All 'science' is politicized now

Genealogy may not be a true science as it is practiced now. But whatever 'science' there is in it is being compromised for political ends.

Who'd have imagined: our 'historic' first AA president is descended from --- the very first slave in colonial Virginia. What a coincidence! Would anything less than such an amazing coincidence be acceptable?

John Shumway, an Ancestry.com genealogist, is the one who made this discovery. The find is based on researching 'Stanley Ann Dunham', purported  to be the mother of the president.

Usually, in doing genealogy, one has to start with established, verified facts: first, about one's parents, then grandparents, and so on back through the generations, step by laborious step. It is not good method to work from hearsay, 'possible' facts, family legend, or supposition. Those things can be taken into account but must be checked out, not accepted at face value or taken for granted. Yet that is the basis for any such research into this family line, as there is (as has been discussed for months and years now) no verifiable, original, long-form, birth document establishing parenthood of the subject in question. Hearsay, 'say-so', oral history, absent real documentation, does not lead to solid and accurate results.

And it is true that as you go back further in time, things become murkier, as birth certificates and other trustworthy documents and records are not always present. Some documents have conflicting information and it can be a real challenge to ascertain which information is correct.

Methinks this big discovery, based on a lot of 'could be', 'maybe', possibly', kind of information, includes a fair bit of wishful thinking or dramatic license.  There are lots of everyday individuals who cling to false stories of their family history for personal reasons of various kinds. This story seems to serve political ends, and perhaps it's being manipulated by people in political circles for such ends.

Every election year, as I've wearily noted, there are these silly fluff stories about how one presidential candidate or another is ''related to British royalty''  or to some trendy celebrity of the moment. This is supposed to wow the TMZ readers or the Weekly World News crowd -- and it's probably eaten up by many of the gullible media consumers out there. But it ain't necessarily so.

The discussion at American Thinker contains a lot of skeptical comments -- generally a commendable thing, but there are actually still people promoting the bizarre story that the first Af-Am president is not actually African, or not very much -- but is rather mostly Arab. This weird urban legend, apparently originating with one blogger, was grabbed by Rush Limbaugh for some strange reason, and now half the 'Republican faithful' in this country keep repeating it. Never mind the evidence of your lying eyes: he is mostly Arab. He has an Arab name, doesn't he? Q.E.D.

There are gullible people everywhere.

This kind of story makes genealogy, or at least popular genealogy, a bit of a laughingstock. But I can see that it is meant to establish links to other black Americans who are mostly slave descendants, and perhaps to convince people that the president is of the oldest American stock, descending from 'WASPs' and from slaves. The only thing missing to establish his "bona fide American" provenance is some Cherokee descent -- or have they already run that story? And let's not forget the 'Irish roots', so much an American tradition for any aspirant to political office. Hispanic roots, however, are going to be all important. Maybe they can sell the idea that the surname is Hispanic to the Univision crowd. Why not? It's as credible as the rest.

'Crucial to changing the future'

The phrase ''...crucial to changing the future of this nation'' is uttered by a female doctor quoted in the NYT article. What is she talking about? A new Disney animated feature. The headline announces ''Disney's 'Doc McStuffins' Adds Animated Racial Diversity.'"

As if this were some novel idea. This has been going on, this 'adding diversity', for decades now. Disney in particular has done it to excess, with its many animated features and its other products. Pocahontas, Mulan, and the latest 'black princess' character, Tiana. If they can work in a miscegenation storyline, as with Pocahontas, so much the better.

Disney has gone PC with a vengeance ever since it was taken over by Michael Eisner. And yet it's not enough. Never enough.

I remember years ago that there was a TV show called 'Julia', which depicted a black registered nurse, a single mother, raising a young child. She lived in a picture-perfect apartment, (as with most sitcoms and TV series, to be fair) and many people objected to the 'whitewashing' of the character and her situation. The series star, Diahann Carroll, said

"At the moment we're presenting the white Negro. And he has very little Negroness."

Critics seemed to feel that it did not show the true sufferings of black single mothers, or blacks generally.  Nowadays, such soft-focus depictions of blacks, this portraying them as actually wiser, better behaved, and more competent than Whites, is the standard.

Disney's black and other minority characters are depicted in much the same glamorized way. It seems the diversity enforcers require that the image be shown through a glamour lens.

The NYT article has black mothers rhapsodizing over this supposedly 'novel' presentation of black characters. Where have these people been? Children's TV and movies (just like all TV and movies) have had a surfeit of minority characters for years and years. There seems to be an absolute minimum quota which must be met in order for the product to be released. Any program or movie which is 'too White', even one set back in medieval Europe when there were no 'diversities' about, will not see the light of day. But apparently there are black children who are somehow starved for the sight of 'brown' characters in entertainment.

But is this mandated diversity meant to serve those poor children who have never seen any character who ''looks like them'' on TV or in a movie? Or is it aimed at another demographic?

The quote from the doctor which I excerpted above suggests that the 'diversity' is meant for White viewers. It is not meant just to make black children 'feel good about themselves' but to make the rest of us 'feel good' not about ourselves, but about 'diversity.' The world will not be right until an adequate amount of 'diversity', meaning fewer Whites, prevails everywhere. No stone is to be left unturned; even the remotest corner must be supplied with the requisite amount of 'diversity.' And all of us must be appropriately enthusiastic about diversity. Only then will the world be right.

This is what ''changing the future of the nation'' actually means: removing the offending homogeneity which once characterized Disney movies, (and after all, America was roughly 90 per cent White a few decades ago). "Changing the future of the nation" is what we saw in that hideous Olympics 2012 opening ritual. Rewriting not only history, but present reality as well, airbrushing -- or is that too gentle a word? -- Whites out of the picture, erasing them from history books and textbooks.

Otherwise, why is it that the great numbers of 'diverse' characters on TV and in movies is never enough? 12 per cent of the population becomes something like 30 or 40 per cent on television and in movies, and yet there are constant complaints of 'not enough blacks on TV'. Not enough diversity. Apparently it is easy to have ''too many Whites'' but not enough diversity.

The Doc McStuffins story sounds very much like the Cosby Show or the Julia series, with characters who bear scant resemblance to the majority of the black 12 per cent of America. Perhaps the social engineers think that they can persuade black children to grow up to be doctors, veterinarians, nurses, whatever, by means of Disney cartoons.

Or more likely, they just want to convince the rest of the gullible consumers out there that we are All The Same. And yet if we are All The Same, why the outcry for 'diversity'? If race is a social construct, then so is this precious ''diversity.''

Britain, 1939-45

Pictures of Britain during wartime. This is just to refresh memories as to the Britain that existed before the present, unnatural order of things. This was the Britain of the 'stiff upper lip' and the indomitable spirit.

Anybody notice what's missing?

No diversity of thought allowed

Behold diversity and inclusion at work. Womyn, Hispanic and black all represented here.

Scroll down through the comments and there is one smirking liberal who points out that the NY Post has gone to Facebook commenting so that people will have to post under their real names. The naughty, politically incorrect comments will have to be linked to people's real names, and this is mean to discourage too much free speech. I think he is right about the reasons why so many websites and blogs require signing in through Facebook or other social media in order to comment.

While some among us may say it doesn't matter; they don't mind having non-PC comments associated with their real-life identity, think about a time when non-PC speech will be treated as a criminal offense, as it is in some countries now.

How did these websites and blogs pull off this change without any resistance to it? I am waiting to see if the 'realist' comments which are seen as a good sign will in fact dry up, as there are probably groups like the SPLC and others combing through online comments and compiling lists of 'thought criminals' and their naughty words. And yes, it's true that one way or another, most everything we do online is open to those who can monitor us, this new practice just makes it easy for the thought police to do what they do. 

I do notice the posters with obviously fake names ('Lysol Motorola') but I have also heard that FB is sending notices to people that use what appear to be pseudonyms, warning them that such will not be tolerated.

Of course, vile posts like those from commenter 'Urban Threshold' will always be allowed. Always. Wonder if the SPLC is keeping track of him?

'Socio-political messaging'?

The 2012 Olympics opening ceremony appears to have been the most weird, over-the-top, and surreal in the history of the event. I say this based not on having watched it (because I don't partake in pop culture/mass media if I can help it) but on seeing many images, and reading and hearing many descriptions and impressions of it.

The picture above shows what some observer termed a 'Frankenbaby', which appeared in a tribute to Britain's National Health system, which also involved gaggles of children (appropriately diverse children, of course; British children cannot be depicted as White. That would exclude someone, wouldn't it?)

If anyone can explain the monstrous 'baby', or the children cavorting in a creepy, dark hospital ward, please help me out here. I have not read a satisfying explanation.

