Where is the 'love'?

Regular readers of this blog know that I occasionally reference the blog Cambria Will Not Yield, or CWNY. I've expressed admiration for CWNY's writing and his message. He is expressing a point of view that is not really heard anywhere else. I don't often cite a specific post of his because his posts are consistently well-written and inspiring. Each week it seems he outdoes himself, so it's a given that this week's post will always be his best.

I've noticed that at this blog, there are some strong objections expressed regarding CWNY's style and his message. One critic says it's a pity CWNY does not accept comments; on the contrary, I think it's best he not accept comments, because it's guaranteed that he would have to deal with the usual crowd of foul-mouthed leftist and rightist trolls who would ridicule his Christian faith. There would also be the PC pharisees, of both ''right'' and left, who would express dismay and feign shock at his 'hateful' messages. That kind of feedback is draining; it depletes a blogger's energies, diverting them into a pointless back-and-forth with critics and assorted other distractions among the comments. I truly hope CWNY continues his current policy of no comments. He does have a writing style and message that is 'strong meat' indeed, in a generation which will not tolerate anything more than spiritual milk, watered down, politically corrected, and lukewarm.

The current 'Christian' faith believes that God is Niceness, not that God is love. There is a tough and militant side to real love, which is visible in Jesus' life and message; Jesus was not a milquetoast who tolerated everybody equally. He spoke quite harshly at times, depending on his audience. He was not an inoffensive, weak-as-water teacher after the fashion of many of today's 'Christians'.

Real love must be capable of outrage, indignation, and at times, even hate towards that which threatens the object of our love.

If we are not angered and incensed toward that which threatens us and which is destroying that which we love, then we don't really love at all.

Very few bloggers write with the genuine depth of feeling and the passion which characterizes CWNY's writings. Few writers really exhort readers and try to rally or inspire them to hope or to a healthy defense of that which is good. CWNY's message does that. There are many ethnonationalist/ethnopatriot bloggers who do not seem emotionally involved with their subject matter; they don't seem to feel anguish over the potential loss of our way of life, our Christian heritage or over the future of our children. There is instead a great deal of cynicism or doomsaying or jaded complaining. There is not much exhortation based on love, either a love for Truth, or a love for our people and our ancestors and our Faith.

I do not, and will never, understand how so many people find so much energy to defend everybody but their own, how they are always ready to speak up in defense of those who openly hate us, while they are lukewarm and measured in championing their own people. And this is true among many 'conservatives' as well as liberals.

The usual defenses of blacks are offered: for instance, the one which I call ''but they're not all like that''. The fact that one in a thousand is 'not like that' is expected to nullify the 999 who are 'like that', and to cancel out any harm done by them. (And yes, I am using a little hyperbole there). By all means, we have to throw out the evidence in favor of being fair to the minuscule number who are 'not like that.' Liberals, whether left or right, always rely on this lame defense of Others.

As for CWNY's harsh style -- the prophets of old often spoke harshly; think of Elijah. Think of John the Baptist. In their day, they were criticized for speaking truths that were not pretty or not flattering to those in power. And remember, whoever cannot be ill-spoken of is the one who is the real possessor of power.

Sometimes the stark reality of this world we live in in 2011 calls for -- no, demands harsh and unsparing words. Our situation is so far gone that we no longer have the luxury of being soft-spoken and patient and all-tolerant. That kind of submissive attitude has contributed greatly to our present predicament.

Are the complainers about CWNY deaf to the numberless harsh words and the constant 'hate speech' from the other side? Or do some people have a special dispensation to speak venomous words while our side must only respond with simpering platitudes?

Again, the fact that some flinch from CWNY's words and message is just proof that we need to hear such words; his words are sometimes a means of jolting people out of their torpor and their moral lethargy.

Somewhat surprisingly, the discussion of CWNY brings forth some good defenses of him, and this in itself is a somewhat hopeful sign for us.

'Rewriting immigration history''

From an article in the Telegraph:

In fact, the last Labour government did more than “get it wrong” on immigration: either wilfully or recklessly, it ripped up a national consensus that had prevailed since the early 1970s. Next month, in fact, sees the 40th anniversary of one of the most seminal pieces of legislation of the post-war years, the 1971 Immigration Act.
It was fashioned to take the heat out of an incendiary political debate over levels of immigration that were far smaller than anything we are seeing today. The issue had exploded in the late 1960s with Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech and his subsequent dismissal from the shadow cabinet by Edward Heath.
But the Tories could not evade a subject that was causing deep disquiet in the country and when Heath took office in 1970 it was on a promise to reduce significantly the number of people coming from what was then called the New Commonwealth, essentially the Indian sub-continent, for whom there had previously been free admission to the UK.

When the Immigration Bill received its second reading in the Commons on March 8 1971, Reginald Maudling, the Home Secretary, said: “If we are to get progress in community relations, we must give assurance to the people who were already here before the large wave of immigration that this will be the end and that there will be no further large-scale immigration.”

The controls introduced by the Act put an end to mass immigration. From that point on until the mid-1990s, net immigration to the UK ran consistently around or below 50,000 per annum.''

The rest of the article is here.

We already know, from previous revelations, that the plan was to impose a multicultural society on the people of the UK, and to ''rub the right-wing's noses in diversity.'' And it's too little, too late, to acknowledge that 'mistakes' were made.

Following the article is a very long discussion thread, worth reading at  least in part. Watch for posts by a commenter named 'John Pigott' who sounds like, oh, someone from Majority Rights, for example. He makes some very good points and does so in a very articulate way.

Dropping g's: Racist!

Apparently, according to this story, an AP transcription of the president's speech was ''racist'' because it was transcribed as spoken, with the 'dropped g's' intact. By 'dropped g's', the writers refer to the president's occasional adoption of 'black dialect', wherein words ending in ''-ing'' lack the 'g' sound at the end.

''On MSNBC, the African-American author Karen Hunter complained the news service transcribed Obama's speech without cleaning it up as other outlets did--specifically including the "dropped g's."

Via the AP version:

"Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do."

Hunter called the AP's version "inherently racist," sparring with New Republic contributing editor and noted linguistics expert John McWhorter, who argued the g-less version "is actually the correct one," noting that the president's victory in the 2008 election was due, in part, to how effortlessly "he can switch into that [black] dialect."

Miss Hunter says that as a journalism teacher, she teaches her students to correct people's grammar, because to do otherwise makes them sound ignorant, and besides, not correcting their grammar amounts to ''code'', in her words. What is this ''code'' she is referring to? It seems to come up a lot with people who are race-baiting; it seems to be used for words that are said to be crypto-racist.

It's fascinating to me that suddenly the 'experts' in the media decided that dropped g's are an African-American speech trait, typical of ''ebonics'', whereas the other day I was reading a disparaging article about Rick Perry and his ('Texan') habit of droppping g's.

“YOU think of Rick Perry, you think of Texas. And more Texas. Perry the cowboy coyote-killer, the lord of the Texas job-creation machine, the g-dropping glad-hander with a “howdy” for every stranger in the room. He barely exists in the national mind outside of the Texas connection.”

[Emphasis mine]

I remember being disgusted when reading that snide article about Perry, not because I am a fan of Rick Perry, but because I resent sneering pieces wherein Southerners in particular are singled out for ridicule or scorn because of their speech patterns. Lefties in particular glory in making fun of any kind of demotic speech pattern, even though they claim to be for The People.

Fortunately, though, some of the comments see through this kind of thing:

1 Wikipedia says It is currently a feature of colloquial and non-standard speech of all regions, and stereotypically of Cockney, Southern American English and African American Vernacular English. To which I would add that it is also stereotypical of the Appalachian Mountain region. – Peter Shor Sep 19 at 12:48

I'm Southern UK, and I actually find it quite difficult to imagine people enunciating the "g" in, for example, "I'm going out tonight" without sounding quite starchy and formal. Although I personally would normally use a glottal stop for the last "t" there, I wouldn't particularly notice whether others did this or not. But I really think the "g" would be quite noticeable to me in casual speech. – FumbleFingers Sep 19 at 13:44

I'll be pedantic and point out that there is no /g/ to drop, except in a few areas such as NW England. The 'g' that is dropped is elsewhere purely orthographic, and the phenomenon is a substitution, not an omission. – Colin Fine Sep 20 at 12:03''

''g-dropping' is associated in American culture with rural or Southern speech, which Texas exemplifies both for most Americans.

But most Americans 'drop' their g's (or really convert ng-final to -n-final in present participles) whether Southern, New England, California or anywhere in between, in informal contexts. Newscasters and anyone speaking deliberately will attempt to pronounce it as '-ng'. (I don't think this is restricted to the areas so far mentioned.''

[Emphasis mine]
As the comments above indicate, the dropped 'g' is far more common than the liberal pedants and nitpickers pretend. I've traveled widely across this country, as well as other English-speaking countries, and I think the dropped 'g' is very common in spoken colloquial English in many areas, in this country and outside it.

