Vile snitches object to ''vile'' speech

By now you've all seen the video or read about the 'Tram Lady' in London who said some rather unflattering things to her fellow passengers on a tram in London.

Very shortly after, it seems, there were calls to have the woman arrested and charged,
and it appears she has been charged with a 'racially aggravated public order offence.'
The people on You Tube and the 'social networks' who have been baying for blood
should be satisfied now, or are they? The authorities will likely make an example of this woman, and make her out to be public enemy #1, because of what the supposedly objective 'news media' are calling her ''vile rant.''

''There are now calls across social networks in London to identify the woman, calling on the police to charge her.'' 

Was her ''rant'' vile? She used bad language, not language I or many others would use, but we hear worse than this in any city in the Western world nowadays, and few people bat an eye. But this woman criticizes immigration and speaks rudely to the sainted immigrants who incidentally, outnumber her and a few other British or English passengers by quite a margin. The very scene that the video shows us verifies the truth of her complaints about immigration. She has legitimate grievances, as do the rest of us who live in countries which are now declared to be open to all who wish to come here, regardless of the will of the people.

She merely spoke what a lot of people have thought, but feared to speak. Maybe she was ill-mannered, but is that a crime? Maybe she was unwise, considering how outnumbered she was, and considering the fact that she held her young child in her lap at the time. I suspect she was exasperated like many people in our countries are. As of now, we can't go to prison for our thoughts, but we certainly have no freedom of speech in many Western countries.

The truly disgusting thing, the thing that really is ''vile'' is the way in which her fellow English and British brethren are ready to condemn her and shout 'off with her head' because she spoke words that violate the codes of 'political correctness.' The way in which many White citizens of Western countries will rabidly side with Others rather than with their own is creepy and unnatural in the extreme, as are the people themselves who behave in this fashion. It's worse than what has been depicted in so many dystopian novels, the way that people will turn on their own. That's the ''vile'' behavior that healthy people should condemn and reject.

Method to their madness?

August Pointneuf writes about the incredible comments by British political candidate Sandy Walkington:

''Sandy Walkington, liberal democrat candidate for St Albans has said, “We are all mongrels. I mean this country is the most mongrelled (sic) country in the world. In 200 years we will all be coffee-coloured – and I have got no problem with that”.

This grandiloquence and cultured bravado is naïve. Underlying this man’s thesis is a peculiar (in the sense that it is not consistent with the views of humans for millennia past) implied undercurrent of contentment. This contentment seems to arise from the illusion that if there is genetic homogeneity, there will be less strife and consequently the population will be safer, more content, and “happier”.

He is mistaken in believing that stirring genes in a pot of miscegenation will produce a uniform product. At a genetic science level he is wrong, because there will still not be a homogeneity. This is because the different expressions of various gene pools in mulattos will repeatedly force out differences.''

Pointneuf is right, of course; we can see the process he describes at work in countries like Brazil. There will not be real homogeneity as quickly as the promoters of mingling and mangling believe.

It's hard to believe that the powers that be are peddling this idea of Britain as a 'mongrel island' or a nation of immigrants, but the younger generations seem to be accepting it, and a troubling number of those who are old enough to remember things as they really were -- just as in this country.

Walkington's bigoted views are shocking, though we've all become inured to hearing such outlandish statements from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. It's incredible to me that so many people are still determined to deny that there is a larger plan afoot; that's 'crazy conspiracy talk' and all conspiracies, of course, are rumors only, and the product of paranoid minds -- or so the coincidence-mongers say. It's just a coincidence that all Western politicians are speaking off the same script, and saying the same obvious lies on both sides of the Atlantic, and in far-flung corners of the Anglosphere as well.

But apart from these points, one commenter makes remarks that tie in with something I've been mulling over myself. A commenter called 'Heechee' says:

''The NWO goal is the destruction of western society not just white people. I believe the mixing of races is just a bi-product of the plan. For total capitalism to work the western welfare system must be destroyed. It is part of our culture created through our Christian based philosophy of fairness and compassion It could be any people they flood in as far as they are concerned, colour is not real issue as it is numbers and differing values that cause internal stresses to appear. Western people will be forced to abandon our core values in the struggle to survive.

Our own welfare system is already buckling under the pressure and when we add 10 or 20 million extra it will fail. Eventually all our nations will become massively over populated and living standards will plummet worldwide as each economic block strives, through necessity, to be the cheapest producer.

Europe and the other westernised nations would do well to remember that in many parts of the world it is dog eat dog and only the strong or ruthless survive.That is the NWO future planned for us all!''

I've been thinking about this as well. It's often said by many on our side that the powers-that-be want to blend us out of existence, or in starker terms, to carry out genocide against us. The idea is that they want us gone, not just because of longstanding resentments and grudges against those of European/Christian origin, but because they see us as formidable rivals or potential resisters to the One World Order.

But I wonder if it is just this; it does seem to me that 'Heechee' is correct that they want to destroy the cultural habits associated with us: things like altruism towards the weaker (children, the elderly) and the infirm and disabled. The capitalist faction of the New World Order types want to do away with any such sentimental nonsense as compassion for the old, the unborn, and the infirm, and they want to dispense with social programs. On this issue, many 'conservatives' have come to agree with the elites on this score, thanks to overuse and abuse of the system by many 'victim groups' who claim entitlement not on the basis of old age or disability, but simply by virtue of being born into a certain group of people.

Glenn Beck and many of the neocon types talk about the Cloward-Piven strategy of the left and the goal of bringing down the system by bankrupting it. I think the left and the ''right'' among the globalists agree on destroying social services and so-called entitlements. Many 'conservatives' today class Social Security for the old as the same as welfare for the able-bodied young, for 'refugees', immigrants (including illegals), drug addicts, and people who claim to have 'mental disorders.'

I've often wondered: if the powers-that-be are moving millions upon millions of needy and demanding Third Worlders into our countries where they expect to be taken care of, how does this benefit the 'elites'? The idea that these immigrant hordes supposedly answer a need for more 'cheap labor' seems insufficient and unconvincing. There are too few jobs now for our native-born citizens; how will millions more unwashed illiterates fit into our economy? Obviously the elites have some purpose for this insanity, or do they? Are these people meant to help wear out our compassion and to harden our hearts, so that we don't even want to help our fellow citizens who are in need of help? It looks that way, judging by the increasing numbers of stony-hearted comments posted on Free Republic and other such sites; they increasingly view old and infirm Americans with the same cold indifference as they view welfare queens and mendicant illegals. Stop all assistance, they say. Let the old folks die off; we don't like their politics anyway. Baby boomer scum.

'The love of many shall wax cold', says the Bible, of the times we live in.

For years we've heard of 'compassion fatigue', ever since hordes of 'homeless' people were deposited on our streets, thanks to the closing of many mental hospitals. We've all become somewhat jaded as we've become used to seeing ragged people roaming our streets.

Now, with immigrants, refugees, and the professional poor attaching themselves to our overburdened social services, we have become positively hard-hearted.

So in a sense, our 'rulers' have succeeded in killing off much of the altruistic spirit which enabled us to care for our own people in genuine need. It used to be the case that neighbor helped neighbor, kinfolk helped their own. Now that family ties have been weakened if not outright dissolved, there is not much of a support system.

In a sense, our compassion, which distinguishes us from much of the rest of the world, has already been killed off. This serves the One World crowd as well; as the weaker members of our society die by neglect, there will be fewer 'useless eaters' for them to have to deal with. They apparently want to reduce the world's population drastically, and turning our society into a dog-eat-dog Darwinian struggle serves their purpose.

We say often that the culture is the people; the people create the culture. It seems, though, that our culture and traditions will be extinct before we ourselves are, as we are manipulated into abandoning our former core values and standards.

Southerners, diversity and nationality

Michael at the Southern Nationalist Network speaks about 'Southerners, diversity, and nationality.'

I've noticed the trend he talks about, of Southron people (not necessarily those who fall into the nationalist category) who have bought all the 'diversity and multiculturalism', proposition nation rhetoric.  But, as Michael rightly indicates, there are people who claim to be advocates for Southern heritage who have adopted the 'we are the world' United Nations, Tower of Babel ideas that have gotten the country (and all Western countries) into the crisis we are in now. What exactly can ''heritage'' mean, or be worth, if we can just declare that it belongs to anyone who wants to claim it? What can it mean if we say that it has no particular content, just as the people who may claim it have no particular origin?

If the 'proposition nation' nonsense is false for the country as a whole, it is doubly so for the South, considering that the South was not part of the 'nation of immigrants' that resulted from promiscuous mass immigration to the North. There may be subcultures in the South, but the overall Southern culture is not a crazyquilt made up of a little bit of anything and everything. It was discrete and identifiable, and still is, and the challenge is to preserve it as much as possible. Capitulating to the multicult is a way to doom our way of life and heritage. Guaranteed.

Hmm...

Where have I heard this line of thought lately?

