Absence

Just to let you know, I will likely not be blogging for at least the next few days. I will be back as circumstances allow. I hope to be back soon-ish.

Comment that sums it up

The comment below appeared on American Thinker, and it probably will get removed by the moderators because it is too honest.

"It's an entirely new game and we brought it on ourselves with our lax immigration policies. We are now going to have the first Latino Prez, then the first Asian Prez, the first MiddleEastern Prez and each constituency will shake the system down to finally get "theirs".

It's over for America as it once existed. Everything we and our ancestors fought and died for is being devoured by a desperate and hungry world.

Multiculturalism is a great thing for anyone who isn't white. Multiculturalism was invented by non-whites to conquer whites. Political correctness, a very effective anesthesia, has muffled our screams and rendered us mute. The culture of white American [sic] is being destroyed and dismantled and if we complain we get another injection of "racist" to shut us up again.''

I don't agree with his pessimistic assertion that it's ''all over for America''; if I believed that, I would not be blogging or even bothering to think about all these issues. I'd just be enjoying life, oblivous to all these things; why not, if it's all over?

But what he says about the weapons of multiculturalism and political correctness are true, as I am sure most of my readers would agree.

Incidentally, the discussion to which this comment was appended was a ''birther'' article, as detractors would call it. Is the multiculturalist system irrelevant to that subject? No. I'd say it's relevant to just about every big issue we have to deal with today: the economy, (immigration, social programs for 'victim groups, etc.), the environment and shrinking resources, and yes, the elections and the 'birther' story. All of it is bound up with the fact that we are caught up in this system of lies and cover-ups, all facilitated by political correctness. If we don't recognize how it all is part of a pattern, we'll never get anywhere.

Flavors of the month

Referencing that Pew Research study I blogged about the other day, this article out of the Hindustan Times boasts about Indian-Americans.

The writer notes that Indian-Americans (this gets confusing, with Indian-Americans and American Indians) are the wealthiest of all ethnic minorities in the U.S. But it also notes that they are the least likely to marry outside of their group.

I have no problem with that latter fact, but though enclaves of unassimilated immigrants and their descendants are a problem, a greater problem would be the blending of the myriad diversity-bringers. The latter, of course, is what our globalist overlords are pushing.

''The first Indians came to the US between 1904 and 1911 as farmhands. They were then described as caucasians, and could become citizens and marry US-born whites. But that changed.  Immigration from India was prohibited in 1917, and a 1923 Supreme Court decision called them non-whites. The gates were thrown up in 1965 with new laws.

Indians started landing in waves, mostly through student and temporary-work visas, accounting for more than half of H1B recipients in 2011 (there have been cuts since). Their successes make the community the most prosperous and educated.''

The historical information on Hindus or Indians in this country is interesting, as most of us don't learn much about their history in our country. I would say most Americans never saw a native of India in their towns or neighborhoods until well into the post-1965 immigrant flood, after which they have slowly become a common sight in many localities, even my small town.

But their material success in this country has come at the expense of our own folk. I know a number of people in IT jobs who were displaced by cheaper labor from India.

Again, this kind of article warms the hearts of the 'colorblind conservatives', the ones who tout Nikki Haley and who have faith that Bobby Jindal is going to be our own (Republican) Mocha Messiah.

There is a persistent faction among supposed ethnopatriots or race-realists who always seize on a chance to cheer for their fave minority, usually Indian immigrants (they work hard, they are highly intelligent, etc. etc.), Chinese, or even Hispanics (''hard-working" and "preferable to blacks," etc.

It never ends. For a while all we ever read from the 'journalists' whose job is to promote 'diversity' is how deserving the Hispanic illegals were. We read endless sob stories about how they are deprived in their own countries, and treated unfairly by us. Now we are reading and seeing more pro-Asian propaganda, more ''model minority'' stories. Maybe the propaganda-masters are shifting into a new campaign.

Should?

There seems to be an increasing brazenness on the part of the powers-that-be.

The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.''

And how, Mr. Sutherland, has multiculturalism made California more prosperous? Or the UK?

''Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".

As the article indicates, he pointed to the United States, Australia, and New Zealand as 'migrant societies', saying that we absorb newcomers more successfully -- although I would beg to differ with him on that -- and complains that the UK 'nurses a sense of homogeneity and difference from others'.
This is something that in his mind, and the mind of those shadowy people he represents, is a major failing, or a defect that must be corrected. The EU should thus be actively working to undermine the ethnic homogeneity of the UK and other countries.

This is where I say 'should be working to undermine homogeneity?' That's what they have been working furiously at for decades, though the placid and clueless among us haven't noticed it. And when ethnopatriots sound the alarm, we're called 'conspiracy mongers' or alarmists or worse. How much more open and blatant can they be? Yet some still deny and refuse to see the obvious.

The BBC article also notes his association with the Bilderberg Group, but pay no attention to those men behind the curtain.

Mr. Sutherland's bio notes his non-English origins, which I point out to pre-empt any talk of his being a member of the evil WASP cabal. 

Meanwhile, look at the demographic changes to the UK. How many more can be packed into that small country?

And yet every so often some Western politician makes a sham statement about how 'multiculturalism has failed!' and this hollow pretense is enough to mollify the unwary citizenry.

We know the people who 'think' like the cosmopolitan Mr. Sutherland have had their objective in mind for decades, and have been carrying it out against the will of the White citizenry. And now they are coming out in the open with it; they must feel quite confident in the success of their efforts,

Good news for fans of the 'model minority'

Who invented that phrase, ''model minority''? From what I remember, I think it was first coined to describe Japanese-Americans, several decades ago when Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans made up the majority of Asian-descended people in America.

Search the term ''model minority'' and you will find many politically correct articles bemoaning the 'negative effects' of positive stereotypes. Great; we've heard, regarding blacks, of how damaging and detrimental 'negative stereotypes' were. And now, even glowing stereotypes, which put certain groups on a pedestal, are also damaging and unfair.

'' The American public’s perception of the “model minority” has damaging implications to the full understanding of Asian cultures.  Yet, the American media continues to exploit this stereotype, and further promote such perceptions.  Observing prime time television and advertising, Asian Americans are characterized by situations that involve high intelligence, affluence, and professional status, but are absent from situations that involve home lifestyles and family.  Such patterns in the media encourage generalizations about Asian cultures that are far from accurate.  With the Asian population showing rapid growth in the United States, it becomes critical for media leaders to recognize the significance of this demographic and venture away from the “model minority” stereotype to help society develop a better understanding of such a highly generalized cultural group.''

And in light of this report from Pew Research, it seems that the 'rapid population growth' described above is something that cannot be ignored. It seems Asians collectively now surpass Hispanics as ''the fastest growing racial group.' 


One of the things about media coverage of Asians or Asian-descended people in America is that they are lumped together as a group, while they are a very heterogeneous category of people. Somehow, though, most Americans think of 'Asians' as being Northeast Asians, such as Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans. To some extent, Vietnamese also may be included, depending on where you live. 


There are many Asians in this country that little resemble the ''model minority'' ''high IQ'' East Asians. Southeast Asians, South Asians, and even Central Asians are not unknown in our country, and they don't fit the image of the quiet, well-adapted Northeast Asians. Even the latter may not always fit their own positive stereotype. From my own experiences I know that there are Chinese gangs and Southeast Asian gangs, though such behavior is more likely to be associated with blacks and Hispanics in most people's minds. There are also Asian young people in this country who emulate ghetto and gang styles and behaviors.Is this what we would expect of a ''high IQ'' people?

Not all Asians are quiet and polite, although in the popular imagination, it's considered true of all of them. Just read the comments at AmRen, which are often full of praise of Asians.


Asian women in general (though this primarily includes East Asian and Southeast Asians) are seen as highly desirable by many American men, as White male-Asian female pairings are the most common outmarriage pattern in America.


The area where I live has had an influx of people from South Asia, so Sikhs and Hindus are a commonplace sight here now. 

