Halloween

From the Shotgun Barrel Straight blog, a defense of Hallowe'en.
It's good to read another side to the story, what with the observance being attacked from every side (religious Jews and Christians, health fanatics who hate the idea of children eating candy), and now the move to merge it with the Hispanic 'El Dia de los Muertos'/Day of the Dead.

Will this help or hurt?

Some people here and there on the Internet are saying this will be the end of his candidacy but I doubt it. The Republican 'respectables' have too much of a need for someone like Cain.

The fact that there's been an admission that monies were paid to the accusers won't convince the 'true believers' that the allegations have some basis. After all, look how Michael Jackson's career survived when he made a financial settlement with the family of one of his apparent victims.

The need to believe trumps any facts or evidence.

Cain's defenders -- as well as some on-the-fence Republican types -- will rally to his side to denounce the liberal 'smears.' Maybe he will even gain support, thanks to those prone to knee-jerk partisanship.

Is this true?

If she is right, then how would they be racist and still vote for Cain?

Besides, the 'r-word' should be put in scare quotes, as I usually place it; I do that just because it is a word that I choose not to use, as it's an essentially loaded and dishonest coinage. However, the Republicans in question seem to place considerable significance on the word, as they use it all the time in sentences like ''The Democrats are the REAL racists!'' They are definitely running scared when it comes to that word, so maybe in that sense she is right.

Most Republicans these days are not 'racists'  but rather a slightly less PC kind of liberal, but a kind that nonetheless genuflects at the same altar as the Democrats.
Is there such a thing as a racially-conscious Republican? Yes, some, if you judge by Free Republic or other such forums. But are there race-loyal Republicans? Few, it seems, so Ms Garofalo and her comrades can stop hyperventilating, as most Republicans will not challenge her assumptions; they'd rather prove their loyalty to sacred political correctness, or to the ''Union:" or the flag, than to their folk.

No remorse

I didn't intend to write yet another piece about Britain, but I cant help but note this story about Tony Blair. He finally admits what we all know. No shame or remorse here.

Tony Blair has defended Labour’s controversial mass immigration policy by claiming that Britain cannot succeed unless it opens its borders to more people from different backgrounds.

The former prime minister said it was 'right’ that the country was made up of different cultures and faiths mixing together.

Mr Blair added that migrants had made Britain 'stronger’ and said those calling for greater curbs on foreigners entering the country were wrong.

His comments come just days after official figures revealed that the population is expected to soar by the equivalent of a city the size of Leeds every year for the next decade.

A defiant Mr Blair insisted his party’s policy on immigration was the right one. He said: 'It’s been a very positive thing and there is no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colours, faiths and cultures.’
[...]
In an interview with Eastern Eye newspaper, Mr Blair said: 'The vision of a country of different cultures and different faiths mixing together is the right one.

'That is not to say you don’t have problems at certain points, but those problems are to be overcome without losing the essence of what has actually allowed this country’s people to get on and do well.’
[...]
Two years ago, Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, said that Labour’ s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to ‘open the UK to mass migration’.

He added that Labour wanted to rub the ‘Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.''

[Emphasis mine]

This story has relevance to us in this country, too. Our 'Western leaders' are not acting in a vacuum, or on their own initiative, apparently. There's little doubt that they are all fanatical ideologues when it comes to the globalist/multicult credo. They are all working from the same playbook. Some people believe that they are simply puppets, doing as they are told in exchange for momentary power or money or importance on the world stage, but they may also be real believers in their deranged and destructive ideology. It would seem so.

In the case of Britain, it's noteworthy, in my opinion, that so many of their political 'leaders' are not English in origin. Blair himself is of Scots birth and origin though he was brought up in England. David Cameron, the present Prime Minister, is also of Scots origin and apparenly Ashkenazi ancestry also. Is there is a correlation between immigrant (or non-English, generally) origin and Labour Party affiliations, as with our Democrat Party and its associations with immigrant and nonwhite Americans, but it would be interesting to know.

However, as with our own left and 'right', both sides support mass Third World immigration for differing reasons, and neither side seems to have any allegiance to the actual people of the country.

The general impression by many people is that the West is 'committing suicide' and that our leaders are our own people selling us out. Looking beneath the surface, this is often not the case.

''Agents of change''

It appears that the laws governing royal succession in Britain are being changed to allow for ''sex equality.''

Girls born to members of the Royal Family are to be given equal rights with boys in the succession to the throne as centuries-old rules were overturned today.

As the historic changes to the monarchy were agreed, the Queen, at the Commonwealth summit in Perth, Australia, hailed the power of women to change the world.

The reforms mean the if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child is a girl, she will take precedence over any younger brothers in the order of succession.
[...]
As politicians unanimously agreed the dramatic reform to royal succession laws dating back more than 300 years, the Queen said the untapped potential of women and girls should be set free.

Speaking at the opening of the summit of the 53 Commonwealth countries, she said: 'The theme this year is Women As Agents of Change.

'It reminds us of the potential in our societies that is yet to be fully unlocked and it encourages us to find ways to allow all girls and women to play their full part.''

Does the Queen write these remarks that she delivers? It seems doubtful, unless of course she and the rest of the royals have become brainwashed along with the rest of the populace, including those in all Western countries.

I mean, how can one be a member of a royal family and yet preach egalitarianism from that perch? It makes no sense.

This seems like a bad move, a bad precedent, and just one more step on the ever-present slippery slope to more destruction of the traditional order of Western Christendom.

Someone in the comments section notes that William and Kate are thinking of adopting a child, so potentially an adopted child might be the successor to the throne. Not so long ago, there was an article full of hand-wringing about the lamentable fact that no ''non-whites'' had ever sat on the throne of England. I mean, someone wrote that article in all seriousness, apparently oblivious to the nonsense implicit in the theme of the piece.
But if William and Kate are inclined to follow in the footsteps of the Hollywood celebrities, perhaps they will adopt a Third World girl and thus ''make history'' by putting a Third World female in line for the throne. That would make the multicult egalitarians ecstatic.

Anything can happen these days, it seems, and who are you to complain? After all it's the 21st century! Monarchy, monoracial dynasties, and male dominance are all so yesterday!

Hollywood hate

Christopher Hart of the Daily Mail asks ''Why does Hollywood hate the English?"

The movie 'Anonymous', which deals with the so-called 'Shakespeare mystery', is anti-English, according to Hart. As I haven't seen it and won't see it, I can't judge whether it is, but I do agree that there is an anti-English bias in many American movies of recent years, and I've noticed this even as one who sees very few recent movies. My experience has been that few films of any origin are worth seeing lately, and Hollywood's product is the worst of all in just about every respect.

I did see the Mel Gibson movie The Patriot, which Hart references in his piece. He notes the church-burning scene in the movie, in which the foppishly evil British officer burns a number of Americans alive in a church where they have taken refuge. Hart and others have pointed out that no such incident is recorded in the Revolutionary War, nor known to have happened. My own guess was that the incident was based on the story of Oliver Cromwell's burning of a church in Drogheda, Ireland.

I had an Irish-American history professor in college who loved to tell such stories as that one, and told them with great relish. No doubt Gibson has heard such accounts and wanted to re-create such a sensationalistic scene in his movie. There is little doubt that Gibson has his biases, as did my old professor.

The comments following the article are interesting and depressing in a way, as a great many of them are very anti-American and those anti-American comments draw the greatest number of thumbs-ups. Granted, though, any article about the UK or England specifically on Free Republic or other such forums draws many, many anti-British/anti-English comments. The animus goes both ways, and yet it was not always so, in my lifetime. It's gotten worse, and it's worse in part because of widespread ignorance on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years. Ignorance alone, though, is not the greatest problem: it's the outright replacement of real historical knowledge with sensationalized Hollywood garbage, supposedly depicting the real past, and many people on both sides of the Pond accept it as fact.

The following comment speaks to this:

''The saddest aspect of this Hollywood Bull****, is our own Kids are not taught hardly anything of their own rich History. They go to the cinema and see all this Hollywood C*** that is usually made by some American who's Family has only been in America a short time and with a very large axe to grind against the British, or to be more precise the English, and the Kids totally believe it. It could be funny but it isn't. It would be interesting if any American readers of this, who's families have been in America for many generations question this rubbish more openly like we do. Is it any wonder we get into some heavy slanging matches between ourselves on some issues highlighted by the DM. I have been guilty of doing it on occasion but now before I open my mouth I try and find some facts back up any arguments that raise their head.
- Dave, Hastings, East Sussex, UK., 27/10/2011 5:41''

''Dave's'' comment is one of the best, in my opinion, and I am hereby responding to his call for some 'American reader' with a family history going back many generations in America to speak out, and to question it openly. I've done so before, and I will do it again, though I'm just one small voice.