The mastermind or 'director' of this bizarre opening ceremony is Danny Boyle, of Irish parentage, and apparently it is in large part his vision of 'Britain' that is served up in the strange spectacle.  Boyle is apparently a movie director, whose movies I haven't seen nor will I see.

In a 2007 interview, Boyle said he no longer practised Catholicism and described himself as a "spiritual atheist."
[...]
Boyle is a trustee of the UK-based, African arts charity Dramatic Need.''

Impeccable lefty globalist credentials there.
The LA Times writes of him:

''Boyle ("Slumdog Millionaire,""Trainspotting,""127 Hours") brought humor to the ceremonies with multiple movie clips, including a parody of "Chariots of Fire" with Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean and footage of Daniel Craig's James Bond dropping into the proceedings via helicopter with the Queen of England.

He also incorporated live music, energetic stagecraft and the remarkable costumes of longtime collaborator Suttirat Larlarb. His show managed to bring together athletics, a tribute to government-run healthcare and Mary Poppins in one event. Unlike director Zhang Yimou's elaborate but ultimately spotlessly clean work to launch 2008's Games in Beijing, Boyle's show, like his movies, was gritty, filled with smoke and steel, and populated with people of all ages, looks and ethnicities.''

And as if this isn't enough:

''His nothing-off-limits musical clips included classical music from the London Philharmonic Orchestra, plus songs from Queen, OMD, New Order, the Sex Pistols, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Prodigy, the Specials and Muse. Boyle offered an odd salute to Tim Berners-Lee (introduced as the creator of the Internet, with no apologies to Al Gore), plus the Industrial Revolution and women’s suffrage.''

Of the Industrial Revolution segment, I have heard that there were black 'Industrialists' depicted. But that is not as insane as the scenes described as blacks and Moslems frolicking around a Maypole, or blacks in 16th century Britain.

Is this just triumphalism on the part of the multicultists, or is it an attempt to dupe the illiterate into thinking that this represents real English or British history and demographics? Or is it meant to anger the few aware ethnopatriots out there?

And why the obligatory scene of an interracial couple and their mixed child? Is this required now to be part of any entertainment or advertising?

And the LA Times article quotes the Tory politician Aidan Burley who made disparaging comments, which of course are being called 'racist'.

''On Twitter, Conservative Member of Parliament Adrian Burley (@AidanBurleyMP) called it "the most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen -- more than Beijing, the capital of a communist state! Welfare tribute next?''

Sadly he has since denied that he meant to criticize multiculturalism, but simply the way it was portrayed. And maybe he is being truthful; he may be a true-believing multiculturalist/globalist who simply lost his senses momentarily, then realized he had uttered forbidden thoughts.

Am I the only one who feels like the world has gone insane in recent times, and more so with each passing day? What's even worse is that there are still so many people who are so easily led that they truly do not see what those of us on the ethnopatriot side can see. How can citizens of the same country see the world in such starkly different ways?

This video about the 2012 Olympics and its one-world theme may be considered conspiracy-minded by some, but it includes a series of quotes towards the end which illustrate the mindset of those who are promoters of globalism/one-worldism and the anti-White agenda. The quotes, especially,  make you stop and think. Maybe the old saying ''just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you" may be true after all.

Maybe the whole strange ritual is all geared towards 'sociopolitical messaging' in their Orwellian phrase, rather than just introducing athletes competing  in the interest of ''international understanding and peace.''

'Worldviews' and naming

Bret McAtee has another interesting post at Iron Ink. It deals with how the respective worldviews of the North and the South affected even such thing as the names given to battle sites in the War Between the States.

I never really gave much thought to the odd fact that many famous battle sites of the WBTS differed, with the South calling the battles/sites by other names than those used by the Yankees: "Bull Run" vs. Manassas, for instance.

''Given that the Yankee Armies were fired by the nature exalting worldview of Transcendentalism – Romanticism, it is only natural that their people, following their journalists, would name the places of Battle after nature. In the same way, the bards and poets of the South who wrote on the Battles, because of their Agrarian and Christian Worldview, named those Battles consistent with the Christian and Agrarian idea and sense of place. For the Northern elite nature defined reality. For the Southern Wise-men, reality was identified by its relation to a sense of place.''

It makes sense.
Read the rest at Iron Ink.

Is America Anglo-Saxon?

John Derbyshire in a witty piece answers: Actually, America IS “Anglo-Saxon”—We Just Can’t Say So.

''Taking a half-full approach, you could rephrase that to say that of the three commonest white ancestry groups in the U.S.A., two are from the British Isles and the third is from the nation of which Anglia and Saxony are both regions. That's a total 34.7 percent on the 2000 Census figures (page 3 here).
Why stop there? You can add in the 7.2 percent of census respondents who gave their ancestry as "American," since doing so is a trait restricted almost entirely to the Scotch-Irish. Add in those who actually did respond with "Scotch-Irish" (1.5 percent) or "Scottish" (1.7 percent), and we're up to 45.1 percent.''

Read the whole thing at the link.

And incidentally, I found the maps below which indicate ancestry and ethnic group. Some are rather dated, such as the first one, based on 1990 Census figures. (Click to make maps bigger).

The above map of ethnic ancestry is from Valparaiso University in Indiana.

Then there is this one:

English ancestry looks to be surrounded by every other ethnic group, but as Derbyshire says in the article, many of those (as in the 'red' states shown above) claim ''American'' as their ethnic identity, which is often a sign of colonial-era British/ Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

The frequent claim by people of German descent that their group is the most numerous is easily challenged. Just as many people say of English-descended Americans, few are of 'pure' German origin, most families having various European ethnicities in their family tree, especially in the Northern tier states which are so solidly blue above. And again, many people selectively identify with a small portion of their overall ancestry. Just now, nobody wants to be English or Anglo-Saxon.

Amazon athletes

At the Thinking Housewife blog, there is a discussion about the 'macho female athlete', something which I have been thinking about after seeing a number of images from the ubiquitous Olympic coverage.

One of the photos which accompanies the blog entry is that of Voula Papachristou, the Greek female athlete who has been at the center of controversy over her politically incorrect Tweets. I know that male readers might object to her photo being used to illustrate the 'Amazon athlete' discussion, because she is the pinup-of-the-moment among the ethnopatriot/non-PC right. Many male commenters refer to her as ''smokin' hot'', (which always sounds like ghetto terminology to me). But her general form is rather masculinized; note her narrow hips in the photo. They look not much bigger than her waist. And she is very muscular.

Granted, female athletes are expected to be more well-muscled and to have a smaller percentage of body fat than the 'average' woman, especially in the kind of sport in which Ms Papachristou participates. They also tend to have low estrogen levels.

The Thinking Housewife piece discusses the conflict between the 'naked Amazon' image and the traditional ideal of feminine modesty. The photo of the women soccer players does not necessarily illustrate the near-nakedness referred to, but Ms. Papachristou's costume is skimpy, especially the shorts. There are some photos of her online which are borderline soft porn, in that they display her bare backside very prominently as she somersaults, or walks away from the camera.  I would post some of the photos, but I'd have to include a warning. Now, I know that this may simply reflect the hypersexualizing of our society, and it may just be a desire to draw in more male viewers for this kind of display. But I do think that this kind of thing reflects a feminist and egalitarian obsession. From the blog post:

''In Plato’s Republic, Socrates imagines an egalitarian, communistic world ruled by the select. The key to erasure of the distinctions between the sexes, he says, is to rid women of shame and induce them to practice athletics in nakedness with the men.''

One more thing that puzzles me about the adulation directed at the 'Amazon athletes': I thought that most right-wing males loathed feminism, and hated the masculinization of women, and their reputed aggressiveness and competitiveness with men. Yet they seem to prefer the well-muscled, androgynous look of some of the women athletes, a look that at one time would have been considered too unfeminine. The old standard of femininity and modesty is all but gone, while the ideal of beauty veers more toward the same muscular and lean standard which epitomizes male attractiveness.

It seems to me there is some confusion here, and people's standards for the two sexes are becoming much more blurred. Our girls are more imbued with feminist ideals than ever before, and it seems as if there is little resistance to this. The media publicize female athletes, many of whom seem quite sexually ambiguous, and our popular culture is full of images of the 'tough chick' or the 'woman warrior' who saves the day when the inept males fail.

If girls and young women see the lean, muscular (and skimpily dressed) female as being the most desirable to the opposite sex, we can expect to see femininity diminishing even more, and probably  an increase in eating disorders, as girls try to eliminate natural feminine softness in order to achieve the 'Amazon' look.

Texans (or Texians?) and nationalism

At Southern Nationalist Network, there has been some discussion of the subject of Texas nationalism, first with this article by Daniel Miller, and the response from Michael.