In the past, with people like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard warning about the growing populations of Asia, there was more concern about Asians becoming a demographic threat to us. Somehow, though, this idea of the 'Yellow peril' was discarded, and many Whites see Asians as somehow being allies, or potential allies of our folk, or that they are certainly preferable to some other ethnic groups as immigrants to our country. Our tendency to see Asians as benevolent towards us, or at least neutral, is misguided, in my opinion. It seems as if many European-descended peoples have some kind of pathetic need to find the elusive ally or soulmate among the other races. Even many people who claim to be realists on the subject of HBD seem to have this yearning to find the friendly minority, the 'Other' who can be looked up to as more intelligent or more advanced. I see this as being a false hope, but I see more people holding onto this attitude.


So it appears as if America, or whatever takes its place, will not necessarily be a Spanish-speaking region. It could very well, by sheer demographics, be an Asian outpost in a few decades. But I believe that the center 'cannot hold' and things will fall apart, if present trends continue.


Our need is to have a core of people who are single-minded on behalf of our folk and our heritage, not people who have an adolescent crush on Asians or any other group of people, though it's entirely possible some would gladly welcome Asian dominance of this country.

Well done

This grand jury in Lavaca County, Texas made the right decision. They refused to indict the father who slew a molester who was attacking a child.

This decision says that there is still something of the old Texas that has not been obliterated. I have been telling people that this would be the outcome, so confident was I in the decent people of Texas.

The attacker was a 'Mexican national' though apparently working legally in this country. Over at Free Republic they always focus on the immigration status of such people, as if having a 'green card' makes the holder an upstanding person. No, the slain man was apparently here with the blessing of 'our' government.

I suppose the father of the child victim is a better person than I am, because he is said to have tried to resuscitate the attacker of his child. I don't know if that would be the first thing to cross my mind in such a situation. But at least justice appears to have been done -- for once.

The Northwest 'utopia'

Recent events in Portland, Oregon and environs should bring home to some who have mistaken notions that the Northwest is not the refuge that they are looking for. Yet the idea persists that this area of the country, the 'Cascadia' region especially, is the last bastion of 'Whitecentric' America.

I don't know why the official census figures show that cities like Seattle and Portland are less 'diverse' than they seem to be in reality. I tend to believe my lying eyes, and first-hand experience, rather than a census from several years ago -- we all know demographics are changing rapidly, even as I write this. The census records from 2009 show Seattle as being 66.3% White, but a look around the city will give a very different impression. Portland, too, is shown as being 70+ percent White, though I have some doubts about the accuracy of those figures.

Can it be that the census figures are being manipulated? Or perhaps illegals, for example, are undercounted, because they are not likely to comply with census requests?  I suspect that either or both of the above may be happening. Then there's the fact that many Middle Easterners, Hindus, and others are counted as 'White'. The statistics are somewhat misleading, and it may be by design.

I admit I haven't been in Portland for some years, but news stories out of that area, such as the recent attacks reported in the links, seem to indicate that things are not what they once were, demographically.

Over at AmRen and other such discussion forums, there is a widespread perception that the urban Northwest is significantly better than other urban areas. I suppose if you come from Chicago, New York, Los Angeles or Houston, it might seem to be an improvement, but those Northwestern cities have their share of urban problems, including many unsafe neighborhoods.

Some also say, while conceding that the cities are not what they used to be, that the rural Northwest is still a good place to relocate. Now, I concede that the rural Northwest contains more 'heartland' kinds of people, and many Republican voters (if that means anything), but some of the rural areas and small towns in Eastern Washington State and Oregon have been sown with 'diversity. Now there are towns which are virtually all Hispanic, like Mattawa, Washington.

I think it's tragic that Northwestern cities have lost their once-placid atmosphere, but it was inevitable, given the ultra-liberal, passive nature of many of the White residents of those cities.
The people who typify the urban Northwest are people who do love their 'diversity', their ethnic restaurants, and all the other pseudo-'enrichment' that has taken place in their cities. So I am afraid the Northwest will, over time, become California North, while California becomes some kind of outpost of Mexico, with the addition of many other disparate peoples to the mix, as well.

I am afraid there is no place left which can be seen as a refuge from the chaos that is urban America in the 21st century. Best to try to do what you can where you are, and try to devise some strategy to deal with what is coming our way.

I tend to agree with those who say that if any area will succeed in at least holding its own, it will be the South, because there are still enough people there who have not been reconstructed or fully 're-educated' as citizens of this new changeling 'America.'

All in the (mixed-up) family

There is no end to these articles. They seem especially popular during an election year. It's de rigueur for any presidential candidate, even a diversity, to find Irish roots during a presidential campaign. Why? The Irish-Americans have lost much of their favored position with the American 'news' media, but I suppose it's just a tradition by now.

Now, however, there is this lurid tale of a slaveowner ancestor, and dark hints about 'rape'. Actually I have come to really resent these slurs in articles about the European roots of black Americans; I mean the insinuations that any such mixing had to have involved 'rape.' Why is this taken for granted? To me, absent any real evidence that such a thing happened, it is nothing less than slander to infer that 'rape' was involved. Yet that is always a given with the mainstream media. Rape is always mentioned in these stories. Why don't more of us vocally object to our kin and our ancestors being groundlessly accused of rape?

Another ungrounded assumption in most of these stories is that the guilty party was the slaveowner, though it would more likely have been an overseer, or somebody else in a position involving more contact with slaves.

Granted, though, in this instance, it's claimed that DNA testing indicates this man Shields was the progenitor. But generally, as with the Thomas Jefferson slander, it's always taken for granted that the owner is the guilty party. Why? I suppose because he is considered the embodiment of evil in the popular imagination -- which, by the way, is growing more lurid, the more such articles as this are fed to the public. They appeal to people's baser imaginings.

But again, this article (as with anything originating with the New York Times) is pure propaganda. It's part of a long series of such articles in recent years, all of which are meant to reinforce the belief that we are all one big interconnected, mixed family. Race is only a social construct, and  everybody is interconnected in America. "I am he, as you are he, and you are me, and we are all together." Or something.

Freedom to speak for ourselves

Michael Hill has posted a very powerful piece about Our Survival As a People.
This piece seems to me to be more outspoken than many of his writings or speeches. And that's to be praised; as I said in my previous blog post, we need to be more outspoken. It's time.

He starts by offering a Biblical justification for the existence of nations and peoples, and for maintaing their distinctive character. Then he notes the superior qualities of the Western European traditions which were the basis of the beginnings of our country.

Then he laments that our people, today, thanks to the egalitarians and Babelists, are as a defeated people.

He is right, of course. And he notes the inculcation of what we now familiarly call 'White guilt' as the reason for our whipped attitude and our subjugation. (The latter is my word; I am not intending to put words in Dr. Hill's mouth.)

It's a strong article, but yet --- but yet, towards the end he resorts to citing 'black conservatives', notably Walter Williams and Elizabeth Wright, in their defense of Whites or White Southrons, particularly.

I admired Elizabeth Wright's articles. She wrote well, and she represents a kind of dwindling class of educated blacks, those who came up in a saner era, who were not mouthpieces for political correctness and racial vendettas.

But while Dr. Hill is quoting her, he asks his readers:

"...don't you feel ashamed that a black woman dared do our talking for us?''

Many of our folk are so conditioned to censoring themselves and feeling unable to speak out in defense of our own interests that we 'hide behind' some 'conservative' black like Thomas Sowell, the aforementioned Walter Williams, or Elizabeth Wright. Well, now Mrs. Wright has passed away, and there is no one like her to take her place as someone who will defend Whites. Sowell, Williams, and the late Mrs. Wright represent a group which is already minuscule in numbers and growing smaller by the day. Soon there will be few, or no, blacks to speak up for us, while we hover in the background silently. We can no longer rely on others to speak out for us, and it should not have become de rigueur  as it is now. There is no earthly reason why we cannot and should not speak for ourselves. There is no need to have to use non-White proxies to speak for us, or make our arguments. The very fact that we resort to this so quickly is evidence of our loss of confidence in our right to exist.

Mrs. Wright was able to speak out because she had not been conditioned, like our folk have, to self-censor. Non-Whites are not compelled or pressured to do so. Minorities are the only ones who 'can' say certain things, and who have not been coerced into silence or taught to be politically correct.

