Denial is for losers

Likewise, political correctness.

In line with my previous post, there is this piece from the politically correct, multicultural 'conservative' site, AT. The writer's name is familiar; I believe I linked to one of his articles before, and not in an approving way.

Anyway, the subject is the R-word, you know; that social construct of which we hear so much these days.

''Elementary schools aren't the only ones getting in on the racial action.  In a totally different arena, churches are having racial unity seminars and conferences to make their congregations aware of how differences in people's skin color affect the way they grew up and how they live now.

Bottom line: race is a huge deal.

But, by rights, should it be?

This country fought a civil war over slavery based on skin color.  People marched in the streets and got brutalized, even killed, protesting discrimination.
[...]

I've had occasion to confront people in New York City when they were being racist: once on the subway, when others were turning away and pretending they weren't hearing the verbal assaults; once right on Broadway, walking next to a guy who was ranting racist things into his cell phone, making sure everyone on the sidewalk heard him.  I let these nincompoops know, loud and clear, that they were being racist and that what they were saying was unacceptable.  (Later, a friend warned me to be careful because "crazy people" can become incredibly violent.  The sad thing was, though, that the people I confronted, by all other societal standards, were completely "normal.")

Racism needs to be confronted, flat-out -- but not drawn out.''

So the author is one of those I call a 'PC vigilante', a self-appointed censor of other people. Self-righteousness on this issue, along with its companion vice, victimhood, is a plague on our society.

I wondered how the readers of AT would respond to this kind of article, in light of the brouhaha of the last couple of weeks over the Martin-Zimmerman case. As it turns out, I see much more push-back than I've yet seen on that site, and it seems as though the worm is turning. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the coalition of 'victims' and their sympathizers (liberal prigs and 'colorblind conservatives') have greatly overplayed their hand, methinks.

The comments are a healthy sign; it seems many people are fed up and irate about the constant drumbeat of lies and preaching on this subject from the media and the PC pharisees out in the 'real' world.

I think the quality of our side's comments is getting better; I am seeing a lot more facts and statistics, and I am seeing our side answering the kumbaya chorus more often, whereas before these simpering 'DWL' delusionals went unchallenged and got the last word far too often.

Some of the better comments were by 'Wayward Son.' Some of these realist commenters seem to be familiar from other blogs.

Good work, all those who take a stand on the 'mainstream' blogs, but we'll see if the censors take down all the good posts on this one.

Created equal

I see by the New York Post that Nadya Suleman, aka 'Octomom', is on welfare with her 14 artificially-conceived kids. Wasn't this known all along? I remember reading articles to that effect back when she was all over the news in 2009.

But she is not the subject of this post, really, though I have a very definite opinion about her.

My attention was caught by the t-shirt she is wearing in the photo: ''Fight breedism". The Post helpfully tells us via the caption that the t-shirt carries a 'pet birth control' message, which would be ironic if it were true. But as far as I am aware, the term 'breedism' is a recently-coined term meaning the equivalent of 'racism' in regard to animals.

Just to be sure, I checked, and yes it does mean exactly that:

Breedism is a word coined by dog owners to define breed discrimination. Some people feel that breedism is to dogs what racism is to people. Victoria Stilwell on her “Positively” blog brought up the case of Lennox, a dog that was confiscated by the authorities in Belfast, Ireland simply because he looked like a “Pit Bull” type. (Lennox is a Labrador/Pit Bull mix). This breed has been classified as dangerous regardless of the dog’s temperament, behavioral history or owner’s actions.
[...]
Dog Whisperer Cesar Milan features well-behaved Pit Bulls on his television show that proves they are not all dangerous, nor are they predisposed to be dangerous. There are so many false media reports and stereotypes out there against the Pit Bull and so many are euthanized every day due to being born a Pit Bull. Where are the stories about the Pit Bulls slathering people with kisses?

Breed specific legislation doesn’t work. Politicians, to solve a problem created by irresponsible dog owners, created this legislation. Some feel that it is similar to the policies that Nazi Germany instigated during the 1930’s and 40’s.''

Well, that excerpt says it all -- even down to a reference to 'Nazi Germany.' I guess we could say it's about the equivalent of 'racial profiling' in regard to animal breeds. And we know how naughty profiling is -- despite its practical use to help us sort based on established and obvious patterns.

But with this crusade against 'breedism,' we even see the classic liberal pattern of disregarding widespread patterns among the breeds in favor of focusing on exceptions to the rule; the fact that pit bulls are capable of inflicting serious harm via their powerful jaws, or because of their general unpredictability, is nullified, apparently, because there are pit bulls here or there that 'slather people with kisses.'

Where have we heard this line of thought before?

The anti-breedists (if that's what they call themselves) say that 'all dogs can learn' and that any breed can be trained using 'positive reinforcement', and we are told that troubled dogs suffer from a 'lack of confidence and insecurity.' Wow; do dogs suffer from 'low self-esteem' too?

Other anti-breedist sites talk about 'discrimination' and 'ending breed hatred.'

At this site you can buy 'fight breedism' shirts as seen in the photo of Octomom. The one pictured contains the slogan ''All dogs are created equal.''

Where are the shirts saying that animal 'breeds' are a human construct? I mean, who will you believe? The anti-breedists or your lying eyes?

Is any of this important? Well, it certainly shows how the leftist ideology permeates all areas of life; now we are in the wrong for noticing distinctions between animal breeds? This is but one example of how self-deluding these liberal/leftist types are; they consistenly deny the reality of our senses, and the validity of our actual life experience in favor of nonsense about how all differences are caused by external influences. So then just what purpose do genes serve, I wonder, in the ideology of these liberals?

We are seeing around us the consequences of rejecting reality in favor of some kind of feel-good ideology.

Census map

This interactive map shows changes in population, demographics, and housing development, based on the 2010 census.

My area, according to the map, has had an 81 percent increase in Hispanic population. The map shows changes by state as well as by county. Just hover your mouse over the county or state to see the statistics. It really brings home how fast the demographic changes are occurring. Or maybe some of you live in areas that have been blessed to remain somewhat stable.

It's interesting, if sobering, stuff. How are things changing where you are?

In the name of 'love'

Irish Tory has written a deservedly scathing response to the over-the-top rant by Sinead O'Connor, which I quoted the other day.

I'm actually surprised that Sinead's deranged ramblings went relatively unremarked around the blogging world.

It is true that she is a has-been performer, simply writing a typical celebrity-lefty commentary on something about which she has little, if any knowledge, just as Irish Tory says.

But her 'thoughts' really exemplify just how far gone many lefties are on issues like this. We might write it off to the surreal celebrity culture, where people who 'sing' or 'act' are inexplicably hailed as 'experts' on politics and social issues. Oftentimes, celebrities are the least informed of all, having had less-than-adequate schooling, concentrated mostly on their 'art' rather than getting a well-rounded education. And, once having succeeded,  they are subject to the peer pressure that exists in show-biz circles, in which virtually everybody is a flaming leftist, living in an artificially diverse subculture. Celebrities and 'artists' do not live in the world the rest of us live in, obviously.

It's all well and good for them to gush about how 'we are all one' as I believe O'Connor says in her lengthy missive.  Meanwhile they live in a rarefied world, a globalized culture among like-minded people, an echo chamber.

But the syndrome she displays in that 'letter to White America' is just a larger-than-life version of the syndrome that has seized so many White people in the Western world. I have to repeat what I said in the earlier post: the blogger Cambria Will Not Yield is so right in labeling this kind of behavior as 'worship'. It is exactly that; notice O'Connor's use of religious terminology:

“These beautiful people continue to believe in and even manifest Jesus Christ better than you do. That alone could stand as the greatest reason your racism is blasphemy, were it not for all the other reasons.

“These people you hate and fear ARE the body of Christ, just as we all are. Every child, woman or man. And they know it. Maybe that’s why you can’t bear to look at them. Because you see Jesus Christ and you can’t stand the light.''

I guess this is where it ends up, what with ideologies like 'Liberation Theology' deifying the Third World poor, and liberal churches fawning over criminals and other outcasts as somehow the superiors of the rest of the world. The more unlovely, the more we must love them, so say the PC liberal 'churchians.'

So CWNY was not exaggerating nor indulging in hyperbole. He was describing the reality.

Granted, there are liberals who would not go to the bizarre extremes that O'Connor did in her overwrought letter, nor use the religious, pious terminology. But when you boil down their philosophy on these matters to its essence, it amounts to putting certain groups of people on a high pedestal, and declaring them to be not merely our equals but in fact our moral and spiritual betters; even our 'gods' if you will. It's idolatry, with or without the quasi-religious lingo.

One more thing that struck me about O'Connor's letter to us was the reference to the 'greatest music ever composed', the 'greatest songs',  in which she cited only black musicians or singers, such as Bob Marley and others. 'So many absolute angels, sent from God', she rhapsodizes.

“Go back to strong black musical guides who left you information in the 60s and 70s. when they were living through the civil rights struggle. Curtis Mayfield. The Impressions. Nina Simone, Mahalia Jackson. Sing back the Holy Spirit ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, as those artists did.''

