0 comment Friday, May 23, 2014 | admin
Joe Sobran, who recently passed away, wrote a piece on nationalism and patriotism. It was written not long after the 9/11 attacks, and it is written in the spirit of warning against the dangers of the blind patriotism that seemed, for a while, to be sweeping this country.
The subject of patriotism vs. nationalism is one that I have returned to periodically on this blog. It is a distinction that is hard to explain, and hard to discuss with others, because different people seem to have differing perceptions of what each of those terms means.
To me, the term 'patriotism' is what Sobran, in the linked essay, calls 'nationalism', in the jingoistic sense.
''This is a season of patriotism, but also of something that is easily mistaken for patriotism; namely, nationalism. The difference is vital.
G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a "lack of patriotism." He explained: "He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English."
In the same way, many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be "the greatest country on earth" in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, "a 3rd-rate power," it would be virtually worthless.
This is nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being "the greatest family on earth" (whatever that might mean) or for being "better" than other families. You don�t feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don�t feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.
While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it�s often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.
The patriot differs from the nationalist in this respect too: he can laugh at his country, the way members of a family can laugh at each other�s foibles. Affection takes for granted the imperfection of those it loves; the patriotic Irishman thinks Ireland is hilarious, whereas the Irish nationalist sees nothing to laugh about.
The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home.''
My impression is that most Americans, especially those on the paleo-conservative end, as well as libertarians and leftists, associate patriotism with the blind jingoism and militarism. Witness how the slur ''patriotard'' is directed at those who tended to be pro-Iraq War and Islamo-skeptical. Most Republicans consider themselves patriotic, and their detractors on right and left call them ''patriotards''.
Likewise, the term nationalist is viewed with suspicion by most of the average American type; the media have assigned a derogatory meaning to ''nationalist'' as being associated with ''supremacists'' or Nazis or right-wing xenophobes (so-called.)
I don't know how we might untangle the contradictory and confused meanings and connotations of those two terms. Sobran makes a pretty effective case for his definitions, and for a humble kind of patriotism that does not go in for interventionism and militarism for its own sake.
''When it comes to war, the patriot realizes that the rest of the world can�t be turned into America, because his America is something specific and particular � the memories and traditions that can no more be transplanted than the mountains and the prairies. He seeks only contentment at home, and he is quick to compromise with an enemy. He wants his country to be just strong enough to defend itself.''
By Sobran's definitions, I would have to consider myself a patriot, but a patriot towards my people, not towards a regime or an ideology or a set of principles.
But this can get sticky in our ''post-American America.'' The ruling ideology in this country is insistent that everybody and anybody who takes up residence on American soil is one of my people, just by virtue of being here. Likewise everybody who is born here, even though they may be part an ethnic enclave and speak little English, is one of my people, an American. So we have to distinguish between loyalty based on geographic location and political boundaries, and loyalty based on blood kinship plus common culture and history.
I am reminded of this piece from 1996 to which I linked in a past blog entry.
And, of course, the American media are becoming less American, as Britons and others infiltrate their ranks. CNN epitomizes an emerging electronic life-form that is slowly becoming the eyes and ears of the world community. Members of the media, particularly foreign correspondents, are becoming what Mitchell Cohen, an editor at Dissent, calls "rooted cosmopolitans" -- people with several loyalties, standing "in many circles, but with common ground" in the form of a home base. Cohen's description evokes the turn-of-the-century essayist Randolph Bourne's idea of a transnational America -- of multiple-passport holders and dual citizens.
A new Manifest Destiny, in other words: We strip the world of its human ingenuity, attracting the most talented Asians, Africans, and so on to the United States. We anglicize them. Although they are not loyal to the degree that former immigrants were, they accept America as their base. We become the place where all the world's major cultures and economies meet, conquering the world as it conquers us. Blood-and-soil nationalism recedes.
Given that American politics has often been a series of peaceful evolutions, we may be in the midst of a transition so gradual that it cannot fit within the confines of the news. It will be apparent only after it happens. Tom Nairn, a social scientist, writes that nationalism is "an inwardly-determined social necessity, a 'growth-stage,' located somewhere in between . . . 'feudal societies' and a future where the factors of nationality will become less prominent." America, more than any other nation, may have been born to die.''