So no, Dr. Hill, I am not ashamed that the few conservative blacks occasionally speak a true word or two on our behalf. I did not ask them to. I balk at using surrogates to give legitimacy to our interests. It should not be necessary. But the fact that they have more freedom to speak says volumes about our place in the order of things.

I understand that Dr. Hill, like other ethnopatriots or Southrons particularly, is under attack by the usual suspects, such as the $PLC, and perhaps citing blacks who are not anti-White is a way of deflecting or fending off the inevitable cries of 'racism.' Nevertheless, that strategy never works. It only makes us look defensive.



I am generally an admirer of Dr. Hill, and I think I've cited him before on this blog or elsewhere. So I say these things not in a spirit of contention, not at all.

My main problem with some of the Southern heritage organizations and the neo-Confederate groups is the 'rainbow Confederacy' mythos, the need to constantly cite the 'diversity' of the South, and our 'welcoming' nature, our lack of bias and 'hate.' I receive mailings from these groups and I am discouraged at seeing this trend grow.

Did any of our Southron ancestors rely on approach? I know of none who did, at least among the truly great ones. Do 'changing times' require that we bow at the 'diverse and inclusive' altar? Personally I don't think so. Truth does not change, though circumstances do.

It's time, I think, to completely cast off the shackles of PC.  More than anything else, this monster called 'Political Correctness', and its strictures put on our free expression, are what is leading to our dispossession and destruction. The strategy of trying to be all things to all people, not to offend, to be 'fair-minded' and inclusive, is leading us down a blind alley. That's how we got to where we are today. We have to correct, and maybe over-correct for that tendency.

And no, that does not mean 'hate'. It just means being single-mindedly for our own interests. All the other groups are not shy about advocating for their own interests, and they do not spare our feelings in doing so. We alone try to be 'tolerant and accepting' of all.

It's become our Achilles' Heel.

Amnesty in installments

The news media, in reporting the Obama 'amnesty by fiat', are seeming to downplay the significance of his executive order. Even those conservative stalwarts over at FoxNews are rather nonchalant about this news.

Some of the news stories refer to 'children' as the beneficiaries of this amnesty-by-stroke-of-a-pen, but if you read the articles, it includes everyone under 30. That isn't just ''children.''

“These are young people who study in our schools and play on our playgrounds,” the president said. “They are Americans in every single way but one – on paper.”

So anyone on our soil is an 'American' just by virtue of being here. I hereby reject the label 'American' for myself because it is an utterly meaningless name now. Actually, it has been for some time, since we started welcoming anybody and everybody many years ago, and then began blatantly favoring non-Europeans over our own kinsfolk in 1965.

As Lindsey Graham said a few years ago,

"An American is an idea, no group owns being an American. Nobody owns this. It’s an idea that’s unique to the planet.”

And what is our 'friend' Lindsey ''Grahamnesty'' Graham up to? What is this mock consternation now about this presidential order?

''(CNSNews.com) - Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took to Twitter Friday to attack President Obama’s move to grant effective amnesty to young illegal immigrants:

He was among the first lawmakers to react to the surprise announcement.

“President Obama’s attempt to go around Congress and the American people is at best unwise and possibly illegal,” he tweeted.

Graham, a former Air Force prosecutor, said the move, “regardless of motivation, will entice people to break our laws.”

What? He just thought of that? What is he playing at? Is he up for re-election this year, and trying to play both sides of the issue? Have we forgotten how he spoke at a La Raza meeting a few years ago and told the Latino audience

''We are going to tell the bigots to shut up.''

"The bigots," meaning patriotic legitimate Americans.
And he got re-elected. South Carolina, what were you all thinking?

As for his concerns about the 'legality' of the order, this is typical of the Republican respectables. Their pathetically weak resistance to open borders and amnesty was always based on nothing more than mealy-mouthed concerns about 'legal vs. illegal.' In other words, ''we welcome all immigrants who follow the rules, and come here legally, and then work hard.''

I have a sinking feeling that that will be all the Republican response to this order will amount to: more feeble denunciations based on 'constitutional issues' or legality. As if that's the most important thing here. The Republicans, at best, are just legalists concerned with documents and rules and words, not with the people, the legitimate people of this country.

Still, we have a few brave souls like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who boldly says he will keep on enforcing his state's immigration laws. I admire his determination, and I hope he stays steadfast.

And on the opposite side, we have these pillars of Churchianity, the liberal 'Christians' along with their Tweedledum twins, the 'conservative Evangelicals' supporting 'comprehensive immigration reform.' As I've said on this blog for the last six years, 'comprehensive immigration reform' or plain old immigration reform, is amnesty by another name. Christians who speak truth would never be caught using obfuscations and weasel words to disguise their real intentions.

These men are liberal wolves in Christian sheep's clothing.
They are not lovers of their own; they are alienists and Babelists. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, is someone who has gone far to the left in recent years, and has alienated many of his conservative Southern Baptist cohorts. Such men are scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. Goody-two-shoes, taking their thirty piece of silver (in the form of media attention and liberal praise) to sell out their own.

Sadly, they give considerable ammunition to the constant critics of our faith, and lend support to the enemies of Christianity, who charge Christians as a group with being inimical to the survival of our people and our way of life.

I ask such critics to be aware that these men do not represent the true Christian heritage, though they may represent the views of their deluded followers.

I've written a lot about this issue of amnesty and mass immigration over the last 6+ years, and I feel weary of the topic. I have always felt that our enemies were, and are, indefatigable and relentless. I think I've said very consistently that we mustn't mistake some momentary triumph (like the defeat of the Bush amnesty a few years ago) as a lasting victory. I know that these people are determined and they never give up. Can we say the same? We will have to match and over-match their relentlessness and determination. They will not give up, and we must not either.

It's time, and past time, for our folk to stop all this half-heartedness and double-mindedness. We can't advocate for our own and still try to be 'fair' and generous toward those who are anything but fair or generous towards us. Enough of this effort to be 'nice' or to 'reach out' or 'make allies' among those whose interests are not compatible with our own. Single-mindedness is absolutely necessary now. It's up to us, alone. There are no Hispanic allies, or any Others who should (or can) speak for us, or help us. It's us, and us alone, because no one else cares a whit for our interests.

More on that discussion

I've been giving some more thought to the subject of how we discuss some of these urgent issues with the less aware people around us. I've been pondering not only how to manage conversations, but some of the self-defeating or wrong lines of approach we use.

Here's one question that came to mind: How do you answer the constant 'arguments' from our foes, such as the following:

''We stole this country from the Indians. So how can we say the immigrants shouldn't be here? This is the Native Americans' land. We genocided them and took their land away. So now we're experiencing the karma that we sowed.'' 

Or this: 'White people should go back to Europe.'

Or some variation thereof. I am sure you've all heard it in some form.

One response that I used in exasperation was: ''well, then you should pack up your belongings, give your property to the nearest 'Native American' and go back to Europe. You are holding stolen goods.'

No response, of course.

I've also argued: "If we are wrong to want to protect our land from invasion and ourselves from race-replacement, then so were the Indians. Are you prepared to say they were xenophobic and hateful and racist for trying to kill our ancestors?"

No answer.

Then there's the old 'nation of immigrants' twaddle:

"This is a nation of immigrants. We're all immigrants. All our ancestors immigrated from somewhere, so why should we mind if more people want a better life like our ancestors did?"

I've addressed that one here a number of times, but rarely do I hear one appropriate (in my opinion) response: "There is a difference between immigrants and colonists" (or settlers, or pioneers. However, I honestly feel that most people do not grasp the distinctions; our adversaries are too obtuse.

How do you address this issue?

Then there are the constant names and insults hurled at anybody who displays a politically incorrect attitude: 'Bigot! Racist! Xenophobe!' Or the favorite accusation:

"People like you live in fear! Why do you fear anybody that is different? Why are you scared of the unfamiliar? Why are you paranoid?"

Or this brilliant one:

"You are ignorant.''

Far from it; it is direct knowledge and experience that turned me from the standard liberal viewpoint to my present way of thinking.