And why were O'Connor's heroes and role-models not Irish -- or at least, European people, rather than exotics from across the ocean? Why did she identify with people who probably would find little commonality with her?

We often talk about the huge role played by television and Hollywood movies, as well as advertising, in brainwashing the young into a worldview that is alien to their parents and their past. But popular music has been a huge force in this indoctrination, and I'm persuaded that it is done intentionally.

Certain kinds of music and performers are promoted relentlessly, and the kind of music that one listens to in youth often does influence our social attitudes. Irish Tory mentions that he listened to Bob Marley while in his teen years, and obviously he emerged relatively unaffected by it, but many young people do not. As a teenager I listened to a lot of music which my very 'realist' father objected to vehemently. The older generations, when I was a teen-ager, said that the 'race' music would lead young people into social contact with those outside our group, and they were right. Popular music is rife with a lot of leftist politics now, as well as the arch-politically correct attitudes on all matters racial.

Coincidentally, as I was thinking of this issue, I read a biography about the late Earl Scruggs, who just passed away, and the writer, in praising Mr. Scruggs, placed him alongside Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, and Jimi Hendrix as one of the greatest musicians of our time. Notice that three of the four 'greatest' were black. That's a picture of our popular culture now, and it does affect the young and gullible. Some of us are less vulnerable to such influences, but many absorb liberal and multicultural ideas via popular music.

Sinead O'Connor is an extreme example of the mindset that has infected the whole Western world, particularly the young people who have been indoctrinated their whole lives.

And she is a picture of the hysterical female, the epitome of the liberal, bleeding-heart, PC schoolmarm mindset, the 'soft-hearted' totalitarian who hates in the name of love.

Earl Scruggs, 1924-2012

Earl Scruggs, legendary bluegrass musician, has died at the age of 88.

''Earl Scruggs earned his place in music history when he stumbled across a unique banjo-playing style at the age of 10. He was the first to master and refine a three-finger picking method. During his later years, he experimented with the electric banjo and helped expand the instrument's traditional bluegrass repertoire to include rock 'n' roll.''

 Like most fans of bluegrass, country, or just good American music, I was a great fan of Earl Scruggs. He will be missed by many people. He was a national treasure.

La Raza finally weighs in

The Hispanic organization, which has been silent on the furor over a Hispanic man, George Zimmerman, shooting a black boy, finally speaks up. But they apparently did so only after being mentioned by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh apparently noted the silence of the Hispanic radical organization about 'one of their own', so to speak. The organization's spokesfemale says:

"We really regret people trying to use this to divide blacks and Latinos," said Lisa Navarrete, a spokeswoman for La Raza. "It's disturbing to us that Rush Limbaugh has this theory. The only time he apparently cares about what happens to a Latino is when they may have happened to kill a young African-American man."

So, publicly they keep up the appearance of solidarity between blacks and Hispanics, though the reality is that the two groups have clashed repeatedly in school and prison altercations, as well as in gang violence.

Yesterday, fellow blogger Old Atlantic noted the silence from the 'Hispanic community' throughout all the media controversy. It seems that La Raza is intent on leaving Zimmerman out there on his own, in favor of siding with their 'allies' against Whitey. It seems it's easy to put aside their rivalries and conflicts in favor of joining against Rush Limbaugh (who has approached race, if at all, very gingerly) and ultimately, against the Gringo, the arch-enemy as they perceive him.

Personally, I think the Hispanic revanchists see someone like Zimmerman, with a non-Hispanic name, as being, at best, a half-breed, not really one of their own. Perhaps he is seen as a 'Tio Taco' because he is on the side of law and order.

Notice the snarky caption below the photo of Zimmerman:
"George Zimmerman, who says he killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense, identifies himself as Hispanic"

Good old objective journalism.

Despite the outward show of solidarity, the two groups do not have amicable relations with one another, but let's not make the mistake of assuming that Hispanics are on 'our side'. Some Whites invariably praise the fact that Latinos are not intimidated by blacks, but that hardly means that they are on our side. When the chips are down, their common animosity towards White America will win out, even if only on a short-term basis.

Avoiding reality

There's a blog piece on the Zimmerman-Martin story at OneSTDV here
and there is quite a long comment thread following.

On it, certain subjects crop up that are recurring issues among those on our side. One example is the claim, often made, that 'liberals', or DWLs if you must, are people who avoid all contact with 'NAMs', and prefer living in lily-White (it's almost always worded that way) enclaves or upscale neighborhoods. Almost everyone seems to agree with that.

Is it true?

Another comment links social class and/or educational level with being indoctrinated into the media's warped picture of the world.
Is there any connection between social class or economic level and 'DWL' attitudes? I think it's pretty well established via studies and surveys that educational level is a predictor of liberal attitudes.

Liberals and leftists often crow that they (liberals) are more educated and 'smarter' than right-wingers, but anyone who has a modicum of life experience knows that education and intelligence do not always go together; as my dear Daddy used to say, there are 'educated fools'. Higher education nowadays is notoriously liberal in content and politically correct; many young people from conservative families go off to college and return fully indoctrinated into cultural Marxism and the trendy chic leftism of our day. So yes, higher education is often indoctrination into the PC orthodoxies.

For that matter, even the elementary school children get large doses of indoctrination these days, mostly around the subject of 'diversity and inclusion'. And this takes place in supposedly conservative Christian schools as well.

Someone on the OneSTDV thread mentioned how the lower or lower-middle classes are indoctrinated thanks to their heavy TV consumption. One does not need to go to college or university to become brainwashed; it's all available through your television set and in your movie theater, and much of it is aimed at the less educated classes. They imbibe it through commercials, movies, popular TV shows -- sitcoms feature 'gay' characters, interracial characters, miscegeny, the whole gamut of the ideas that are being pushed by the cultural Marxists.

I am not sure that there is a clear difference in attitudes based on social classes or educational levels. It seems that everybody is subject to the messages being propagated by our PC establishment; it is just dispensed in different formats or packaging for different people.

Ideally those with higher education would have been taught to think independently, and to evaluate things for themselves, based on an established set of standards. But such things are not taught much these days. It seems that some people for unknown reasons resist the barrage of propaganda that is directed at us all. Are such people impervious for a discernible reason?

I would like to think that a regenerate Christian would better be able to discern moral issues -- which are also political issues in many cases. But sadly, this does not seem to be the case overall. Many Christians who follow the cult of 'niceness' cannot see through the cultural Marxist propaganda, and accept it as being consonant with Christianity, which it is not. It is a cheap counterfeit, or a perversion of the teachings of Christ.

Amusingly, someone on the thread asks (and I'm paraphrasing here) whether liberals do in fact have some kind of mental disorder or perhaps even a parasite that affects their cognition. It's been said, often, that 'liberalism is a mental disorder', and at times I've half believed it. However I was once a deluded liberal and though it took me years to find my way out of that maze, I did so, and now want to see others emerge safely from it. However some people never seem to be able to see the world outside the liberal paradigm, and thus continue to nurse their liberal delusions on into old age. It seems that only a few people escape intact from it. Why?

But there is something very troubling about a belief system that so affects adherents' ability to think logically and objectively, and to discern truth from falsehood. Liberalism/leftism/progressivism, or whatever label you choose, are all edifices of lies. They are built on mistaken notions about human nature, the world, and morality. There is clearly some kind of delusion involved there. I can see it in some of the liberals/leftists that I know; they literally cannot think their way out of the maze that is liberalism.

But to return to the perennial question about why liberals like to live away from the 'diversity' they claim to celebrate. My answer is: they don't always shun it. Many of them deliberately live in 'bohemian'-type neighborhoods, often on the edge of ghettos or barrios. Many liberals/leftists enjoy this kind of 'edgy' environment. Oftentimes these people have multiracial or multicultural friends.

Many of the idealistic lefties, usually college students or younger adults, live in run-down neighborhoods by necessity, because, despite their being college-educated, they often work at low-paying jobs, and cannot afford to live in the big city unless they live in a 'diverse' urban area with lower rents. They often have to use public transit, and this, too, inevitably brings you in contact with 'diversity' in any big city. Riding public transit of whatever type is often an education in itself for those liberals who come from non-diverse small towns or rural areas. I would prescribe riding public transit in a big city (or even a mid-size one) as a way for the naïve to get a taste of reality.

Sadly, though, even exposure to the urban jungle does not convert many young liberals from their delusions; I know because I used to be such a person, and it took many years of exposure to the dangers of city life, being mugged, robbed, and harassed, and having relatives and co-workers mugged and robbed (and worse) and still I held onto my liberal beliefs. Somehow, the lights came on after many years of cumulative experience, but for some dyed-in-the-wool lefties, the light never goes on. They clutch their illusions, and refuse to give them up. They cope by clinging to their utopian beliefs and wishful thoughts.