'' The New England Puritans, those quintessential Anglo-Saxons, he cites as God's own people are the emigrant version of the most self-righteously vicious, blood-thirstily destructive of traditional Christian cultures, arch-Judaizers ever to have gained control of a once Christian kingdom. Everything has its telos, and the telos of WASP culture is some form of the Germanic Gotterdammerrung.''

And:

''In addition to their turn to socialism, the ancestors of the Puritans invented many odd little cults- the Oneida Free-Love movement (where two future presidential assasins [sic] spent time), the Shakers, the Seven [sic] Day Adventists, the abolitionists, the feminists, the Barn Burners and the Mormons. No wonder that Anglo New England supports homosexual "marriage". And what oddity will Anglo New England come up with next?''

The quotes above are from commenters on a Chronicles thread from 2009.  The discussion is about a Sam Francis piece on H.P. Lovecraft; Francis, a Southerner, was a great fan of H.P. Lovecraft, an arch-New England Yankee.

I am a fan of both men. But I wonder what H.P.L. or Sam Francis for that matter would have to say about the above comments?

And here's a question that occurs to me: if those 'damYankee' New England Puritan Pilgrims are responsible for the rampant, insane leftism that threatens our very existence now, how do we account for the parallel developments in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and Scandinavia? Were the Puritans somehow responsible at a distance for the slide of those societies into crazy leftism, even crazier, in some cases, than our American variety?
Thoughts, anybody?

English lament

This is a very moving song, with the words being based on remarks made by an 80-year old Englishman in a conversation with the songwriter. It's long, but the lyrics are worth hearing, and I think most of us here can relate to them.

There's also a version with  text lyrics here.

Thanksgiving a century ago

A happy Thanksgiving to you all!

On Thanksgiving Eve...

Pilgrims are an apt subject, but Dick Morris may not be the best expert on the subject: watch him explain how the migration of the 'Pilgrims' led to the War Between the States. This video was posted at OD and the discussion follows.

First, Morris does not seem to understand that the terms 'Pilgrim' and 'Puritan' are not interchangeable. The distinctions are explained here, but a brief answer is here.

But if we are to paint with extremely broad brushes, or if the specifics are considered unimportant, then maybe Morris can get away with it. In any case, he is an Ellis Islander, so I don't expect him to appreciate the nuances or distinctions.

On the OD thread the distinction between Puritans and Yankees, too, is not drawn. Did I fall asleep, like Rip Van Winkle, and wake up in a world where the meanings of words have changed? In  my childhood, the term 'Yankee' meant all Northerners, not just Anglo-Saxon Protestants of colonial ancestry. Hands up, who agrees with me? Or am I in error all these years?

The commenters also bring up the idea that the Puritans believed themselves to be 'the New Jews' because they read the Old Testament. To my knowledge, all Bible-believing Christians read and believe both testaments. The Puritans may have believed they were 'spritual Israel' or the 'children of Abraham' but that is straight out of the New Testament. All Christians traditionally believed that they were Abraham's heirs at least in a spiritual sense, though not necessarily in a genetic sense, as British Israel adherents believe.

And even if they believed they were spiritual Israel, that does not mean they considered themselves 'Jews', new or otherwise. I believe that the Puritans, whatever we might think of them, were Biblically well-versed, and knew that the word 'Jew' was never applied to Abraham or Moses, and does not even appear until rather late in the Bible. Surely they understood that the terms Israel and Jew are not one and the same in meaning, just as 'Puritan' and 'Pilgrim' are not. A couple of the OD commenters point this out, but I am not sure their point is taken.

The idea that the 'Pilgrims', as Morris has it, caused the War Between the States, is an oversimplified one, to put it mildly. Sometimes, in trying to be brief, we paint in broad brushes, but if we are trying to be precise and get at the truth, we need to be a little more careful.

But the Massachusetts colonists arrived later, and they actually started arriving in 1620, not 1640 as Morris says. As I have ancestors among both the Massachusetts colonists (mine arrived circa 1630) and the Jamestown colonists, I think I can walk a line between the two, though my allegiances are 100 percent with the South.

Morris seems to say that the two groups of colonists were almost two separate nations. This is a popular view these days, albeit very oversimplified. Some popular historians and writers on the South's side say that the difference was ethnic: the South is ''Celtic'', fiery and hotblooded, while the North is 'Anglo-Saxon'', cold and hard-hearted. This is stereotyping run rampant, though stereotypes often have a kernel of truth, in most cases.

Were the Northern and Southern colonies founded by two completely different peoples? It's often said (and I've said it, myself, speaking in broad terms) that the Puritan colonists were from East Anglia, mostly, while the Cavaliers in Virginia were from the South and West of England. Yet that is not a hard and fast rule; I have ancestors on each side who were from the North of England. There were in fact Puritans in all parts of England, as well as in Scotland (yes, Scotland was very Calvinistic; how does that fit into the stereotype?). Morris states that the Cavaliers in Virginia were all English aristocrats, and a good many were, though not all. How do I know this? Not from reading unreliable history books written in recent years, but from years of genealogical research and reading documents of colonial Virginia.

Likewise the Massachusetts colonists represented a varied group; things are not as cut-and-dried as Morris would have it. They represented people from 'good families', landed gentry, as well as small farmers, merchants, and others, but they were generally chosen for good character, contrary to what some historians claim, that they were 'rejects' in their country of birth.

So the idea that the colonists in the two colonies were two separate nations is an oversimplification. The Puritans represented a sect in English Protestantism, but even they were not a monolithic group; there were differing varieties of Puritanism, some more 'extreme' than others. But it's good to remind ourselves that in today's very secular and irreligious age, anybody who reads the Bible and holds to its teachings is a dangerous fanatic and 'extremist' to much of 21st century America, or the Western world generally.

But if we believe, as I do, that the English colonists who settled Massachusetts and Virginia respectively were essentially, still, one people, how did it happen that they came to diverge so much? Because I do believe that North and South did come to be two different peoples by the time of the War Between the States, certainly, though the difference is not all 'ethnic' as pro-Celtic Southrons believe. Somehow the two sides came to differ greatly; maybe conditions in each region led to an exaggeration of existing differences. Morris seems to say that the South, being settled by English nobility with a bias towards a rigid social hierarchy, was thus favorable to slavery and other such 'un-democratic' ideals.

I wonder how much the different development of the North is attributable to the influx of immigration from non-English speaking countries in the era before the War. We must remember that the influx began in the 1820s and continued for decades after the War. The Northeast, particularly, and later, the Midwest, began to receive millions of immigrants from countries far more dissimilar than the Puritans were dissimilar to the Cavaliers. This influence is too often ignored or minimized.

The South, on the other hand, received relatively little immigration in that time period. And ironically the influx of immigrants to the North played a big part in how the War turned out, as many immigrants fought for the Union.

And, oddly, even after the flow of immigrants began to ethnically cleanse the old Puritan colonial-stock descendants from the areas their ancestors settled and built, somehow they are credited/blamed for the extreme liberal politics of New England? Those old Puritans/Yankees must have had some powerful mojo, to still be dominating the Northeast and its politics long after they are moved on to the Midwest and Far West, and/or blended out of existence, by intermarrying with the Ellis Islanders.

And if their 'culture' is somehow now being carried on by those immigrant progeny -- how does that work? No, the extreme liberal politics owe at least as much to the Jewish 'Tikkun Olam' as to some purported Yankee Puritanism. Puritanism, like all forms of Calvinism, does not believe human beings are perfectible, or that society is capable of being made perfect. It was enlightenment ideals that first introduced those notions, and sadly, I can see how the non-believing descendants of the old Puritans began to swallow those utopian ideals whole, hence the decline of Christianity in general in our country which we see in its end stages now. If the old Puritan fathers could have seen the outcome of their endeavors, I wonder if they would have bothered. Maybe they'd have stayed in England, or gone en masse to Holland, and the world today would look very different.

But don't let us become so embittered that we wish away our ancestors and their efforts; an alternative history might even have been worse. History is what it is; it's pointless to 'point fingers' at our predecessors.

A nation of invalids

Since I was a child, I've constantly heard that so-called 'mental illness' is widespread among Americans especially, and this article from several years ago states that the rate of such 'illness' in our country is 'staggering.'

''Overall, the survey of more than 60,000 adults in 14 countries showed a 27% rate of mental disorders in the U.S. population for a list of diseases. That list includes: depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and substance abuse. The U.S. rate was substantially higher than that of any other country measured, including other industrialized nations such as Belgium, which showed a 12% illness rate.''

In the past I've alluded to the troubling prevalence of antidepressant use, along with the use of other psychoactive drugs in our society. I've speculated whether this pattern plays any part in the crisis we face. We often talk about the change that has come over many White people in recent decades, and discuss the role played by propaganda, and the media's role in dispensing it.

Could it be that the use of antidepressants and other psychoactive drugs play a greater part in what is happening to us  than we realize?