It is very frustrating to see and hear so many of our folk unable to make a persuasive argument. I see so many missed opportunities on Internet discussions. A case in point is this article (a pretty good one) about Enoch Powell.

There are many responses, and some good ones from our side, but they miss many chances to 'strike home' with a good comeback to some of the liberal idiocies on that thread.

One of the things that strikes me about some of the leftist comments is that they brazenly deny that there is ethnic violence  and bloodshed in the UK. They simply say it's a figment of the 'racists' imagination; paranoia. The pro-White commenters don't make any serious refutations of those assertions. Why? A few cite the cases of 'child' rape and pedophilia, but there are so many more cases that could be cited.

It seems the left know that they are lying, but they don't care, because in their twisted minds, anything to serve their agenda is all right. Morality doesn't come into it. The truth is whatever they say it is. And they flatly deny race replacement, or the demographic twilight of the English people. They scoff at the idea that any such thing is happening. And they are so sure of themselves in their lies. Yet some people say that the left, the multicult, is on the ropes, gasping their last, panicky. I don't see that happening, unless they are just very good actors as well as liars.

In any case the Enoch Powell discussion at the Telegraph site is interesting reading.

But in addition to our side's deficiency in answering some of the leftist, anti-White slanders and lies, there are certain statements that the 'respectable right' and even some of the AmRenners, for example, resort to. For example, on immigration, the tendency to fall back on disclaimers like ''I have no problem as long as they work hard, speak English, and become Americans." Or ''British'' as in the case of the UK comments. Assimilation is not our friend.

Then there is the 'favorite minority' thing. Would someone please explain this one to me? It seems to be common just about everywhere in the RR or ethnonationalist sphere. Why do so many have this absolute compulsion to say ''Hispanics are a lot better than blacks.'' Or ''I'd rather have Mexicans than Moslems.'' And then there are the Asianphiles, ever advocating for Asians, the model minority. Then we have the ever-present ''we're doomed'' faction. Enough said about them. Why do they even bother?

And let's not forget the blame-shifters, the ones who point the finger at somebody on our side as being THE cause of everything bad.

Another pet peeve of mine: the constant refrain that 'the immigrants aren't the problem; it's DWLs or 'the politicians'. Blame them, not the immigrants." No. All involved are to blame. We can't absolve the immigrants who are knowingly flouting our laws and our wishes, and who thus show their hostility to, or disregard for, us.

Our side needs to show some passion, not remain in a detached mode about it. Reason will not necessarily win in this situation. We should be feeling strong emotions about what is happening; those who remain detached and seemingly aloof from it are missing something. This is not an intellectual game or a college debate. This is about our future, and the future of our children. Serious stuff, and it should make us feel something very deeply about it. We should be motivated by love and loyalty to all we hold dear.

But yet, it is important that our side be heard. We should try to make convincing arguments against our replacement -- even though it seems obvious that it's a bad thing.  They, our enemies have had it all their way so far because they have controlled the dialogue and debate, such as it is. Time for us to make our case.

What do my readers have to say about how to do this?

Politically correcting 'country' music

A Billboard article informs us that Carrie Underwood, a 'country' singer, has spoken up as a supporter of homosexual 'marriage.' Now, given the fact that even 'country' singers are liberals today, this is not a big surprise, but it's a little galling that she cites her Christian faith as being behind her support for homosexual rights.

"Underwood, who described her church as gay-friendly, said that "above all, God wanted us to love others. It's not about setting rules, or [saying] 'everyone has to be like me'. No. We're all different. That's what makes us special. We have to love each other and get on with each other."

And unsurprisingly:

''Feedback from her fans and conservatives alike has thus far been uniformly positive, with the group GOProud heralding the star for her support.''

This just shows how useless the GOP is as a vehicle for any kind of conservatism, especially social conservatism. And if supposedly conservative country music fans think this is wonderful, then I guess the media moguls who control the country music business (as with show business in general) are high-fiving each other, because it seems their mission is to use entertainment as a means of influencing people's morality and personal choices, as well as their political preferences. Rock music and Hollywood movies have been very successful at influencing people's social mores since the 1950s, yet they did not have the desired influence in 'flyover country', especially the Bible Belt South, where people still held to old-time religion and social conservatism. That began to change noticeably in recent years. Back in the 1990s it began to be obvious that 'country' music was changing or being changed. The country music video networks on cable TV have been featuring more ''diversity'', which is highly out of place, given that country music traditionally has been a White music genre, popular mostly with rural or heartland people, but now it is becoming just another variety of 'popular' youth-oriented entertainment.

The media conglomerates who openly support 'change' and boast of their social activism are obviously aiming to do more than entertain. I believe they either select performers of already liberal/leftwing views and 'alternative lifestyle' leanings in order to serve as promoters of the social agenda, and/or they persuade their performers to carry and promote the appropriate messages to the gullible audiences. It works well with 'rock music' and other forms of youth music. Now country music is being made a vehicle to preach the message to the Southern White folk and other conservative heartland people.

Carrie Underwood mentions her 'church' which is obviously a 'progressive' post-modern 'church' which is pushing the gay agenda. Sadly, Christianity is just one more Gramscian-controlled institution these days.

Personally I don't listen to modern 'country' music because it is too far from its roots musically, but the fact that it has been hijacked to promote the left's agenda is the really toxic thing about it.

Feedback needed

A commenter posting as 'Anon' on a recent thread asked if I had any advice or suggestions about how to introduce controversial subjects like immigration and HBD, in social situations.

Those of you who have read this blog for a while may remember a few years ago when I put that question, in a slightly different form, to my readers. I think I asked if any readers had had success in trying to jog people's consciousness about these kinds of subjects, and to share any experiences or tips you might have.

As the old comments were lost in the transition to the present comment system, I can't share any of those comments here. I seem to remember we had a fair number of responses.

As I said to 'Anon' on the comment thread, I have no recipe or script. I have no easy, quick answer as to how to go about it, because it's one of those things you have to play by ear for the most part, unless the situation involves people who know you well, and/or whose views you know. You have to know, or judge, where your interlocutors are 'coming from.' What is their current state of awareness? What are their general political views? How tolerant are they? For example, if they are far-left or even 'moderately' left, you know that they are rigid-minded and intolerant people who cannot have a calm discussion about touchy matters, and that they brook no dissent from PC orthodoxy in their presence.

I can only say that the situation and the company dictate your approach, and the degree of openness with which you can safely speak.

Obviously if your company includes a lot of, say, academics or 'educators', you know that any non-PC statements, no matter how carefully worded, will result in your being ostracized. If you are at a social function with work colleagues who are 'educators' or academics (as I have been) you must realize you risk your livelihood if you speak too frankly. It's sad that such is the case in a 'free' country which pretends to believe in 'free speech' but it is the reality.

Another rather obvious point is that the degree of 'diversity' in the group of people affects your ability to speak up. Any group of teachers or professors, for example, is automatically going to be more 'diverse' than any random group of Americans, so great care not to transgress PC norms is, unfortunately, necessary.

Likewise, even if you are in a homogeneous group of people, you may be unaware that many White Americans now have families with a degree of outmarriage, and they are likely to take umbrage at any politically incorrect statements, even though they may be nominally 'conservative' or Republican.

I've thought before how this is one reason why 'diversity' is insisted upon by the powers-that-be: it dampens free speech among us 'American-Americans.' As we learn to censor ourselves in the presence of hostile or easily-offended ''others'', we forget how to speak freely and frankly, as we used to do. We learn to be more furtive and to veil what we say so as not to upset anyone or bring down some unpleasant consequence on our heads. Poor Emma West forgot to do this, and now the powers-that-be are 're-educating' her, no doubt.

Online it is easier to speak up, and the famous Mantra works best in that situation, while following a script does not work as well in 'real life' gatherings. The Mantra requires going step by step through the statements, while in actual conversation, with give-and-take, that's not always possible or effective. In face-to-face exchanges, the flow has to be more spontaneous, think-on-your-feet style. I suppose you can use key phrases from the Mantra where appropriate. But I am open to hearing what others have experienced.