It's easier for some on our side to insist that liberals avoid diversity and thus maintain their ideology, but it is not always true. Some have a lot of exposure to the reality, but still refuse to see obvious patterns.

Human beings are more complicated than we like to think.

And the power of all the indoctrination, in addition to peer pressure and 'groupthink', works against us.

We'd like to think that all this hype and agitprop about the Zimmerman-Martin case will jolt some people to reality, but will it?

In a 1965 movie called A Thousand Clowns, Jason Robards Jr. played a very liberal character, a perpetual adolescent, who resisted being integrated into the adult world of responsibility and 'conformism', as he saw it. I can only think of the scene in which someone speaks to him of getting back to reality, and he quickly responds: "I'll only go as a tourist!" Liberals prefer not to even visit reality as a 'tourist', much less live in it. They prefer their imaginary 'constructs' to reality.

The media frenzy continues

Even though the Zimmerman-Martin case has been all over the media recently, and it should have been displaced by other news by now, it continues to generate a surprising amount of comment all over the Internet.

I don't know that I can add anything or say anything that has not already been said by many people, but I will just point you to a couple of links that are worth reading.

David Yeagley writes about the story here, and offers his usual unique take on it.

Here, Yahoo News even posts some unflattering details which contradict the media script as it has been presented recently.

As of now, the article has over 10,000 comments, some of them quite 'realist' in tone.

And CNN asks readers who are participating in the many protests across the country, 'What are your reasons for rallying?', and invites protesters to post photos of themselves.

But one of the oddest stories is the 2000-word 'open letter' from Irish singer Sinead O'Connor, blasting 'white America' for the incident.

“When you dishonor the the utter glory and majesty of black people, you lie. Your heart lies to you and you let it. Despite seeing every day, all your life, how you and your country would be less than wonderfully functioning and inspiring to the world, without the manifold and glorious contributions made by the descendants of African slaves, who did not by the way actually ask to go to America and leave their future families there to be disrespected for eternity.

What are you doing hating yourself by hating your brothers and sisters who daily show you nothing but inspiration and love, despite having NOTHING, in their own country? Despite having barely a chance of anything, because of racism. Despite being granted no ‘permission’ for proper self-esteem.”

And to black people, O'Connor says:

"Why are you killing each other? Why are you hating yourselves? You are the most important people God ever sent to this earth, every man, woman and child among you! Don’t let uneducated people win and take your self-esteem or your esteem for each other, and make you kill each other over guns, drugs, bling, or any other nonsense.”

[Emphasis mine]

As for the last paragraph quoted above, the bolded text in particular -- it makes me think of Cambria Will Not Yield's assertions that those who Sinead calls the 'most important people God ever sent to this earth' are in fact the objects of worship for people like Ms O'Connor and the many other White cult-members. Actually, they are the ones to whom Ms O'Connor should be addressing the part about 'Why are you hating yourselves?'

I read somewhere online -- but can't find the source -- that something like 75 per cent of Americans think George Zimmerman should be convicted. There's the power of the media and of the peer pressure to which far too many White Americans succumb.

A matter of rights

Ministers plan major immigration crackdown
The Telegraph reports that a 'major immigration crackdown' is planned for Britain.

The majority of the 2200+ comments on the article aren't buying it.

One of the proposals involves a minimum income to bring a spouse to Britain from outside the European Union, and an even higher income to bring children in. Other measures would include a probationary period for spouses and 'partners' seeking permanent residence.

''The proposals could cut the number of immigrants allowed in by 15,000 a year - a significant step towards the Government's aim of reducing "net" migration to 100,000 people each year.''

The proposals, even if carried out, would hardly make a dent in the huge numbers of immigrants who arrive in Britain yearly. So this is obviously not much of a 'crackdown' and it does not indicate a reversal in the government's tolerance of mass immigration of both the legal and illegal variety.

The fact that 'net' migration is the issue here is meant to confuse the average citizen; the government figures subtract out-migration from the total of new arrivals and the 'net' figure reflects that. And the majority of those migrating out are likely to be people of native British stock, not 'immigrants' returning home.

As always, though, the comments are interesting to read, and who knows how long they will remain up on the site. It seems the moderation policy is fairly permissive, and I wonder how much of the venting is allowed as a kind of pressure valve for the obviously high levels of discontent.

There are a few very good commenters (look for comments by 'billprendergast') and a few odious leftwing, anti-White comments, most of which were by someone whose avatar is a red rose. Each and every post I saw by this person contained allusions to 'Nazis'; Godwin's Law, anyone?

 There were a few people who kept complaining that the new proposals would deny their 'right' to marry a foreign woman and bring her to the UK. Where do these 'rights' come from? People pull such 'rights' out of thin air. Nobody has such a 'right.' The complainers certainly have the 'right' to go and live among the spouse's people, which would seem a logical move; after all, by marrying an alien spouse, they have chosen which people they want their progeny to belong to. Why not go whole hog and move to the country whose people you prefer to marry?

Those arguing against the 'right to marry whomever we choose and bring our spouse to our country' failed to make the point, though, that by bringing foreign spouses into your homeland, you foster chain migration, as foreign wives almost always bring multiple relatives to the magnet country; first, it's mama, or possibly children from a previous marriage, then siblings, cousins, and so on, ad infinitum. One such marriage can result in a whole new colony, and many such marriages can lead to widespread demographic change.

And then there is the overall 'right to migrate', which has been invented out of whole cloth by the globalist/leftists over the last few decades. Where is such a right guaranteed? And yet too many of us accept that there is such a 'right.'

Too much emphasis on the individual's ''rights'' at the expense of the larger kin group and nation is, in part, what has helped bring us to our sorry state.

What's on your minds?

This is an invitation to post about something that is on your mind, since it seems that I am not writing much that stimulates comment lately.

If there are readers out there who haven't yet commented, I invite you to come out of lurkdom and say hello.

I notice that lately I have been getting more hits from Australia, and that is good to see; I follow events in that part of the world with some interest.

I see also by my stats that I have readers from parts of Texas and Louisiana which are familiar to me, so it's good to see that I have readers from those places.

If anyone has links that they would like to call attention to, feel free to do so on this thread.

Finally, I do appreciate all of you who read this blog. Thanks for being here.

Burr on 'Saxon and Norman principles'

There have been a couple of blog pieces on the subject of how the Normans figured into the picture of Southern history. First, here, followed by Michael's piece at Southern Nationalist Network, The Normans in Dixie.


The article which sparked the first post, at OD, was by J. Quitman Moore in De Bow's Review. In that piece, the writer posits that the two major strains which vied for power in England were Anglo-Saxons and Normans. He says that they are distinct nations.

This fits with the idea that has seemingly become accepted, that the English colonists from East Anglia, who settled New England, were a distinct people from the 'Cavalier' stock who settled Virginia.

It seems to me that these ideas are at the same time an oversimplification and a needless multiplying of 'peoples' in England. Despite the fact that England has a great deal of regional 'diversity' (in the good sense) and yet it was not a multicultural congeries, as these theories might tend to suggest.

These days, the media are busily trying to implant the idea that Britain was always a 'multicultural' nation, a 'mongrel nation' as someone has ungraciously put it. The idea that there were all these mutually antagonistic peoples in England or Britain adds fuel to the propaganda.

The Normans are something of a vanishing people themselves; one hardly meets anyone today who wants to claim Norman ancestry, but surely the descendants of the Normans of old still exist both in Britain and in this country and all the Anglosphere countries.

Just as English-descended Americans are hard to find (though they certainly exist in the millions) Norman descendants are very scarce. Maybe this is true in part because the Normans have gotten very bad press, and have the reputation of being oppressors and tyrants, or perhaps French-ified snobs, aristocrats, and of course in our ultra-egalitarian America, aristocrats are evil by definition.

But maybe it's true simply because many Americans are unaware of their ancestry, as I always say.

I have little to contribute to the discussions on the two blog entries, but I will just quote a work by C. Chauncey Burr, written in 1863, from the chapter The Saxon And The Norman Principles Of Government. Regardless of whether we think that the English colonists who settled this land were some kind of warring peoples or nations amongst themselves, (and I don't believe it is as extreme as that) it is interesting to ponder how our ideas on government were shaped.

"There is something inexpressibly solemn in this investigation which we commence to-night.

To sit face to face with the venerable dead - to listen again to the voices of their wisdom out of the imperishable words they have left behind - this is a thought that holds our hearts still, and almost stops our breath. Is this a place for politicians to wrangle over? Will you bring here your loads of hate - of partisan lust and revenge, and throw them down on the silent bosoms of your fathers?

No! Patiently, reverently let us find out their footsteps, and nobly resolve that we will forsake them nevermore.

The man that does not love his country, turns his back upon himself.

Our country is ourselves; for we are all parts of the public system which constitutes the grand edifice of our social and political lives.

The man who even dies for his country, dies for himself, for his children, and for the honor of his forefathers.

It is a family interest that connects him with the glory of his country.

What are a few days added to a man's life, compared to the progressive perpetuity of those institutions which are to be the abode of all the descending generations of his offspring? Only as a minute compared to a thousand years.