I've expressed before my misgivings about the 'inclusive' approach of the Texas Nationalist movement, and the likelihood that a resurgent 'Republic of Texas' would end up being a bilingual if not Spanglish-speaking 'nation', which is not what our Texas colonist ancestors envisioned it being, despite the revisionist view of Texas history.

Texas is not just being returned, de facto, to Mexico; it's also receiving a lot of immigration from various Third World countries. The Texas that exists today is riven by the 'diversity' which we are told is to be 'celebrated.' There are some areas which remain mostly populated by Anglo Texans (and that has traditionally included those Texans of German descent in some places), people whose families have lived in the state since the days of the colonies or the Republic of Texas. But more and more, Texas is becoming a multicultural state, and its people often true believers in the ideology that drives multiculturalism.

Michael, in his response to the Miller article, points out that Texas is not a nation in the blood and kinship sense, as it was at its inception.

''Texas is not a nation. Texas is a government. It is lines on a map defining a particular territory, a flag, a bureaucracy in Austin and so forth. Governments are not nations, no matter if they are independent or not. An independent (sovereign) government is a state. Subordinate governments have many names such as provinces, counties and districts. A nation is an ethnic and cultural group with a shared history and identity.''

If Texas were to re-establish independence it would have to be a 'proposition nation' as the United States has become. Would that, then, be a great improvement over the status quo? I say it might not be worth the great sacrifices that would be required to make it possible. Others may disagree. The 'proposition nation', the nation-state that is not based on natural ties but on abstract ideas, has been shown to be a failure, in most cases, necessitating a strong or intrusive government to keep dissension and internal strife quelled, and to enforce some kind of 'tolerance' amongst disparate and sometimes hostile groups. Political correctness with all its strictures would end up being imposed, most likely.

I've hoped against hope that Texas might regain independence but given the makeup of the state now, that seems much more problematic.

Incidentally, on the SNN discussion, a commenter says that the term 'Texian' is the correct one, not 'Texan.' I don't remember ever hearing that term applied to the present-day people of Texas, but rather to the colonists and the people who lived in Texas during the days of the Republic. On the other hand, maybe terminology is changing, to keep up with the changes in the population. I came across this discussion of how many Spanish place names in Texas are now being re-Hispanicized, as political correctness demands that we conform to the pronunciation of the original language, rather than Anglicize names as was the former habit. In this discussion someone says it is racist to pronounce Spanish place names in an Anglicized fashion. And we are told that even the name of the state should be 'Teh-Has' rather than Texas.

Texas is full of place names whose pronunciations confound Hispanics but sound natural to others. Palacios is pronounced "Puh-LAY-shus" instead of "Pa-LA-see-os." Manchaca is "MAN-shack" instead of "Man-CHA-ka." Pedernales is "PER-dan-al-is" instead of "Peh-der-NA-les" and so on. Even Texas should be "TEH-jas," according to some traditionalists...''

Well, I will pronounce the names in the 'correct' Spanish fashion, trills and all (and I can do so if I choose) the day that the millions of Mexicans in the U.S. learn to pronounce our names correctly.  And it seems to me that it is difficult for people who have not learned a language early to pronounce foreign names 'properly', accent-free. The idea that we have to kowtow to Mexican trespassers in this fashion shows how we are being made subjects in our own country. How do you say ''dhimmi'' in Spanish?

No, Texas need not change even the place names to appease the ever-disgruntled immigrants, or the liberal purists who like to preen themselves on their linguistic cosmopolitanism. In fact, I've been thinking for some time that we should have changed all the existing Spanish place names when we took over the territories, and named them after our own heroes or after natural features. The fact that we left the Spanish names intact lends credence to the Mexican claim that this land all belonged to them, and was stolen by the gringos.

A non-PC commenter (thank God for him) on that thread quotes John Derbyshire, apparently in the context of this kind of linguistic PC:

"Damn whatever committee of the U.N. [yeah, I know it's not the U.N. this time] is foisting this gibberish on us! To hell with them and all their works! GYPSIES! PEKING! LAPPS! BOMBAY! HOTTENTOTS! Come and get me, you bastards!"

 Derbyshire speaks for me, there.

Texan, Texian, whatever. Texas needs to decide if it wants to be a real nation in the natural sense or if it wants to be simply a slightly more conservative version of The Empire, propositions and all.

Anglo-Saxon heritage: how racist

The brouhaha over Mitt Romney's purported 'racially charged' statement about Anlgo-Saxon heritage is based on a comment that may not even have been made. The source is not named. But the media have jumped on the quote as a way of attributing 'racism' to Romney.

The writer of this blog piece seems to be taking a slap at Anglo-Saxon Americans of colonial stock, when it appears he himself is of possible Anglo-Saxon roots: born in South Carolina, apparently to a rather privileged environment, educated in elite New England schools. But being an apparent globalist/multiculturalist, he is above caring about 'bloodlines'.

Look at this excerpt:

''That [the alleged remark' doesn’t just annoy African-Americans; there are a lot of Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Jewish Americans and a long list of other people whose blood boils at the thought of Wasps staking out some special claim to being more American than thou.

So strong are these feelings that the term “Anglo-Saxon” has pretty much dropped out of American discourse, and you will almost never hear an American use the term.''

Well, this American uses the term, and now that you mention it, yes, I am 'more American' than the recent arrivals and also more American than the hyphenates mentioned in the above quote. The fact that they aggressively assert their ethnic roots (though their heritage may be 1/4 or less, and their immigrant ancestors generations back) shows they identify with other heritages, languages, and histories than do those Americans who are of colonial stock.

I fail to see why anyone who wears immigrant identity on his sleeve would be offended at being thought 'less American' than I or someone of colonial or even pre-Revolutionary roots.

The writer absurdly goes on to say that people like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice ''help to define what Anglo-Saxon or, if you prefer, Anglo-American ideas and values mean.'' He does not expound on this idea, but as best I can guess his meaning, he seems to espouse the 'proposition nation' idea, that anyone who believes in some vague, high-sounding ideals is heir to Anglo-American 'values.' As if those ideas and the culture from which they came can be severed from the people who developed and nourished them, and made them part of our new country. Disembodied ideas do not an Anglo-American make.

As for the president's alleged 'WASP' roots, which a commenter also asserts, where is the proof? He is a man of mystery; his birthplace and parents have not been established except by quasi-fictional 'biographical' writings. Even if he has some Anglo-Saxon ancestry, he emphatically does not identify with that ancestry or heritage. He has done nothing to affirm that purported part of his background, and everything to disown it, as with his unexplained returning of gifts given by our British cousins (the bust of Churchill) to Britain. The administration has made a point of disavowing that longstanding 'special relationship'. So, either the president does not understand the special relationship or he has decided to pointedly reject it.

The blog entry concludes with this:

"Americans don’t care as much as they used to about races and bloodlines. But they care a lot about values and ideals. Someone like Secretary Rice, who strikes many Americans as a kind of embodiment of core Anglo-American ideas like the importance of liberty and the need to be strong, benefits from the deep affinity that Americans retain for what they see as the values that have made this country rich, strong and free.''

I don't know who these Americans are who ''don't care'' about bloodlines; almost everyone but Anglo-Saxons care very much about their bloodlines, though many know only one portion of their ancestry.

The minority groups with whom the writer is clearly in sympathy care a great deal about race and bloodlines, hence the many, many aggressive ethnic advocacy groups which are so generously funded by left-wing foundations and ultimately by taxpayers' money. Everybody cares very much about race in America, except for those Americans who have no trendy ethnic ancestry with which to identify. Those who identify as simply 'Americans' are mostly people of the despised 'old stock', whose ancestors arrived here centuries ago. The descendants of the original English colonists are not all snooty upper-crust New England types, despite the stubborn stereotype. Rather, most are ordinary people who are, sadly, deracinated and whose roots (Anglo-Saxon or English) are the most criticized of all.

The very fact that these remarks attributed to some nameless 'advisor' have raised such a furor shows how the Anglo-Saxon heritage is the bottom of the heap, rather than being the dominant and oppressive force that those who envy or fear WASPs believe.

Northern Ireland conflict

For years we've read of various outbreaks of violence in Ulster, or Northern Ireland, but heretofore, the clashes were between the Catholics (identifying as Celtic) and the Protestant 'loyalists' or Unionists, who are descendants of the Ulster Plantation, people who came from the border counties in England, or from Scotland.

Now, thanks to the engineered mass migration of peoples, Northern Ireland is experiencing new problems. This time, it involves Eastern European immigrants who have migrated to Northern Ireland. And we read that Polish flags were burned in Belfast on July 11, by people who object to the presence of the Poles.

The 'Polish community', according to the BBC article, comprises about 30,000 people. This may not sound like much, but considering the small size of Ulster, it is not an insignificant population, either, especially considering that the official count may considerably underestimate the actual number.