I probably drop my 'g's on the '-ing' words more often than not, in my spoken language, while I would never write the words that way, and I would 'pick up' the g's when making a speech or in a more formal situation. When I was in linguistics classes years ago, this was referred to as 'code-switching'. These days, in our diversity-obsessed and multiculturally-deranged society, it most often refers to switching back and forth from one language to another, done by a bilingual person. More traditionally, it meant shifting between variants of a single language, such as using more formal and educated language when making a speech, or when in a more literate setting. Conversely, when we are at our most relaxed, among friends and family, we use much more informal speech and a more limited vocabulary, usually. When I write this blog, I usually use a more formal kind of language than I would use if I were talking to my readers in person, individually or in a small group. It would be in such a setting that I would likely drop my g's, and say ''goin' '' instead of 'going'. Apparently I have been speaking ebonics for years without even knowing it.

Is it an 'affectation' for me to write more formally than I speak? No; it's what all of us do, as a rule, except when writing a personal letter or e-mail to a friend or acquaintance or family member. We all 'code-shift', adjusting our level and type of language to the occasion and to the people involved. I would also 'code-shift' when speaking to children or non-native English speakers, or to people who appeared slow-witted. I would adjust my language upward to people who appeared highly-educated or knowledgeable in the subject being discussed. We all do it. We were all taught to do it in school. It is not affectation or falsity; it is just common sense, and in some cases, courtesy.

Politicians, however, are accused of a phony folksiness when they 'code-switch' with their audiences or constituents. It may or may not be true. They may simply be speaking in a more folksy style when they are with people in their home territory, people who speak the same dialect. Many average people are more comfortable with politicians who can speak 'like everybody else' rather than speaking the usual pompous pol-speak.

But it's ridiculous to play the race card in regard to the president's speech and his 'g-dropping'. The fact that he displayed that habit when employing his faux-black dialect does not mean that it is something associated only with blacks, or even mainly among blacks. But everything has to be about race these days.

One more note on the crime of 'g-dropping': I first remember it being made into an issue when Sarah Palin first appeared on the national stage. In addition to all the criticisms of her, the media liberals attacked her 'accent', and they did so in the most catty and snide terms. In doing that, they showed themselves to be language snobs, urban elitists, and probably people who have never been away from their East Coast or Left Coast urban enclaves. These people are obtusely unaware that, whatever you may think of Palin (and I know many of my readers hate her passionately) she does speak like a great many Americans in the Midwest and Northwest, so to attack her 'accent' is to attack the dialect and pronunciation used by tens of millions of heartland Americans, like it or not.

Michele Bachmann has a similar Midwest-sounding accent, and has been attacked for it as well, including this bizarre incident in which the lefties claim she made a racist remark (Who likes White people?) when she asked, at a rainy event, 'who likes wet people?' Someone says that her accent made the word 'White' sound like 'wet' or vice-versa. However, I've never heard ANY American accent that made those words sound alike.

When I do an internet search on Michele Bachmann's accent, I find many disparaging comments about her 'nasal' accent, and yes, her speech does sound nasal -- but it's also typical of probably a majority of Americans in Middle America. So the media liberals (and some conservatives) hate the Midwestern twang yet they also despise a Southron accent. What exactly do they prefer? I have never figured it out, but I suspect they would like people to speak like upscale Left Coast types or Northeastern urbanites.
To each his own.

One more thing before we leave the subject of accents: some anonymous commenter on a Jack Cashill article noted that the president, when he's not speaking in his fauxbonics accent, sounds like a 'man from nowhere.' I am paraphrasing here, from memory, but his speech sounds odd and stilted, lacking in any definite markers as to where exactly he comes from. And think about creepy examples such as the 'corpse-man' faux pas. What American-raised person would say that? He truly does sound like someone who has been taught to speak American English from non-native English-speakers. There is truly ''no there there.''

'The devil's daughter'

Despite the title, this Telegraph article about Marine Le Pen is not all that biased. Maybe things are taking a turn for the better as far as the media's treatment of right-wing/populist parties in Europe.

Marine Le Pen: Is the 'devil's daughter' right?

''A decade ago, when the far-right FN warned abandoning the franc for the euro was madness and vowed to pull France out of the common currency, the idea was dismissed as nationalistic folly. Today, the economic crisis engulfing the eurozone, has made the once preposterous idea if not a possibility, then at least a possible solution to the continent's financial woes.

The remarkable turnaround is not lost on Miss Le Pen, who suffers neither false modesty nor self-doubt.

"Much of France now realises we were right to sound the alarm, because what we warned for a long time would happen, is now happening," she says.

"There is a normalisation of our movement that is incarnated by my personality. The effect has contributed to making our analyses more credible''

Miss Le Pen is quoted as saying that the old left-right paradigms are outmoded and that the only division that matters is nationalists vs. globalists. There is a lot of truth in that.

It's still unfortunate that the article's writer uses the disparaging nickname 'the devil's daughter' -- and remember the left is always squawking about the left's pets being ''demonized''  -- isn't this the classic example of that? There is also the obligatory designation of the ''Far right FN'' party. But despite that, the article is less disparaging than is usual, and there's little denying that Miss Le Pen has been shown to be right in her prognostications.

Some non-controversial nostalgia

From 1958, 'sponsored by American Airlines - "THE Jet Airline".'

Remember when 'diversity' was represented by contestants like a rodeo cowboy, a visiting English student, a housewife from Michigan? Or the two cute 5-year-olds, one from Scotland?

I wondered whether the laconic 'Benny' was an actor, or a real person; apparently he was a well-known rodeo cowboy, but we wonder if his dialogue, or what there was of it, was scripted.

And remember when commercials actually sold things, rather than pushing social agendas and ideologies?

This was fun to watch for me. Hope you enjoy it also.

Ethnostates and proposition nations

At Occidental Dissent, Hunter Wallace said that Dixie is our (Southerners') ethnostate. While that statement rings true to me in many ways, a commenter there at OD added that it is an ethnostate that is still ruled by outsiders, or words to that effect. Since then, I've been trying to formulate my own thoughts about just how the South is 'our' ethnostate, if it is, in fact.

A comment left by 'Palmetto Patriot' on my blog entry called 'Stop playing musical chairs' adds more nuance to the idea, and over at Southern Nationalist, he fleshes his comments out considerably. Are race and nation different concepts? And how does 'White nationalism' compare to the idea of Southern nationalism?

''Race and nationhood are different concepts. To speak of “racial nationalism” is to speak of something that does not exist. A race is a broad category of humans. Leftist intellectuals continually tell us it is nothing but a social construct. However, race is a biological grouping of humans, just like breeds of dogs or horses are biological groupings of those species.
[...]
Is there room for some sort of trans-national racial solidarity? I think so. People of neighbouring territories who share a common ancestry, religion or history will naturally have much in common. They may hold fiercely to the peculiarities of their people (and rightly so) but often times they also have much in common with those like themselves in nearby countries.''

Read the entire piece at the link, and put it in the context of Dixie as an ethnostate -- is it? Or more appropriately to my blog entry, what is our relationship with our racial kin in Europe? Does our racial kinship supersede cultural/historical/national differences? Should it? Can it?

Ideally, I think we should have an alliance with our kin across the waters, but to believe that national differences and cultural differences can evaporate or that they should be rendered meaningless for the sake of our common survival is unrealistic and undesirable.

We need not all be blended together into one, or inhabit a common territory in order for us to maintain bonds with them.

Suppose the South were to be an independent ethnostate? Would it be wise or desirable for us to try to re-create a new version of the old melting pot America by bringing in various and disparate European peoples? Wouldn't that just be an attempt to re-create the Statue of Liberty philosophy south of the Mason-Dixon line?
There wouldn't be any point, for me, to have independence if we end up with our identity and way of life melted in a new melting pot.

As the New Albany Declaration stated, in 1996,

All the natural world is based on loyalty to hearth and kin. Yet, in the West, historical regard for the integrity of distinct peoples and cultures is being submerged in a multicultural "melting pot." It will, if carried to its logical conclusion, overwhelm peoples of European descent. By subverting natural affinities, those in power commit the crime of genocide against Western peoples. It is the natural right of all peoples to seek their own survival and safety.
[...]
In the 131st year of our physical and spiritual occupation by the United States Government, we, the unreconstructed Southern people, do proclaim the following:

I. NATURAL RIGHTS OF A FREE PEOPLE

1. That we are a Christian people of Northwest European descent, with predominately Anglo-Celtic institutions, traditions, culture and heritage; wherever we may abide, we are bound by blood, loyalty and sentiment to the American South, comprising: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

2. That our historical and cultural identity was forged over a 400 year period of exploration, settlement and endeavor that created our distinct character, dialects, folkways, values and civilization. The War for Southern Independence was the crucible that transformed us into a people with a single purpose and destiny.

