By M Baldwin
Tracing heritage is big business. There are several companies which specialise in accumulating documents, and enabling people to build a family tree, going back to the year dot. Members can take DNA tests which will link them to other members with whom they share ancestry. TV shows such as “Who Do You Think You Are?” which traces the family trees of celebrities, are international favourites. However tragic, murky or disreputable our ancestors were, we still want to own them and find out about them – and we are thrilled to discover people all over the world who share, say, an eight-times great-grandparent with us.
We all love to know where we came from: and this is particularly fascinating for many Americans, whose ancestors often crossed the Atlantic four-or-five hundred years ago, and who love to be able to walk some street or visit some house where people of their blood and heritage once walked, see the things they saw, and connect with what made them who they are.
Did I say we all love to know where we came from? Actually that is not true. The BLM Marxist stooges definitely don’t want to know. For them, with their culture of victimhood, their history begins and ends with slavery. What went before – and the lives of their distant cousins, is something they prefer to be disconnected from.
Where white Americans like to feel their connection to the various nations of Europe which built the USA, black Americans turn away from their present-day family in Africa, and have invented for themselves a rather pathetic subculture which feeds on an image of being bottom of the social heap due to the bigotry and suppression of whites. They pretend to themselves that Big Bad Whitey is responsible for all their ills; that before they were enslaved, they had an advanced culture, in which they were free and peaceful: kangz, in fact.
The reality of their past in Africa is truthfully very different. In the first place, the flirtation of white people with slavery, whether in Europe or America, was very brief, and it was white people who ended it. In addition, 90% of slaves eventually bought by whites during the period when slavery was legal among white people, were sold into slavery by black Africans, with North Africans as the go-between-traders.
Neither were they ‘kangz’ or anything like it – those captured by the Arabs and Africans were not considered important people among their own. To sell a tribal leader would have been an act of war. The communities, such as they were, that the victims of slavery came from, were staggeringly backward in every way, without any of the trappings of civilisation recognisable to the North African and European traders. To acknowledge this, would entail abandoning the fantasy of past greatness which BLM cling to. They would even have to admit that without the intervention of Whitey, Africa would still be in the Stone Age.
In contrast, Europeans, even while accepting that the Roman occupation must have been brutal in many respects, can be admiring of and grateful for the trappings of civilisation they brought – from roads and aquaducts, to the ideas of citizenship, literacy, and political representation. Anyway, our period of ‘backwardness’ is so long ago. This means that, while I would be fascinated to trace my family back 1500 years and discover what part my ancestors played in the Celtic tribes of Britain before the Roman occupation, any bizarre or brutal behaviour among them would be so far away that I wouldn’t for a moment think it reflected on me personally.
Picturing 60 x great-grandfather carrying out some ritual human sacrifice in a Druid grove is very different to accepting that it was grandma’s grandfather’s grandfather who shrunk heads or ate those he defeated in battle: and even less do BLM & Co want to accept that it was their own ancestors who sold unwanted members of their own community, into slavery.
Even without the barbarity, BLM would have to accept that they are descended from a culture which made no advances since the Stone Age, while all other cultures on every other continent, were carrying out scientific experiments, becoming largely literate, learning logic and reason, having passionate religious debates, honing war-craft, building mighty cathedrals, towering mosques, and fortified walls which spanned their nations, and constantly developing technology.
If BLM studied history they would discover that there were more white people sold into slavery in Africa, having been captured by Barbary pirates, than there were black people sold to white buyers. This knowledge would remove the very basis of their identity, which is hatred of whites, and self-pity.
If the fantasists of BLM viewed their ancestral past with honesty they would have to admit that it was not the white man who made Africa backward – instead, it was the white man who brought the trappings of civilisation and infrastructure, just as once, Rome brought these things to northern Europe. They would have to admit that Africa’s period of greatest advancement was the time between the white man ending slavery – at the cost of their own lives, economies, and taxes – and the dismantling of the European empires.
Since then, it’s been downhill all the way for Africa, despite being the recipient of a constant, vast outpouring of money from the rest of the world – with the African nations being right at the top of the UN’s list of those which the rest of the world is supposed to accept as permanent pensioners.
White Americans can get dewy-eyed about meeting their distant kinfolk in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland – but BLM certainly don’t want to acknowledge they are the cousins of today’s Africans, because that would burst another bubble for them: they would have to admit that, if not for the white man’s brief flirtation with slavery, they would be living in the poorest, most violent, most unstable nations in the world.