We are entering a new phase in which we will see which side prevails: the idea of ''transnational America'', which, to me, is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, or the traditional nation, (which word, after all, denotes 'birth'). Human nature inclines us to kin loyalty; it does not incline us to the article writer's abomination of America as a congeries of ''rooted cosmopolitans'' of all races and creeds.
The two ideas are on a collision course, and we can only hope that human nature and tradition win out against social engineering and utopian ideology.
The subject of patriotism vs. nationalism is one that I have returned to periodically on this blog. It is a distinction that is hard to explain, and hard to discuss with others, because different people seem to have differing perceptions of what each of those terms means.
To me, the term 'patriotism' is what Sobran, in the linked essay, calls 'nationalism', in the jingoistic sense.
''This is a season of patriotism, but also of something that is easily mistaken for patriotism; namely, nationalism. The difference is vital.
G.K. Chesterton once observed that Rudyard Kipling, the great poet of British imperialism, suffered from a "lack of patriotism." He explained: "He admires England, but he does not love her; for we admire things with reasons, but love them without reasons. He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English."
In the same way, many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be "the greatest country on earth" in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, "a 3rd-rate power," it would be virtually worthless.
This is nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being "the greatest family on earth" (whatever that might mean) or for being "better" than other families. You don�t feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don�t feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.
While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it�s often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.
The patriot differs from the nationalist in this respect too: he can laugh at his country, the way members of a family can laugh at each other�s foibles. Affection takes for granted the imperfection of those it loves; the patriotic Irishman thinks Ireland is hilarious, whereas the Irish nationalist sees nothing to laugh about.
The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home.''
My impression is that most Americans, especially those on the paleo-conservative end, as well as libertarians and leftists, associate patriotism with the blind jingoism and militarism. Witness how the slur ''patriotard'' is directed at those who tended to be pro-Iraq War and Islamo-skeptical. Most Republicans consider themselves patriotic, and their detractors on right and left call them ''patriotards''.
Likewise, the term nationalist is viewed with suspicion by most of the average American type; the media have assigned a derogatory meaning to ''nationalist'' as being associated with ''supremacists'' or Nazis or right-wing xenophobes (so-called.)
I don't know how we might untangle the contradictory and confused meanings and connotations of those two terms. Sobran makes a pretty effective case for his definitions, and for a humble kind of patriotism that does not go in for interventionism and militarism for its own sake.
''When it comes to war, the patriot realizes that the rest of the world can�t be turned into America, because his America is something specific and particular � the memories and traditions that can no more be transplanted than the mountains and the prairies. He seeks only contentment at home, and he is quick to compromise with an enemy. He wants his country to be just strong enough to defend itself.''
By Sobran's definitions, I would have to consider myself a patriot, but a patriot towards my people, not towards a regime or an ideology or a set of principles.
But this can get sticky in our ''post-American America.'' The ruling ideology in this country is insistent that everybody and anybody who takes up residence on American soil is one of my people, just by virtue of being here. Likewise everybody who is born here, even though they may be part an ethnic enclave and speak little English, is one of my people, an American. So we have to distinguish between loyalty based on geographic location and political boundaries, and loyalty based on blood kinship plus common culture and history.
I am reminded of this piece from 1996 to which I linked in a past blog entry.
And, of course, the American media are becoming less American, as Britons and others infiltrate their ranks. CNN epitomizes an emerging electronic life-form that is slowly becoming the eyes and ears of the world community. Members of the media, particularly foreign correspondents, are becoming what Mitchell Cohen, an editor at Dissent, calls "rooted cosmopolitans" -- people with several loyalties, standing "in many circles, but with common ground" in the form of a home base. Cohen's description evokes the turn-of-the-century essayist Randolph Bourne's idea of a transnational America -- of multiple-passport holders and dual citizens.
A new Manifest Destiny, in other words: We strip the world of its human ingenuity, attracting the most talented Asians, Africans, and so on to the United States. We anglicize them. Although they are not loyal to the degree that former immigrants were, they accept America as their base. We become the place where all the world's major cultures and economies meet, conquering the world as it conquers us. Blood-and-soil nationalism recedes.