It is sad that we and our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic do get into 'slanging matches'; we and our English counterparts should be better friends or at least allies; instead, Americans perpetuate stereotypes of the English, and caricature our common history. Maybe the problem is that so few Americans are conscious of any English ancestry, and many of those who have such ancestry have chosen to deny it or simply do not know it.

A few more comments pinpoint the influences contributing to American Anglophobia:

''It's the Oirish influence. They can't stand the English. Google - Irish Invasion of Canada.''

- PC, UK, 27/10/2011 5:33

re: the church-burning slander in 'The Patriot':

''There's an earlier example of the Church burning incident it happened in Walkworth, Northumbria 1174 and it was a massacre of 300 English folks taking shelter in the Church by... the Scots. Didn't get that in Braveheart did we? Bigger question - why does the UK government hate England so? The UK governments treatment of the English on funding and services is far worse than inaccurate Hollywood depictions of times gone by.'' - Alfred Wyrd, England, 27/10/2011 5:20

And then this one:

''I think another interesting phenomenon that I have witnessed in America starting in the 90s has been the overall favouritism Hollywood has for the Irish and, in many cases, it deliberately places them in contrast to the English. I'm American, and over there they really try to pull at your heartstrings about this kind of stuff because there are tons of Americans who are descended from Irish people from generations ago, people who have absolutlely no cultural understanding or perspective on Ireland now or EVER actually. Think back to the era of Braveheart (even though it's about Scotland, it really got the Anglophobe trend going) and that coincided with Riverdance (you couldn't go into anyone's house in middle America who didn't have Riverdance on video), and the Cranberries, and Titanic came out and promoted the whole "happy Irishman" stereotype even more. Then there was Gangs of New York with tons of non-Irish people playing Irish people being oppressed again. Will this change? No.''
- Chris, Calne, Wiltshire, 27/10/2011 4:05

It's true, certain immigrant-descended groups have a great deal more cachet and more influence on our culture, and as their clout has grown, the favorable image of England has declined badly.

It's true that social problems like binge drinking and a horrible popular culture have degraded England and the rest of Britain, but then we have the same problems here. Every criticism that can be made of England can also be rightly made of our country; the only edge that we have had so far is our slightly stronger Christian faith. Our Bill of Rights has also stood us in good stead as far as protecting -- somewhat -- our freedom of expression and our right to defend ourselves. But otherwise we are in the same boat, and for the same reasons, as the UK.

One big part of the problem with Hollywood propaganda and vulgarity is not even mentioned among the many comments on the article -- the fact that Hollywood is not run by real Americans; the culture of Hollywood is an alien one, and rather than art imitating life, Hollywood perversely creates a ''reality'' that becomes more real than life itself for too many gullible consumers. Hollywood creates this alternate universe in the name of ''art'' and life imitates it, at the cost of the destruction of our country and our way of life. The question in the title of the article could just as well be ''Why does Hollywood hate the Americans?''

Those who control our media and our trashy entertainment are doing more to make Americans hated and feared everywhere, and to foment division among Europeans and Americans, than any other factor. And they know it.

North vs. South, continued

On both AmRen and Occidental Dissent, there are threads which focus on North-South differences among White Americans, and some of the discussions have gotten heated because of anger on both sides. Of course the Yankees blame the Southrons and vice-versa, and so it goes on and on.

As I've intimated in various posts, I grew up in a household with the North-South division; my mother was a Yankee and my father a Texan with strong Confederate loyalties. My parents did not often quarrel about the War Between the States, as my mother was fairly apolitical, but she and my father occasionally clashed about it. For instance my mother recounted hearing the lyrics of a song, which contained the phrase 'Oh, we'll hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree...'', the song being sung to the tune of 'John Brown's Body'/The Battle Hymn of the Republic. This angered my Dad, of course, especially as a kinswoman of ours was Jefferson Davis' first wife. But my mother honestly didn't know the history behind the song (said here to be an 'African-American' song,
and elsewhere to be a Yankee soldiers' song), and so the disagreement between my parents didn't amount to much.

My father was aware that contrary to what many Northerners think, their own ancestors may well have had slaves. My mother's New England ancestors had African slaves early on in the Massachusetts colony. We know this because slaves are mentioned in the wills of some of our ancestors. However, as the Puritan descendants lost their original faith and strayed into Transcendentalism and embraced liberal universalism, they became abolitionists, though not all of them. In any case, you can see by the poster above that the North often welcomed runaway slaves, harboring and protecting them. I mention this because often some pro-Union Northerner accuses the South of dumping ex-slaves on the North. No, the North often greeted them with open arms, much as liberal Whites today see themselves as protectors of the poor illegals who are persecuted without a cause. The 'sanctuary city' movement which has spread to many liberal cities is an offshoot of the sanctuary movement for runaway slaves up North.

So the self-righteousness of many anti-Confederate Northerners regarding slavery is rather misplaced. They bear their share of the so-called ''guilt'', though their ancestors tried to assuage it by being abolitionists and activists on behalf of black ex-slaves.

As to which side, North or South, is most to blame for the bitterness that still exists between the two sides, in my own experience it is most often the North which harbors the most bitter animus toward the South. Why is this? Did the South invade the North? The reason I most often hear from Northerners is that the Southerners were ''traitors'' who deserved death for trying to rebel against lawful government, and for trying to break up the ''sacred'' Union. Yet it's pretty clear that our Founding Fathers believed that the States should have the right to secede; they joined voluntarily, and could leave if they so willed. If not, then what sort of ''freedom'' does the Union represent? As someone has said, is the Union a kind of Roach Motel, where you go in but can never come out?

Today's liberal Northerner (and almost everybody in America is an egalitarian, mind you) hates the South for their perceived injustices towards blacks, slave and freed. Why these liberals will take up the cause of others so fiercely is more than I can understand. Former generations of Northerners (my mother and her family included) were realists on the subject of race, though less so than the average Southron; they were not inclined to be as liberal as today's Americans generally. The North was as inclined to practice 'de facto segregation' in the Bad Old (pre-PC) Days, a fact which is forgotten by many. The ultra-liberals who were the most zealous in the cause of abolition and in the cause of punishing the South in the Reconstruction Era were probably not typical of the average Northerner.

The South's bitterness toward the North (where it exists) has to do with the centuries-old differences with the North in cultural as well as political matters. But probably the greatest source of grievance against the Union was the period known as the 'Reconstruction' era, with its many atrocities, injustices, and depredations, all of then directed at the White Southerner, all mean to destroy his way of life and his wealth, and to degrade him. This is reason enough to feel bitter. I find less justification for the anger on the part of many Northerners who wish to scapegoat White Southrons for their own 'diversity' problems, or who think that ''treason to the Union'' is justification for hating the South today. I don't understand this Union-olatry that many ''conservative'' Northerners practice.

In my own experience (in a North-South household) and in my travels around this country, I've seen more negative attitudes toward Southron people on the part of Northerners than the reverse. There is a widespread perception that Southrons are dull-witted, ignorant, ''inbred'' (an always-popular insult), trashy, and violent. For their part, Southrons often perceive their Yankee counterparts as arrogant and cold.

So here I am probably doing my part to foment more divisions -- but rather than trying to pour oil on the troubled waters, I simply think that 'never the twain shall meet.' North and South cannot simply paper over their differences -- not all of them political or historical -- but may have to agree to disagree, and go our separate ways. Yet to talk of secession merely infuriates many Northerners, who seem to want the South to remain yoked to the North despite the widespread animus. Why? Should they not cheer for a break-up of the mesalliance between North and South?

It's true that decades ago, in my parents' generation and even in my childhood, there was a more amicable relationship between North and South; some of the bitterness of the War Between the States had been put aside. Even in Northern schools, children were taught to respect Southron heroes like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and others. The theme of reconciling North and South was commonly preached. Schoolchildren all over the country learned to sing 'Dixie', a song which has now been branded as 'racist'. Is it possible to return to that era of relative unity? I don't know; it seems as if there is too much water under the bridge. The 'Civil Rights Revolution' did much to reopen the wounds of the War, and to re-inflame divisions. And here we are, in Reconstruction, Part II. Yet many Northerners don't seem to see that it is all part of the same struggle, and that perhaps the Union-olaters were not on the right side.

Another voice from the past

Writing sometime back in the 60s, the late Rev. Gerald L.K. Smith discusses what he calls 'Forbidden Virtues',  or the virtues of tradition that are now in disrepute if not outright forbidden according to the 'morality' of our times.

Though he wrote this sometime back during the JFK administration, judging by allusions in the piece, it seems to be just as appropriate for our day.

One of the virtues he lists is Indignation. It's probably even more true today than when he wrote this that 'righteous indignation' is a lost virtue, having been proscribed by the apostles of 'niceness'.

