At all costs, again

Seeing this story about firefighters in the UK and their mandatory ''diversity'' called to mind the illustration above, by Harrison Cady. The title is 'When Women Vote.'

It would be exaggerating somewhat to say that our fire departments are starting to resemble the illustration. After all where's the diversity? The ''ladies'', I mean, womyn, in the picture seem to be White. And diversity, we now know, is crucial to fighting fires as it is to everything else, for that matter.

I noticed when I still watched TV that on news footage, female fire chiefs seemed to be very prominent on camera, as are female police chiefs, and usually they are twofers, that is 'womyn' as well as non-White, which is actually what 'diversity' means if truth be told.

But what's truth got to do with it, or common sense? It is diversity for its own sake. It placates the gods of political correctness. It prevents calamities from raining down on our heads because of our non-diverse past. Don't expect rational arguments; diversity is good -- because it just is.

But read the article linked. Having firefighters like the assortment of ladies in the illustration is one thing, but recruiting people who are non-English speakers (who must be spoken to via sign language or placards) as well as the deaf, blind, and disabled is truly mad. But we expect nothing less these days.

The Vanishing Englishman

Along the lines of my earlier post 'What it means to be diverse', this piece from the UK Independent shows the massive confusion that apparently exists among citizens of the UK. The notion that 'the English don't exist' is one that has apparently been promulgated by the regime over there, and those who feel at odds with the English (who do exist, by the way) are seizing on this idea of Englishness being a 'social construct' or a fictitious label for a 'race of mongrels'.

The author of this piece says he is English, and advocates some form of English nationalism, though how he can reconcile that notion with the delusion that Linton Kwesi Johnson ("Inglan Is a Bit*h'') is ''English'' is more than I can fathom.

Still, the writer expresses a longing for a feeling of pride in England and a ''guilt-free positive sense of belonging' to his own country. Coming from someone who is evidently very liberal and 'multicultural' by ideology, that is a hopeful sign.

The comments, as always, are worth reading; there are definite strains amongst the commenters, based on whether or not they are English, or whether they have swallowed the multicult kool-aid.

'Rollingstone' writes some good comments, in my opinion.

David Hewson says:

England and the English are fast disappearing thanks to the divisive nonsense that is Multiculturalism, I loved England, but it doesn't really exist any more, in just 13 years labour open the immigration floodgates and destroyed the make up of the nation, wanna know what the future looks like? see the East End of London now, a totally foreign country.''

'King Baratheon' asks:

Do you HAVE to believe in Multiculturalism to be considered an "acceptable patriot"? I believe in a multi ethnic society, not a multicultural society.
However, if you believe in neither of those things, does that mean you have to be lumped together with the skinheads? Can we accept there are SOME decent White English patriots that love English folk music, love English Literature, love the English landscape and all of English culture...but perhaps do not believe in Multiculturalism? Is that form of patriotism utterly unacceptable in certain nations, yet promoted in others?''

The above commenter apparently doesn't see that multiculturalism and 'multiethnic societies' go together, and moreover, that it should not be compulsory for anyone to give assent to 'multiethnic society' in order to be acceptable, either.

Notice that the 'Scottish' commenter tartanse says this:

Scots come in many forms. Have you not seen Hardeep Singh Koli on telly recently? He's been on quite a lot.
[...]
Think Hardeep Singh Koli in a kilt. We both know he's not descended from Scots, but to me he is a Scot.''

This is apparently the SNP's idea of 'Scottish nationalism' ("One Nation, Many Peoples") illustrated for us. Take note.

The following is an illustration of what happens with people of mixed (though related) ancestries:

''I think that the concept of the United Kingdom is helpful in that it makes it easier for those of differing cultural and sometimes racial backgrounds to become part of the whole. I am English of Irish and Scottish descent so it is easier for me to think of myself as British than of the English who were the sometimes cruel conquerors of my ancestors. The term British is all-embracing. If I am English then I have to take on that identity alone, which would not feel comfortable,  though I have many of the characteristics of  an Englishman. I am sure this is just as true of other British people from the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies, China, Africa etc etc.''

Confusion twice confounded. "British" includes absolutely everybody born on, or inhabiting, the soil of the United Kingdom. English people do not exist, and/or they are a mongrel, multiracial people. Britain has always been multiracial -- so the party line goes. And people now believe this. How can a people who are not a people reconstitute themselves?

We have a parallel situation here, but ours, of course, is worse because we have so much ethnic confusion here, even more than in the UK.

More and more, I believe that 'smaller is better', in terms of ethnic and kin allegiances; it is a mockery of 'nationalism' to try to forge disparate peoples -- even people of close kinship like those of the British Isles -- into one agglomerate of people under a political ''Union.''

We have a similar situation with our North/South divide.
Let each people be distinct. Peoples with historic grievances against each other should not be thrown together and kept together in shotgun 'marriages', as multiethnic societies tend to be.

Same old 'new man'

The Library of Congress recently announced their annual list of films added to the National Film Registry, which is a list of those films selected for preservation ''as cultural, artistic and historical treasures...''

Read through the list of films here. Just as I would have expected, it's obvious simply from reading a few of the titles that the films are selected in large part because of their 'politically correct' content and messages.
See the list at the link, and the descriptions of the titles as well.

For example:

''Crisis: Behind a Presidential Commitment (1963)
Robert Drew was a pioneer of American cinema-verite (a style of documentary filmmaking that strives to record unfolding events non-intrusively). In 1963, he gathered together a stellar group of filmmakers, including D. A. Pennebaker, Richard Leacock, Gregory Shuker, James Lipscomb, and Patricia Powell, to capture on film the dramatic unfolding of an ideological crisis, one that revealed political decision-making at the highest levels. The result, "Crisis: Behind a Presidential Commitment," focuses on Gov. George Wallace’s attempt to prevent two African-American students from enrolling in the University of Alabama—his infamous "stand in the schoolhouse door" confrontation—and the response of President John F. Kennedy.''

and:

El Mariachi (1992)
Directed, edited, co-produced, and written in two weeks by Robert Rodriguez for $7,000 while a film student at the University of Texas, "El Mariachi" proved a favorite on the film festival circuit. After Columbia Pictures picked it up for distribution, the film helped usher in the independent movie boom of the early 1990s. "El Mariachi" is an energetic, highly entertaining tale of an itinerant musician, portrayed by co-producer and Rodriguez crony Carlos Gallardo, who arrives at a Mexican border town during a drug war and is mistaken for a hit man who recently escaped from prison. The story, as film historian Charles Ramirez Berg has suggested, plays with expectations common to two popular exploitation genres—the narcotraficante film, a Mexican police genre, and the transnational warrior-action film, itself rooted in Hollywood Westerns.''

Then there's this one:

Growing Up Female (1971)
Among the first films to emerge from the women’s liberation movement, "Growing Up Female" is a documentary portrait of America on the brink of profound change in its attitudes toward women.''
Enough said about that one.

More:

Hester Street (1975)
Joan Micklin Silver’s first feature-length film, "Hester Street," was an adaption of preeminent Yiddish author Abraham Cahan’s 1896 well-received first novel "Yekl: A Tale of the New York Ghetto." In the 1975 film, the writer-director brought to the screen a portrait of Eastern European Jewish life in America that historians have praised for its accuracy of detail and sensitivity to the challenges immigrants faced during their acculturation process.''

A few more examples: The Iron Horse, a silent film which ''celebrated the contributions of Irish, Italian and Chinese immigrants although the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country legally was severely restricted at the time of its production.''

Further, 'The Negro Soldier', from 1944. 'Stand and Deliver', from 1988, I am sure is familiar to most of you. Likewise, 'Porgy and Bess.'

I am not sure how films like Forrest Gump and Silence of the Lambs qualify for this list; do they have a PC angle of which I'm not aware? I did not see either of those movies but I have heard plenty about them. Neither of them would qualify as great artistic achievements by my standards, but then I am not on the same page with the people who select these films, obviously.
The 'Librarian of Congress' says of the films, generally:

"These films are selected because of their enduring significance to American culture," said Billington.

It's clear that 'our' government is very much in line with the cultural Marxist agenda, and very committed to furthering that agenda and the multicultural viewpoint, celebrating anybody and everybody except old-stock Americans. All governmental bodies that supposedly have to do with preserving our history or promoting the arts in this country exist, apparently, only to push the cultural Marxist, anti-White, anti-traditional agenda.

It's all redolent of the Soviet propaganda promulgated via the arts in the days of Stalin, described here.

''The visual culture of the Stalin era was both a façade and an instrument of power.
[...]
Because of its realistic form, this art seemed to be agreeable, unproblematic, and easy to understand for the masses, yet it was a completely ideological venture both in terms of contents and objectives. It does not present itself as a portrayal of life but visualizes the collective dream of a new world and a new man.''

[Emphasis mine]

It seems the 'hopes and dreams' are not unlike those of the Stalin era, in which the goal was to promote the idea of 'a new world and a new man.' The 'new Soviet man' was to be part of ''a new Utopian mass culture that comprises all mankind.''

Here, the 'new man' is described:

This man was to be free from ethnic affiliations, see no sense in private property, be always ready to sacrifice himself for the benefit of society, have no doubts that he originated from an ape or something like it (certainly from a beast) and that nothing will remain of him after his death. In other words, he was to be a one-hundred percent materialist and atheist and must know that the meaning of life is in the person's usefulness to society and the supreme goal is in a better, wealthy and happy life of future generations. Recognizing this, he would necessarily be happy.''

