Polite Kid

The recent story about the incidents in Dublin, wherein five people were seriously injured, has been mentioned on a number of pro-White blogs. When I saw the story that appeared last week, the fact that it was not picked up by any of the newspapers online except for the Irish Herald, made me somewhat wary. Then when I looked more closely, I realized that the incident or incidents were not current news, but in fact happened last October.
''TWO teenagers have appeared in court on multiple assault and other charges following a series of violent attacks in Dublin city centre that left five people seriously injured.
Nero Bobby Omoruyi (19) and Damilara Bammodu (18) are the first people to be charged in connection with the series of attacks on a night of violence in Temple Bar last year.
One man, a Dublin DJ, suffered serious head injuries when he was set upon by a group of African nationals in the incident last October.''
The dismaying part of the more recent story, quoted above, is the fact that bail was granted to these two 'men.' It seems that violent attacks are not taken terribly seriously in Ireland, or perhaps not when the attackers themselves are from one of the perpetual victim groups.
It's been interesting to read here and there how surprised many Americans are to hear of many Africans and other nonwhites in Ireland. Unfortunately many Americans have a glowing stereotype of Ireland in their minds, and even if they have visited Ireland, maybe they've only seen the idyllic tourist destinations and not the grittier side of life in the cities.
When I was first in Ireland some years ago, I was a little surprised that there were more than a few Chinese restaurants, owned and staffed by Chinese people, in Dublin. There were also a number of African 'students', and I put the word 'students' in scare quotes because they all looked too old to be students, back in the times when university students were generally young, not middle-aged. There were also a smaller number of Hindus, some of whom owned retail businesses in the city. But 'diversity' was beginning to establish itself in Ireland, or at least in Dublin, then. Actually when I was first there, I was shocked at how cosmopolitan Dublin was; it was much more so than the large American city I was living in at the time.
Most people in America think of the Irish as being very nationalistic and ethnocentric, especially in regard to their history with England. But I've been surprised to see, over the years, how very far left Ireland has veered, socially and politically. The old stereotype, so beloved of many Irish-Americans, is of Ireland dominated by the (once-conservative) Church, and of a very socially conservative culture. This was already a thing of the past when I first went to Ireland.
It seems living in a racially homogeneous environment tends to lead to incredible naivete on racial matters; we've seen it in this country during the last presidential election, and in the tendency of such areas to be prone to social engineering experiments. I am thinking of places like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania pleading for more 'diversity' and Iowa's Tom Vilsack and his diversity-mongering. People who live in non-diverse places are babes in the woods, or sheep for the shearing, when it comes to matters of diversity.
It seems that the Irish have had a tendency to sympathize with minority groups; a history of feeling persecuted or oppressed tends to make people very liberal. Such people tend to identify with others who seem to be put-upon, or who perceive themselves as such.
In the 1991 Irish movie 'The Commitments', young Irish musicians (or aspiring musicians) form a band to bring 'soul music' to Dublin. Today we'd call some of the characters 'wiggers' in their attempts to emulate black singers and musicians. In fact, I remember a line in the movie, where the band members say 'say it loud; I'm black and I'm proud'. Of course it's played for laughs, as these very White Irish youths speak that line. But I honestly think it reflects some actual identification. I've heard this saying before from some Irish people: ''The Irish are the [n-words] of Europe.''
We have a lot of young people -- and some not so young -- who adopt a similar attitude; they perceive blackness as being the last word in 'cool', and they imagine themselves to be victims in some way, so they claim solidarity with blacks and other minorities. Many in the leftist counterculture of the 1960s and 70s believed that they were spiritually black or something.
Ireland has its share of multicult ideologues; just see this article about how ''Multiculturalism is nothing new'' in Ireland. The writer would have us believe that there have always been blacks in Ireland.
''The recent referendum in Ireland, which denies the automatic right of citizenship to anyone born in Ireland to non-Irish parents, is a retrograde step that overturns the central arguments that form Ireland�s claim to nationhood.
The United Irish movement sought to replace any spurious ideas of Irishness as merely a matter of descent with the concept of citizenship. No matter what your ethnic origins were, you were part of the country and had the rights of a citizen. Of course, that the so-called 'Republic of Ireland� has few qualms about jettisoning such republican baggage will hardly be a surprise to Irish republicans.
The vote in the referendum is born of fear � an irrational fear, fuelled by the less�responsible sectors of the media, that Ireland is being swamped by immigration, that Ireland�s traditional culture is under threat from alien forces and alien people with alien ways who will undermine Ireland and what it means to be Irish.
The decision to hold the referendum is a cynical exploitation of vulgar prejudice by the Irish government. The Irish establishment have learned their lessons from the British well.
Yet the idea that Ireland is a uniformly white and homogeneous nation doesn�t stand up to the historical evidence. In fact Ireland has never been a monoculture. Ireland�s original Neolithic inhabitants may well have comprised a number of diverse groups. Since then English, Welsh, Norman and Scottish settlers, Vikings and Huguenots � already mixed populations in themselves � have added to Ireland�s mix.
There have been Jewish people in Ireland since the 1400s and Africans were brought over by the Vikings. A recent study by Bill Hart shows large numbers of black Africans in 18th-century Ireland; Dublin had the largest black population of any European city outside London. Documentary evidence is there to show that many of them intermarried and interbred with the Irish population. Racists beware: your own family tree may have some interesting surprises for you. Your bigotry may be directed against yourself.''
Read the rest if you have a strong stomach, but there's nothing there that you haven't heard before from some fulminating lefty.
All the countries of Christendom are now under the control of such deluded people, and now we are seeing the fruits of the delusion. Too bad that few have heeded the warnings of saner people, or paid attention to the examples set by the chaos in the countries where multiculturalism was farther advanced.
I wish the Irish people well, but I wonder if they will see the error of the multiculturalist experiment before it's too late.
If not, I think the trouble that will inevitably follow will be far worse than the age-old 'Troubles' with the British.

Labels: Diversity, Ethnocentrism, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism

This odd story has been discussed in a couple of blog posts at Steve Sailer's blog and has provided fodder for a lot of jokes among the commentariat.
It is laughable on one level, but the picture it paints, of a certain type of White liberal/leftist, is depressing.
Lots of pro-White bloggers and writers have written at length about Whites' misplaced altruism and inverted empathy for aliens at the expense of our own, and this story is a rather exaggerated example.
The hoaxster, a 40-year-old man who posed as a young lesbian living in Syria, offers the typical leftist defense of his deception:
"While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground," he writes.''
Ah, the ''truthiness'' defense. The details may not have been true, but they COULD have represented a truth.
A few people, in commenting on MacMaster's bizarre hoax, have remarked how the whole victimhood storyline is something that plays well among the multiculturalist set, the people who perpetually idealize the sainted 'Others', especially if they are of the LGBT persuasion. Then there is the glamorizing of this 'Arab Spring' storyline, with the oppressed Arabs as noble fighters for Freedom.
But actually, another group of avid fans of this kind of storyline is the neocon/counterjihad group. One of the things that led to my disillusionment with the counterjihadists several years back is that American counterjihad types seemed to be excessively focused on Europe and the Middle East, rather than on our country. I always wondered why their main concern was for these far-off places, while this country, our country, is being invaded and colonized, and our whole system seems to be crumbling. And it is not all due to Islam.
I certainly care about Europe; I follow the news from that part of the world, and I wish our European cousins well, but Europeans are ultimately the ones in whose hands Europe's future rests, and America must be defended by Americans. Nobody out there in the wider world will come to our aid, or lie awake nights fretting over us and our future. It's up to us, and it's up to the Europeans to defend their interests.
Still, many Americans seem to feel more comfortable (verbally) fighting Islam, especially on the European front, rather than tackling our home-centered problems like mass immigration, urban violence, and the degrading of our culture. I think partly this is because it is acceptable to oppose Islam, especially among those on the Republican right. However, I've noticed that for these people, their political incorrectness does not extend to criticizing other minority groups; only Islam is fair game.
Other minority groups are higher on the PC totem pole, and must not be spoken ill of. Moslems, however, enjoy less protection from criticism, at least among Republicans.
Leftists will criticize Islam if it conflicts with their pro-gay belief system. Feminists on the left are less willing to take a stand against Moslem mistreatment of women, though feminists on the right will criticize Islam on their misogyny, as well as their 'homophobia.'
I've long noticed that the counterjihad right tends to exalt and fawn over Moslem feminists (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and, for example, Irshad Manji, Glenn Beck's favorite lipstick lesbian.
And the shock stories about 'honor killings' or stoning of women in some Islamic country are always popular, with the underlying message being that we have to come to the aid of these poor victims of Islam. We should make their struggle our own. The fact is, though, this is not our responsibility. We have our own people to look out for, and yet somehow it seems to be the preference of many White Americans to weep over people on the other side of the world, and the more 'other' the better.