Given that American politics has often been a series of peaceful evolutions, we may be in the midst of a transition so gradual that it cannot fit within the confines of the news. It will be apparent only after it happens. Tom Nairn, a social scientist, writes that nationalism is "an inwardly-determined social necessity, a 'growth-stage,' located somewhere in between . . . 'feudal societies' and a future where the factors of nationality will become less prominent." America, more than any other nation, may have been born to die.''
We are entering a new phase in which we will see which side prevails: the idea of ''transnational America'', which, to me, is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, or the traditional nation, (which word, after all, denotes 'birth'). Human nature inclines us to kin loyalty; it does not incline us to the article writer's abomination of America as a congeries of ''rooted cosmopolitans'' of all races and creeds.
The two ideas are on a collision course, and we can only hope that human nature and tradition win out against social engineering and utopian ideology.
Labels: Cosmopolitanism, Creedal Patriotism, Ethnopatriotism, Nationalism, Nationality, Patriotism
0 comment Wednesday, April 30, 2014 | admin
At VDare, Kevin MacDonald has a review of the book by Eric P. Kaufmann, called The Fall and Rise of Anglo-America.
The full version of it can be found here.
There are discussions of it here and here, where Prozium says that
It is a sad testament to the decrepit state of American intellectual life that all of two books have been written about the most important subject in American history: the decline of its indigenous White majority. Even taken together, MacDonald and Kaufmann have barely scratched the surface of the subject. In contrast, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and volumes have been written about the Holocaust and can be easily accessed in any decent college library, an event which didn�t even take place on American soil. This fact alone speaks volumes about ethnic constitution of America�s ruling class and their priorities.''
Given the politically incorrect nature of the subject matter it is surprising that even two books have been written on the subject. I'm not sure that it can be laid at the feet of an invisible Yankee WASP elite that this is the case.
As this reviewer points out, however, similar ground was covered in Samuel P. Huntington's Who Are We?,
And speaking of 'Who Are We?', the thought occurred to me to ask: Who is Eric Kaufmann, in other words, what particular axe is he grinding? Sure, I know, there is a presumption that books like this should present facts and not prejudices, but just about everything published these days has some implicit or explicit bias. I make mine known up front on this blog. But who is Kaufmann?
In his final chapter, Kaufmann introduces his own background: a Canadian born in Hong Kong with Jewish, Chinese and Hispanic ancestry but who is, in effect, just another North American Anglo in most social situations. With this mixed heritage established, he proposes a cultural regeneration of America based around what he terms "liberal ethnicity". He suggests that Wasp identity be accepted as just another ethnic option within the range of identities available for American people. He looks to a future in which the state is culturally neutral and all ethnic identities are expressed in cultural rather than racial terms, and are hence open to anyone who wishes to participate in them, on the understanding that those buying into a new culture do not expect it to change to suit them. He even postulates a future mixed-American identity, blending Anglo, African and Indian, akin to the fusion of Aztec and Spanish in Mexico. It is so refreshing to read a generous, open and positive book on this subject - what a pity that it is Huntington who has attracted the attention.''
Ah. One of those men-without-a-country, a real cosmopolitan.
It's clear that the reviewer shares this multicult viewpoint, too.
He betrays his preconceptions in this part also:
Kaufmann opens with an account of the creation of the Wasp culture, showing how American intellectuals, from Thomas Jefferson through to Henry Adams, seized on Dark-Age Anglo-Saxon culture as a mythic point of origin.''
I like his use of the term 'Dark Age Anglo-Saxon culture.' I personally think today is the dark age of Anglo-Saxonry, and I think that tomorrow looks to be darker if people like this have their way.
His implication seems to be that American intellectuals created a make-believe origin for themselves. The reviewer being British presumably shares the same ''dark ages'' culture; is his origin mythical too?
In any case, though I haven't read Kaufmann's book, the reviews don't make me want to go out and buy it (at $60 or so) or even to order it through my local library.
