What about those other entitlements?

Kudos to Paul Craig Roberts. He's written a piece about the assault on 'entitlements', especially Social Security, in the wake of the huge budget deficits.

Suddenly, in the last six months or so, it almost seems as if someone declared open season on the old and the disabled. Once upon a time, only the real curmudgeons decried things like Social Security, and suggested cutting off this program, which for many older Americans is their only source of sustenance.

Hard economic times have caused a commensurate hardness of hearts on the part of many conservatives and libertarians. Actually, though, I don't think that is true, when I reflect on it. I think they have always been hard-hearted, and now feel emboldened to say some heartless things that would not have been said in polite company, definitely not in Christian circles, anyway.

I haven't read many of Roberts' pieces on VDare. I do agree with him about the costly and immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iran, but it seemed he wrote about nothing else, and I generally go to VDare to read articles about immigration and the demographic warfare on this country. Roberts never seemed interested in any of that, but I give him credit for addressing this issue and speaking out where nobody else would. I fully expect the 'FReepers' and other conservative/libertarian mammon-worshippers will rake him over the coals for this column, but he is right.

If all the people baying for the elimination or drastic reduction in Social Security are doing so because they care about reducing out-of-control government spending, why are they not first attacking the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are not only an enormous waste of money, but a waste of the lives of our young people. Yet none of these right-wing advocates of reducing spending will mention the costly wars.

''There is not enough non-military discretionary spending in the budget to cover the cost of the wars even if every dollar is cut. As long as the $1,200 billion ($1.2 trillion) annual budget for the military/security complex is off limits, nothing can be done about the U.S. budget deficit except to renege on obligations to the elderly, confiscate private assets, or print enough money to inflate away all debts.''

He mentions, too, the factor of offshoring of business and the loss of much of our tax base (due to unemployment). The budget-slashers don't usually address those things.

''In America destruction is done with jobs offshoring, financial deregulation, and fraudulent financial instruments. In Iraq and Afghanistan (and now Pakistan) is it done with bombs and drones.

Where is all this leading?

It is leading to the destruction of Social Security and Medicare.

Republicans have convinced a large percentage of voters that America is in trouble, not because it wastes 20% of the annual budget on wars of aggression and Homeland Security porn-scanners, but because of the poor and retirees.''

Roberts mentions the fact that between 1984 and 2009, Americans contributed $2 trillion more to Social Security and Medicare than was paid out. What happened, he asks, to that surplus? Roberts says that it went for wars and bailouts, mainly.

But for whatever reason, it is being blamed on those greedy old folks who wanted to live in luxury on their Social Security checks when they retired.

When the proposed government health care system was working its way through Congress, I wrote then about the way that it transferred money from the old and chronically ill to the young, and it seemed to assume that the old are a burden and should be abandoned and neglected to death, while we used resources mostly for those who are still productive. And think about the demographics there: the old are the Whitest of all age groups, while the young are the least White. It is clear that there was hardly an impartial distribution of health care here. It looked like an effort to hasten the demise of the old, and transfer spending to the young, many of whom are foreign-born, and not citizens.

At the time, I was shocked by some of the commentary here and there which showed outright hostility to old people. 'Good riddance' or 'they were all a bunch of hippies' or 'they sold us out' were the kinds of comments heard here and there. I was taken aback. Is this what we've come to?

I believe Rush Limbaugh and other such 'conservatives' are fueling this kind of attitude. This is where I part company with the 'conservatives' and the libertarians who worship the Market and profits, and who have made a god of small government. These people who think the abstract principle of 'smaller government' (which I generally favor) is an absolute that must be sought even at the cost of human lives.

And if they think we must cut budgets drastically, why not start with cutting all benefits (ALL benefits) to or for non-citizens, whether here or in their own countries. Why are the slashers not directing their zeal toward cutting all foreign aid or benefits for immigrants? There are plenty of places where cuts could and should be made. Yet we are willing only to sacrifice our own folk.

I wonder what those who favor eliminating Social Security or Medicare plan to do when they are old or otherwise rendered obsolete in the work force? Have they all got a few million socked away for their 'twilight years'? Are they all rolling in money like Rush Limbaugh or the budget-cutting Republicans who are set for life, with all their government perquisites and benefits?

