site, and I don't know of that many female ethnonationalists who would be willing to start such a blog. I think the audience is spread pretty thin as it is. Maybe the time will come when such a thing would find a ready audience; I am not sure that this is the time. We are still at a point where our ideas, though they represent traditional attitudes, are considered taboo, but perhaps the pendulum will swing in due time in our direction.

I think a good first step would be to try to bring about a cease-fire between the sexes.

Now I've seen it all

Did you know there's ''no one as Irish' as The One?
I learned that from the YouTube video at the above link. (Embedding forbidden.)
I guess the Irish have a 'one-drop' rule for Irishness.

Some American history in pictures

The photo above, taken sometime in the 1920s or 30s, depicts Border Patrolmen apparently trying to apprehend a suspect who is straddling the border, attempting to re-enter Mexico.

I found this picture at How To Be a Retronaut, which is a pictorial blog with a lot of very interesting stuff from past eras. The photo above is apparently part of a National Geographic collection. I recommend clicking over to the Retronaut blog and seeing the whole set of photos from the 20s and 30s, which depict people from just about every state, in various activities. It's a colorful essay on life in the USA at that time.

''...if it prosper...''

Recently, this article from The Guardian appeared, announcing that the non-White populatioln of Britain had reached 9.1 million. Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch UK, says starkly that

''This rise is part of Labour's legacy. Whether they meant to or not, they changed the face of Britain forever."

Also see this map of the distribution of ethnic/racial groups in Britain. Seeing it in map form brings it home more effectively.

On the same subject Paul Weston asks 'Why Is This Not Treason?', referring to what he calls the Labour Party's 'genocidal' policy:

''Other people were all too aware of the size and direction of the Labour Party juggernaut, but still managed to hold onto their naiveté as to its ultimate destination, which appears to be the cultural and racial eradication of the English people. This genocidal policy was explained by Tony Blair’s speech-writer Andrew Neather in 2010, when he rather foolishly came out with the following treasonous nuggets:

‘It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year was to open up the UK to mass migration… to make the UK truly multicultural…the policy was intended to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date… this shone through even in the published report: the “social outcomes” it talks about are solely those for immigrants’
There were two main reasons for such treachery. The first was held by Labour’s minority hard-left who wanted to destroy utterly the hated traditional establishment, and in this respect they had no choice but to declare war on their own people. To the hard-left, the enemy was the conservative, Christian, capitalist West of liberal-democracy Western civilisation — or, in other words, the majority of the English.''

Anybody with eyes to see can recognize that the selfsame policy is being carried out here in the former USA, as well as in all Western countries. There are always those Americans who express Schadenfreude over the changes in British demographics, or who say of the European countries that 'they brought it on themselves'. But we have no room to gloat. The bell tolls for thee and me.

I tend to quibble a little with the tendency of both the linked writers above to lay this all at the feet of the Labour Party in the UK. Granted, they are a leftwing party, and as odious as all such parties are, but they had help, if only passively, from the Conservative Party, so-called, in the UK, just as our Democrat Party had (and has) help from the useless Republicans, who are gleefully working to 'change the face of' our own country, 'forever', just as in the UK. The supposedly conservative parties have different reasons, perhaps, for doing their part to change the face of historically White countries, and they may masquerade, as with our Republicans, as patriots and as 'conservatives.' But they are complicit, too. They are up to their necks in it, and should be held equally accountable, if not more so. I say 'more so' because the lefties generally make no pretense of being either conservative or patriotic, but are openly internationalist and multiculturalist. The Republicans and the Conservatives in the UK are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and lie when they say they care about 'their' countries.

There is no 'conservatism' where there is no will to close and control our wide-open borders, and no concern for the native old-stock people of Western countries. No 'conservative' supports open borders, mass immigration, multiculturalism (even in a watered-down form) or political correctness. It matters not a whit if the alleged 'conservative' is for small government or fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and the rest of it. Those who don't want to preserve the very people who made each Western country what it is, and their way of life along with them, are not conservative in any sense that matters.

I am at a loss to understand why so many people in this country seem unable to grasp that very basic point. How do we get this across to the 'average' people out there? If we don't, then our countries have been changed irrevocably, and the future for our posterity looks pretty bleak.

This time, the treason must not be allowed to prosper.

2008 all over again

I realize it's early yet, but it's starting to look like the fix may be in. The GOP nominee may well be Herman Cain, judging by the mania that is developing out there.

At Fox News, there is gushing over Cain as the next Ronald Reagan.

See also this American Thinker piece and the comments following.

Some examples:

''Herman Cain is the Black Ronald Reagan of our time. His message of limited government, fair tax, self-responsibility and American exceptionalism is right on. My wife and I plan to max out our contributions to help get him elected. (No thanks to the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold act which limits our free speech pocketbook rights to only $2,5000 apiece) I've never been excited enough for a candidate to consider volunteering, but I will for Mr. Cain. Like Herman said yesterday - "America needs a LEADER, not a READER!" Imagine if Obama's opponent was a black Reagan. It blows the race issue away, creates for once a truly positive role model for black youth and I see no down side as of today. I realize this is a long shot but I have tossed my chips in on him. We need a unconventional candidate who will unite and lead this nation and none of the RINO establishment types have a prayer of doing so. Best guess, this guy has a excellent chance of cleaning house and I will honestly say, I would love to see Obama get his floor waxed on the issues by a man who feels no need to tip toe... ''

Another commenter - (all misspellings are as they appeared in the original post):

''Bottom line this is the best thing to happen to the GOP field since 2008, 2010, ...
You have Palin (conservative American woman) Bachcmann (conservative American woman) Nicky Haley (conservative "Indian" American woman SC Gov) Susan Matinz (Conservative "Hispanic" American NM Gov) Mark Rubio (sonservative "Hispanic" American FL Sen) etc. etc. etc.''