Of all the viewpoints I've read in this discussion, it seems that MacDonald's is the least inimical towards WASPs and Anglo-America. I think his review offers a number of good points. For instance, this part, discussing the declining dominance by WASP intellectuals. Kaufmann sees this as having been effected by both sides, with WASPs abdicating their dominant role, as much as by deliberate efforts of Jewish intellectuals:
Kaufmann also fails to recognize that many of the basic ideas of the New York Intellectuals derived from other Jewish intellectual movements, particularly psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School. For example, the elitist, anti-populist attitudes of the Frankfurt School paralleled the attitudes of the New York Intellectuals and likely influenced them, and indeed some of the New York Intellectuals are also associated with the Frankfurt School (see Ch. 5 of C of C).
Common themes in this body of writing are hostility to American populism, the need for leadership by an elite cadre of intellectuals, and the belief that concerns about ethnic displacement and the rise of the power of ethnic minorities are irrational and indicative of psychiatric disorder.
This point should be emphasized.''
Not only in this context, but in general, I think the rise of the psychoanalytic point of view has had a massive effect on our society, in our perceptions of ourselves, of human behavior and human nature, the problem of good vs. evil, and moral responsibility. The rise of the psychoanalytic belief system coincided with the decline of traditional Christianity and the worldview that was part of it. The two belief systems are diametrically opposed, but the therapeutic faith has infiltrated much of Christianity, producing this changeling which is now so widely blamed for the fall of the West, and of Anglo-Saxon America particularly.
MacDonald also points out something that I allude to frequently: the fact that fewer people identify as Anglo-Saxon:
Even people of mixed European heritage now tend to identify with the non-Anglo-Saxon side of the family. For example, people of Italian-Scottish descent chose to identify themselves as Italian by a 3-1 ratio.''
It's generally said that only one-fifth of White Americans claim British or English origins. I wonder if someone who is expert with figures would be able to calculate how many British descendants there should be in America, based on the founding populations of English colonists 400 years ago? I should think it would be more than a paltry 20 percent of the population.
I see a tendency to oversimplify the question of what caused the fall of Anglo-America, and a danger of reducing it to 'self-hating WASPs' committing demographic suicide, as an easy alternative to what some see as the excessive blaming of Jews.
In addition, there is a popular caricature of WASPs as some kind of prim, cold, ''judgmental'' people (think: the Puritan witch-trials), and for Southrons, the WASPs have to be Yankees, as in the War Between the States. In recent years many people in the South have changed their self-identification to Celtic as a way of distancing themselves from those Yankees who were all WASPs. Actually, by the time of the War, there were many ethnic Northerners, recent immigrants or their sons, in the Union Army. They were by no means all WASPs wearing that blue uniform. And there were in fact plenty of Anglo-Normans in the gray uniform, including my kin. I think there is far too much caricaturing regarding WASPs going on.
I see also a trend toward considering the Puritan colonists as somehow a separate people from the Cavaliers who settled Virginia; again, I think that's oversimplifying. Is there that much innate difference between East Anglians and men from the South and West of England? I agree that today's Southron people are different in important ways from Northerners -- but the latter are by no means mostly WASP now, as many Southrons are. But that's another question that would need a separate blog entry.
There is a tendency to attribute excessive power to WASPs, which is absurd given that they have been underrepresented in influential positions for many decades now. Is there a vast WASP conspiracy, with crypto-WASPs passing themselves off as ethnics, controlling everything behind the scenes? Perhaps some leftists believe that, but I hope people on the right know better.
In the end does it really matter who is/was to blame for what happened in the past? As our ship is taking on water and looks ready to sink, does it help us to blame Anglo-Saxons in general, or prim Yankee Puritans? There is no identifiable Anglo-Saxon elite to hold to account. All that need concern us is: what do we do to reverse things? If we believe either that our destruction is inevitable or deserved, then let's just resign ourselves, and eat, drink, and be merry as the ship goes down.
Otherwise, it seems mostly counterproductive to verbally assail Anglo-Saxons for what has happened to America. I suppose, however, they are an easy target as so few will rise to their defense. A few bloggers out there will defend our Anglo heritage, and I give them credit (Old Atlantic, for one) but they are thin on the ground. So yes, it's easy to beat up on a group that does not even perceive itself to exist as a group, or see themselves as a group worth defending.
And if we completely demolish and discredit Anglo-Saxons as some kind of congenitally self-hating neurotics, as Austin Bramwell depicted them in a recent piece, then how can we salvage what is left of our Anglo heritage, or any kind of American identity that does not substantially include Anglo-Saxons?