Labels: Ethnocentrism, Ethnoloyalty, Islam, Non-Interventionism, Xenophilia

Here's a piece from American Thinker called Coloring History. As you might expect from the title, it has to do with 'black history', and specifically about the beginnings of the NAACP. And it's also quite politically correct in content and tone.
I was aware of the fact that the organization had a mostly White membership at the beginning. And as the American Thinker article says that some of these people were the stereotype WASPs, again lending credence to the image of WASPs as being at the forefront of egalitarian efforts and ultimately the progenitors of today's totalitarian PC regime.
The discussion following the article is a mixed bag, with some rather un-PC comments here and there, but ultimately it devolves into the usual cliches, such as the 'persecution of the Irish' stories.
The article and the rather ragged discussion both bring home the point that we do have to attend to our history. We have to read, and encourage others to read, some real history as a necessary antidote to the politically corrected version which is peddled at every turn in our day, and most especially during White Guilt month, every February.
Over the last week or so there have been discussions around the Internet and the blogosphere about the 'dialogue on race'. On one such discussion thread, a politically incorrect commenter mentioned that African slaves were actually captured and sold to Whites by other Africans. Following that statement, another (black) commenter expressed shock at such 'hateful' comments and demanded proof of such an outlandish claim, challenging whether it was even factual. Disappointingly, the commenter who said it did not reply, with or without the requested 'proof', so an opportunity was lost to present some politically incorrect truth to the people out there reading the thread. It's amazing how few people have ever heard that African slaves were actually enslaved by other Africans. I think the race industry has firmly established a cartoon version of history, with evil Whites chasing down African people in their homelands and trapping them to be shipped off to America as slaves. I think this version has been reinforced by bad 'history' in popular culture, such as Haley's ''Roots'', a work of literary plagiarism which passes, to this day, as factual history.
Whenever any kind of halting 'dialogue on race' is begun these days, there are certain things that are always brought up by our opponents, slavery and its attendant wrongs being one such subject. Of course nobody wants to defend slavery as such, but there are a great many falsehoods surrounding that topic that are being used to stir up resentments and hatreds. The image of the evil White slave-hunter, the depraved White slave-owner, or the heartless White overseer are common images that are taken for granted. Much of the imagery which people have in their minds is the product of pop culture, as I've said, going back at least to Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. Even in her time, the book was criticized as not being grounded in fact; she had little or no first-hand knowledge of her subjects, but nonetheless her works are revered even today, and accepted as truth, for all intents and purposes.
A frequently-heard canard is the statement often made by various spokesmen for blacks is that 35 million (or some other large number, in the millions) of slaves were 'thrown overboard' on the voyages across the Atlantic, and that to this day, large schools of sharks follow ships along the route of the slavers, hoping for more people to be tossed to them.
Never mind that the numbers cited are absurd, and that there is no corroboration; these stories live on.
The sheer number of such canards repeated by blacks or their advocates seem to render us speechless and resigned, and these stories are strengthened by going unchallenged for so many decades now.
Why do so few of us try to answer these wild exaggerations or fabrications with facts? Granted, we are up against a loud army of zealots, White liberals and blacks themselves, who have the stamina and the fanaticism to shout us down, and on the Internet, many of our comments are censored and expunged while the other side is allowed free rein to spout nonsense with no one to counter it.
There are so many historical misconceptions that have taken root because there have been too few who have spoken up in opposition. While it's true that on many forums or newspaper comment boxes we are censored and banned if we post politically incorrect facts or opinions, we do have the blogosphere where we can try to disseminate facts and counter-opinions, even if only on our own blogs. But I see too little of this being done. Why? Have we given up on the truth? Or are too few people informed as to the real history and the facts?
It seems we have great holes in our history, blank spots which are unnoticed by many people.
Our history is in large part either rewritten to serve somebody else's agenda, or simply lost, like missing pages from a book
Another area of 'lost' history in which we seem to be deficient in understanding is the Reconstruction era; few Americans seem to have any notion of what happened then, and of how that era presages our current situation. Again, most Americans know nothing of how self-defense organizations grew during that era, and the reasons why.
Some of the canards don't have to do with blacks, but with other ethnic groups, usually in connection with the Ellis Island era of immigration. If you read the American Thinker comments, you will see the old stories about how the ethnic immigrants of the mid-19th century were badly treated, 'hated', and 'not considered White'. We hear how the Irish were 'worked to death', literally, to build the railroads, or so the story goes. Or the Chinese. We read here and there how the Irish were given back-breaking jobs that 'were too hard for even the slaves to do.'
If I believe these stories as they are presented again and again, I have to conclude that my WASP ancestors were cold-hearted, inhuman, evil, sadistic monsters. But wait: they were the liberal bleeding-hearts, like those who joined the NAACP, who have caused this country to veer towards being over-welcoming and self-abasing. It gets very confusing. Either way, the WASP is in the wrong, and is the root of all evil: either he's a kind of 'supremacist' who considered the Irish as an inferior race, or he was a radical egalitarian who denied all human distinctions.
I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody has told the tales of Irish immigrants' persecution at the hands of the dread Anglo-Saxons. So many people have somehow heard these stories by word of mouth, and will not be convinced that they are often myths or canards.
Did the Anglo-Saxon old-stock population resist mass immigration of Irish, Italians, and others? In many cases, yes. There were 'nativist' organizations and parties, about which I've blogged. They wanted to preserve the rather successful country their ancestors had created at considerable cost in toil and blood. They did not want their way of life to be swept away by large numbers of people with a very different culture and religion. These are the sentiments of normal human beings, not monsters or hateful bigots. Surely 'realists' of today can relate to those sentiments -- but often, the fact of having Irish ancestry, however remote, results in bitterness and grudges against WASPs for slights toward immigrants.
We have work to do to try to tear down some of the old myths, particularly the politically correct ones, which are so often being used to silence and discredit us. And the politically correct myths include those tales of persecution of the Ellis Island immigrants. Those stories serve only to divide White Americans, and to perpetuate resentments and grudges that should long since have been put to rest, if they were in fact justified in the first place.
Whenever I witness one of these discussions where everybody is claiming victimhood because of the sufferings of their immigrant ancestors, I can't help thinking of an old Monty Python sketch, in which a group of seemingly wealthy old men sit around a table, trading stories of how hard they had it as children. They try to one-up each other, taking turns with wildly exaggerated stories of poverty and privation from their respective childhoods.
What does it matter who had it the worst? How does it help our present predicament to recite stories of how bad one's immigrant ancestors had it? Is that not just a variation on the perpetual victimhood claims of blacks and other minorities? To me, it's all the same.
And I think it's unbecoming of us as a people to revel in claims of victimhood. Surely we ought to be taking pride in real accomplishment, not jockeying to see whose ancestors were mistreated and abused more. It's a sad commentary on our society that we make sob stories a basis for status.
There are already too many divisions among us for various reasons; we need to find ways to unite and put aside our differences, and to that end, to leave aside all the grievances against generations long since dead. Isn't it time -- especially now that we cannot afford division among us?
While some of our lost history needs to be found and used to press our case, there is some of the 'history' that might better be put aside, and truly lost. The grievances and grudges have to go.

Labels: American History, Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Division, Ethnocentrism, Historical Bias, History

Yesterday's post about Marine Le Pen reminded me of a subject I had meant to post about, that is, the question of why there are not more women who are ethnopatriots, at least judging by the relative dearth of female bloggers and writers who are pro-White.
Every now and then, somebody raises that question, and I suppose there is no definitive answer to it. The obvious answer, of course, is that women seem to be naturally more liberal, based on the tendency of many women to be 'feeling' types, acting based on emotion rather than on 'thinking'. A good many women in my experience say they just don't care much about politics per se. There is the old saying that politics is war by any other means, so it makes sense that women are not as politically oriented as men, generally.
If women abstained from politics because of their oft-state lack of interest in, or understanding of, politics, we might be better off, because women do tend to vote liberal in many instances. However at least in this country there is evidence that married women are more conservative in their politics, while younger single women are liberal. Do young liberal single women develop into conservatives after becoming mothers and having a broader experience of life? Or is it simply a matter of the younger generations being more liberal generally?
However, I know a couple of women who admittedly know nothing about politics (such as what the labels 'liberal and conservative' mean, for example, or how our system works) but who nonetheless have very vociferous opinions about public figures. One of the women I am thinking of here simply states that she 'hates' certain politicians without being able to explain why, when I ask her. She just knows she hates someone, based on seeing their face on the news or in the newspaper. And people like this vote.
But as for the predominance of males among ethnopatriots, the usual answer offered (and I've offered it a time or two) is that males are more territorial and more suspicious of outsiders. Women can be catty towards each other but many seem to feel more protective of, say, immigrants because they perceive them as rather needy or even childlike. More women tend to want to nurture these people and help them. I believe it is almost always women who are behind this fad to import Third World babies. In my town, this is the latest fashion. I have been seeing more and more young White couples, often with two or more children of their own, with a Haitian or African baby in a stroller. This past summer when I was out garage sale-ing with a friend, we encountered two sales being held for the sake of raising funds to go to Haiti and bring back a baby, or to pay adoption fees.
The men who go along with this are essentially doing just that: going along.
Some of the most bleeding-heart women I know are people who seem incapable of perceiving anyone as an enemy or a threat, at least, not people who are perceived as 'victims', such as the illegal Latin Americans who are settling in, here in this town.
Many women just don't want to talk about 'unpleasant things' and would prefer to live on a pink, fluffy cloud.
I've always been a little atypical of women in some respects, though I can recognize the typical female traits in myself in many ways. But I don't understand why so many women have no 'mother bear' instinct to protect their young and to preserve their children's future. The old pioneer women surely had that instinct. Where has it gone?
On a different note, I have noticed lately that on some of the ethnopatriot blogs and HBD blogs, there are a few female names popping up amongst the comments. Is this a trend? It's very noticeable in a couple of places.
And of course there have been notable exceptions to the rule among the few female regulars who post here, and certain female bloggers like Sarah, Maid of Albion. But I think they are still the exception. Mind you, I am not counting women who are just 'conservative' with no seeming ethnopatriot tendencies. There are conservatives who are still not exactly on our side.
Is there any way to change this?