And now Citizen Cain complete with a real American History and Story (conserevative "Black" American Pres Canidate) This is the real reason the Dems are running scared. The really big tent is shifting and the BO run Dem Tent has been lifted to expose the true radicals and globalist, and cronie capitalist's. The true Tectonic shift that is and will continue to grow no matter what happens in the GOP primary is this fact, "the GOP is the real big tent party that does not seek control but liberty for all". Oh let's not forget about Jindal in SC either. Can you say "real diversity"? What have the dems always told their supporters "that the GOP is an old white guys in coutry clubs," only party. The last 3 years have shattered that and Cain is just the past piece  of the puzzle no matter what happend. Thank you Mr and Mrs Cain. I watched that speech too, what a guy.''

'Real diversity.' The 'real big tent party.' This is what it has come to.

''Herman Cain will drive the libtards nuts, especially those at the Lame Stream Media outlets. They lose their Ace in the Hole, RACISM! What the hell will they have to talk about? Mr. Cain can slam dunk everyone of the clunkers policies and walk away unscathed. He is hugely loved in Fly Over USA!! YES WE CAIN!!!!''

Yes we Cain? No, we cain't.

The last commenter above shows how little has been learned after seeing every 'conservative black' on the GOP side be called 'Uncle Toms' or 'Aunt Jemima', like Condi Rice. The race card has been played against Clarence Thomas and every other black 'conservative' paragon they wheel out. Black conservatives will not nullify the race card, as these Republicans keep saying. And even if they could, what would that imply? That we ourselves can't speak for ourselves, we must have blacks to intercede for us with the gods of Political Correctness?

On the other hand, a little bit of sanity interrupts the Cain lovefest:

''Change a few words and substitute 'Obama' for 'Cain' and this article could have been written about Obama back in 2007. I have no interest in the amount of electricity and enthusiasm a candidate can generate. Look where that got us in 2008. I look forward to hearing more about Cain's views as well as proof that he means what he says. Say what you will about 'Washington establishment' people who are running; any candidate who's been in office has a record as evidence they are who they claim to be, and I view that as a good thing. It's a catch-22 to nominate an outsider who may be untainted by 'politics,' but who will need to heavily rely on experienced staff to navigate the shark-infested waters once in office.''

Back to the Cainiacs, and this one spells out exactly what is behind this whole phenomenon:

'' Mr. Cain as a conservative black appeals to me in several ways. First: since obama took the country, I have become a racist. Never before have I felt hatred for the black race. Mr. Cain would redeem me by allowing me to feel blacks can be wonderful. Second: Cain says things about America which makes me feel he likes America and Americans (like me). Third: he has pulled himself up by his bootstraps (I hope affirmative action did not have too much to do with his success). Fourth: he seems humble. A couple negatives: his name: Cain vs Able. his experience . his unknowns (what do we really know about the man)''

It's just as Cambria Will Not Yield says: these people are looking for redemption from blacks or absolution for their 'sins'. And they just can't see that they are validating the leftist belief system by reacting with guilt, and seeking some kind of exoneration of their imaginary crimes.

The fact that Cain is gaining so much momentum is worrying, because what will our choices be in the next election? A choice between black candidate A and black candidate B.

Just like Henry Ford supposedly said of the Model T, ''you can have any color you want, as long as it's black.''

I've said before, back in 2008, that electing a black president would be crossing a bridge, and it would establish a precedent that would then become the new norm, the default. A White nominee, from now on, will be at a decided disadvantage. Pale, male, and stale, as our foes put it. Now in our new and improved non-racist America, a black and/or female must henceforth be the only viable candidates. Anything else will be the fabled ''big step backward'' and 'proof that ugly racism still thrives in America'' and all the rest of it.

And it is troubling to see so many of these self-described conservatives not just buying the leftist's diversity and inclusion argument, but literally running to follow in the left's footsteps. Our black can beat your black, our black is the real thing, yours is a fake. You are the real racist. We're the real colorblind party, so there.

Childish thinking. And this is the 'conservative' mindset now. I think many of our folk are too far gone to ever be brought back from the dead.

Still, I have to think that there is a long way to go between now and November, 2012. Is there any hope of talking these 'conservatives' down from the cliff they are about to jump from? Is there any chance of reversing things by means of the ballot box?

About the only hope I see is for a Third Party to appear. And I truly don't want to hear the old refrain about how Third Parties can never succeed; they just divide the GOP vote. That is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. It's only true because so many people will themselves to believe it.

Actually, what we need first is not a third party, but a second party. We actually only have one party, a Multicult Progressive Globalist party that has two 'wings', and little difference between those two wings.

We need a party that represents the majority population of this country, not a party which represents only the interests of a congeries of 'special interest' protected groups whose interests are at odds with our own.

Going back to sleep

From the Telegraph, a surprisingly favorable article about American evangelicals, in the wake of the Harold Camping ''rapture'' scare of the last few days.

All the sneers and jokes in the mass media about the 'end of the world' that wasn't are a sharp contrast to the way they treat non-Christian 'prophecies.' The so-called Mayan Calendar prophecies about 2012 come to mind. There has been endless discussion of this Mayan prediction as we approach the fateful year. Even some professing Christians seem to be concerned about this supposed impending doom.

The media also devote a lot of space -- and respect -- to new-agey things like the writings of Nostradamus, a purported 'seer.' Nostradamus was a priest, so he is not in the same category as the third world shamen who are so revered by the new age followers and leftists in general. But the methods he used to make his predictions involved what the church would call occultism: scrying, for example.

How many TV documentaries have been made about Nostradamus? I think most Americans today know more about his prophecies than those of the Bible.

I've read his quatrains, years ago, before I was a Christian.Even then, I could see that his quatrains were so cryptic and so vague that one could read almost anything in them. They end up being like Rohrschach ink-blots, showing you what's in your own mind, absolutely subjective.