Most Poles are Catholic, so an increase in the number of Poles may upset the balance of Catholic vs. Protestant in the province, which religious balance has been so problematic.

The Polish community, in traditional 'minority' fashion, accuses the Northern Irish people of 'racism' and 'bigotry.' Northern Ireland has, so far, had less immigration than most parts of Europe, and has thus not been as likely to welcome newcomers, especially those of disparate backgrounds.  This article from 2010 describes how a group of gypsies were expelled from the community in which they had settled, in south Belfast.

The migration of different groups of Europeans to other European countries is defended fiercely by many WNs who seem to believe in a kind of pan-European proposition nation, rather than believing in preserving the original ethnicities of each region in their sovereign countries. If we declare that anybody who is European and White can 'belong' in any European country, regardless of cultural and religious differences, and regardless of immigrants' genetic distance from the host nation, then we are only upholding the ideas of the globalists, who want to erase existing nations from the map, replacing them with 'regions', and to hopelessly scramble the peoples within Europe and elsewhere, as Turkey is now being included in the pan-European camp. As Eastern Europeans migrate en masse to the British Isles or wherever they sense the best economic opportunities, this makes the host countries even more cosmopolitan, and weakens the existing ethnic cohesion, and whatever homogeneity still remains.

Regardless of what the majority belief of WNs may be on this issue, I believe the people of Ulster have every right to object to mass migration from anywhere, especially as it breaks down their culture and weakens their heritage. To champion the rights of certain people like Eastern Europeans to migrate wherever they wish, regardless of the interests of the host countries, is inimical to the genetic and cultural interests of the host peoples.

There is no 'human rights' crisis driving Poles or other Eastern Europeans to other countries. Like the vast majority of migrants wandering the globe today, they are seeking better 'pickings', better economic status. Some will stubbornly say, ''well who can blame them? Don't they have a right to make a living?'' My answer is the same answer that I would give regarding Third World immigrants: why can they not better their own countries so they might stay at home, and moreover, why is it the responsibility of some other country to provide ''opportunities'' for people from failed countries? Most countries in the Anglosphere now cannot even provide enough employment for their own citizens, let alone mass numbers of immigrants.

The peoples of Europe and European-derived countries are going to have to face this issue: is White skin color enough of a credential to give someone a right to come and live in your country? Is it all about 'skin color' or do ways of life and closer kinship ties not outweigh someone's dubious ''right'' to move to your country? Especially when said people are migrating in very large numbers?

Don't England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and other Anglosphere countries have the right to remain who and what they are, without it being called 'racism'?

European peoples are not ''all the same'' regardless of skin color. 

Contrast 2005 with 2012

The comparison and contrast can be seen in two threads from the respectable Republican forum, Free Republic, and the recent discussion here was occasioned by the death of the female astronaut Sally Ride,
who has been 'outed' as a lesbian. Attitudes have certainly changed since this thread was posted at FR in 2005.

FReepers (of 2012) express skepticism that lesbians even have a shorter life expectancy, as has been suggested, asking rhetorically ''why would they?"

This link gives some reasons why.

There are those who argue that' harassment' of homosexuals causes their health problems. I've even seen 'talking heads' on TV shows years ago arguing that the disease known as AIDS is not caused by anything physiological but is caused mostly by 'victimization' and the attendant stress.

I have often heard that lesbian couples are more prone to domestic violence. Most of the sources found online deny this, and this is expected, because most sources that appear on the usual google searches seem to be gay advocacy-oriented, not objective.  The Men's News Daily article does indicate that male gay couples have less domestic violence than lesbian couples.

This article points out another factor which may help account for shorter life expectancy: the prevalence of substance abuse. Although, of course, the article implies that if only the 'LGBT community' were more accepted, they would not abuse drugs and alcohol. Yes, the victimization card.

I don't know what sort of 'lifestyle' Sally Ride had; perhaps she led a very ''conventional'' life in most respects. I never read much about her, and I am not going to imply that she as an individual was a substance user or abuser. I think her private life (including her sexual proclivities) should be left private, especially now that she has passed on.

I am somewhat disturbed that the FReepers, who are -- to me -- sort of typical mainstream Republicans, are veering ever closer toward social liberalism in the popular assertion that homosexuality is just a personal choice which we should not criticize. Most FReepers, whether they are registered Republicans or 'conservatives' are actually social liberals on a par with their Democrat brethren, or they are libertarians, who think that everyone has a natural right to untrammeled 'sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll.' Many male FReepers seem like middle-aged Beavises and Buttheads or aging frat boys, with the same sensibilities they had back in their youth in the 70s and 80s, when libertinism became ascendant in this country. Oddly they criticize 'hippies' and today's rebellious youth while they enshrine the very practices and attitudes that the sixties counterculture pioneered: the 'do your own thing', 'judge not', mentality.

There seem to be few social conservatives who actually believe in the traditional morals and mores that go with a Christian-based society. Just about everyone, Republican, Democrat, or Other, seems to be just fine with our polluted society today, in the name of 'individualism' and 'choice.' Those kinds of principles would make it impossible to have a cohesive, much less civilized society, as everybody would be a law unto himself. Rugged individualism and 'free choice as long as it doesn't hurt anyone' leads to an atomized and chaotic society, in which nobody cares for the greater good. Much like the society we have now.

It looks to me as if the social conservatives, wherever they are, aren't doing much conserving of traditional  mores.

Different source, same old line

Just another standard boilerplate story whose point seems to be about the unfairness and the 'bigotry' inherent in the death penalty.

The media especially love these stories when the locale is Texas. The state of Texas has a reputation for being harsh on criminals and of overusing the death penalty. This case in the Russia Today article also involves a favorite cause of the left: low IQ and capital punishment.

When the Supreme Court ruled, in Atkins v. Virginia, that the death penalty could not be used against a 'retarded' criminal, that opened up another can of worms. It's interesting that the left argues that IQ tests are generally not valid (they are 'culturally biased' and therefore do not give accurate results for minorities in particular) yet they were Johnny-on-the-spot to wield the IQ issue as an argument against executing people. This is especially true in cases involving minority defendants. This case in the article is an example. And as if the IQ/race card is not enough, the writer throws in the statement about using  "the same drug commonly used by veterinarians to kill dogs and cats'' in this execution.

As to the main issue, that the low IQ criminals should be exempt from execution: such a practice would, if adopted, exempt certain populations from being executed, generally.  So perhaps that is the main reason why the issue was taken to the Supreme Court to begin with.

But one more thing: this article appears on the Russia Today website. For some time now many people on the 'right' have been recommending RT as a 'more honest' news source. After reading the RT website and watching via my Roku, I find that it's just another leftist news source, with the same ideological ax to grind as our ''mainstream'' media. In fact, it is often more obnoxious in its bias than our media, because it's clear there is an anti-American bias at work. Russia is a rival or a competitor to us, to put it in the most neutral terms possible. The supposed ending of the ''Cold War'' was nothing but a shift in the tone of the conflict, a kind of false tolerance of each other. I believe the Russians, whether the people or the leadership, trust us no more than they ever did.

I recognize, too, that many ethnonationalists have become anti-patriotic as our government has seemingly turned on us. But there's a fine line between having antipathy to a system or a government and scorning our own people and our heritage. It should not be a choice between being a 'patriotard' and cheering those who are enemies, however subtle, of our folk.

I've found that RT is much like any of our cable networks; they may cover different stories, but they look and 'feel' very much like Fox News, with their habit of hiring 'newsbabes' and their devotion to Diversity. Just check out their on-air personalities.

RT must be watched with a wary discernment, and not taken as gospel truth just because we have come to distrust or dislike our media and our 'leaders.' Russia itself is on board with the 'diversity' and multicultural agenda, but perhaps only on a slower time schedule. Putin has made many statements to this effect, including this statement reported by RT itself.

I think a lot of us are looking for answers from other quarters, including, ironically,  our long-time adversaries in Russia. Personally I will watch RT with a recognition of their bias, but I have to take it in very small doses, with a helping of salt.

Vanishing blogs

I see that another blog which is linked on my sidebar is apparently inaccessible. I am sure some of you have noticed a few blogs disappearing in the last week or so.

Just in case this blog goes missing, look for me at the Forum (linked on my sidebar) or on WP. I must admit I have not kept that back-up blog updated.

But let's hope this blog does not vanish anytime soon. I plan to keep plugging away, low hit count or comment dearth notwithstanding.

Good news from the LOS meeting

At OD, Hunter Wallace reports on his experiences at the League of the South conference in Alabama.
Overall, the news is heartening.

In recent years I've sort of written off the pro-Southron organizations like LOS and Sons of Confederate Veterans, in great part because of their tendency to pander to political correctness. Think 'Rainbow Confederates' and the pathetic emphasis on how the army of the Confederacy had ''diverse'' members, as if ''diversity'' is the sine qua non for legitimacy of any group.

