Polite Kid

A Russian political analyst, Igor Panarin, is predicting the breakup of the United States.
MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) - A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily Izvestia published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events. When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator.
[...] He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all."
The economic analysis is obvious, being similar to what many in our own country have observed. His analysis of why these problems might lead to a breakup, though, seems a little off-base, and I wonder how much first-hand knowledge of our country and our people Professor Panarin actually has. He evidently has a rather superficial knowledge of the demographic makeup of this country.
I can't imagine why he thinks that Chinese people dominate the West Coast; it's true that they have fairly large colonies in San Francisco, Vancouver, Canada and a few other places, but they are nowhere near a majority, or even a near-majority. Even if you combined their numbers with those of other East Asians, they would not approach a majority on the West Coast.
As for the 'Atlantic states', I don't see much of a unifying culture or mentality there, unless you mean that huge D.C-to-Boston conurbation, with the liberal/elitist power base. There is much more to the 'Atlantic coast' than that area, and there is not much to unify it. The Southeastern states on the coast (except for Florida) constitute part of old Dixie, and they have nothing much in common with the Northeast. American Indian populations in the 'poorer central states', whatever he means by that, are not high enough to be of great significance, either. Perhaps in Oklahoma, New Mexico or Arizona there might be greater percentages of Indians than in other states, but the central states are hardly populated and dominated by American Indians.
As to Texas, it is almost half Hispanic now, and it is minority White, by a small margin. Much as I would hope that Texas might regain its independence as a Republic, it would seem less likely now than 50 years ago, when Whites or 'Anglos' were the majority, and there was no invasion from south of the border on today's scale undermining that majority.
Generally, though, Professor Panarin barely acknowledges the racial conflicts which are simmering in this country now. Whether this is through lack of awareness on his part, or whether through some reticence in discussing race and ethnicity, he simply seems to consider those things secondary to economics in his scenario.
As for Alaska, I would predict that any Russian designs on that state would meet with considerable resistance on the part of Alaskans.
Panarin mentions the Amero as a new monetary unit. Of course the media and our lying politicians deny that any such thing is in the works, including the North American Union of which the Amero would be the currency. Despite the flaws of Panarin's analysis, the fact that one more reputable political analyst is discussing the issue of the breakup of the U.S. is a sign that the idea is becoming more thinkable for many people.
Back in the Cold War era, his comments would elicit cries of 'subversion' and he would be accused of trying to threaten or manipulate Americans by such propaganda. But there's no such response today; I think that more and more people are actually willing to ponder the 'what ifs', and to consider the possibility that this Republic cannot much longer be held together artificially as it is now. We have a unified government in name, but the unity that was a feature of a mostly homogeneous country at one time has long since been destroyed, and we are a divided house in reality if not yet on paper.
How it might happen, or along what lines, is open to conjecture. I would just hope that if I am still around when this fracture takes place, that I will be in the right place, among my kin, rather than in hostile occupied territory, surrounded by strangers.

Labels: Demographics, Disunity, Ethnic Division, Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Secession