What is left would be a hollowed-out America indeed.
It is, however, useful to try to unravel what is still going on now that prevents people from defending their people and their heritage, and their children's future. Along those lines, I would like to examine a lot of unexamined things, certain sacred cows of our time, one being that psychoanalytic belief system, and the way it has changed our society and our thinking in destructive ways. We might find more under that rock than poking around trying to find ways in which those old Puritan fathers caused this mess that we find ourselves in.
The full version of it can be found here.
There are discussions of it here and here, where Prozium says that
It is a sad testament to the decrepit state of American intellectual life that all of two books have been written about the most important subject in American history: the decline of its indigenous White majority. Even taken together, MacDonald and Kaufmann have barely scratched the surface of the subject. In contrast, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and volumes have been written about the Holocaust and can be easily accessed in any decent college library, an event which didn�t even take place on American soil. This fact alone speaks volumes about ethnic constitution of America�s ruling class and their priorities.''
Given the politically incorrect nature of the subject matter it is surprising that even two books have been written on the subject. I'm not sure that it can be laid at the feet of an invisible Yankee WASP elite that this is the case.
As this reviewer points out, however, similar ground was covered in Samuel P. Huntington's Who Are We?,
And speaking of 'Who Are We?', the thought occurred to me to ask: Who is Eric Kaufmann, in other words, what particular axe is he grinding? Sure, I know, there is a presumption that books like this should present facts and not prejudices, but just about everything published these days has some implicit or explicit bias. I make mine known up front on this blog. But who is Kaufmann?
In his final chapter, Kaufmann introduces his own background: a Canadian born in Hong Kong with Jewish, Chinese and Hispanic ancestry but who is, in effect, just another North American Anglo in most social situations. With this mixed heritage established, he proposes a cultural regeneration of America based around what he terms "liberal ethnicity". He suggests that Wasp identity be accepted as just another ethnic option within the range of identities available for American people. He looks to a future in which the state is culturally neutral and all ethnic identities are expressed in cultural rather than racial terms, and are hence open to anyone who wishes to participate in them, on the understanding that those buying into a new culture do not expect it to change to suit them. He even postulates a future mixed-American identity, blending Anglo, African and Indian, akin to the fusion of Aztec and Spanish in Mexico. It is so refreshing to read a generous, open and positive book on this subject - what a pity that it is Huntington who has attracted the attention.''
Ah. One of those men-without-a-country, a real cosmopolitan.
It's clear that the reviewer shares this multicult viewpoint, too.
He betrays his preconceptions in this part also:
Kaufmann opens with an account of the creation of the Wasp culture, showing how American intellectuals, from Thomas Jefferson through to Henry Adams, seized on Dark-Age Anglo-Saxon culture as a mythic point of origin.''
I like his use of the term 'Dark Age Anglo-Saxon culture.' I personally think today is the dark age of Anglo-Saxonry, and I think that tomorrow looks to be darker if people like this have their way.
His implication seems to be that American intellectuals created a make-believe origin for themselves. The reviewer being British presumably shares the same ''dark ages'' culture; is his origin mythical too?
In any case, though I haven't read Kaufmann's book, the reviews don't make me want to go out and buy it (at $60 or so) or even to order it through my local library.
Of all the viewpoints I've read in this discussion, it seems that MacDonald's is the least inimical towards WASPs and Anglo-America. I think his review offers a number of good points. For instance, this part, discussing the declining dominance by WASP intellectuals. Kaufmann sees this as having been effected by both sides, with WASPs abdicating their dominant role, as much as by deliberate efforts of Jewish intellectuals:
Kaufmann also fails to recognize that many of the basic ideas of the New York Intellectuals derived from other Jewish intellectual movements, particularly psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School. For example, the elitist, anti-populist attitudes of the Frankfurt School paralleled the attitudes of the New York Intellectuals and likely influenced them, and indeed some of the New York Intellectuals are also associated with the Frankfurt School (see Ch. 5 of C of C).
Common themes in this body of writing are hostility to American populism, the need for leadership by an elite cadre of intellectuals, and the belief that concerns about ethnic displacement and the rise of the power of ethnic minorities are irrational and indicative of psychiatric disorder.