3. That we have an unalienable right to self-determination and to continued existence as a distinct people. These unalienable rights were bought with the courage, tenacity and sacrifice of ancestors who fought and died in the War for Southern Independence, the American Revolution, and in every American conflict where duty's call beckoned.''

The late Dennis Wheeler, a great defender of the South, said that the people of the South are 'a living organism.' This is what is at the center of real nationalism: the idea of a people as a living entity, and not a proposition or an idea or a piece of parchment with words on it.

The people of the South are not the people(s) of the Northern ''nation of immigrants'', nor are they even the same people as our near cousins in England or Scotland or Wales, much less are they the same as Eastern Europeans or Southern Europeans. To suggest that the differences among us are trivial or less than real is to support the dissolution of our cultures, histories, and ways of life.

John Rice Irwin on Appalachian Music

John Rice Irwin, who founded the Museum of Appalachia, on how Appalachian music has exerted a strong influence not only in this country, but across the Atlantic.

It's not often acknowledged how the South in general has played such a large role in our musical traditions in this country. I don't think any other region has produced such distinctive musical styles. Almost all our popular music genres have either originated in the South or took shape there. The South constitutes a distinct people with a recognizable culture.

HBD chick answers Ron Unz

A piece by Ron Unz at The American 'Conservative', titled 'Immigration, Republicans, and the End of White America,  has drawn considerable attention and comment since it appeared a couple of days ago. It's lengthy, as those who have read it know, and it's disingenuous, to put it charitably.

HBD Chick responds to it thoroughly here and here.

Extremists warn against 'extremists'

Here we see the mainstream media at work, trying once again to smear all right-wing, nationalist/populist parties as ''extremists'' and dangerous bigots.

The article quotes from a report by a ''thinktank'' called Chatham House, an NGO based in the UK, which seems to be just one more of the globalist/progressivist variety.

Typically, the Guardian article linked at the top of this entry uses, as an example of the dreaded 'extremists', the English Defence League, a group which uses a logo with the slogan "Black, White, Unite", and in addition, has a Jewish wing. In other words, it's one more of those PC/MC (politically correct, multiculturalist) groups that seems to fall under the rubric of the counterjihad movement, centering on opposition to Islam.

Why does the 'mainstream' do this kind of mislabeling? I mean, why do they write these shrill pieces characterizing some center-right or counterjihad group as ''extremist'' and ''xenophobic'', when they are no such thing?

I don't dispute that the EDL is on the right side in certain ways; at least they seem to support the rights of British indigenous people, though the name 'English' Defence League seems a misnomer, as they seem to be inclusive and multicultural in their membership and their rhetoric. But they are not all bad -- are they? Or are they just controlled opposition, meant to channel any dissent or dissatisfaction with the current anti-White, anti-English regime in a harmless, PC direction?

Reading the article, it's maddening the way the Chatham House people imply that any concern about immigration is based on groundless fears or paranoia:

''The rise of extreme parties was not only linked to anxiety over threats to jobs, social housing and the welfare state posed by immigrants, said Goodwin. Mainstream parties needed to challenge more forcefully claims of national cultures being under attack; that meant going beyond the economic case for immigration and arguing for cultural diversity.

Politicians also needed to be more honest. "Existing responses … typically focus on plans to reduce the number of immigrants, or curtail overall levels of immigration. Yet at the same time, international treaties have greatly reduced the capacity of governments to deliver demonstrable outcomes in this policy area." The outcome was "a disconnect" that could further fuel public dissatisfaction.''

In the first paragraph, it's alarming how this spokesman Goodwin says that mainstream parties (meaning those who are behind the swamping of our Western countries with 'immigrants) should challenge opposition to immigration more 'forcefully.' The UK and other Western countries already have draconian laws limiting the free speech of dissenters, and threatening imprisonment for those who speak less than reverentially about the 'protected victim groups'. What other 'force' do they have in mind?

These globalist progressive types refuse to admit that they already lock down free speech to a great extent, and that they have a tight monopoly on the media, both the so-called news media and the so-called 'entertainment' media, allowing only their point of view to dominate everywhere. How can these people so totally give themselves over to lies, constant lies at every turn, and flagrant denials of reality? It is inexplicable to me how they are capable of this massive dishonesty, and a complete lack of shame about their lies and manipulations.

The report says, in regard to combating this supposed 'extremism'

''...to combat this, a more relevant and empowering politics is crucial to tackling support for extreme nationalisms."

And what exactly is meant by the phrase 'a more relevant and empowering politics'? More heavy-handed propaganda? More Orwellian laws? What, exactly?

Condemning groups like the EDL (and in our country, the Tea Party) is just a way, it seems, to try to put even moderate dissent beyond the pale, and to make any real populist or nativist/ethnonationalist movement seem off-the-scale 'extreme' by comparison.


And if we are going to use the term 'extremist', it should be correctly applied, to designate the people behind these plans to remake all the formerly White Western countries, and to replace or dissolve the peoples thereof.

We're winning?

''We're winning!" is a commonly-heard claim made by some of our compatriots in the WN/realist/ethnopatriot blogosphere. The assertion is supposedly based on real evidence that ordinary people are coming around to our way of thinking, and rejecting the whole race regime that has been in place since the late 1950s-early 1960s.

Nobody would be happier than I, if this were true. I would like it to be true, and I will do what I can to make it come true. But I have to think the celebration is a little premature.

Just take a look at this piece, from our favorite 'respectable right' blog. The writer's message seems to echo the perennial refrain of the 'respectables': ''the liberals/Democrats are the REAL racists! Conservatives/Republicans are the blacks' REAL friends!"

''It's well-understood that the Democrats were the party of racism and the strongest force keeping segregation alive. Many of liberalism's grand heroes were not only racists, but crazy racists, obsessive, unbalanced, and cruel. Woodrow Wilson had blacks fired en masse from the Postal Service, where they had found an employment niche similar to that of the Irish with the police. He attempted the same with the Navy, where blacks had found a place as ship's stewards. (The Navy officially "obeyed," but kept most of them on surreptitiously. That's how shipmates behave.)

Millard Tydings is a liberal hero for opposing the monstrous Joe McCarthy. He was also a racist of the type who couldn't bear having a black individual enter the same room. Tailgunner Joe financed his defeat at the hands of a political neophyte who ran on a civil rights platform -- something the libs never see fit to mention.

While never die-hard crusaders for civil rights, the GOP did strive to act fairly when opportunity presented. It was Eisenhower who enforced the Brown decision in 1954, and it was Eisenhower who attempted to pass a civil rights bill in 1956, which went down to defeat at the hands of the segregationist Dixiecrats. When the Democrats did get around to offering a civil rights bill eight years later, it was Republican minority leader Everett Dirksen who got the bill passed after liberal Democrat Hubert Humphrey failed.''

In other words, many Whites are in fact rabid racists, so the refrain goes, just as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and a legion of others have said. But it's those other guys, not us, we're not bigots! Both sides, 'liberal' and conservative, are in agreement that a lot of Whites are evil because they are racist and bigoted, but the evil Whites are somebody else, not me.

They also treat it as a given that the Civil Rights Revolution was right, was good, was just, and was necessary, and not to be questioned in the least. Never mind that that series of events brought us to exactly where we are now. No, we are not to notice that the Revolution of the 60s was the fount and source of most of our woes of today.

We might say that the 'respectables' have conceded that the Left, the 'progressives', or more accurately, the traitors to our people were in fact correct in all their accusations towards us and our ancestors. We might say that they are acknowledging that most White Americans of the past were evil and misguided. Guilty as charged -- but it was that other White guy's ancestors, not mine! No, 'my ancestors were immigrants who arrived in 1865, and they were too poor to own slaves.' Or 'my ancestors fought in the Union army to free the slaves, so they were on the side of justice!'

Both left and ''right'' seem to agree on most of the important principles under discussion here.

Do none of these Limbaugh listeners and Fox News watchers who read American Thinker ever consider this fact? Do they realize what they are agreeing to?

The AT article appears to be opposing the 'race card', but instead of taking the honest path of rejecting all the premises on which the 'race card' bases itself, they are going in circles. They end up on the defensive, as always, reassuring the race-baiters that they actually agree with them on the important issues.

I have to give credit to a couple of brave commenters on the thread who speak some sense. Their posts may evaporate before you click over to view the thread, but let's give some applause to commenter 'rongordo', who challenges the smears against McCarthy, and commenter 'Wayward Son', with several posts, who sounds as though he is a kindred spirit.

Despite a few comments which speak the truth, the majority of the 'conservatives' are just repeating the same tired old cliches they probably heard from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or any number of others. And much as I would like to see some glimmers of hope among these 'respectables', I think they are in a way farther from the truth than the lefties are. They are in a sense more lost, these non-conserving conservatives, than the left, because they think they have the truth, just as the Pharisees in the Bible thought they were the pinnacle of religiosity.  To be able to know, you first have to know that you don't know.