But as Roberts says, the government no longer represents us, the American people; it represents the powerful and the elite.

But somehow most Republicans and libertarians have chosen to identify with the wealthy and the privileged, not with the common, ordinary man.

Perhaps there needs to be a party which will remember the common man, the little guy. As of now, neither major party cares about the man on the street, and we have been duped into thinking that they do, or that the interests of Big Business always coincide with the interests of the average American.

If I sound as though I have strayed off the 'conservative' reservation,  I won't deny it. I don't make a god of 'small government' or The Market. I care about my folk and about the common good. If that makes me an anomaly, so be it. I am content to be a minority of one, if need be.

The few

One of the issues which I see as being a huge problem to ethnonationalists is this plague of infighting and division.

It would probably be best for my state of mind if I just left off reading comment threads on any of the blogs or forums out there. It's just disheartening. I've mentioned before that I have had to talk myself into believing that many of the divisive people who are serial commenters on the ethnopatriot blogs are provocateurs of some sort or another. Sometimes I almost think there are about 14 individuals at most who make up most of the commenters out there, so limited is the range of ideas that is discussed, and so frequently are certain memes repeated, and certain arguments and canards bandied about.

First, there's the ever-present Anglophobes, who go out of their way to inject blame for Anglo-Saxons into every discussion. At one blog one of these Anglo-haters said that the Communist agents who were named in the McCarthy era were mostly Jews -- and WASPs. As an example of 'WASPs', he named one Lauchlin Currie (good old English name, there. I mean you can't get more Scottish than Lauchlin Currie). Then he mentioned Alger Hiss, and the only 'Hiss' name-bearers I've found were German. Nice try, though.

Next up, the Christian-haters. AmRen in particular has its own resident anti-Christian who makes his home on all the comment threads. I've objected to his constant shots at Christians and most often my comments are not accepted. Yet this person has free rein to slam Christianity every day of the year. I can only conclude AmRen's moderators agree with him.

So far, we have 'ethnopatriots' or WNs taking shots at Anglo-Saxons and Christians, and that covers the majority old Americans, I think. Nice way to alienate the greatest number of White Americans.

In passing, I'll mention the doomsayers, who usually show up to make their dark pronouncements, predicting defeat and oblivion.

Then there are the libertarians, the 'every man is an island' crowd. I don't know why they are there on ethnonationalist blogs or forums; I thought libertarians scorned all 'collectivism', believing only in the Individual or the sacred Market.

Actually the libertarians are a minor annoyance. The real problem is that libertarianism in its most demotic form has just about consumed all of what was once called the 'conservative movement.' There are few 'gentleman conservatives' who care about the old order of things, of preserving what is best of our past and our heritage; there are only worshipers of the Market and the Self, and these people are most often social liberals who fully support most of the agenda of the 1960s, even while they profess to loathe 'liberals' ahd 'hippies.' And they can't even see the absurdity of that position.

Here's a puzzle. There are those who note the hand of Jews in just about every radical idea or destructive trend in our society. Sometimes Christianity is condemned by the Judeo-skeptical because they say it is a 'Jewish cult', it's an 'alien belief system' forced on us and alien to us.
But here's the paradox: the same people who say this often idolize Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, and the rest of the gang. Anybody notice anything about the makeup of the libertarian pantheon? It looks to me as though Libertarianism truly is a 'Jewish cult' and an alien belief system.

I occasionally agree with libertarians on isolated issues, and I have quoted from some libertarian writers like Albert Jay Nock. But overall, I think libertarianism has been almost as much of a destructive force to Western Christian values and society as Marxism and all its permutations. It has promoted more social atomization and more libertinism, more contempt for our fellow man and more selfishness, more abandonment of loyalty, all things which our de-Christianized society already possesses in excess. It has sort of counterculturalized many who might otherwise be resistant to leftism in its social forms.

The dearth of loyalty towards our folk is really at the heart of this everybody-for-himself attitude which dominates our society now.