Arlen Williams warns about transnationalists in 'conservative' clothing, as exemplified by Grover Norquist.
The problem is that Norquist is just one of a number of 'conservatives' who is part the globalist/transnationalist web of influence. Another one is Newt Gingrich, as I am sure most of my readers are aware, just as with Norquist.
The fact that Norquist is married to a Moslem wife is not irrelevant here, I think. Is it a chicken-or-egg question, when people who outmarry exhibit this kind of cosmopolitanist attitude? I mean does that kind of attitude lead to outmarriage or does the marriage lead the American spouse in that direction?
The Bush family would seem to be another example, with the Mexican marital ties.
I would think that conservatism, as it used to be understood, would incline people to loyalty towards their own people and country, and intermarriage with someone from a disparate people and religion would indicate a lack of loyalty, or would then diminish loyalty to one's own roots, causing conflicted allegiances.
Williams' article accurately describes the transnational scheme and strategy.
''Whether they realize it or not, operators such as this, functionally if not by ideology, are transnational progressives on the vanguard, wolves to herd the sheep. And their big tent is so huge, it stretches over a false vision of a unified yet somehow free world. Such conservatives find themselves supporting communitarians such as George W. Bush, who inadvertently (or by plan from the outset ) wind up supporting more and more suzerainty to world empire. But, if not the wolf and sheep allusion, does it smell fishy?
Transnationalism becomes communitarianism, becomes global communism, as the little fish nations are gobbled up by the manipulative, big fish seekers of absolute, New World Order power; all, while that ultimate power "corrupts absolutely." (If "communism" sounds extreme, just call it collectivism, neo-Marxism, or Marxofascism; it is the same. Or, if you don't like the more recently coined words, find the root and call it Babel.)''
In all of the propaganda that had led directly or indirectly toward the transnational goals, the idea of loyalty to one's own country and people becomes lost and devalued. That needs to be recovered if we are to have any hope of prevailing.

Labels: Ethno-Loyalty, Ethnoconservatism, Faux Conservatism, Globalism

Abbeville, SC is the birthplace of some of my ancestors, and also the birthplace of Southern icon John C. Calhoun.
It's also known as the 'birthplace and deathbed of the Confederacy'. On November 22, 1860, there was a meeting at Abbeville which drew up a Declaration of Secession. A month later, South Carolina became the first state to secede.
From the Declaration of Secession:
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
Postscript: on the webpage for Abbeville which I linked above, you may notice a ''Preserve America" graphic. It has the following text:
''Preserve America. Explore and Enjoy Our Heritage." We read that
In January of 2008, First Lady Laura Bush designated Abbeville as a Preserve America Community. This initiative recognizes those communities that demonstrate they are committed to preserving their cultural and natural heritage. The City of Abbeville was honored by this prestigious award and we will continue to make sustainable historic preservation a priority.''
A hint to our rulers in Washington: if you care about preserving America, stop fostering foreign invasion by another name, and preserve The People. Another hint: The People ARE America. You can't exchange us for Mexicans or Somalis and expect to ''preserve America'' or anything remotely resembling America.
Ironically, in 2008, it's looking more and more as if the only way to preserve America might be through --- secession.

Labels: American History, American Identity, Confederacy, Ethnoconservatism, Secession

Someone posted a link over on Free Republic, to a list of various types of conservatives. The three broad categories are Secular Right, Religious Right, and -- 'Xenophobic Right.' I don't quite appreciate their designation of that last category, for obvious reasons. They are putting a label which implies some kind of pathology on what is essentially a normal desire to live amongst one's own, and not to be dominated by nor surrounded by people of differing origins and ways.
A few years ago, before I started this blog, I might have been in a different category, but I definitely fall into the third category, which needs to be re-labeled with a less disparaging and condemnatory name.
The list does illustrate, if nothing else, the disparate strains within what is called 'conservatism' in this country, and it emphasizes why it is hard to create any kind of unity. How can we unify all these strands, or can it be done at all?
Which category do you belong to, if any?

Labels: Conservatism, Ethnoconservatism, Far Right, Nationalism, Nativism, Politics, The Right