Stop playing musical chairs

The UK Daily Mail reports that there is a boom in births to Polish mothers in the UK, and state benefits paid out to 'arrivals' from Poland.

''At the peak, between 2006 and 2008, some 20,000 Poles every month were coming to the UK for work.

Numbers of Eastern Europeans fell during the recession but have picked up again in recent months – despite no sign of an economic recovery.

British taxpayers fork out for child benefit payments to tens of thousands of migrant workers, because EU rules allow them to live at home while claiming here. Approximately 50,000 children of migrant workers receive the benefit –even though the youngsters still live in their home countries.

Treasury figures show that Poles make up the vast majority of the payments – accounting for 37,941 children last year – at a cost of £24million a year.

Critics say the flood of arrivals has placed huge pressure on housing, education and the health service – especially maternity units.

The Polish influence has also been felt in schools. Five years ago, just 200 students sat a Polish GCSE – last year, the figure was 1,900.''

Meanwhile, over at AmRen, everybody there seems to think this is fine and dandy, as ''at least they are White'' -- this seems to be the consensus.

One example:

— maximus wrote at 6:37 PM on September 19: Well I don’t see how this is bad news. Poles are white and christian, work hard and don’t want to impose sharia law in Britain.''

Contrast such comments at AmRen, where people seem to think that all White Europeans are interchangeable, to the comments at the Daily Mail. There are some of the typical 'immigration enthusiast' comments from the British readers, which sound very similar to the rationales we've heard for years about Hispanic immigration. ''They are so hard-working, they are better workers than our own lazy native working class,'' and so on. But the negative comments seem to have a slight edge over those cheering the Polish influx. Here are a few examples:

One more piece of evidence proving the inestimable damage done to our country by uncontrolled immigration. None of us ever voted for this nor would we. Yet it continues to happen - the politicians of the LibLabCon party should be tried for treason.

- oneofthesilentmajority, a land once known as England, 19/9/2011 5:03

The majority of Polish people that come to the UK to work, do indeed work and work hard! People accuse them of taking our jobs yet the unemployed in this Country are generally too lazy to get up of their sofa and take those jobs for themselves. And the unfortuante thing is they don't have to because everything is handed to them on a plate. If you lived in an Eastern block country and you had a choice of not working, having no heat, no food and no way to care for your family or travelling to another country, getting a job and earning money to provide for your family, wouldn't you? The Poles contribute a lot to our economy and whilst numbers in this country should be kept in check (as they should be with any immigrants) I personally find myself more concerned about the illegals that enter this country to cause Brits harm or sponge off the state than I am about hard working indiviuals that are simply doing work they know is available.

- John, Gloucestershire , 19/9/2011 4:54

Just one of many help-yourself-to-the-UK invading tribes colonizing the United Kingdom. The host people have been quietened by the near deafening silence from the lefty BBC TV. Deliberate?

- James Ed, Newcastle, 19/9/2011 4:43

The point is that England simply does not have the room for mass immigration on this scale. We are a relatively small country and are being bled dry with all this. The social security system and NHS was never intended to cater for the whole world, and this mass immigration really has to stop. The health service is overloaded, school places are limited etc - political parties and the EU have let us all down over this issue. One easy answer would be to stop child benefit after two children though it is all very complicated and i feel the whole social security system needs to be overhauled.

- sally brooks, london uk, 19/9/2011 4:37

At least the Poles generally learn our language and work hard. They don't even seem to be linked to any criminal gangs. At least if they're employed they pay tax.- Giddy Aunt, UK, 19/9/2011 10:16.

Get your facts right. My son-in-law worked in a factory where all but two were Polish and spoke all the time in their own language and never tried to engage with the English workers. He said they were lazy and rude. The foremen were also Polish and when a vacancy occurred he phoned his friends in Poland and they got the jobs. The fact that they could not speak English was worrying as they worked in the warehouse in a pharmaceutical firm!

- Jan, Romford, 19/9/2011 4:25

I suppose this issue clarifies for me that I do not agree on this question with so-called 'White Nationalism' which apparently believes that as long as immigrants are roughly of the same race, defined in broad terms, then they may immigrate in any numbers, regardless of the wishes of the natives of a given country. To me, it matters little that the immigrants may be White; regardless, they will change the makeup of the host country. They will weaken whatever cohesion is left. They are of a different religion than the host people. Their culture is considerably different. I say this as someone with a little experience of Eastern European cultures and people. The influx of Polish immigrants will make England less English, Scotland less Scottish, Wales, less Welsh.

It appears to me that WNs, then, believe in the proposition nation, the melting pot. In an earlier era of our country's history, we welcomed many European nationalities, supposedly with the idea that they would be melted down into the larger existing culture, and the result would be an 'enriched' America. Yet what actually happened was that our identity was watered down by the inclusion of many disparate European cultures. Those cultures and peoples, even after several generations, often remain separate, living in enclaves. Yet what intermarriages did take place over the generations did not strengthen our country; it often produced the typical, generic 'nation of immigrants', Heinz 57 Americans who have no particular culture except a vague reverence for the ''immigrant experience'' and a kind of crazy-quilt of various ethnic ancestries. I've met people who were half Polish and half Alaskan Native, or half Polish and half Irish. In fact, they were neither one nor the other, and these are the people who often cheer the idea of the 'nation of immigrants', the Statue of Liberty, and the multicultural sentimentality of our day.

This is what the AmRen commenters are supporting when they cheer for mass Polish immigration into the UK.

There is a town near me which, while once a sleepy little town, is now dominated by Russian and Ukrainian immigrants and refugees. Many speak little to no English, and as they have so many compatriots living in that town, why learn English? In addition, that town is now a hotbed of drug activity and random violence. Oh, but they're 'White' so it's all good.

The blog Hail Ireland, which is not being updated of late, reports on a lot of crime in Ireland by immigrants and 'refugees' and there are stories of Eastern Europeans commmitting some rather violent crimes. This is but one example.

B-but they're not all like that!  No, perhaps not, but such crimes are apparently not that uncommon.

Another aspect of this issue is that it seems the exodus from Eastern Europe and Poland specifically has led to labor shortages, and I posted a link to an article recently about how Poland is seeking Third World immigrants to replace their own missing workers. Is this not insanity?  Why can't the Poles stay in their own country, which needs their supposed 'superior work ethic?'

Some of the stories I've read indicate that the Poles immigrate to Western European countries for superior benefits, in other words, they are economic migrants, opportunists, I would say. Obviously I am not a fan of economic migration, of this game of musical chairs with those from the less successful countries flocking to the countries with better pickings.

Some articles I've read mention that the Poles leave home because they want to escape political corruption in their homeland. Yes, but why is there corruption?

The people make the place.

Over the past week I've been reiterating the idea of 'blurring the lines' of nationality and identity and race. This insane game, whereby people are being shifted from their native countries to colonize others' homelands, is out of control, and there is no good justification for it, not if we value our folk and our heritage and our distinct ways of life.

And it really does not matter if the Poles (or the Mexicans, or whoever) are ''better than the Muslims.'' That's irrelevant, yet we hear this lame rationale repeatedly among the people at AmRen and various other 'ethnonationalist' blogs. At times I've wondered if our overlords have deliberately introduced the most objectionable immigrants and colonizers they can find, so as to induce us to accept anybody who's not quite as objectionable, regardless of their 'fit' for our countries. Just because some group is 'better than the Moslems' does not mean we should throw our doors wide open and tell them to come on in -- unless the intent is to destroy the host country and people, and render national labels meaningless.

Borders matter. People are not interchangeable, just because their skin color is roughly the same. Let England be English, Ireland be Irish, and let the economic opportunists seek their 'fortune' at home, not at others' expense.

Redheads less popular?

Redheads rejected as sperm bank bans deposits
Stephanie Gardiner

Redheads have long battled rumours they are a dying breed and Europeans are not helping, with the world's largest sperm bank rejecting flame-haired donors due to lack of demand.

But IVF Australia medical director, Associate Professor Peter Illingworth, said the same would never happen here because the country does not have enough donors.

"The problem we have is a shortage of donors," Associate Professor Illingworth said.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"We will happily take all the redheads we can get."

London's Daily Telegraph reported that Denmark's Cryos sperm bank, which provides sperm to women in 65 countries, has started turning away red-haired donors because there is very little demand for their sperm.''

This story about sperm banks banning red-haired donors has been carried in a number of newspapers, and is probably being discussed in a smirking, joking manner on TV ''news'' if it is covered at all.

Most of the versions of the story make it seem as though redheads are seen as undesirable or unattractive, while the explanation probably has something to do with the fact that fewer couples choose red-haired donors because the would-be parents are not redheads, nor is there red hair within the family circle. Red hair is the rarest of hair colors, and will surely become more so, as the number of nonwhites grows by leaps and bounds, and the number of European-descended peoples dwindles.