Be all that as it may, Camping's false prophecies should never have received the coverage they did, but the media couldn't resist it. So much potential for jokes and cheap shots at crazy Bible-thumpers up in the hills. They love that kind of thing. They couldn't let it go to waste.

But Camping and his predictions should have been ignored by the media. From a Christian viewpoint, his predictions about 'the end of the world' or the 'return of the Lord' are wrong simply because Christians believe that no one knows exactly the date or the time of these things. Therefore, anybody who claims to know the date or the hour is a charlatan, a fraud, a false prophet, a false shepherd. Any Christian who fell for this, shame on you for not knowing better.

Personally I don't know anybody who took it seriously, though no doubt there are some.

But the world has its share of gullible and undiscerning people, who are prey for all the wolves in sheep's clothing. That's a sad commentary on the world today, and it applies to the secular sphere as much as the religious.

Meantime, the media will make as much hay out of this 'failed prophecy' as they can, and many nonbelievers will be even more hardened against Christianity because they now think it's been discredited entirely.

The linked article alludes to 'Rapture parties' among nonbelievers, and sad to say, such people are partying because I think, deep down, some of them wonder at times if the Christian message is true. They exhibit a ''certain fearful looking for of judgement'' and that's not a pleasant state to be in. So now that they have gotten a reprieve as it were, and have been reassured that this world is all there is, they will go on with their lifelong party and go back to somnambulism for now.

I think that everybody senses that we are on the brink of something, but most hope to sleep and party their way through it.

Truth is better than fiction

Again from Western Voices World News, there is a link to this Daily Mail piece about Mel Gibson's planned new Viking movie. I wondered why WVWN was linking to this piece when the article is rather dated, the movie having been announced back in 2009. But WVWN suggests this Gibson movie as an alternative to the controversial Thor movie.

Actually, it probably is not accurate to call the Thor movie 'controversial' when in fact the only controversy consisted of the discussion at WN or race-realist websites and blogs. I read a great many reviews online and virtually nobody, nobody, mentioned the bizarre casting, or the fact of a black actor playing Heimdall, the 'whitest of the gods.' I had to shake my head at the conspicuous absence of any mention of that fact in the reviews and comments; have the PC masses out there become so brainwashed and conditioned that they really, truly do not notice the race of actors in a movie like this? I noted the same thing when reading discussion of the Merlin TV series, in which Guinevere is a black or interracial woman. No one seemed to notice. It's very much like the ''Emperor's New Clothes'' story, in which the people seem to believe they see clothes on the Emperor, and are adamant that the clothes are fine and impressive. In this real-life case, though, it's as though people are agreeing NOT to see something that is glaringly obvious to the rest of us. Are we really at the point where we and our politically correct fellows even differ on what our senses perceive? Are we really the odd ones out because we perceive the obvious reality that was in fact noticed by all our ancestors?

I've said before on this blog that I think we live in an age in which most people have no interest in, nor regard for the truth for its own sake. Most people are not only content, but happy, to say that up is down, east is west, black is white (or that neither black nor White exist, among human beings) -- because they prefer to be part of the majority, the consensus. They don't want to swim against the tide, and will accept lies rather than the uncomfortable truth every time.

And when something is labeled as ''entertainment'' then all matters of accuracy or even verisimilitude are thrown out the window.

So what about Gibson's new movie? I know a lot of people on our side love his movies, seeing him as some kind of kindred soul as far as ethnic consciousness is concerned, even if only implicitly.

The discussion of the Viking movie at the link is interesting to read. It seems that Gibson is perceived by many of the English readers as being anti-English, and some of them said they expected the new movie to stereotype the English and misrepresent history. It appears there is growing ethnoloyalty there or at least some kind of consciousness of English identity.

Gibson does seem to have a grudge against the English. His mother was Irish-born and his family Catholic, so it is not surprising that to him, the English are perennial villains. I noted that in the movie The Patriot; the English were the usual effete and foppish villains in that movie.

The premise of the Viking movie sounds a little divisive, with the Vikings apparently being set up to be depicted as bloodthirsty savages. There is a great deal of this kind of choosing-up sides among pro-Whites these days, with many people reciting how some other White nation or group did their ancestors wrong. Heroes and villains, good guys and bad guys, with little hint of any kind of solidarity. History is more complex than that, and movies invariably reduce everything to stereotypes and caricatures which only foster more resentments and divisiveness.

The usual rejoinder is 'But it's just a movie. No movie is 100 percent accurate. History is too boring; they have to spice it up and make it more dramatic'', etc. Actually I don't buy that. Granted, things tend to happen more slowly in real life; much of life consists of long lulls between dramatic events, not a rapid-fire series of exciting scenes as in movies. But that being said, real  life, real history, is to me much more interesting than the cartoon version, or the sensationalized counterfeit presented by most movies. Truth is stranger, and often more interesting, than fiction, which is often predictable and hackneyed, at least when brought to us by Hollywood or TV.

The other argument apologizing for historical inaccuracy in movies is that ''people know it's just a story; they can tell fact from fiction. They understand dramatic license.'' Do they? Maybe they did, at one time. I would say most don't, not in 2011.

I've been in many discussions on the Internet and elsewhere, wherein somebody cites something from a movie as if it is real history, or proof of historical fact. Braveheart is constantly cited by Internet denizens as real Scottish history. The fact that many Americans have come to believe in the PC version of history, with the English as arch-villains, probably aids in the acceptance of Gibson's distortions.