Most on our side claim to care about our folk and our survival, and our posterity, but when you come right down to it, there is a sort of every man his own king approach, wherein everyone wants to prescribe his own personal utopian vision of how things should be -- if we ever manage to recover our sovereignty and self-rule. Few seem able or willing to accept things that go against their personal, tailor-made philosophy and ideology. The unbelievers will not accept Christians or Christ in their utopia-to-be, the non-Anglo-Saxons say that 'WASPs' should be kept away from power or authority. The Yankees generally hate the Southrons. The young hate the old. Some of the young adults do not like children, and would live in a state of perpetual adolescence if they had their way.

How can all these squabbling groups and factions ever agree and come together in any kind of common allegiance? It would seem there cannot be any kind of larger nationalism (such as a generic American identity). I don't see enough affection or loyalty, or even as much as a grudging tolerance, that could keep it together. What kept us together in the past was a commonality based on blood and a common religious/cultural heritage. Now, the latter has been splintered, and our blood bonds seem weakened.

Everybody thinks that the 'other guy' has to bend and give in for the sake of agreement.

The left has succeeded in making many of us hate our American heritage, and to consider our history and our past heroes and myths as tainted and corrupt. I get the sense that only a Jacobin-like overthrow of all that the past contained will be enough for many of the younger and more indoctrinated of our people. I can imagine that the young would try to reinvent the wheel, to start with some sort of ideology to try to create a new nation from whole cloth, because they consider the existing cultural remnant to be not worth saving. And yet if a new ''nation'' was created around new belief systems and ideologies, it would be more or less a 'proposition nation', which I think most of us have agreed to be an untenable idea.

If we must overthrow any belief system, if we must pull anything up by the roots, it should instead be all the rotten fruits of the 1960s, all things that are associated with leftism and radical individualism. The tried and true is the most sensible path to take, rather than starting from the ground up and conducting some new utopian experiment and trust that it will work out. We are now living out the results of a few generations of social engineering. It's that which must be rooted out of our culture, not the millennia of custom and tradition which served us well for such a long time.

I can't help being reminded again of Jeremiah 6:16

''Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.''

All the same, I can't join the doomsayers. As long as there are a faithful few, there's hope. It's always the few, not the many, who make history. The question is, which few will it be?

Always room for more

At the C of CC website, there is a short piece about the demographic changes due to Hispanic immigration, and the growing percentages of Hispanics inn certain states.

''Some findings:
All states so far show substantial growth in the number of Hispanics. In several states, the Hispanic population more than doubled from 2000 to 2010.  For example (in thousands)

Alabama (76 to 186)
Arkansas (87 to 186)
Maryland (228 to 470)
Mississippi (40 to 81)
North Carolina (379 to 800)
South Dakota (11 to 22)

It's pretty startling to see it in the numbers here, although anybody paying attention can see the changes being wrought.

The states listed above are states that heretofore had not had large Hispanic populations. Some of the Southeastern and deep South states had not ever had significant numbers of Mexicans in the past.

Some of the increase in numbers is due to 'natural increase', as Hispanics do tend to have more children, but it would appear that despite the occasional article in the controlled media telling us that the illegals are returning home, there are undoubtedly many new 'arrivals' each and every day.

The most absurd thing, in the face of this evidence, is the fact that the number of '12 million illegals' continues to be quoted as fact, even though the same figure has been used since at least 2005. Somehow, magically, there are always only '12 million illegal immigrants' in our country. "Always leave room for more" I suppose, is the rationale for continuing to use that same absurd figure.

'Tidal wave of immigrants'

Tiberge at Galliawatch writes about the influx of immigrants in the wake of the unrest in the Arab world.
It does seem that in the decades since our borders were opened by traitorous elites, every war or upheaval, even of a relatively minor nature, is a pretext for yet more waves of immigrants and 'refugees' from the affected countries. How long can this go on?

It seems there is some resistance to it in France, with members of the Bloc Identitaire organizing a protest.

Tiberge links to this Novopress article (in French) and translates excerpts from it.