There has been an ongoing discussion on various blogs about the role (or the scarcity) of women in ethnonationalist or WN groups.
This article by Michael J. Polignano from TOQ was one of the early ones on the topic that I recall seeing, back in 2010.
There have been recent discussions on other blogs.
The discussions seem to go in circles, whenever this topic comes up.
I have blogged now and again about the subject too. It seems to be an undisputed fact that women are a distinct minority among ethnonationalists and WNs. It also seems to be true that women are less likely to be politically conservative, tending to vote Democratic in larger numbers.
So while some have suggested in these discussions that women have more to lose by identifying with a marginalized and politically incorrect viewpoint, it seems that even in the realm of 'mainstream' politics women are more likely to take the liberal side. I've said, as many people have, that women are simply more likely to make decisions based on feeling than on an intellectual or detached approach. As with any such statement, there are always exceptions to the rule.
With the more hard-line political viewpoints, most of the individuals who identify with these lines of thought are people who are either alienated (understandably, in most cases) from the mainstream, or in some cases just contrarian types who want to go against the consensus. This is also true across the spectrum with various dissenting political viewpoints.
But many on our side are simply unreconstructed 'old Americans', people who have not bowed the knee to the PC Baal. We represent the old America; we are not the aberration; the post-modern, post-racial, post-Americans are.
Some women in the discussions linked above blame 'misogynistic' men among the WNs for the lack of women in the ranks. I think it works both ways; there are women even on the realist right who react in a knee-jerk feminist way to any criticism of women, and that keeps the cycle of misunderstanding going.
Many people have said that the natural role of woman is to mother children and to tend the home. That's true, but in today's society in which many people never marry at all, and many married couples are childless, where does that leave these women? In olden times, unmarried women past a certain age were called 'old maids' or spinsters, and usually remained at home with aging parents or helped to bring up nieces and nephews, or to do charitable work if they had the leisure. But that is not an option in our day. The fact that many women are not in traditional roles in the home is not just due to feminism. The decay and disintegration of the family, thanks in large part to the machinations of the left, is a big factor in displacing women from the traditional role.
And even if women are in the traditional domestic role, does this mean they are necessarily going to hold bleeding-heart liberal ideas about racial issues, immigration, and so on? I don't think there is any reason to believe that the domestic role makes women more soft-hearted or soft-headed about the crises in the larger world.
Some also say that women were never as 'racially aware' as men are. I think that's an exaggeration. I remember in my own childhood that even my Yankee-born mother and her female family members were very much racially realistic. They were genteel about it, but also very frank. All my older female family members on the Southern side of the family, likewise, and they were even more blunt on these matters. I don't know if younger people today are cognizant of this. So I don't believe that there is a lack of the 'gene' or the tendency to ethnocentrism. If anything, the instinctive female gene for preservation of family and home inclines her (or at least used to) to ethnoloyalty and the 'us vs. them' mentality.
We Americans have all heard the stories of how the old frontier women defended home and hearth (with firearms, if necessary) when the menfolk were away. In the South, there are similar stories of the War Between the States when women and servants had to defend themselves and their property against marauding Yankees.
Unfortunately it may be that women are more susceptible to indoctrination, especially that which is delivered by 'entertainment', anything which plays on feminine sympathies. For example Oprah and her soap-opera morality plays about abused victims or oppressed minorities, or movies which have some sentimental feel-good message about 'understanding' and tolerance.
The discussion at OD as well as at TOQ included suggestions for a website on nationalist issues for women, from a woman's point of view, or even a 'place where women can talk.'
There was also mention of the need for a blog or website where women's traditional concerns (home, family, childrearing) would be the focus.
This may be the right approach, although would it be enough to counteract the mass media propaganda directed at women?
Some women do respond to intellectual arguments and enjoy discussing ideas, but unfortunately I've met many women with whom one can't have any kind of rational discussion, and their eyes glaze over when you try to talk about ideas of any kind, regardless of whether they are politically incorrect or whether they 'safe' ideas. Most of the women I know of who fit this category also voted Democrat in the last election, and they can't even tell you why. If they try, their answers make little sense.
I am not being a "female misogynist'' here, just a realist.
Perhaps the female-oriented WN or ethnopatriot blog could work; I think it would be good to emphasize things of a positive nature like our cherished traditions, culture, music, folklore, family issues/childrearing, and so on. I've done a little of that on this blog, though I also include historical notes and trivia, and reminders of our origins and identity.
I don't know if having a group blog with all women would work well or not; at this point I think there might not be enough of a demand for such a site, and I don't know of that many female ethnonationalists who would be willing to start such a blog. I think the audience is spread pretty thin as it is. Maybe the time will come when such a thing would find a ready audience; I am not sure that this is the time. We are still at a point where our ideas, though they represent traditional attitudes, are considered taboo, but perhaps the pendulum will swing in due time in our direction.
I think a good first step would be to try to bring about a cease-fire between the sexes.