It is of little moment whether you and I go hence to-day or to-morrow. Every act of ours that bears upon our country's weal or woe is something infinitely greater than our life.

When we come to investigate the origin of the principles of our Government, we must go a great ways back of our colonial period.
[...]
Principles which hold up the weight of states and kingdoms are not inventions. They are growths, good or bad, out of time and circumstances.

One layer of time has Providence piled upon another for immemorial ages, every one of which is essential to the integrity of the whole system.

We who live now stand upon the topmost layer; but remove the one beneath us, and we must go down. Remove the lowest strata of all, and the whole pile would tumble in ruins.

Had Greece been different from what it is, Rome would not have been what she was.

Had Rome been different, Saxony and Normandy would not have been what they were.

Had these been different, England would not be what she is.

Had England been different, we should not be what we are-we should not be here to-night.

We are all parts of one stupendous whole, and are making future generations, just as past generations have made us.

Our fathers transmitted a priceless boon of government to us; and, by an eternal law of Providence, we must send it down to our posterity, a boon or a bane.

As we act to-day, must our children curse or bless our memories.

As we act to-day, shall we transmit to the generations of our offspring the sacred principles of self-government and liberty, or those of anarchy and despotism.

The blood of our fathers was poured out like rain in defense of those principles. And not only of our fathers, but of hundreds of thousands of Saxons in England, even before the time of feudalism.

For old England, under her Saxon kings, was a kingly confederacy. That was the old Saxon idea of liberty, that the people should somehow rule. In their institutions the name of "PEOPLE" was never lost, whether in their furtherest antiquity among the forests of Germany, or on the ancient plains of Britainy. [sic]

Our fathers, when they began the business of governing themselves, but expanded what the Saxons commenced more than a thousand years ago; before, indeed, the races of the North of Europe had a history of their own, or a place in the history of the more civilized Southern nations.

And these Anglo-Saxons waded through hundreds of years of blood in noble resistance to the centralizing despotism of the Norman sovereigns.

More than a thousand years ago this battle between the ideas of local self-government and of centralized despotism crimsoned every field in Britainy.

The principle of local independence was the Saxon idea. That of centralization, or of all power proceeding from a great and irresponsible center, was the Norman idea. Hence, "when the Saxons conquered Britain, its comparatively small territory was divided into several petty kingdoms or loosely-compacted commonwealths. And again, each of these was parceled out into various other divisions, such as counties, shires, tithings, and other partitions, the origin of which puzzles the antiquarian."

This old Saxon spirit of state independence animated the local institutions and all the small divisions with an energy and general prosperity that never could have been developed under a strongly-controlling central power.

Under the Saxon principle, the masses of the people flourish. They are free, and, therefore, the arbiters of their own destiny. Their very freedom imparts an ambition and an enterprise, which are never seen where the Norman principle of centralized power prevails.''

[Note: I have posted the entire chapter over at the Forum, here, for anyone who cares to read it. I am thinking of posting more items over there, though at the moment it is rather a ghost town.]

Take Me Back to Texas

This time of year is when the wildflowers bloom, as you see in this video. The bluebonnets and Indian paintbrush are the flowers that typify Texas in spring, for me.

As for the song in the video, the song was originally called 'The Lonesome Pine Special', and it was a Carter Family song. I don't know who is performing the song in the video, though I tried to find out. Actually I prefer their version to the original Carter Family version. You can see and hear it here, and judge for yourself.

Sharper than a serpent's tooth

You've probably seen this story about an old couple who were victims of a home invasion. The story itself is sad enough, without some of the commentary that has been written about it.

Recently I expressed some anger with internet comments which declared victims of elder abuse in a nursing home to be 'deserving' of the cruelty they endured. Why? Because they were 'baby-boomers' (though the article didn't specify that; they may have been 'Greatest Generation' people) and thus, guilty of destroying our society.

Where's the feeling of kinship and filial piety in comments like that? Hating what is happening to us and our folk is not enough, not nearly enough -- not if it leaves room for hating our elders or others of our folk because of the generation they belong to.

Where's the loyalty? Loyalty which is based in love or at least in feelings of commonality and common roots is the sine qua non of the real ethnonationalist. Being for our people is far better than being against our foes, because love and loyalty will provide the impetus we need to defend ourselves and our way of life. Love for our progeny -- even if we don't have our own children, the progeny of all our folk -- is also a vital ingredient. Each of us as individuals may have our short 'threescore and ten' on this earth, and then we pass on. Living for ourselves as individuals is not sufficient; our lives are pitifully short, as all of us learn as we enter the last decades of our lives.

Youth has a certain narcissism and arrogance; I was guilty of it as a young person in my teens and twenties, and so were most of you, unless you were that rare paragon of virtue. Most young people (and the period known as 'youth' seems to have extended into the 30s and beyond, today) imagine themselves to be immortal, and impervious to age and all its ills and frailties. It's easy to be callous and even cruel towards the old when we are young, good-looking, fit, and energetic. It's easy to say flippant things about how the old should 'step aside' and make way for the almighty Young. It's easy to accuse and condemn our elders for 'messing up' the world and creating all the ills that beset our world. As if the world was perfect, a Garden of Eden before our parents and grandparents came along and made a wreck of it. The world has always been imperfect, ever since Adam and Eve. Granted, the world has gone to hell in the proverbial handbasket in the last several decades, in a way that could not be matched in earlier and saner times. But this world has always been beset by troubles and trials, and always will be, until it is put to rights by Divine means.

Every generation has its blind spots, and its failings. Nowadays, since Tom Brokaw dubbed the World War II generation as 'the greatest' generation, countless cynics have pronounced them as anything but great: they were dimwits who followed their leaders blindly; they were jingoists. They were warmongers. They were hypocrites. They fought on the wrong side in WWII, so say many on the right. It's all well and good to make those judgements from a distance; we now know things that were not widely known or acknowledged then. It's easy and facile to judge from our vantage point. But we cannot know how things would have turned out had our elders behaved differently then. We cannot honestly say what the outcome would have been, and we should resist the temptation to make absolute judgments about the decisions that were made.

Maybe someday -- if we have any progeny that carry on our genes and our heritage -- those descendants will vilify us and the choices we made. If things are worse, perhaps they will blame us endlessly. Perhaps those who are young today, and hate their elders, will one day be candidates for euthanasia by those who have no respect for age.

But to return to the story about Mr. and Mrs. Strait, who seem to have been a lovely old couple with a large family, I was disgusted to read a comment that asked what these people did to avert what has happened to our people, and implied that the couple were probably liberals who were to blame for all the horrific events we see unfolding around us, and by extension, for the attack that they themselves suffered.

I don't know the couple, obviously, but I would bet, based on their age, their place of residence and their apparent class origins that they were people of traditional viewpoints, like most people of the 'greatest generation' were. My parents were of that era, and their viewpoints on the subjects that vex us now were as 'realist' and hard-line as those of most people that post on ethnonationalist sites, if not more so. And one of my parents was  a Yankee, growing up in a smaller town up North. People of that time would have been freakish, incongruous, if they espoused the kind of liberal, universalist, egalitarian, PC nonsense that is gospel to today's younger generations. Most of them were clear-thinking, common-sense people. Remember, they grew up in an era without the pernicious influnce of television, trash pop culture, and educational indoctrination. To today's judgmental eyes, they were probably simple-mindedly patriotic, but most people of that era and that background were salt-of-the-earth people, who did the best they could.

Those of us who are Christians should honor our fathers and our mothers, and I read that commandment very broadly. I don't take it to mean just my own mother and father, but my whole ancestral line, as well as the elders and past generations of our kin group. The old do not deserve to be condemned just because we flatter ourselves that we are smarter, and that we would have done better with the hand they were dealt than they did.

There's little respect now for the wisdom of the old, and this fact does not bode well for us. Thinking ourselves to be wiser and more perceptive than the past generations, we today want to discard their ways, and to shun any knowledge they gained by their life experience. Thus we are deprived of a great deal of knowledge and a perspective that might enable us to see beyond the delusions of our day. All because we imagine that we are the epitome of knowledge ourselves, and can learn nothing from those unsightly old people.

In the book of Isaiah, the prophet says we are 'ruled by children', and so we are, or perhaps by 30- and 40-year old 'adultlescents' who look down on their elders.

In any case, the Straits deserve to be treated with respect, and not judged based on unfounded speculations about their supposed 'liberal' ways.

Meantime: what are the critics of today doing about what is happening, other than pointing fingers at the past generations? What are all the 'millennials' who mostly voted for the present regime doing, beyond passing judgement on others?

These people are fatherless and motherless 'children', having petulantly cut themselves off from the past and from the lessons thereof. What can you learn from your elders, or from history, if you already know it all?

Just as expected

Earlier today I happened to see a little of a EuroNews report on the events in France, and there was Sarkozy saying the usual things:

"I say to the nation that we must all come together. (…) Terrorism will not succeed in fracturing our national community. We must not yield to 'amalgams' or to vengeance."