 

The events that have been shaking the Maghrebin countries may trigger a new wave of immigration to Europe. This wave has indeed already begun with the arrival of more than 6300 immigrants on the Italian island of Lampedusa, which is only a port of call for the migrants. Their destination of choice is France, where a good number of these Tunisians have already arrived, eager to benefit from the Welfare State's generosity towards illegal immigrants. 

[...]
In Lampedusa, those arriving from Tunisia are becoming less numerous, but Italy now fears a migratory wave from the coast of Libya. Thousands of refugees fleeing Libya are in fact rushing to the Tunisian border.

While French people were hoping that a "democratization" in the Maghreb might result in a return to the homeland for many "political refugees" who came to France to escape the regimes that have now fallen, it is, on the contrary, a new migratory submersion that they may be confronted with, if drastic political measures are not taken immediately.'' 

The situation sounds dire. We know that for some time the EU has been discussing the supposed 'need' for 50 million more African immigrants. Needless to say, that would be the end of Europe as we've known it.

It seems that no matter what the occasion, the answer is always 'more immigration' from the Third World. Surely the people who are promoting this and forcing it on unwilling populations are obsessed, fanatical, monomaniacal. I suppose they have many 'reasons' for fomenting the unrest in the Middle East, but immigration and further population replacement seems to be an all-important priority for them.

Europe at least has some signs of life in resisting this onslaught. Do we have anything comparable here? I hope nobody mentions 'the Tea Party' because they show little inclination to talk about anything politically incorrect or risky. 

As for Europe, the EU is every bit as totalitarian as the old Soviet Union was. They know what they are doing here; it is no accident.

What was it all for?

Chuck Baldwin reflects on the Alamo, on this anniversary of its fall in 1836. He writes about the character of the men who died defending the Alamo, men like Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and William Barret Travis.

He notes that Travis was a mere 23 years old when he met his death, and as you see by the letter he wrote before he was killed at the Alamo, Travis was a man of maturity and character, despite his youth. Of course, until very recent times, 23 was very much considered a man, while today, a male at 23 is often referred to as a ''kid'' or a boy or a youth. We no longer expect maturity of 23-year-olds. Maybe that is one of the reasons why we seem to be lacking leaders now; we delay adulthood until what used to be considered early middle age.

But be that as it may, the defenders of the Alamo were extraordinary men. They should be role models for our youth, but given the feminizing of our society, and the downplaying of the warrior ethic and masculinity in general, I suspect they are not held up, today,  as men to be emulated, as in past eras.

Baldwin's piece is good, but I have one issue with it, and it's a fairly major point of difference. He says that the Alamo defenders fought and died for freedom.

''The brave men at the Alamo labored under the belief that America (and Texas) really was “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” They believed God was on their side and that the freedom of future generations depended on their courage and resolve. They further believed their posterity would remember their sacrifice as an act of love and devotion. It all looks pale now.

By today’s standards, the gallant men of the Alamo appear rather foolish. After all, they had no chance of winning–none. However, the call for pragmatism and practicality was never sounded. Instead, they answered the clarion call, “Victory or death!”

Please try to remember the heroes of the Alamo as you watch our gutless political and religious leaders surrender to globalism, corporatism, and political correctness. Try to recall the time in this country when ordinary men and women had the courage of their convictions and were willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom and independence.''

He says that 'liberty and independence' was what motivated the men at Lexington and Concord, too. He says that they died for these principles.

Firstly, I would say that the Alamo represented a different struggle, to some extent, than that of the American Revolution.

The Texas colonists came to Texas at the invitation of a foreign government, the Mexican government. They were entering a foreign land, and they knew that the Mexicans were a people of a very different background, culture, language, and religion. They knew that the heritage of freedom in the American sense was not part of Mexico's system of governance.

The American Revolution was not the same situation at all; the American colonists knew they were of the same blood as their English rulers; it was not a case of being dominated by a foreign people with a different understanding of ''rights'' or freedoms, as with Mexico. They did not see the English authorities as alien peoples; why would they? They were all of the same stock, with the exception of course of the Americans of Dutch descent or Swedish descent, who were a distinct minority. The American colonists claimed 'the rights of Englishmen'.