Labels: Ethnocentrism, Ethnopatriotism, Gender Gap, Women

Tom Sunic, in an Occidental Observer piece called White Identity in Postmodernity, discusses the minefield of "White identity". He writes of how many Whites in the West, wary of expressing a White identity, choose instead a sort of neutral national identity, as with most Republicans whose identity is bound up exclusively with national patriotism and loyalty to 'the American idea'. For many on the left particularly, who have been schooled to regard White identity as not only illegitimate but as prima facie 'racism', their choice is often to identify with some subculture. He cites the examples of Whites who champion the cause of Tibet or, in his words, 'exotic Afro or Asian escapism.' These types are very common among those who are politically leftist. Everything they do and everything they enjoy is meant to express their desired solidarity with some Third World culture or cause. They may wear 'rasta' dreadlocks or tattoo themselves like tribesmen of some sort or wear some kind of Third World ethnic garb, and listen to Third World music and eat exotic foods and worship at the altar of Asian religions or some kind of syncretic faith which involves Third World traditions.
Many less exotically-identified American liberals instead choose to identify with black Americans or Afrocentric culture. Their counterparts back in the 1970s and 80s may have been more likely to pick ''Native Americans'' as their ersatz identity.
What seems to be the important thing in adopting such a false identity is to express solidarity with some 'underdog' or downtrodden group, apparently as a way of assuaging their hyper-developed consciences about history's wrongs. For the last 40 years or so, Whites have been taught at every turn that their identity is in itself a guilt-saturated thing, because their ancestors were the authors of most wrongs in the world.
Sunic mentions that many Europeans or European-descended Americans may not discover any ethnic or racial identity without being threatened by someone else's national identity, and he uses the example of the break-up of Yugoslavia to illustrate his point.
He also emphasizes how victimhood and victimology are at the heart of the many competing minority identities which are proliferating in the West. There is inevitably a hierarchy of victimhood, and in our country blacks and to some extent Jews enjoy primacy in this department, though the exponential increase in the number of Hispanics in our country threatens to topple the current victim-order.
When I was in college in the 70s, as all this victim-veneration was just reaching a new peak, I noticed, to my surprise, that blacks did not like to share the victimhood mantle with other minority groups; there was instead a competition among the minority groups as to whose suffering was most intense or most prolonged. Blacks at that time fell back on frequent references to '400 years of slavery', sometimes extended to '500 years of slavery' or '500 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow' or some such claim. American Indians were enjoying a vogue in the 1970s, and there were many Ward Churchill types running around campuses, their identity being based on having supposedly had a remote ''Native American" ancestor. Asians were also in the victimhood sweepstakes, and their claims centered on past expulsions of Asian immigrants or the internment of Japanese during World War II.
But I noticed that these groups did not work together; they were all intensely ethnocentric, and quite competitive or jealous when it came to sharing the victimhood spotlight. They might put aside their rivalries to participate in some anti-White demonstration on campus but generally they were wary of each other, or outright unfriendly to one another.
As Sunic points out in his piece, when victimhood is claimed, that implies a victimizer, or a 'monster' as he says. It does seem to be an ironclad rule: the common thread in all the victimhood narratives is "Whitey did it." It is Whites who are to blame in every case; there is always a Honky in the woodpile when a cry of victimhood is raised.
And as Sunic says, the victimology leads to conflict not only between the vicitims and the accused (and automatically convicted) White victimizer, but among minority groups scrambling for their place in the hierarchy and their share of the spoils. If 'reparations' for blacks are to be paid, there will be outcries from Hispanics, who will demand payment for the 'theft' of their fictional Aztlan. What happens when the spoils are no longer so plentiful?
And more importantly, what will happen when the goose that laid the golden egg is moribund?
Sunic says that an authoritarian society is necessary to manage all the divisiveness that is inherent in such an unstable system; his words are that 'high levels of social control' are needed. We are seeing that happening. And many of us wonder if that is not one of the reasons why our rulers have purposely introduced so much diversity into Western countries: to break up any natural cohesion and racial integrity, and to produce instability as a prelude to their further plans. Otherwise we can only conclude that our ''leaders'' are utterly incompetent and clueless. Either explanation is sobering to say the least.
Sunic describes the psychological state of Western White people as being overwhelmed by the constant barrage of guilt and the clamoring by the various voices of grievance and discord. I think this is taking a toll, as he implies, and I think it may reach a tipping point before very long, unless the cacophony of complaints and accusations stops. Is this too part of the plan, I wonder?
He says that Whites don't have the option of claiming victimhood themselves, but actually some do just that; for example in our country, those who see their immigrant ancestors as having been victimized by founding-stock Americans a hundred or so years ago are rather good at bringing up their grievances, and these same people all too often side with illegal immigrants and work towards open borders and the third-worldizing of America.
America is perhaps more disunited than other Western countries in that respect; those European countries which are monocultural and monoethnic have a decided advantage over those countries with more than one nationality within their borders. This is illustrated by the comments on this AmRen thread discussing Nick Griffin's remarks about Black and Asian residents of the UK not being Britons. Someone asks whether ethnic Irish in the UK are ethnic foreigners, and several answer 'yes'. A squabble then erupts between posters who appear to be Irish-descended Americans and Anglo-Americans or British posters. It's an interesting but complicated argument, with people citing British celebrities who are supposedly ''really'' Irish. There seems to be some confusion about Irish people of Anglo-Norman descent, or people of mixed English and Irish descent. So even in the United Kingdom there are elements of ethnic conflict, though among closely-related peoples. America is not the only English-speaking nation with internal divisions among close kin.
These are issues that have to be addressed, along with ideological and religious divisions in our country and other Western countries. If we lack the capacity to put aside our other differences in favor of uniting based on our kinship connection, we really don't stand much of a chance.

Labels: Balkanization, Diversity, Ethnocentrism, Identity Politics, Multiculturalism, National Identity, Political Correctness, Western Decline

Mild Colonial Boy at The Boy's Own Paper recently posted a quote from Gallia Watch, which in turn quoted François Desouche.
The term 'ethnomasochism' is a term coined by French thinker Guillaume Faye:
Ethnomasochism
(It is) the masochistic tendency to regard with a sense of guilt and a sense of worthlessness one�s own ethnic group, one�s own people.
Ethnomasochism is similar to shame of oneself and self-hatred. It is a collective psychopathology, triggered by a long propaganda effort to foster a presumed fundamental sense of guilt felt by Europeans vis-� -vis other peoples, of whom they are assumed to be the "oppressors". It is therefore necessary to repent and to "pay the debt." This effort at repentance, a veritable historical sham, has been undertaken by the Churches, as well as by the European States.
Ethnomasochism is also the basis of anti-natalistic policies that surreptitiously aim to limit the reproduction of European populations. Implicitly then, it can be likened to a type of "self-racism". The European man can be said to have been struck down by an original sin, an intrinsic racial stain: he is guilty of being what he is.
Ethnomasochism provokes the systematic defense of cross-breeding ("métissage) and cosmopolitanism. Curiously, it denies to Europeans the idea of ethnic identity, but grants it to others. Europeans are duty-bound to dilute themselves, but other peoples, Africans for example, are not. Ethnomasochism is the counterweight of xenophilia (love and overestimation of the foreigner, the "other"). It is related to ethno-suicide.
In history, ethnomasochism is not new; it was the symptom of peoples tired of life, tired of perpetuating themselves; of aging peoples who pass the torch to others. The European elite are afflicted with this collective illness. And this illness explains the laxness towards the colonization by migrants and the idea that we have both a duty and a need to welcome the new occupiers.''
It's a useful word, ethnomasochism. I've often thought how masochistic (to use the psycho-jargon) the multiculturalists and liberals/leftists generally are.
Guillaume Faye is something of a controversial figure on the right because he is a bit of a maverick, and of course he has been brought up on charges of 'hate speech' in his native France, I believe. Though I don't endorse every view he expresses I think he has a great many useful things to say, and his work is worth reading. I had actually intended to quote some of his writings here recently, but other things came up and I deferred the posting. But since MCB and Gallia Watch have quoted Faye, now is a good time to post about Faye.
The Guillaume Faye Archive can be found here.
Here's a little excerpt from The Cause of the Peoples?
Europe First!
I respect the destiny of the sometimes afflicted Inuits, Tibetans, Amazonians, Pygmies, Kanaks, Aborigines, Berbers, Saharians, Indians, Nubians, the inevitable Palestinians, and the little green men from outer space. But don�t expect crocodile tears from me. When the flooding threatens my own house, I can think only of my own predicament and haven't time to help or plead for others. Besides, when have these others ever cared about us? In any case, the dangers threatening them are greatly exaggerated, especially in view of their demographic vigor, which, incidentally, is owed to Western medicine and material aid -- for the same Western forces that have allegedly exploited them also seems to have made them prosper (or, at least, to reproduce in unprecedented numbers).
If our communitarians really want to defend the cause des peuples, they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World. In face of these threats, you won't find us sniveling (like a priest) or fleeing (like an intellectual) to the 'other's' cause. 'Ourselves alone' will suffice.''
And here, from a 2005 speech in Moscow, he discusses the idea of 'ethnomasochism.'
The present situation can be explained, almost clinically, as a sort of "mental AIDS." Our present afflictions come from the virus of nihilism, which Nietzsche foresaw, and which has weakened all our natural defenses. Thus infected, Europeans have succumbed to a feverish self-extinction. They have voluntarily opened the city gates.
The primary symptom of this disease is "xenophilia: " a systematic preference for the Other rather than for the Same. A second symptom is "ethnomasochism, " a hatred of one�s own civilization and origins. A third is emasculation [dévirilisation] , or what might be called the cult of weakness and a preference for male homosexuality. Historically proven values associated with the use of force and a people�s survival � values associated with honor, loyalty, family, fertility, patriotism, the will to survive, etc. � are treated today as ridiculous shortcomings.
This sort of decadence owes a good deal to the secularization of Christian charity and its egalitarian offshoot, human rights. Europeans may take inspiration from certain values still upheld in Russia: For example, the consciousness of belonging to a superior civilization and of maintaining a "right to distance" from other peoples. We need to break with all forms of "ethnopluralism, " which is simply another kind of egalitarianism, and reclaim the right to "ethnocentrism, " the right to live in our own lands without the Other. We also have to reclaim the principle: "To each his own." Besides, only Westerners believe race-mixing is a virtue or envisage the future as a melting pot. They alone believe in cosmopolitanism.''
Faye explains his opposition to the reflexive anti-Americanism which is common in Europe, and he writes of the importance of distinguishing between one's 'principal adversary' and one's 'principal enemy.' I think it's a useful distinction which we could apply to our situation in America.
A people or nation must learn to distinguish between its "principal adversary" and its "principal enemy." The first tries to dominate and undermine, the second to kill. We shouldn�t forget Carl Schmitt�s formula: "It�s not only you who chooses your enemy, it�s more often your enemy who chooses you." America, specifically its ruling class, is Europe�s and Russia�s "principal adversary" at the level of geopolitics, economics, and culture.
Europe�s "principal enemy" is the peoples of the South, increasingly assembled under the banner of Islam, whose invasion of the continent is already well underway, facilitated by a political class and an intelligentsia who have opened the gates (to Washington�s delight) and who seek a miscegenated, non-European Europe.''
[Emphasis mine]
Of our future, Faye said
I�ve postulated the hypothesis that the present global system, founded on a belief in miracles, a belief in the myth of indefinite progress, is on the verge of collapse. For the first time in history, humanity as a whole is threatened by a cataclysmic crisis that is likely to occur sometime between 2010 and 2020 � a crisis provoked by the on-going degradation of the ecosystem and climatic disruptions, by the exhaustion of fossil fuel sources and food producing capacity, by the increased fragility of an international economic order based on speculation and massive indebtedness, by the return of epidemics, by the rise of nationalism, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, by the growing aggressiveness of Islam�s world offense, and by the dramatic aging of the West�s population.
We need to prepare for these converging catastrophes, which will mark the transition from one era to another, as their cataclysmic effects sweep away liberal modernity and bring about a New Middle Age. With such a convergence, there will also come an opportunity for rebirth, for every major historical regeneration emerges from chaos. This is especially the case with a civilization like our own, whose very nature is "metamorphic."