Read the linked article for an explanation of 'amalgams' in this context.

This is exactly the kind of smarmy rhetoric I remember hearing from our 'leaders' after terror attacks in this country. Every time something -- like the Fort Hood shootings -- happened, there would be a lot of posturing and warnings about not being 'divisive' or warnings that we must not let 'diversity' suffer because of the acts of isolated individuals.


They are all reading off the same script, these 'leaders'.


And then following the snippets of Sarkozy's speech, we were treated to the predicted sob-story about how the Moslem 'community' feared a backlash. So predictable.


Then there were warnings of criminal punishment for those who read politically incorrect websites or promote 'extremism.' Every warning they make has to be all-inclusive; everybody is potentially a threat, according to these statements.


Is it my perception only, or are these kinds of statements from authorities  becoming much more blatant?

But it doesn't exist

Does it? If not, what is this site all about? Oh, I see; ethnicity is all right, while 'race' is not. Ethnicity, you see, is apparently not a social construct.

A reader recommended this site to me, I believe, though I can't recall which of you did. It is illuminating, I suppose, as to the kind of popular beliefs that are held by many younger people who are avid consumers of 'celebrity pop culture.'

The article at the top is about -- wonder of wonders,  an Anglo-American, Peyton Manning. At least, according to the site, he is Anglo-American.  That's a rarity on sites like the linked one; read down the page if you can and you will see what I mean.

A couple of posts below the Peyton Manning entry is one about a Latina rapper who is a political activist against immigration control. If you follow the links you will read how she likens the Arizona immigration law to 'what they did before to Jewish people.'

By the way, I haven't heard anyone argue lately that Mexicans born in this country (as this 'rapper' was) are ''just as opposed to illegal immigration as we are''. Whatever happened to that meme? Maybe it just didn't hold up in the light of reality. Nobody could say it with a straight face anymore.

The rapper/activist says that she will fight for ''her people'' and she does not mean us gringos and gabachos and gueros. That's the reality.

But the website makes the whole issue of ethnicity and race seem trivial and harmless, with the underlying message being that just about everybody is mixed, sometimes beyond any hope of a distinct identity, but that is a good thing.

Diversity: celebrate it.

Truthiness vs. truth

The ongoing story of the shooter in France -- who would have guessed; he was a North African Moslem -- took an unexpected turn, at least from the biased media's point of view.

I was suspicious of the conclusions to which the controlled media were jumping; they were obviously eager to write the story of a 'White far-right extremist' or 'White supremacist', arrested for the shootings. I am certain that they are sorely disappointed and angry that they did not get the story they were so looking forward to writing. But never mind; they'll try to salvage the story somehow, by trying to conjure up some kind of link between the shooter and hypothetical 'neo-Nazis'. At the very least, they can always work the ''victim of White racism'' angle. No doubt he grew up in a deprived environment, was 'discriminated against', and felt alienated from French society, despite the fact that he is a 'Frenchman,' at least according to the strange definitions employed by the media.

The government and the media are probably already putting out the  'Islam is a religion of peace' propaganda, the sob stories about how Moslems 'fear a backlash',  and the favorite about how these violent acts are 'isolated incidents' not representative of true Islam.

Oh, and we mustn't '...let Toulouse blow out the flame of French diversity.'

I wonder why, when some White right-winger or nationalist is accused of something, the 'isolated incident' argument isn't used. No, it's always assumed to be part of some conspiracy, and everybody of that group must be blamed: the ordinary people, affiliated with no group or ideology, who might hold nativist or nationalist views, they are all just as much a threat, so the media says, as the one who acts out in some way. Tim McVeigh, much as I hate to even mention him, was assumed to be part of some widespread conspiracy -- and if he was, it was not likely to have been nationalists or the 'militia' bogeymen of that era.

This incident, though it was not the work of French nationalists or right-wingers, will probably still be used to besmirch the name of Marine Le Pen, and to discredit her party.

For the left, the fact that their scenario has been proven false does not stop them from playing the same card anyway. If you point out that they were wrong about the identity of the shooter or the motives, they will likely answer that 'well, it could have been true.' Remember the term, ''truthiness''? The idea of 'truthiness' is that whether or not something is factually true, it can still be 'truthy' in that it is plausible or possible. And the more one wants it to be true -- or even just possible -- the easier it is to believe.

On January 6, 2006, the American Dialect Society announced that "truthiness" was selected as its 2005 Word of the Year. The Society described its rationale as follows:

    In its 16th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted truthiness as the word of the year. First heard on The Colbert Report, a satirical mock news show on the Comedy Central television channel, truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.''

The left clearly prefers certain things to be true, and they are not fazed when facts don't coincide with their preferences. Obviously they prefer that people who commit acts of violence like those shootings in France be White 'extremists' and 'anti-Semites', not Moslem North Africans. And they prefer that incidents like the Zimmerman - Martin incident have a White perpetrator also. No, they won't relinquish their biases and preferences; they will hold tenaciously to them, because they prefer them. They 'could be' true, and that matters more than the actual facts.

A media construct

I haven't been keeping up with the Zimmerman-Martin shooting controversy, mainly because I am now TV-free and it seems that much of the media frenzy is on cable TV news. At times like this, when the media are indulging in overkill on some such story, I am delighted not to have TV in the household. I do have access to some TV news via Roku (and the Internet generally, obviously) but I zealously avoid the 'mainstream' news on TV.

Nevertheless I gather a few things from the coverage I have read: first, the story is one of those template stories the media major in. 'Youth' is shot by some villainous White male, most often a police officer but sometimes a would-be crime victim who fights back. But the 'youth' is always depicted as pure as the driven snow, an innocent young man with 'dreams for the future', and when he is (usually) revealed to have had scrapes with authority figures, he is said to have been 'turning his life around'.

In this case the authority figure is a Neighborhood Watch captain doing his job, in the course of which he shoots the 'youth.' Media frenzy ensues, of course.

The shooter, George Zimmerman, has been depicted as overzealous and trigger-happy -- as well as 'racist', but then that goes without saying, doesn't it? However there is another side to the story:

''George is a congenial, amiable, admirable person,” he said. "He had a passion and a care for this neighborhood to ensure the safety of everybody here. And, furthermore, George is no Rambo."

Taaffe said that Zimmerman actually was appointed as a watch captain, despite reports that he appointed himself to the post.

He said he believes his neighbor acted in self-defense. That is what Zimmerman told police.

Zimmerman has not been charged, despite growing calls for his arrest.''

The mainstream media claimed that the gun which was used in the incident was fired twice, while it appears that story is false; it was fired once, according to this story.

Obviously there has been some misrepresentation of the facts, just as is usually the case in such politically-charged stories.

Now we hear that the 'Just-Us' Department is to become involved. No surprise there.

One oddity in the case, which makes the story not fit the usual Whitey vs. innocent 'youth' template is that George Zimmerman, despite the German sound of his name, is said to be Hispanic -- while the media bizarrely insist that he is White.

The photos show him to be very Latino in appearance.

But then if we remember that law enforcement, in many cases, categorizes Hispanics 'White' when they are accused of crimes, but 'Hispanic' when they are victims -- then it makes a perverse sort of sense.

However, somewhat in line with my post of yesterday about racial confusion, it seems that a great many people even on WN blogs or forums insist that Zimmerman does not look Hispanic; some insist he actually looks 'White', but these same people are probably the ones who irately insist (at AmRen and elsewhere) that Hispanics are often White, and that 'Hispanic is not a race!' Well, fair enough; it isn't a 'race', but it is very safe to assume, when hearing a Spanish-sounding name in the United States, that the bearer is mestizo, as the vast majority of 'Hispanics' in our country are mestizo. The fact that such is not the case with Hispanics in other countries is not very relevant; what matters is our immediate experience of Hispanics here. I am not sure why so many people on certain blogs have a bee in their bonnets about making Hispanics 'White', but there you go; more confusion on the subject of ethnicity and race, when it is often pretty straightforward.

A side note: some people are insisting that Zimmerman is a 'Jewish' name, and in some cases it is, just as with Bob Dylan, who was born Zimmerman. But in many cases it is simply a German name. It just denotes 'carpenter.'

In any case, the family of George Zimmerman says he is Hispanic and he looks mestizo. That's enough for me.

But why are the mainstream media so bent on labeling him as 'White'? It is bizarre, unless you just think of it as a way of forcing the incident to fit their favorite template of 'Evil White vs. innocent minority.'

But it is a social construct

This topic at AmRen has drawn 200+ comments, so obviously it's something readers must feel strongly about. Many of the comments are confused, to say the least. Is race a 'social construct'? Judging by many of the 'race realist' comments, yes, it is.

Soledad O'Brien has always been, to my eye, either Caribbean or mixed White-black in appearance.

Is there such a category of people as 'mixed', and does mixed mean that the person can claim either/or, rather than being classified arbitrarily as one or the other?