However, as certain classes of people would impede such plans, they were made objects of vilification:

''They were made a bugbear, an object for mockery, incited against each other by encouraging their mutual denunciations and accusing them of deviating from the ideology.''

It seems that the powers that be, via subtle means in many cases or by flagrant and obvious means, wants to recast our society and people into the utopian one-world mold. It is now identified by catchwords and phrases like 'diversity and inclusion' or multiculturalism, or 'global citizenship.' But it's all the same old 'new man' effort to recreate human nature along lines that are anything but natural.

If the LOC and other governmental bodies wanted to show real ''diversity'' and ''tolerance'' they would choose materials that represented more than just the 'celebrate diversity or else!' school of thought. They would not be attempting at every turn to rewrite history with our ancestors either airbrushed out, or cast only as hateful villains.

Usually when I bring up the subject of propaganda in the arts and popular culture, there are a few people who object that ''it's just entertainment', and that I should 'lighten up and just enjoy it.' But it is obviously taken seriously by the powers-that-be, or they would not go to such lengths to present a monolithically PC point of view, and to disparage and exclude all differing points of view. They take it seriously, and so must we.

Christianity accused

I really grow tired of the constant allegations that Christians, (usually described as 'Evangelicals' or some derisive approximation of that word) are big proponents of 'diversity', mass immigration, and other anti-White policies. If you read AmRen, there is a constant chorus of people who say these things about 'Evangelicals' or Christians, or Protestants generally. Of course none of these comments ever cite any supporting statistics or polls or any evidence beyond their say-so, and they seem to go unchallenged every time.

There are a few ethnonationalist or WN blogs where the same refrain is heard all the time; sometimes the accused are called ''Rapture Bunnies'' or other such mocking apellations, and again, it is enough for them to say that Christians are culpable, regardless of their lack of evidence that such is the truth.

I remember this by the Center for Immigration Studies, which gives some actual data on what members of various religious groups think about immigration, vs. what the leadership of the religious groups say. Just as with politics, it seems that there is a disconnect between the rank-and-file members and the 'leadership.' It's evident that many religious leaders are of the elitist mentality, just as our elected officials are.

According to this poll, it is 'born-again Protestants' who have the most ''right-wing'' views on immigration and immigration laws.

Born-Again Protestants: 76 percent support enforcement; 12 percent support conditional legalization.''

Born-agains are more likely than mainline Protestants (traditionally very liberal churches), Catholics, and Jews to support enforcement of immigration laws and not to support legalization of illegals. Born-agains are the most conservative among the groups surveyed.

But according to the internet's self-professed experts, ''born-agains'', who are probably considered ''Rapture Bunnies'' in most cases, are the most PC and liberal of all groups. And I am sure that any data to the contrary will be ignored or denied by these people.

The survey reported here says

Yet, among evangelicals, three out of every four (72%) describe themselves as mostly conservative and a mere 2% say they are mostly liberal. Just one out of four evangelicals (24%) says they are in the ideological middle ground.''

It has to be said, though, that many people who describe themselves as ''conservative'' today are raving liberals on issues like immigration, and are becoming more liberal on racial matters, in response to the leadership of many denominations becoming ultra-liberal and globalist.

Despite those unfortunate trends, I think it's still accurate to say that the more religiously conservative Christians tend also to hold old-fashioned, politically incorrect views rather than being diversity-philes as so often alleged.

I maintain that the people who constantly rail against Christians on AmRen or other similar blogs and forums are people who already have an antipathy to Christianity. These people, in my opinion, are seizing on a convenient pretext to further accuse and discredit Christians, the pretext being that Christians are dimwits and dupes who are aiding and abetting the globalist/anti-White agenda.

The remark is also often made that ''rapture bunnies'' or Evangelicals are people who are indifferent to what is happening in the world because they expect to be 'raptured' at any moment. Some ignorant critics claim that rapture-believers think that they should hasten the end times so as to force Jesus' return. This is simply not true, but it's another handy weapon to use to bash Christians.

If my own personal beliefs are relevant (an unfriendly commenter a few years ago accused me of being a ''rapture bunny'') I am not convinced of the notion of the 'rapture'. It is not a view that is held by all Christians, contrary to what critics and accusers of Christians say.

I truly wish that those who rant about 'Evangelicals' would tell us what, exactly, that term means in their minds. It is evident that they often do not know the meaning of the word; it is their curse word to be used against Christians whom they find bothersome. I also wish they would show some evidence that they know anything at all about the 'rapture' business, which they delight in condemning. Misunderstandings of such beliefs are rife, and most people who condemn those beliefs know next to nothing about them.

As for AmRen, I've concluded that they consciously allow and thus encourage anti-Christian comments. They seem to exercise tight control over comments, even more so since the revamping of the website and the new commenting system. So any anti-Christian comments are there because the AmRen folks want them to stand.

I have to wonder, frankly, if the free rein given to the critics of Christianity is meant to try to placate potential Jewish members. It seems that Christianity is like kryptonite to many Jews, even when the Christians in question are pro-Zionist and philo-Semitic. In the past, I wondered why that was so; why they didn't reciprocate the admiration. I just accept it as fact now.

Another paradox about many of the anti-Christians on various blogs: they often oppose Christianity because they say it is 'Semitic' or 'Jewish', never explaining why Jews would oppose a religion which is supposedly so Jewish. It seems that the same pople who oppose one of those religions opposes both. Odd, because the two religions are very different, not Siamese twins by any means.

But the Christian bashing will go on at AmRen because it suits somebody; it serves some purpose, though I am not sure what.
And the critics and bashers will go on doing their thing. It would be nice if sometimes, someone would speak up in defense of the faith of our fathers. Or perhaps any such comments just would not pass moderation on most such blogs.

What it means to be diverse

What it means to be Australian

A sickly-saccharine piece about how diverse, vibrant, colorful, inclusive, and lovey-dovey today's Australia is, in honor of Australia Day. See the pictures for examples of textbook political correctness; all races in happy harmony, mixed groups of people featuring the 'vibrant' newcomers alongside the now-obsolescent European-descended Australians. Celebrate diversity!  Celebrate cultural suicide, as the graphic above says, ''because your ancestors were evil anyway.''

In other words, 'Surrender, Dorothy!'


The comments on the article are not much better than the propaganda churned out by the journalist who wrote the article. See below (spelling errors as they appeared in the original comment):

''Anyone who defines Australia in racuial or cultural terms knows little. The so called 20 years "endured" does not understand post war immigration at all nor the fact that immigration was the start of Australia anyway. Even a superficial understanding of history would show the constant change. Even the flag has not always been there as it currently stands, and even though England ruled the range of ethnicity in Australi has been broad since teh first fleet. To be an Australian has always been about acceptance, diversity, equal oportunity and people being judged by what they do not what they look like or class or creed. Australia day is neither about an invasion nor about a static ancient culture. Australia is young and free. The challenge of any immigrant is to make a new life. This requires change - all aroyund  but change with the basic principle of making it better! Being a proud Aussie requires omething to be proud of. Australi has much to be proud of and tolerance and an open mind should be one of them.''

colin g of southbank:

"listening to the young australian of the year, what it means to be australian is being sexist and self interested. . we need more immigration of all persuasions because that is what made australia. wish we could get rid of the flag and the monarchy and be a real nation without sexism, racism and discrimination. full equality for ALL including marriage.'

Tick of Melbourne:

At the end of the day the flag is just a symbol and it is up to the Australian people to create a country which is truly fair and inclusive of all who live here. We are a nation of immigrants occupying a land that was stolen from its indigenous population. Rather than adopt the failed Gallipoli campaign as a dominant symbol of Aussie perseverance and pride, it makes more sense that we all work harder to build a nation which acknowledges cultural diversity and forges strong links with indigenous communities so they too can share in the opportunities and wealth that many Australians have come to enjoy. So what does it mean to be Australian? It means different things to different people and one persons barbie is another persons stir fry. And if we are truly proud of this nation, lets welcome people from all backgrounds, especially refugees arriving on boats. If we can't do this, then we must admit that our call for a 'fair go' is just a marketing exercise without any substance. Australia is now a multicultural nation, so let's embrace our differences and get to know each other better so that we can build a nation that we can all be proud of today and everyday.''

'Tonza of Geelong:

An article about what it means to be Australian and not one mention of a culture that's been here for 70'00 years. No, let's just celebrate a culture imported from the other side of the world 200 years ago. If you want to know what it means to be an Australian, ask an indigenous person living like a squatter on their own land.''

Liz of Geelong:

"australia day to me doesn't mean invasion day or a day for protests and unrest, it means a day of celebrating the fact that each and every one of us who live in this great country has come at some stage from somewhere else in the world and have joined together to make the greatest nation around. we are all unique and have an incredible blend of cultures, but at the end of the day, we are all australian. it doesn't matter the colour of your skin or the religion you follow, we are australian. stand up and be proud that we live in the lucky country where there are no wars and with hard work and determination you can be anything you want to be. we are the luckiest people on this planet and that is something to be proud of and celebrate. happy australia day everyone.''