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Conflicts, Ethnocentrism, Ethnomasochism, Multiculturalism, Race Replacement

...is indifference.
It appears that the rumors about the identity of the beating victim were true. Apparently the victim was a transsexual. However I still stand by my original skeptical stance about the rumor; it's still sound practice to take almost anything rumored on the Internet with a huge helping of salt.
It is interesting how many on our side are ready and eager to believe something they saw on the Internet as credible, when in most cases we all decry the dishonesty and corruption of the 'mainstream' media sources. It seems the need to believe something sometimes overrides that skepticism, and for some reason it seems to be welcome news for many conservatives and some 'realists' that the victim was 'just' a transsexual. That makes it just fine, apparently. But I maintain what I said at the beginning: the behavior was unconscionable and should be intolerable in a civilized country. There's no excusing it, and regardless of who was attacked in that fashion, it's evil.
I do notice that the incident is still not being picked up by the major media outlets; celebrity news and other trivia takes precedence. And it would seem, if political correctness were a coherent and reasonable worldview, that they would cover this story widely, just as they cover most incidents of 'gay-bashing'. But again, race protects the perpetrators. If the attackers had been White, the incident would have been discussed everywhere, as a way of sermonizing against the intolerance of White Americans.
But because of the hierarchy of PC victimhood, the attackers will escape the vilification and they will not be made examples of.
Like a lot of Americans, I've been a victim of crime on two occasions, and the perpetrators were not White. In one incident, had my wallet stolen from my purse (which was slung over my shoulder), and this, with a baby in my arms. The thieves were two black guys, and several people witnessed it -- including a White man, who did nothing to stop it. In retrospect, I wonder why he did nothing while watching it. This was in broad daylight, in a downtown business district; it was not in the 'inner city' where we were outnumbered. But he said nothing. He might have spoken up, but I think that he was afraid to say anything. Others who saw it probably had the 'none of my business, don't want to get involved' attitude that prevails in most places today.
Many times I've witnessed Whites being intimidated or harassed or threatened in public -- and I've been the recipient of that kind of unwanted attention myself, for no reason whatsoever. But it seems that most people turn a blind eye, and pretend not to see or hear anything. There's no kin loyalty, there's no altruism towards our own. I truly think most Americans feel that they are not any more connected to their genetic kin than they are to random nonwhites. They seem to feel no common bond with their own.
The reactions to the Baltimore incident seem to indicate that, too. Remarkably few of the comments online from professed 'race realists' or WNs express and unequivocal feeling of kinship. When the rumor about the transsexual status was introduced, then there were a lot of harsh comments about how beating such a person was fine with them, or that it needed doing. Others claimed the victim was nonwhite -- which appears not to be true at all. But anything to distance themselves. I don't understand that.
It's dawned slowly on me that loyalty is what is lacking. It's all well and good to acknowledge racial differences -- or 'HBD' to use the nonthreatening euphemism -- that's obvious to all but the most brainwashed, after all. But it's quite another to feel a kinship, a connection, and above all, a bond of loyalty to our own. We should feel this way towards our close relatives and extended families, but I meet an incredible number of people, especially up North, who seem not to know or care to know any relatives beyond their immediate nuclear family. I grew up in a family where cousins were cousins, even fairly distant ones. We knew we were kin, and we had a sense of belonging. I don't see this as much in our day. It should be something that spreads outward to our larger 'extended family' which is our ethny or our race. But it seems not to be so these days.
Kin loyalty means that we feel a sense of responsibility and a certain protectiveness towards one another and a caring for the well-being of the larger group. I don't think it's as easy to expand that kind of bond outward to humanity as a whole, as the multicultists are trying to force us to do, or even to extend it to our 'civic' family, our fellow Americans with whom we have no blood connection, nor even a cultural connection.
If we don't have this kind of bond or loyalty, a sense that we are all in this together, then we don't have what it takes to preserve ourselves and our posterity, and survive in a world in which we are the targets. It's fine to be a 'realist' or an HBDer or a nationalist, but the vital ingredient is loyalty. Are we loyalists, or are we just disssenters or dabblers? What we are for is more of a motivator than what we are against.

Labels: Ethnocentrism, Ethnoloyalty, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness

The reader comments on my post called Defenses Against Reality prompt me to pose a question to you all. I've asked the question in the past, probably a couple of years or more ago, and perhaps some of you weren't here then. So I'll ask it again.
How did you start to question ''political correctness'', multiculturalism, egalitarianism, and all those things which are now proving to be so disastrous for our people? Was there a clear defining moment or turning point, an epiphany or ''awakening?" Or was your experience more like mine, a gradual reversion to the values you learned as a child from your elders?
Some of my readers have said that they've always held their present attitudes, while others have had experiences that led to more traditional or realist views.
I don't ask to be intrusive, but I am always interested in how those who once held the standard 'mainstream' views came to be more ethnopatriotic or ethnonationalistic. Is there something about personality types that make some people more conforming or others more questioning and less susceptible to propaganda? Is it innate, or due to upbringing and experience, or some combination? And as somebody here once asked, is there some way to pass on our immunity, if that's what it is?

Labels: Ethno-Loyalty, Ethnocentrism, Ethnopatriotism, Kin Loyalty, Old America, Realism

Do women have stronger same-race dating preferences than men?
According to a study cited in this piece, it appears so.
I am not a scientist, so some of the details of the study are a little technical for me, but it appears that the people in this study were Columbia University graduate students (and that already makes the sample rather atypical) and they were of all races.
A frequent observation (or complaint, depending on the viewpoint of the speaker) is that White women are more prone to date and mate outside their race, as compared to White men. Just in observing couples around the country, it does seem that there is more of this interracial pairing, but it is still, in overall numbers, not that common. But it does seem to be increasing, and no surprise there, given the media's constant promoting of racial mingling.
Overall, though, I've seen far more White male-nonwhite female pairings than vice-versa. And this is a longstanding trend, going back long before the present PC era, when it was far from unknown for White men to marry nonwhite women (Latina, American Indian, or Filipina).
After World War II, the Asian war bride phenomenon was not uncommon.
It does seem that men are more programmed to mate with women they are physically attracted to, and many men do not discriminate when it comes to the primal urges. Women tend to think more long-term with relationships -- often to the chagrin of men -- and will evaluate men as potential husbands rather than just on the basis of sexual attraction.
With men, the trend of mail-order brides is growing, it seems, as discussed here.
When I was a child, there were Asian 'war brides' married to White American men who had served in Korea, Japan, or elsewhere in Asia. I had classmates who had Irish-American or Anglo-American dads and Japanese mothers. It seemed especially common for men who served in the military to marry Filipina women or East Asian women. In some parts of the country, White men not infrequently married Latina women or American Indian women. And this, remember, was in an era where interracial marriage was generally frowned on, if not outright forbidden. But there has always been a stronger taboo against black-White marriages or pairings.
By contrast, I rarely if ever encountered White women married to nonwhite men of any race, with the occasional exception of a Hispanic male-White female or in some areas, American Indian male-White female marriage. But by far, most interracial marriages appeared to be White men with various nonwhite women: Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic or American Indian.
I still think these pairings are more common than any form of black-White pairing. So I do think it's a little unfair to blame women excessively for lack of racial/ethnic fidelity.
Many men who seek out mail-order brides from various parts of Asia and the Pacific blame feminism for their choosing to marry an exotic woman. I think this is in many cases a rationalization for their personal preference for these exotic women. Some term the preference as a 'fetish' and I would say that isn't too strong a word.
Is feminism to blame? Certainly feminism has not improved understanding between the sexes; arguably it has worsened the battle of the sexes in Western countries. But to be fair, not all women are feminists; I often say that feminism has spread to the right, with many 'conservative' women sounding like Gloria Steinem, but traditional women have not disappeared completely. Likewise, I think it is an inaccurate stereotype that the Asian-Pacific women are all frail little lotus blossoms. I've worked with some who are decidedly assertive women, not at all demure and retiring, despite the popular image.
But if a man really wants to maintain racial integrity and fidelity, he would not be inclined to choose a woman of such a racially disparate origin.
As for the women who date or mate interracially, these days, given the 'colorblind' dogma of liberalism, and the fact that most women are politically liberal, it isn't surprising that many women date interracially. Women, unfortunately, tend to be vulnerable to an appeal to their sympathies and their nurturing side. 'Victimhood' awakens the softer feelings of some women. But most importantly, most women don't want to be called 'racist' -- which, trust me, they are called by nonwhites whose advances are not welcomed. The race card is usually played very early on and many weak-minded women give in when the r-word is thrown at them.
It seems to me to be an unfair tactic to use in approaching someone of the opposite sex but it does happen.
Nowadays, choosing to stay within one's own race or ethnicity is increasingly portrayed as 'bigoted' and racist. But it's generally acknowledged that people tend to pair up with those who have commonalities and similarities; the idea that 'opposites attract' is overrated. Men and women by their respective natures sometimes have a difficult time understanding each other; why add ethnic/cultural misunderstanding, racial grievances and guilts, and historical resentments to the inbuilt male-female conflicts?
In the 1957 movie Sayonara, which was really all about interracial love, and the 'star-crossed', misunderstood qualities thereof, the message was that ultimately, love conquers all, and only narrow minds want to bring race or culture into it.
The tagline of the movie was
Worlds apart...theirs was the daring love affair violating every rule, every custom, every centuries-old belief!''
Do you think Hollywood was working the agenda then? There was a spate of these movies during the 50s.
I do remember that near the end of the movie, when Marlon Brando is trying to persuade his Japanese lover, played by Miiko Taka, that she should go against the taboos and marry him, she makes a speech about how their children will be neither Japanese nor American, and asks him where they would belong.
Now, I'm just going from memory here, so please don't chastise me if I remember incorrectly, but I recall that Brando answers with a speech about how that the only thing that matters is Love, not popular opinion, and not even their respective families who might object.
Typical Hollywood cliches, but does that work in real life?
And what about the children? I suspect they would have trouble deciding where they belong. Most likely they would identify more with the nonwhite identity; that seems to be the general rule.
But what could be more natural than wanting children and grandchildren in whom we can see our parents and grandparents? One of the distinguishing marks of family members is that there is a physical resemblance. Family members generally share outward physical traits as well as mental and psychological similarities. I am sure that Japanese grandparents might prefer to have a grandchild with distinctly, identifiably Japanese looks, one who looks like them. Of course they would not be called racist for feeling that way. Only Whites are accused of racism for wanting their descendants to look like them and to be part of the continuity of a family line of the same race.
A family has a dimension in time; our extended family is not just those who are alive at the same time, but those who have gone before us, who gave us life, and those to whom we give life, those who come after us. Why should we not want them to be as like us as possible, and like our parents and grandparents and their parents and grandparents?
We are all part of a continuity which made us what we are today, and we are the result of many generations of holding true; we owe something not only to our living kin but to our forebears and above all, our progeny. Those who choose to ''violate every rule, every custom, every age-old belief' as the movie tag-line put it, are acting selfishly and shortsightedly. They are disavowing both their ancestors and their progeny, who will likely feel little connection to them.
The article I linked yesterday contained the prediction that this country would be completely hybridized in a matter of time. I think it's likely, if present trends continue, that this will be the case. Given that the younger generations seem so programmed to be militantly 'colorblind' or to actually prefer nonwhites, it seems the trend is bound to accelerate with each new generation. That prospect, to me, seems almost tantamount to being told that I will have no progeny, because the people who inhabit this place after I am gone will likely speak another language, honor other traditions, be of an alien religion, and look very unlike me and my forebears, even if they bear some of the same genes. The fact is, they will bear other, very dissimilar genes, and identify as part of that people. And that, in essence, will be the end of my line.
I do think that there will be some who will want to resist being put into the big DNA blender. It may be only a few, but as long as people still have some free choice about marrying and reproducing, at least some will continue do what is natural to us: choose to remain among our own.