Traditionally there was not much confusion on this issue. In the 40s and 50s there were entertainers like Lena Horne who today would be called 'mixed'; however, they were originally classed as black, despite having some obviously European-like features (aided by plastic surgery and hair-straighteners, usually). Still despite their non-African features or their lighter coloring they were called 'negro' or 'black.' Not 'mixed', and certainly not White, and nobody suggested that they could choose either/or for their racial identity.

Nowadays it seems even AmRen readers think Soledad O'Brien could just as accurately be labeled 'White' because she has a White parent, and some insist she looks White to their eyes.

One perceptive reader says 'race is not just about skin color.' In other words, race is genetic, not just about outward appearance.

I've seen mixed-race families in which one child will be fairly 'White' in appearance, while another will appear close to 100 per cent non-white. So then can two children of the same parents actually be of different races?

That's what the mainstream media and the PC 'scientists' would have us think. Remember this story from last year?

Then there was this one.
And let's not forget this one.

The 'twin' stories are a special favorite of the 'race is a social construct, take your pick' crowd. Twins are often thought of as identical, (obviously there are non-identical, dizygotic twins as well) so the sets of twins seem to be irrevocable proof that race is a random thing, and that people of any race can produce, willy-nilly, offspring of any race, or children of several races. The more knowledgeable will not believe this, but a great many ill-informed people eat such stories up.

Then there's this story, whose opening paragraph even trumpets:

''If you know someone who still doesn't understand that race is a construct, go ahead and forward them the story about Carole Fraser — and her twins — from The Mirror.

Little Daniel and Martha are brother and sister — they're not black or white; they're both. Or neither. There's all this stuff in the piece about the children being "unusual" and how the chances of having babies of different colors is "a million to one." But as anyone from a racially mixed family will tell you, there are all kinds of skin tones and possibilities and green eyes and ranges of hair texture that can occur.''

And on and on. And it's working, according to the 'race realists' at AmRen, some of whom fully believe that race is a matter of how White (or not) someone looks.

So O'Brien and her White husband, though their children look outwardly European, could possibly give birth to a child that could be called nonwhite -- if that child looks more African, having inherited more of the African genes in the roll of the dice.

Genetically, all the children of any of the couples involved in the stories above are nonwhite, if you divide people into 'White or not'. However, if, along with the 'social construct' believers, you believe that there is a category (or many categories) called 'mixed', or 'half-and-half' then a couple of which one is White and the other not can have children of different races. Is anyone else's head spinning?

If we start making up a category called 'mixed', as some forms allow for when identifying race and ancestry, then we might just end up with all manner of racial classifications, as they have in Latin America. Notice the Mexican list has quite a few labels, but notice the Brazilian list of classifications which has over a hundred.

In earlier times there was the 'one-drop rule.' Not so long ago, black actress Halle Berry (who has a White mother) cited the 'one-drop rule' in asserting that her own child who has a White father is black.

She caught considerable flak for that comment, but she is firmly within American tradition to make that call. However the 'race-realists' at AmRen seem to disagree, just as they disagree about the race of a certain well-known politician. ''He's just as White as he is black!" was the cry back during 2008. ''Why does he want to deny his White side?" they asked indignantly.

Too bad we can't call on our ancestors to sort this confusion out for us; they weren't confused.

One quibble about the 'White' children with a black parent: children of one White and one black parent may look light-skinned, but in most cases their skin will darken and will not always look 'Caucasian.' Even though they may have light-colored hair, this, too, usually darkens by later childhood and the teen years, and may be quite dark by adulthood. This is even true with many European-descended people who were born blond and whose hair darkened to brown or dark brown by adulthood if not sooner. I have known many such people. The children of these White/black couples will grow less European-looking over time.

Though this issue may seem trivial, at least one commenter at AmRen points out to the confused commenters that if we choose to make racial identification a matter of personal choice, or whim, we will end up with a Brazil situation, in which there are very few people of all-European ancestry. If anyone who looks 'mostly' White is classified (or classifies himself) as such, then there will be surprises down the line when a child unexpectedly displays nonwhite features and coloring. There will be a great many non-European genes introduced into our gene pool if we categorize people strictly on outward appearance. But then that's the whole point, isn't it?

And it seems that many Americans have bought the false idea (knowingly promoted by the PC 'scientists') that race is 'just a matter of skin pigmentation.' There are many, many differences which make the races distinct, such as skeletal differences,, including bone density, differences in the muscle development, in cranial size and shape, dentition, shape of the foot, proportions of the body, glands, and even in gestational period. Voice, too, is different; many people have noted that they can tell black from white when talking to an unknown person on the phone, and it is not just about accent. Skin color is the least of it.

And I haven't even mentioned differences in affect and in behavior.

I have to hand it to the 'social construct' crowd; they've even got those hard-line 'race realists' buying their bill of goods.

In sheep's clothing

Not all that goes under the name nationalist is so in any real sense. There are a lot of deceptive groups out there, attempting to capitalize on the nascent nationalist sentiment that is arising in countries that are being swallowed up by the multicult.

It seems that one such group, the Welsh 'nationalist' party Plaid Cymru, has elected a new leader, a woman named Leanne Wood, which leaves an all-female group in leadership of the party.

Ms Wood is a Communist.
But that fits with the goals of the party, as outlined below:

Plaid Cymru's goals as set out in its constitution are:

•     To promote the constitutional advancement of Wales with a view to attaining independence within the European Union;
•     To ensure economic prosperity, social justice and the health of the natural environment, based on decentralist socialism;
•     To build a national community based on equal citizenship, respect for different traditions and cultures and the equal worth of all individuals, whatever their race, nationality, gender, colour, creed, sexuality, age, ability or social background;
•     To create a bilingual society by promoting the revival of the Welsh language;
•     To promote Wales's contribution to the global community and to attain membership of the United Nations.''

Green Arrow at the British Resistance site writes about the election:

''Well actually, it is not Plaid Cymru any more.  The former Welsh Nationalist political party has dropped any pretence at being the Party of Wales and are now simply called The Party and insanely believe, that even Somalians can be classed as being Welsh if they wish.

Plaid if you like, are the Welsh equivalent of the anti-British English Democrats, who both betray their countries and kinsmen with policies like this.

"To build a national community based on equal citizenship, respect for different traditions and cultures and the equal worth of all individuals, whatever their race, nationality, gender, colour, creed, sexuality, age, ability or social background"

Apparently the membership of Plaid Cymru has grown in recent times; I wonder how  many of the new members actually believe they are supporting a real nationalist party, and not a socialist party in the guise of nationalism?

The Scottish Nationalist Party is cut from much the same cloth. Why do no real nationalist parties appear? I suppose I could ask the same question about our country.

The Confederate heritage groups are somewhat the same, at least in their painful-to-watch effort to be multicultural and inclusive.

Nothing good can come of anything that has the least whiff of political correctness about it.

Thrown out just for kissing?

The headline I saw somewhere on the web blared: 'Kissing couple thrown out by security at Santorum rally'. Or words to that effect. At first I wondered what that could be about; it sounded like the security people were brutes. But after a second, I figured: oh, of course, it was a homosexual 'couple' that was involved. And sure enough, it was. This article is a little less biased than the usual media fare, naming the couple as being 'two men.'

It's exactly the kind of thing I would have expected. Santorum, being a Catholic and having the reputation of being socially conservative, is just the person to target for this kind of political theater. Gays and lefties of all stripes love to do something like this because it casts them in the role of victim and innocent underdog persecuted by the forces of 'hate' and fascicm. And Republicans seem not to know how to counter this kind of thing.

''Santorum was 15 minutes into his speech when the two men shouted and got the attention of the crowd. They exchanged a kiss, prompting guards to eject them and the crowd to chant “U-S-A” while they were leaving the gym.''

The last bit amused me. U-S-A? Last week, there was that incident in San Antonio, where a group of students from Alamo Heights High School chanted 'U-S-A' at a sports event, after which they were called 'racist' for chanting U-S-A. So now, it will be labeled an all-purpose ''hate'' chant used against the various and assorted ''victim'' groups by evil Whitey.

As things stand and this moment, I see the gays and the lefties and the 'socially liberal' Republicans winning the cultural battle. They have the few social conservatives on the run, and as I see it, few people know how to counter the left's manipulative tactics. I don't quite know what the answer is. Obviously the controlled media are stacking the deck shamlessly, but our side is not doing much of anything to push back.

As for Santorum himself, there's no need to point out his deficiencies to me; I am not a fan of his. (See the next-to-last paragraph of the article for the quote from him on foreign policy). But on this issue, I hope he stands his ground, and I  hope the few Christians and Catholics who have not succumbed to cultural Marxism will stand their ground, too.

Meantime, we have to find some kind of slogan or chant other than the 'U-S-A' business; as it happens, the USA of 2012 is decidedly not our country anymore if it ever was.

''O'Green Day''

It's hard to know parody from reality these days. This article about St. Patrick's Day being renamed in a Massachusetts town illustrates that.