Although I admire Michael Hill, and have quoted him on this blog, I was bothered by the taint of political correctness I found in some of his statements, such as the one I linked to recently in which he felt compelled to quote Walter Williams, et al. Perhaps I was being hard on  him and on others who seem to always feel the need to quote some black source to legitimize their point of view, I was heartened to read among the comments on the OD thread that Dr. Hill had ''issued an order to the webmaster of dixienet.org to remove the ‘anti-racist’ disclaimer language from the page.''  I assume the page in question is this one, which states that the LOS has no ill will toward any other race or group, etc., but then goes on to say that  

"We believe that all Southerners - black and white - want and need the same things: a safe country for their families, liberty, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We believe that the last thing the South's enemies want is to see black and white Southerners sitting down together to determine their common destiny and work for authentic harmony, a just social and economic order, and an independent South.''

I don't remember if this is the original statement, or if this is the amended one; if this is the 'new' statement then I say it is still PC.

For me, there should be no need, perceived or real, to even have a page on ''racism''. All it does is legitimize that odious word-weapon, and affirm, for some, the implication that some Confederate groups are in fact ''racist''.  Best to ignore the whole issue.


I hope that page is coming down and that PC will no longer have a place in a pro-Southron group or any sort of traditional/ethnoconservative group.


If so, then I will wholeheartedly support the LOS.

Class division: Norman vs. Anglo-Saxon

This topic is, for me,  a welcome diversion for me from the usual political stuff.

Commenting on a Telegraph article, Steve Sailer writes about the class divide between British people of Norman descent and those of Anglo-Saxon descent.

The problem is that the study being written about is based on surnames, with Norman-derived (or at least obviously Norman) surnames considered as 'rich' names, while those of obviously English derivation are the lower-class names.

As I wrote yesterday in a very different context, surnames can be deceiving, especially in countries where different ethnic strains have a long history of intermarriage.

Nothing like the old class warfare card, but what can we expect of the British media, who are even more leftist than our own media?

It seems that just about everyone in Britain dislikes the Normans, and nobody wants to claim descent from them. Yet somebody  must be descended from them. Yet it seems that only the rich are counted as their progeny.

It's very common to see the so-called WASPs as arch-villains, representing a greedy aristocracy who keep the 'good people' down; a privileged elite. Normans are, in  the eyes of many, what Anglo-Saxons are in this country.

Some silly genealogist, in an article I read once, claimed that ''everyone in Britain is descended from William the Conqueror.'' That's patently silly. It probably wasn't true, even before this tidal wave of immigration swept over Britain. And it is impossible to prove such a statement. The statement presumes that everybody in Britain sort of mated or married randomly, with no endogamous groups who kept to themselves. The Normans of old did intermarry with the Saxon aristocracy very early on, and with the Welsh nobility and the Scots nobility. Of the latter, it's noticeable that many well-known 'Scots' names had Norman origins. Example: Bruce, which was De Brus, a Norman name. Other Scots names of Norman origin include Sinclair (St. Clair).

So while it's true that the Normans did intermarry with local populations, they tended to intermarry with those of their social class -- who were largely Normans. I know this from having done a lot of genealogy research of my own family and others' families.

Still, the Norman names became somewhat anglicized in pronunciation, and later, in spelling. Examples: names like De Beauchamp, or Beauchamp, became Beecham. Other Norman names which became de-Frenchified: Pinkney or Pinckney from De Picquigny. Tolliver from De Taillefer. Marshall from Le Marechal. Power from Le Poer. Warren from De Warenne. Spencer from Le Despenser or De Spencer. Strange from L'etrange. Pomfret from De Pontefract.

Not all Norman names have a 'De' or 'Le' prefix, or a '-ville' suffix to show their origins, nor do they have French-looking spellings.

Many names thought of as very British are originally Norman, like Montgomery, Quincy, Redvers, Richmond, Baldwin, Chesney, Courtney (De Courtenay), Lacy, Mortimer, Macon.

Another family name in my family tree is Calloway, which is from the place name Caillouet. Yet some ignorant relatives of mine believe it to be Irish because it 'sounds Irish.'

By the way, many of the names listed above are from my family tree, so I do know the origins of the bearers of the names.

As to whether the Puritans were 'lower-class' than the Jamestown colonists, there was considerable Norman ancestry among that group as well. Most of the Puritan colonists were middle-class, and the original colonists were carefully picked, hence they were not 'riff-raff' as someone on the Sailer thread says.

I have to note how, based on real-life experience and Internet discussions,  Americans do love to over-simplify things, and how, even more, they seem to love to create hierarchies of good guys and bad guys in history, as I noted in my comment on the Sailer thread, which may or may not be posted. But I find this to be especially true as regards to the different British ethnicities. Many people have very definite ideas as to the villains and heroes in British history and culture, even if they themselves are not of British ancestry.

So are all the White British descended from William the Conqueror or from Normans generally? The various peoples of the British Isles (and I don't mean the later immigrants) are of such similar stock that it probably doesn't matter much. But there is undoubtedly a lot more Norman ancestry than is known or admitted, much as there is more English ancestry in America than is known or admitted.

Incident in Colorado

The story of the movie theater shootings in Colorado has dominated the news today. I don't know what I might say that hasn't been said repeatedly, but I will add a few thoughts.

As always, when one of these mass shooting incidents occur, I can't help but hope that the perpetrator is not one of our folk. I am so weary of the constant drumbeat by the media against the 'gun-crazy White psychopath' or 'extremist'. I know that such people do exist, but if we look back at such incidents in recent years, there have been a great many 'diversity' shootings. Those, however, seem to be treated as one-off events by the media, despite their increasing frequency.

We don't know much about who this shooter is at this point. Some are eager to call him a 'WASP, because his surname is Holmes, but surnames can be deceiving. Still, we know that crimes like this are not the sole province of White guys, regardless of what his pedigree proves him to be.

The media, ever eager to be the 'first', wrongly tried to associate the shooter with the Tea Party -- which is hardly an 'extremist, far right' group in any case; more like an sctual Tea Party, genteel and harmless, and by the way, the 'Tea Partiers'  are not racist. They want you to be sure of that fact.

I rather doubt that this accused man will be found to be a 'right-winger' of any sort; if he's political at all, he will likely be left-wing, even if in a vague sort of way, as is common among his age group. This is just my gut feeling.

As to the actual shooting incident, I was disturbed in reading several of the news accounts in which witnesses described the scene, and mentioned that many people seemed to flee haphazardly, leaving their neighbors -- and even family members -- behind. One such story (which I cannot find just now) mentioned a baby being left behind by a parent. What kind of people would do such a thing? Granted, not everyone can be a hero, but there is a bare mininum standard of human decency that seems not to have been met in some case. I'm distressed by that.

And maybe this is a trivial point to some, but the fact that so many of these people were avid to see this movie that they took infants, toddlers, and young children, in the middle of the night, to sit through this thing.

The content of the movie, as I've read of it, is disturbing and should not be fare for children. Period. But this media addiction that is so rife in our society makes people place seeing the latest hit movie above all other priorities. One couple (with children) had said they had looked forward to this movie for months. It seems to me that some priorities are very skewed.

The accounts of dead and dying people on the floors, and moviegoers stepping on bodies as they fled, are not pretty.

Am I saying 'society' is responsible for what happened? No; ultimately individuals are responsible but the depravity of popular media and the desensitizing that it fosters, plus the obsessiveness of its fans, are a big problem.

Meanwhile, here's something to keep in mind: the upcoming vote on the UN Arms Treaty. How convenient that this incident happened; what a lucky coincidence for the anti-gun faction. Now the calls for abolishing our Second Amendment rights (as per the wishes of the overbearing UN) are increasing.

Thoughts?

Not hard enough

Again, judges thwart the express will of the people, with their ruling in favor of a mosque being built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Read another (typically biased) story from the Tennessean here. The pro-Islam slant is so blatant, one would think that 'journalists' would be embarrassed by this lack of pretense to objectivity. The point of view is one-sidedly that of the 'Islamic community'.  The victimhood template in action.

The Tennessean requires a subscription. You would think they would make some effort to serve their majority customer/reader base, which is probably mostly White and Christian. I realize Tennessee has been heavily colonized by people from the four corners of the globe, but I would bet that most of the Tennessean's paying readership consists of White American citizens, not 'new Americans' who may not even read English -- or any language. To the Tennessean staff: good luck with trying to keep your paper afloat by catering to non-English-speaking, non-readers. The White readership which is your customer base is being undermined and ethnically cleansed, with your enthusiastic support. So you are putting yourselves out of business.  That's not smart.