Somehow, recent generations of students seem to have the idea that the colonists thought of the English as alien oppressors, which was not so. The quarrel was a family quarrel, with the differences being over ideas like 'taxation without representation'. So to that extent, the American Revolution was about ideas or principles, but the Alamo was about a distinct people (the Anglo-Protestant American colonists) being under the rule of a very different people, and deprived of their rights as they understood them. There was an element of a culture clash, even if you don't want to admit a racial aspect, to the Texas independence movement.

I personally don't think that many men (or women) will be willing to die for abstract, disembodied principles like 'freedom' or 'liberty'. I think what it comes down to is that men will fight and even die for home, hearth, land, and ultimately, their kin, their people. I think that's true down through the ages, even when there are abstract principles invoked. And men will die for their faith, if that faith is genuine and strong enough.

And that is the crucial issue now; how many people will risk all to fight for abstractions like the 'proposition nation' with its 'freedom and liberty' shibboleths? Not many, I would say, but people will fight or risk harm to protect their families, homes, lands, and their faith.

Since our country has been turned into a 'proposition nation', open to one and all, standing for no particular way of life except 'freedom and equality', then it is no wonder that many people's loyalties have become attenuated. That may be the reason why ''the best lack all conviction'' these days, because why fight for an abstract notion or for a system of government or a government apparatus in a far-off city? What counts to most red-blooded people is their homes, property, friends, family. It's the people (plus the place) which is home to us. That's what we will defend. Anything else is just words on paper.

I have a few kinsmen who died at the Alamo. I am certain that they died in defense not of abstractions, but in defense of their right to live on their land among their people, practicing their faith, on their terms, self-determining. The issue of their right to bear arms was what sparked the ultimate struggle; the Mexican government tried to disarm them, and then the fight began.

Many of today's politically corrected people don't know why old Americans were so attached to their right to bear arms. It is with those arms that a man can secure and protect his home, his land, his family against outlawry and against a despotic government. A disarmed people is an enslaved people. They knew that.

But ultimately, both the Texans and the Revolutionary patriots wanted the right to live peaceably ''under his own vine and fig tree'' as self-determining people, among like neighbors. That is a primal affinity for most healthy people. We can't make these conflicts into a war for abstractions; it was about flesh-and-blood bonds.

And if one believes that they primarily wanted to secure their political rights, what better way to guarantee them than to live among your own people, who share common standards and ideals about how people treat one another, and about just what rights we have as individuals and collectively?

We are told by the open borders zealots that all the millions who are arriving in our country every year are coming because they want ''freedom and liberty''. But it is evident to anybody with eyes and sense that what many of the immigrants consider 'freedom' is not our idea of freedom. What they consider their 'rights' are not necessarily what we as a people have agreed to be our rights. And their assumed 'rights' come into conflict with ours, and the conflicts are insoluble in some cases.

No, our forebears did not fight or die for abstractions and fine-sounding words on parchment; they died for the right to be self-determining, to live and worship as suited them and their ancestors, and (they hoped) their posterity.

It's all about the people, the flesh-and-blood people.

Travis's letter from the Alamo

This is a silent video, no audio.
The words of William B. Travis are moving, as we think about how the siege ended, and in the light of today's situation. We need a Travis today.

'Veneer of goodness'

In this article, the writer declares that No one deserves a veneer of goodness because of their race.

''I've been thinking about race, and prejudice, a lot over the past weeks.

The world has been quick to condemn John Galliano for his anti-Semitic rant. I condemned him a long time ago, firstly for portraying women on his catwalk as adolescent boys, and secondly, for his wanton, unthinking use of fur.''

I confess I had to google Galliano's name, because I am not a follower of fashion trends, or haute couture. Some of you may know his name, but I learned he is a top fashion designer, who designs for Christian Dior.

He is described in the article I linked as 'British', though he is Gibraltar-born, and of Spanish descent.

The article's writer continues:

But I think we are all guilty of bigotry, in lots of subtle ways.''