I think it's always most effective, as far as influencing people's thinking or provoking some unorthodox thoughts on their part, to get to know them first and establish yourself as someone who is normal and trustworthy; controversial or startling statements right out of the box are not usually good. Start with things you can agree on. I think this was a point that was also made in the recent AmRen article about which I blogged the other day.

It's amazing how many people, even 'liberals', oppose affirmative action. Each time anti-AA ballot measures have been introduced, even in hyper-liberal areas like California and Washington State, they've passed handily, by comfortable margins. Of course the courts may overturn such initiatives, but the fact is, in the privacy of the voting booth (or vote-by-mail) most people reject AA. But most liberals are just not honest enough to say they oppose it, at least among their liberal friends.

But if you introduce the subject of affirmative action, you will find that more people agree than you might think. Mass immigration, especially of the illegal variety, is also a subject on which most average Americans agree. I've been pleasantly surprised to find that you can introduce this subject and draw many 'amens' in response. Likewise, social benefits for illegals. Most Americans do not agree that non-citizens, especially illegals, should receive benefits. So subjects like this are not as risky as some other non-PC topics.

I have no easy formula, but this is something that has to be done with patience; things can't change overnight, though it seems that recent events have caused some people to become more politically incorrect than they once were. So there is hope.

Does anyone have experiences to relate, or suggestions and tips to share?

Emma West's trial postponed

Emma West trial postponed until July 16

''After waiting for months to discover her fate, Emma West has not learned it today.

The trial has been put back until July, and will take place at Croydon Crown Court on July 16.  The delay is to allow for new psychiatric reports to be prepared.''

Psychiatric reports? The people in charge need psychiatric examination.
Honestly, this attempt to paint political dissidents or people who simply speak out of turn as 'mentally ill' is right out of the old Soviet Union.

And on the subject of political incorrectness on the part of patriots, here is a review from the Telegraph of a new book, Enoch at 100, as this year is the 100th anniversary of Enoch Powell's birth.

The phrase 'Enoch was right' is increasingly heard these days, even among Americans who are aware of Powell's career and his public statements. And it's true; he has been proven right, though I think he would have been happier to have been shown to be wrong, and the Britain he loved, intact.

Justice?

Somewhat related to the post yesterday about the 3 AM intruder and the homeowner's dilemma, this story out of Texas raises issues of how much a citizen can lawfully do when victimized by criminals.
In this case, though, a four-year-old child was the victim and the criminal, caught in the act, is no longer alive.

'He Got What He Deserved', says the headline on The Blaze. I can't imagine any decent person arguing with that headline, but on the CNN website, where I first saw the story, there were some people objecting to the father's action.

Would any of us act differently in such a situation? I can't imagine any healthy parent being other than outraged and furious. I cannot conceive of anybody behaving coolly and objectively in a scenario like this.

This incident took place in Shiner, Texas, a town with which I'm familiar, and I am not surprised that most of the townspeople quoted in the article thought that the father did what he needed to do.

Shiner is in South central Texas, and it is a town originally settled by German immigrants, as are several of the towns in that part of the state. It is also known as the home of Shiner Beer, thanks to the German founders of the town.

Someone on the comment thread speculates about the ethnicity or race of the criminal (oops -- should I say 'suspect'? Or 'alleged perpetrator', as the liberals insist?) and someone else answers that the perpetrator is unlikely to be black, because in that part of Texas, you are Anglo or Mexican -- or in the case of Shiner, German-Texan. However in the common parlance Germans are Anglos, loosely speaking.

The deviant may have been a hard-working individual who just came to Shiner for a better life, shall we say.  But no information has been released as of now.

So was the Dad right or wrong? Technically speaking, he may have been guilty of breaking some law, but how would a normal person react in such a horrible situation? The problem with letting our 'justice' system take its course is that if that had been allowed to happen, the attacker would be coddled by the system, provided with free legal help and the family would be forced to re-live the troubling events during the trial. All the while, the usual suspects try to gin up sympathy for the wrongdoer, who would be described as a 'troubled individual' with an 'illness' or disorder. He would then, at best, be sentenced to years of confinement and 'treatment' at taxpayers' expense, while expensive appeals followed one after the other. And there is always the possibilty of acquittal on a technicality, or an escape. Texas has seen cases of violent criminals escaping from jail or prison only to kill or harm other innocent people.

Lefties always cry about how our justice system is unfair and biased. It is, in favor of wrongdoers.

Maybe it worked well, our system of law and order, when we were all a homogeneous people with a common set of moral and ethical standards. Now, it's a travesty.

Was this 'vigilante' justice? It seems to me to have been simply a man acting on very normal feelings of outrage, justified anger, and a desire to protect his child. Now let's see if the bleeding hearts are able to work up any sympathy for him, as they do for the worst criminals among us.

Presidential reading habits, real or imaginary

Does anybody believe these cute little stories put out occasionally about what our Presidents read in their leisure time?  Steve Sailer cites Michio Kakutani's list of the current president's list of reading material.

One thing to note about Obama's literary tastes are how WASP, even Congregationalist they are. According to Michiko Kakutani, his Facebook page during the last election said his favorite books were: "Shakespeare’s plays, Herman Melville’s “Moby-Dick” and Marilynne Robinson‘s “Gilead” are mentioned on his Facebook page, along with the Bible, Lincoln’s collected writings and Emerson’s “Self Reliance“"

Obama's is about the WASPiest list imaginable.''

Whoever put this list up on Facebook probably was assigned to invent a list of books. First of all, it is evident, from various public statements he has made, that O is not conversant with the Bible. Secondly, most educated people (at least in earlier times) read these books in high school or college. How many people sit around and read Emerson for entertainment nowadays? Or Lincoln's Collected Writings? The list is risible.

Notice that the novel, Robinson's Gilead is one of those novels with a racial theme. How very politically correct to include that one.

 I simply don't believe the list, just as I never believed the silly fawning stories of what Bill Clinton supposedly read in his free time. Occasionally Clinton would be photographed carrying some ponderous volume of history or something, as he left to go on vacation. Who believes he was the serious scholar or bookworm? It was all for show.

The media, slobbering lap-dogs that they are, create this image of their favorite politicians as being intellectual, highbrow, cultured. The hype about the last two Democrat presidents especially struck me as less than believable. I never saw one glimmer of evidence that Clinton was erudite and a near-genius, as he was depicted by his disciples. I see no evidence of any such gifts on the part of the current occupant either.

As for the list being 'WASPy', by what definition? There are different kinds of WASPs, but I suppose when most Americans use the word, they have in mind the stereotype of the upper-class, old money, Boston-accented snobs. I'd say such people are few and far between now, and as I've written, there are precious few people who even identify as WASPs anymore, even though they may be of predominantly English ancestry. The Northeast, supposedly the stomping ground of these fabled old-money WASPs is dominated by a very multicultural 'elite' now, many of them ethnic and/or 'new money.'

And the notion that the current occupant of the WH is 'partly WASP' by ancestry is by no means established. In any case, if we are to believe the official story, he grew up in very non-WASPy places like Hawaii and Indonesia, and went to college, supposedly, in California and New York City. About as non-WASP as you can get, in my opinion, even if the ancestry is there.

Still, the WASP gets invoked often on the Internet, usually as a whipping-boy or as a bad example of some sort, even though they seem to be elusive in real life. I suppose they, or at least the stereotype of them, serve a useful purpose. If they didn't exist, they'd have to be invented, as Sartre supposedly said of the Jew.

The right to be stupid

Would you shoot at an intruder in your bedroom in the middle of the night, who refused to leave or stop when ordered to? I would. Otherwise, why be armed, or for that matter, why lock your doors,
if you don't feel threatened at the prospect of intruders at 3 AM?

But what if the intruder was an innocent-looking young woman?

This story is not exactly fresh, but it seems to be eliciting a lot of comment. In brief, this drunk young woman entered somebody's house, supposedly by mistake, and was shot by the homeowner.

This is Colorado, mind you, which is now blessed with a lot of liberal White-flight types from California and also with illegals.