The propaganda masters have done their job thoroughly; these people know the script by heart.

Meanwhile, we read that also on Australia Day, Prime Minister Julia Gillard and opposition leader Tony Abbott were assailed by aboriginal protesters and were forced to flee for their safety.

''About 200 protesters trapped Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott in a Canberra restaurant, where they were attending the inaugural national emergency medals ceremony, before police arrived to clear a passage for the pair.

The protesters, from the nearby Aboriginal Tent Embassy, banged on the three glass walls of The Lobby restaurant chanting "shame" and "racist". '

Ah, the old, reliable race card. All that's required is to shout 'racist' and that wins the argument.

I wonder if any of the people with the smarmy multiculturalist party line in the comments section on the Australia Day piece have any second thoughts about the beauties of 'multiculturalism' and 'embracing differences'?

Probably no more than their counterparts in America or Britain would have second thoughts; the brainwashed and indoctrinated are like parrots who know a few rote phrases which they recite mechanically on cue. The zombified multicultists are not capable of re-thinking or reconsidering anything; they are simulacra who have been divested of their brains and souls by the multicult, just like the 'pod people' in the Invasion of the Body-snatchers.

I am sure that when the Diversity Hits the Fan, they will still be reciting their rote phrases in praise of 'embracing differences' with their last breaths.

The comments are depressing; I've heard it said by some Americans on various blogs that the Australians will stand up for themselves even if the rest of the European-descended people give up and give in. I had hoped that would be so; I've always had a high regard for Australian people. But it looks as though they are just about as indoctrinated as many in the UK and elsewhere in former Christendom.

We Americans, perhaps because we've stopped believing in our fellow Americans, keep searching the horizons for somebody else who will take up the banner and 'preserve the West' or show the way for the rest of us. Many people look to Russia as the 'future' for European people. I disagree, but people seem to have a need to invest their hopes in some other country, somewhere. It would be nice to see Australia be that country which will show real backbone. But as it stands, I am not so sure.

Perhaps we Americans sell ourselves or our fellows short, thinking that we can't be standard-bearers or leaders. The typical paleocon cynicism about our own country seems to have infected the whole politically-incorrect pro-White right. Or have we grown too lazy to roll up our sleeves and try to preserve what is left? Is that why we look elsewhere for our hope?

Most people seem to have written off Britain (or at least England) and to relish the act of doing so. Likewise with some other countries on that side of the Atlantic. But I think it's premature to do so. And I still believe that there is a remnant in this country who should not be counted out just yet.

I hope the same for our cousins in Australia and in the rest of the English-speaking world, especially.

Big government or big business?

While I was away from the computer for the past several days, there has been considerable discussion over the ''anti-piracy' legislation, namely the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' or SOPA, and the 'Protect IP Act' or PIPA. It appears that the proposed legislation is now in limbo, but it undoubtedly will not go away.

The one thing I've noticed when reading around the Internet about this issue is that it has been covered mainly by leftist bloggers, especially those with non-political blogs (blogs about popular culture, the arts, and so on). I've seen very little conservative commentary about this issue, and yet does it not seem that conservatives should be just as concerned about this? After all, it may be on the surface about 'piracy' such as file-sharing involving copyrighted material, but it ultimately concerns freedom of expression for bloggers as well as others on the Internet.
 
This piece notes that there are some conservatives working with the liberal opponents of SOPA and PIPA, but this is one of the few mentions that I've found of any conservative involvement.

I know that many conservatives see this issue strictly in terms of people 'stealing' someone's so-called 'intellectual property' or artistic output (as in music or other copyrighted material) but it is really not as cut-and-dried as these pro-business 'conservatives' like to make it.

For instance, there is some dispute over whether those (such as bloggers or possibly people posting Internet comments) are liable for linking to copyrighted material, including embedding videos and linking to written materials under copyright. That kind of thing would apply to most bloggers, including this blogger.

And there is the ever-present possibility that all these kinds of proposals to regulate content will lead inevitably toward the imposition of controls over free speech and free expression on the Internet. The idea of a universal ''internet ID'' for individuals is troubling. And yet few of us, probably, would doubt that the powers that be would love to impose such controls.

Why, then, are conservatives and others on the politically incorrect right not more vocal in opposing these measures? I read blogs by many libertarians and yet even they have been pretty quiet about the proposed legislation. Why? Why is it only the leftists and liberals who are speaking up?

As for the more obvious examples of so-called 'piracy' on the Internet, it seems that the RIAA and others have been excessively harsh in targeting a few offenders, with one person being fined $1.5 million for downloading and sharing a couple of dozen songs. If the guilty party is unable to pay the fine, jail time will be imposed. Call their acts 'theft' if you like, but the punishment does not fit the crime. And those who care about any sort of principles of justice should question why the music moguls should have such clout in getting harsh laws enacted and excessive fines imposed.

With all the outrage among some on the right about the evils of the 'State' or 'big government', what about the excesses of 'big business', which are very real? And why should the government be in the pockets of business, which they undoubtedly are? Conservatives often err in seeing 'business' and capitalism as an unqualified good, which it is not, necessarily. Business which is too big and too powerful politically is just as onerous as 'big government.'

But in the case of Internet free speech, the government and business are working together as an unholy combination to try to control thoughts and ideas which are not permitted, sometimes under the guise of trying to protect business interests.

Back again

I hope to be back to a regular posting schedule soon; I recently had some surgery done (due to an injury) and it may take me a few more days to bounce back.
Stay tuned.

'This will ever be your story'

The video is from the movie Zulu, depicting the besieged British at Rorke's Drift, singing the song 'Men of Harlech.' I thought this was appropriate to post today because in the battle of Rorke's Drift,on this day, January 22, in 1879,  160 British soldiers successfully defended their garrison against thousands of Zulus. Some sources put the number of Zulus at 4000; some say 5000. Eleven soldiers were awarded Victoria Crosses.

Whether they fought off 4000 or 5000, it's an inspirational story, in that the British soldiers prevailed despite their being greatly outnumbered. Something to ponder.

Note: The Mad Monarchist gives a detailed account of that battle here.

'Hired Hands', 1961

For a Sunday morning, here is a video of a TV show out of South Carolina, featuring old-time gospel music. I am very partial to these old songs, and the video itself brings back memories of my childhood. Though I didn't live in S.C., I can relate to this TV program, having watched similar ones where I grew up.

This video is a real piece of vintage Southern Americana. I enjoy the hymns and the singers performing them. I love how they read the dedications from viewers; is that done anywhere anymore?

Even the live commercials brought a few chuckles; I love how the car dealer boasts that his used cars are ''all local cars'', no 'salt-eating Yankee cars.' In those days it seems there were more 'characters' around; real individuals, colorful people.

Last but not least I love hearing the accents, as those kinds of regional accents seem to be fading away.  If you have a good ear, you can tell that there is not just one kind of 'Southern accent'; there were regional variations.

I hope some of you will find this enjoyable.

Paging English-Americans

At AmRen, Robert Henderson writes a piece called
Where are the English-Americans?

Good question, and one which I periodically write about here. Henderson says:

Let us imagine a United States in which every citizen was hyphenated, one in which no group was without of a sense of victimhood. All that would be left was racial and ethnic competition. There would be no stability or sense of social cohesion. The English-descended and English-assimilated part of the population that sees itself as simply American is the ballast that holds their society upright. It is the group with no grievances, with no ethnic axe to grind, and that endlessly submits to discrimination and dispossession. That will eventually change, as whites see their most basic interests threatened, but it is the forbearance of American-Americans that allows the United States to continue to function.
[...]
Unhyphenated Americans, whether of English descent or not, must defend the way of life that starts with English roots. They should reflect on how American society was created and by whom, and consider what it would mean if the customs and institutions of its founding culture are thrown over.''

The rest of the article is at the link, and well worth reading, if you haven't yet done so.

Henderson is right about the role and place of English-descended Americans in this country. And I agree that 'unhyphenated Americans', the only real Americans in my opinion, must defend the English-derived way of life that first formed what we know as American society.

But how is this to happen if the majority of  Americans of English ancestry do not even know their genealogy or origins? This is the case now. Most people, despite a recent surge in the popularity of genealogy, do not know their roots past their grandparents. Most Americans do not know their great-grandparents' names or birthplaces. Many people know only vaguely what their origins are; I've talked to so many, mostly in the Northern states, who say they are 'mutts' or that they don't know their ancestry for certain. They will say 'I'm German and maybe part Irish and part Cherokee.' Or something along those lines. Those of more 'ethnic' origins usually know their family roots. But it is true, as Henderson says, that most of those with colonial English roots have lost any sense of their origins, and therefore can't claim them. Some know that they are of English ancestry but feel no connection, because for generations their families have identified as simply 'American', unhyphenated 'American Americans.'

Some who are of English ancestry scorn that side of their ancestry because of the popular idea of Anglo-Saxons as bland, lacking any real 'culture', or as oppressors of everybody. The arch-Whites, as I've said. Then there's the rich, evil WASP who controls everything, so beloved of Hollywood scriptwriters and others with an axe to grind.

So how can English-descended Americans or American-Americans be mobilized or motivated to defend our common American heritage?