This writer, listing inaccuracies in Braveheart, says

''Many, perhaps even most, of the nobles of Scotland, especially those involved in the wars with England, were not Gaels, but rather were culturally similar to English nobles. These Scottish nobles, and also many lesser land holders, would have dressed more or less like their English counterparts, many of whom were their relatives, and spoken a Scottish dialect of English and/or Anglo-Norman French, again like the English nobles. Such were the families of Wallace, Bruce, Balliol, Murray, Stewart, Douglas, Comyn, and many others.''
[...]
 There is no reason at all to think that late 13th century Scottish men had "mullet" haircuts from the 1980's. There is no reason at all to think they braided their hair. There is no reason at all to think they tied bits of fur or feathers in their hair.
Further, there is no reason at all to think they hadn't ever encountered a comb... [In general, the hairstyles shown for the Scots throughout the film seem to be distinctly late 20th century fantasy in inspiration, influenced by the film "Last of the Mohicans" and the television series "Xena: Warrior Princess" more than by history.]''

[emphasis mine]

Those things may be relatively trivial by the standards of some, but what about the depiction of the English as pagans when in fact Christianity was established in England by no later than the 2nd century? Christianity took hold in England before it was established in the rest of Europe.

As for the Vikings vs. the Scots, given Gibson's biases, the Vikings will have to be the double-dyed villains, though when you get right down to the facts, all the peoples of Northwesetern Europe were close kin: Scandinavians, Dutch, Normans, the ''Celts'', the Angles and Saxons. There is little genetic difference among these groups, and their languages show the close kinship. Frisian is said to be the closest language to Old English.

The Scots in fact have been declared to have the most ''Viking'' ancestry of all the British Isles peoples, so it will be rather strange if the Vikings and the Scots are shown as some kind of opposites, as is usually the case with the English and the 'Celts'.

Giving credit where due, although perhaps grudgingly, I will say that it's good that somebody's making a movie that is about our ancestors or kindred peoples. But just this once, I hope he can keep his own biases from coloring the narrative of the movie. And it would be nice to follow historical fact, instead of wresting history to make it fit some predetermined notion. Facts do matter; history is interesting enough in and of itself to justify following facts, rather than inventing fables masquerading as ''history.''

We have to be vigilant about falsified history presented as 'entertainment'; such fiction has deluded so many people in our day. "Knowing'' something that is really a lie is worse by far than utter ignorance. We Western peoples have been manipulated by entertainment to an alarming degree, and we have to learn to be wary and to judge and discern the truth.

Truth matters. We need truth above all else to strengthen us.

The 'green thing'

At Western Voices World news, there is this piece, cited as being from an e-mail, about today's ''green'' culture as contrasted to earlier generations.

In the line at the store, the cashier told the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the 'green thing' back in my day”. The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. The former generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right, that generation didn't have the green thing in its day.''

Following that introduction is a list of many ways (see the list at the link)  in which the habits of earler eras were in fact more 'environmentally-friendly'' than those of today's self-satisfied ''environmentally-conscious'' green types.

Past generations were not ''environmentally conscious'' in today's terms; the way they lived had nothing to do with guilt about how evil [White] humans polluted Mother Earth. Nor was it inspired by fear and panic about something called ''Global warming'' or, to use the revised name, ''climate change.''

The fact is, older generations lived as they did, in an era when many things were re-used, and few things were disposable, just because it was frugal and commonsensical to do so.

The piece cites things like walking to many destinations rather than driving, hanging clothes out to dry on a clothesline, the use of re-usable glass bottles (which one took to the grocery story for a refund of deposit money), and handing down clothes among children in a family.

Further examples which come to mind: having shoes re-soled or repaired rather than tossing them out. A friend and I were talking about that recently. Every neighborhood had shoe repairmen in the old days. People made their shoes last much longer by taking good care of them and having them re-soled or having new heels put on when the heels became worn down. Does anybody do this now, or does everyone just head for Wal-Mart to buy another shoddy pair of made-in-China shoes? Sadly, even the more upscale stores sell poorly-made merchandise made in the Third World, although at higher prices than Wally World.

And what about darning socks? That is something that all girls used to learn how to do, as part of 'domestic science' classes in school, that is, if your mother had not already taught you basic needle skills at home. How many young people are taught how to sew on buttons or do basic mending these days? When we can buy cheap new clothing at the big discount retailer, why bother?

In the past, many products were not over-packaged as they are now; it seems that much of the packaging on various consumer items is wasteful, not to mention difficult to open. I am thinking of those blister-packs which require serious tools to unseal. Many of our grocery items, such as produce, now come in some kind of disposable packaging which is hardly environmentally-smart, and our meats likewise are pre-packaged in plastic or styrofoam trays with plastic wrap. I remember when most grocery stores had a butcher there who would grind meat for  you or cut it to your specifications, and then wrap it in ''butcher paper'', sealed with tape, which was much less waste.

As for the 'paper or plastic' choice at the supermarkets, we are supposed to feel bad that trees must die for our paper sacks, but yet the flimsy plastic sacks are environmentally unfriendly also. Lately I've read that those 'reusable' grocery bags being promoted everywhere (I have several of them) have toxins in them.

It appears most of them are made in China, which is always a red flag for me. So much for those things being 'earth-friendly'.

In the old days, some people did use cloth bags to carry food from the grocery store, which is far preferable
to using those toxic Chinese bags which are made out of some mysterious substance or other.

Another factor today in wastefulness is that most of what we buy, even the big-ticket items like major appliances, seems to be disposable and 'throw-away', not meant to last more than a few years, if that. Refrigerators and freezers and kitchen stoves used to be made to last decades, and some of those from my parents' day are still around, still working. By contrast, most of what we buy today will end up in landfills in a short time. And yes, lower prices make up for that somewhat, but I'd rather pay more for better quality things that last. In the long run, that is more dollarwise.

My parents' generation, who came up during the Great Depression and World War II had a slogan: ''use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.'' While excessive frugality can become an obsession, that saying is common sense, although it seems extreme or just quaint to many people today. Yet if we are on the verge of an economic crisis which may involve real scarcity and lingering hard times, it is advice we should heed.