Labels: American Identity, Ethnic Identity, Ethnocentrism, Social Sciences

There's a discussion at Audacious Epigone about racial self-identification, by ethnic group, including a table showing the percentage of people from each group who consider race or ethnicity as one of the most important means of self-identification.
The results for minorities (including Asians, that ever-popular model minority) show that they have higher levels of racial self-identification, with Hispanics having the highest, and blacks next. Anyone surprised?
Guess which group is last?
British-descended Americans, with Scandinavian in the next-lowest category.
The people who identify strictly as 'Americans' are just a little lower in the rankings than the minorities, and this is not surprising, since many of those who call themselves simply 'American' are often Southron people and even when not from the South, tend to be the proud patriot types.
Others say that many of these who say they are 'just Americans' are in fact those stereotyped Scots-Irish or those of Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Norman descent. The latter groups are usually of colonial stock, and their ties to the ''old country'' are so remote that they tend to think of themselves as Americans, with no hyphen.
My problem with studies like this (and I am no scientist, nor do I claim to be) is that I think most people's self-identification is hazy or inaccurate, with the exception of the later immigrant stock, those who have held to their European identity from, say, Ireland or Italy or Eastern Europe.
Many people who are mixed colonial stock/ethnic immigrant stock don't count their old-stock (usually English) ancestry because it's too remote, whereas they have heard stories of an immigrant great-grandfather -- hence they identify with that ethnicity, because it's the only one they know with certainty,
There are any number of charts and maps and census records which show America as being populated mostly by German-stock people, and that never seems credible to me. The dominance of English surnames or British Isles surnames seems, according to common sense, to indicate that there is quite a bit more British ancestry here than German.
Absent any real documentation of one's ancestry, many people are just guessing, or mentioning the only ethnicity in their background that they are aware of.
I've found in doing genealogy and communicating with many people about family history that many Americans seem to have ancestral equivalents of 'urban legends' or myths which they believe, but which are proven false when the research is done, and records examined. What I am saying is that relying on self-reporting is not a good way to determine who is who, or how many people of a given ethnicity there are in America.
Genealogy is becoming more popular, but many people still don't know their family history or lineage, except in the vaguest sense. I think this is a sad situation that contributes to White Americans' relatively low levels of racial/ethnic consciousness. If you don't know very much about who your forebears were, or how they came to this country, there's little basis for pride or racial consciousness. Neither is there a strong attachment to this country or your neighbor if you think of yourself as just a generic 'American' whose allegiance is to vague things like 'freedom' and 'democracy' rather than to a kin group or ancestral soil.
One thing that becomes very clear when you research your colonial-stock ancestry is that you find that you have many collateral relatives who are of Jamestown founding stock, or Massachusetts colonial descent. You learn just how many living Americans you are cousins to. We are not a nation of random, unconnected , rootless, individuals, but those of us who have been here for a few generations have unimagined connections to many Americans.
Of course, with the mass immigration now being engineered by our rulers, the connections will be broken down and we will truly become deracinated and isolated. That's the intention. The lack of cohesion is becoming painfully evident.
Until Americans either make an effort to learn their own family histories, and until the ''proposition nation'' and ''nation of immigrants'' propaganda weakens its hold, White Americans will be this deracinated and put-upon people who let others walk all over us, while we play genial nice guys with low self-respect.
The comments on the AE article bring up a number of popular notions, such as the idea that Protestantism contributes to a low racial consciousness while Catholicism does the opposite. Someone mentions that the northern European countries which were historically Protestant have the worst immigration problems. But it seems that historically Catholic countries (Spain, Ireland, Italy, and France) have their share of problems with immigration and multiculturalism, although the problem in Ireland is more recent.
One thing that seems always to be ignored in these attempts to link religion to low racial awareness is the fact that few people in Europe, relatively speaking, have a real Christian faith. Though these countries may still be called 'Protestant' or Catholic, they are in fact post-Christian. That fact has already been publicly acknowledged in the UK.
In all European countries (except perhaps for Eastern Europe) the Christian faith is more or less vestigial, with no widespread belief among the populations. Secularism and liberal/Marxist/leftist beliefs have displaced Christianity, or corrupted what is left of it into a parody of itself.
Does the individualism which is popularly said to characterize the northern Europeans, especially Anglo-Saxons, predispose them to be deracinated and hyperindividualistic? I would say these traits were much less common in the days when the Christian faith was still a living faith in Europe. Despite the popular idea that communism or leftism are communally oriented and anti-individualistic, I think there is a paradox there. While many leftists emphasize the ''community'' and 'the people'' at least nominally, the mindset is at least as much influenced by philosophical ideas gleaned from people like Nietzsche and Sartre, which focus on the individual. The average liberal or leftist believes he is a blank slate on which he creates himself. Having an ethnic or racial identity is too constricting, too limiting. The liberal likes to believe he is his own creation, and that any ascribed identity is false or imprisoning. And besides, race is a social construct, and we all bleed red, and there's only one race, etc. etc.
If you ask me, much of what is wrong with the West comes from those toxic ideas, rather than from a feeble and hollowed-out Christianity.
I will never understand why so many keep looking to a long-abandoned religion to explain the attitudes of today's muddled and addled White liberals. Christianity is anathema to them; they probably grew up in secular, or even anti-Christian homes, and today's Western liberals have certainly been indoctrinated with secular dogmas and media propaganda. America still has some faithful Christians, but we can see the rot setting in even in some traditionally conservative churches.
Why then are northern European-descended people so lacking in racial consciousness? The subject has been discussed many times, and the answer is not clear-cut. There's no single answer.
Perhaps one seldom-mentioned possibility is that for a long while in the early days of this republic, the Anglo-Saxons who formed the core of the population, and the majority, were unselfconscious because there was little ''diversity''; the groups who were here at the beginning, such as English, Scots, Dutch, and some Germans, were all close kin, and all assimilated to Anglo-Saxon ways. There was no need for forming a strong identity in competition with others who opposed the majority.
In fact, up until the mass immigration of the Ellis Island era, Americans of Anglo descent were the dominant group with no one to seriously challenge their power. Of course that all changed in the last 60 years or so, and I think many old-stock Americans have only now begun to notice, so secure did they feel in control of this country.
We can argue about whether there is some genetic tendency (or flaw, really) among Anglo-Saxons that makes them more individualist and less racially conscious, However I would say there isn't much evidence of that. Anglo-Saxons, wherever they've lived, used to have a very strong and assertive identity which enabled them to conquer and dominate just about wherever they went. They also had good group cohesion in an ethnic and racial sense when they settled this country, else there would have been widespread mixing with other races, as in Latin America. It looks as though that stereotype is turned on its head, as the conquistadores left mixed offspring everywhere they went, and not just here and there, while the English preserved their own people and customs and faith when they came here.
It's also noteworthy that the English colonists brought families with them when they crossed the Atlantic; they intended to found communities here, and not just to explore or plunder. Jamestown at first had no women, but earlier efforts at settling Virginia did include women. But Jamestown eventually included women who came over from England to marry the colonists.
So the English and the Dutch and the Huguenots tended to bring women and children with them to America, and to found families and communities, while the supposedly more family-oriented Southern Europeans did not do so when they came here, for the most part.
My point is, the idea of English 'Protestant' hyper-individualism is exaggerated. So much of what is said in these discussions is based on cliche and stereotype. Sure, stereotypes have a basis in fact, but in this case, so much of what is said about the founding stock of this country is based on an oversimplified image of Englishmen or Anglo-Saxons.
In fact, I'd say many Americans know too little about the country and people which in essence created America. And this won't change as long as so many of the real-life ''Albion's seed'' don't even know who they are, and are content not to know.
Part of the mission of this blog, since the beginning, has been to awaken some of the dormant racial memory of who we are, where we came from, and then to decide where we are going.
So I will keep returning to this subject of the ''vanishing American', especially the neglected and overlooked and stereotyped Anglo-American.