Many in the pro-White movement scorn the idea of any common American heritage, increasingly coming to see America as a sham, or as an Illuminati plot, a mistake, a failed experiment that is better left to perish, and to be forgotten. And I suppose this does not help the cause of the English-descended American; after all, if we were the ones who started this whole 'failed experiment' then it must be largely our fault. Or so I've been reading lately.

So Henderson's proposals are problematic, given the current troubled situation in our country, and the fact that we are increasingly divided along ethnic lines. Everybody claims his ethnicity proudly except for English-Americans, as a rule.
America is approaching the phase Henderson predicts, wherein there is only ethnic competition and rivalry, with everybody claiming to have been the biggest victim, and with no cohesion and no common bonds to hold the atomized ethnic groups together.

The answer? I don't have one, but it seems that we are hurtling toward disintegration, and that 'the center cannot hold.' Perhaps that is for the best, if it can occur with a minimum of turmoil, as with the old Eastern bloc countries. But the outcome could be rendered less chaotic if only the unhyphenated Americans who still have a feeling of kinship with their fellows could pragmatically work together as allies instead of dredging up past grievances and stoking ethnic rivalries amongst ourselves.

Speaking of ethnic rivalries, the comments that are posted on the article at AmRen so far are not as bad as I expected, with only a few critical comments. I expected more of the ''WASPs persecuted my immigrant ancestors'' complaints, but they haven't shown up just yet. But it's still early.

And lately I've been reading extravagant claims about how the American Revolution was won by the Scots-Irish who made up the bulk of the troops. I'd like some concrete proof of that, please. There's no need to resort to that kind of hyperbole in the name of ethnic pride or centuries-long grudges against the 'Sassenachs.'

The Henderson article links to a website about Presidential ancestry. When it comes to the great number of American presidents who are said to be Irish  or Ulster Scots -- well, I won't dispute Woodrow Wilson; you can have him. I also disagree with the linked website claiming Scots ancestry for Thomas Jefferson. As a Jefferson descendant, I know the family tree, and English ancestry predominates by far, with some Welsh and one Scots line that I know of.

One quibble: in the article, a picture of a number of Confederate generals is posted, with the question "How many non-English names can you find in this picture?" Firstly, the names are not legible, though I recognize a number of the men by their faces. But of course someone protests that many of the names are Scottish or Welsh, which in some cases is debatable. Lately it seems that many of these men are claimed as Scots-Irish/Ulster Scots, when they were in reality English. In fact, the great Christian gentleman whose birthday we just noted, Robert E. Lee, is claimed as 'Scots-Irish' by anonymous comments on the Internet. I've corrected this, noting that he was of English ancestry, and I know this to be a fact. But those who want to believe otherwise will continue to believe as it suits them.

The South is probably the home of most of the English-descended Americans in this country, and since the South was not affected as much by mass immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, such people were more likely to remain somewhat unmixed, unlike any remaining Anglo-Americans in New England or the Northern states generally. But since being Anglo-Saxon has gone out of fashion, few people will still claim it.

Henderson's article is one that needed to be written; English-Americans are the real 'vanishing Americans' of today, and although everybody else's ethnicity is honored and trumpeted proudly, and everybody else's group is accounted for, where, indeed, are the English-descended Americans?

Natives growing restless

At the UK Telegraph website, there are 3900+ comments on an article there about immigrants claiming benefits.

There are quite a few sensible comments as well as the usual drivel from the usual suspects.

A few examples:
'edithcrowther' says:
The benefits stats are shocking, but they are a bit of a red herring really.  The horrible truth is that the white British and white Irish proportion of UK population is falling fast and we are losing everything that matters to the human mind and spirit, simply by being outnumbered - just as China would lose its Chineseness and everything that makes it special and precious to all (not only Chinese people) if it were 60 per cent European.

Liars are telling us that there never has been a British race composed of the English, Welsh, Irish and Scots.  

Liars are telling us that our population is getting too old and we need young immigrants who will have babies themselves.

Liars are telling us all sorts of things.  But the truth always wins in the end.  So carry on lying if you want to destroy your own selves, it will all get sorted out on judgment day anyway.''

Well said, 'Edith.'

A few others:
London is a foreign country to most English, secession will formalize an already existent situation.
-john fitzgerald

Most people can see what is patently wrong. Are the politicians wholly evil or simply the most stupid people ever?
-outlander 58

I think if you were able to do a survey in some way on a reliable basis in half a dozen different countries of Europe you would find that there are tens of millions of what mostly the pc and generally leftist or obvious leftist posters here choose to call 'racists'.

And increasingly they care not a whit about the moralising of the Left.
-robnorthlondon

Someone with the monicker 'm8' says

• In America and  in the New World generally, the Immigration system works better. No handouts, a pull-yourself -by-your-bootstraps mentality and all that. You slacken off, its off to the poorhouse.''

'm8' is obviously very misinformed as to how it works in America, as most of us here are well aware. For those readers who are not Americans, immigrants certainly can and do receive handouts here in the USA, and they are most certainly not packed off to any mythical 'poorhouse if they don't work or have other means of support. Many states forbid social service workers from requiring proof of legal residence or citizenship when they request benefits, and they can thus receive many forms of assistance. They can also receive benefits because of their 'anchor baby' children who are born in this country, regardless of their own status. Many work 'under the table' and claim benefits as well. Many have multiple (false) IDs under which they can receive benefits -- often while they are earning money by working.

So we in the USA cannot criticize the British for giving away benefits to various cheats and frauds. We do the same, and our media do not even cover the issue as the UK Telegraph and others in Britain are doing. Our 'news' offers only immigrant sympathy pieces and sob stories.


Overall, the comments at the Telegraph, by their sheer number and vehemence, show that pressure is building, and that average British people are exasperated enough to speak their minds, despite the curbs on free speech in the leftist UK. Some people claim that Americans are showing similar signs of being fed-up with 'political correctness' and with the bullying of the PC gestapo and their 'democratic censorship.' I see a rise in more outspokenness on certain issues (like the recent 'flash mob' violence and the massive coverup surrounding such incidents) but I see a deeper exasperation among some of the comments on UK websites. Of course they have their brainwashed and traitors as we do, but perhaps because they are farther along the road to race-replacement and more subject to oppressive laws, they are reacting more strongly than most Americans.


Even some of the Americans who speak harshly on racial matters on web comment sections are still enamored of the 'nation of immigrants' notion, and are prone to use lots of PC disclaimers (citing their 'diverse' friends and co-workers as proof they are not racist, etc.) Our folk are not ready to give up some of their 'rainbow nation' rationalizations just yet.


But there are signs that people all over the Western countries have had it with the ideological terrorism of the ''anti-racists'', so-called.

He has to...he can't...

AmRen has a post about Ron Paul's remarks in a past debate, in which he describes the justice system as racist against blacks. His evidence? That blacks are more likely to get the death penalty, and the claims of the disproportionate punishment of minorities in drug crimes.

In the Republican presidential candidates’ debate on Jan. 7, Rep. Ron Paul said: “I’m the only one up here … that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system.”

The linked article, by Dennis Prager,  reports on what Paul said in a recent debate, and many of the comments dispute the veracity of the report, based on the fact that Prager reports it. Prager, being a Jew with neocon leanings, is declared to have written a 'hit piece' by many commenters at AmRen.

To me, Prager and his conflicting interests are not the issue, despite the claims at AmRen that he is out to 'get' Paul. The problem with that line of 'argument' is that Paul has said the same things previously, as this discussion from October 2011 indicates. A commenter in this discussion from last month says that Paul has "repeatedly said" that the justice system is biased against blacks. And the fact is, I remember reading/hearing similar comments attributed to him well before Prager wrote the WND piece that is being attacked at AmRen.

Paul's supporters, whether left or right, will not be deterred from supporting him, regardless of what he has or hasn't said. The left and the libertarians believe he did not say anything ''racist'' in the notorious newsletters that have been used against him, believing that he naively lent his name to ''racist'' newsletters that some unidentified somebody wrote years ago. Paul, in their eyes, is one of them: aracial and innocent of any bigotry towards blacks. On the opposite side, his right-wing and even WN supporters believe he did in fact write the ''racist'' newsletters but that he must now pretend not to have written them in order to maintain his credibility with the left and the aracial libertarian faction. Which side is right? Is he a closet racialist who ''has to'' hide his real beliefs in order to ''maintain viability within the political system'' as Bill Clinton once said? Or is Paul an aracial, orthodox libertarian who believes (as he says in a video) that libertarianism is anti-racist?

Each side wants its view of him to be true; it seems as if his actual words or actions have no effect on the opinions of either faction of his supporters. He has become a blank screen for many upon whom they can project their own wishes for the ideal presidential candidate.

I supported him back in 2008 when he was considered even more of a 'fringe' candidate than he is now, but the cumulative effect of all his statements (like the ones in the video) plus his about-face (sort of) on amnesty, and his promise to ''increase legal immigration'' finished that for me.

So I don't kid myself that I will change anyone's mind on Ron Paul; the leftist supporters and doctrinaire-style libertarians will see him as their anti-racist anti-neocon, anti-war champion, while the racial right sees him as a crypto-WN who ''has to'' say the correct things on race and immigration to keep his political career alive, and who ''can't'' reveal his real stance on the most important issues of our time. The majority of the (mostly heated) comments on the AmRen thread I linked at the top are staunchly pro-Paul, and they express a lot of anger at anyone who does not agree with them. That, I find troubling: the idea that after all we have been through with politicians who are on everybody's side but ours, we are willing to rally around one who has openly opposed the things we supposedly care most about --- all on the strength of a belief that he is secretly one of us, and is dissimulating.