We talk about the sense of apathy and aimlessness that seems to prevent many people from taking in the seriousness of what is happening in our countries. We talk about the 'dumbing down' and the crudeness and vulgarity of our society. We talk about the loss of inhibitions, the slovenliness and moral laziness. Then there is the obviously shortened attention span that is so noticeable these days.

The much-discussed 'obesity epidemic' is often mentioned in the media. Might this too be partly caused by the increasing use of psychoactive drugs, particularly those given for ''depression'' and for ''bi-polar disorder''? These medications are known for contributing to weight gain, and they are being increasingly prescribed for Americans, even for children.

''In a paper published in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health,Erik Parens and Josephine Johnston examine the evolution of the diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children and its dramatic increase since the mid 1990s, after the criteria for diagnosis broadened. They emphasize that there is vigorous debate in pediatric psychiatry about whether symptoms in children accurately reflect the criteria for bipolar disorder, particularly for mania.

The increase in cases has led to concerns about accurately defining psychiatric disorders in children as well as the safety and efficacy of resulting pharmacological treatment.''

And then we've read for decades about the increase in 'mental illness' among Americans and everyone just accepts that this is a fact. Might it not be that there is just an increase in diagnoses of 'mental illness' and not a real increase in such 'illness' after all? Are 'psychology' and 'psychiatry' real sciences like other genuine sciences? Some of us are skeptics on that issue. But most Americans are avid followers of 'pop psychology' and willing consumers of most of these psychoactive medications. Personally I know a troubling number of people who are on one or many medications given for various 'disorders' such as depression, 'bipolar disorder', and even once-exotic 'illnesses' such as multiple personality disorder -- now more politically-correctly known as 'dissociative identity disorder.'

Someone I know of who was diagonsed with 'dissociatve identity disorder' claims that one of her personalities has allergies that the other personalities lack, and that one personality requires prescription glasses, while the others have 20/20 vision. Right.

How long before someone has multiracial 'identities', with one personality being White, another African-American, and one which speaks Spanish while the others don't? If your 'personalities' are all White, that's racist, right?

Speaking of race, this article notes that antidepressants are most frequently prescribed among Whites, while blacks and Hispanics are less frequently medicated for 'depression.'

Between 1996 and 2005, the rate of antidepressant treatment increased from 5.84 percent to 10.12 percent or from an estimated 13.3 million to 27 million individuals. "Significant increases in antidepressant use were evident across all sociodemographic groups examined, except African Americans, who had comparatively low rates of use in both years (1996, 3.61 percent; 2005, 4.51 percent)," the authors write. "Although antidepressant treatment increased for Hispanics, it remained comparatively low (1996, 3.72 percent; 2005, 5.21 percent)."

Here, we read that blacks have lower rates of depression than 'non-Latino Whites' but there seems to be consternation that all ethnic groups do not receive equal rates of medication or other treatment.

''Mexican American and African American individuals with depression consistently had lower odds of receiving any type of care or care in concordance with treatment guidelines during the year prior. "The proportions of Puerto Rican and non-Latino white individuals who used concordant therapies in the past year were nearly twice those of Mexican American, Caribbean black and African American individuals," the authors write.

The findings illustrate the importance of breaking down large ethnic and racial groups into smaller sub-categories, they note. "Failing to do so obscures depression care research, especially for the largest and fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population, Latino individuals, and especially Mexican American individuals.

"With the recent passing of a U.S. Mental Health Parity Act, our findings should provide guidance to better-enabled mental health to improve the depression care of all Americans and for reducing disparities among ethnic/racial minorities," they conclude.'

I never knew there was a 'U.S. Mental Health Parity Act'. Presumably there is a 'mental health treatment gap' that had to be corrected by law. Equality in all things.

Whether or not the use of these psychoactive drugs (and the diagnoses of various 'disorders' among many Americans) are part of a conscious plan to control or condition populations, or whether this is just a 'side-benefit' to the elites who seemingly want to make us into docile livestock, the fact is, it appears these drugs are not helping, but hurting.


This article (granted, from an 'alternative health' site with a bias) says that psychoactive drugs cause mental illness, as does psychiatry.

Whether or not you accept that claim, it seems that the ever-growing numbers of supposed mental illness seem to indicate that present methods of dealing with such 'illness' are at best, not helpful to the individuals being treated -- and they may be harming us as a people, contributing to our inability to find our way out of our present crisis.

My perception, based on what I've seen in real life, is that the idea of 'mental illness' and the blind faith placed in 'experts' has diminished people's sense of moral responsibility and has made people more fatalistic and passive; they can't help themselves, but must rely on 'experts' to fix their problems in living. Having an 'illness' that prevents one from functioning is  making victims of many Americans, and popping pills, or spending years in 'counseling' or 'therapy' is a way of evading adulthood, and remaining childlike.

Nothing new under the sun

The discussion of the Marie Claire article on Asian 'trophy' wives continues at James Edwards' blog.

As shown by old ephemera such as the sheet music cover above, the image of the exotic 'cherry blossom' Asian woman has been around for a long time, possibly since men from Western countries first arrived in the Far East.

The fact that the positive stereotype (and that is what it is, a stereotype) of Asian women has been in existence since long before the current estrangement between White men and White women suggests that it cannot be attributed to modern corruptions like feminism, sexual license, egalitarianism, or even to the so-called 'obesity epidemic' among Americans of both sexes. The latter, along with the ubiquity of the 'uppity feminist' are most often cited as ''reasons'' why White men seek out Asian (or Russian, or Hispanic) women in preference to their own.

It's certainly true that many women, under the influence of feminism, have become misandrist, to some extent or another, and more than a few have 'let themselves go' in appearance, dress, and manners -- but to be fair, men are also not immune to the latter trend, the trend toward slovenliness in personal habits.

But the fact that White men have been drawn to Asian women for many decades, perhaps centuries, indicates that it cannot be blamed entirely on the influences usually cited. There seems to be some kind of primal attraction on the part of many White men towards Asian women -- possibly because of the ultra-feminine stereotype of supposedly demure and pliant Asian females. It may apply in some cases, but it certainly does not apply to all. Perhaps being married to a female who does not know your language or culture limits the potential for quarreling, and makes the Asian woman appear more submissive than she might otherwise be.

And it is not just Asian women; there are likewise many positive stereotypes of Hispanic women (think of the image in the media  of the hot-blooded, sexy 'senorita' with a flower in her hair, and hoop earrings), Islander women (hula girls gyrating) and American Indian women, the 'Indian princess' falling in love with the cowboy or pioneer. We've all been fed these stereotypes for a long time, and they seem to have some kind of primal appeal.

In any case, the reasons run deeper than apologists for the trend would have us believe.

I believe it was Ernest van den Haag who used the term 'the sexual power of the stranger', and in the Bible, we read of the perverse desire for 'strange flesh'. There's nothing new under the sun.

Unguarded Gates

UNGUARDED GATES

Wide open and unguarded stand our gates,
Named of the four winds, North, South, East, and West;
Portals that lead to an enchanted land
Of cities, forests, fields of living gold,
Vast prairies, lordly summits touched with snow.
Majestic rivers sweeping proudly past
The Arab's date-palm and the Norseman's pine
A realm wherein are fruits of every zone,
Airs of all climes, for lo! throughout the year
The red rose blossoms somewhere — a rich land,
A later Eden planted in the wilds,
With not an inch of earth within its bound
But if a slave's foot press it sets him free.
Here, it is written, Toil shall have its wage,
And Honor honor, and the humblest man
Stand level with the highest in the law.
Of such a land have men in dungeons dreamed.
And with the vision brightening in their eyes
Gone smiling to the fagot and the sword.

Wide open and unguarded stand our gates,
And through them presses a wild motley throng —
Men from the Volga and the Tartar steppes,
Featureless figures of the Hoang-Ho,
Malayan, Scythian, Teuton, Kelt, and Slav,
Flying the Old World's poverty and scorn ;
These bringing with them unknown gods and rites,
Those, tiger passions, here to stretch their claws.
In street and alley what strange tongues are loud,
Accents of menace alien to our air.
Voices that once the Tower of Babel knew !

O Liberty, white Goddess! is it well
To leave the gates unguarded? On thy breast
Fold Sorrow's children, soothe the hurts of fate,
Lift the down-trodden, but with hand of steel
Stay those who to thy sacred portals come
To waste the gifts of freedom. Have a care
Lest from thy brow the clustered stars be torn
And trampled in the dust. For so of old
The thronging Goth and Vandal trampled Rome,
And where the temples of the Caesars stood
The lean wolf unmolested made her lair.

-Thomas Bailey Aldrich

Speaking ill of the 'dead'

I've delayed reading the comments on the Andrew Fraser piece called The Lost Soul of WASP America until now, and the following examples remind me just why I postponed reading them.