Labels: American Identity, Anglo-Americans, Ethnocentrism, Ethnonationalism, Individualism, Liberalism, National Memory, National Question, Racial Consciousness

The question is often raised, on blogs which discuss issues like those we discuss here, why more women are not on our side. The answer is usually offered by somebody who says that ''women just don't get it'', meaning that women don't ''get'' issues of racial and ethnic identity and interests, or ''women just don't get the 'us vs. them' mentality'' that is necessary to defend our group interests.
I've heard these opinions expressed many times, most recently in an internet discussion elsewhere.
I am not going to take the usual knee-jerk attitude that ''you're wrong! I'm a woman and I have the 'us vs. them' attitude, and I care about our survival as a people.'' Of course the fact that I and some of the commenters here are women and yet we ''get it'' does not disprove the existence of those many women who don't get it, who are the universalist, 'can't we all just get along' types.
Liberalism is apparently the default position for most women. Some may be right-wing on issues like economics or social issues like abortion and homosexual ''marriage'' yet they are far to the left on racial issues. The politically correct view of race is the dominant one, by far, among people of both major political parties.
It's undeniable, though, that when you visit an ethnoconservative or ethnonationalist blog or forum, or even a paleoconservative one, there is a conspicuous scarcity of women in the discussion. Even on this blog, I know there are a certain number of women regulars here, but men seem to be more numerous. Granted, on any blog, only a few readers overall leave comments, while many just read without ever commenting. I suspect, however, that the proportions of readers I have would show the same patterns, with men predominating.
If I wanted to play feminist devil's advocate, I could say that many right-wing blogs or race-realist blogs have a rather curmudgeonly attitude towards women, and this tends to scare women off. However I don't believe that, because if a woman is 'tough' enough to take an unpopular and widely-condemned un-PC attitude, she should not be scared off by a little grumbling about women on the part of some men.
I asked someone (female) if she agreed that there are fewer women who take politically incorrect views on race and ethnicity, and she said yes. Women tend to be less territorial, in her words, and I think I've made similar observations here or elsewhere. Men have traditionally been the defenders of the hearth and the homestead and the clan, and have been the ones to challenge outsiders who may or may not have hostile intentions towards us.
Men are traditionally the protecters against outside threats, while women are the nurturers and the ones who care for the helpless, the children and the old.
Thus women are inclined to feel more empathy or pity or sympathy towards, say, immigrants particularly as immigrants are nowadays shown as helpless, poor, and pitiful. Even the feminists who take a tough line towards men are soft-hearted towards immigrants and minorities in general.
And that brings me to another point: women assuredly are capable of the 'us vs. them' mentality, but it's mostly channeled towards men these days, thanks in great part to feminism. The outsiders, to many feminist-indoctrinated women, are men, not foreign people or those of differing races and creeds. Men. Their own brothers, husbands, sons, fathers, are more ''other'' to many feminists than hostile invaders.
Shame on those women who would side with others, outsiders, against their own people.
Male-bashing is quite a pastime with many women, especially those who've grown up under the spell of feminism. It's true, though, that there has always been the perennial 'battle of the sexes', which in fact goes back to Adam and Eve. It's always been with us, and maybe it always will be. I think it transcends culture and race, too. The leftist feminists like to pretend that there was some kind of matriarchal golden age to which we should return; I remember reading a couple of books by such women back in my own feminist days, long ago. And there is always a misguided notion that only our own Western, White, Christian culture is ''misogynistic'', while primitive cultures supposedly honor women more. A popular feminist belief has it that American Indian cultures exalted women, and that women actually ruled some tribes.
But the male-female division is always with us, and it's not peculiar to our Western society. I do think, though, that at certain times, there was more acceptance of the complementarity of the sexes, and more respect for the division of labor, with the sex roles being differentiated. When that is intact, there is less friction and resentment.
The left has done a bang-up job of dividing everybody, stoking the natural divisions between men and women, and among the races, so as to keep us squabbling among ourselves, unable to unite to act in our own interests. Men and women being divided against each other has been wonderful for our enemies; when households are divided then the whole community and people is divided. The left has split women off and made them believe that their natural interests and sympathies should be with minority races, gays, and the poor, and not with those of their own blood kin. Thus women too often choose to make common cause with other aggrieved groups, believing that they themselves are victims of White males, just like the rest of the self-described victims.
There was certainly a time when White women were certainly racially conscious and ethnocentric, though even then there were probably more women who adopted the bleeding-heart 'one world' approach. I suspect, though I haven't tried to prove it in any way, that many women who were involved in liberal causes in the past were usually ''maiden ladies'', with no families of their own to care for, who turned to helping ''others'', and became universalist crusaders of some sort.
But most women, including my Yankee-born mother, were race-realists, not at all race-blind liberals like many of today's women. My grandmothers, my aunts, all of the older generation on both sides of my family, were certainly ethocentric and racially aware. They certainly did understand the 'us vs. them' mentality when it came to kin and people and race. Today's PC-saturated women would condemn such old-fashioned attitudes, but in doing so they are condemning their own grandmothers, probably, as most women who grew up pre-1950s were not at all liberal on racial matters.
Several factors might be at work here; nowadays, the individualistic attitude is prevalent among both sexes, whereas in the past, women wanted to be mothers and wives, and thus had more of a stake in the preservation of their people and their children's future. But most people of both sexes now seem to be much more me-oriented and present-oriented, rather than thinking of the future and their posterity. This has taken its toll.
I speak to so many people, including women, who say of race and kin, ''what's that got to do with me? I'm an individual, I'm just me, I don't relate to my 'race' or even my own distant ancestors, and I may not have any kids, so why should I care what happens?" I don't know how this attitude can be overcome, if it can be overcome at all. I know it's a very popular attitude not just because it's implanted and reinforced by media conditioning, but also because, as Christians might put it, it 'appeals to our flesh.' It appeals to our natural, fallen, selfish nature. The 'old Adam' (or Eve) in us wants to look out for number one, and let the devil take the hindmost. We naturally prefer to live in the moment and not think about tomorrow.
Feminism, though, must take a lot of the blame for women being less concerned for their people, their roots, their kin, and so on; feminism is a me-first, I-owe-it-to-myself, kind of mindset. Notice how often advertising appeals to this in women. The messages are: ''I deserve the best. Now it's time for me. I take care of everybody else, now i'm going to pamper myself." And so on. Feminism is all about me. I, me, mine. My fulfillment, even if it comes at the expense of my marriage and my children. I deserve it.
But feminism, after all, is just leftism dressed up in special packaging designed to appeal to women and their dissatisfactions.
Is it possible, then, to reverse this situation? Obviously I think women are not congenitally doomed to be multiculturalists -- or traitors to their own people as some apparently are. The fact that past generations of women were race-conscious and loyal shows that they can be.
Would it be desirable to 'tone down' the rhetoric on the nationalist side to make it less 'hostile' to women? Personally, I say no. I'm never in favor of trying to create a more politically correct, ''nicer'' version of something that needs to have a certain degree of toughness to succeed. Some women need to re-learn, or learn for the first time, the necessity for toughness and for dispensing with sentimentality and 'niceness'. We are in a dire situation, and we don't have time to worry about trying to soothe the delicate sensibilities of the potentially offended.
We can only hope that women will come to more realistic attitudes as things grow more dire for us.
What do my female readers think? Please add your perspective, and the same for my male readers. What's your view of this issue? I'd like to hear.

Labels: Ethnic Solidarity, Ethnocentrism, Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Feminism, Racial Division, Social Divisions