Do we need another dissembling politician? I am sure many people would answer a resounding YES! Why? Because ''they have to...they can't.''

How long do we think we can wait for the permission to speak honestly and forthrightly? Who has the right to withhold or to give such permission? Why do we continue to grant them this power over us?

And yes, I know that another stock answer (which the Bush supporters used, too) is that ''no politician is perfect; we have to settle for the lesser of the evils...politics is the art of the possible...you are a purist, and we can't afford to be purists'', etc. And I have heard all about how Paul's stance on ''limited government'' will cure all our ills, including our immigration tsunami. But that presumption rests on the notion that Paul will be able to single-handedly bring the present self-perpetuating system to a halt. And what is the evidence that he will be able to reverse all the damage of the last several decades?

For myself, I am only more convinced that voting will not solve anything; the system is too hopelessly corrupted and the electorate is apparently desperate, traumatized beyond being able to make sensible, responsible choices. The system is broken, as it was intended to be when the forces of subversion got the helm some decades ago.

About this time someone will pointedly ask me: ''well, what's your answer? What do you think will fix things?" Short of divine intervention I don't know, really, but I do know we have to go beyond the realm of blind faith in 'leaders' of whatever stripe, at least those who are part of this present broken system, and we have to seek the truth, and avoid thinking wishfully.

Remembering Robert E. Lee

This day is the 205th anniversary of the birth of Robert E. Lee. It's good to remember one of the great heroes of our people, at this time of year when we are called to pay homage to others.

Some quotes attributed to him.

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them — the desire to do right — is precisely the same." From a letter to General P. G. T. Beauregard, October 3, 1865

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage. Say just what you mean to do on every occasion, and take it for granted you mean to do right ... Above all do not appear to others what you are not.'' - from Extraordinary Lives: The Art and Craft of American Biography (1986) by Robert A. Caro and William Knowlton Zinsser

"I think it better to do right, even if we suffer in so doing, than to incur the reproach of our consciences and posterity."

''Our country demands all our strength, all our energies. To resist the powerful combination now forming against us will require every man at his place. If victorious, we have everything to hope for in the future. If defeated, nothing will be left for us to live for. My whole trust is in God, and I am ready for whatever He may ordain."

Here is the New York Times obituary for General Lee.

More on the Scottish independence question

On the subject of the proposed move toward independence for Scotland, on which I seem to have a controversial opinion, Mary Kenny writes an article for the Irish Independent. Among other things, she addresses what this would mean for Ulster, or Northern Ireland.

''The sovereignty of a nation is complicated, as Alex Salmond and his ScotNats will surely find out. And a largely unconsidered angle in the looming referendum on whether the United Kingdom will break up if Scotland becomes independent is the impact on Northern Ireland.
Ulster Unionists have always championed the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but their more particular attachment has been to Scotland rather than to England.
The late Ulster historian A T Q Stewart showed in his research how close the links were between Northern Ireland and Scotland, dubbing those 33 miles of water between the two "the narrow ground". In mediaeval times, when land was thickly forested, it was easier to sail between Larne and Stranraer than to penetrate forest.
So it is an old bond.''

There are a number of Southern nationalists who identify with the Ulster people, identified as 'Scots-Irish' or 'Ulster Scots' and who are seen as the mother nation for the Southron people. There is a commonality there, and a sense of kinship, so this is significant in an American context, and has a bearing on our own question of secession. However, this is a more complex situation in the UK, and Mary Kenny's article touches on the various ramifications.

The break-up of a political union is no small thing, because treaties, customs, languages and cultures get knitted together over the centuries and there are shared memories, which go way back -- the Highland regiments fighting for the Crown, or the extraordinary number of Scots who were the engineers of the British Empire.''

Mary Kenny's views are not the same as mine, but she makes what I consider some important points; read the article at the link.

I continue to follow this story because it is important in my opinion to all of us whose roots are in that part of the world.

H/T: RossRightAngle
See also this related article linked at the same blog.

'Thou shalt not be judgmental,' except...

Readers of this blog know how annoyed I occasionally am by the 'food prudery' and diet faddishness that is common among Americans now -- paradoxically at a time when we have an 'obesity epidemic' and the White House itself is on the march against obesity. It seems there is a 'war on obesity' -- the government always declares 'war' on anything it deems evil. Remember LBJ's ''war on poverty''? A comedian of that time joked that when he heard that 'we' had 'declared war on poverty', he went out and threw a hand grenade at a beggar. Well, now as the government declares war on obesity, people are throwing verbal grenades at transgressors of the 'food laws.' People like Paula Deen, for example.

In the case of the 60s ''war on poverty,'' it looks like poverty won. Jesus Christ himself told us 'the poor you have always with you', after all.

Similarly the fat we have always with us, though undoubtedly more of them than we used to have within recent memory. But in a rather mixed-up society like ours, we have people who get up in arms in a moral sense about other people's food choices, while warning against judgmentalism in regard to sexual morality and personal morality generally. We live in a society which uses terms like ''decadent'' or ''depraved'' (see this Free Republic thread) solely in connection with food. Food can be 'decadent', sinful, or 'depraved', but all manner of sexual perversions are 'a matter of personal preference'. Lying and cheating are winked at by many people, including those at the highest levels of society, but food and diet are areas in which people are quick on the trigger with their condemnation. What does that say about us?

That Free Republic thread I link above actually has a sensible post or two or three; not bad for the FReepers. There is another article at HuffPo about the same subject, Paula Deen and her recent diagnosis of Diabetes. [Sorry but I don't like to link to HuffPo]. But the people there are much more judgmental regarding Paula and her 'depraved' food choices than the FReepers. Many conservatives gripe about liberals and their anti-smoking bias; perhaps following Limbaugh's lead, they defend cigarettes as a matter of personal liberty and choice, while at the same time, they condemn people who make 'sinful' food choices, including Paula Deen.

But did she cause her own diabetes by her 'decadent' cooking and eating habits -- high in carbs, fat, and overall calories? The consensus seems to be a definite yes.

Somebody elsewhere on the Internet says that Paula Deen is being picked on because of her Southern food habits; today's Southern food is not known for being 'nutritionally correct.' Actually, my grandparents' and parents' generations ate 'unhealthily' by today's prissy standards. My grandparents ate fried breakfasts most of the time (bacon, sausage, eggs -- with tomatoes on the side to ''cut the grease'' -- along with country gravy.)

Incidentally my dear grandma lived a healthy 94 years, and was active and alert all her life on that 'unhealthy diet.'

The older generations partook of a lot of 'sweet tea' as well as 'cokes' as do the younger generations. The older folks didn't seem to fare too badly on it. But then again they were much more physically active, and had far less stress in their lives,, though their lives were more arduous in many ways.

Diabetes showed up in our family in my father's generation, and my one aunt who has it is as thin as a rail, and has never, ever had a ''weight problem.'' I know there are many people like this who do not fit the profile of the fat, lazy Type 2 diabetic, yet that stereotype has stuck. There are some who fit that pattern, but some who do not.

However this writer offers a dissenting opinion as to why Diabetes develops. The simplistic consensus is that people gorge themselves into Diabetes, whereas the writer points out, (I'm paraphrasing somewhat) that correlation does not mean causation. Diabetes is connected with sleep apnea, chronic stress, inflammation, excess weight -- but none of these can be said to be the cause or the origin of it. They are all part of a pattern.

We live in strange times in which real immorality is ignored, winked at, excused, justified -- even glorified and glamorized yet people are ready and willing to condemn those who are nutritional criminals, if you will. Postmodern Americans who believe it is a great evil to 'judge' people for their personal sins, even perversion, are willing to condemn those who don't fit the idealized model of fitness and 'correct eating habits.' Hence we have our political 'leaders' passing laws as to what we can and should eat (trans-fats, for example) and indoctrinating our children about healthy eating and weight issues.

I've pondered about why this upside-down morality has become dominant; much of it, I think, stems from our over-valuing of youth, physical perfection, and beauty. Pretty, young trim people are idealized and admired; conversely, the old, the less-than-svelte, and the infirm are devalued because they are deviants from the required standard. We find them unsightly and unappealing. Someone on a conservative forum said that 'fat people should be incinerated.' That kind of blanket statement, directed at a whole class of people, should be seen as 'extreme' yet it is not; it's not challenged by many people.

Support for euthanasia for the old and chronically ill is growing, and many people, especially with the anonymity of the Internet, are emboldened to speak their minds in favor of it. That is worrisome.

In connection with this, I read some discussions about the cruise ship disaster in which the captain did not 'go down with his ship', but left passengers to their fate. On one blog, various commenters denounced chivalry, even asking why they should value the life of an old woman more than that of a 20 year old. Well, when you perceive people only as 'attractive' or 'unattractive' objects, why, indeed, should we honor old people? They've outlived their usefulness in many cases, and they are unsightly, at least when judged by shallow 21st century standards. Those who are not young, beautiful, fit, and sexy should not be consuming oxygen and taking  up space. That's what we've come to.