''My own genetic heritage is 75% German and 25% Scots. And if it’s a question of recovering lost patrimonial heritages there is a different and in my experience healthier one for me and mine to seek out. And the same applies to the estimated 50 million other “Americans” who are primarily of German descent. We are the largest single “white” sub-group in the USA.

Nor do I see any reason for any Nordic, central or eastern European descended person in North America to join a quixotic and meaningless quest for the dead soul of a failed WASP culture. That is as pointlessly ‘propositional’ and ‘intentional’ as everything up to now.

This is what was urged by Jewish Zionist supremacist Israel Zangwill with his propaganda of “melting pot” for the goyim and an apartheid nationalist Jewish state for Jews.

Rather than engaging in necromancy it’s time to give the WASP identity its deserved burial in an unmarked mass grave and then move on.''

[Emphasis mine.]

Exactly what I expected to find there.
First, a minor point, though maybe not so minor: I reject the idea that Americans are in majority, of German descent. Where's the proof? Show it. Show me. Show me data. Evidence.

Likewise with individuals who claim they are mostly German or Scots. Do they even know for sure? As most Americans do not know their family line past their grandparents, it's unlikely.

I maintain there is more Anglo-Saxon blood in America than is generally believed. Can I prove it? No, absent extensive genealogical research. But again I say that if we go by evidence such as surnames, it's been historically true that the most common names in America were English or at least British Isles surnames. The feeble argument that 'the German immigrants were all forced to Anglicize their names', such as German 'Schneiders' being turned into 'Taylors', is just speculation and grasping at straws.

Later in the comment thread, commenter 'okiereddust' gives a good response to the idea that Germans outnumber English-descended Americans, but he is a voice crying in the TOO wilderness.

But somehow it happens that, as with everything else, there are fads and trends in ethnic identity, and just as in other fads and fashions, some identities are seen as cool and desirable, and just now, 'anything but English' is the flavor of the month. It's cool to be Scottish, post-Braveheart, for example. All thanks to Mel Gibson's fantasy-history.

This comment starts out somewhat promisingly, but degenerates into another English-bashing comment:

''The only reason why WASP complicity in the destruction of America is so obvious is because there are more WASPS than Germans, French, Swedish, etc. overall. If America had been founded by any of these people they would have been just as easily duped and walked over as the WASPS were.

Now, if America had been founded by Italians or Slavs then it’d be a different story entirely.''

Meaning, apparently, that Italians or Slavs are not such pushovers, and are more ethnocentric and tough than wimpy WASPs.

Funny, I read a number of articles lately to the effect that Italy has a huge immigrant problem now, mostly African and Middle Easterners, along with Roma gypsies.

Then there's this comment:

''Time to give WASP identity a well deserve burial and move on

FYI many of us already have. Thank God! …(Nature)''

Further:

''The people of back country USA are not the descendents of the effete Puritans or haughty “Anglais” landed gentry … we are the descendents of the mixed race mongrels (pict-celt-roman-german-whomever else served the late Roman Empire guarding the farthest northwest frontier) beyond The Good Emperor HADRIAN’S WALL, beyond the power of London Tower and Edinburgh, forced to solve our problems the old way – through blood feud, and personal violence.''

This stereotyping of English people as ''haughty'' and aristocratic vs. the 'mongrels' as being tough, fearsome, and generally superior to the English is popular these days.

''There are, effectively, NO LONGER ANY AMERICAN ANGLO-SAXONS in the United States. Done. Kaput. Bred out. Pulverized. Atomized. Intermixed and disappeared. Sure there are remnants, artifacts, interspersed among the 320 million population of the United States, and there are perhaps groups of older Americans, no longer of reproductive age, who might be said to constitute a coherent group or culture. But they are already the past, just dying embers.

It’s over. This author either has very little experience with the United States, is from an elderly generation, or is delusion. Anyone who has any contact with the population of Americans 45 years old and younger cannot harbor any expectation of “WASPs” reasserting themselves. A broader ethnic group, maybe, the diverse white Americans as a whole, perhaps. But there are no more WASPs in this country in any meaningful sense.

It’s over. I regret it. There was much to admire about the founding Anglo-Saxon stock of this country, and no justifiable criticism can be made of them except that they have fallen victim to a conquering force, having had some of their greatest virtues exploited and used against them. But every other group of European ancestry on this board is also succumbing to conquest, as is Rehman and his people although they are putting up a fight. There really are not grounds to single out “WASPs” for any particular opprobrium. It’s unfair and it’s pointless.''

This commenter, though wrongly proclaiming Anglo-Saxon Americans extinct, at least says a few non-hostile words. I do appreciate that he speaks against the constant scapegoating of Anglo-Saxon Americans, though I am 100 percent certain his words will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

One commenter with the monicker 'wasp and proud' questions the idea that WASPs are dead and extinct, and rightly takes TOO to task for encouraging or at least tolerating Anglophobia on their forum.

''It is due to the support of books s/a this and the kind of posts on this thread, and a growing reputation, quite frankly, for not publishing people on the threads who would (and without using bad language) defend their sub-group, that one wonders at TOO and its association with American 3rd Position. While many might desire an involvement with American 3rd Postion, they may not support it due to its association with what’s perceieved as an “anti-wasp” website.''

I rarely read TOO for the precise reason that it often publishes anti-Anglo-Saxon and anti-Christian comments, thus hinting at an anti-Anglo, anti-Christian bias. They are free to provide a place for such bias, and I am free to avoid reading it.

As if all the above were not enough to make my blood boil, somebody mentions the Jefferson-Hemings slander, and states as fact that Jefferson and others 'miscegenated' and fathered children with their slaves, etc. Does anybody dispute that? No, not as far as I can see. Why do the board moderators not take issue with obvious untruths, or at least with very questionable and highly-disputed statements? Does nobody care about truth anymore?

The commenter 'wasp and proud' does contribute some very good comments as the thread goes on. In reference to the comment declaring that WASPs are dead and gone, he says:

''Imo, this is a genocidal statement (by ex-pro-white activist above):Nor do I see any reason for any Nordic, central or eastern European descended person in North America to join a quixotic and meaningless quest for the dead soul of a failed WASP culture. That is as pointlessly ‘propositional’ and ‘intentional’ as everything up to now.”….

Our sub-group culture (language, history, trajectory to the country, watching its denoument with immigration, our bonding over the hatred of our enemies especially in north america, folkways, dances, arts, and more) is —like any other on earth— viable and worth preserving, imo.

Look at what the other groups have REPLACED IT with. Now, is that better? (lol)

To suggest that we should not exist, is to justify genocide. To say we should not seek what has been attempted to be taken away– is a wish in the direction of our genocide.

The concentration in the quote was northern europe, and only protestant northern europe. (“no need for nordics…)

Well, to side with the minority narrative (as this poster) and say wasps are nothing more than extinct and failed, and there’s no use even trying to save anything left (of their own heritage, one supposes he is saying–) —is just to show what side this person is on, lol.

Perhaps, now that the wasp genocide is accomplished, the poster would like to tell us who he thinks SHOULD take us forward here (somehow i bet it is him, lol).

If other groups ever decide there is something worthwhile about us, and that maybe we have had some good ideas, and that in fact, we have seen strangely blessed (evil heretics though we are), then maybe wasps would not have given up on THE OTHERS.

WASPS DID NOT destroy American, nor abnegate responsiblity, lol—

in their point of view, they created a way of life that could have led the others out of the problems of europe— but the others could not take that path, and replayed the europe they came from. Whatever happens, is just a judgement on those who saw no room at the table for the children of the founders.

It’s a matter of God and the soul, not money, for many of them. The petty power mongering that goes on now is an embarrassment to their higher ideals.''

All the criticism that are made of Anglo-Saxons are pretty much identical to the criticisms that can be, and are, made against European-descended peoples in general: they are too altruistic toward outsiders; they were arrogant and oppressed the 'lesser breeds without the law', they were weak and not ethnocentric enough. The Anglo-Saxon, like it or not, (and the TOO commentariat doesn't like it, plainly) were the most successful of European peoples. They were too successful. Success breeds envy and resentment and the desire to pull down the stronger individual or group. Everybody wants to fight the champion. We might say that the Anglo-Saxon is viewed as the arch-White man, and is hated and resented as such. A lot of the sneering, and the wearisome verbal attacks on 'WASPs' is a result of the attitude of those who have adopted the victim pose. Not pretty. Also not very 'White.'

I can't say I agree with Andrew Fraser's comment here:

The term WASP is indeed derogatory and abusive; but those who bear that label must accept that they deserve much of the contempt heaped upon them by other racial, religious, and ethnic groups.

How have Anglo-Saxon Americans deserved this? Why? I understand that Fraser is a scholar, while my viewpoint is that of a partisan, a defender of my ancestors and my heritage. I make no pretense of being a detached observer with no emotional investment in this subject.