There is still, however, a residual population of old-stock Colorado people with more conservative notions, such as the idea of a man's home as his castle and the concomitant right to self-protection -- with the use of a firearm, per the Second Amendment.

On the discussion thread you get the obnoxious snarky anti-gun zealots, defending the drunken girl who was trespassing, and there are even a few misguided men who want to protect the girl because she is a girl -- who happens to be attractive by most standards. It seems chivalry is not dead these days, not quite, but what there is of it is often misguided.

The liberals whine that it was wrong to shoot a 'young girl' who was unarmed, and that the homeowner couldn't have known whether she was somehow mentally incompetent or unable to understand their requests.

But in the heat of the moment, especially when you are awakened from sleep in the night, in the dark, you have to make a quick judgment. Your life may be in danger, and your family's lives.

As to her being a 'young girl' who was obviously harmless as a kitten, these days young girls have been known to commit violent crimes. Women are not the delicate young creatures they may have been in better times; they've often acted as accomplices to men in violent crimes as well as acting on their own. We can no longer assume that a ''little blonde girl'' (is 5'7'' considered 'little' these days?)is harmless.

If feminists want girls and women to be treated with kid gloves in a situation like this, and to be exempted from consequences, then they evidently don't believe what they preach about equality of the sexes. Are women the equals of men, and hence subject to the same penalties as men in situations like this, or are they delicate creatures, just taller children, who must be treated with indulgence and coddling?

I don't believe women are the equals of men in many respects, but I do think that they should be treated the same in a court of law. The same act should bring the same consequences.

Feminism has a lot to answer for in situations like this, and in many of the sadder cases we read of lately. For example, cases where women or teenage girls are brutally raped, or targeted by sex predators as in the UK incidents.

In most of these cases, the girls or women have been plied with drugs and/or alcohol, and in some cases, the women have drunk themselves into a stupor which left them vulnerable. But they did so by choice in some of the cases.

The young girls who fall victim to pedophiles are often, I think, children of single mothers,  or latchkey children, with little supervision. If not, then their parents are just plain negligent not to teach their daughters sensible (and moral) behavior, as the girls willingly in some cases go with strangers, leaving themselves vulnerable.

Feminists fiercely defend the idea that women have a 'right' to get as drunk as they please, to drink themselves into insensibility in public places. Women are told they have the 'right' to walk dangerous neighborhoods at all hours, often dressed provocatively, or to trust strangers - all in the name of equality. If men can do such things, so should women be able to. Of course in an ideal society anybody could walk the streets at any hour and not feel endangered, but there is no ideal world.

Sure, women have a 'right' to do these risky things, but then they have to take responsibility when consequences follow.

I feel sympathy for the women, of our folk, who end up being victims. But if they put themselves into vulnerable positions because they refuse to heed rules based on morality and common sense, my sympathy for them tends to diminish.

Keeping us obedient

The post below this one, with the video of the man with 'extremist' views, brought to mind this recent article from AmRen.

The writer, Gerald Martin, tells of his experiences participating in a discussion group or 'salon' in Dallas, which as he says, is considered 'conservative' territory. In reality no Texas cities are really populated by a conservative majority anymore, and it's been quite some time since they were 'conservative'.

But the AmRen article illustrates why the views of the man in Buffalo aroused 'controversy.' Those of us who are old enough to remember the old America, and even those who have read a pre-politically correct history book (the only credible kind) know that the man in Buffalo simply holds views that once were the majority opinion among White Americans. His views would have aroused no 'controversy' or wringing of liberal hands or mock-horror on the part of a reporter in the old America. His opinions were ordinary once upon a time, and would have elicited a nod rather than a gasp of mock-outrage, back then.

How did we get to where we are now in one generation or so? The AmRen article gives clues. The writer mentions how uninformed some of his liberal counterparts at the salon were. These were evidently younger people, educated (or at least, what passes as educated these days) and yet utterly ignorant of basic facts of recent history.

''I found that virtually all the participants in the salon took anti-white policies like “affirmative action,” “diversity,” and “inclusion” for granted, and almost all the younger participants knew practically nothing about how they came about.''

This is not surprising, given the fact that for several decades, the educational system and the media have presented propaganda rather than facts and truths. Younger people have learned a history that is full of half-truths and whole lies. Important facts have been deliberately omitted, and other facts have been twisted to fit the cultural Marxist worldview.

In effect, the powers-that-be have engineered this situation where the young are in effect alien to their parents and to the older generations, and vice-versa. This is not accidental.

It's amazing that what was once taken for granted by old Americans is now considered shocking and extremist, if not outright taboo and criminal, by those who have been, since childhood, under the tutelage of the government schools and the media. Younger people, unless they seek out unorthodox sources, such as old books and documentaries and movies, are easily kept away from the influence of any dissenting ideas about 'sensitive' matters like race and immigration. When and if they are suddenly introduced to something outside their known, politically correct world, they sometimes react with alarm or shock.  The fact that such reactions are not uncommon shows just how controlled our 'free speech', and how limited our societal conversation has been.

This needs to change. Not many of us can participate in a 'salon' like Mr. Martin, but we can certainly broach these 'controversial' topics in certain situations, and we can speak our piece without seeming fanatical or inflammatory. I thought the man from Buffalo in the video did a fairly creditable job of holding his own, and not becoming ruffled or too defensive. I thought his calm and low-key demeanor worked well for him. I can't imagine sensible viewers finding him objectionable. Somewhere deep inside, most Americans with common sense recognize the truth when they hear it, even if they do not know their history and have never heard the full truth about anything from the media and their authority figures.

Now and then I like to use a good 'broken clock' quote, illustrating that even our enemies occasionally say something true, even if by accident:

''The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.'' - Noam Chomsky

'Extreme' views spur controversy

VIDEO: Extreme race views spur controversy: wivb.com

"Have you ever wondered, why opinions that the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial', 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful' and overwhelmed with violence and venom? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see." - Enoch Powell

'Are the English better at English?'

Steve Sailer asks why Americans these days seem more likely to excel at Math on the SAT and GRE.

''...we have lots of prestigious national science and math fairs for high school students (which are now dominated by Asians), but little of the same fame for the reading and writing set. Everybody who is anybody in America seems far more obsessed with cultivating Math and Science than with raising our verbal ability.''

This math-and-science emphasis has a definite origin. Back in the late 1950s, what with the Cold War and the Space Race with the Soviets, our government became obsessed with producing more scientists and math experts, the better to outdo the Russians. The fact that the USSR had put the first satellite into space in 1957 caused panic among some in government. I remember that my teachers in elementary school assured us that whichever nation reached the moon first would dominate the world. We had to be sure we got there first so as to assure our continued ascendancy.

Schools began to heavily emphasize math and science at the expense of not only language skills, but history, geography, and the arts. In recent years we've heard many people lament Americans' poor geographic knowledge.

My personal impression from having spent time on the other side of the Atlantic is that all the British Isles peoples over there surpass us in their facility with the English language. I would say that the Irish are far more glib than we Americans, while the English are more careful and precise in their use of words. The British Isles peoples in general have better and larger vocabularies than the  average American speaker of English.

I used to correspond at length with a number of friends in England and some in Ireland, and they all write much better letters than Americans in general. But letter-writing is a dying art, and nobody will lament it when it is gone, except for a few eccentrics who love the written word, and such people are dwindling in an increasingly non-verbally oriented society.

Some of the comments on the thread are rather exasperating, like this one, quoting an earlier comment:

"Americans are not as good with words on average as the British."

this is possible but i will say this. a british person never met an r at the end of a word that they wanted to pronounce. they just pretend those r's don't exist.''

Does this person not realize that there are such things as regional dialects? That our American habit of pronouncing hard 'r's is just our habit? Some Americans also do not use the hard 'r' sound at the end of a word. Who is 'right'?

Americans are very chauvinistic in this respect; if we pronounce a word a certain way, that's the ''right'' way, and those English are weird for differing from us. As I've told a friend who ridicules English as spoken by English people, the English had the language first.