''A Massachusetts school principal has enraged the local community by renaming St Patrick’s Day ‘O’Green Day’ in an effort to encourage diversity and remove the Catholic element.

Irish American parents and many others are dismayed by the actions of Lisa Curtin, herself an Irish American, at the Soule Road School in Wilbraham, Mass.

Principal Curtin decided to rename Ireland’s national day in an effort to be ‘inclusive and diverse’ and remove the religious factor.''

The main trend for several years has been to give St. Patrick's Day the 'diverse and multicultural' treatment. See this article from Miami.

“There will be a vast majority of entertainment such as food and Japanese Taiko drumming, and Afro-Cuban, gospel and Irish music.

“We chose a variety of professional artists of different cultural backgrounds to celebrate the diverse community that resides in El Portal,” said Renee Chavez, project coordinator for the non-profit group Community Arts and Culture, which is spearheading the event.''

Well, Miami is about as 'diverse and inclusive' (at least if you take that to mean 'lacking in White people') as it gets while still being part of the United States, so this is not surprising.

In New York City, there is whining about homosexuals being 'discriminated against' in the annual parade. As if the St. Patrick's Day Parade should be an occasion to 'celebrate' one's sexual predilections publicly.

This is all to be expected in America, the ''nation of immigrants'', the Multicult Melting Pot, or is the term 'salad bowl' now considered de rigueur?

But even in Drogheda, Ireland, multiculturalism prevails:

Cultures from around the globe will be celebrated along with Irish traditional music and dance.

In keeping with their goal to promote cultural integration and diversity, Culture Connect wish to bring communities from different ethnic and cultural groups together.''

It appears St. Patrick's Day has fallen to cultural Marxism, and that it has less to do with St. Patrick, Catholicism, Christianity, or the Irish than ever before in history. So maybe it's just as well that St. Patrick's Day parades seem to be fewer and farther between in the United States. The day will become increasingly irrelevant as Third World cultures demand to be front and center in any kind of public event, and they are happily obliged by our disloyal ''officials'' who miss no opportunity to fawn over 'diversity.'

In my town, which to my knowledge has never held a St. Patrick's Day parade, (too few Irish people), our annual ethnic celebration from a Northern European culture is now canceled and has been 'merged' with Cinco de Mayo. I wonder: when Mexicans come to dominate this town, as in places like Maywood, California or Mattawa, Washington, will they 'let' anybody have a Northern European cultural festival? Will they allow Whites to take center stage in their Latino cultural celebrations? I ask rhetorically, of course.

It seems that White 'ethnic pride' reached a peak in the United States in the 1970s. I remember that time period as being one in which many White Americans began to take more interest in their own ancestry and heritage, and to try to keep their particular cultural traditions alive, such as native costumes (if any), their national cuisine, and the music of their ancestral country. During the 70s it seemed that every city of any size had Irish pubs which featured Irish music and food, and Irish import shops with items relating to Irish culture. Those kinds of shops seem harder to find now. I particularly like Irish music and now it's harder to find people who play traditional music in most cities, with the exception of New York or Boston or other such places with large Irish 'communities.'

Some Northern cities which once had large Scandinavian populations seem to have fewer evidences of cultural preservation than were seen in the 1970s and before.


Granted, the 'ethnic pride' era had its inspirations in the Civil Rights revolution, after which many people who felt themselves to be part of a minority chose to identify with the minority, against the majority. The histories of this time always depict it in terms of a reaction against 'forced assimilation to WASP norms' or words to that effect. So it was a kind of balkanizing movement, a kind of Ellis Island nostalgia trip for many, but it was not recognized by most then as being a precursor of the multicult monolith of today.

So 'ethnic pride' for Whites, including the Irish, seems less visible, at least in terms of cultural celebrations, than a couple of decades ago.

Still, if you count the sort of show-biz versions of Irish culture like Celtic Woman or 'Riverdance', it is not quite dead, though I would say it lacks much of the grassroots character that it had in better times.

Even Riverdance began to multiculturalize some years back:

The Show is awash with conflicting frames and expectations. Classifying the show as 'Irish' is somewhat problematic: The seven-minute musical piece "Riverdance," composed by Bill Whelan, features elements of Irish and Bulgarian musics, among others - this allows Irish audiences to experience the sounds as a tantalising mix of both familiar and "exotic" forms. The music and dance formats of the show are held together by a tendentious and shallow metaphor which frames the show as an apparent international meeting of the waters: the two main "Irish" dancers of the show, Michael Flatley and Jean Butler, are both from Irish "diaspora" communities in the United States; an Irish a capella choral group, a gospel choir from the United States, a Russian ballet troupe, and a tap team from Harlem intersperse the dances in a somewhat piecemeal production.''

Even back in 2005:

''Instead of an authentic expression of Irish culture, audiences are now getting dances with modern tweaks, overzealous multicultural elements, and flashy costumes.

That doesn't have to be a bad thing. But it does change the whole experience.''

[Emphasis mine above].

And yes, it 'does change the whole experience', this multiculting. It's a little like mixing all the foods on your plate together into one indistinguishable mush.

I realize it doesn't bother most people, apparently, but then I am a purist when it comes to these things. I like each thing to be distinct and true to itself. I don't like blends and adulterations. But that's just me.

But that sums up our troubled world today: we are all being forced into a blender, and being transformed into something whose ultimate form is still unknown. And many people are not bothered by that. The few of us that are deeply disturbed by it, who feel that we are being robbed of much beauty and variety by this homogenizing process, are pathologized for wishing things to be as they were.

On the other hand, we can hope that more people will come to realize that we are losing much and gaining only things of very dubious value at best. It's time to try to preserve the best of our traditions, and if that means we have to do so only by doing so in a less public setting, then that's what we must do. The public sphere is now firmly in the grasp of the cultural Marxists, and they have shown a zero tolerance policy for anything that is not 'diverse and multicultural.'

Christianity: a help or a hurt to us?

There's a discussion on another blog in which the perennial subject of Christianity and its place in our cause is discussed. It really doesn't matter which blog, because this discussion has occurred and will occur on countless ethnonationalist blogs, and wherever it takes place, effective defenses of Christianity are few and far between. The anti-Christian side always carries the day.

Those who do try to defend Christianity, in any discussion, always seem to be a bit flummoxed by the fact that they are outnumbered and out-shouted. So they tend to fade away while those who have resentments and grudges against Christianity have the last word. It is very disheartening for a Christian to see.

I believe Christians on our side have internalized a lot of the criticisms (if you can call them that) of our Faith and our heritage, and they seem defenseless because they have really bought the criticisms.

When our Scriptures tell us to 'contend for the faith', does this mean only in a thelogical debate, or does it mean contending for the good name of Christianity and Christ? It seems most Christians take it as being meant in a theological sense alone, or in a situation involving proselytizing.

Although I know I am not in the mainstream on this point (as I usually am not on any subject) I don't think that potentially just anybody can be won to the faith. Some people, especially those who have hardened their hearts and bear massive grudges toward Christianity, likely cannot. (And yes I know that Paul was once a persecutor of the faith). The haters of Christianity will likely never convert, and they will be those who continue to blaspheme even when the End Time events are taking place. So I think it unlikely that those who spend most of their time bashing Christianity on pro-White blogs will ever be converted. I don't even think they can be led to a more moderate or tolerant position on Christianity. They have made themselves enemies to us and will remain such.

However many ethnonationalists who are self-identified Christians seem quite content to be unequally yoked with those who hate Christianity. I may be on the same side in our current predicament as regards our people but I cannot be yoked together with people who hate our heritage and who hate Christ, regardless of where they stand on political matters.

The question is, can our side unite? How can those who curse Christ and Christians make common cause with people like me?
I could make a reluctant truce with the Christian-bashers if they would leave off their campaign of vilification. But that seems unlikely. At times I have even thought of de-linking some of the more Christian-unfriendly blogs on my sidebar because as I think Justin asked on his blog once, are Christian bloggers guilty of unequal yoking if we even link to self-identified enemies of Christ? 


If the other side would agree to disagree with us, I could make some kind of qualified alliance with them but if they continue to attack our Christian heritage and faith, I can't make common cause with them.

No doubt this will cause me to be labeled intolerant; so be it. There are certain things I can't tolerate, just as the anti-Christian crowd cannot tolerate Christians and the name of Christ.

If the anti-Christian ethnonationalists ever 'won', if they ever held real power, I believe they would act against Christians. They would likely proscribe Christianity, and judging by the rhetoric, they would have no problem with purging Christians, who, they insist, are worshippers of a 'Jewish God' or an 'alien religion.' And these same people, ironically, are those who quote foreign 'philosophers' who are just as alien in my view; they are blind fans of fringe European intellectuals, even bizarre people like "Savitri Devi" who was a kind of European would-be Hindu, who married a Hindu. How is this not ''alien''?

At least seek out the wisdom among our own people before following those who follow far-off gods.