Somebody on the Anglo-bashing thread asks where the WASPs are, if they are not extinct, and why none of them (if they exist) speaks up in defense of his people. Well, there are a handful of us who identify mainly as such, and do speak up for our folk, but then we are not big-name, high-traffic bloggers or noted scholars. We are standing up for ourselves and few are listening. Now and then I feel like one of Dr. Seuss's fictional creatures in Horton Hears a Who; if you remember, nobody believed the small Who creatures existed until their voices, amplified, were heard. ''We are here!" We, those of us whose ancestors lie mostly in English soil, have to shout to make our voices heard. We are here!

Stop talking of us in the past tense. Stop slandering us behind our backs, or behaving as if we don't exist. It's easy to slander the 'dead', apparently, and the Anglo-Saxon Americans are supposed to have died sans progeny. Reports of our demise, however, are greatly exaggerated.
We are still kicking.
We are here.

Multiculturalism bad, assimilation, good?

David Starkey, the British historian who created such a controversy when he blamed the 'thug culture' of the rioters in London, is at it again.

This time, he is in hot water for saying the simple truth that Britain was a ''monocultural'' country, which is 'unmitigatingly white' apart from London.

''Historian David Starkey has become embroiled in controversy again after referring to Britain as a 'mono-culture' that is 'absolutely and unmitigatingly white' outside of London.

His comments came during a debate on history teaching in schools, which the TV historian was accused of politicising.

The debate was a result of education secretary Michael Gove’s announcement that he wanted to make "our island story" a fundamental part of the national curriculum.
Dr Starkey advocated for "a serious focus" on British culture, before arguing against the idea of Britain’s diversity by saying: "You think London is Britain. It isn't".

Here's the Daily Mail's report on Starkey's remarks, with a little more detail.

The comments seem to be running in favor of Starkey, with the usual obnoxious responses from the multicult fanatics.

I'm sure my readers easily recognize where Starkey goes wrong, however. Read what he says about ''assimilation.'' The fact that the commenters seem not to notice the fatal flaw in his remarks is not a good sign.

The brainwashing seems to have the same effect both here and across the Atlantic: the proper PC attitude from the so-called 'right' is to say one favors assimilation. Usually, among Americans, this is expressed in statements like ''they just need to learn English and become good citizens like previous generations did.'' The politically correct script has people denouncing multiculturalism yet reluctant to denounce or even criticize the reason for multiculturalism: mass immigration, mainly from incompatible and very alien countries. There need be no discussion of 'multiculturalism' without the presence of large and ever-growing numbers of immigrants, asylum-seekers, 'refugees' and border-jumping looters.

Right about now, somebody usually says, ''well, can't you read his remarks and see the glass as half-full? Isn't he on our side? Isn't he helping to get our message across?' My answer is no, I can't see the glass as half-full. Half a truth is a whole lie.

The fact is, assimilation of tens of millions of alien peoples with drastically different cultures and habits is the death knell for the host peoples and their cultures. Assimilation means absorption and loss of identity, both cultural/linguistic and genetic. We will be absorbed into the multicult masses and be lost as a distinct people. Assimilation is not to be wished for.
If we 'assimilate' these people (which is actually the reverse of what actually happens) we guarantee that we will have a multicultural, polyglot country, and we and our ancestors will be the ones who will be written out of the new 'histories', if any, that will be written. Starkey mentions the fact that 'British history' is not taught in the UK as it once was -- and that's because the regime there has decided that the past is irrelevant, given the fact that millions of assorted aliens have been enticed to enter the country and become a new mixed majority. Why teach British history when the majority of the people will one day be in no way related to those who made Britain what it was?

In a generation or two, unless things change, the 'new majority' of the UK will no longer know nor care about the history of Britain, or the history of England. The history books (if any, that is, if people are literate at all) will tell that 'Britain was always diverse and multicultural', just as our 21st century American textbooks  contain drivel like: 'America was always a nation of immigrants; America has always been diverse. America has always had Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims.' This has happened precisely because we embraced the 'proposition nation' and declared that anyone could be an American, if we just encouraged them to 'assimilate.'

The people who are cheering Starkey and saying that they agree 100 percent with him should think twice about it.

It's the hot 'new' trend!

At first I was surprised to see that the subject of Asian trophy wives (for White men) was being written about in Marie Claire, which is one of those stereotype ladies' magazines. But I should not have wondered; it all proves to be yet another occasion for the usual propaganda.

''...I suspect there's something else about the East that's seducing business bigwigs at this very moment: globalization. Consider that, stateside, Mandarin classes have spiked 200 percent over the past five years (apparently, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was an early adopter; he taught Mandarin classes in his Dartmouth days), and China has claimed status as the world's top export nation. In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell theorizes that Asian kids' intrinsic work ethic makes them outsmart American kids in math. (In the latest Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development international education survey, Taiwanese students were tops in math, while the U.S. placed 35th.) It's as though these Western men are hungry for a piece of that mystical Eastern formula. As such, Asians (in addition to African orphans) are hot commodities right about now — status symbols as prized as a private Gulfstream jet or a museum wing bearing your name (neither of which goes so well with a frumpy, aging first wife).

Tellingly, most current trophies of choice are far more than exotic arm candy. They are accomplished musicians and journalists, they have Ivy League MBAs and hail from prestigious political families (Mrs. Wasserstein's older sis is former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao). Why, then, are these women falling for rich white patriarchs?''

 There are plenty of obvious reasons why these women pick White men, and they are probably as much the choosers as are the ''White'' men in many cases.


First off, though, many of the examples cited, such as Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, Bruce Wasserstein, and Les Moonves, are not of us. So their marriages to Asian women are no concern of mine; let them marry as they wish. Unfortunately, people in prominent and influential positions, especially in the media, have a way of inspiring the dimwitted and servile among us. These weak links copy the ''elite's'' behavior and gobble up the propaganda these 'movers and shakers' serve up every day.

Skepticism aside, the new trophy trend does have its benefits. We're already seeing a positive impact on global politics, economics, and the arts: The Chinese became privy to online social networking in 2007 with the launch of MySpace China under the News Corp. umbrella; contemporary Chinese painters — including Xiaogang Zhang and Minjun Yue — have rung up nearly $400 million in sales on international art circuits since 2006, thanks to well-connected supporters like Ziyi Zhang; and almost 43 percent of international adoptions, which have more than tripled since 1990, now come out of Asian countries (more playdates for Pax and Maddox). What's more, perhaps a proliferation of gorgeous, mixed-race, multilingual offspring (assuming a classical Mandarin tutor is on the Chen-Moonves registry) is just good for our landscape. However you look at it, one thing's for sure: We're going to have to get used to this new international power family — aging mogul and foxy Asian wife flaunting a double-wide with newborn and adopted Malawian tot.''

Most of the comments at Marie Claire either denounce the ''racism'' of the story, which was supposedly written by an Asian woman, and/or they praise Asian women as being superior to European-descended women. Sad to say, that kind of comment can just as easily be seen on many ''pro-White'' blogs and sites.

However, the trend of White men, that is, European-descended men,  marrying or fathering children with Asian women is not a new trend, though it may have accelerated. During World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, many White American men either fathered children with or married Asian women. Even going back in the early part of the 20th century, looking at ephemera and the popular entertainment of that time, there is the image of the demure and beautiful Japanese or Chinese girl luring American or English sailors. Such men brought home many Asian and Pacific islander brides, going back half a century and more. During WWII, this may have been frowned on a little more because of the anti-Japanese feeling of wartime America, but in general, it's been much more accepted, and it seems to have gone on despite many states' anti-miscegenation laws in the pre-PC era.

Today, as mixed-race marriages (and less permanent pairings) increase, Asian female/White male couples are more commonplace than black male/White female couples, but the latter draw much more disapproval and ire than the former.

It's well-known that many Asians frown on miscegenation, but yet there seem to be almost as many who see Asian/White marriages as being beneficial for economic reasons as well as genetic ones. It seems many Asian families are happy to even sell their daughters to White male sex tourists, as in Thailand and elsewhere. The White husband, if nothing else, is sometimes seen as a ticket to America for not just the bride, but for extended family members, and then as a way to get green cards.

Notice how the Marie-Claire writer rhapsodizes about ''gorgeous, mixed-race, multicultural offspring'' as well as ''foxy Asian'' wives. No bias there, is there?

Why is it not ''racist'' to go racial fortune-hunting among Whites and to see Asian women as superior physically and intellectually to Whites?

Beauty, it's said, is in the eye of the beholder. I believe each race should be attracted to members of their own folk, so what can we say about those who are primarily, or only, attracted to Others? Is it self-hate? Treason to our folk, our contemporaries -- and especially to our ancestors and our progeny?

Whatever we may say about it, it's not the natural order of things, except for the highly suggestible, the easily led, and those with no consciousness of who they are.

Introvert vs. extrovert blogs?

Vox Day blogs about the subject of introversion and blogging, linking to an article on introversion in The Atlantic.

Vox's comments ring very true for me, when he discusses the differences between 'introverted and extroverted blogs.'