This point should be emphasized.''
Not only in this context, but in general, I think the rise of the psychoanalytic point of view has had a massive effect on our society, in our perceptions of ourselves, of human behavior and human nature, the problem of good vs. evil, and moral responsibility. The rise of the psychoanalytic belief system coincided with the decline of traditional Christianity and the worldview that was part of it. The two belief systems are diametrically opposed, but the therapeutic faith has infiltrated much of Christianity, producing this changeling which is now so widely blamed for the fall of the West, and of Anglo-Saxon America particularly.
MacDonald also points out something that I allude to frequently: the fact that fewer people identify as Anglo-Saxon:
Even people of mixed European heritage now tend to identify with the non-Anglo-Saxon side of the family. For example, people of Italian-Scottish descent chose to identify themselves as Italian by a 3-1 ratio.''
It's generally said that only one-fifth of White Americans claim British or English origins. I wonder if someone who is expert with figures would be able to calculate how many British descendants there should be in America, based on the founding populations of English colonists 400 years ago? I should think it would be more than a paltry 20 percent of the population.
I see a tendency to oversimplify the question of what caused the fall of Anglo-America, and a danger of reducing it to 'self-hating WASPs' committing demographic suicide, as an easy alternative to what some see as the excessive blaming of Jews.
In addition, there is a popular caricature of WASPs as some kind of prim, cold, ''judgmental'' people (think: the Puritan witch-trials), and for Southrons, the WASPs have to be Yankees, as in the War Between the States. In recent years many people in the South have changed their self-identification to Celtic as a way of distancing themselves from those Yankees who were all WASPs. Actually, by the time of the War, there were many ethnic Northerners, recent immigrants or their sons, in the Union Army. They were by no means all WASPs wearing that blue uniform. And there were in fact plenty of Anglo-Normans in the gray uniform, including my kin. I think there is far too much caricaturing regarding WASPs going on.
I see also a trend toward considering the Puritan colonists as somehow a separate people from the Cavaliers who settled Virginia; again, I think that's oversimplifying. Is there that much innate difference between East Anglians and men from the South and West of England? I agree that today's Southron people are different in important ways from Northerners -- but the latter are by no means mostly WASP now, as many Southrons are. But that's another question that would need a separate blog entry.
There is a tendency to attribute excessive power to WASPs, which is absurd given that they have been underrepresented in influential positions for many decades now. Is there a vast WASP conspiracy, with crypto-WASPs passing themselves off as ethnics, controlling everything behind the scenes? Perhaps some leftists believe that, but I hope people on the right know better.
In the end does it really matter who is/was to blame for what happened in the past? As our ship is taking on water and looks ready to sink, does it help us to blame Anglo-Saxons in general, or prim Yankee Puritans? There is no identifiable Anglo-Saxon elite to hold to account. All that need concern us is: what do we do to reverse things? If we believe either that our destruction is inevitable or deserved, then let's just resign ourselves, and eat, drink, and be merry as the ship goes down.
Otherwise, it seems mostly counterproductive to verbally assail Anglo-Saxons for what has happened to America. I suppose, however, they are an easy target as so few will rise to their defense. A few bloggers out there will defend our Anglo heritage, and I give them credit (Old Atlantic, for one) but they are thin on the ground. So yes, it's easy to beat up on a group that does not even perceive itself to exist as a group, or see themselves as a group worth defending.
And if we completely demolish and discredit Anglo-Saxons as some kind of congenitally self-hating neurotics, as Austin Bramwell depicted them in a recent piece, then how can we salvage what is left of our Anglo heritage, or any kind of American identity that does not substantially include Anglo-Saxons?
What is left would be a hollowed-out America indeed.
It is, however, useful to try to unravel what is still going on now that prevents people from defending their people and their heritage, and their children's future. Along those lines, I would like to examine a lot of unexamined things, certain sacred cows of our time, one being that psychoanalytic belief system, and the way it has changed our society and our thinking in destructive ways. We might find more under that rock than poking around trying to find ways in which those old Puritan fathers caused this mess that we find ourselves in.
Labels: Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Cosmopolitanism, Multiculturalism, National Question, National Suicide, Western Decline