Now, where is the commenter who chided me a while back about being 'hard' on Islam? If anything, I've said too little about it in recent months and years. It should be obvious to anybody who pays attention that Islam and its adherents are determined to colonize our country as well as other Western countries, with a view to establishing their culture and 'religion' as the dominant one. Their spokesmen and leaders have been arrogantly proclaiming this for years now. How some people can deny this and support the idea that Islam is benign or even neutral towards us is unfathomable to me.

I realize that a part of this denial is the delusion that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend.' This is an idiotic belief. I know that some people insist that 'Jew propaganda' is the source of any opposition to Islam. This is just not accurate. Islam and Christendom have been at odds ever since the former came into existence. Our ancestors recognized the incompatibility of Islam with Christendom, and acted on their belief without any outside propaganda or influence.

To oppose or object to Islam's presence is not being a 'dupe of the Jews', but is just a realistic response to Islam's aggressive designs against our countries. However this does not mean that we have to support wars in the Middle East or involvement in their affairs. We should stay out of that part of the world, in exchange for Moslems staying out of our countries, and refraining from colonizing us and trying to change our way of life to cater to them, as in this Murfreesboro case. If they wish to practice their religion they can do so in the many Moslem countries which are theirs. We cannot practice the Christian faith in their countries; why must we extend to them a privilege which we are not granted in their countries?

And are the good people of Tennessee going to quietly acquiesce to this kind of disregard of their rights and their collective will? We will see if there is any of the spirit of our forebears left in the South.

'Nation of immigrants'

Europe 'in danger' from ...

Nationalism, according to this clueless article from the Telegraph.

The writer projects that the European Union is in danger of failing, and that in whichever of two scenarios he envisions, nationalism will rise. He finds this frightening, apparently.

''Politicians in the modern era have sought to divide and rule. Because of the lack of an external enemy, appeals are made to sectional groups in the electorate at home – ethnic, sexual, religious or economic communities who are then set against other groups in their own nation.''

Here again we have one of these obtuse people who have convinced themselves that there would be no ethnic, sexual, religious or economic divisions, if they were not artifically stirred up by demagogues. This point of view is held by many 'right-wing' liberals, or the people we call 'neocons' in this country. They like to blame outside causes for any kind of ethnic/racial/cultural clashes and animosities, refusing to acknowledge that such divisions have always existed, and cannot be wished out of existence or papered over with some kind of 'civic patriotism' or proposition nationalism as his country, Britain, has attempted to impose.

Of course our own political classes have been working on imposing this system on us for a couple of centuries at least, much more gradually, and their 'boiling the frog slowly' approach has worked somewhat.  Still, it runs counter to human nature, this 'civic' nationalism in which people from every corner of the globe and every religion are urged to unite. It is a system which is very high maintenance, requiring that free discussion and free thought must be stifled, and thoughts must be controlled, so as to erase the natural impulses for like to bond with like.

The comments show that there are quite a few people with healthy impulses still. One comment rightly says, speaking of demagogues, that

''The abominable EU is the work of the demagogues.''

Another good comment by "davejon"

"Politicians in the modern era have sought to divide and rule" - yes, like "rubbing our noses in diversity" (Andrew Neather)? Nationalism reacts against unnatural processes like mass immigration and multiculturalism, and a reaction against the governing elites is way overdue. Nationalism cannot be blamed, but the elites can.''

 Commenter rogerhicks says:

I agree, nationalism is what we NEED, in contrast to what we've got, which is statism, and a state which claims to represent our nation, while demonising and suppressing the natural ethnic foundations of national identity.
The state has succeeded in giving nationalism an extremely bad name, which is why it now distances itself from it and suppresses its natural ethnic foundations.
We must stop equating state and nation, and recognise
how the state manipulates and exploits our inherent tribal (nationalist) nature by itself posing as our nation. Then we can begin - proceeding peacefully, legally and grassroots-democrtically - a nationalist revival which will put the state in its place as the servant, instead of the exploiter, of the nations which comprise it.''

I don't know whether a similar article in an American newspaper would elicit as many sensible comments. I hate to say that, but I think these kinds of comments are far rarer in our media. The only place they might be found would be on an ethnonationalist blog. Britain as a country may be in worse shape than we are but there are people who still have their instincts intact.

A commonplace story, but what's the moral?

In Mexico, a church camping group was attacked by a number of men. The group of campers consisted of 90 people camping at an 'eco-park' near Mexico City when they were attacked. Five women and girls were assaulted.

Of the 17 men arrested, some were local police officers. This is not surprising.
The article doesn't seem to tell us if the people on the camping trip were Americans or other than Mexicans, but if they were Americans, they represent the naive kind of Christians who seem determined to see only the good in everyone. The kind of Christians, in  other words, like those in my town who blithely send their minor children to Central America on do-gooding missions in the summertime, oblivious to any warning about the dangers of such countries and their ''cultures.'' Some people I know locally were happy to send their teenaged daughters to visit a prison containing the most hard-core criminals. When I asked if they worried about sending their daughters into this environment, the answer I got was that they were escorted by a male group leader who ''was considered a friend by the prisoners'' and so therefore his presence made their daughters safe. This is insanity.

I suspect that this group of campers -- if they are Americans -- will return from their trip just as naive and as determinedly blind as they were when they left. Such is the power of multicult mind-control. And no, it is not Christianity that has made people blind; it's the inroads made by Marxism and the feel-good pop psychology twaddle about 'reaching out' and 'not judging others.'

Will AmRen have this article posted? If so I expect that the Hispanophiles who haunt that place will continue to tell us how Hispanics are ''better than blacks'' or ''at least they're not Muslims.'' I sometimes can't believe the moderators' decisions, such as letting one such commenter say how ''Latinas look good in porn." And yet they censor the 'w-word' because they want to 'maintain a high standard'?

Our folk have become very confused people, putting it mildly. It's understandable how the dedicated 'liberals' who refuse to see evil in the noble savage can live in denial, but what about these supposed 'realists' who think Hispanics are assimilable? What about those like the White guy at AR who champions Asians and thinks them superior? Between the Hispanophiles and the Asianphiles, where are the lovers of their own folk?

Sometimes I almost despair.
So, does 'worse is better' still look like a realistic hope? To me, it looks even less credible than it did in 2008. What do you say, readers?

Another 'conservative' failure

This story, which is old hat by now, is just the latest in a number of examples of how ''conservatives'' and Republicans have done little to nothing to try to arrest the decay of our society.

Once upon a time ''conservatives'' resisted the idea of the military being turned into a co-ed/egalitarian social experiment.  But where are the voices opposing this now? Last time I read a discussion on this subject at a ''conservative'' web forum, a great many people (including military folk) supported the inclusion of women alongside men in the military, with some expressing the very liberal egalitarian idea that ''some women are as good warriors as men'', or ''some women can outdo men'', etc. And don't dare criticize the co-ed military to an average Republican woman; she immediately begins to assume her militant feminist pose when you say anything critical.

The men who are accused in these incidents appear (at least by the names that are mentioned) as being Hispanic or perhaps mixed. And of course the anti-racist (read: anti-Whites) will cry that it's bigoted to even notice the names or the ethnicity/race of the accused. But there is no denying that a pattern seems to exist -- though noticing patterns is a thought-crime nowadays.

Do I judge them as guilty? The accusations do sound plausible. However, I don't let the women off the hook. According to what they say about the incidents, they gave consent to a great degree; they courted the risk. They, being 'big girls', should have exercised some discretion and common sense, but they did not. Their behaviors and choices put them at risk of harassment, at least.  In this case, it seems that one of the female accusers was upset or angry that her 'harasser' was a married man with children, perhaps believing that she had a real relationship with him.

The women who seek to be in what has traditionally been an all-male, macho environment are deluding themselves if they think there will be no sexual side to their co-ed adventure. Or perhaps they think the military is just a good place to meet men. And yes, there may be a few women who naively think they can ''serve their country'' alongside men, and that they are capable of being just 'one of the boys.'

But human nature can't be ignored or re-channeled, though that is a primary belief of the left. Those Republicans who approve of a co-ed military, women on submarines, and so on, prove that they are as liberal as any of the Democrats in their presumptions.

'A national security issue'

That phrase was used by Joe Arpaio's Chief Investigator Mike Zullo, in referring to the Hawaiian practice of registering non-Hawaiian births on Hawaiian birth certificates, under certain circumstances.

The quote is from the much-hyped Sheriff Joe Arpaio press conference earlier today, in which the 'Cold Case Posse' investigation results were announced.

It's sad but very telling that this event garnered very little notice in what we cynically call the 'mainstream media.' They are not what they purport to  be; they are not interested in ferreting out truth in an objective fashion. They are ideologues, lackeys, lapdogs. And those are the nicest things I can think of to say about them.