2. INDIGNATION. The time was when righteous indignation was considered a civilized art. Men knew how to walk out of a meeting when obscene remarks were made. Women knew how to be insulted when vulgar statements were made in their presence. Men of character would rise to their feet and challenge their offenders when profanity was exercised in the presence of a lady. America would rise in indignation when even one of her citizens was offended or abused by a foreign country. Today indignation when expressed in the old-fashioned spirit of self-respect is viewed with alarm and ridicule by 'vegetated' personalities who question the emotional balance of anyone with enough sense and character to show righteous anger.''

I appreciate his phrase 'the old-fashioned spirit of self-respect' -- nowadays the watchword is 'self-esteem', which is quite starkly different from self-respect. To be self-respecting, as children used to be taught to be, meant to aspire to a higher standard of behavior and character; if we strove to be this better person, we held ourselves (and others) to more stringent standards. Self-respect did not mean preening and boasting of our innate worth and 'self-love' as today's therapeutic culture encourages everyone to do. The end results of this difference between self-respect and self-esteem is plainly visible in our society today.

Next, Rev. Smith lists 'Zeal.' For most people today, zeal is viewed askance, as being evidence of an unbalanced or 'extremist' personality.

3. ZEAL. The word 'zeal' among the inflated apostles of self-esteem is a word that implies fanaticism. In their judgment the word itself implies a personality tinged with fanaticism - and what is wrong with fanaticism? It usually implies a personality completely dedicated to a principle. Such dedication may not be required of all people, but if it had not been for constructive fanaticism there would have been no Columbus and no Samuel Adams who organized the Boston Tea Party. There would have been no '49ers and no railroads through the Rocky mountains, etc., etc. At this very moment America needs a million zealots who love their country more than even TV westerns or fin-ladened automobiles. God bless the constructive fanatics and zealots of history.''

I have to agree with that. Constructive zeal is what is needed. On our side, how much zeal do we see, versus a vague discontent or a directionless anger? We need zeal and fervor, not just intellectual agreement with certain ideas or tenets of belief. And when Smith refers to love for country, please remember that in his day, country was pretty much synonymous with 'folk', unlike today. Today, most who call themselves pro-White view 'country' with a jaundiced eye, and somewhat rightly so -- because our 'country' is no longer the country of our forefathers or our progeny.

Rev. Smith goes on to describe social conventions under the category of 'Dignity', and today more than in the day in which he wrote it, Americans have abandoned much of their former dignity in dress, appearance, and language. These things matter, contrary to what the 21st century conventions tell us.

Among the other virtues listed are respect for the past -- which has been a theme of this blog. He goes on to list genuine femininity:

The masculinity of females has become one of the offensive characteristics of the so-called modern generation and it indicates a social problem which goes far beyond the manner of dress. Whenever nations lose respect for tradition and racial culture, and the dynamic qualities of Holy faith they usually degenerate into mongrelization and sex perversion. What greater ambition could a young woman have than to appear strictly feminine. In so appearing she is justified in making herself as charming as self-respect and feminine sagacity can devise. My father said "no creature in this world can rise as high or sink as low as a woman. She can rise high enough to be worthy of the worshipful admiration of man, higher than any man can rise. In debauchery and perversion she can sink lower than any man can sink." God give us a new growth of charming, pure, intelligent femininity. ''

He also writes about the importance of emotion, and much as I lament the lack of zeal among some on our side, I also believe that the role of strong emotion is neglected in our cause.

''Emotion is the lubrication which drives a man on further than any intellectual conviction that he can develop. The knowledge of truth gives him the right direction and the emotion he develops gives him the will to follow in that direction. It is the tool of the spirit.''

Without strong emotion, such as love of kin and kind, we are at a huge disadvantage in our efforts.

Read the rest at the link; I think it's an interesting read and a valuable one. I hope at least a few of you will agree.

Worth repeating

A comment on Tan's blog bears re-posting here, in case some did not see it over there:

"When you are talking about the defense of the survival of an ethnic group and the subject of the debate is mass immigration of aliens, there are two arguments that should NOT be used: 1)the "utility-argument, 2) the "maintenance"- argument.

The utility-argument is used to assess which group of immigrants is "useful" to the receiving group: are they willing to do the work autochtons refuse to do? Do they have a good work ethic,are they intelligent, are they law-abiding, do they have strong family values? etc. etc. It doesn't question the idea of mass -immigration at all. If one group is rejected according to "utility"-criteria it doesn't offer any resistance to the acceptance of others.

The "maintenance"-argument asks whether the alien immigrants can maintain the autochtonous civilization. What if that is indeed the case? What if Chinese can indeed maintain the highly developed Western civilization? What if they can indeed play Mozart and Beethoven as good as Europeans? Does that offer any resistance to race-replacement?

There is only one - read: ONE - valid argument against mass immigration of aliens and that is the IDENTITY-argument. Mass immigration of aliens - no matter how "useful" or "modernized" they may be - means the death of our people. Say: we want our people to survive, if you have a problem with that then that means you are our existential ennemy and should be treated as such. Period."

(Posted by Franklin Ryckaert)

Topsy-turvy culture

This thread from AmRen, about underclass ways being transferred upward to mainstream society, relates to something I've been thinking about lately: the ways in which our slang is increasingly underclass slang.

One example of this is the phrase 'tricked out', which seems to be popping up everywhere these days. My feeling was that the phrase originated from the same sources as words like 'pimp' and 'ho', which are now commonly used by 'respectable' people of all races, and the Urban Dictionary confirms this (see Definition 4). The Urban Dictionary, by the way, seems to be a compendium of the underclass (''urban'') youth patois that permeates our language today.

I've mentioned certain words or catch-phrases, some of which have been around for a while, which have crossed over, words like 'booty', 'crunk', 'diss', 'holla', 'shout-out', 'peeps', 'word!; (as an interjection), 'back in the day', 'you go, girl', 'no you di-int', 'I love me some ___(fill in the blank)', 'hate on' (instead of simply saying 'hate'), and then there are the ubiquitous 'bling', not to mention the ever-popular 'ho' and 'pimp', the latter being used as noun, verb, and adjective as in 'pimped-out'.

Our grandparents would be appalled at the way these terms have been so avidly adopted by middle-class, normal people, rather than being confined to the gutter 'urban' environment.


On the dictionary itself

''The definitions on Urban Dictionary are meant to be those of slang or ethnic culture words, phrases, and phenomena not found in standard dictionaries.''

It seems that just about every popular new slang word or phrase has its origins in ''ethnic culture'' these days. Have we lost our creativity and imagination to the extent that we have to look to the underclass or to "ethnic culture" to come up with new slang? Of course, new slang, to some extent, generally comes from young people, who are prone to coining new phrased and in-group words which distinguish them from the boring old generations preceding them. And the fact is, the younger age groups are increasingly made up of ethnic ''minorities'', who collectively now make up the majority in some of the younger age groupings. But it seems as if more and more, it is only the ethnics who set the tone and somehow establish what new slang is seen as having cachet -- and of course the media collectively favor the 'urban ethnic' underclass over the 'boring' White culture, which is weakening by the day.

The fact that many of the older generations are adopting the urban underclass slang is the novel aspect of this phenomenon. And we see these slang terms crossing the Atlantic to plague the speech of our cousins in other countries.

In our colloquial speech as in many things, it seems as if we are living in the age prophesied in the Bible, wherein 'children' rule over us.

Proposition nation?

Steve Sailer quotes the late Moammar Gadhafi as saying

"America is not only for the whites, but it is for all. Who is the American? The American is you, me and that. When we go to America we will become Americans and there is no a race or nationalism called America and the Americans are those Africans, Indians, Chinese, and Europeans and whoever goes to America will become American...American is for all of us and the whole world had made and created America. All the people all over the world had made America and it shall accordingly be for all of us. I will never feel ashamed when I claim for my right in America and it will not be strange when I raise my voice in America."

I've personally read and heard the phrase ''America is for everybody'' from many immigrants who have just arrived on our shores. How is it that they already have this phrase down pat?

A search of the phrase turns up a number of immigrants and their White liberal dolt allies repeating the phrase.

As Sailer's blog entry shows, it seems that even our political leaders are in agreement with the likes of Gadhafi on this issue, and with the many millions of Third World immigrants who seem to arrive here with the mentality that they have an equal claim to this country along with the descendants of the original colonists. The immigrants may rhetorically invoke the ''Native Americans'' who are the 'real owners' of this country, but the entitlement mentality brought by many immigrants shows that they believe their own right to be here is no less legitimate than that of the supposed 'original inhabitants.'

And though we kick around this phrase ''the proposition nation'', it seems that many of the recent immigrants don't even pretend to agree with those 'American principles' that constitute the supposed American way. What the recent arrivals seem to believe is just that they can get rich, or at least acquire better stuff in America, and that their motives are economic in most cases. For many Mexicans, it is about settling old scores, and 'taking back' their territory.