Her example of her own 'bigotry' is that she had objected to dealing with a Filipino customer service phone worker who spoke poor English. So obviously she is liberal and PC to the core. I mean, wanting to speak to someone whose English is intelligible is not 'bigotry', it's just common sense.

But the writer does seem to be having some kind of epiphany, even if only to the extent that she is actually thinking about racial issues, and seeing the reality that we do impart a certain moral superiority to certain groups whose distinction is that they are 'victims', or perceived as such. And she sees that even the sainted Third Worlders are not angelic, but are capable of cruelty or other unattractive qualities in many cases.

Galliano's crime was making some very politically incorrect statements about Jews. For those remarks he has been suspended by Dior. He has offered the requisite apology -- but that has not stopped the authorities in France from charging him with a crime.

Galliano, 50,  Friday was suspended as creative director for Christian Dior pending an investigation into charges he hurled anti-Semitic insults at patrons in a Paris cafe.''

[...]
The Anti-Defamation League applauded Dior's swift firing of its longtime design leader, who has often been called one of the most brilliant and creative designers of his time.

Galliano's dismissal, "sends a clear a clear message that this kind of anti-Semitic rhetoric is unacceptable both in the fashion world and in larger society, and that such outrageous, bigoted behavior comes with a cost," said the group's national director Abraham H. Foxman, who is a Holocaust survivor.

"The fact that someone is brilliant in a certain field does not immunize him from facing the consequences of words that are hateful, bigoted or prejudiced. Galliano is a public figure with a high profile, but he is apparently also a serial bigot," Foxman said.''

His apology, pretty much according to the standard formula:

"I have fought my entire life against prejudice, intolerance and discrimination, having been subjected to it myself. In all my work my inspiration has been to unite people of every race, creed, religion and sexuality by celebrating their cultural and ethnic diversity through fashion. That remains my guiding light

Anti-Semitism and racism have no part in our society. I unreservedly apologize for my behavior in causing any offense," the British designer said in a statement.

He said he would immediately seek help for his "failures." People close to Dior said the 50-year-old designer has been suffering from alcohol addiction and that it impacted his ability to work.''

I don't know whether he is a 'bigot'; being gay and rather flamboyant, he may just be trying to shock or outrage people, saying the most un-PC thing he could conceive of. Or it may be that, as with Mel Gibson, the alcohol was talking. But, in vino veritas, as they say.

But the fact is, to say nasty things about Jews is still the worst crime in the PC order of things. Jews as a group still hold the position of arch-victims, and therefore the penalties for speaking in a negative way about them are greater than the penalties for speaking critically or rudely about other groups in the PC-protected hierarchy. Blacks, however, are a close second, and gays are way up near the top as well.

Whether or not you think that holding negative opinions of Jews is a sin or a crime or is ''hate'', should people be subject to criminal charges, and possible imprisonment for expressing those views? Obviously much of the rest of the Western world thinks so, considering that 'hate speech' laws exist, and people are arrested and charged, essentially for insulting someone or hurting someone's feelings.

How much longer before the same situation exists here? We are almost at that stage here in America, the land of the free, already.

241 years ago today

Today is the 241st anniversary of the Boston Massacre, which occurred on March 5, 1770.

Oddly, when I look over my blog stats for today, there are no hits coming in on my earlier piece(s) on the Boston Massacre, and I say it's odd because I consistently get hits on that piece on an ongoing basis. Some of the feedback indicates that students are following a link to that piece, probably relating to an assignment about the Boston Massacre.

As our historic America vanishes, I expect there will be less and less interest in our old American history. The Boston Massacre had meaning for us and our ancestors; what can it  mean to people who have no roots in this country and no kinship to the people who founded it, the people who were involved in the events of 1770? Well, I suspect for a while the memory of that event will be maintained because there was a lone black man killed in the events of that day, and people like Glenn Beck have written him into the canon of our heroes and martyrs. After all, what good is history without diversity to validate it?

But even the presence of a black at that event will have little interest for the people who are now colonizing Massachusetts: Latin Americans, Caribbeans, Asians, Middle Easterners. And even the Whites in the area are likely to be descended from more recent immigrants. Despite popular stereotype, New England is not crawling with hoity-toity Boston Brahmins, descended from Mayflower arrivals.