Of course there are lots of artificial redheads, many of them being black women, Asian women, and everyone non-European. So apparently plenty of people see red hair as desirable or attractive enough to dye their own hair red. Of course the dyed hair does not have anywhere near the beauty of natural red hair, on someone of the skin tone characteristic of natural redheads.

This post from the Race/History/Evolution blog deals with 'Redhead Day,' which is an annual event, and mentions the belief that redheads are to become extinct. This is disputed by many people, but surely there will be fewer redheads as Whites are replaced throughout the world. The comments on n/a's blog mention the phenomenon of 'anti-gingerism' in the UK

'' Anonymous said... September 8, 2010 10:10 PM

Anyone know the chronology of the rise of anti-gingerism in Britain? I think this is a pretty recent phenomoneon,[sic] like dumb blonde jokes. 

Anonymous said... September 8, 2010 11:48 PM
The average person today probably thinks that dumb blonde jokes have been around forever, but as Peter Frost has shown they are a recent phenomenon driven primarily by Jewish influence and more generally by the introduction of swarthoids into Northern European societies. I suspect similar dynamics are at work behind the rise of "anti-gingerism."

Personally I think this trend is of fairly recent origin; I had a friend in England going back some years who was a natural redhead, and I never heard a word from her about any such anti-ginger attitudes, nor did I ever witness it myself. I agree with the commenter that it probably goes hand-in-hand with the anti-
White mindset that is so popular now, even among White people.

Another commenter links to a disturbing-sounding video:

Anonymous said... September 9, 2010 3:43 AM

The anti-gingerism, OTOH, seems to "rise from the bottom" - from the British white lower classes.

Here is the music video to the song "Born Free" by the UK based Hindoo rapper "M.I.A.":

http://vimeo.com/11219730

The video is about male redheads being violently rounded up by an armed force and sent to concentration camps out in the desert. Young male redheads are depicted being shot in the head and being blown up by land mines.''

Many people associate red hair with the Irish in particular and the Scots, and there's some basis for that, as Scotland's redheads make up 13 percent of the population, with Ireland's at 10 percent.

In my own family we have the red-hair gene, with one of my uncles having red hair (he was nicknamed 'Red') and many of us with strawberry blond hair or auburn hair.

My half-Norwegian nephew has bright red hair, pale skin, freckles, the whole nine yards. So it is not limited to 'Celtic' people as so many insist. I remember in my anthropology classes being taught that red hair was supposedly a mutation that first appeared in the Baltic regions. Whether that belief is now superseded by some other theory, I don't know, but red hair did not 'start' in Ireland.

I have noticed that in a lot of old illustrations and paintings, (see the top of this entry for an example)that redheads were a great deal more common than they are now. How often do we see redheads depicted in our advertising these days? It used to be a very common 'type.' Personally I have always thought that certain shades of red hair are particularly beautiful, and it's unfortunate that all red hair is likely to be less and less common in the world.

Language do's and don'ts, 1939

According to etiquette expert, Emily Post, the following are examples of some mistakes in word usage. The incorrect one is on the left in each case, and the correct usage on the right.


autoMObile - autoMOBILE

reely - real-ly

secretree - secretary (Unless you’re English)

av viator- ay viator

eggsit - exit

MuhREE - Marie

colyum - column

for MID able - FORMIDable

cult your - cultcha

at-all - a-tall

ray-tion - ration (rash)

to-may-to - to ma(h) to

mayonnaise - mai-onnaise (my)

vallay - valet

attended - went to

wealthy - rich

brainy - clever

“Pardon me”  - I beg your pardon” or “Excuse me”

lovely food- good food

“Charmed” or “How do you do” - “Pleased to meet you”

a stylish dresser - “She wears lovely clothes” or “She dresses well”

formals formal clothes

fellow or chap -  man

young lady - girl

close friend - best or intimate friend

social affair - a party

drapes - curtains

mansion - big house

I recall - I remember

request - ask

“Permit me to assist you”  - “Let me help you”

converse - talk

presume -suppose

Many of these examples are out of date; I've heard very, very few people in this day and age pronounce the word 'column' as 'colyum', although the older generations often did.  Similarly, the words 'fellow' and 'chap' meaning 'man' are pretty obsolete in our day.

And does anybody in America pronounce the first syllable of the word 'mayonnaise' as 'MY'? I realize this is closer to the French pronunciation, as the word is of French origin after all, but the only people I've heard using the 'correct' pronunciation are Cajuns. I think the Americanized pronunciation is standard now, even though it may have been more correct back in the 30s to use the French pronunciation.

Some of the other ''dont's'' are just more pretentious-sounding choices, and I think it's often true that people of upper-class origins are less inclined to use pretentious-sounding phrases, contrary to the stereotype, and more inclined to use the blunter form of speech in many cases. This was all documented back in the 50s and 60s in the works of English writers who wrote about 'U and Non -U speech', meaning the upper-class vs. the non-upper class word choices and pronunciations.

Of course England no longer has the same class distinctions as in the 1950s and 60s, and there has been a leveling process which has changed the spoken and written language.

America, too, has changed. In Emily Post's heyday, there were still notable class distinctions, despite America touting itself as classless and 'democratic.' If you watch old movies from the 30s and earlier, you will notice the presence of a very defined upper class in many of those movies, and there was a clear difference among the classes in how they spoke, as in many other things.

But now that we've all become Jacobins, and we all dress like proletarian drones and speak a media-ized form of English, those old distinctions, and the elegance that was part of that whole social system, have gone.

'Blurring the lines' further

The controversy over the Cherokee Tribe's disenrollment of some black members continues.

There are a couple of aspects to this that are important to us. First, from a political perspective, is it right that the federal government may dictate who is a member of an Indian tribe, or any other group? It occurs to me that there may be a long-term goal of blurring the lines among even Indian tribes.

And if the ultimate goal is to blend everybody together, and to essentially criminalize 'exclusivity' on an ethnic or racial basis, then the feds' position makes sense in a perverse way.

We know that for some time, the powers that be have insisted that 'race is a social construct' and is thus subject to being defined arbitrarily or to being defined out of existence altogether. We couldn't expect that Indians (aka 'Native Americans) would be exempt from this mandate, could we?

And we can clearly see that the PC hierarchy holds: blacks are at the pinnacle of the 'minority' pyramid, with Hispanics likely to surpass them sooner or later, at least in terms of sheer numbers. So the wannabe-Cherokee blacks are the good guys, the victims here, while the Indian is relegated to the bad guy role in this case.

I've heard it claimed here and there, by people who imply they have inside knowledge, that there is a quiet attempt to Hispanicize Indian tribes in some areas, and I notice that many more Indians have Hispanic surnames in areas other than the Southwest, where such surnames have long been common in certain tribes. Many Indian women in certain areas have married Hispanic men, or had children by them, so that the lines are being blurred in that way as well. Some also say that the illegals are coveting Indian status as a way of cementing their claims to be rightful owners of this part of the world. If the government has the power to say that a tribe has to enroll blacks as tribal members, why not Hispanics as well?

It's interesting that in addition to the many, many Whites who claim to be ''part Cherokee'', there are also many blacks who make the same claim. Jimi Hendrix was one prominent black who was said to be 'part Cherokee' and I've encountered many black people who say their own great-grandmother or other ancestor was Cherokee.

It does seem as if the Cherokee tribe is the one of choice for those who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they have Indian ancestry.

If the Cherokee are compelled to open up their tribal rolls to anybody who has an 'oral history' of Cherokee descent, regardless of race, then they will have to enroll about half of the population of this country, apparently.

According to this Wikipedia page, the Eastern Band Cherokee already have very liberal requirements for enrollment, as Indian tribes go, so it seems destructive to liberalize the rules even further. But destructiveness is part of the whole multicult agenda.

Mrs. Kennedy's 'horrifying' views

This week, the media have rather oddly reported on Jacqueline Kennedy's 'horrifying' views on various subjects.

Actually, her opinions about the figure in the amusing picture above is not the reason for the 'horror' expressed by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. It seems that Mrs. Kennedy's 'traditional views' on the role of women are what daughter Caroline and her own daughters found horrifying. But that's another subject.

The real reason for all the brouhaha is Mrs. Kennedy's impolitic opinions about the sainted figure depicted above.

''She also strongly criticised Dr King, recalling how her brother-in-law Robert Kennedy told her the civil rights leader had been intoxicated at JFK's funeral and mocked Cardinal Richard Cushing's Mass.

She said: "He made fun of Cardinal Cushing and [Robert] said that he was drunk at it. I can't see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, that man's terrible."

It was probably wise for her to stipulate that these interviews were not to be published until after her death, but it's ironic that if they had been released some years before, they would not have evoked as much outrage (or feigned outrage) as they seem to be evoking in the strange, hyper-PC atmosphere of today. In recent years, the persona of MLK has been endowed with a halo. And now, it is not just the left and the 'minority community' which kneels at his altar; it is also the mainstream Republicans.