When 'Star Trek, the Next Generation' came along in the 1980s, I actually watched several episodes before swearing it off. One thing that jumped out at me about the series, especially in comparison with the original Star Trek was that the crew members on TNG were all 'physically perfect', more or less, in their spandex Federation uniforms. It appeared that people were chosen for Starfleet (or whatever it was by that time) on the basis of having perfect physiques, and being esthetically pleasing by the current standards. Older people (over 40 or so) were not in evidence. Had society euthanized the old, fat, and infirm by the time of the TNG universe? It appeared so. Everybody was 'diverse and multicultural' and politically correct, as well as physically perfect.

It used to be said by ''black activists' circa 1970 or so that Whites displayed their 'racism' by excluding blacks from advertising and department store displays. After that, diversity became the be-all and end-all, and now dominates our 'advertising'/propaganda. The blacks claimed that the lack of 'people who look like' them meant that Whites envisioned a world which did not include blacks or other 'diversity.' Well, it would seem, now that diversity is enforced strictly, that those who are excluded are not those of different skin tones, but people who are less than perfect physically: the infirm, the old, and the esthetically deficient.

As to Paula Deen, the only way she can salvage her career, probably, is to change her evil ways. She will have to publicly recant her nutritionally incorrect recipes, repent of her obesity and lose 50+ pounds, or lose her place in the spotlight. She will have to get PC religion, in other words. It's very much like those who are politically incorrect; the gods of nutritional correctness have to be appeased, as do the gods of political correctness. Confession, repentance, and atonement have to be made.

The advertising and promotion of foods deemed 'decadent' and 'sinful' will probably be banned from TV, as with smoking and alcohol.

Meanwhile our government scolds us about our food choices and our waistlines, supposedly in the name of our 'health and well being', while they gleefully welcome in immigrants with incurable new diseases. And meanwhile they make it near impossible for us to obtain local foods, or processed-in-America foods, forcing us to consume unsafe products from China, and foods containing bizarre and unhealthy substances.

Just one more instance of governments gone mad, and a society that is conditioned to acquiesce to it all.

The father of...

I've wryly used the appellation ''father of our [post-American] country'' but now he is the 'Father of America's Conscience'. How much more fawningly over-the-top can it get, and this from a ''conservative'' website.

And speaking of which, see this thread on Free Republic about Tea Party
''conservatives speaking out so that all Americans can be truly 'free at last' -- free, specifically, from 'liberal policies' that 'keep down' certain populations.

Why, then, was the aforementioned 'Father of America's Guilt'', I mean 'America's Conscience' not marching against liberal policies then, instead of advocating for more liberal policies?

What say the politically-corrected FReepers about that, I wonder?

Every year around this time it's more and more noticeable how the two parties look more and more alike. And the scary thing is that the 'conservatives' don't even see that they are sliding leftward.

Independence or 'union'

Many Americans seem to be under the misapprehension that England has somehow imposed the Union on Scotland. It wasn't true 300 years ago and, apparently, is not true now. Polls show that more English than Scots want Scotland to be independent.

''There is more support in England for Scotland leaving the United Kingdom than there is north of the border, according to a poll for The Mail on Sunday.

Scots do not want the English to meddle in whether they end their 300-year union with England, but English voters are much keener to have a say in the matter.

And the main worry of Scots appears to be that cutting their ties with England and Wales will leave them with less cash.''

The comments on the Daily Mail website show that there is strong sentiment on the part of some English people that the union is a lopsided one; England has no parliament of its own, while the Scots, Northern Irish, and Welsh have. The Scots also benefit in matters of tuition and prescriptions.

To me, this looks a little like the situation of White Americans vis-à-vis minorities. They can 'celebrate' their own heritage and fly their flags, while we cannot. Or they get privileges -- such as affirmative action -- which belong only to them.

Would it not be great if in our country, we held a referendum on keeping our (coerced) union together?

I support the same idea for the UK. What good is a union in which the partners are unequally yoked, and in which a majority no longer wish to continue?

Diversity at all costs

Here, the victim of the recent TriMet transit attack in the Portland, Oregon area speaks about the incident.

The news media in general are downplaying any racial aspect to the attack, and sadly the young victim seems to be trying to downplay it as well.

''Her step-grandfather is African-American, she says, and she even downplayed the racial overtones of the attack, saying she was unsure that’s what the attack was about.''

Many op-ed writers and bloggers in area newspapers are scolding online commenters who don't observe politically correct taboos in voicing their opinions. As if the writer's liberal platitudes and PC smarm were not enough, a commenter gets up on his liberal high horse and dispenses 'historical truth' to the ignorant readers who don't toe the PC line.

If you can take it, read his several long comments giving us the Wikipedia version of history. This person is the typical self-righteous PC pharisee, a type that is found in profusion in the urban Northwest.

My own experiences in Northwestern cities does not tally with the media description of places like Portland, Oregon as 'White cities', where diversity is scarce. I don't know where the statistics come from that make Portland and Seattle out to be 'lily-white cities' with a tiny smidgen of 'diversity.'
Read this thread, where White people and others decry and tsk-tsk the lack of diversity in Portland. Behold the results of decades of multicult propaganda.

But no; a visit to either of those cities will show you that they are not the bastions of Whiteness that many believe them to be, or the 'boringly White' wastelands some xenophiles bemoan.  The two largest urban areas in the Northwest are rife with 'diversity' and "vibrant enrichment" of the kind beloved of the allophiles everywhere.

There must be some serious undercounting going on in recent censuses, because there is plenty of 'diversity' in the urban Northwest. There is plenty of homegrown 'diversity' as well as immigrants aplenty, newly dropped into the Northwest by refugee agencies, or via illegal immigration through Canada (Chinese, South Asians, or whoever) or from Latin America.

I've had my own bad experiences on public transit while in a big city in the Northwest; in fact, I had multiple bad experiences, including being threatened physically. The bus driver in that incident did nothing and said nothing, although the man threatening me was a man about 6'5'' in height and 250+ pounds. The driver was a 'diversity' as was the man threatening me; it seems that blood was thicker than water.

I witnessed many incidents of casual violence among bus passengers, black-on-white threats and violence, and one curious incident in which a large black woman and her son of about 10 years of age got into a dispute over fares with the (White) driver. The woman, who was tall with a large build, began to punch and pummel the driver while he was driving the bus. He stopped the bus, and hit her back; they traded blows for several minutes until she and her son retreated and left the bus. And the general reaction from passengers in every case was always a detached indifference. Everyone seemed oblivious to what was going on unless they were directly threatened. Or perhaps they were afraid to even watch; they averted their gaze and reacted not at all.

I saw a near-altercation between a black woman and an apparently Ethiopian man who was handing out Christian tracts on the bus. The driver did break that tussle up, however.

Most of us remember the video that went around the Internet a couple of years ago in which a black man boarded a Seattle bus, and immediately began punching a blind woman in the face. To their credit, passengers did come to the blind woman's assistance, and stopped the attacker. It was one of several such attacks recorded on Seattle buses over the last several years. From what I remember, the bus driver did nothing to help the blind woman as she was being assaulted. I suspect that drivers are warned to stay aloof from any altercations or attacks among passengers. Either that, or Northwesterners are so low-key as to be near comatose. No offense to Northwesterners, but I've noticed the laid-back-to-a-fault style of many people in that area.

I feel sorry for the young girl who was assaulted by the baying mob on the Tri-Met, but I feel even sorrier that she has been taught political correctness and self-abnegation in matters involving 'diversity.' To that extent, she's been disarmed and rendered vulnerable, as have we all.

I hope these recent attacks in the Northwest help to destroy the erroneous idea that the Northwest is some kind of haven for Whites, or a bastion of civilization. Diversity+political correctness is a deadly combination.

Where it started?

I've been trying to find the source of the recent 'Puritan/Yankee/Anglo-Saxon' vs. Celtic South fervor. One of the earlier internet pieces I could find was this one, by libertarian Thomas DiLorenzo, who basically covers all the main points in the linked piece, which cites Clyde Wilson extensively.

Murray Rothbard is also cited in the piece, so he has apparently been grinding the same axe previously. But I simply wanted to know why this theme has suddenly become so all-important and has been written on so extensively on a few blogs.

Also apparently a source for this idea is Colin Woodward, with his recent book 'American Nations'.

As I said before in another blog entry, I am still baffled by how 'Yankees', in the currently trendy sense of New England utopian radicals, are still exerting some kind of hypnotic influence on the people who now inhabit what was formerly Yankee territory. Apparently the present residents of New England, though majority non-Anglo Saxon and non-Protestant, are possessed by the spirits of the departed Yankee Puritans. Maybe there was some kind of voodoo witchcraft going on in old Salem after all, since the ghosts of those Puritans are still casting spells on people.

Who could have guessed that the old-line Yankees, who have long since spread out across the country, or been absorbed by the Ellis Island wave of immigrants to the Northeast, would still be exerting such an influence in the 21st century?

Could it not be that the later waves of European immigrants exerted considerable influence themselves, and that their influence was greater than is now being admitted? Remember the events that were taking place in Europe in the mid-1800s; many of the immigrants of that era and later brought considerable utopian/revolutionary ideas, and yet somehow they are absolved of wielding any influence on the progressive/utopian ideas that flourished in the Northeast and the Northern states generally.