Betrayed?

It used to be conventional wisdom that a politician's character was reflected in all areas of life, and that a man who was an adulterer was not to be trusted. In this postmodern, post-Christian America -- or more appropriately, post-Clinton America, adultery is to be winked at, and not condemned in a politician. Clinton and his supporters argued that adultery by an elected official was 'just about sex' and 'between two spouses, and none of the public's business.' And this is the default view even among 'conservatives' now. Social conservatism is moribund in the New, post-American America.

I don't particularly care to dwell on Arnold Schwarzenegger's personal life, but it seems the Republicans or 'conservatives' who backed him have buyer's remorse, and feel 'betrayed', rather like Maria, I suppose.

Some comments around the web say that Maria knew what she was in for when she married him, so she deserves no sympathy. I would say the same about the betrayed 'conservatives' who were such loud supporters of Schwarzenegger during the 2003 election campaign.

Back then, I was still a sort of standard conservative, and frequented Republican forums. Those of us who weren't Californians, who warned that Arnold was no conservative and not very qualified to be governor were told by Californians we should shut up because we had no right to express opinions about the race. There was a candidate named Tom McClintock who was far better qualified, and far more conservative than Arnold, but the Arnie groupies derided McClintock because of his appearance, said he couldn't win, he wasn't electable, and above all, he was a 'right-wing extremist.' Arnold himself made disparaging remarks about 'right-wing crazies' during the campaign, and the smitten Republican mainstream swooned over him. Love is blind, I suppose; I think the people who voted for Arnold were just as lovestruck as Maria evidently was when she said yes. I might be able, if I try,  to muster up some sympathy for Maria, though I loathe her family's politics and the harm they have done to this nation (think: the 1965 Immigration Act).  I have no sympathy, however, for the 'betrayed' Republicans who asked for this guy. More fools they.

Over the years, Schwarzenegger gradually showed his true colors. Back in 2005 he occasionally made conservative-sounding noises about amnesty, but his tough talk was just that -- just talk.

Years later he denies that the millions of illegals in California contribute to the budget crisis, and even says he is ''happy'' they are able to get state services.

And just recently, we read that Schwarzenegger pardoned the son of Fabian Nunez, former speaker of the California State Assembly, who was serving time for manslaughter in the stabbing of another young man.
As to why he did this, here is his nonchalant reply in a Newsweek interview:

"Well, hello! I mean, of course you help a friend."

Helping a friend? By thwarting justice? That's corruption, not helping a friend.

Noting the ethnicity of Arnold's paramour, it's hard not to wonder if his intimate involvement, including having a child by a Hispanic, colored his politics and the decisions he made, not only on amnesty and services for illegals, but in the Nunez case. I would think that having a half-Hispanic child could affect someone's objective judgement about Hispanics as a group. This is one more reason why liaisons with out-groups corrupt and weaken our society; there are more and more people with some kind of ties, marital or romantic or whatever, outside their own people, and those people invariably become double-minded.

And though it may be 'mean-spirited' to say this, his choice of a paramour shows that he is, well, an equal opportunity adulterer. No racist, looks-ist, or age-ist, he.

Of course, who are Schwarzenegger's people? I mean, to whom does his allegiance belong? I wonder if he really considers American Whites his people? Does he have his primary loyalties to us? I can only doubt it, based on the evidence.

Our Founding Fathers were emphatic that we must elect only native-born Americans to high office. The loyalties of the American-born are assumed to be undivided, and their experiences and worldview are more likely to be at one with the majority of Americans. And please remember that in the early days of this Republic, citizens were to be free-born White people. Racist? It's just the way it was then.

I have wondered, over the years, if Arnold's being chosen by the GOP hierarchy was a kind of warm-up or test run for a foreign-born candidate. There was talk among party honchos early on about whether or not he might be able to run, if the Constitution could be amended to allow non-native born Americans to be President. Maybe it was groundwork for our present situation. Just a thought.

''All sail and no anchor"

In recent threads here, the subject of social class has come up, and of the relative merits of our political system. Most Americans of course believe that ''democracy'' or more correctly, our representative Republic, is the best possible political system. Along with that belief, many Americans also believe that there should be no class distinctions or hierarchies; everybody is as 'good as' the next man, and thus it it good that everyone has a vote and (theoretically) an equal voice in government.

These subjects turn up in a letter written in 1857 by British historian and statesman Thomas Babington Macaulay. The letter was written to American writer H.S. Randall who had written Life of Thomas Jefferson, and sent a copy to Macaulay.

Macaulay responded with a lengthy letter spelling out his doubts about the future of 'democracy' in America, and about the perils of democracy in any country. He specifically referred to the then-recent establishment of democracy in France, pointing out that the result was a looming crisis in France, which appeared to be leading to ''general spoliation, a national bankruptcy, a new partition of the soil, a maximum of prices, a ruinous load of taxation on the rich for the purpose of supporting the poor in idleness.'' But, happily, he says, the danger was averted -- though at the cost of a loss of liberty. It was a choice, he says between civilization and liberty. Macaulay said that the result of such a situation would be the same in Britain, and in the United States.

America, he says, has remained immune from such disturbances because of the smaller population and lower population density. When the United States became more populous, this country too would not be exempt from disturbances in economic hard times, with greater numbers of unemployed and discontented people at the lower end of the economic ladder. Such people would be fodder for demagogues stoking class envy, and promising an equitable redistribution of wealth.  The presence of a ruling class would be a protection against such situations, because when the have-nots have sufficient political power, they will vote for their own immediate self-interest and not for the good of the people as a whole.