I'm a little surprised by Mrs. Kennedy's opinions and her relative outspokenness in the interviews, but then Democrats of that era were not the dementedly politically correct witch-hunters who today comprise members of both political parties.

I haven't read any Free Republic threads on this story, but I am just about 100 percent sure that the consensus among those staunch right-wing Republicans would be that 'oh, we know the Democrats have always been the REAL racists!' and 'Republicans are the real friends of African-Americans.' I imagine that the left is laughing hysterically at the mainstream Republicans who are now as multiculturalist and racially servile as any leftist.



Note: the picture at the top was found at the Kitschy Living tumblr blog, with the title 'I has a clean.'

Is this what they intended?

There's been much discussion of the website discussed here, and the accompanying campaign to fend off criticism (''attacks'') and there has been a lot of consternation about it among advocates of true 'free speech.'
But judging by what we see here, does it look as though the responses are what they were hoping for?

''A blurring of the old lines''

As a couple of commenters noted on the recent thread concerning outmarriage, there is still a disparity between expressed opinions in polls like the Gallup poll in question, and actual practices by real people.

This slightly older article from the very liberal MSNBC, while promoting interracial pairings, notes that according to 2005 statistics, only 7 percent of marriages are interracial, compared to 2 percent in 1970.

Sociologist Michael Rosenfeld delivers the politically correct sermon and party line here:

“The racial divide in the U.S. is a fundamental divide. ... but when you have the ’other’ in your own family, it’s hard to think of them as ’other’ anymore,” Rosenfeld said. “We see a blurring of the old lines, and that has to be a good thing, because the lines were artificial in the first place.”

Gosh, whatever happened to impartial science, science that offers facts and data rather than moral judgments? Of course I am being ironic; the 'social science' weapons are blatantly non-scientific, especially when being wielded by people named Rosenfeld.

Unfortunately, though, he is right: once somebody in your family has intermarried (or outmarried, more accurately) it does tend to mute any ethnocentric feelings among family members. I've seen it happen. Once somebody in the family marries a Hispanic, for example, suddenly it is taboo to talk about certain subjects at family gatherings, and the more liberal members of the family, Republican or Democrat, start to make gushy statements about how 'we're really all the same, and things are changing,'. Pretty soon you have a family that is divided, with certain members accusing others of being 'bigoted' or 'hateful', while gradually the family drifts apart, and some people are suddenly no-shows at the big family reunion. And that's us, on the macro level. We are being driven apart as a people because some have bought into the divisive ''we're all the same'' mantras. The liberal ideas have supposedly brought about a great deal more of mixing and mingling across racial/ethnic/religious lines, but by that very process have divided us as a people and nation.

The fact that this process of breaking us down as a people is proceeding more slowly than the Gallup poll would like us to believe is pretty cold comfort. Slowly or speedily change is happening.

One of the vexing things I've observed online whenever this subject comes up is that a good many people on our side are adamant that there is more mixing than the statistics indicate, and that black male/white female couples are THE most common, by far, though this does not appear to be the case when looking at numbers.

Interestingly, this link with some data on various combinations in interracial pairings was provided by a hostile commenter at AmRen. In any case, if the data is correct, it appears that Asian female/White male pairs are more common than black male/White female. I've noted the same thing, and yet many people refuse to believe it to be true. Why?

First, I wonder why people (men in particular) are so fiercely adamant that White women are pairing with black men in overwhelming numbers. I can venture a couple of guesses: first, maybe people 'see' more such couples, or notice them more because of a strong antipathy to such pairings. Conversely many people have no objection to Asian female/White male couples, and may not even really notice such couples because they have no strong emotional response to the sight.

Another thing which may skew people's perceptions is place of residence. If you live in a big ''diverse'' city, or near a place with a very mixed population, you will see more interracial couples, and if you frequent places with young, single people in pairs or groups, you will notice more black/White couples. Just because these couples are a common sight in your city or neighborhood does not mean they are equally common everywhere.

Asian females with White males seem to be not uncommon across generations. In the city where I used to live, I noticed more than a few such couples among the older generations. I guessed that many elderly White men with elderly Asian wives were war veterans (Korean War or VietNam war, or even World War II veterans) who married 'war brides' in Korea, Japan, Viet Nam, or the Philippines. Even when I was in college in the 70s, I knew of several classmates with White fathers and Asian war bride mothers. In certain areas, too, White men with Indian ('Native American' in PC lingo) wives are common. White male and Hispanic female is also a frequently seen combination, and has been for generations, much more common than the reverse, White women with Hispanic men, though the latter is more common with the young folk.

It's a telling sign that today's ''conservatives'' are just about as liberal as the leftists are on these issues. Just take a look at the discussion on an article at National Review's The Corner.

So while people still do tend to marry within their own people despite all the frantic promotion of outmarriage, the trends don't look good for those who actually want to 'conserve' their people, their genetic heritage. When the 'conservatives' have capitulated then the only ones to uphold the idea of preserving ''the old lines'' are those of us who are the dissidents and the counterculture of today.

Real, or only apparent?

A Gallup Poll indicates a change in the percentage of people approving of interracial marriage. If the poll results are accurate, it appears that 86 percent of Americans approve of miscegenation, quite a reversal.

It wasn't until 1967 that laws against interracial marriage were struck down by court decisions. And according to this source

	In 1948, about 90% of American adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it.
	In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage and 48% felt that marrying a person of another race should be prosecuted as a criminal act. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.
	In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority.
	Opposition dropped at about 1 percentage point per year between 1948 and 1991.

Anybody who is over 40 or 45 years of age, roughly, will personally remember that interracial marriage was viewed negatively by most people a few decades ago.

If this new attitude of approval is in fact based in reality, then it's hardly surprising, considering how aggressively the media, academia, and the public school system have all pushed the 'new' aracial attitudes.
And now the churches -- even the supposedly 'conservative' churches, have all jumped on the bandwagon with a vengeance.And it is not a completely recent trend.

According  to a 1935 book by Walter A. Meier, 'For Better Not For Worse: A Manual of Christian Matrimony',
there was already an effort to change attitudes on the part of liberal Christians back in the 1930s:

Such interracial alliances stand condemned before the forum of all clear-thinking people. Yet the Racial Relationships Commission maintained by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America has on occasion gone out of its way to encourage such interracial marriages. This may be seen from statements in Information Service (published by the Department of Research and Education of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America) of November 13, 1926. Referring to the widely heralded Olivet Conference, devoted "largely to the relation of Negroes and whites," the bulletin asserted: "Dr. George Haynes of the Federal Council presented the problem and illuminated with his very extensive , knowledge every discussion of the week.... Nor was the question of intermarriage evaded. That was considered at length. It was felt that some pioneer spirits should take advanced steps in that direction.... After the discussion on intermarriage the group concluded that, if the individuals concerned fully realize the difficulties involved, mixed marriages may be socially highly desirable."
In the furtherance of its own program. Communism has ardently encouraged interracial marriages; and this enthusiasm has tinged the preaching and practice at some of our radical youth gatherings.''

So the political left has long been busy trying to subvert traditional attitudes in the churches as well as everywhere else.

But is the poll accurate, or are people merely so conditioned or so intimidated that they give the 'correct' and socially acceptable answer, fearing to be called the 'r-word'? I strongly suspect there is a great deal of that behind this apparent change. But there is no doubt that people are so heavily bombarded with propaganda that they are simply swept along by what they are led to believe are irresistible forces for 'change' and 'tolerance'.

A few last words on 9/11

Before we leave this topic of 9/11 for another year, here are a couple of interesting pieces on the subject. First, from The Philosopher's Fortress, Jack Kerwick discusses how the commemorations focus too much on weakness, failure, and yes, victimhood, which we were discussing the other day.

''To a people devoted to liberty and the individuality that this liberty entails, public exhibitions of mourning one’s victimhood should be nothing less than anathema. It is achievements and victories, the products of strength, courage, genius, and all of the virtues the exercise of which liberty renders possible that such a people should celebrate. On the other hand, though they will remember weaknesses, failures, and set-backs, they will steadfastly refuse to adorn them in grand displays for all time.

Our liberty is potentially diminished in another way through these annual national reminders of 9/11. The ceremonies make it all too easy for our government to exploit this tragedy for the sake of amassing an ever greater scope over our lives. Whether the office holders are Republican or Democrat, as long as Americans are constantly reminded by way of these public exhibitions of remembrance and mourning of the destruction that our enemies would love to visit upon us, the easier it is for the government to prey on that fear in order to grow and grow.''

David Yeagley has a somewhat similar take on the commemorations, focusing on the fact that they seem to connote weakness and impotence on our part.