Other comments praise American plain-spokenness, and decry the English habit of using 'stilted' language:

"It's as if proper Britons must strive to sound intelligent at all times, even about really dumb things. So, the British comments about the London Riots sounded stilted and ridiculous, like gentlemen trying to control themselves while observing and trying to describe the actions of animals.''

And do our 'news anchors' with their fake 'Media English' non-accents do better? Americans are pretty good at pomposity of a different kind, such as using terms such as 'hopefully' instead of a simple ''I hope'' or ''let's hope.'' Or 'at this point in time' or 'at this juncture' instead of ''now''. American media personalities and academics as well as bureaucrats are prime offenders at that kind of nonsense.

Someone mentions Winston Churchill's eloquence, and someone else reminds us that Churchill was 'half-American' and so may have inherited his skill with words from his mother's side. Except, of course, that 'American' is not an ethnicity. It is strictly a civic identity, telling us nothing (these days) about someone's ancestry. When Churchill's mother's ancestors arrived, they came to an English colony. Actually Churchill's ancestry was mostly from the British Isles, though his mother is said to have been 'part Iroquois'; (Presumably, her ancestors settled in an area where there were no Cherokees). The story of Iroquois ancestry is said to be apocryphal.

It would be interesting to know, though, just how much genetics influence our language abilities, and how much of a role is played by environment and education.

Much as I'd like to be a linguistic partisan and claim that we Americans are better at writing and speaking English, I have to say that in my opinion, we aren't. And I include myself in that blanket statement.

As for style, that has been declared to be only a matter of taste for some time now, though there really should be agreed-upon standards of what is correct and what is good prose or poetry. We have made it too subjective, too much ''anything goes.''

There is plenty to love in American English; in better times, it could be a medium for expressing oneself very colorfully and distinctively. There was once more of a diversity of dialects and accents (not foreign ones, necessarily) in American English, but that is endangered now, thanks in part to the artificial diversity that has been deliberately introduced. I suspect that as our country becomes more and more heterogeneous ethnically, and as pidgin dialects like Spanglish become more common, our American English will drift farther from our English origins. That will further weaken the links between us and what is (for some of us, still) our mother country.

E pluribus...

Remember this propaganda 'public service announcement' which was first shown right after 9/11?

At the time I was your standard mainstream 'conservative' but this irked me, somehow. The idea was that we were being pressed to accept anybody on our soil as one of us. The phrase 'E pluribus unum' was flashed to reinforce the idea that though our origins were many, we were still 'one'. Actually the Latin phrase E Pluribus Unum was never mean to represent mass immigration or multiculturalism; it simply meant a number of sovereign states joined into one Republic. Nothing to do with making all comers 'Americans' by virtue of their being here, or saying the words.

Now, what with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebration in Britain, they are being subjected to this kind of multicult propaganda. However, in the case of Britain, it is the English people, the ethnic English, who are the counterparts to old stock White Americans. It is they (like 'heritage Americans' in this country) who are being asked to step aside, give up their birthright, and take a back seat to every opportunist and mendicant who shows up on their shores. Like old Americans, they are told that their flag (the St. George's flag) is racist and not allowed lest it offend the 'new Britons'. The Celtic minorities are allowed their flags and symbols, while the English are not, and the new identity is 'British' because it is a civic identity, just as American is now.

This piece from Gates of Vienna discusses the fact that few of the 'new Britons', the people who apparently will replace the English and kindred peoples, took part in the Jubilee festivities.

''The cameras of the BBC, usually anxious to present a picture of multiracial harmony, and whose coverage of the events has been broadly panned as inane, clearly struggled in desperation to find non-white faces in the crowds.

Their failure to do so was even more stark as they linked to outside broadcasts of commemorative street parties up and down the country, particularly in places like Luton, where it was patently evident that wherever the English were in the minority only the English were doing any celebrating at all.

Where were the others? Our fellow “Britons”?''

However, I am not clear as to whether the writer is simply lamenting the fact that the immigrants and their children are not taking part in the civic patriotism of their adopted country, or whether he is making the statement that multiculturalism is a misguided idea at best, a malevolent fraud at worst. A 'multiracial nation' is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.

Just as with old-stock Americans, the English (the ethnic English; there are no 'ethnic British') must awake to their actual identity and their rightful place, else they will be replaced, blended out of existence, or marginalized and stripped of their rights. It appears that is already happening, though many seem oblivious.

Bretons vs. Islamics in France

I notice that on several blogs where this story (about which I posted yesterday) was discussed, many people seemed to misunderstand what happened, and who the 'players' were.

Some people at AmRen were posting the usual Francophobic slurs (and I notice at least one comment of that nature has disappeared, probably deleted). But nobody stepped up to say that the Bretons are Celtic, and have their own nationalist movement. I suppose to many Americans, any White person in France is one of those 'frogs' or 'surrender monkeys.' This kind of ignorance and true xenophobia is embarrassing for America.

I am not sure how much the Bretons identify with France, or how much they consider themselves living in 'occupied' territory. I do know they have a varied assortment of nationalist groups there, some of them more leftist or socialist after the fashion of the other Celtic nationalist parties but they also have a right-wing nationalist party.

Breaking down barriers

Vladimir Putin, again showing his globalist colors. Yet somehow he is still revered by many WNs and ethnonationalists as somehow being 'one of us.'

And actually, this idea is nothing new for Putin, as we see in this article from 2010. Putin at that time bemoaned the 'barriers' between the EU and Russia and expressed hope that they could be removed, to allow for 'integration.'

“The main one of these [barriers] is the visa regime between Russia and the EU. We think that allowing visa-free travel would be the beginning, rather than the completion, of real Russia-EU integration.

So, how about the idea of opening up the EU to free movement of Russians or opening Russia to those from the EU? I suppose for the WN, this is perfectly acceptable. I have heard a lot arguments from this group in favor of Eastern European coming en masse to Britain and Ireland; after all, they are the same color, so why should they not be welcomed as brothers?

While I certainly believe that all people of European ancestry should be allied, especially as we are all 'in the same boat' as regards being replaced in our own countries, I believe each ethnicity should ideally be self-governing and sovereign. It may not yet be practicable, but it should be the ideal state. To believe in a pan-European 'nation of nations' is just another version of what pre-1965 America was; we were all supposed to be one nation, indivisible, despite having come from many European nations, some of which had histories of mutual hostility. We see how that has worked out. More than ever, various ethnicities who had lived together in some degree of harmony in this country, are at odds, and old grievances are stirred up, as in the instance of the anti-Anglo-Saxon grievance-mongering that has become fashionable in recent times.

The fact is, too, that the 'civic nationalist' umbrella under which we Americans co-existed for a while led directly to the proposition nation idea, which in turn has led to multiculturalism and the idea of regional superstates like the proposed North American Union and the EU.

Even if we reverted to the pre-1965 status quo, we would still be at risk of future balkanization, as people are now less likely to put aside their ethnic allegiances in favor of some kind of civic allegiance. Old animosities are re-kindled and each group, overtly or covertly, tries to gain the ascendancy against the other groups.

Bringing large numbers of Russians or other 'Caucasian' peoples into Britain would be a bad idea. They may look similar (although to me, there are obvious differences) but culturally, historically, temperamentally, there are marked distinctions. And no matter how compatible these people could potentially be (according to the Russiaphiles) the net result would be to further undermine traditional Britain, and to weaken whatever social cohesion still exists there in an already divided nation.

The real thing

Or at least I hope this display of Breton nationalism is the real thing, in light of the popularity of various fake nationalisms which seem to see multiculturalism as compatible with their particular national allegiance. (The SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Sinn Fein come to mind, with their inclusive 'one country, many peoples' attitude).

The best-known Breton, for many of us outside France, is Alan Stivell, who despite his love for his Breton roots has sought to blend 'world' (read:Third World) influences and African performers into his music. I don't understand this contradiction, but then liberalism makes no sense.
And I don't know how typical Stivell's attitude is toward his ethnic allegiances.

In any case I hope this incident of assertiveness is a sign of a resurgence of a real ethnonationalism. Accept no substitutes, as the old advertising slogan said.

Note: the video of the incident is here, or should be; I could not get it to embed.