Macaulay says:

"I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people who should in a year of scarcity, devour all the seed corn, and thus make the next year a year, not of scarcity, but of absolute famine. There will be, I fear, spoliation. The spoliation will increase the distress. The distress will produce fresh spoliation. There is nothing to stop you. Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor. As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilisation of liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your republic will be fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth; -- with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions."

Some sixteen years later, James A. Garfield offered a response to Macaulay's words in a speech called ''The Future of the Republic." Of course Garfield took some exception to Macaulay's rather grim predictions, and to his arguments. He first chides Macaulay for his focus on social class, and being a good American, boasts that we in America recognize no such thing as social class:

"Our society resembles rather the waves of the ocean, whose every drop may move freely among its fellows, and may rise toward the light until it flashes on the crest of the highest wave."

Garfield then moves on to note that Macaulay did not take into account one factor, which Garfield calls ''the great counterbalancing force" -- universal education. Granted, back in 1873 when Garfield's remarks were written, education in this country had not been subverted, gutted, and rendered an absolute detriment as it has been since. In Garfield's day, this country had attained very high levels of literacy, and the immigrants who had begun pouring in from all over Europe were taught English, and Americanized.

In retrospect we can see that too much faith has been placed in our educational system, or universal literacy. If that is our only protection from the social crises that Macaulay warned of, then we are leaning on a very slender reed.

But here, Garfield unexpectedly offers warnings of his own:

"And here is a real peril, -- the danger that we shall rely upon the more extent of the suffrage as a national safeguard. We cannot safely, even for a moment, lose sight of the quality of the suffrage, which is more important than its quantity.

We are apt to be deluded into false security by political catch-words, devised to flatter rather than instruct. We have happily escaped the dogma of the divine right of kings. Let us not fall into the equally pernicious error that multitude is divine because it is a multitude.''

In mentioning the Latin maxim, ''Vox populi, vox Dei", the voice of the people is the voice of God, he says

''It is only when the people speak truth and justice that their voice can be called "the voice of God." Our faith in the democratic principle rests upon the belief that intelligent men will see that their highest political good is in liberty, regulated by just and equal laws; and that, in the distribution of political power, it is safe to follow the maxim, 'Each for all, and all for each." We confront the dangers of suffrage by the blessings of universal education.
[...]
Hence, as popular suffrage is the broadest base, so, when coupled with intelligence and virtue, it becomes the strongest, the most enduring base on which we build the superstructure of government..."

We are now living in a time when Macaulay's warnings are being validated, and when reading Garfield's words, we can see where this country went wrong in extending the suffrage, while at the same time corrupting our educational system and our media.

The colossal mistake of undermining national cohesion and identity by opening our borders to ever more disparate peoples was yet one more nail in the coffin of our republic.

I will give Macaulay the last word here by quoting from one of his essays:

''Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law, and by observing strict economy in every department of the state. Let the Government do this: the People will assuredly do the rest.''

A look back

 (Click to view larger image)

The newspaper clipping above was originally posted at the blog USA Death Watch, back in 2008.
I hope blogger AndyK does not mind my re-posting the image here. But the article, from 1995, is very interesting to read. I read it when it was first posted on USA Death Watch, and it seems relevant now in a lot of ways, including the fact that it mentions Jared Taylor.

It's interesting to note how subjects like those discussed in the article are now verboten in the so-called mainstream media. Can any of you imagine a piece like this appearing in most newspapers now? Could Jared Taylor be mentioned without disparaging phrases such as 'far right' or 'hate group' or some such hysteria?

1995 seems like a long time ago. Granted, it was 16 years ago but it seems more like 160 years in terms of how much things have changed.

There are some very good pieces over at AndyK's blog, although it appears that he has not been updating his blog for some time. It would be a shame if he has discontinued blogging altogether; I hope he hasn't, but at least there are some interesting things in his archives. This piece is about the futuristic fiction story by William S. Lind, which was mentioned in the article linked above. It is set in a 'Utopian 2050'. Of course the future is actually dystopian, as is the case with any leftist 'utopia.' But it is fascinating to see how closely Lind's projections fit the reality of the 21st century, at least so far.  He was off the mark on a couple of things, but uncannily accurate on others.

A little late...

 

The lovely greeting above was sent by Zazie in France, in honor of May Day which is also La Fête du Muguet. Since the greetings I think are meant for all who read this blog, I pass it on it to you a little late, and I hope Zazie will forgive me for the delay.

The flowers are a wish for good luck.

Thanks, Zazie.

On the importance of 'free utterance'

The following editorial was written in 1922 by the legendary newspaperman William Allen White, known as the Sage of Emporia. It seems apropos today, though written in a rather different context.

White is hard to categorize politically today; like most men of past generations he is not easily labeled according to today's definitions. Above all, he was a champion of small-town middle America and the sense of community and belonging. He was one of the old-school newspapermen who believed in hearing both sides of an issue. His kind of journalism is mostly extinct.

To an Anxious Friend
July 27, 1922

You tell me that law is above freedom of utterance. And I reply that you can have no wise laws nor free enforcement of wise laws unless there is free expression of the wisdom of the people -- and alas, their folly with it. But if there is freedom, folly will die of its own poison, and the wisdom will survive. That is the history of the race. It is the proof of man's kinship with God.

You say that freedom of utterance is not for times of stress, and I reply with the sad truth that only in time of stress is freedom of utterance in danger. No one questions it in calm days, because it is not needed. And the reverse is true also; only when free utterance is suppressed is it needed, and when it is needed, it is most vital to justice. Peace is good, but if you are interested in peace through force and without free discussion -- that is to say, free utterance decently and in order -- your interest in justice is slight. And peace without justice is tyranny, no matter how you may sugar-coat it with expediency. This state to-day is in more danger from suppression than from violence, because in the end, suppression leads to violence. Violence, indeed, is the child of suppression. Whoever pleads for justice helps to keep the peace; and whoever tramples upon the plea for justice temperately made in the name of peace only outrages peace and kills something in the heart of men which God put there when we got our manhood. When that is killed, brute meets brute on each side of the line.