According to this information, some of the towns where my maternal ancestors lived, or which they founded, are now home to ever-greater numbers of foreign-born people, in some cases around a third of the population. And why should the new arrivals care about what a lot of dead old White guys, Englishmen in fact, did 200+ years ago? Their descendants have long since moved on to settle the Midwest and the far West, as many of my New England kin did, abandoning those historical sites to the new arrivals, who will remake it in their image.

Still, even though things look bleak for us, we have to keep our folk memory alive and not forget our forebears.

'Historic bonds'

An interesting snippet which was written just after the quake in Christchurch, NZ: Benedict Brogan, of the Telegraph UK, says of the New Zealanders

''We may not be able to get rescue teams there quickly to help the life-saving effort, but there are other ways we can show that the historic bonds of family and kinship mean something, and thereby defy that tyranny of distance Mr Hamilton spoke about.''

The mention of 'bonds of family and kinship' are rather surprising as people, that is, White people specifically are not supposed to think in these terms anymore. And above all we are not supposed to speak in these terms. It's excusive and xenophobic, you know.

It's possible to read too much into this, I suppose, but it is a nostalgic thing to see this mentioned, as it was taken for granted in pre-PC times that we of Anglo-Saxon descent were kin, whether we live in Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.S.A.

This talk of blood kinship between nations sets off the radar of a few of the PC patrol on the thread, but it's refreshing to know that these old, and very natural, patterns of affinity are still not forgotten, despite decades of brainwashing and shaming.

I wish our cousins in New Zealand well, and my prayers go out to you in the aftermath of this disaster.

"...Also, we will make promise. So long as The Blood endures,
I shall know that your good is mine: ye shall feel that my strength is yours:
In the day of Armageddon, at the last great fight of all,
That Our House stand together and the pillars do not fall.
Draw now the threefold knot firm on the ninefold bands,
And the Law that ye make shall be law after the rule of your lands.
This for the waxen Heath, and that for the Wattle-bloom,
This for the Maple-leaf, and that for the Southern Broom.
The Law that ye make shall be law and I do not press my will,
Because ye are Sons of The Blood and call me Mother still.
Now must ye speak to your kinsmen and they must speak to you,
After the use of the English, in straight-flung words and few.
Go to your work and be strong, halting not in your ways,
Balking the end half-won for an instant dole of praise.
Stand to your work and be wise – certain of sword and pen,
Who are neither children nor Gods, but men in a world of men!

--Rudyard Kipling, England's Answer

Just who?

Regarding the latest remarks by Eric Holder, I am a little surprised at the irate response as seen on many blogs and some op-ed pages. The respectable (read: politically correct) mainstream media are shocked that yet again, a person 'of color' has violated their creed of colorblindness. These sorts of people are always surprised that the victim classes don't play by the rules which they think we have all agreed upon, and they are eternally disappointed -- yet they never learn to see that they are being duped into playing by the 'rule' of colorblindness. They are scrupulously careful to avoid being race-conscious while the other side is doing just the opposite, playing the race card at every possible opportunity, and playing the victim card to the hilt.

To me, this is vexatious but still business as usual, because it's the way things have been ever since the civil rights revolution succeeded in turning things upside down. It's only White people that insist on the pretense that things are not topsy-turvy, and that colorblindness is 'fair.'

Have we forgotten the previous remarks that Holder made, early during the present regime's term of office? Remember the 'nation of cowards' challenge? We all knew, and many bloggers said then that we as a nation do not discuss race among ourselves or publicly because the deck is stacked. We cannot be heard if we speak honestly and describe the situation frankly. And Holder had the temerity to call us 'cowards' when we have been browbeaten into silence and have been conditioned into political correctness.

Let's not forget, too, that a few years back, the chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission said "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them."

So she saw her role as advocating for ''her people'' who are the same as Holder's people. And those people are not us.

I remember when I was in college in the 70s the militant black professors and students constantly repeated the question ''Justice or just us?", meaning that American (read: White) justice was unjust to minorities, and was only for the White man, serving his interests.