America means mostly a more comfortable standard of living, plus many benefits and entitlements. It has little to do with 'freedom', 'liberty and justice' or anything high-flown. It has to do with getting a share of the 'American pie' while the getting is good.

'America is for everybody' is the proposition they believe in. 'America is for everybody' means ''what's yours is mine. Gimme.''

Those naughty birthers

For the last few years, the group of people known collectively -- and derisively -- as ''birthers'' have been dismissed as 'kooks', nut-jobs, conspiracy-mongers, and obsessives. They've been called such names as much by the so-called right as by the Democrat left and their media arm. Glenn Beck has been more vocal in criticizing 'birthers' than the left, interestingly.

Now a Washington Post piece calls them the r-word just because they have not only questioned the eligibility of the One, but that of other PC darlings as Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio. The fact that these people may in fact be ineligible to run for the Presidency seems to be irrelevant to the accusers. Never attribute criticism to a legitimate concern when you can attribute it to ''racism'' -- such is one of the major tenets of political correctness.

Each man, the birthers say, is ineligible to be president because he runs afoul of the constitutional requirement that a president must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Rubio’s parents were Cuban nationals at the time of his birth, and Jindal’s parents were citizens of India.

The good news for the birthers is that this suggests they were going after Obama, whose father was a Kenyan national, not because of the president’s political party. The bad news is that this supports the suspicion that they were going after Obama because of his race.''

And with the politically correct left and 'right', to accuse is to convict.

I've noticed for a few months now that some of the 'birther' blogs I visit have become more politically incorrect on racial matters -- more politically incorrect than many of the so-called conservative blogs and media outlets.
Still they are just as likely to honor PC icons and to pay homage to 'colorblindness' as, say, Free Republic. But just the mere fact of questioning the birth status of Jindal or Rubio (who is considered White by many, in any case) makes the 'birthers' racist.

The WaPo piece recommends that Republicans police ''their own'' better.

But the wild new turn the birthers have taken should serve as a timely reminder to Republican leaders that they need to push back more forcefully against the angry and the unstable in their ranks.''

 It seems the answer is always to double down on political correctness and to exile or discredit anyone who violates it. But the fact is, on the ''birther'' blogs I'm familiar with, most of the readers and bloggers are self-identified Democrats -- or ex-Democrats -- not Republicans. And those who are more of a conservative stripe are usually self-described ''independents'', not Republicans. Oddly it seems that Republicans are more devout worshipers at the PC altar these days (read Free Republic on MLK's birthday, for example) than the disaffected Democrats.

A few years ago, the leftwing media were proclaiming 'birtherism' to be 'dead.' It seems they were a little premature.

And to deny, as many on both left and right do, the role played by race in the rise to prominence of Jindal, Rubio, Haley, et al is disingenuous.

In the country of the blind

Hunter Wallace reports that Ron Paul said in last night's debate that a border fence is not the answer to our illegal immigration problem. I can't say I'm surprised at that. I was somewhat surprised to read further that he also said our judicial system was 'biased against minorities.'

With statements like these I have to say I am finally ruling out voting for Paul, although I had not completely excluded the possibility. I realize Paul has his staunch defenders, for whom absolutely nothing would be a deal-breaker, but I've concluded he is a hidebound ideologue for whom his libertarian ideas are the be-all and the end-all, and the concept of ethnic loyalty non-existent. This is the problem I have with libertarians generally and with ideologues as a group. The ideal or doctrine they believe in is the top priority, and consequences be damned. The ideologue or doctrinaire, whatever his belief system, does not take reality as his measure, but the all-powerful belief system. Ethnonationalists, ethnopatriots, ethnoloyalists put their people  ahead of abstractions, however fine the abstractions (''liberty'', or ''small government") may sound or look on paper.

I also believe that ideas like 'liberty, 'freedom', 'small government' and so on are ideas that are peculiar to our folk, or at least our particular understanding of them is something that is characteristic of us. Other peoples may use those words and terms but they hold a different meaning outside our people. There's no need for us to construct a disembodied ideology enshrining those words and concepts; they are carried in our DNA, though best fostered in the right environment. And certainly a country with a multicultural, multiracial makeup cannot be expected to sustain those notions, regardless of whether we elect libertarians.

And yes, I realize that there are paleolibertarians who are more friendly to our kinds of ideas, but I don't think Ron Paul best exemplifies such a libertarian. He seems utterly detached from any concern about the future of our people. An aside: he was the doctor of my aunt; my uncle and aunt lived in the town where Paul has practiced obstetrics and gynecology for many years. Apparently he is a nice man and a good doctor, and I appreciate his pro-life stance but that is not enough.

The discussion at OD touches on the issue of a border fence or ''wall'' as opponents often term it. I remember Paul making a statement that the wall could just as easily 'keep people in the country,' apparently an allusion to East Berlin. That statement baffles me, and it surprises me that a lot of people repeat it seriously. Would a border fence contain people on every border and shore of our country? Would it prevent us leaving by plane or boat or other means? I mean, would it honestly turn this country into one big gulag? The idea that the proposed Mexican border fence could make us all prisoners seems like hyperbole, to put it very mildly. What I worry about is the threat to our freedom of movement from other sources; the tendency to make it more difficult to get passports, or the fact that there are few places which would even be worth fleeing to anyway. A physical barrier which would supposedly contain Americans on every side within our perimeters is absurd. Yet people keep repeating Paul's warning about such a wall keeping us in.

One more thing: Paul has said he favors legal immigration and would encourage it. That is just not acceptable to me. Legal immigration is a big part of our problem, not just illegal, and yet Paul does not see that.

Even if Paul somehow got the nomination and won the election, would he, without the help of like-minded people in Congress, the media, and the judiciary, be able to effect the wide-ranging reforms he proposes, such as ending the Fed (which I agree should be done, by all means) or ending aid to Israel? Unless he becomes absolute dictator, it hardly seems likely that he could effect the changes he calls for. I am afraid it would be business as usual in D.C.

To be honest, I see diminishing chances of making the vital changes we need -- like closing the borders and stopping even legal immigration, to use just one example. The politicians we have now are the sorriest lot in my lifetime and probably of all American history. The fact that Paul stands head and shoulders over many of them is only indicative of the sorriness of most politicians, not of his own merits, sadly. And I understand that we are crying out for a leader, but let's not grasp at straws.

The system has been so corrupted and infiltrated that it would seem impossible to arrest the rot, much less to cleanse out all the malignancy, using our present system.

I have no magic answer, except to say that not all change comes by political means, and that we cannot assume that today's conditions will always prevail, which is what everybody seems to assume. This present order of things cannot stand forever, and we must not underestimate what could be done if people simply walked away, refused to cooperate and to participate in maintaining this huge edifice of lies anymore.

It's everywhere!

Jack Kerwick at The Philosopher's Fortress writes about The Legend of White Racism:

''Just a moment’s worth of sober reflection in no time reveals that there is more than sufficient warrant for treating White Racism of a piece with Bigfoot and the rest of similarly mythic beings.

Actually, there is a sense in which reports of Bigfoot sightings are more credible than similar reports of White Racism. Bigfoot sightings from across time, though they tend to differ in degree as far as relatively trivial specifics are concerned—e.g. height, weight, etc.—nonetheless neatly coincide. Reports of White Racism, on the other hand, diverge wildly from one another. White Racism is the ugliest of creatures; upon this all who claim to have spotted it agree.''

Read the entire piece. As Kerwick develops his theme, it begins to look as though the 'white racism' boogieman is omnipresent and all-encompassing, since it seems to live and exist among Whites of very different opinions and habits.

Kerwick does not say it, but it's been my contention that the 'conservatives' who are so exercised by what they call 'liberal racism' do much to perpetuate the idea that this 'White racism' is everywhere, because with the Republicans joining in the race-baiting along with the Democrats, it only furthers the popular idea that all Whites, regardless of political affiliation, are racist, since each side points the finger at the other. Thus it seems that both liberal and 'conservative' Whites confirm the idea that all Whites are in fact racist. The left loves this. The nonwhites love it. The Republicans are helping strengthen the idea of ubiquitous and innate racism on the part of Whites. It's just always 'the other guy' who is the culprit.

I don't necessarily follow all that Kerwick says, but overall the piece is worth reading.

Criticism of 'our own'?

On an AmRen discussion of Pat Buchanan's latest book, a commenter says, in response to critics of Buchanan:

''I don’t understand why some of you have taken this article as an opportunity to question Buchanan’s character. You don’t have to worship the guy but he’s on our side. He has a mainstream platform to express his views, and you’d be hardpressed to find many more like him with opinions sympathetic to Amren and mainstream media connections. Picking him is wasted energy while our views are still so marginalized.''