''All the energy lavished on mourning the event in New York on 9-11 is energy misspent. It is the universal confession of impotence, weakness, and lack of resolve. The Muslims know this. The whole in the ground, Ground Zero, is our testimony to the world that America is no longer great. The empty pit demonstrates a nation emptied of spirit. America has no national focus, no sense of nationality, and no desire or resolve to have such. Why?

It’s against the law. It’s against the liberal, Communist approach to the law. In the white oedipal liberal‘s perverted name of “equality,” America is to be dissolved. America is evil, abusive, and must be brought down.''

Read the rest at the links.
I remember in the days following 9/11, how I fully expected our government to close the borders and clamp down on Middle Eastern immigration. I was genuinely shocked when, instead of taking those common-sense, survival-oriented steps, ''our'' government began to lecture and warn us about 'intolerance' and to tell us that Islam was a 'religion of peace.' Again, manifesting subservience and weakness. And this has not changed in the decades since. When will we truly 'learn the lessons' of 9/11?

How many such people are there?

Western Voices World News links to this piece from 2009. It's still very relevant today, what with all the talk from the regime about 'homegrown terrorists' and the ever-present 'right-wing extremists.'

''It should be remembered that the same tropes were put into play early in the last Democratic administration, just before the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing — a terrorist act for which disenchanted former federal employee Timothy McVeigh was executed, but was actually carried out with the help of "others unknown," including several federal assets connected to a bizarre little white supremacist commune known as Elohim City.''

It all makes you wonder how many such 'prefabricated fascists' are out there, especially on the Internet. And yet the powers that be profit from spreading knowledge of this kind of thing, because it tends to foster distrust and fear among people with dissenting views, and makes any kind of mutual effort less likely.

Ten years on, where is the truth?

On the eve of the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 events, I find myself still feeling ambivalent and confused about just what did happen that day. On September 11, 2001, I simply accepted that what the news media reported was factual, and that there was no reason to believe that any of it was other than what it seemed.
Needless to say, the ten years since that day have given rise to endless speculation, both from the left and the right. I think my position on what happened can best be described as agnostic. I don't think we can ever be sure of what happened that day.

I am not one who dismisses any talk of conspiracies as nonsense on principle. I think it is absurd to categorically state, as many Americans do, that any mention of conspiracy is 'crazy talk' and that anyone who asks questions is a 'nut'. Whether the subject is the birth certificate controversy or the JFK story or the 9/11 events, I don't rule out that there may be more than meets the eye, or even that the official versions may be 90 percent truth-free.

Still, though, there is some speculation that truly merits a skeptical response. For instance, I read a story the other day which claimed that there were no planes that hit the WTC towers on 9/11. What we saw, or thought we saw, was holographic projections, optical trickery. There were no planes.

Then today on one of the more conspiracy-minded blogs, I read that the people who were on Flight 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, never boarded the flight, but were instead spirited away by some mysterious government people, and placed into a witness protection program. Presumably the survivors of those who were believed killed have either been lied to or are themselves party to a conspiracy to deceive everybody. This theory is discussed here also.

I have not heard any solid claims about what happened to the supposedly still-living passengers of the flights which supposedly hit the WTC. Are they too supposed to be in witness protection, living in seclusion somewhere? Would this not be an awfully complex plot, to pretend that around 3,000 people were killed, when in fact they are still alive, in hiding, paid off (or hypnotized?) to keep silent?

During my first year of writing this blog, I took part in a 'blogburst' along with other right-wing bloggers to memorialize all the individuals who were killed on 9/11. I wrote a little piece to honor the memories of a married couple from New England who were on one of the planes which left Logan Airport in Boston on September 11, 2001. If I believe the 'truthers', these people never died, or at least were not on a (fictitious) hijacked plane. I don't know if my imagination can stretch to accommodate a notion like that.

So what is the most commonly-held belief about the 9/11 conspiracy? That it was a 'false flag' event, that Israel, in complicity with our government, staged it, or at best, our government allowed it to happen for political ends -- to justify war against Islamic countries.

I could conceive that it was 'allowed to happen', since most historians seem to concede that our government allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. At one time I would have considered it unthinkable that our government would kill, or allow to be killed, thousands of its own citizens, but seeing the coldbloodedness with which Western 'leaders' are allowing, if not engineering, the invasion of the European/Western nations, and the dilution or genocide of the old stock peoples of those countries, I am inclined to think just about anything is possible.

But given Islam's undeniable proclivity to violence and to hatred of our people, is it not at least possible that they did in fact perpetrate 9/11? I really do not understand the mindset that sympathizes with the Arab/Moslem countries as poor victims in this whole scenario. Some on the right, embittered against our governments (justifiably so), have become very pro-Moslem, and this is something I can never agree with. The popularity of the old ''the enemy of my enemy is my friend'' mentality is something that may be foolish at best, in this case, if not downright perverse. There seems to be a similar inclination to sympathize with, and idealize Russia not in spite of, but because of, the fact that it was once our most feared enemy. Is it not possible that the Communist USSR was every bit as bad as it was said to be, or do we take the knee-jerk opposite view, and say that because our government opposed the USSR, it was actually admirable?

Just because our government seems to have gone rogue, and no longer serves us, nor even cares about our survival and safety, does not mean that the Moslem countries or their people are our friends or even potential allies. This goes for the Russians, too.

Many of us who were once very patriotic toward our country and our system of government have, since 9/11 particularly, come to regard our country and our system with great bitterness. Does this help us? No, I think it's necessary to be realistic and honest, but not bitter. Above all,  it is not good to simply invert our loyalties out of spite for our rogue government, and sympathize with proven enemies.

I don't know how the events of 9/11 actually happened, or who did what for what reason. I think I am resigned to not ever knowing the full story. We can speculate endlessly, but until some incontrovertible evidence comes to light, we will be speculating largely in the dark.

I do know that 9/11/2001, whatever happened that day, changed my way of thinking permanently. From that day on, I was on the trajectory that brought me to writing this blog. I was certainly made acutely aware of the fact that our country was being swamped by Third World immigrants and that, as I had noticed in earlier years, it was no longer the country I grew up in. That recognition stirred me to learn all I could learn about what was happening and why. And just as with 9/11, we will likely never know just how or when this whole design to remake our country was conceived and launched. The further we dig, the more remote the origins seem to be.

9/11, whatever it was, at least served the purpose of making these beneath-the-surface plans to change our country visible and manifest to those with eyes to see. That may have been an unintended side-effect, and it may -- or so we can hope -- give us a chance at reversing things.

Gibson, Braveheart, etc.

Interesting reading about Mel Gibson's latest project. I wonder how this will be spun by Gibson's WN fans? Gibson is so idolized I am sure this will be explained away or described as a clever bit of ''strategery'' on his part. Is he making atonement for his 'scandalous' anti-Semitic remarks of a few years ago? Or ...?

And speaking of Gibson's movies -- and politics -- at TPC,  I read Yggdrasil's review of Braveheart.
Readers of this blog know that I am not a fan of Gibson's work and I find it rather exasperating that Gibson's 'Braveheart' is the basis of many people's 'knowledge' of Scottish and English history. Here is at least one viewpoint which questions Braveheart's historical accuracy.

I would at least take exception to the notion that 'nationalism' can be found in the Braveheart story, or more properly, in the historical William Wallace's story. There was little notion of unity as a 'nation', but rather many families or 'houses' and clans, rather than a nation in the larger sense.

''With few roads north of the Highland Line, which traditionally divided the north and south of Scotland, clan territories became individual fiefdoms, and disputes and old enmities thrived akin to tribal warfare. Although several Scottish monarchs made efforts to control the lawless Highlands, Chiefs and their clansfolk were very much left to control themselves. Inevitably this led to conflict with central government.''

And if we are going to create analogies to our present situation, wouldn't, say, American Indians have more in common with the tribal heroes in the Braveheart version of history? Or perhaps, stretching it a bit, the Confederacy under Yankee occupation? But in all, it seems as though the painted tribal people in Braveheart don't seem like those I would identify with. Granted, nobody went around painted blue in that time period in Scotland; that belonged to a much, much earlier era, but then what does fact matter, where Hollywood is concerned?

Again, was Wallace fighting for some abstract thing called 'freedom' or did he merely want to carry out a vendetta against the hated English?

It's interesting that the left-wing Scottish Nationalist Party made use of the film Braveheart to promote their party interests back in the latter part of the 1990s. The SNP is not a nationalist party in any real sense, but a multicultural, socialist party, but still they found the movie to be useful in stirring up some kind of patriotic and anti-English feeling.

Can anything which provokes or exacerbates animosity among White peoples be said to be in our best interests overall?

Here, one writer quotes Michael Forsyth, then Scottish Secretary,  as saying that Wallace was a 'loser and a failure' and an example of how Scots tended to celebrate failure.