So, dear friend, put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this state will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only men can speak in whatever way given them to utter what their hearts hold -- by voice, by posted card, by letter, or by press. Reason never has failed men. Only force and repression have made the wrecks in the world."

What if....? If only...

In the discussion of my earlier post on 'Founding Stock heritage', the question arose: would we be better off today had our colonial English ancestors not seceded, and instead remained under English rule? Or perhaps we would be better off if we had stayed a colony and presumably been granted dominion status like Canada, or been part of some kind of united English North America? (I am paraphrasing and adding a little of my own elaboration, but I think the spirit of the inquiry is intact in my version.)

I did a little ruminating on this question overnight, and a few questions arose in my mind. I suppose we might look at Canada as it exists now, and ask if our history would parallel theirs had we not become independent.

That thought led to the question in my mind: how is it that the Canadians differ in significant ways from Americans? We all are "children of a common mother".

I suppose Canada is the country that, superficially at least, is most like the United States. I have often thought that if I were to live in another country, Canada would be the one that would require the least cultural adjustment. Granted, when I first thought of that, I was quite liberal, and as I've moved rightward, back to the truths of my upbringing, Canada has become even more liberal. So I would not feel as much at home politically there. However, Canadian people, in my experience, are very congenial and polite, though I know many of them resent America's imperial politics and 'gun culture'. At the same time, many right-wing Americans disdain Canada for its liberalism.

But how did the differences between Canadians and Americans come to be? We did start out as English colonies, and we had similar mixes of settlers, from the British Isles as well as from France. So how did it come to be that our colonial ancestors became restive and rebellious and began to resist rule by our cousins in London, while the Canadians retained their allegiance to the Crown, and did not agitate for independence?

I often stress the role of genes in character and behavior. We are not too dissimilar from our Canadian brothers in our ancestral origins -- or we weren't, at first. And we did share a common culture in our British roots and our English language. Yet we seem to have grown apart.

One other commonality between the U.S. and Canada is our history with the 'indigenous peoples'. We share the frontier experience. According to some historians, our experience of the frontier, of the vast open spaces, of the conflict with the Indians -- these things made Americans the people they are, what with our 'rugged individualism' and our attachment to our right to bear arms.

''The Frontier Thesis, also referred to as the Turner Thesis, is the argument advanced by historian Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893 that the origin of the distinctive egalitarian, democratic, aggressive, and innovative features of the American character has been the American frontier experience. He stressed the process—the moving frontier line—and the impact it had on pioneers going through the process. In the thesis, the frontiercreated freedom, by "breaking the bonds of custom, offering new experiences, and calling out new institutions and activities."

Some people are adamant that Americans' fighting spirit comes from our 'Scots-Irish blood', you know, the 'born fighting' image.

Lately, however, it seems that the American 'spirit' of resistance is curiously absent, unless you count the Tea Parties, which is rather sad.

However, we and the Canadians have taken different turns.

This page gives some information on Canada's demographics.
Here, you can see a breakdown by ethnicity.


My impression has always been that Canada has quite a lot of Scottish blood, perhaps more, in proportion to population, than America. And the statistics seem to indicate that.
Why, then, are they not the fighters and the rebels? Canada also has a fair amount of Irish-descended people. Surely all this 'fiery Celtic blood' should have made the Canadians more  feisty, but overall we tend to think of Canadians as a very pacific people.

Genetics and culture don't seem to account for much of the difference between us. Or can it be that the stereotypes of the 'Celtic' peoples are not altogether true?

Whatever the reason, America and Canada diverged, culturally and politically. And it seems that the Canadian government is now even more attached to, and enamored of, multiculturalism and diversity than our benighted government.

So paradoxically, though we and Canada diverged, we are becoming similar in our 'diversity' and multicultural, polyglot populations. Isn't it strange how 'diversity' breeds uniformity?

I think it's a little futile to think about how we might have been better off had we stayed under English rule, or how we might have fared had we and Canada been merged into one political unit.
'We' wouldn't have been 'we', then, or would we? Things would have taken a different course. But we will never know, will we? Unless, of course, the globalist overlords openly proclaim the 'North American Union' that they have been engineering for decades. Then both we and Canada will be united in some polyglot mixed-multitude political unit, bearing little to no resemblance to the countries we've known and loved.

Overall, I think it was better that our Founding Fathers won our independence. Being governed by those closer to us, in a smaller-scale government (as existed at the beginning of our Republic) is preferable to being governed by a far-off government which is usually not in touch with the needs or concerns of a group of subjects across the ocean. As H.P. Lovecraft noted in the essay I quoted earlier, there was not any anti-British xenophobia involved in our secession. We were all of the same people; it was not like casting off foreign rule, as some would make it.

It is unfortunate -- no, it's tragic, that our Republic as it was originally founded could not be maintained. I say it could not be maintained, because our Founders were very explicit that the system they set up was not suitable to a rabble or a group of disparate peoples. They said that the system would not be suitable to any but a moral and religious people -- which we have not been for some time now. And most people who give any thought to these things know that a representative government depends on the people being reasonably educated and literate, informed, and responsible. Does this describe our current American electorate?

So our Republic has been gutted from the inside, by a number of factors, and it's to be determined whether it can be salvaged, or whether it is even desirable to salvage it.

It's certainly interesting to ponder over ''what if?'' -- what if we had not become independent? But we can never really know how things would have turned out.

But perhaps thinking about these things -- such as what made America the country it has become? -- will give us opportunity to think about where we are going, and how we can avoid the gross mistakes of the past.

I feel sure that if our colonial fathers could have foreseen what would become of their country, perhaps they would not even have bothered to shed their blood to create it. And that is a bitter realization.