Labels: Battle Of The Sexes, Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Liberalism, Racial Consciousness

It seems that nationalist parties in Europe and here all share the same tendency to try to play to the politically correct audience, to disavow 'xenophobia' or 'racism' in order to reach a greater number of people.
I've said so often here that this is not the right approach, for reasons which I am sure are obvious to most of my readers.
The UK Daily Telegraph had an article back in December about Marine Le Pen, the daughter of Jean Le Pen, of the National Front Party.
''The 42-year-old is seen as a potentially dangerous threat to President Nicolas Sarkozy if chosen to succeed Jean-Marie Le Pen in a mid-January party congress almost 40 years after he founded the party.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Miss Le Pen, said: "The progressive Islamisation of our country and the increase in political-religious demands are calling into question the survival of our civilisation.
We are fighting against Islamism, not Islam", she said. "
It seems I've heard this song before. 'Islamism, not Islam, is the problem.' Our former president and many others said that frequently.
I do understand that she has spoken out rather bluntly against Moslems blocking streets with mass prayers, and that she has taken some flak for that, though it appears many French people agree with her.
''Her outburst received high French backing. According to an Ifop poll, some 54 per cent of sympathisers of Mr Sarkozy's conservative UMP party backed Miss Le Pen's controversial comparison, while it received the support of 39 per cent of all French.
In line with other Right-wing populist parties from the Netherlands to Italy, her words have clearly struck a chord beyond the FN's traditional electorate, with analysts predicting she could woo chunks of France's lower-middle classes hard-hit by the economic crisis.''
However she has also somewhat removed herself from her father's controversial statements about the Holocaust or about the Nazi occupation of France.
If I recall correctly, during an earlier campaign, she was behind the image-makeover which involved multicultural campaign posters, featuring a 'diverse' group of French citizens.
The Telegraph article concludes by saying she could be a ''highly dangerous threat'' in next year's elections. And the Telegraph is the 'conservative' paper in London?
It's always the same old story: some patriotic or nationalistic party arises, tries to position itself somewhat to the center and avoid charges of 'racism' or 'hatred', and still ends up being described by the media as a 'threat' or 'extremist' or other such loaded words.
It seems obvious to me by now, as it is to most of you, that doing the politically correct maneuvers, trying do distance oneself or the party from 'extremism' does little to deflect the vilification by the media and the mainstream politicians. And does being politically correct do any good with the electorate? I think that many right-wing voters, here and elsewhere, become disenchanted and disgusted when they see politicians and parties toeing the PC line. I know I feel that way, just as I indicated in the posts about the GOP's attempts to be all things to all people. So I suspect that these kinds of tactics turn off many of the natural constituents of such parties, and all in quest of a 'minority' or 'diversity' vote or in hopes of attaining mainstream respectability.
It's a vain hope anyway, as history seems to indicate.
The same story is being played out in the UK too, as the BNP seems to have fizzled and the EDF seems to be a 'multicultural' party. I don't quite see how they merit the name 'English' if they believe that foreigners are included under the rather specific name 'English.' I mean, 'British' is the more inclusive term, because it involves a civic identity, while one can be English only by blood.
The Scottish nationalists, too, seem sold out to multiculturalism, as you can see by the images posted on the SNP website. They are in favor of full membership in the EU, which to me seems inconsistent with real nationalism; it seems that nationalism should have sovereignty and independence as a goal. But the Scots nationalists are rather left-of-center and this, to me, is inimical to ethnonationalism, favorable to multiculturalism.
The problem is, almost everybody in Western societies is influenced to some degree by liberalism, Political Correctness/Cultural Marxism, with the exception of a few of us who by sheer cussedness have resisted the indoctrination, or who have seen through it.
At times it's reasonable to wonder if all these 'nationalist' parties or conservative parties are not just staged opposition, meant to give the dispossessed nationalists the illusion of a voice in government. It's either that, or it's incompetence, or fear. But fear of what? Fear of being called a name, or fear of social ostracism by the trendy people and their liberal in-crowd?
Perhaps Miss Le Pen and her party will be succcessful, and if so I suppose that is a step in the right direction -- if there is still enough time for ethnopatriots to adopt an incremental, 'baby-steps' approach. But there may not be that luxury.