''It has never bothered me that more people might prefer other blogs to this one, nor did I ever wish to imitate them, but I did find it puzzling that so many people like to regularly read blogs that essentially say nothing, and say nothing so succinctly. I'm not talking about aggregators like Drudge and Instapundit, you understand, but the sort of blogs where the commentary on the Republican debate is four lines or the contents of their meals is a frequent topic of conversation. I've tried reading several very popular blogs on occasion, and to be honest, I not only could not read them regularly, I couldn't even figure out why anyone was reading them. Ever.''

I've often been taken to task for writing overlong blog entries. All I can say is: to each his own. Personally I prefer to read longer posts because I am a very fast reader. But the length of some of my posts belies the fact that I am not a talkative person. At all.

Those who know me in person know that I am a woman of few words, at least spoken words. And like a true introvert, my verbosity diminishes, the greater the number of people present. I am at my most talkative only when with one (or very few) good friends, with whom I can speak my mind with 100 percent freedom, and in the company of those who care about the things I care about. So much of socializing wears me out, just as the article about introversion implies. The reason it wears me out is that so much socializing is obligatory small talk, chatter about mundane things, and so much of what passes as conversation or even 'wit' is predictable and tedious. I understand the social function of small talk; not all verbal interaction has to be profound or of cosmic significance, but it shouldn't be rote patterns. I know of one woman in particular who is like those old talking dolls, the ones who had a string you could pull, making the doll repeat certain phrases. There were usually only five or six phrases in the doll's programming. My acquaintance is just about that limited in her conversation.

As Vox's blog piece indicates, the introverted blogger does not write in order to attract huge numbers of readers or followers, or huge numbers of hits. I'd rather reach a few discerning, thinking people who have something interesting or valuable to say, and above all, people who will carry the dialogue on the important issues into their daily lives and conversations.

When it comes to daily life, introversion is somewhat of a social handicap, and as an introvert from a very extroverted Southern family, I am something of an exception. Still, my family members are very accepting of my style; there are a few of us introverts in the extended family, and the extrovert majority in the family just accept us as we are. I believe that most Southern families are more tolerant of varying personal quirks, including introversion, than my mother's Yankee family, who were mostly extroverts given to a lot of superficial interaction.

American society generally is extroverted, meaning, probably, that introverts have a harder time than they might in, say, Japanese society, where shyness or introversion are less aberrant.

The fact that Americans, in general, seem extroverted, is interesting in contrast to the description of the English by Geoffrey Gorer in 1955:

A second assumption I made about the English character, is that most English people are shy and afraid of strangers, and consequently very lonely. This assumption was developed less from literature than from observation.
[...]
I can find very little evidence from literature or other sources to show whether this shyness and fear of strangers has long been a specifically English trait. For Jane Austen, such shyness is a sign of ill-breeding (Sir William Lucas and Maria, for example), but so was its opposite, 'ease' (perhaps Mrs. Elton's most damning characteristic); and for Dickens shyness was a sign of near-imbecility (Toots and Georgina Podsnap are striking examples); but there can be few people temperamentally less fitted to understand this emotion than Dickens was. On the continent in the eighteenth and nineteenth century the English milord had a great reputation for reserve, for phlegme; and this reserve is mirrored in a number of the characters whom Jane Austen asks us to admire, and quite a number of the aristocrats (Sir Leicester Dedlock, for example) whom Dickens asks us not to admire, at least not without many reservations. But this is usually portrayed as an aristocratic, an upper class, type of be- haviour; and I wanted to know about the whole population.
[...] Psychologically, shyness is a type of anxiety which is more or less, but never wholly, rational. With most people probably the fears, the anxieties, are not wholly articulate and may not be wholly conscious.''

But again, the Atlantic article linked at the top, as well as Vox Day's blog piece, distinguish between 'shyness', usually thought of as fear of strangers, or ''social anxiety disorder'', and introversion, which may not be fear so much as simply being worn out by interacting with lots of people. As indicated in the pieces linked, my introversion means that I feel drained by being in large groups of people, especially those I don't know well, and my batteries are actually charged by being with a few congenial friends and/or kin.

Flight or fight, revisited

The issue of ''flight or fight'' has come up on this blog before, and this article from Business Insider tells us that there is a 'growing number of Americans who want to move abroad.'

At the time when I first blogged about this issue a few years ago, I was somewhat on the fence on this question of leaving the United States for greener (or at least less 'diverse') pastures across the ocean. Now I find that I am very much of the mind that turning tail and leaving the country is not the right thing to do, at least for anyone who is an ethnopatriot.

At AmRen many people seem to think fleeing abroad is a good move, and a desirable one. However there are back-to-back comments by the ubiquitous poster 'Anonymous' which make good points, with which I fully agree:

10 — Anonymous wrote at 7:59 PM on November 9:

This is nothing more than liberal propaganda to convince the conservative strongholds here to abandon this country. Expats by their very nature are not conservatives. They tend to be urban, unpatriotic liberal “we are the world” types that like to live in socialist nations like those in Europe.''

And:

11 — Anonymous wrote at 8:03 PM on November 9:

Both the UK and Holland have middle class white flight as well - this actually is not a ‘problem’ to globalists - it accelerates their agenda.''

The second comment makes a point that I think is not often acknowledged: this trend serves and accelerates the globalist agenda -- the better to repopulate this country with Third Worlders, and also the better to mix up the populations of every country, to blur the very idea of nationality and rootedness, to obliterate the historic links between people and their homelands.

The first 'Anonymous' comment says that expats tend not to be conservatives, though I am sure there are many who would dispute that, claiming to be conservative while appearing to be nonchalant about the idea of uprooting oneself and moving to someone else's country. But is this not the flip side of the Third World economic opportunists who arrive in our country en masse and behave as if they own the place? In what sense is that 'conservative'? I would think a conservative who is not merely a fiscal conservative would believe in heritage, would have a bond with their native soil and their kinsmen. Granted, most ''conservatives'' today are above such things, hence my use of scare quotes around the word ''conservative'' in many cases.

I've noticed (and you can see it on the AmRen thread) that many expatriates and potential expatriates are apparently of recent immigrant origin, alluding to their ties to a European country. I suppose this is to be expected, as many such people have very shallow roots in this country. However I believe many of the younger generations, having been brought up in a world steeped in the 'global village' 'we are the world' mentality are quite cosmopolitan, and pride themselves on being able to traipse around the world and feel at home anywhere. So with such people, I have to say that their decision to desert what they believe to be a sinking ship is not any real loss to those of us who have real bonds and roots in this country.

''They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.'' 1 John, 2:19

And yes, that quote is meant in a spiritual context, but it seems to apply here, too.

No offense is meant toward expatriates generally, or people who enjoy sojourning or traveling in other countries; when I was young, I was very much of that type, though I was also very liberal politically then, and took my country very much for granted.

And I realize that many expats are such because they are assigned to work abroad, but I am speaking of the people who are fair-weather Americans. Now that it seems our backs are to the wall, these people prefer to desert, and leave the rest of us who, by choice or by circumstance, must stay behind and tough it out.

I find I really can't fathom the thinking of those who seem to be able to change countries and 'nationalities' and allegiances as easily as changing their clothes. For some people, such things are easily shed and adopted, apparently.

So, while I was of two minds a few years ago regarding 'flight or fight', I am very much in favor of staying and making a stand.
However, those who feel inclined to flee should probably do so; they will not be people who would have our backs should they stay behind with us.

And then, there's the practical issue of whether fleeing does any good; our ancestral homelands -- even if they would admit us, which is a big ''if'' these days -- are in worse shape, or scarcely better shape as regards multiculturalism, mass immigration, and the leftist/globalist plague generally. Fleeing to a European country may only buy a little time; it is no guarantee that we will escape the fate that we face here.

Which to choose?

Many on our side watch with amusement when two favored minority groups clash, and the multicultural leftists are faced with a dilemma: which favored group to side with? It's easy when a victim group member accuses a White; it's a given that Whitey is always the culprit, and the ''minority'' group member the victim.

Similarly, it seems as if the right is tying itself in knots with this Herman Cain sexual harassment story. On this thread,  it seems as if many people are leaning towards defending Cain because the sexual harassment charge is associated with radical feminists, and because a loathsome lefty feminist ambulance-chaser is involved in this case.

What will happen here? Will anti-feminism trump racial/kin loyalty, or will kin loyalty win out vs. the temptation to play the 'race card' against the 'real racists on the left', and against the ''feminazi'' faction?

Decisions, decisions. I vote that the right will in large part go with defending Cain, because anti-feminism/anti-leftism seems to hold the edge at this point, against ethnoloyalty.

What that says, if true, I am not sure, but it doesn't seem good, even to an anti-feminist female like yours truly.

Loving what we defend

[This post is mostly for my actively Christian readers; it will mean little to anyone else, so I suggest skipping it if you are not a believing Christian.]