It makes more sense to me to look for influence by living people, rather than trying to blame the ghosts of Puritan Yankees, or to attribute to their descendants some kind of genetic predisposition to wild utopian ideas. I believe in genetics to a great extent, but I don't believe people become utopian fanatics by heredity.

But again, the label 'Puritan' or 'Yankee' has been applied so carelessly in these debates that it isn't clear just who is being discussed. The original Yankee Puritan Anglo-Saxons have been scattered across this country. They no longer dominate the Northeast. I've cited statistics on demographics, and I am not going to keep repeating those stats; they can easily be looked up by doubters.
And those 'Yankees' who did not go West in the 19th century remained to intermarry with the later waves of immigrants and hence to lose their identity. I have New England-born distant cousins with French-Canadian, Irish, and Italian surnames, though they share a few English Puritan ancestors with me.

Those who wish to blame the Anglo-Saxon Puritans and their descendants for all of our current ills are fighting against ghosts; there is no 'there' there.Those descendants who have not been melted down in the melting pot wield no special political power; there is no cabal of 'Boston Brahmins' who are controlling the world behind the scenes. The Kennedys, the John Kerry Ellis Islander types, those are the 'elites' of Massachusetts now. The Bushes? They are a mixed-European family who have Hispanicized themselves. There are no WASP elites, though it seems people really, really want there to be. You know the old saying that if so-and-so did not exist, they would have to be invented? Well, the Boston Brahmin/New England Yankee/Puritan/WASP elites are more or less extinct for all intents and purposes, but why rob people of a favorite whipping boy by pointing that out?

I am sure the old WASP Puritans will continue to be exhumed from their figurative graves for a posthumous 'execution', as arch-Puritan villain Oliver Cromwell was.

On 30th January, 1661, the twelfth anniversary of the execution of Charles I, the body of Oliver Cromwell was exhumed from Westminster and posthumously executed. His corpse was hanged in chains at Tyburn. The body was eventually thrown into a pit, while Cromwell's severed head was exhibited on a pole outside Westminster Abbey until 1685.''

I could declare the 'Puritan Yankee WASP' extinct as an identifiable group, but no doubt they will be given the Cromwell treatment again and again; it's so satisfying to beat up on a scapegoat who is no longer alive to object.

'No doubt but ye are the people'

I've just been reading several different blog discussions in which the 'Baby Boomer' generation is being denounced as the root of all evil, or at least the besetting evils of our day.

I know it's a waste of time, bandwidth, and effort on my part, but once more into the breach: the boomers, the hated boomers, were not adults when the Civil 'Rights' Revolution happened.

The 'boomers' that so many love to hate were young schoolchildren when 'Brown v. Board of Education' came down. They were children in grade school when the schools in the South were forcibly integrated. They were still schoolchildren when the sainted MLK was marching in various places, and even further back, when the 'freedom riders' were crisscrossing the South in buses.

Friends, the boomers are generally those who were born during the Post-War baby boom, when the GIs came back home after the end of WWII (and for those whose history is weak, that was in 1945), hence they were born beginning around 1946. The 'boom' is generally considered to have gone on through the 1950s, and according to some, into the early 1960s, as the 'greatest generation' (now fallen from grace with a cynical, scapegoating public) raised their families.

Do the math, folks; the boomers did not come of age until circa 1967. Many of the young men were fighting (and dying) in VietNam around that age. They were not all 'hippies' and campus leftists, not by a long shot.

''In general, baby boomers are associated with a rejection or redefinition of traditional values; however, many commentators have disputed the extent of that rejection, noting the widespread continuity of values with older and younger generations.''

As far as their influence in destroying this society, remember that people could not vote until age 21 in those days, hence boomers did not vote until 1968 and later. Do I need to tell you that the die was already cast then, the rot already well-advanced?

I myself first voted in 1972. Now, considering that many boomers were voters by 1972, and considering their reputation for being crazed leftists, why didn't George McGovern win by a landslide? Instead, he lost by a landslide, by a very wide margin.The boomers were touted as being a very large demographic, remember. The 'greatest generation' had large families by today's standards.

So why did the boomers, once reaching voting age, not elect McGovern rather than Nixon? How did the popularity of George Wallace fit into the scenario of the leftist Baby Boomers?

Remember too that most people in high elected office and in positions of power in business and the military back in the 60s and 70s, and into the 80s for that matter, were of the 'greatest generation' or the 'silent generation', not boomers. Recall, too, that the first President of the United States who was of the Baby Boom generation was (sadly) Bill Clinton -- and that was in 1992, folks. So before the first boomer president, somebody else was busy destroying our society. Bush the Elder and Reagan were 'Greatest Generation' guys, as were Nixon and Ford. Eisenhower, who was president when the Civil Rights Revolution really kicked off, was of an even earlier generation, born around the turn of the 20th century at the latest.

I've said before and will say again: the post-boomers who loathe and detest their 'boomer' elders, have been even more liberal in their politics and social lives than their hated elders have been. Why, given the seeming resentment and loathing of 'boomers', have people continued to emulate the worst excesses of 'boomers'? The hatred becomes hypocritical when we see how very liberal or radical most of the post-boomers are, even as they condemn boomers for being dissolute hippies and communists.

The post-boomer generations continue the worst excesses associated with some 'boomers.' Why do they emulate what they profess to hate?

In a past post, I cited the demographics of the last presidential election, and noted how the boomers were the least likely to have voted for the current regime, while the millennials and the younger groups were the most likely. Yet this fact goes ignored, while these critics condemn their boomer parents and elders.

Some of the younger members of the 'movement' who write and speak are vitriolic in condemning the older generations; there is something wrong and misguided about this. This kind of feeling, the idea that each generation sees itself as the source and origin of wisdom, ends in Jacobinism, and I fear that kind of sentiment on the 'right' as much as on the left. There is a kind of hubris and arrogance of many on the 'right'. As Job said of his comforters, 'No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom will die with you.' Some among the younger generation believe that wisdom will die with them, because they believe wisdom was in fact born with them. Nobody but they can see the truth, and they think they have nothing to learn from their elders.

Rather than this attitude of casting off the past and disdaining it as all bad, we need a movement to restore that which was good in the past; trying to raze everything and build from scratch will end in grief; we may go from the frying pan into the fire.

I see an increasing hatred of elders which will probably enable the social engineers on the left to carry out euthanasia on the oldest generations, who have been criticized for being more 'racist' and 'too conservative' for the 'progressives' and their agenda. The left recognizes that there are in fact more people among the older generations who resist the multicult, and this is because these groups are the only surviving people who actually lived in the old America, the pre-madness, pre-PC America. The rest know it only through biased history books and popular misconceptions. Even the more 'right-wing' younger people believe much of the leftist propaganda, and are more likely to have a cynical attitude about the past, based on what they learned in corrupt government schools (and corrupted 'Christian' schools, even, where political correctness also holds sway).

I don't delude myself that the elder-haters will change their minds after having read what I have to say; my past efforts have been in vain and there are those who need a scapegoat, as I said. Old people, (which includes anybody over 45 for the younger ones) are considered unattractive and useless in a youth-and-beauty obsessed culture, so why not make the old a scapegoat?

One thing I do know; younger generations always think that they know more than their "stupid" elders, and they foolishly believe that had they themselves lived in the past, they would have made better choices and created an ideal society, based on their greater enlightenment. This is absurd. Nobody can say for certain that if he lived in some past era, he would not have followed the spirit of the age as most people did. Young people who preen themselves, saying that if they had been born 50 or 100 years ago, they wouldn't have been 'racist, sexist, and homophobic' don't know what they are talking about. They would have conformed to the majority, just as they are doing in their own age. Left or right, our age worships novelty, youth, 'fitness', wealth, beauty, and 'success.' Left or right, many younger and middle-aged people dislike the old, and see no value or worth in them.

And the most absurd idea abroad today is that old people somehow rule the world; that they have enormous political clout and power. I talked to a doctor a year or so ago who scoffed at my concerns about government health care being established. He said, 'the senior citizens have the most political clout of any group; they won't let the health care system be changed.' Well, he should be eating his words, because the all-powerful old folks were not able to stop the government health care bill, though they have the most to lose by it.

Boomers or the last few 'greatest generation' members are mostly oldsters in the declining years of their lives, and are dying off daily. They are also the Whitest demographic, and probably the least politically correct, definitely the most knowledgeable about the pre-PC era, having actually lived their early lives in that long-gone country. Those who hate the oldsters may dance on their graves when the last one passes, but their passing will be cold comfort, as the White population will be in the minority by then, and having rejected any wisdom their elders might have offered, will be on their own, as they avidly wished.

How well will these younger generations who have ''all wisdom and all knowledge', unlike their very human elders, fare then?

Excuse me for not having high hopes in this future governed by people who have never known anything other than the multicult dystopia that is growing around us.

Connections

Over the past several years of blogging here, I've alluded to my avid interest in genealogy. I've done a lot of work in putting together our family tree file over the last dozen or so years, and it has been fascinating. It has deepened my interest in the history of this country as well as that of England. It adds more depth to your perception of history when you know your ancestors by name, and you know where they lived and died, as well as how they lived and died. It gives more meaning to history when you know that your forebears lived in certain places at certain momentous times. It personalizes history for you.