Over at American Thinker there is a pretty good piece entitled 'How Democracies Become Tyrannies'. It sums up the process rather well, by examining Plato's Republic.
In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state. During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: "The state is man writ large."
Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime's "defining principle" will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.''
It's good as far as it goes, and it applies to our present situation. Still, it could be said that our decline into tyranny was in the cards, given the trends of the last half-century, or even a century -- or more, depending on how you read and interpret our history.
But over at Gates of Vienna, El Inglés writes a piece called Pick a Tribe, Any Tribe, in which he examines how the presence of Moslems in the European countries, including the UK, has been a destructive force for democracy and freedom. And he discusses how a resurgence of tribalism may be the only way in which the incursions of Islam may be resisted.
The central contention of this essay is that tribalism will prove to be an essential component, if not the central component, in allowing a defense of Western societies against Islam. There are two reasons for this. The first is that such tribalisms will tend to keep Muslims out of those societies in the first place, and the second is that certain types of situations impose such severe psychological pressure on those who would confront them that they cannot consistently or usefully do so without a type and degree of psychological reinforcement that can only be provided by a tribe.''
But wait; he does not define 'tribes' by the conventional dictionary definition.
According to my old Webster's, the word 'tribe' means 'a social group comprising a series of families, clans, or generations...', whereas El Inglés says that
The most obvious and common tribal types would be those organized along racial lines (for the most obvious and literal type of tribe), cultural lines, religious lines (which tribes could be considered a subset of cultural tribes, as they pertain to behaviour and belief), ideological lines (Communists vs. Fascists), regional lines (my nation against yours, North against South), or organizational lines (a British Army regiment).''
I've said on this blog before that 'tribes' which have been formed on ideological lines, such as the hard-core left in this country, have taken the place of real tribes in postmodern America. Certain other groups, such as young single people under, say 30 or perhaps 35 also have become a kind of tribe. This goes back at least to the Woodstock days -- remember how the Woodstock rock festival was billed as 'the gathering of the tribes'? For some people, the American identity is their only 'tribal' identity, but the people who are that kind of 'patriot' also tend to be the types who aver that anybody and everybody is potentially one of us, by virtue of saluting our flag or 'believing in freedom.'
But I would say that these quasi-tribes, these superficial identities would not have morphed into 'tribal' groupings had we not become deracinated. For years there has been a conscious effort to remove all vestiges of genetic tribal loyalties, and to convince us that we are all brothers under the skin, at least as long as we believe in 'freedom and democracy.'
It's obvious, though, to those who have not been blinded to group and race differences that when an American, or a Western European, says 'freedom' it likely has a much different meaning than it does to a Middle Easterner or a Latin American or an Asian.
Yet we engage in this pretense that all men speak a common language and are of the same mind when it comes to these slogans and shibboleths like 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'democracy.' And it is this pretense that has allowed so many people to believe that we can admit millions of people from very alien societies under the assumption that they 'love freedom and democracy' in exactly the same way that we do, and moreover, who are we to deny 'freedom and democracy' to these poor people by refusing to let them come and live with us?
El Ingles discusses how 'principle' is not sufficient to motivate Europeans to oppose Islam, and how principle itself can be (and has been) corrupted in the attempt to 'dialogue' or engage peaceably with Moslems. And it's not only the Moslems themselves who twist and pervert principles, but their multicultist groupies in the West also do their part.
He points out how principle, had it been applied usefully to prevent the mass settlement of Moslems in Europe, might have been sufficient, but once the enemy is within the gates and using Western rhetoric to diminish the rights of their host peoples, it's too late.
This applies very much to America, too, although our percentage of Moslems is at this point considerably smaller than in Europe. However the tidal wave of Latin American immigrants, legal and illegal, are our equivalent of the Moslem problem. And we are weakened in defending ourselves for the same reasons: we have become deracinated and stripped of normal and healthy tribalism, while they themselves are allowed to be openly tribal and aggressively ethnocentric towards us.
Many Europeans, and even many shortsighted Americans, refuse to recognize the fact that Latino immigration is as big a threat to us as Moslems are to Europe. The people who minimize the threat they pose usually justify that attitude by saying 'well, at least they aren't trying to blow us up, and at least they are Christian, and at least they are hard workers...'' and so on. In fact, I would say that the sort of 'humble' image Latinos have acquired makes them appear more harmless than they are. The idea that 'at least they don't blow us up' is sufficient reason to welcome them is absurd, and I wonder if the people who say that ever read their local newspapers or look at the 'most wanted' posters for their towns or cities. So far there is no open terrorism, but many, many crimes against Americans by Latino immigrants constitute a kind of low-grade terrorism in my book, and it's fact that more Americans have been killed by those 'hard-working' folk than in the Iraq war, as of now.
And even were they not committing violence, low-grade or otherwise against us, it's clear that their presence is changing our country beyond recognition in many areas, and that they are bringing their culture with them, and replacing ours.
And the real way to deal with this problem should have been to act preventively, but once we have masses of these interlopers in our country, we have already sacrificed a great deal of our right to speak freely and candidly and honestly, because of the PC censors, and because we censor ourselves. It's easy and painless to declare pre-emptively that we don't want immigrants from certain countries, and we used to have such sensible policies, before 1965. But now that we have tens of millions of Latinos and who knows how many other immigrants in our midst, we cannot speak so frankly. And once we 'know' individuals from each group, we soften somewhat; somebody has a Hispanic co-worker, or they have Hispanic famiies attending their church, or someone knows friendly Moslems who run a local business. On and on it goes, and soon it becomes unthinkable to think of suggesting these people don't belong among us. We begin to see them as part of the natural American landscape, or we feel pity or sympathy for them. Nobody wants to be the hard-hearted person who would repatriate them. So the more of them living among us, the harder it becomes for us to think tribally and thus 'exclude' anybody. Even if we are not multiculturalist bleeding-hearts, most of us don't want to be harsh or unfriendly when we look at the outsiders who are among us -- even if they have no problem being hostile towards us.
I used to believe that the UK and the rest of Europe had an advantage in resisting the invasions of their countries, in that Islam is a much more obviously threatening system which is so obviously alien to Europe. For that reason, one would think that the natural ethnocentrism and desire to defend oneself and one's people would kick in and enable the Europeans to resist the Islamization of their countries. But for some reason, such doesn't seem to be the case.
We, on the other hand, are lulled by the fact that we have been next door to Mexico for centuries, and we have had small numbers of Hispanic immigrants for decades, with many of them having become quasi-assimilated after several generations. Again, we are lulled into thinking that they are 'Christian' like most of us, or that they are 'Western' as some people strangely claim. Many Americans thus blind themselves to the Hispanic presence here.
I don't quite understand El Ingles's ambivalence towards the BNP:
Let me put it succinctly: if the BNP won two seats at the next general election, I would be delighted. If it won two hundred, I would emigrate. I view BNP support as playing a role similar to that of a price in a free-market economy, which is to say that I see it as a signal conveying a certain type of information. If the BNP were to be banned and its support therefore to disappear at the electoral level, this information would be lost to the system, easing the pressure on the establishment parties to formulate a real response to Islamization, which I fervently hope they will eventually do. Lamenting the advances of nativist groups at this level would be like lamenting a rise in the price in oil when demand grows more quickly than supply. That said, given my beliefs about the gap between the true ideological commitments of the BNP leadership and the motivations of those who vote for it, it is impossible for me to avoid the conclusion that it would be a disaster for it to obtain real power.''
but then I am not British; I don't know the full situation as he might.
I encourage you to read the whole piece.
From where I sit, the BNP are the only party speaking up for the historic British people; without them or someone like them, there would be no hope, as the two major parties are as anti-British and pro-multiculturalist as our two useless parties are.
My doubts about the BNP come from the opposite direction: it seems I detect some efforts to be 'inclusive' and to thus play to the politically correct and the timid. I think this is always a bad move. Being 'inclusive' to outsiders or attempting to prove one's lack of 'bigotry' is always a victory for political correctness. I believe that a sharp correction to the right is absolutely essential to counter the many decades of leftward movement. The effort to prove one's lack of 'xenophobia' or 'racism' is exactly what has put the West at the edge of the precipice. More of the same will push us over the edge.
I fear that ingrained vestiges of political correctness on the right will doom any nativist efforts to resist what is happening. We have been taught for so long that ethnocentrism and nativism are evil, and that we must lean over backwards to expunge any hint of these things from ourselves and our political organizations. This merely helps our foes and may ultimately doom the West, if it continues.

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Democracy, Ethnocentrism, Islam, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Tribalism, Tyranny