'This defeatism', he concluded, signified something about the contemporary Scottish ethos,' particularly its neglect of celebrating successful figures[...]
[H]istorian J. Mackay averred that 'there is a far better argument that what [Wallace] did was more Marxist than Scottish nationalist. He was a man of the people. But his struggle was more against the Anglo-Norman aristocracy.'

I think there is a danger that we on our side (if there is any such 'we', transcending the age-old Celt-vs.-Saxon animosities) may fall prey to the lure of idealizing victimhood. It is a malady of our day, this putting of victims on a pedestal, and finding victims or 'the oppressed'  to be enviable or admirable peoples. We do need to return to the habit of idealizing the successful, the winners, instead of trying to compete in the victimhood sweepstakes. After all, we old-stock Americans are now reviled because our ancestors conquered this continent and were the successful and the strong and the competent. That alone is seen as a moral liabiity now. This needs to change.

Are we as a people oppressed now? I have to say we are in many ways, but that is not what makes us what we are, nor is it a label we should covet or seek. We should instead focus on what we've historically accomplished, and on our strengths and victories, solidifying our confidence in ourselves. A victim attitude, while it may make some feel self-righteous, is not a desirable habit.

The debate

I didn't watch the GOP debate this evening, and therefore I didn't see the 'confrontation' between Rick Perry and Ron Paul that is being discussed on the Ron Paul Forums. From what I can see in the pictures I am not sure that it is as angry as is being implied, but it seems the two did clash in the debate from what I am reading.

Any opinions on this?

My idiosyncratic word usages

On this blog, I often write about Anglo-Saxon Americans, commonly referred to as 'WASPs'. Occasionally someone points out that the term was originally used as a slur, though technically it is just an acronym for 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.'

I've long been conscious of the fact that the adjective 'White' is superfluous in that instance. After all, Anglo-Saxons are White by definition. However as someone pointed out in a comment, the term 'Anglo-Saxon Protestant' would have the acronym 'ASP' which means a kind of poisonous snake, so that's hardly better than 'WASP' which means a noxious, stinging insect.

But I do take the point that the term 'WASP,' whether or not it was originally meant as a slur, certainly does seem to be a slur for many people these days. For most of the indoctrinated among us, on both right and left, 'WASPs' are those snobbish New England elites who supposedly talk in affected quasi-English accents and who run the world, alongside the Jews, behind the scenes.

Key features of the stereotypical WASP profile included old money, a New England family home, membership in exclusive clubs, education at an elite prep school and a degree from an Ivy League university.

 

So the term has become offensive to me, even though it may not have been intended to be so. From here on, I will avoid the term 'WASP' except when quoting others, and stick to 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Anglo-Saxon Protestant' where the 'Protestant' part is relevant. Or perhaps in some cases, simply the word 'English' might be appropriate and specific. So 'WASP' is out, as far as my own usage is concerned.

I may also return to the use of English orthography, as favored by many Southron nationalists. I used to use the English spellings, but in college, various instructors or professors regarded the English spellings as error, or as affectation at best. H.P. Lovecraft also chose to use the English spellings, Anglophile that he was. Some Americans will disagree with this, as most Americans regard British spellings and word choices as snobbish and affected, or archaic. It's all a matter of perspective; I suppose, as a linguistic conservative, I could argue that Noah Webster and Teddy Roosevelt were politicizing language by arbitrarily changing the spellings of our words, choosing to distance us further from our English roots.


But if I revert to English spellings on this blog, bear with me. It's my Southron sympathies showing, as well as my Anglophilia.

There are more problematic ethnic labels. Scots-Irish is one of them. There are a great many Americans (perhaps a majority of us) who have no clue what 'Scots-Irish' means. Sometimes they think it means a mixture of Scottish and Irish, or simply Irish. Personally I think the term 'Ulster Scots' is more accurate. Regardless of what term we use, few Americans seem to know the history of the people called 'Ulster Scots' or 'Scots-Irish'.

But on this blog, I prefer Ulster Scots. Others may have different preferences.

One more idiosyncratic usage you will notice on this blog is that I don't use the politically correct word 'Muslim.' That is a word that was adopted (to replace the word 'Moslem') back during the 60s and 70s, when 'Black Muslims' were in the news, and agitating to be called 'Muslims' instead of Moslems. As I don't bow to political correctness, I use the old term 'Moslem' as well as 'Mohammedan.' The term Musselman or Musulman is also all right as far as I am concerned.

The term 'Native American' is de rigueur nowadays, and has all but completely replaced the term 'Indian', and this change will accelerate further as millions more people from India arrive to colonize our country. I am sure in one more generation, the term 'Indian' will be understood to mean only a person from India. But here on this blog, Indian means those longtime adversaries of the cowboys.

Central Texas wildfires

As some of you may know, there are wildfires raging in central Texas. This is an area where I have many kinfolks and so it concerns me personally very much.

From a local paper, we read that the Feds have assumed control in Bastrop County and are refusing the help of local volunteer firemen. This is exasperating, but what else can we expect these days?

My prayers are going up for all in the affected area, and if any of you reading this are there, please tell us how things are in your immediate area.

Update: Here's a link to a Free Republic thread on the wildfires, with many links, maps, pictures, etc.

Feminism's tangled roots

Recently there was an entry at Thinking Housewife regarding men's role in feminism, and it centered on a quote from Thomas Fleming at Chronicles.

Fleming, in Comment #13, notes:

''Let us never forget that white males created and promoted feminism, that feminism is a male ideology. The women feminists were inconsequential eccentrics–compare the negligible influence of Mary Woolstonecraft with that of her lover Godwin, for example. Elizabeth Caddy Stanton and the other harridans they cite so often were regarded as freaks by both sexes.

Why did men create feminism? If we put the question to Godwin, Laclos, and Sade, they would say–if they were honest–that liberating women from control of fathers and husbands made them more vulnerable to seduction and exploitation, and that was certainly the foundation of the Playboy philosophy, and it has been said explicitly.''

This is something that I remarked on in the past on this blog, and it was not well-received. Perhaps some people doubt the truthfulness regarding the role played by the 'Playboy' element, and Hugh Hefner in particular. But here, in an interview, are Hefner's own words in response to the interviewer:

''NT: Feminism in particular.

HUGH: The feminist part caught me completely by surprise. I had been, I had been promoting the basic premises that became the sexual revolution from the very beginning and from early 1960 with the Playboy philosophy and other ... fiction, promoting the concept of the sexual revolution, so that part was not a surprise at all. The fact that the women movement came along was a natural part of the sexual revolution, because the sexual revolution began as more of a male phenomena, although it was obviously intended for both sexes. So the fact that there would be a comparable and complementary quest for personal identity and freedom with women is very understandable. The fact that it then turned antagonistic to the male part of the sexual revolution was, I found very strange indeed, and it reflects to me, less about the women's movement that about that schizophrenia that exists in term of our sexual attitudes in America. It must be remembered that there was a previous sexual revolution and there was a previous women's movement.''

[emphasis mine]

The ''sexual revolution'' was more or less Hefner's legacy, and it encompassed feminism, as a way of making females more sexually available in the name of 'freedom' and 'equality.'

Hefner is correct, though, that the feminism that we saw arising in the late 1960s was a resurgence of the earlier wave of feminism which gave women the vote.

Here, in a later review of Carrie Pitzulo's book, 'The Sexual Politics of Playboy', we read that:

''Playboy came to support "progressive" political causes, including opposition to the Vietnam War and support for abortion rights. Eventually Mr. Hefner even stopped advocating male "flight from commitment." While "militant" feminists continued to despise the magazine, Ms. Pitzulo says, Playboy was actually working "toward feminist goals." Mr. Hefner could not agree more. "I was a feminist before there was such a thing as feminism," he told Esquire in 2002.

Freeing women from sexual restraint and ensuring their access to abortion, of course, are causes hailed in barracks, frat houses and other places where nonfeminists gather, but Ms. Pitzulo is not one to make such observations.''

Another article has Hefner decrying the 'Puritanism' of American feminism. I think he is out of touch there.

Asked why, money aside, women want to become Playboy bunnies, Hefner said: "It's a form of sexual emancipation. The very thing some feminists consider exploitation represents, for a great many other women, a form of sexual celebration."

At one time, back in the 1970s, there was a more sexually conservative brand of feminism in competition with the libertine version, championed by Hefner and those who followed him. Of course we can see today that the libertine version of 'feminism' won, decisively. We can look back to the early 80s, with supposed 'feminist' icon Madonna saying that sexual exploitation of women was a good thing IF they were 'in charge of their own exploitation' as she claimed to be, and as Hefner implies above.

Trends like the recent spate of 'Slut Walks' show us where feminism has led, and it is not in the direction of sexual 'repression' or Puritanism. Hefner and his ilk won, and the self-styled feminists don't even see how clearly the Playboy philosophy has shaped feminism towards its own ends.

Regardless of which side is more responsible for the evils of feminism, the fact is, both the Playboy philosophy and the earlier versions of feminism were destructive to our society and our people.