I often find it unfathomable that many people have no interest in their ancestors. Although it seems that genealogy has become more popular since the advent of the Internet, there are still people who are indifferent to the idea of knowing their ancestors, or even their general ancestral origin. The people who often say ''I'm an American and that's all I need to know'' are often the ones who disdain genealogy.

Some people see genealogy as elitist, believing it holds interest only for people with aristocratic pedigrees -- or those who wish for such a background.

Most of the same people who lack interest in their own family tree are the same people who say that they feel no affinity for their ethnicity/race; they are often the aracial, deracinated types who have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the idea that people are people, and any differences are only skin deep. We all bleed red, etc.

One of the interesting things about having one's family tree posted on the Internet as I do is receiving messages noting that so-and-so in the United Kingdom, or Australia, or New Zealand, shares some ancestors with me. These people are able to check their information against mine, and, ideally, to fill in some of the gaps that inevitably exist when you are putting your family tree file together. In any case, these distant cousins can verify the information I have in many instances, as well as vice-versa.
Occasionally these people message me. That's always interesting.

When I read news stories, or blog pieces, relating the news of what is happening in the countries of our kin, such as the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere, it becomes all the more personal to me, realizing that I have cousins -- albeit unknown to me personally -- in those places. The destruction that is being done in Western countries everywhere is being done not to random strangers, but to people who carry some of the same DNA as my own. They are my kin, not just in a vague, metaphorical sense, but in a real way, a flesh-and-blood way.

Maybe some people find that connection too tenuous or too abstract for them to care about it, but I find it compelling.
I wish that others could feel the same connection to our cousins across the oceans as I feel.

To many 21st century Western people, their family consists only of their immediate family circle, of parents, children, and spouse, with a few others included. However in my generation growing up in the South, the family included many, many people. It included third and fourth cousins as well as closer relations, and it extended to the older generations,  great-grand-aunts and uncles. The family reunions were lively gatherings that I looked forward to, and anticipated happily, when I was a child. Now as the older generations pass on, the extended family has less cohesion as the younger ones drift away geographically as well as emotionally. This is sad, and it's part of what is happening to all of us as a people.

We've become so atomized, and this is part of the reason why we are so easily dominated and possibly to be conquered -- unless things are reversed soon.

There is strength in numbers. We need to regain our connections to our larger family, as well as to our folk. And this means not just the living generations who may be scattered, but the generations that came before us. Our family and kin group means those more distant in time as well as those distant in space.
Genealogy and the sense of who we are, specifically, in the context of our family and folk, is something that we are in sore need of today.

Can't, or daren't?

The story about Pat Buchanan's troubles with MSNBC is yet another occasion for people at AmRen, for example, insisting that the answer to this kind of censorship is to tread carefully, and not be too controversial.

The same kinds of stories have had other paleocons (Tom Tancredo, for example) and other ''conservatives'' like Glenn Beck at the center. Whenever any such figure or spokesman, who is considered by many ethnopatriots to be 'one of us', kisses up to political correctness and says the requisite phrases (''of course I have no problem with legal immigration' or ''I admire many African-Americans; look at Sowell or Clarence Thomas...') then the response is always ''well, he has to say that. If he didn't say that he would lose his job. His career would end. He would be raked over the coals in the media.'' And so on.

And likewise, when someone like Beck gushes over MLK, Rosa Parks, and the elusive 'African-American Founding Fathers', people say, ''well, he has to say those things; it deflects the charges of racism. Now they can't call him a racist.''

In other words these kinds of statements from those who are covertly ''on our side'' are considered a kind of verbal formula which, like magic incantations, are supposed to protect us from misfortune.

All the evidence is that such magic incantations, such rote appeals to the gods of PC, do not work. Look at the numbers of men (and a few women) who, despite their making obeisance to PC, despite their treading carefully, ended up being tarred as bigots, haters, and '-phobes' of some sort.

Nonetheless, the thread at AmRen had the first comment recommending a 'neutral' kind of advocacy for our people; something along the lines of the BNP and their policy of 'inclusion' and diversity. The EDL has also taken that path. And has it bought respectability for those groups?

I ask rhetorically; we all know it has not; they are still called 'haters' and 'vile.'

Many of the faithful who say that we have to avoid explicit advocacy for our people seem to think such a stealth approach is needed, and that it will disarm critics. So far there is no evidence (zero, none, nil) that this has ever worked, much less that it ever will. But the idea of hiding our real opinions and our real agenda is still one that seems sound, for some reason, to many people who profess to be on our side.

I have written about this over the years, and I've never had anyone make a good case for why this tactic is a good one. I mean, if ''the average people'' will be scared off by any open disregard for political correctness, or by the failure to spout the usual PC shibboleths, then are they even potential allies? If they are that indoctrinated, can they ever be persuaded, even if we speak in the softest voices, using careful language? If they are that easily spooked, they cannot be of any help to us, in my opinion. So why do we worry so much about getting the clueless masses on board? My inclination at this late stage of the game is to say 'the devil take the hindmost.' If they don't get it by this time, after all the 'flash mobs' and other attacks and atrocities, and after the blatant bigotry of the media, then they truly will never get it.

Worrying about the timid and the clueless is like teaching a class aiming it the slowest and most obtuse students -- which is exactly the way our schools work now, and we can see how that approach serves nobody, and harms the brightest students, holding them back. So why should it work in political or social contexts? Target the people who are the farthest along, the ones who are capable of having an epiphany, or who are on the very verge of really 'getting it.' This group of people is probably still fairly small, despite the increasingly obvious peril that we are in. Don't waste time on the wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road people who never form an opinion unless it is expressed by some celebrity first, or the leaders in their social group. Many people -- and I hate to say this about my countrymen -- are not capable of thinking for themselves; they can only imitate, parrot, and follow the unthinking crowd. Yet this is the group that everyone worries about winning over.

There is the strange school of thought that we need leaders who can conceal their real allegiances and feelings and feign loyalty to the cultural Marxist orthodoxy (the MLK cult, for example) while all the while being ethnopatriots. So the politicians who bow down to the altar are at some point supposed to speak their minds and reveal their real thoughts. At what point will it be safe to do so? For years people have said 'they (politicians and other public figures) can't say what they think. They have to go along.' But at what point can they speak truth? Next year? Next decade? Never?

I think just about everyone on our side sees that we are weakening in terms of numbers every year, and everyone can likewise see that the PC Marxist system is growing more oppressive, and free speech dwindles as totalitarianism grows. This is rapidly getting worse. So how much longer will we be able to speak relatively freely without facing imprisonment just for our words and thoughts? Do we expect it to be easier next year to speak up, or will it be harder? Any bets?

If we don't use what free speech we still possess while we still possess it -- at least, on paper -- then we may no longer have the opportunity to speak up, or the right. We are waiting until the cost of standing up becomes impossibly high, it seems. The longer we wait, the more it will cost.

And yet some people are still counseling silence and dissimulation on the part of our ''leaders.''

What is a leader? In my book, it is someone who is bolder than the rest, who has the confidence and the valor to speak up when the rest of us cannot or will not. A leader is someone who does not wait for permission to speak the truth. A leader is one who does not take the pulse of the public before he speaks or acts. An example of the opposite kind of person was Bill Clinton, who was said to have consulted focus groups about his smallest decisions, and who seemed to be forming his opinions only after putting his finger to the wind. Where are the leaders who actually lead, who step out in front of the crowd rather than following along, or saying ''Mother, may I" before they speak or act?

And yet most of us seem content with 'leaders' such as these, who ask 'do I dare to eat a peach?'

And what is the worst case scenario if a Pat Buchanan or a Tom Tancredo or a Ron Paul takes the initiative and defies political correctness, denouncing it? Would it end their political or media careers? If so, what of it? It would inspire and embolden many, probably millions of people out there who are longing to see somebody stand up to PC and to the powers-that-be. It would make many more people willing to follow suit. It would break the ice in a big way. It would be real news. And so what if the enemy media would lambaste them? Even some of  the dullest wits among us recognize the bias of the media these days.

Or what else would be the worst that could happen to a truth-teller in the public spotlight? He might be called names. He might be threatened through hate mail, phone calls, and e-mails. These things have happened to many of us who trod on the wrong victim group's toes. In the majority of such cases, the offender apologizes and grovels, or slinks away in disgrace.

At this point, however, people are not being put in gulags for speaking politically incorrect truths, nor are they being executed. But people behave as if these things are an immediate possibility, though they are not, as yet.

The silence is mostly self-imposed, it seems to me. We are censoring and imposing taboos on ourselves in anticipation of meeting with opposition. We are doing the enemy's job for them.

And we, the public, we timidly hang back and make excuses for the failure of any of our public figures to speak up boldly. Remember in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, it was a child who spoke up and stated the obvious. Children are known for speaking their minds without weighing the 'costs' to them, or for couching their thoughts in careful language. Who among our leaders fits that description? None. And yet everybody excuses them: ''they have to...they can't.''

And what is someone who perpetually ''has to'' or ''can't''? Such a person certainly is not free. A free man can speak his mind. A brave man is willing to take the consequences of speaking his mind. It appears we have neither free nor brave men/women in 'leadership' positions -- at least not on the issues that are most pressing for us as a people.

So if our leaders 'have to' bow to PC and if they 'can't' speak up for us and themselves as of now, when will they be able to?
Time is a-wasting.