The above is an example of the kinds of comments that appear in answer to those who criticize someone who is 'on our side', or even vaguely on our side, for example, in criticism of a mainstream 'conservative' who says somewhat sympathetic things on racial issues or the 'national question.'

I often get similar kinds of comments when I criticize -- as I do sometimes -- people 'on our side' who seem to be double-minded. As a critic of Buchanan says on the AmRen thread,

''He also talks about ‘culture’, when he obviously means race. This further confuses a clear understanding of the actual problem. Race is the key to history, and he needs to state it boldly.''

This is exactly the sort of thing with which I get very impatient.

My recent piece about Theodore Dalrymple is another example of this kind of thing. Is he on 'our side'? Only vaguely; I would count him as a right-liberal. Has he written things that are helpful to our cause? No doubt, but on the issues that matter, he seems to be in the camp of the willfully obtuse, as does Buchanan in some cases, as the quote above mentions.



Was I too hard on Dalrymple, or 'condescending'? Possibly so, and it was because I am impatient, and I believe somewhat rightly so, in cases like this.

No discussion of this type is complete without someone invoking Reagan's 'Eleventh Commandment': not to criticize 'fellow conservatives.' Well, firstly, I don't consider myself a 'conservative' these days unless you divide the world up into liberals and conservatives, and I have no other option but to choose 'conservative.' Secondly, is it always true that it is counterproductive, or destructive to our cause to 'speak ill' of one who is somewhat on the same side? I think there are times and places where it is not amiss to criticize, or at least to point out where said ally is missing something, or perhaps purposely avoiding some senstive topic for fear of the consequences to career or social standing. Is it not good to warn readers or listeners that there are vital missing pieces to the puzzle? Does it help our cause to just nod assent, or to say 'Amen' even when we see that the reticence of some of the more mainstream voices is actually holding us back, or leaving incorrect impressions in the minds of the audience?

Time is short, kinsmen, and we can't play this coy game wherein we talk about 'culture' when we mean something else, or 'countries' when we mean 'peoples'. If we had a century or so to take the gradual route like the Fabians or the Gramscians, then maybe it would make sense. But the fact is, we haven't.

I've profited at times from what Buchanan and other 'mainstream' pundits and writers have said and written. That was more true in the years when I was just finding my way out of mainstream conservatism toward ethnonationalism or 'realism.' Granted, such mainstream (or marginally mainstream) voices have a value to people whose views are still mostly conventional, people who have hardly dipped a toe into the waters of political incorrectness.

I admit I have bought Buchanan's books in some cases but they ended up being only partially read, because his books just didn't grab me in the way that other more daring writers have.

I am just an obscure blogger out here in the blogging hinterlands , one of many voices in the wilderness, but I think it's necessary for all of us sometimes to point out the missing pieces, and above all, to hold any would-be leaders' or spokesmen's feet to the fire, to keep them honest, and to try gently to prod them to speak a little more truth. Truth is in short supply, time is growing short, and we need every little bit of light we can get. We don't want to conceal the light that we have, or to refrain from speaking a truth that we know.

Buchanan, Dalrymple, and others like them are intelligent men; it's hardly a question of not knowing the whole truth; it's a question of being bold enough to acknowledge it, publicly, and let the chips fall where they may.

And if you don't speak the truth by the time you are in the sixth or seventh decade of life, you probably never will.

If I am impatient with some of those I criticize here, it is only because we don't have the luxury of taking the slow and careful route. There is a great deal at stake for us.

Commenting problems

I don't know if any of you have experienced the problem I'm having, but the commenting system (Intense Debate) is requiring me to sign in again every time I leave a response in the comment box. So if my responses are few and far between it is because it's tedious signing in repeatedly to the Intense Debate system. I hope this gets cleared up soon.

What 'national character'? What nation?

Theodore Dalrymple (or Anthony Daniels) writes about the changes in 'British culture' and character, most of which are not changes for the better.

In making his case, he quotes his immigrant mother's experiences in recent years, and cites her disappointment at the decline of the UK. She perceives the decline as being attributable to the worsening character of the British people, who seem to her to lack any discernible virtues now.

I find this whole story ironic. His immigrant mother complains that the 'British' are lacking in the virtues she once saw when she first immigrated to Britain, and she is apparently angry at the changes in the country (or more specifically, the people).

Change the people, change the place. She and the many, many immigrants who came to the UK in the postwar years and following are a big part of any deterioration of their host country, and yet they never seem to perceive this most obvious of facts.

Dalrymple's Wikipedia page tells us that both his parents were immigrants, his mother from Nazi Germany and his father from Russia, yet somehow Dalrymple is ''English.'' How does that work? Englishness is not a civic identity, not a matter of papers or a passport, but it is an ethnic identity, determined by genes. But that fact is not politically correct, so let's obfuscate.

Of course I don't mean that she, personally, has caused the decline of the UK, or the worsening character of her English/British neighbors. But as a group, immigrants have been the biggest catalyst for change in the UK as in most White countries. The article by Dalrymple/Daniels does not even mention immigration or demographic changes. Talk about blindness.

The typical aracial conservative blames such decline on ''Marxism'' or ''liberalism'' or in our country, on ''the Democrats''. But that is just the proximate cause; it isn't a change in ideology that is the ultimate cause.

Dalrymple/Daniels mentions his mother's experiences as a crime victim -- but he fails to tell us if it was actual 'British' people (or more accurately, English people) who committed the crimes. I have a hunch that 'diversity' might be involved here, based on statistical odds. But Dalrymple apparently does not want to ''go there''; he'd rather rail about 'culture' and the English (or 'British' -- he uses the terms interchangeably) lack of virtue.

Dalrymple alludes to the widespread problem with heavy drinking in Britain. I saw a photo spread recently, which some of you may also remember, with rather squalid photos of young people in Britain in embarrasing states of drunkenness. The pictures were taken in Wales and yet for most casual readers, the 'British' are the drunks in the photos, and for most Americans, British=English, which is not true necessarily.

British historically has meant not just English, but Scots, Northern Irish, and Welsh, and nowadays British may include Middle Easterners, Pakistanis, Chinese, Caribbeans, Africans, Gypsies, and anyone on British soil. What does it mean to say this disparate group of peoples has experienced a 'shift in national character'? The whole idea of 'national character' is an absurdity when you no longer have a discrete and identifiable group of related people as a 'nation'. Dalrymple misses that obvious point.

While Dalrymple writes some valuable observations in the article, I think he is too blinded by his own personal circumstances and family history to see the reality.

Wondering

I wonder if any of you out there have noted the change recently at AmRen. It seems that, since the site stopped accepting links from readers, they have now begun to post more stories about race vis-à-vis genetics, and medical issues in connection with race.

Among the recent threads was this one which, curiously, introduces the subject of Jewish lineage and medical issues, namely breast cancer.

I say this is 'curious' because as so many people have noted, AmRen seems to avoid mention of the ever-controversial JQ, and many readers complain that mentions of it are censored. The reason for this has been the subject of much discussion around the blogosphere. But whatever the reason or reasons may be, it does seem as if the Jewish question has been handled very carefully there.

So then why post a thread which focuses on Jewish genetics and hereditary disease? If you read the linked thread you will see that there is much discussion about whether Jewishness is a faith or a matter of genetics, or whether Jews are just another type of European or "Caucasian", (the politically correct consensus says yes).

An aside: Someone early on the thread mentions Tay-Sachs Disease as being found among other ethnic groups (French-Canadians and Cajuns, according to the poster) thus it is not a peculiarly 'Jewish' disorder. This seems a red herring, as I remember seeing a documentary years ago on the mystery of Tay-Sachs among Cajuns in Louisiana, and the research reported showed that a single Ashkenazi ancestor of a number of Cajuns was the source of the Tay-Sachs found among Cajuns.

It does seem odd to bring this subject up on AmRen, given the past history of censoring the subject as many people assert.  What can be the reason for this, I wonder?

I can see how AmRen might want to focus more on genetics/race and health, as it is something that allows people to acknowledge HBD without making value judgements as with IQ. Many White people, or at least the liberal variety of Whites, feel very uncomfortable with discussing IQ as they no doubt feel guilty about saying that there are differences in intelligence among the different races and ethnicities. Not only do they feel guilty about being part of one of the higher IQ groups, but because of our stubborn American egalitarianism, many people think it is downright un-American to note differences in ability or intelligence. After all, I'm as good as the next guy, and he's as good as I am, and saying otherwise means we are being 'supremacists' or just snobs, neither of which is viewed favorably by most Americans.

Maybe the people who select the stories posted at AmRen are trying a different approach to discussing real biological differences among races and ethnicities, but I still wonder about the reason for introducing the JQ into the discussion.