It's in great part thanks to the dereliction of the 'mainstream media' that blogs have flourished, and it's to the MSM's  discredit that the American majority is ill-informed and full of half-baked left-wing notions, which they are not capable of questioning. Most Americans prefer 'bread and circuses' to taking a responsible interest in the important events of the day, and many Americans of all colors treat elections as another kind of entertainment. Voting in elections is on a par with picking your favorite on American Idol or whatever other vapid entertainment is the flavor of the minute.

This is how we reached our present predicament. Our founding ancestors knew that a truly free press was vital to the functioning of a representative form of government, as well as to an informed society. Our enemies know this also; that's why they determinedly monopolized our media and our educational system; the goal was a stupid and complacent populace who would be led easily.

There is a persistent chorus -- even on the ''right'', that repeats talking points about how Sheriff Joe's efforts are misguided and worthless because ''nobody cares'' or because ''it won't do any good; it won't change anything.'' The cynics among us, especially the semi-informed ones who can sound somewhat knowledgeable, are an albatross around our necks. If our forefathers had that attitude, would any of us be here today? Would our folk ever accomplish anything if we habitually shrugged our shoulders and proclaimed the futility of it all?

And what about the truth? What about principles? Do those things matter to no one anymore, or is it simply out of fashion to do anything but strike a resigned and fatalistic pose, while wrong prevails?

Principles matter. Truth matters. Justice matters. We can't cede the field to the 'other side.' Just as Yeats wrote, ''the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.''

As for the technicalities regarding the documents (or lack of crediblity thereof) I grant you that many people are turned off by this kind of thing, and only focus on very surface things like the 'newspaper announcements', which are hardly proof positive. Oh, but if it was in a newspaper, it's surely true, isn't it? It's hard to believe that anybody could display such wide-eyed credulity these days, but there are many who do believe that -- or feign belief, anyway.

Announcements in many newspapers used to be (and in some cases, still are) submitted by local readers: announcements of births, included, as when grandparents announce a birth of their grandchild, which may have taken place in another town or state. Those announcements are not legal proof. But the Snopes.com ''debunkers'', and their ilk, have convinced people that they are, or at least as good as.

This story is important; if requirements for candidacy to such a high office are allowed to be flouted, or if specious documents are considered acceptable, what next?

Sheriff Joe

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, one of the bravest men in this country, is being attacked by 'comedian' George Lopez, who launched into an obscenity-laced tirade directed at Arpaio in a cable TV appearance.

Classy. But this is the state of ''comedy'' in our society these days; it's all based on insults, as well as crude sexual and bathroom ''humor.'' There once were comedians who could do political satire or comedy without being insulting, nasty, and vile, but it seems we have no such entertainment anymore.

Ethnic/minority comedians -- and I include women in this group -- are often anti-White, especially anti-White male. Sometimes they cloak their anti-White message by including rude comments and ridicule of other groups as well; that way they can take cover behind the excuse that they are 'equal opportunity' bashers of everyone. But the reality is that most of these kinds of comedians almost always use their supposed wit as a weapon against the majority; against heterosexuals, against males, against Whites, against Southrons, against Christians, against anyone who represents 'old America.'

I've noticed, too, that one way to acclimatize majority Americans to various ethnic groups is via promoting 'comedians' as well as other performers, of that ethnicity. After 9/11 there was a blatant attempt at pushing some 'Arab comedians' who joked about jihadists and other such fun topics; this seemed to be an effort at making us laugh along, and say 'this guy is funny; maybe these guys aren't so bad.'' If we laugh along with somebody we tend to be disarmed towards them, and to see them as likeable. If you look back at our entertainment history, you can see how this method was used to get us to accept a lot of the 'diversity' that we now are told is essential.

So Lopez is being used to make the dimwits in the TV audience feel warm and fuzzy towards Mexican immigration. I am always surprised at how very much many ''right-wing'' realist types fawn over the George Lopezes or the Chris Rocks or the Jerry Seinfelds or whoever. Entertainers are just one more method of influencing people.

However, Joe Arpaio is admired (justly so) by a lot of conservative Americans, and I don't think Lopez will succeed in turning many people against Sheriff Joe. I do hope that the easily led among us will see that Lopez does not identify with us, and does not have our interests at heart. He identifies with those who do not respect our borders -- why? because they are his kin, his blood. And it's allowed for people like Lopez to defend their people right or wrong. But we are not granted that same privilege.

Our folk need to stop supporting 'entertainers' who are openly hostile to us. No more excuses about how 'it's just entertainment.' No, it's serious business.

More on why she is not the right choice

Selwyn Duke at American Thinker throws some cold water on the enthusiasm of the GOP faithful and the 'respectables' for Condoleezza Rice as the Vice Presidential choice.

Duke brings up many of the issues that the mainstream GOPers refuse to remember (if they even paid attention to begin with) regarding Condi Rice. For example, her fondness for bringing up racial grievances in unlikely contexts. I remembered the example wherein she took umbrage to anyone questioning the Bush 'democratizing Iraq' program. She snapped that the idea that certain people might not be ready for democracy was like the arguments made by 'bigots' back in the fabled Bad Old Days of the Civil Rights era.

She referred to America's 'birth defect', its supposed racial sins of slavery and inequality, in comparing America to Iraq.

 She also had stories about how she was the victim of 'racism' during her childhood. Example: a White department store clerk told her not to touch the merchandise. Condoleezza's mother then shot back 'my child can touch anything she wants!' Racism everywhere, in other words. White children, of course, never ever got told not to handle merchandise in a store. (Actually, our mothers probably told us that first, so store clerks rarely had to tell us, at least in my case.)

Commeter 'Tav' at American Thinker makes good points:

"Considering her remarks about America's "birth defect" -- an egregious term for any secretary of state to use about a nation that has brought more liberty to more races, colors and creeds than any in history -- I am struck anew how deeply Rice's vision of race in America, or, perhaps, in segregated Birmingham, affects her vision of America in the wider world. It is as if Rice sees American influence as a means by which to address what she perceives as disparities of race or Third World heritage on the international level.

This would help explain her ahistorical habit of linking the civil rights movement to the Bush administration's effort to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, in a 2003 speech to the National Association of Black Journalists, she argued that blacks, more than others, should "reject" the "condescending" argument that some are not "ready" for freedom. "That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham and it's wrong in 2003 in Baghdad," she said. ''

The mainstream GOP articles about Rice's possible candidacy, if they even dared to be mildly critical, mentioned only 'safe' subjects, like Rice's support for abortion, her apparent support for the current president, her praise of him at his election, and other such liberal positions.

But few, until Selwyn Duke,mentioned the issues he brings up. The commenters are divided, with some agreeing (although rather carefully) with Duke's criticisms, while others tout Rice's supposed brilliance and accomplishments. She speaks fluent Russian! She plays the piano! She holds a high position at Stanford!

Actually, her fluency in Russian has been called into question a number of times, as I remember mentioning on this blog in the past; Russian speakers say her skill in their language is lacking. And others question her qualifications for her Stanford position.

This is no surprise to regular readers, I'm sure. There is such a thing as 'affirmative action', in which credentials and actual abilities take a back seat to race and gender, or other such victimhood markers.
Diversity trumps all. Yet it's a shocking thing to question whether a given individual has been promoted beyond his or her abilities because of obvious 'affirmative action' and 'diversity' mandates.

So, while the respectables like the FReepers may point out that Rice is a 'RINO', they ignore the much more important ways in which she is not qualified or suitable for the VP position.  Those are the things which we need to focus on, should she be chosen for the spot.

If only those hopeless GOPers at AT, clamoring for Allen West or other favorite 'diversities' in the VP position, would get the message: stop emulating the liberal multicultists in trying to pander or to prove your anti-racist bonafides. We do not need to prove anything to anyone. Just insist on the best possible candidate for the job -- on ability and experience.

That's show biz

Shades of 2008. It's happening all over again

The Wall Street Journal back in '08 posed questions about  the phenomenon, and this blogger discussed it further. Naturally the old stories about how young women fainted at early performances by Frank Sinatra were brought up.

That story was before my time, of course, but I read of how young 'bobby-soxers', as teenage girls were called then, swooned over Sinatra. Why? I suppose it's a matter of taste, as to which actor or performer is swoon-worthy, but Sinatra never seemed so to me.

But later on I read of how some of these early events were staged; young women were paid to swoon and faint at Sinatra appearances, and the 'bandwagon effect' went into action. It works sometimes. It's natural to wonder, then, how many of these manias for various celebrities have been staged, or at least initially sparked by acting on the part of paid audience members.

The Washington Post report confirmed the story that a “press agent later conceded that at least part of the Paramount hysteria was staged”. The press agent admitted:

“We hired girls to scream when he sexily rolled a note,” the agent said. “But the girls we hired to scream swooned, and hundreds more we didn’t hire swooned with them.”