One more hopeful sign from Europe

Norwegian MP Christian Tybring-Gjedde speaks out about immigration and 'cultural self-annihilation.'
Just as with many of the 'right' in Europe, he is rather liberal by our standards but at least this is a step towards a healthier ethnopatriotism.

Founding-stock heritage

In this discussion of Jared Taylor's new book, this comment appeared:

15 — highduke wrote at 10:33 AM on May 14:
Unless the British founding stock get a sense of identity, destiny & cohesion as a distinct group first, most of them will remain sceptical to WN. Italian-Americans like Tancredo, Borzellieri, La Bruzzo & DeAnna in politics and David Chase & Tom Fontana in entertainment are great allies but the movement needs more Becks, Nugents & Dobbs. A generic White identity must be established & promoted along with WASP identity within US WN. Taylor should make WASP identity the subject of his next book.''

Well, I agree with 'highduke' that the founding stock should, perhaps must, regain a sense of 'identity, destiny, and cohesion', but I sometimes despair of that happening. Founding stock Anglo-Americans are like amnesiacs; many don't know that they are descendants of English colonists, and others know but don't care, calling themselves 'just Americans.' Others are indoctrinated to see their ancestry as something for which they need to apologize. And there are many other Americans who hold founding stock Americans responsible for our predicament.

Promoting WASP identity is something that I think would be good; why should it not be good? I've done a little of that kind of promoting here, with very mixed, limited results. For some reason it's very controversial to promote Anglo-Saxon heritage. It's too exclusivist, it's elitist, it's divisive, so the arguments go.

I've thought about starting another blog which would be exclusively devoted to Anglo-American heritage and history, though I might only attract a handful of readers along with a certain amount of antagonism, but I may still go ahead, regardless. I think it's a worthy project, if only for my own personal satisfaction.

The comments by 'highduke' quoted above seem to tie in with this essay by New England writer H.P. Lovecraft, in 1915. Please note: the idiosyncratic spellings are his.

Americanism
by Howard Phillips Lovecraft

It is easy to sentimentalise on the subject of “the American spirit”—what it is, may be, or should be. Exponents of various novel political and social theories are particularly given to this practice, nearly always concluding that “true Americanism” is nothing more or less than a national application of their respective individual doctrines.

Slightly less superficial observers hit upon the abstract principle of “Liberty” as the keynote of Americanism, interpreting this justly esteemed principle as anything from Bolshevism to the right to drink 2.75 per cent. beer. “Opportunity” is another favourite byword, and one which is certainly not without real significance. The synonymousness of “America” and “opportunity” has been inculcated into many a young head of the present generation by Emerson via Montgomery’s “Leading Facts of American History.” But it is worthy of note that nearly all would-be definers of “Americanism” fail through their prejudiced unwillingness to trace the quality to its European source. They cannot bring themselves to see that abiogenesis is as rare in the realm of ideas as it is in the kingdom of organic life; and consequently waste their efforts in trying to treat America as if it were an isolated phenomenon without ancestry.

“Americanism” is expanded Anglo-Saxonism. It is the spirit of England, transplanted to a soil of vast extent and diversity, and nourished for a time under pioneer conditions calculated to increase its democratic aspects without impairing its fundamental virtues. It is the spirit of truth, honour, justice, morality, moderation, individualism, conservative liberty, magnanimity, toleration, enterprise, industriousness, and progress—which is England—plus the element of equality and opportunity caused by pioneer settlement. It is the expression of the world’s highest race under the most favourable social, political, and geographical conditions. Those who endeavour to belittle the importance of our British ancestry, are invited to consider the other nations of this continent. All these are equally “American” in every particular, differing only in race-stock and heritage; yet of them all, none save British Canada will even bear comparison with us. We are great because we are a part of the great Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere; a section detached only after a century and a half of heavy colonisation and English rule, which gave to our land the ineradicable stamp of British civilisation.

Most dangerous and fallacious of the several misconceptions of Americanism is that of the so-called “melting-pot” of races and traditions. It is true that this country has received a vast influx of non-English immigrants who come hither to enjoy without hardship the liberties which our British ancestors carved out in toil and bloodshed. It is also true that such of them as belong to the Teutonic and Celtic races are capable of assimilation to our English type and of becoming valuable acquisitions to the population. But, from this it does not follow that a mixture of really alien blood or ideas has accomplished or can accomplish anything but harm. Observation of Europe shows us the relative status and capability of the several races, and we see that the melting together of English gold and alien brass is not very likely to produce any alloy superior or even equal to the original gold. Immigration cannot, perhaps, be cut off altogether, but it should be understood that aliens who choose America as their residence must accept the prevailing language and culture as their own; and neither try to modify our institutions, nor to keep alive their own in our midst. We must not, as the greatest man of our age declared, suffer this nation to become a “polyglot boarding house.”

The greatest foe to rational Americanism is that dislike for our parent nation which holds sway amongst the ignorant and bigoted, and which is kept alive largely by certain elements of the population who seem to consider the sentiments of Southern and Western Ireland more important than those of the United States.
[...]
The main struggle which awaits Americanism is not with reaction, but with radicalism. Our age is one of restless and unintelligent iconoclasm, and abounds with shrewd sophists who use the name “Americanism” to cover attacks on that institution itself. Such familiar terms and phrases as “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom of speech” are being distorted to cover the wildest forms of anarchy, whilst our old representative institutions are being attacked as “un-American” by foreign immigrants who are incapable both of understanding them or of devising anything better.

This country would benefit from a wider practice of sound Americanism, with its accompanying recognition of an Anglo-Saxon source. Americanism implies freedom, progress, and independence; but it does not imply a rejection of the past, nor a renunciation of traditions and experience. Let us view the term in its real, practical, and unsentimental meaning.''

The above was written in 1915.