2.500 posts

I've just noticed that I have passed the 2.500 post mark on this blog. It's just a number, though it seems as  I've been at this for a long while now.  Sometimes I wonder if all the words I've typed here have had any real effect in any way, other than as a catharsis for me, a way to vent. There are always voices complaining that blogging is 'not doing anything', it's a waste of the blogger's time and energy as well as the reader's. That may be true at times, but it's better than doing nothing. And blogging certainly does not preclude ''doing something'' in the real world. One can do both.

Still, there must be some reason why I keep on keeping on. In the years since I first started many of my blogging colleagues of the early days have dropped out or disappeared from the blogosphere. Many new blogs have appeared too, some of them very worthy, and at times, I feel as though many of the newer ones have far surpassed any ability I have at this pursuit. It's good to see that there are new voices being added, though older ones have faded out.

To the faithful readers, thanks for being here.

Who's being 'targeted'?

Starbuck's, accused of 'racism' again, backs down and withdraws a 'controversial' poster:

Starbucks France has run into trouble with an anti-pickpocketing poster which some customers found racist.

The poster by the American coffee company shows a man with dark skin surrounded by arrows pointing at a mobile phone, a laptop, a rucksack and a wallet.
[...]
A customer in a Paris branch of the store took offence when he saw the poster and alerted anti-racist group, SOS Racisme. The group demanded the withdrawal of the poster, saying it "targeted a minority" and attributed "delinquent behaviour" to them, reported newspaper Ouest-France.''

My impression of the poster is that the artwork is primitive and childish, and that the 'race' of the supposed pickpocket is ambiguous. But if he is depicted clearly as a member of some sainted victim group, the question is, is it false to 'attribute delinquent behavior' to that group, just because it offended some anonymous snitch who blew the whistle? If the group in question (whatever group that may be) is not crime prone, then maybe the insinuations are 'offensive' because they are false. But if the criminal proclivities are there, then where is the problem? The truth is the truth. As always, though, it seems that the truth has a bad habit of being 'racist' or 'offensive' to somebody.

This little kerfuffle is ironic because if the poster did 'target a minority' and attribute 'delinquent behavior' to said minority, then it is bucking the trend of outright media censorship of minority involvement in crime.

It's been admitted and documented that the news media scrub references to race in crime reports. I've noted it here as have numerous other bloggers and commentators. The media don't even deny it; they simply try to justify their censorship by various rationalizations.

As if this 'scrubbing' of crime stories were not enough, the media and advertising in particular go further, even to the extent of deceiving as to the proportion of crimes committed by different groups. It's frequently noted that advertising uses outright falsehoods in depicting crime, as in the series of 'home security' ads which invariably show White males only breaking into people's homes, or committing 'identity theft.' The statistics do not jibe with the media depictions, whether in 'entertainment', news, or advertising.

So where is our ''SOS Racisme'' group to whom we can complain about our folk being ''targeted'' and having criminal behavior attributed -- wrongly, by the way -- to us?

Earthquakes

Has anybody else been noticing this recent flurry of quakes happening in the Mediterranean (especially Eastern) Mediterranean area? I pay attention to these things simply because it interests me. It does seem as though there has been a spike in the pattern of larger quakes in various places, and this piques my interest.

I know there are always those, in responding to a question like mine, will say that this is just routine, and that it has always been this way, or that ''we just have better technology to keep track of these things now.''

As for me, I believe we are living in some unusual and momentous times, contrary to those who say ''since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.''

Ron Paul vs. Herman Cain

'A vice' or a virtue?

I came across the above little snippet from an old book (dated 1829) at a blog called Centuries of Advice & Advertisements. Among today's feminists (which includes most women, 'conservative' or liberal) this quote probably raises a lot of ire; those backward, patriarchal, sexist, dead White males! How dare they say such things? Thank goodness we've evolved to more 'enlightened' attitudes in the 21st century!

Among the non-political blogs I peruse regularly, I frequently come across little buttons on the blog sidebar, promoting 'women reading' -- as if women need to be prodded to read, or to read more. It appears that women are more likely to be readers than men, and moreover, they read different kinds of material. Among the books they read, they greatly prefer fiction over nonfiction, which is the opposite of the male tendency.

These book lists for women give a good idea of the kinds of things that are popular among female readers; note the preference for the personal, the lightweight, and the politically correct subject matter. Books by women are preferred by women readers, it seems, and they seem to be especially fond of Third World women writers.

The media constantly promote the virtues of reading, and I can't say I disagree that reading is (or could be) a good thing. The media and our educational establishment constantly harp on the idea that we need to encourage our children to read, read, read, and oftentimes I've heard parents say that the subject matter and the quality of the material is not as important as 'just getting kids to read. As long as they're reading, that's the main thing.'
I disagree strongly with that. Most parents in today's world take more thought for the food their children eat, and are vigilant about avoiding 'junk food' for their children. Obviously they think that the quality of our food matters, and we must not encourage children to eat anything and everything. Yet many parents say that the act of reading is more important than the content, which is irrelevant.

We have, supposedly, a high literacy rate in this country today, and this is a cause for pride among some people. Still,  we have many people who are technically able to read yet who are not truly literate, people whose reading skills are very limited. Our public schools are notorious in recent years for graduating many students who are not really functionally literate, yet they are counted as literate. The quality of popular literature has declined greatly, and few people read what were once considered classic literature, good books. Our schools, both private and public, often encourage children to read only politically correct books, books with a liberal message, rather than to encourage them to read good books from the past as well as the contemporary, faddish books.

And now we are reading that the younger generations are no longer book readers, as books are becoming obsolescent, and young people's attention spans are shortened by new habits like texting and other, more minimalistic forms of communication.

As always, the liberal media wring their hands about declining literacy among the young. I wonder how much of this generational decline has to do with changing demographics; the liberal media will not acknowledge the fact that as the percentage of Whites declines, and as we are being replaced by Hispanics and other nonwhites, our 'replacements' are not readers. Period.

To return to the theme of 'women reading books', I've been wondering why this idea is being promoted on many blogs, as if women are poor oppressed souls who are being kept from reading, much as popular lore tells us that slaves were forbidden to read lest they get 'uppity.' The feminists love the victimhood image, and they seem to be clinging to the idea that their sisters are being kept down and are being prevented from reading, which is just plain silly.

But when earlier waves of feminism swept over this country, the ideas spread via the reading of books. It would seem that promoting more reading by women was a way of ultimately liberalizing our society. It seems that women favor books that promote the touchy-feely, empathetic approach to life, even if those books are not overtly political. It would seem that the many fictional books that women gravitate to are also vehicles for promulgating leftist or New Age ideas. I've had books recommended to me by female friends, books which are 'fictional' but which nevertheless have an axe to grind: 'postmodern' ideas, New-Agey books of the sort that Oprah pushed in her 'book club', and the ever-present books for women, by women, about women. It's all depressingly similar to the books by black authors, about the 'black experience.' It's all self-referential, insular, and ultimately promotes the divisiveness, the sense of grievance and entitlement, the tangled mess of ideas which together make up this multicultural, politically correct dystopia we live in.


(I suppose I am, again, not the 'typical' woman in that I prefer non-fiction over fiction, and I love history books, which, according to the studies cited, is the male domain.)

So is encouraging reading for its own sake a good thing? It doesn't seem to have bettered our condition, when we take a look around us. Reading itself, for its own sake, may be a neutral thing, the value of it depending on just what kinds of ideas and attitudes we are imbibing as we read. It's possible to absorb all kinds of ideas which are ultimately proving toxic to our very existence if we read indiscriminately.

And I wonder if the quote at the top of this post is not apt; perhaps women and their avid reading are guilty of trying to escape 'real life' and the normal feminine duties. Many of the books women read tend to denigrate the traditional order of things, particularly with male-female roles. We often talk about how many Americans seek escape from the troubling realities of 21st century America by watching 'Dancing With the Stars' or by sports-mania or pornography. Books, too, can be an unhealthy escape, depending on what exactly is being read.

But even if we read only the best books, the great writers of our Western tradition, could we not better spend some of that time by being 'up and doing', interacting with those around us, getting involved with neighbors and relatives, becoming active to try to forestall this crisis we face?

Discernment is necessary in all areas of life. Unfortunately discrimination (in the old sense, the good sense) has all but vanished from the world today.

Interesting

The Hill reports that Marine Le Pen will meet with Ron Paul next month.

The writer of the article helpfully tells us that

''The National Front has repeatedly been criticized as a not-too-subtly or just outright racist political party.''

Miss Le Pen has said some favorable things about Paul:

''The French politician also praised Paul as "a great defender of an international monetary system anchored on the gold standard," according to AFP.'' 

It would be interesting to listen in to this meeting, considering that Miss Le Pen represents a nationalist point of view, while Ron Paul seems, like many libertarians, to downplay the importance of ethnicity and especially race. Still it's good that they are willing to communicate and perhaps find some common ground.

The people of America?