I make no secret of the fact that I admire the writings of Cambria Will Not Yield. And when I saw that he was being criticized by a commenter at SWB, I felt impelled to say a few words in his defense. And the principles involved apply in other areas, hence my need to say something.

The criticism is thus:

I might mention that I am not quite so enamored with CWNY as you are. In my opinion, this writer sometimes skirts dangerously close to that idolatrous “Confusion” I talked about – identifying the cause of Whites with the cause of God – and strongly implies that Europeans have had some sort of special relationship with God that other peoples could not possibly share.

Frankly I find the very notion that true Christian faith could not survive the disappearance of White peoples (which I of course do not desire) as “implicitly idolatrous”, as if God could not manage without Whites. This is way self-adoring Talmudists view the Jewish people, that they are indispensable to God. But as John the Baptist put it, Lord could raise for Himself new peoples from stones if necessary.

Moreover, he deals with race issues in a naive, literally Black-and-White manner, acting as if these two were the only races existing in the world, with nothing in-between them (like the Chinese or Turks for example). This is an annoying Americo-centric worldview that I have seen in both racialist and anti-racialist Americans. One does not have be a relativist to see that sometimes the concept of “Whiteness” can be a difficult thing to define.

I also get sometimes a bit nauseous at CWNY’s sugary-romantic views of the past as well. By comparison, the OT usually depicted the life of the chosen people with harsh realism. Well, here endeth my constructively-intended criticism.''

And in another comment by the same individual:

I believe that God MIGHT potentially indeed back some earthly causes against other ones, but the implicit idolatry lies in the presumption that it must be “necessarily” so, that God is automatically going to back us up and we can take His sympathies for granted.''

Well, if you believe the Bible, then you know that God does back some earthly causes against others, and some people against others. That's a given. It's repeated in various ways throughout the Bible. God has ''his people'' throughout time, and he does not totally forsake those who are his even if they forsake him for a while.

As for the criticisms in the first comment quoted above, the European people have historically had a 'special relationship' with God because they are, as CWNY says, the Christ-bearers. And the Admin at SWB is correct that we have no evidence that other peoples, despite being introduced to Christianity and the Bible,
have ever shown themselves capable of becoming the standard-bearers of Christianity. No non-Western country has ever been a shining light for Christianity, nor even established a truly Christian-inspired government and society. Not even close.

I think the idea that the Third World will assume the mantle of ''civilization'' when and if former Christendom is destroyed is based on mere wishful thinking or delusion, inspired by politically correct sentimentality. And this goes for the belief that once the European-descended peoples disappear or are blended away, that the rest of the peoples will carry on the Christian Faith and become the new Christ-bearers.

I agree with those who say that our Western countries have forsaken God and debased ourselves, and that we've actually invited, perhaps unwittingly, this fate that seems to be bearing down on us. However, the Bible tells us that there is always a remnant who remain faithful among God's own, and that these people, turning to God, can avoid destruction by their repentance and prayer. Our fate is not sealed as so many WNs and others insist. If it is, why are we even talking about it? Best just resign ourselves and eat, drink, and be merry while we wait for doom.

But don't let's leave God out of the equation.

CWNY's critic gets ''nauseous" (by which he evidently means to say ''nauseated") at CWNY's "sugary-romantic" views of old Europe . I've been accused similarly of presenting a sugar-coated view of old America (and Christendom, generally). Do I believe it was a paradise on earth? Certainly not, but sometimes over-emphasizing the goodness of the past is a necessary corrective to the relentlessly condemnatory views of the past. Everywhere we turn in the media, whether it's a Hollywood movie or a commercial, we see our people and our past being disparaged, ridiculed, condemned, and lied about. We cannot counter this unremitting negativity with a lukewarm, half-hearted defense, or by doing as even some on our side do, by starting our defense with some conciliatory agreement with our critics on some point. For example, when the subject of slavery comes up, saying ''of course slavery was an abomination...'' or ''of course we were harsh on the Native Americans when we took their lands, but..."

This is the kind of mealy-mouthed defense we often see. We need to overemphasize the positives -- and there were positives and praiseworthy things in our past -- in order to balance out all the smears and slanders. We also need to praise our past and our heritage in order to rally people to the side, and to provoke them to realize that our past was good and worthy of being defended. Extremes on one side elicit extremes on the opposite side. We can never right the balance by a tepid, watered-down ''defense'' of our heritage and our folk.

Another reason why I (and possibly CWNY) show the past in somewhat of a rosy glow is that I am writing in part out of emotion. I get the sense from CWNY's writings that he truly loves  what he writes about: Christ and antique Europe as it was inspired by faith in and love for Christ. He cares about our folk, and about us at our best, so he presents us with an image of what we could be, not necessarily what we are now, which would be a ''warts-and-all'' image.

CWNY's critic says that the Old Testament presents a harsh image of the 'chosen people,' which it does, but the Old Testament and the Bible in general were not written with the same purpose as my blog or CWNY's blog.

And about those ''chosen people'' -- do we know who today's descendants of those Biblical tribes were? I put it to you that we do not, though it is assumed by almost everyone that we do know. But where is the evidence for the majority's belief?

One more thing I've come to know over the years is that the ''majority'' can be counted on to be in the wrong on almost everything of importance, always. It may sound cynical, but it appears true to me. Perhaps that's why representative government cannot maintain itself for long.

So perhaps the 'majority' orthodox beliefs of the Christian denominations are not founded in reality, as far as the identity of the peoples of the Old Testament. Prophecy is very clear that many of God's people are 'sifted' throughout the nations, with their origin unknown both to outsiders and to themselves.

Critics notwithstanding, I think CWNY is to be commended because he seems to express a deep love for our heritage and people, and this is something that is sorely lacking among us today. We have enough of the intellectual advocates who seem to hold themselves detached in an odd way from what is happening. Bloodless intellectual discussions will not save us; only a real love and passion for our faith, our folk, and our heritage will motivate and strengthen us.

We are living in an age in which the ugly, the base, the crude, and the grotesque are emphasized. Our age seems obsessed with showing everything in a gritty, harsh light, in stripping everything bare, in thinking the worst and showing the worst of everything about ourselves. We need to rediscover truth/beauty, faith, and love, and to focus on the good in order to defend it from its many attackers.

Contrasting dance styles

I love traditional dance styles. It's interesting to watch these two women trading off dance steps to ''old time'' music, with one woman dancing traditional Appalachian buck/flatfoot style and the other doing Irish step dancing. Considering that the American style is derived from British Isles step dancing/clog dancing, there are similarities but the differences are noticeable.

The Irish style is more disciplined and it looks more elegant, with the dancer's upper body held straight and somewhat rigid. The American style is more expressive and freeform, more spontaneous-looking.Both styles are enjoyable, and put the lie to the cliche that 'White people can't dance'' or ''have no rhythm."

But inevitably, the poster of the video tells us that the Appalachian style owes its characteristics to ''African-American slaves'', etc. etc. Isn't it a fortunate thing that someone taught White Americans how to dance? Imagine an America in which the South would have no cuisine (no ''soul food from Africa") no dialect (because that too came from African slaves) and no music or dance. Whatever would we do without diversity?

Finally, somebody says it

I can't begin to count the number of times that some idiot on the Internet (and in the ''real world'') has said that the European colonists on this continent were ''illegals''.

At Steve Sailer's blog, Svigor gives a very good, and very thorough reply to that particular piece of idiocy.

Your ancestors were the original illegals, please keep that in mind.

I know leftoids love to conflate the colonists and pioneers with illegal immigrants, but I am mystified as to why enough normal people buy into it to have it repeated so often. It never seems to be met with the derision and scorn it deserves.
No, the Germanic tribes that ate the Roman Empire from within (and without) were not colonists and pioneers. No, the mestizos (and other immigrant groups) eating America from within are not colonists or pioneers.

Show me where in Native American Law ca. 1607 our settlement here was considered illegal.

Yes, one of the first things that struck me about the actual history of the Indian Wars was how little resemblance they bore to the Leftoid Narrative of Indian Victimization by The White Man. Indian tribes were constantly teaming up with White settlers against other Indian tribes, for instance. The fact that banditry was a way of life (one insufferable to the settlers) for the Plains Indians, for another. The fact that it was essentially impossible for the settlers and Indians to get along (in most cases), for another; how is a relatively orderly, law-abiding, people supposed to get along with a relatively very disorderly, disparate, non-law-abiding people? You make an agreement with one tribe, and guess what? The other 5 are still robbing you. You make an agreement with one of the 5, and guess what? You just pissed off the tribe you previously had an agreement with. Indians kidnapped your family? Guess what? You got NO way to redress this grievance without hunting them down yourself. Reading about it reminds you of trying to police the ghetto, squared. Then there's the fact that a nomadic people must claim vast swathes of land to support them at low density; what, sedentary peoples are supposed to just sit on the borders so claimed and not make vastly more efficient use of the land? All a farmer needs is a few acres. A nomadic bandit and scavenger needs miles and miles of territory.