That was a lot of cant. If anybody tries to make justice objective and impartial it's our people. Everybody else acts only in racial/ethnic self-interest, and there is no pretense at colorblindness or impartiality. We are the dupes who are still trying to rise above self-interest, while no one else does.

And when the highest justice official in our land tacitly admits that he sees his loyalties as being to his brothers only, and not to America as a country, much less to White Americans specifically, that is something that should give us pause, even if we have come to expect it.

One more factor in his regarding Americans as not 'his people' -- his parents were immigrants from Barbados. So, like somebody else we all know, his bonds to this country and its history are tenuous at best.

Sadly, I doubt that many eyes will be opened; the colorblind and the clueless will remain caught up in the pretense, insisting that 'the only colors that matter are red, white and blue' or some such nonsense.

One bit of irony here: Holder was appointed to his first judgeship by Ronald Reagan in 1988. I suppose it isn't as ironic as it may seem, unless you still believe that Reagan was a conservative president.

So ''Justice or just us?'' takes on a new meaning when applied to the attitudes of the current regime.

The whole idea of equality before the law, and of blind, impartial justice is something that is pretty much the property of 'our people'. We have a longstanding tradition of objectivity and a disinterested (in the true and original sense of the word) judicial system. It appears even the pretense is being dropped here.

The Alamo

The song is by Texas songwriter Jane Bowers. It's been recorded by several people over the years, including the late Tex Ritter (if anyone here remembers him), but I am partial to this Kingston Trio version.

A hundred and eighty were challenged by Travis to die
By a line that he drew with his sword as the battle was nigh.
"The man who will fight to the death will cross over
He that would live, let him fly,"
And over the line stepped a hundred and seventy-nine.

Chorus :
Hi! Up! Santy Anna, we're killing your soldiers below,
So the rest of Texas will know.
And remember the Alamo!

Jim Bowie lay dyin', his powder was ready and dry.
From flat on his back Bowie killed him a few in reply,
Young Davy Crockett was laughin' and singin'.
With gallantry fierce in his eye.
For God and for freedom a man's more than willin' to die.

A messenger sent from the battle both bloody and loud.
With words of farewell from a garrison gallant and proud.
Remember little darlin' my dyin',
If Texas is sovereign and free.
We'll never surrender and ever shall liberty be.

 

The lyrics vary according to the singer, but these are the lyrics as best I can provide them. There seems to be no definitive lyrics online.

Who's worse?

Over at Irish Tory, some very good points in regard to the 'popular uprisings' in the Moslem world.

Something to think about: is it worse to have a leader who is openly despotic and perhaps crazy, or to have 'leaders' who feign caring for their people and their country while working against them covertly?

More well-known faces

I found this sheet music cover with images of some of the CSA generals. Just thought I would add it to the other pictures that we've been discussing.

Click on the image to enlarge it, sorry it's not larger.

Texas Independence declared, March 2, 1836

March 2 this year will mark 175 years since Texans declared their independence from Mexico, and founded the Republic of Texas.

At the link, you can read the entire Declaration, and note its parallels to today's situation.

''When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.

When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.

Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.''

The declaration was written hastily, as the Lone Star Junction article indicates, because the Alamo was under siege at the time. The document is credited to a committee of writers, but it is generally thought that most of it came from the pen of George Childress.

I feel the need to call attention to the fact, mentioned in the Declaration just after the section I excerpted above, that the Anglo-American colonists were invited to settle in Texas. They did not 'invade' or 'steal' anything from Mexico, despite what people today claim or ignorantly believe. The writers of the Declaration note, too, that the colonists were promised the same degree of liberty they had enjoyed as American citizens, and they were promised they would live under a republican government. Of course these promises were not kept.

Towards the end, the writers say

These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the people of Texas, untill they reached that point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. We then took up arms in defence of the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren for assistance. Our appeal has been made in vain. Though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the Interior. We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in the destruction of their liberty, and the substitution therfor of a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable of self government.

The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation.''

I hope that today's generations, like our forefathers, recognize that self-preservation is indeed the first law of nature. Many today seem never to have thought about that most primal need.