Some early propaganda about America as the melting pot, the 'country for everybody', the prototype of the one world diversitopia. This video shows how the diversity propaganda and America as a 'proposition nation'  cult were already being pushed, half a century and more ago.

A sop for the easily fooled

Cain is telling half a truth here: I agree with him that ''racism'', whatever that may mean, is not holding blacks (or other nonwhites) back in any significant way. The other half of the truth is that were it not for affirmative action and the staggering media bias in favor of blacks and other nonwhites, they would not have achieved their present level of influence nor their overwhelming visibility and prominence.

And the above applies to Cain as well as whoever else. We don't know exactly what the country would look like without AA and the other huge advantages accorded to blacks ''all because of the color of their skin'', but it's a pretty safe bet that there would be a far bigger 'achievement gap' and income disparities without the leg up given by liberal policies and the pro-black/anti-White worldview that prevails.

I notice with chagrin how many on the ''right'' are gushing over these latest statements by Cain, and I wonder if my initial predictions about Cain being a likely nominee were correct. Many of the 'respectables' are hellbent on finding the magic nonwhite candidate, and if Cain does not make the cut, then they will run after Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, or whoever will absolve the GOPers of racial guilt, and solidify their non-racist bona fides.

Don't be taken in by this. I wonder if these statements are not being scripted for Cain specifically to mollify skeptical Republicans and get them on the Cain bandwagon.

All he is doing is furthering the trite talking-points about how 'the liberals are the REAL racists' and 'the Democrats are keeping the blacks down on the plantation', etc., ad nausaeam.

Some music

A very evocative song by Australian singer-songwriter Paul Kelly, this time singing about 'Cities of Texas.'
I love the pictures of old Texas, very fitting here. The pictures are of the Texas my parents and grandparents knew. Some of the scenes pictured, as the picture of Cuero, Goliad, and San Antonio, would be well-known scenes to my kin, and therefore I particularly liked seeing those.

Enoch Powell interview, 1973

Here's a pretty good interview with Enoch Powell, dated 1973. It lasts only 10 minutes and 27 seconds. Powell's closing statements are relevant to all of us who are trying to be 'voices in the wilderness' in our own small way.

The video apparently can't be embedded, so just click the link above.

Lacking all conviction

A disturbing story out of Canada tells us:  Abducted boy's parents forgive suspect.

This is an example of today's corrupted ''Christianity'' that cares more about putting up an example of holier-than-God behavior: showing 'mercy' and 'forgiveness' to a man who kidnapped one's own three-year-old child.  The parents claim that no harm was done to the boy, so their 'faith' commands them to forgive.

I am old enough to know that this kind of behavior on the part of Christians was neither expected nor displayed in the old, pre-PC, pre-psychobabble days. Maybe some goody-two-shoes types would proclaim their forgiveness in private but there was never, to my recollection, public shows of such sentiments as we see nowadays.

What's even worse is that the readers who comment on this story are mostly in full agreement that the parents' behavior is right.

All those who think this is admirable and exemplary behavior really need to see what the Bible actually teaches about forgiveness and repentance, and also about the differences between justice and vengeance. Many uninformed Christians of today think that any form of punishment for wrongdoers is taking 'vengeance', and that because vengeance belongs to the Lord, we can sidestep earthly justice by ostentatiously 'forgiving' or by administering light -- or no -- punishment for serious crimes.

No wonder our Western societies are in a crisis. The 'good' people have all lost their edge, and become weak-as-water simpletons who can't discern right from wrong anymore.

Ron Paul on immigration, revisited

I've noticed when looking at my blog stats that I am consistently getting people searching for Ron Paul on immigration and borders. It might be good to take another look at that issue now.

Those who were reading this blog back in 2008 or even earlier may remember that for a time I was a Ron Paul supporter, although a wary one at times. Back in '08, Ron Paul's archives of older columns he had written contained some fairly conservative statements on immigration, as here.

Later on, as has been noted, he seems to have changed his positions.

Since the presidential primaries, Paul has been virtually silent. His post-campaign book, The Revolution, did not mention immigration at all.

Paul's congressional website's platform for 2010 was identical to that for 2008. He called for increased border security, rejection of amnesty, an end to birthright citizenship, no welfare for illegals, and a vague "true reform" of legal immigration.

On the legislative front, Paul has been Missing In Action. He voted against the DREAM Act, but has not co-sponsored any significant piece of immigration legislation.

Now, at last, Paul has finally given a comprehensive discussion of his views on immigration—in his latest book Liberty Defined, where he lists his positions on fifty different issues.
But what he—or the left-libertarian faction that seems to have his ear/ byline after the strange death of Rothbardian paleolibertarianism—actually says about the issue of immigration is a profound, and in fact tragic, disappointment.

Ominously, Paul begins by trying to triangulate between the Open Borders Left and a non-existent restrictionist straw man.

Thus his immigration chapter opens: "There seem to be two extreme positions on immigration: completely closed borders and totally open borders."

The author of the quoted piece says that the 'closed borders' position is one that nobody really holds, although I would take issue with that statement. I don't see why any immigration at all is necessary, and after years of blogging about these things, I have never heard a convincing argument made as to why immigration is necessary at all.

At least, however, Paul does seem not to have changed his position on so-called 'birthright citizenship':
His own official website lists his positions on the immigration question, and the first statement below does sound promising:

A nation without borders is no nation at all.

It just doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.

Unfortunately, for far too long, neither major political party has had the courage to do what is necessary to tackle the problem.

Instead, we’re presented with so-called “solutions” that involve amnesty proposals or further restricting Americans’ civil liberties through programs like REAL ID.

Ron Paul opposes both of these schemes and believes they will only make illegal immigration and the problems associated with it worse. He has been proud to see states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and protecting their citizens by refusing to comply with the unconstitutional REAL ID law.

While the federal government neglects its constitutional responsibility to protect our borders, it continues to push mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care to illegal immigrants at a time when the states are drowning in debt. This must not be tolerated any longer.''

However I part company with him on this statement about how 'valuable' legal immigration is to us.

"Like most Americans, Ron Paul also understands just how valuable legal immigration is to our country.

Immigrants who want to work hard, obey our laws, and live the American Dream have always been great assets.
[...]
* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.''

[Emphasis mine]

I don't think encouraging legal immigration is a desirable policy, given that we have at least 1-2 million entering our country each year, added to the unknown tens of millions who are here legally and illegally.

It seems that Ron Paul has no concept of, nor concern for, the importance of preserving the existing nation (as in ''people") of this country, nor the culture created and sustained by us. To him, it does seem as if he views Americans as interchangeable consumers and n some cases 'assets' to our country, rather than as a distinct and specific people with a specific heritage and culture.

For many 'conservatives' with immigration restrictionist views, Paul's positions are good enough, being to the right of most of the other pathetic candidates for the Presidency. But the fact remains that Paul seems to be trying to walk a line between the restrictionist side and the 'nation of immigrants' sentimentalists, or between the political 'conservatives' and the libertarian people-as-economic-units position.

Yeagley on ' ignorance of history'

Dr. Yeagley writes on themes such as ignorance of history and social immaturity, tying those issues in with several current news stories, including the Wall Street protests, the tempest in a teapot regarding Rick Perry and the 'racist' rock, and Herman Cain's candidacy.

Of the latter, he says

Now, a black man has every right and responsibility to look out for his own, and to use his influence to uplift and improve the lot of his people. But, to use the public office of a white nation to do so is inappropriate and destructive to the nation. To think that a black man can lead white America is the epitome of sophomoric immaturity, the zenith of ivory tower theory, and the end of common sense.
That the lessons of history are unlearned, or even unread, is abundantly clear. Even the greatness of America cannot afford to waste history. The grandeur of this country cannot sustain nonsense, for long.

 I always find it interesting that the White commenters there are far more politically correct than Dr. Yeagley, rarely affirming statement such as those in the quote above. It may be that Dr. Yeagley, like other non-White or mixed-race individuals, is seen as being permitted to make politically incorrect statements, whereas most Whites feel compelled to stick to their 'colorblind' programming. Interesting, and telling, but not very encouraging.

On 'rival regional cultures'

I've been reading Hunter Wallace's series which started with his reading of a book called 'American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America' by Colin Woodward.

After having read the series of pieces so far, I have come away feeling more confused about the ideas being put across in Woodward's book. Are the eleven geographical regions, supposedly shaped by different European/British Isles groups, still dominated by these groups and their respective cultures in 2011?
After all, with the many-generations-long game of musical chairs going on in this country, there are few regions left which are still dominated by the populations which settled those places in the colonial days and the 19th century, and which originally shaped them.