The president of Ghana has kindly offered sanctuary and citizenship to black Americans who feel they are unwanted in the USA, but BLM prefer not to think about that. There won’t be any takers, because pretended victimhood in a wealthy, largely benign country with a commitment to equality, is far preferable to the truth of modern Africa.
Left to it’s own devices, the African nations are a bleak mixture of backward, brutal and beggar states, in which atrocities which would make the death of crack-head criminal George Floyd look like a picnic, are routinely carried out. There is no safe place there for noisy, disgruntled, self-pitying people who throw tantrums against the oppressive, unstable dictators who govern them. If they took to the streets and shrieked and trashed the local culture, they would be gunned down without hesitation. Into the bargain, many of these countries still practice slavery and even cannibalism of minority groups.
Life in the African states which are for the time being escaping famine, plague, war and pestilence, involves constant struggles to drag themselves out of the kind of chaos which BLM like to create: when Africans build a school, the school is about cramming education into the heads of kids who must be neatly dressed in a regulation uniform and behave themselves – not whining about non-existent grievances, disrespecting teachers, or having personal whims and neuroses catered to. These are people who can’t afford to indulge BLM’s worthless brand of public nuisance. Dad must work himself into the ground to support the family, Mum must be quiet, dignified and devout, and feed and clothe her children for a month on the kind of budget which BLM members spend on doing their hair in a week.
This way of life wouldn’t suit La’Q’Aneq’ua ReRe Lovely K’erswayla Monae and Harold Prince Raven Tarubu LaDon Umchah III at all. Apart from anything else, abandoning several children – 80% of black American families have no resident father – would not be a mark of manhood, and where would La’Q’Aneq’ua get a decent wig? And how would her bejewelled fake talons stand up to planting a small garden and butchering a goat?
Black American women of the BLM variety would be particularly appalled at coming face to face with what they would look like if they didn’t spend a fortune in money and time on making themselves look as white as possible: unfortunately, it was just necessary for me to examine the profiles of over 3000 BLM supporters, male and female, and literally not one of the women had ‘natural’ hair or actually, in many cases, looked very ‘black’ at all. Wigs and weaves – often bleached blonde – plus skin-bleaching, are clearly how they choose to make themselves look attractive. I doubt that would go down well in Ghana, any more than the BLM female’s habit of being a screeching lunatic – neither would anyone there appreciate music with lyrics which glorify crime and repeat the word ‘mother-fucker’.
The Rootophobia of BLM is typified by Arch Hypochrites Duchess MeAgain Markle, and her current pet neuter and meal-ticket, HRH Prince Hat-Stand.
The woman who has spent her life living off one white man or another, and goes to outrageous efforts not to look like the child of a black woman, uses her seemingly very sweet mother, Doria, as a living race-card – trotting her out at any time when it appears her chosen and ludicrous narrative of victimhood is weakened. But while she has been seen posing and preening in Maltese national costume, having traced an ancestor to the island of Malta, she shows no interest in her African roots.
As grand-daughter-in-law of the head of the Commonwealth, MeAgain would be able to trace the precise African village in which her last African ancestor was taken as a slave – and arrange an official, royal visit there. This would be a genuine ‘statement’ if she chose to be filmed hugging her 5th cousins in, say, Eritrea or Uganda, while little red-haired Archie. great-grandson of the Queen of England, toddled happily around with his distant kin: but the local national costume might not be as flattering as the Maltese version, and anyway, her African ancestry is something which she chooses to forget unless it is necessary to blame racism for the British public’s dislike of her.
The truth is that the entire basis for BLM is a lie – as fake and ridiculous and incomprehensible as the names La’Q’Aneq’ua ReRe Lovely K’erswayla Monae and Harold Prince Raven Tarubu LaDon Umchah III sign on the dotted line when they are being welcomed to colleges, offered preferential employment opportunities, or picking up welfare. They aren’t interested in their roots except as an excuse for being a social problem. Their “blackness” is nothing more than an accessory, an inbuilt banner of protest against nothing.
Just as they fantasise about having been “kangz”, or being victims, so they fantasise that their hateful protests against nothing, their overt racism, their attempts to destroy a heritage they could never have built, is a triumph: in fact, it has made them the enemy of civilised societies, and taken race-relations to a darker place than we have ever seen. They are merely the idiot stooges of Marxists who are themselves the idiot stooges of billionaire globalists – the bottom of the food-chain of agents of chaos.And they are too stupid to realise, they are being thrown to the wolves in the cause of destroying the only culture which has raised them above their roots.
If you appreciated this article and would like to support us, would you consider a one off small donation?
(any currency can be selected)