So why did the women who weren’t paid scream for Frank? George Evans understood that people tend to imitate one another. By paying a few women to scream it eventually lead to more screaming and a huge contract with Colombia [sic] Records. Terms, like social proof, informational cascades and bandwagon effect essentially describe the same thing – that people tend to look to others to make their own decisions. The women in the crowd that night decided copy the others who were paid to “swoon”.

Read the rest of the article for some interesting mention of 'informational cascades', the bandwagon effect, and other mass phenomena.

Show biz is one thing, but choosing the so-called leader of the free world based on this kind of manipulation is pretty disturbing. Could our Founding Fathers have dreamt of this kind of thing going on?

But then it's all show biz now,  isn't it? Presidents or president-wannabes as celebrities, and vice-versa.

Free speech threatened, again

The CofCC blog notes the allegations that You Tube and Reddit.com are full of...people who dissent from the received politically correct party line on human differences. In other words, 'racists.'

I think the word should be called the 'r-word' in the same fashion that there is an 'n-word', which is too terrible to utter. Actually the 'r-word' is offensive for a much more valid reason than the 'n-word'. The r-word is meaningless. Its meaning is completely arbitrary, ever-changing (according to the need of the moment) and thus totally without value. Its only value is political, to make outcasts and thought-criminals of those who are dissidents from the official orthodoxy. It has been very effective, this subjective r-word, in silencing many people who are afraid of the opprobrium that is heaped on whoever is the target of this word.

And it's been so effective that any point of view other than the single politically correct dogma has been driven from the public discussion, and not permitted to be spoken out loud in most situations -- at least not without a great deal of furor and name-calling, followed by coerced apologies.

So now the PC-PTB (politically correct powers-that-be; I suppose that phrase is redundant) are going to go on a PC witch-hunt at YouTube and Reddit.com.

I seldom read the latter site, but I do visit YouTube frequently, and as I've said before, YT is infested with not 'r-word' dissenters but with the 'antis', those sanctimonious and judgmental thought police who immediately pounce on anybody who says a wrong word. Read the comments, for example, on any video having to do, even remotely, with the Confederacy, the South, and Southron culture. You will find anti-Southron slurs and slanders, laced with misspelled profanities and obscenities. You Tube seems to approve of such comments; these ignoramuses are given free rein to spout their ugly and vicious comments unimpeded.

The comments even on videos of non-controversial nature (music videos) sometimes end up being focused on racial and political matters; anti-White and anti-South comments are rife.

Watch any video that is remotely pro-English or pro-British, and the nasty Anglophobic comments proliferate.

With all the left-wing odium spewed there, the comments do not even have the saving grace of being written articulately or sensibly. Almost all such comments appear to be written by people with a collective mental and emotional age of about 13, and with writing skills appropriate to a fourth-grader.

I recently found a wonderful Firefox extension called 'You Tube Comment Snob' which screens out all responses that are heavily misspelled, profane or all-caps. Oddly enough (or perhaps not so) the vile lefty comments seem to disappear, having been edited out by Comment Snob.

Perhaps the lefties and the PC thought police should devise their own version of Comment Snob, which deletes the posts containing naughty words which give them the vapors, rather than trying to silence and exclude the 'offenders'.

Perhaps if they find a way to eliminate the correctly-spelled, non-obscene, and grammatical comments,  that would eliminate most of the 'right-wing' comments by those 'r-words'. Then they would not be plagued with ideas or language which their delicate sensibilities cannot bear. That would do it.

But no; the Politically Correct (read: anti-White) crowd would not be satisfied with that; they won't be happy until they enforce one monolithic belief system over the whole world. Some 'liberals'; some 'tolerance.'

And they truly are deluded if they believe that they are the lone rebels against a 'right-wing racist establishment.'

Hint to the antis: you are not the rebels or the brave non-conformists: you are the people who represent repression and totalitarianism. Good luck with trying to quash the truth; the truth is mighty and will prevail, as the saying goes.

Romney's possible VP choice?

I take it you've all seen this.
This may not prove to be the ultimate choice, but then it may, given the GOP's desperation to pander and appear 'respectable.'

I've come to believe that both sides' candidates are chosen by the same group of people; the two-party system is just a sham. The intention here, if this proves to be Romney's VP choice, is to make him a guaranteed loser in November by alienating his possible White base. Not to mention, moving both parties further to the left with their multicult agenda, and effectively disenfranchising the majority by giving us no one who remotely represents us.

The GOP, however, has never been on our side, as Southerners used to remember.

Update: see what the FReepers have to say in response to this rumor. Note the pictures posted.  Enough said.

Driving a wedge?

This thread, which was originally about Romney's speech to the NAACP (and the ridiculous Lawrence O'Donnell response to it) gets derailed somewhat into a discussion about WASPs vs. Irish-Americans.


Some commenters pointed out the Irish-American role in promoting the multicult agenda or ''BRA", while a few others disagree bluntly. Commenter Justin (is this my blogging colleague Justin, or another of the same name?) pointedly says that You Know Who are trying to divide Catholics from WASPs, because they fear a detente between the two groups. He further says:

''Many, even most, Irish-Catholic and Italian-Catholic Americans are completely on board with the WN agenda. YKW know this and they are desperate to drive a wedge between Old Stock/WASP Americans and the Catholics.''

Well, it may be that 'YKW' are interested in driving a wedge between Anglo-Saxon Americans and ethnic Americans, especially Catholics. I've mentioned that possibility before when I lament the constant Anglo-bashing on Occidental Observer and other such places. In fact I avoid OO now because the combination of Anglo-bashing and anti-Christian raillery has made the place anathema to me. I see little to no Irish-bashing on such sites, just ethnic Anglophobia.


And maybe there are Irish-American and Italian-Americans who have WN sentiments, but such has not been my experience. Maybe it is true somewhere, but the big cities with which I have first-hand experience harbored many ethnocentric groups who live in enclaves and who do not sympathize with anyone outside their familiar circles, especially the dreaded Anglo-Saxon, who is an alien to them.


So if 'You Know Who' are out to drive a wedge, I think they have a very easy job, because there has been longstanding resentment on the basis of the things I mentioned yesterday: the urban legends of 'No Irish Need Apply', or the nonsense about how Anglos did not accept Irish or Italian immigrants as White.  Plenty of raw material for divisiveness there. And though there may be Internet trolls who push this kind of thing, the grudges are pre-existent and quite real because I've encountered them in real life.


I grant you, this country was not always as divided along ethnic lines as it is today; the different ethnicities, such as colonial-stock Americans, and the groups I call Ellis Islanders had a mutual acceptance for many decades. Only after the heightened ethnic and racial consciousness of the 60s and 70s counterculture did the divisions flare up. Leftist histories of this country, taught in colleges, spread the 'politics of resentment'. College students learned of how horribly "unfair" the existing American population was to the pre-diversity immigrants of the Ellis Island era, especially Irish and Italian immigrants, who were mostly Catholic.


Gramscian professors (and I've known some in real life) are no more honest when teaching the history of immigrant groups in this country than they are when dealing with black/White relations.


Does anyone ever think of the early immigration situation from the point of view of the existing White American population, whose ancestors actually built this country? I would think that any ''WN'' or ethnopatriot would be able to identify with the sentiments of those who wanted only to preserve the integrity of their people and their way of life. How can one be an ethnopatriot and resent those 19th century Americans who simply preferred their own and wished not to be overrun? 


The wedge-driving divisiveness began in earnest in the mid 19th century, not with the colonial stock Americans.


And now, any irritation displayed by those of old-stock descent (though that term is resented by some; why?) is simply a reaction to the slurs hurled at us constantly. As our folk are wont to do, we put up with a lot of abuse before we react.


I've had WNs flatly deny, liberal-style, that any such Anglophobia exists, though I've saved many, many quotes off the internet that are blatantly anti-Anglo, some even suggesting that Anglos should be extinguished from off the face of the earth. But some deny it is a problem. Someday I will post a boatload of such vitriol, gleaned from various comment sections, just to illustrate it for the scoffers.


If anyone believes I am anti-ethnic at heart, they need only read my early posts to see that I was very much a believer in an 'inclusive' America, though it was an America that was English in origin. That was always a given in this country until the cultural Marxists seized the megaphone and dominated all our discourse about these things.


But I said in past posts here that I accepted the various ethnicities as long as they did not have an axe to grind against the original America, against me or mine. At heart, I am still of that mind. I know some of my regular readers have 'ethnic' origins, or later immigrant ancestors, and as long as you do not see me, or my ancestors or kin as your enemy, then you are not my enemy.


Can we not have such a truce, in the name of trying to salvage our country and guaranteeing a future for our progeny?


I think we can -- but only if all sides acknowledge their part and cease the attacks and the resentments. If not, then divided we fall.