For example, New Netherland, supposedly comprising New York, North New Jersey, and Southwest Connecticut. The Dutch (and many Huguenots) who settled the area of New Netherland in the 17th century have all but disappeared into the general population, having intermarried widely. There is very little left of their culture and influence in the 'New Netherland' region of today. The region is culturally dominated by the Jewish influence and the 'melting pot' today, being one of the most multicultural areas of the country.

Again, ''Yankeedom'' in Woodward's classification includes not only New England but much of the Midwest. I can see the reasons why Woodward might classify these states as one region, but so many people still believe that Anglo-Saxon 'Yankees' still dominate New England. It would appear that only rural and mountain areas of New England are populated by descendants of the original English Puritans. Yet the idea lives on that the mysterious WASP elites have their stronghold there -- while the evidence is that New England now belongs to the descendants of 19th century immigrants, such as the Irish, Italians, Portuguese, and French-Canadians. And, of course, Jews who have spread out from the New York urban area.

As for the northern tier states that are counted as part of 'Yankeedom', they were in fact settled early by New England Anglo-Saxons, like my Fairbanks kin and many other related families, but since have been settled by Germans, Scandinavians, and some Slavic peoples. The maps I've posted here in the past on ethnic origins of Americans by region illustrate that. So why is that area called 'Yankeedom'?

Presumably this is based on cultural characteristics; are we to believe that the later Germanic and other settlers adopted 'Yankee' culture and ideology (egalitarianism, etc.) wholesale? What happened to their original culture?

The divisions within the South follow closely to the popular notions of Scots-Irish 'crackers' vs. evil old Anglo-Norman plantation owners, or 'Cavaliers', with a few other sub-groups thown in. These ideas have become very entrenched, so it seems pointless to argue further that they are oversimplified to the point of caricature.

For the record, my bias lies in the fact that my ancestors were of the Cavalier group, who are now in disrepute because they were self-identified aristocrats. Hunter Wallace quotes John Randolph's famous (or notorious, depending on which side you take) statement, ''I am an aristocrat; I love liberty, I hate equality.'' This statement does not go over well among today's right-wing Jacobins who think aristocracy is evil by definition.

An aside here: the same quote by John Randolph of Roanoke was also credited to my other kinsman John Taylor of Caroline, so the sentiment was widespread among the Cavalier class.

I find it interesting to note that even as Hunter mentions the egalitarianism of the Yankee Puritans, commenters paradoxically seem to side with the egalitarian school of thought in denouncing aristocracy. How is this explainable? Is denouncing aristocracy per se not a display of egalitarianism? I have never heard an argument from the democrats (small-d) who hate the idea of aristocracy as to why they feel this way. If we believe that the 'common man' (whom I champion often in a populist mood) is somehow by nature nobler or better than the traditional aristocracy, is that not just an inverted kind of snobbery, or the creation of a born 'aristocracy' of the humble? It's just snobbery turned on its head. Or is it credible that all people really are created equal?

So many of Woodward's descriptions of the various regional cultures and peoples seems to be based on a long-obsolete order of things. And ultimately I have to wonder if he is not emphasizing these inter-group differences at the expense of the commonalities that do exist. This kind of view of things seems only to contribute to a further fracturing among our already-divided Southerners as well as among other Americans. There is already too much newly-minted (in the last few decades) resentment among the various groups in the South: Scots-Irish 'crackers' vs. Anglo-Normans -- or such as still exist in the South. It appears the latter, being one of the more politically incorrect groups, is slated to be written out of the history books altogether, while the star of the lionized Scots-Irish continues to ascend. But no, they will have to be kept around as all-purpose whipping boys in today's warped accounts of our history.

Will I read Woodward's book? I don't know; I do know he is a writer with a definite leftist, PC bias, but I am interested in hearing others' opinions if you have read the book or are familiar with it and the ideas therein.

I'm outnumbered, but...

I'll offer a few more stray thoughts about the Knox case:
It illustrates the truth of all the advice my parents (and probably yours) gave us about choosing our company carefully and wisely. ''Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.''  ''Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are.'' We see this in the Knox case. Her choice of company was abysmally bad and no sane one of us would want our twenty-something ''children'' in the kind of company, making the kinds of 'lifestyle choices' which the put-upon Ms Knox made and will continue to make. Presuming she is 'innocent' as a newborn babe as many say she is, she at least shows shockingly bad judgement when it comes to associates and habits.

''B-but does that make her a murderess?''
No, but neither is she the martyr, the persecuted heroine or the underdog who is being defended in such an over-the-top manner by many Americans, even self-styled ''traditionalists'' and ''conservatives.''

I've reviewed the varying accounts of the case and I am not persuaded that the known facts declare her 'innocence' as her defenders loudly insist. I hear silly comments such as ''but there's no motive!'' Since when is absence of a motive grounds for asserting that there is 'not enough evidence'? Many people are convicted with no motive being established.

People are irrational; people do crazy things, especially young people, especially in cases involving sex, especially people who drug and involve themselves in decadent lifestyles.

And are people who don't join in her defense automatically 'puritan hypocrites' or 'Christian hypocrites', ''demonizing'' her or others like her? No. Those accusations bear all the hallmarks of the left, not resorted to by 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists' or Christians, as a rule.

Can anybody imagine that a woman with her history and associations would have been championed and treated as a celebrity, or defended so emotionally, in past eras? There is a middle ground between saying 'hang her' and making her out to be a poor little innocent being hounded for absolutely no reason.
It seems most Americans can't find that middle ground.

I would prefer to continue to ignore this trial, or the murder itself, if only because it is too sordid and creepy to contemplate. And then there is the added fact that it is not a matter of real import to us; it involves the lives of a small group of people in a faraway country. I am sure that there are many Americans in foreign countries who end up in trouble with local authorities for various crimes, great and small, but most of them never make our national media, and do not inspire many Americans to an overwrought defense of the accused criminal.  Why is this woman being defended as though she were a damsel in distress?

Regardless of whether she actually killed the victim, she is without a doubt the author of her own troubles; if she had chosen a more healthy and less sleazy set of companions and lifestyle, she would now be an anonymous American 'student' in Italy, and would never have gone through what she has gone through.

''But does that make her a murderer?'' No, no more than being accused of a sordid crime about which she lied repeatedly makes her a sympathetic victim.

She may not be a murderess (only she and God and a few others know, probably -- but assuredly not her defenders) but neither is she a martyr or a hapless victim who was picked at random to be 'railroaded' for a crime she did not commit. Believing this to be the case is probably the result of watching too many Hollywood movies and TV shows in which blameless people are wrongly accused, though they are pure as driven snow.

It appears she has benefited greatly from the implicit notion that 'beautiful' young women can't also be bad women. Would she have any defenders if she were unattractive and badly dressed? Casey Anthony is another example of this phenomenon.

There may be a few innocents persecuted by evil prosecutors, but not as many as today's popular fiction leads us to think. It is very much part of the liberal mindset to believe that criminals or accused criminals are just misunderstood or persecuted for no reason - or because of racism, homophobia, etc.

She is no underdog, having come from a wealthy background. She has advantages that a 'nobody' from a middle-class or poor background would not have.

I'm used to being alone in my opinions on social matters and the majority, having become socially liberal-to-radical, are often in the wrong these days. And that majority crosses liberal-conservative lines. Ms. Knox is, I would bet my last dollar, a lefty antifa 'colorblind' type, and probably would consider many of her 'right-wing' defenders as her enemies. How do they rationalize that away?

Is she guilty? My hunch is yes, to some extent or other, and my hunch is at least as good as the pre-conceived idea that she is innocent. Many of her defenders say ''I just knew all along she was innocent.'' In other words, they started out biased in her favor. I started out neutral and formed an opinion as things unfolded.

If people want to believe in her innocence, I say, go right ahead. My issue is with this over-the-top defense of her which is way out of proportion to her importance.

Above all, the reaction to this case says something disturbing about today's America or Western culture; it says, to me, that we no longer have a moral consensus. It was true for much of the past that all of us shared an unspoken set of beliefs about  good and evil, truth and falsehoods. We once shared a common idea of right and wrong, including sexual morality. Some call the old way 'hypocritical' and 'puritanical' and thus imply that the new way which we see in this case, is better and more 'enlightened.' If you are a liberal or libertarian, that is a consistent position to take. If you, however, claim to be a conservative or 'traditionalist' your position is not consistent.

And I may be the last one who believes this, but I believe that people involved in various kinds of perversions and kinky lifestyles are more likely to be involved in transgressions of morality generally. Our character is all of a piece; we can't be upstanding and honest in one area of our lives and yet dally with degeneracy in other areas of our lives. Decent people don't consort with decadent 'friends' and lifestyles. Yielding to one kind of flouting of morality and decency just makes it easier to yield to many other kinds as well.

I think we have to be very careful about defending people promiscuously, for emotional reasons; we may be found calling evil good, and good, evil.

This is also part of the legacy of the social upheaval of the 1960s, and all its accompanying ills.