But for the Christians who are strange bedfellows with those who hate our faith and our Savior, I ask a few questions which I hope will provoke some thought:

What if the so-called Caucasian race had Middle Eastern origins? Are they then ''Semitic''? Where did the European race originate?
Most of the anti-Christians seem to be secularists or atheists, or perhaps people who profess paganism yet don't really believe in it. Do they believe humans 'evolved' in Africa and then just teleported themselves to Europe?

To Christians who denounce their fellow Christians for their blindness and their embrace of multiculturalism, doesn't this blindness simply indicate their lack of fidelity to Christianity? Or how do you believe the fault lies in Christianity, rather than in its apostate 'adherents' of today?

Christians, does your Bible not foretell that there would be a great 'falling away' in the last days? This is what we are seeing; why does it dismay you? Yes, I get angry about it because it's wrong but I fully expect that it will continue as foretold. But that doesn't mean we give up and give in or join the fallen-away former brethren. It just means that we are seeing prophecy confirmed in our time.

And the big question for both the Christian critics and the anti-Christians: does it even matter if a religion is based on truth, or is a religion only a means to an end? It seems both the Christians who are questioning Christianity and the haters of Christ see religion as something that is meant to 'help us survive' or something that is a useful tool to 'unite' people. Now, does anybody remember the phrase 'not peace, but a sword'?
Does that ring a bell?

Unity can never come at the cost of truth.

Truth should be the goal here; is a religion true, or is it not true? Of course the anti-Christians with their juvenile sneers about Christians and their ''imaginary friend'' God or about the 'flying spaghetti monster' would say that Christianity (or religion in general) is a fairy-tale or worse. Go ahead and deny. You don't like to consider the possibility that Christianity is true, so deny away, scoff away. We'll all find out one day who is right.

But what good is it to shop around for a religion that will help us accomplish a political end, or a religion that would supposedly make us invincible in battle, if it is not true? If it is not true, how efficacious can it be? Is religion or faith only a tool to advance some agenda? If that is your thinking, then religion is just man-made, something to be used.

But what if there IS a God, and a God who is not some vague impersonal amorphous being like 'The Force' of Star Wars, or the 'Atma' of Hinduism? What if God exists and he is a Personal God with his own plan for this world?

If you believe, first, that objective truth exists, then it's up to us not to reject something just because it rubs our own arrogance the wrong way, but to investigate it, open-mindedly, to determine if it is true.

Sadly, it seems few people in 2012 seem to believe there is an objective truth; they pick and choose what they believe on the basis of personal preference.

Christianity will never be a majority religion; 'few are chosen.'
The Bible tells us this repeatedly. We will never win everyone over. 'Few there be that find' the 'narrow way.'

And yes, the 'narrow way' is what puts most hedonist, narcissistic people off today. Christianity has too many moral rules, too many thou shalt nots. Why not pick a 'better' religion that prescribes, oh, say, fun fertility rites or 'sex magick'? Or at least a religion that tells you you will be a 'god' and that everything is 'One', and the world can be a paradise if we all meditate and think positive?

The Rajneesh cult of the 1980s attracted hordes of young adherents because it approved of public sex, promiscuity, and materialism. That's the kind of religion that wins 21st century people; not a religion that tells you life is hard, and 'in this world you will have tribulation.' So people will flock to libertine religions. So be it.

But truth matters. We can't conjure up tailor-made 'gods', even to promote our people's survival. Something is true, or it isn't.

The fact is, our people, our ancestors, thrived under Christianity for many centuries. None of the critics seem to address this. And as Christianity has declined, our people and civilization have decayed. There's no disputing that. Christianity is a religion that was forged in Europe, not in the 'desert', as the people who like to parrot Nietzsche say. It is a European religion. It fits us.

One more ironic note about the most vitriolic critics of Christianity: they often hate Judaism while they agree 100 per cent with their Jewish foes about Christianity. To these people I would ask: if push came to shove, would you side with your Christian kinsmen, or with anti-Christians who are not your brethren racially or ethnically? I suspect it could be the latter. And that is troubling. Is blood thicker than ideology? We'll see in the near future, I think.

'Too fond' of war?

Thomas Di Lorenzo tells us How Southerners Were Taught to Murder for the State.

''Most Southerners will continue to support the neocon agenda of endless unjust war that has nothing to do with national defense because to do otherwise would be to admit that, for generations, they have willingly sacrificed the lives of their children for no other reason than to kiss the asses of the politicians in Washington.''

Now, this line of argument from libertarians, paleocons, and many WNs is something that bothers me. While war is an evil, not all wars are unjust or unnecessary. The belief of many on the paleo right that war is bad per se, that all wars are bad and fought strictly to profit certain elites, whether Jews or just the generic 'wealthy elites' is just too broadly painted. War is an evil that will always be with us, and just because one side refuses to fight, does not mean that we have 'peace'. And not all 'peace' is good. We technically have a state of 'peace' now between North and South but is it good?

Benjamin Franklin claimed that there was 'no such thing as a good war or a bad peace.' He had many such glib sayings. And needless to say, lefties, libertarians, and many paleos agree with Franklin that all war is bad. (Liberals, however, make an exception for wars started by their politicians.)

And by the way, how many here agree that warfare is murder, as Di Lorenzo says, or that it is morally equal to murder? And how many Southrons here believe that our ancestors (or our kinsmen of this generation) were 'taught' to 'murder', as if they are not capable of making choices for themselves, as if they were/are empty-headed fools who could be led like sheep?

War will never be eliminated just as crime will never be eliminated. Human nature will never allow for total peace to be established. The secular right, believing in evolution as lefties do, should be able to understand this; after all, human beings are just intelligent hominids, right? So war is in the genes of the 'evolved' apes who are called humans, no?

From a Christian point of view, man is a flawed, fallen creature, and the evidence of that is visible everywhere, at all times. War is an unfortunate part of the human experience. However, that does not mean that we glory in war, or that we don't try to avoid it except when it is absolutely unavoidable. The choice is not between being a 'neocon warmonger', a dupe who goes to fight wars to profit the elites or the Jews, and being an ideologue (whether leftist or libertarian or paleocon) who believes all war is evil and is orchestrated behind the scenes by cartoon villains.

The South does have a warrior tradition, and I see no reason for us to repudiate it altogether. In a world full of people who have no qualms about committing violence against us, is it sensible to lay down all our arms? Forswearing war in a warlike world would be analogous to giving up our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, in a world with many armed predators.

I also believe that males naturally have an inclination to fight, whether for territory, power, glory, or gain, and they need not be 'dupes' or 'tools' of evil elites to fight wars. I don't believe, as lefties and libertarians do, that human beings are perfectible nor that people can ''evolve'' beyond warfare and live in some kind of utopian society where wars and boundaries are unnecessary.

Does anyone think that our ancestors were unjustified in fighting the Indians, especially after they and their families were repeatedly attacked, tortured, and massacred by Indians? What of the Texans who fought for independence from Mexico? Was that an 'unjust war'? What about the American Revolution? It might be argued that we should not have fought for independence, or that the United States was an 'Illuminati plot' or an evil 'experiment' as some on the right say. Whatever; I can only imagine that had we not fought, we would simply have been another Canada, and would that make us better off?

Nowadays of course the World Wars are declared by many on the right to have been ill-begotten internecine wars that devastated the European peoples, killing our best and brightest, leaving mostly the lesser men to carry on. Perhaps those wars were avoidable and should never have been fought, but hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

It's dangerous to impose our modern standards on the past generations. We cannot see things as they did; our opinions have been compromised and colored by many new ways of thought (mainly cultural Marxism, libertarianism, etc.) which were not part of their mental and cultural landscape.

The past truly is 'another country'.

As for the Middle East wars, the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere, we should never have become involved, and the Iraq war was the immediate cause of my repudiating 'mainstream' conservatism -- along with various other reasons. I was naturally migrating rightward but the war issue put me at odds with most of the so-called conservatives and the typical 'patriots.'

But surely we have the discernment to be able to determine when a war is not in our interest, and not worth the blood of our young men. In the corrupt world we live in today, it's safe to say that most wars that are being fought are unjust, but I can't agree with the ideological right or the ideological left (including libertarians) who believe that war in itself is an evil that we can disavow, or that there is no cause worth fighting for.

I don't understand the way many in the Southern cause sound like leftists when they speak or write about war. There is a cynicism and a nihilism that I can't relate to in those ideological views, despite the claims to moral high ground.

Certainly my Southron ancestors (some of whom died fighting in the War Between the States) would not recognize such attitudes as being in the tradition they knew and lived by. I don't think our great Southern leaders of the past would identify with libertarianism as we know it today. Read their words, not some modern re-interpretation of their ideas.

I believe we in our time truly do see 'as through a glass, darkly' in great part because even we on the right have had cultural Marxism, Freudianism, and countless other modern 'isms' seeping into our thoughts and feelings. We can no longer see with even as much clarity as our admittedly imperfect ancestors saw.

But I'll leave you with the words of Robert E. Lee, who said

"It is well that war is terrible -- we shouldn't grow too fond of it.''