The response continues around the blogosphere to Eric Holder's 'nation of cowards' gauntlet.
In Selwyn Duke's response, he describes the campaign of vilification of Whites, for which he uses the term 'caucophobia', and which he describes as having been mainstreamed. And he warns of consequences:
What does history teach about the plight of consistently scapegoated and dehumanized groups? It's that they almost invariably end up suffering persecution. And given that current demographic trends indicate whites will becomes a minority in America during the lifetimes of many reading this, and given that even majorities sometimes are tyrannized -- as Sunnis' domination of Shiites under Saddam Hussein and the Spartans' enslavement of the Helots proved -- it's foolishness to dismiss the peril posed by mainstreaming caucaphobia.''
Here, Heather MacDonald takes a different approach, with which I find little in common. I suppose because of her libertarianism, she seems to take a somewhat politically correct approach, and seems to agree with those who think America bears substantial guilt for past sins against minorities. The approach seems to appeal for mercy on the grounds that we are not quite so racist now as we used to be, and deserve credit for amending our ways somewhat:
But if Attorney General Holder is really sincere about wanting a "frank" conversation about race, he should put the following items on the agenda:
The American electorate. The country just elected its first black president. And it actually didn�t talk a lot about Barack Obama�s race during the election, thank heavens, because most Americans were more interested in the candidate�s ideas than in his skin color. There were undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people who wouldn�t vote for Obama because of his race. I would guess that their average age was 75. There is no question that a great many geriatric Americans continue to harbor the rankest racism for blacks, but guess what? They�re not going to be around for much longer. Young people growing up in the last 30 years live on a different planet when it comes to racial attitudes�until the educrats start playing with their minds.''
Young people who have grown up in the last 30 years do truly live on a different planet in regard to race; many if not most live on a planet which has a racial hierarchy, but it is the reverse of the racial order of their supposedly 'rank racist' geriatric elders. Many of these young people who she describes, basically, as the moral betters of their elders, dwell a planet where rap and hiphop are the highest art form, and blacks are put on a pedestal, and where interracial relationships are not only acceptable but considered superior in some circles.
(Disclaimer: I trust my younger readers know that I don't include them in the stereotype. Every generalization admits of exceptions.)
MacDonald continues:
We might also talk about those legions of older, black Americans who have held on to their love of country and belief in its ideals, despite having been subjected to America at its worst. I have had the privilege to speak to many such individuals for my work, and they have broken my heart with their dignity and nobility. Rather than reflexively consulting professional race activists for insights into race in America, the media and politicians might for once seek some voices that contradict the mandatory "angry black male" trope.''
'America at its worst'? I can't believe that this article was mostly lauded over at AmRen. America 'at its worst' is the America of today, as far as I'm concerned. But then again I am probably of that generation that she considers to be 'rank racists.'
She continues:
When communities resist an influx of Section 8 housing-voucher holders from the inner city, say, they are reacting overwhelmingly to behavior. Skin color is a proxy for that behavior. If inner-city blacks behaved like Asians�cramming as much knowledge into their kids as they can possibly fit into their skulls�the lingering wariness towards lower-income blacks that many Americans unquestionably harbor would disappear. Are there irredeemable racists among Americans? To be sure. They come in all colors, and we should deplore all of them. But the issue of race in the United States is more complex than polite company is usually allowed to express. If Eric Holder wants to crank up our racial preoccupations even further, let him at least do so with a full airing of the facts.''
Ultimately, then, she is one of those who thinks all racial differences are attributable to environment and 'nurture', and that if we merely educated minorities better, all races could achieve equally. Such is the libertarian 'see no race' approach.
Yes, I know a few libertarians are more realistic, but the majority are race-deniers. That, for me, was Ron Paul's biggest drawback.
Coming from a very different (and much more realistic) perspective is David Yeagley. His piece is much more blunt, free of the usual PC disclaimers or cant, but here I have to disagree with him as to the cause of our predicament.
Now. The only question is, Whose fault it all this? Frankly, it probably isn�t the fault of black people. It is the fault of their "handlers," or, "masters," the Oedipal white WASPS in power. And no, don�t blame the Jews. They�re a tiny minority. Blame white people�those in power. Inherited power. Deep power.''
I suppose I am fighting a losing battle in trying to rebut this 'WASPs did it' canard. I would like specifics, please. Who are these 'Oedipal white WASPs in power'? Where are they? Who exactly holds the real power in our country, or in the West? How many of them are WASPs of old stock? Very few, to my knowledge. I've posted about that a number of times. WASPs have long since been demoted from power, having been displaced by a coalition mostly of Ellis Islanders and other latecomers (e.g. George Soros, et al). Rich WASPs just don't have much influence or clout, and many old-line wealthy families of WASP origin have long since lost their WASP character and bloodlines. It isn't like the old days, when people in the Social Register were mostly WASP and only intermarried among themselves. The lines are blurred; the elites are cosmopolitans, not WASPs, not even in a cultural sense.
And on a discussion thread, Dr. Yeagley repeats this same thing, in response to a commenter:
PearlGirl, I know there are many suggestions about why these race-based social conditions have come about. I do blame the heirs of the Pilgrims, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant descendents. They have the power and the money. I�ve called it a cultural Freudian Oedipal complex, a latent homosexual aggression. It is whites denigrating whites.''
PearlGirl answers:
Dr. Yeagley - WASPS HAD the power and money. They�ve forgotten who they are,and allowed power and wealth to slip away. I speak AS an actual WASP��.I should look up this quote - but I think it�s salient - an Asian leader just observed that ",,,in a multicultural country, people vote according to Race". The last national "election" we�ve endured definitely proves that thesis. Are you familiar with the work of Arthur Kemp? He posits that when a homogenous population allows "The Other" in - the original population fades, and vanishes,due to miscegenation, and the original social order collapses. There are plenty of examples of this phenomena, through the whole of Human history. Now - your position has merit, but it�s a part of the whole picture. We must always, in any event, ask fearlessly "Why?" We MUST bother to ask, and determine causation. Always. You can�t cure a disease, if you don�t know the cause.''
Thanks to PearlGirl, whoever she is. She says what I've said before: in allowing the 'tired and poor' of first, Eastern and Southern Europe, and then farther-flung places, to settle here, the result was an accelerated weakening of our country, as the racial/ethnic/religious bonds were weakened. It's true that many Anglo-Saxon New England liberals were bleeding-hearts who promoted the wave of Ellis Island immigration which was really the beginning of 'diversity' and the 'melting pot' debacle for us, but there were also New England Yankees who opposed that, and as proof of that, we see how the greatest resentment of the Ellis Islanders is reserved for the hated WASPs who were supposedly 'unwelcoming' and 'bigoted' towards the Ellis Islanders. Their descendants carry grudges many generations later. In fact, I would say they started the trend of victimology, of ethnic grudges and vendettas: ''your ancestors wanted to exclude my ancestors, so you owe me' morphed into 'your ancestors enslaved mine, so you owe me.' It's a continuous line of descent. The Ellis Islanders often sympathize with today's immigrants, and often side with blacks and minorities generally.
And who were the main perpetrators of the ill-omened 1965 Hart-Celler Act?
I've linked favorably to Dr. Yeagley, but I think he is mistaken on this point, and yet he is not alone in making this accusation against WASPs.
It's a very popular one even among 'race realists' and ethnoconservatives.
Yes, there were liberal New England WASPs, but there are and have also been people like Carleton Putnam, Carleton Coon, Madison Grant, H.P. Lovecraft (yes, he was a fiction writer, and is now a cult 'fringe' figure for readers of fantasy fiction, but he had very realist views on race, and he was more or less a New England Yankee to the core.)
Overall, it seems only to help the other side when we turn on and accuse each other. If anything is to defeat us, it will be this spirit of division: everybody else vs. 'WASPs', the post-baby boomers vs. boomers, Southrons who hate New England Yankees and vice-versa, non-Christians of all stripes vs. Christians. Almost all of the groups mentioned above are looking to pin the blame for our present crisis on one scapegoat group. This is just counterproductive. Everybody seems to have some group they wish to exclude. But if we are to survive and prosper, which is in doubt at this point, we will have to get past the blame game and the internal dissension. At some point we will have to see that since the majority of our people are still under some kind of deep delusion, we will have to make common cause with the rest of our brethren who can see clearly -- even if we don't agree on certain issues. We have to put our differences aside and put concern for our kin and brethren ahead of our grievances or animosities.
And that brings me to one other point which I see as paramount here: Holder says we need to 'talk frankly about race', and I agree. But instead of talking to people who want only to shout us down, I see instead that we need to talk to one another. That's where we may have been 'cowardly'. We hesitate to talk to our unaware or less aware brethren. We need to start communicating with them, break the ice, and try to break through the formidable conditioning to which they've been subjected. That's where the talking needs to be done.

Labels: American History, Ethnocentrism, Ethnonationalism, Freedom Of Association, Freedom Of Speech, Freedom Of Thought, Immigration, Political Correctness, Social Divisions

This is not surprising. The only thing that's surprising about it is that anyone is surprised.
It's rather amusing in a sad way to read some of the comments over at the mainstream GOP forums, where the commenters express shock at Colin Powell's 'racism', and generally seem incensed only because blacks can practice blatant ethnocentrism or racial solidarity and we can't. "No fair! They have to be colorblind if we have to!"
I can honestly say that I expected this endorsement, at least insofar as I ever gave it much thought. We've seen several prominent black figures endorsing or defending Obama, even some who have somehow acquired the reputation of being ''conservative.''
But it seems that their willingness to betray their supposed conservative principles in favor of racial solidarity shows not only their natural, instinctive ethnocentrism but the weakness of their ''conservative'' convictions. As in every other area of life, there is a kind of affirmative action at work when it comes to categorizing minority individuals as conservatives. The bar is automatically much lower, and even a stray 'conservative' principle here or there in an individual will be accepted eagerly as his conservative credentials. Powell never had many real conservative leanings; he was liberal in most important respects, and it seems that for most Republicans, just the fact that a minority person speaks standard English and does not embrace far-left, radical ideas is enough to qualify him or her as ''conservative.'' Most of us are very easily placated when it comes to this issue.
I've blogged before about the obsession that many on the ''right'' have with ''moderate Muslims". The rather embarrassing enthusiasm many display for figures like Walid Shoebat or Irshaad Manji or Ayaan Hirsi Ali is seemingly a show of gratitude that the 'conservative' White feels when finding a minority individual who seems to be on "our side" -- sort of. You can almost see the tears of joy welling up in their eyes as they gush over some conservative minority, like Condoleezza Rice or Thomas Sowell or the "moderate Muslims" who usually show up on Fox News discussions. It's almost as though the Republicans/conservatives feel enormous relief at finding someone in that group that they like or agree with; it's a relief to feel that "maybe I'm not racist (or Islamophobic) after all!"
For that reason, it seems, Republicans and other 'colorblind conservatives' seem to find a real need for "conservative minorities" who will then prove to them that we are really all the same under the skin, and there is really no truth to the stereotypes about minorities. Colin Powell proves that not all blacks are like Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakhan. Condi Rice, likewise. Thomas Sowell is proof that James Watson was wrong. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is proof that Moslems can be ''on our side''.
I think Republicans are still searching for their Latino poster child, a living example of a ''conservative" Hispanic. They tried with Linda Chavez, but she of course sides with her 'Raza', though she, like Obama, is at least half White/Anglo. And then Mel Martinez was touted as one of those conservative Hispanics, but decidedly sides with his Latino cousins rather than with the gringos. So the paradigm of the minority conservative mascot has not worked out well with Hispanics. But that won't stop the GOP from searching for the elusive Hispanic conservative. It's a hunger, a need, on the part of the doctrinaire 'colorblind conservatives.'
So I suppose it's shocking and dismaying for people who desperately need those like Powell or J.C. Watts to remove their unacknowledged doubts about the PC creed.
Some of the people on the GOP forums who were unhappy about Powell's endorsement are still indignantly maintaining that ''it's not about race; I haven't rejected Obama just because he is black, it's because he is red!''
And maybe that is true in their particular case, but I think there are still many on the ''right'' who refuse to examine why they have misgivings about voting for Obama. I think many of them are too uncomfortable with the concept of acknowledging racial differences, or recognizing that blacks and Whites have different interests to pursue in the political arena. We don't all ''want the same thing" or need the same thing.
Blacks know that they differ from Whites, as do Hispanics. We are the only group not willing to acknowledge that it's human nature to want to affiliate with our own, and pursue our group's well-being. To some extent, we've had the ethnocentrism pummeled out of us, but I think it's still there, even if we try to reject it and deny it to ourselves.
We will always be at a huge disadvantage as long as we are wearing the 'colorblind' blinkers, and everyone else is flagrantly pursuing their group's interest, at our expense.
If we really want 'equality' we should claim our own right to seek the interests and well-being of our own people, as everyone else is doing. Whites are the only dupes trying to play the 'colorblind' game.

Labels: Diversity, Ethnic Identity, Ethnocentrism, Political Correctness, Presidential Candidates