Labels: Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Europe, France, Political Correctness

Following my post about 'equality vs. liberty', Takuan Seiyo writes, in his latest essay at The Brussels Journal:
Pods are deeply committed to the idea that freedom and equality are not mutually exclusive. They are the emotional children of the French Revolution and worship its motto so much that they are willing to install PC tyranny in the name of Liberté, enforce racist and gender discrimination and robbery of private property in the name of Egalité, and stop at no fraud, libel and persecution of their opponents in the name of Fraternité.
Pods view biological race and gender differences as social constructs, and therefore social group differences as an unjust inequality that must be rectified by reconstructing society. They view nation, ethnoculture, and private property as obsolete obstacles in the way of freedom, equality and fraternity of all people. Therefore, the right of anyone to immigrate anywhere precedes the right of the one suffering the destruction of his social capital by this immigration. The right of a slacker to home, sustenance, and self-esteem counseling precedes the right of the 80-hours-a-week worker not to have his earnings confiscated to float the slacker in splendid idleness.
They view the refusal to tolerate the intolerable as unacceptable intolerance, and the desire to protect and preserve one�s family, community, country and culture as racism and xenophobia. And lastly, they have stood Jesus� metaphor on its end, so that they fail to see the beam in the nonwhites�, non-Christians� eye, but they see and greatly magnify the speck in their own peoples� eye.
This is deep, delusionary dementia.''
Deep, delusionary dementia. That describes liberalism, does it not? And the rest of the excerpt, wherein he writes about 'pods', makes it clear that it is the Politically Correct who are being described.
As usual, Takuan Seiyo writes a mordant piece on the crisis of our Western world, in which he describes with great accuracy what is happening.
I've used the 'pod people' analogy before; it's such an apt one, for those of us who have seen the old 1956 movie, Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It comes to mind readily when you see the behavior and the relentlessness of the Politically Correct Possessed Ones.
For those few who haven't seen the classic 1956 movie or its later remakes, the story was of an invasion of a small California town by alien lifeforms resembling giant seed-pods, which 'took over' or replaced the human population of the town, gradually, with only the protagonist and his girlfriend escaping replacement. Eventually they are pursued relentlessly by the 'pods' who were once their friends and neighbors, but who are now bent on forcing them to be 'replaced' with pod likenesses of themselves.
The movie comes to mind as some of us see our neighbors and even relatives suddenly becoming willing cult followers of a certain presidential candidate. I can think of at least two such examples in my life. Otherwise normal people becoming zealous defenders of their Leader -- it can be something of a jolt to see it happen to people one knows.
But as for us holdouts, I like the term Seiyo uses to describe 'us': ''ethnoconservatives.'' I think it's a good descriptive term without the baggage of many other possible terms for people like most of us here, who want to preserve our people and our culture and our heritage.
We are the ethno-conservatives -- perhaps 60 million people in Western Europe, North America and Oceania. There are probably four times that number who are like us, but they are latent, unable at this time to cut through the fog of suppressive propaganda and inertia.
In every Western country, we are a minority encircled by brainwashed zealots discharged at a steady rate from the left-only assembly line of public education. The conveyor belt�s propulsive power is multiplied many times over by the giant dynamos of Mainstream Media (MSM) and manufactured pop culture. Our own propulsive power comes from inner conviction, books by Dead White Males, and � to steal a phrase from Abraham Lincoln � the mystic chords of memory.''
He writes that it is in opposition to the PC 'pods' and our treasonous elites that we must define ourselves, and he writes of this dominant 'mental disorder' which has gripped the West:
This mental disorder is now the dominant orientation of the Western peoples, with its triumphant apotheosis, The One We Have Been Waiting For, coasting on the final approach to the most powerful job in the world, so that he can change the world into Pod kingdom.
The dementia�s hold on the brains of the majority of the white population is such that the vile Afro-American racism that America�s probable 44th president imbibed during most of his adulthood goes unmentioned and uncriticized by the MSM. Even Mr. Obama�s opponent in the presidential election remains paralyzed by the possibility that anything he might say would be deemed "racist."
Barack Obama is expected to receive 75 - 80% of the white vote in many urban areas of the United States. If this is not having one�s body and soul snatched, nothing is.''
I rather like his analogy of the present Obamania to the Children's Crusade, which was based on the delusional notion which caused participants to go to the Holy Land and attempt to convert the Mohammedans by means of 'love and peace.' Needless to say, it didn't work out well. Such is always the case when delusional idealism goes up against merciless reality. Tradition has it that many of the 'crusaders' were sold into slavery by their would-be converts among the Moslems. Today's ''pods'' ought to take heed. History has a way of repeating.
Read the entire piece by Takuan Seiyo at Brussels Journal. There are no comments on the piece as of the time I am writing this, but that's not a bad thing; the comments never measure up to the level of Seiyo's pieces, and often derail the discussion, going off on tangents.
I agree very much, too, with his urging Western 'ethnoconservatives', regardless of nationality, to offer mutual support and to make common cause. By uniting, we stand. We are few but we needn't let that discourage us. Defeatism and resignation are creeping up on us, and we mustn't give in to those things.
To return to our pop culture metaphor, in the 'Body Snatchers' movie, it was only when the human beings went to sleep that they would fall prey to the 'body snatchers' and become mindless pods. We mustn't let our guard down or relax our vigilance, and we mustn't be lulled to inaction or somnolent passivity.