The distinctions that I find important here are civilized vs. barbarous, and pioneer vs. immigrant. An immigrant comes into an established system and, as you point out, there was no established system so classifying the colonists, pioneers, and settlers as immigrants is nonsensical. They're both migratory, and that's the end of the relevant similarity. Today's immigrants are pioneering and settling precisely nothing. They're hitching a ride on someone else's legacy. They could be argued as colonists, though. And then there's civilized vs. barbarous; the CPEs brought a drastically technologically and culturally superior system with them. Mestizos bring nothing.

11/5/11 1:57 PM

Civility lost?

Occasionally on this blog I've lamented the loss of civility in our society. Over the course of my lifetime it seems that manners and 'good breeding' have been destroyed, not just 'lost'. The same forces which have force-fed us ''diversity'', the ''proposition nation'' and the idea that ''there is just one race, the human race'' have worked at destroying our social graces. Why? Because leftists/progressives/Jacobins or whatever we may call them loathe distinctions, loathe standards and detest order and tradition. Manners, courtesy, chivalry, etiquette, are all seen as ''elitist'' or snobbish; they are exclusive and they ''stigmatize'' those who fail to live up to the standards that were once implicitly or explicitly acknowledged by most people.

Manners and civility are products of an old, hierarchical order and are thus ''unfair'' and undemocratic. They must go, because they belie the idea that we are all the same. So say the destroyers.

Manners and civility are ''social constructs'', varying from one culture and race to another; what passes as good manners in other countries is not the same as what we consider good manners. Therefore, reason the leftist/levelers, there are no absolutes, so nobody has a right to have expectations regarding acceptable behavior; it's all relative and in any case manners are reflective of a snobbish social order.

All my life, it's been accepted as common knowledge that the South excelled in manners and courtesy. Northerners, despite the many negative stereotypes they hold about the South and its people, rarely contested the belief about Southern courtesy. But just as with the rest of America, the South is no longer the hospitable and mannerly society of renown.

James Kirkpatrick at VDare writes about the loss of Southern civility:
Diversity Is Strength! It's Also the End of Southern Civility...And The South

Kirkpatrick cites a New York Times article on the subject. The New York Times writer attributes Southern manners to a need to maintain a hierarchical and oppressive social order which kept ''women and blacks'' down.

''To be sure, strict rules regarding courtesy and deference to others have historically been used as a way to enforce a social order in which women and blacks were considered less than full citizens.

In the Jim Crow era, blacks and whites lived with a code of hyper-politeness as a way to smooth the edges of a harsh racial system and, of course, keep it in place, scholars of Southern culture say.

As those issues faded, proper manners remained an important cultural marker that Southerners have worked to maintain. Since the Civil War, any decline in Southern civility has largely been blamed on those damn Yankees.''

The impression left by the above paragraphs is that manners in the South were simply a tool of oppression, a means to an end, and not an original part of the culture of the South. However, if we read older sources, like Yankee Henry Adams ''The United States in 1800'' we see that courtesy was always part of the culture, long before 'Jim Crow'.

''I blush for my own people,' wrote Channing from Richmond in 1799, 'when I compare the selfish prudence of a Yankee with the generous confidence of a Virginian. Here I find great vices, but greater virtues than I left behind me.
[...]
Even forty years afterward, so typical a New Englander as the poet Bryant acknowledged that 'whatever may be the comparison in other respects, the South certainly has the advantage over us in points of manners.'

Even popular culture alludes to the surviving courtesies of the South, as in Hank Williams Jr.'s lyrics 'We say grace, and we say ma'am.' All of us who grew up in the South were taught to call our elders and betters (yes, I mean 'betters') 'Sir' or 'Ma'am', and that included our parents, grandparents, and so on.

Respect for elders and betters was part of the culture, and family came first, including extended family. People took care of their own. Loyalty was important, as well as honor: keeping one's word, maintaining integrity, acting justly. Being hospitable and treating guests well, acknowledging everyone and making them welcome, was all-important. Chivalry was part of the value system, and that was not limited to surface habits like opening doors for ladies or the old and infirm.

Having lived in the North, one thing that I noticed that struck me as very odd was the distance many Northerners keep from their own relatives. I met a number of people who would not even greet their cousins or other kinfolk in public. I've seen people of my acquaintance actually try to avoid their kin and turn away from them in public places. One woman I know even declined to be introduced to her second cousin living in the same town, whom she had never met. To me, this is bizarre behavior, but I met a number of such families in the North. The people mentioned above find it curious that I know many of my own distant cousins and extended family members, out as far as fourth cousins, while they seemed to see no value in knowing kin outside their immediate family circle.

Some of this may be attributed also to the rootlessness common in America today, but the people I mention above lived in the same county all their lives, as did most of their relatives.

Despite the baneful influences of the media which undermines local and regional culture, and despite the Yankee invasion of the South, the South does still preserve many of the distinctions which demarcate the two cultures, North and South. The problem is that the younger generations, having been influenced by the media more than previous generations, are no longer absorbing the elements of the Southron way of life, the distinctions that make a difference.

The Kirkpatrick article is being discussed at OD here and there are some good comments. Among them, these observations from 'Joe Schmoe'

Southerners really seemed to have a reference for history. I’m a big Andrew Jackson fan, so while in Nashville I asked the court reporter for directions to the Hermitage, although I did not have time to visit it. He went on about it for a while and then mentioned that Andrew Jackson’s family still lives in Nashville. This floored me because Andrew Jackson lived almost 200 years ago! You never, ever hear Northerners say things like that. I’m sure I’ve encountered descendents of famous Northerners, but no one ever speaks about their ancestors that way. My own family has ancestors who came over on the Mayflower, and we are proud of them, but only amongst ourselves and amongst friends, it is not something I would mention to a stranger. But Southerners talk about stuff like that in public, and it’s great.

You can tell that families, and history, really mean something to Southerners. I have a sense that the reverence for history is somehow associated with the reverence for manners, although I could not say why. But this is one of the things that most impresses me about the South.''

I agree that a sense of the past, of history and heritage, is part of the old way of life in the South, though it is not universal these days. This relates to what I was saying in a post yesterday about how a knowledge of our ancestors and their lives ties us to the past and to the 'unbroken chain.' Not many people in the North have a similar outlook. I think this difference is in part what causes discord on issues involving the Confederate heritage; most Yankees do not see why it still holds such power for many Southrons. To them, it was many generations ago, and it's all over, the South having lost, and thus the Southron people should all forget it and put it behind us. No, it has a great deal more emotional resonance and power for many of us, while the Northerners in general have little emotional investment in that whole sad episode in history. Many of them simply cannot understand the viewpoint of the South.

And it's the respect for the past and for tradition, in part, that keeps the old codes of courtesy and chivalry alive in the South. As that respect for the past and for the old days and old ways diminishes, much is lost. And as ''diversity'' and domestic migration begins to supplant the original Southern people, manners will surely decline, along with all that was worth preserving.

Scene from the past

Since I touched on the subject of the War Between the States in the previous post, I thought I would post this image, which I came across some months ago at the Library of Congress website, I think.

If you can make out the caption, it says ''Tarring and feathering of Ambrose I. Kimball, Editor of the Essex ''Democrat'', Haverhill, Mass., a rebel sympathizer journal.''

This incident is described here:

It was a war like no other. “After the Civil War began,” write scholars Thomas Tedford and Dale Herbeck, “officials in both the Union and the Confederacy permitted a surprising degree of freedom of expression.” President Abraham Lincoln allowed his critics — including Northerners opposed to the war (“Copperheads”) — wide latitude in railing against his policies. Thus, the “Copperhead press” was routinely antagonistic and even vitriolic in its protests. Of course, sometimes Union soldiers and others sympathetic to Lincoln took matters into their own hands, as when Ambrose Kimball, editor of the Essex County Democrat, was tarred and feathered by a frenzied Massachusetts mob for printing anti-Union stories and editorials. Hence, Lincoln’s toleration co-existed with occasional flurries of intolerant mob rage.''

This incident, of course, proves only that there were a few 'Copperheads' or Confederate sympathizers even in the heart of Yankeedom, in Massachusetts,  though obviously the hapless Mr. Kimball was outnumbered by the ''intolerant mob.''

This picture was of interest to me more because Mr. Kimball was a distant relative on my mother's side, and I had not known of this story until I found the picture.

Incidentally, this is where learning one's genealogy makes things more interesting; it enables you to know many of your kinsmen by name, and to learn some details of where and how they lived. Thus, when you are reading old history books or old newspapers or records, or even perusing images on various online image archives, you come across your kinsmen unexpectedly. It's good to find your own family members in historical accounts or other records; it gives a feeling of real connection to past events, a knowledge of how and where our own ancestors may have fit into things, and thus a greater sense of who we ourselves are, as a link in a long chain.