We didn't mind -- enough

In the Frank Capra movie, Meet John Doe, the character Connell says:

Yessir. I'm a sucker for this country. I'm a sucker for the Star Spangled Banner—and I'm a sucker for this country.

I like what we got here! I like it! A guy can say what he wants -- and do what he wants -- without having a bayonet shoved through his belly. Now that's all right, isn't it?

You betcha. All right. And we don't want anybody coming around and changing it, do we?
...No sir. No sir. And when they do, I get mad! I get b-boiling mad. And right now, John, I'm sizzling!...I get mad for a lot of other guys besides myself--I get mad for a guy named Washington! And a guy named Jefferson--and Lincoln. Lighthouses, John! Lighthouses in a foggy world! You know what I mean?"

I'm with Mr. Connell, as are many Americans, deep down. We don't like 'anybody coming around changing' our country. And yet we've let them do it -- so far.

Why? We Didn't Mind Enough.

John Derbyshire says that we didn't mind enough to stop mass immigration -- ''we'' being the American populace or the electorate.

The same thing could be said, as he notes, of the population of the UK, and it could be said of Australia or New Zealand or Canada or just about any country in former Christendom.

Derbyshire cites the feedback he has received from Americans who object to this statement of his, this accusation that we haven't bothered to do anything about mass immigration. Most apparently disclaim any responsibility for the situation, blaming 'the elites' for forcing it on us. For some people, the 'elites' translates to 'the Jews' but either way you look at it, it seems dishonest to blame it all on some outside force. But is it all our fault?

I can't quite go as far as Derbyshire does in asserting that we could have done something via the ballot box and other respectable means.

''Politicians can be voted out; businessmen can have their products boycotted; journalists (let me tell you) can be swamped with negative mail. ''

Yes, politicians can be voted out. We could "turn the rascals out," all of them, if we so chose -- couldn't we? That's presuming the electoral system is not totally rigged, a presumption which may or may not be valid.

It does seem plausible to many of us that the system is rigged, and the electoral system, with our much-vaunted 'democratic' system, is a sham. Both parties are slaves to the same kind of politically correct ideology, and long gone are the days when anybody could up and run for political office as a candidate for one of the major parties. Sure, almost anybody with money can run as some kind of independent or minor party candidate but to run as a Republican or Democrat is to toe the party line, which includes supporting the politically correct, egalitarian, nation-of-immigrants twaddle.

Sure, we could turn all the rascals out, as the old saying goes, but there are any number of other rascals with identical views and identical allegiances to take their place. Nobody gets anywhere politically in this country without toeing the line. We no longer live in the Frank Capra world where the 'little guy' matters, and wields actual power.

As for trying to reform our corrupt politicians by flooding them with angry e-mails or phone calls -- don't think it hasn't happened. Many of us have tales to tell of contacting our representatives and party officials only to be dismissed or ignored. Some immigration patriots proudly say we 'stopped the Bush amnesty' and maybe ''we'' did, momentarily, but before you could say 'Dream Act' the old amnesty express was rolling again. And the issue has not gone away.

I no longer have much faith in the 'system' to right the wrongs that are endemic to it.

This does not mean that I don't believe any change is possible, but if and when it happens, it will not be done by the old-fashioned 'vote-em-out' method. Nor will boycotts work, as I noted in last night's post, if all the businesses are on the same page. Where are the immigration patriot businesses, who hire only legal American labor, or who sell American-made products? They are thin on the ground, if they exist at all. We can fax, boycott, and call all we like; things don't change.

So how did we get here, to the place where Americans 'don't mind' our race replacement and the dismantling of our country?

The elites did not 'force' this on us, but it happened gradually enough that few realized they were being conditioned to passivity, conditioned to believe in egalitarian and universalist beliefs, conditioned to feel guilty about excluding all those poor hard-luck cases from our wealth and plenty. Americans minds have been shaped to go along with this agenda, or at best, to feel conflicted about it. It's the same in all Western White countries.

We are not solely to blame, because there are powerful forces out there who are not answerable to us, whether financially or at the ballot box, who are moving the chess pieces. 'The people' are not really sovereign and in charge. Nonetheless, I don't advocate passivity or resignation. I think if public opinion could be moved enough to recognize what is happening, things might change, but until that happens, it is uphill going. Propaganda+peer pressure is a strong combination that has helped weaken us and render us vulnerable to the manipulation.

The left did not effect their changes via the ballot box as much as through the use of propaganda and social pressure. They did it gradually and relentlessly for decades. Unfortunately, we don't have the leisure to work as they did, and we don't have the voice in the media that they have. So it will not be easy.

So we've let our country be changed beyond recognition. It's happened, in part, because we have fewer and fewer Connells, as in the quote at the top of the post,  people who get 'boiling mad', 'sizzling' about what is being done. We have been prozac-ed into passivity, bread-and-circus-ed into a stupor.

And we lack those 'lighthouses' in our 'foggy world'.
Our world is worse than foggy; it's midnight, on a moonless night. We need the lighthouses, many of them, so that we can see through the darkness, and respond as a healthy people should.

'Enchanting photos' - vanished England

On the occasion of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, the Daily Mail published a series of color photos of life in England as it was 60 years ago.

The headline asks: Has any country ever changed so much in 60 years? I realize the question is rhetorical, and I mourn the loss of the England that used to be, as seen in the photos. But I have to answer that yes, our country has changed just as much in the last, say, 45+ years since the fateful Hart-Celler Immigration Act which opened up the floodgates.

One wry question comes to my mind when I see old pictures like these: 'where's the diversity?' I thought diversity was like oxygen and water, necessary to our very existence. But I see no diversity to speak of, and yet everybody seems to look happy and healthy, much more so than today. I guess they just didn't know any better back then. Perhaps ignorance in some cases is bliss, just as the saying has it. 

Ignorance is not always bliss

The Atlantic notes that Americans overestimate the numbers of homosexuals:

Americans have no idea how few gay people there are

It's noteworthy that this appears in The Atlantic. But it's surprising to me that it took a while for some commenter to pose the glaringly obvious question:

''Why is it surprising that people over estimate the percentage of the population that is gay considering the HUGE amount of media coverage that everything and anything having to do with homosexuality gets?''

Can it be that most Americans are not yet onto the fact that the media skew reality towards the left wing, 'diversity'-driven view of the world, in which minorities dominate everything, the few are The Majority, up is down, and bad is good? Can people still be that obtuse?

Then again, if you are steeped in the mass media parallel universe, or the 'inverted reality' as some call it, you actually see the world outside your door as being 'really' as it is on TV or in the alien view of Hollywood.

And does anyone here notice the parallel to another skewed idea of reality, based on media misrepresentation? I've mentioned that I occasionally ask people what the percentage of black people in our country is. They usually answer with a greatly overestimated percentage, much more than the 12-13 per cent that is the true figure.

Likewise with the Jewish numbers, given that Jews make up a single-digit percentage in our country, supposedly.


Remember a couple of years ago when television went digital, and there was a great fuss by the powers-that-be that everyone, even the poor, should have a converter box so as not to be TV-deprived? There was a reason for that. Nobody should be allowed to be outside the manipulated false reality of TV and Hollywood. The whole agenda depends on people having a distorted perception of the world outside our doors, or outside our towns and neighborhoods.

Since some of us live in 'diversity-deprived' areas, we must be fed the requisite dosage, the minimum daily requirement of 'diversity' and we must not be allowed to perceive that the world is really something other than what we see on TV or in advertising.

Meanwhile, Christians are reacting against the pro-homosexual advertising of JC Penney, which shows children with two dads.

The FReepers favor boycotts and calling JC Penney, but what do we do when all the corporations and businesses practice the same kind of advertising? How do boycotts work, in such a case? If all advertisers use such imagery, and ads such as those featured on AWM, then which businesses can we turn to?

Sad to say, there are few businesses who are not promoters of the propaganda. We seem to be surrounded, and options are few. We need to be aware of the reality, and, as much as possible, to 'tune out and turn off' the pernicious advertising. And spread the word to the unaware -- since there seem to be many who are still not-so-blissfully ignorant.