Labels: Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Liberalism, Population Replacement, Presidential Candidates, Western Civilization

I find it interesting and encouraging that there has been recent attention paid to writers of the past, such as Lothrop Stoddard, about whom I blogged recently, and now Madison Grant, who is the subject of a piece at VDare.com:
Madison Grant: Preserving Buffaloes, Redwoods -- And Founding Stock Americans
by F. Roger Devlin
Madison Grant (1865-1937), conservationist and architect of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, is finally the subject of a biography: Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant
The author, Prof. Jonathan Spiro, recounts that
During the course of my research, if I told people I was writing a biography of a leading conservationist, they would delightedly exclaim "how wonderful!" On the other hand, if I told people that my subject was a leading eugenicist, they would invariably respond: "How dreadful!"
Yet Madison Grant had similar motivations for both of these endeavors. Having worked to save buffaloes, antelopes, eagles and bears, it seemed only natural to him to turn to the preservation of his own kind, viz., Americans threatened by the flood of foreign immigration of the early twentieth century.
[...]
In 1908, Grant came under the influence of physical anthropologist William Z. Ripley, author of The Races of Europe. He learned that the rise of mass immigration correlated with a drastic decline in the fertility of the older American population. As a result, immigration amounted not to a re-enforcement of the American population but to a replacement of native by foreign stock.''
From a 1997 AmRen article:
Grant concluded that America should abandon a largely open-door immigration policy. He favored a eugenics program that would promote the Nordic race and discourage the expansion of the colored races in the white world. In particular, he condemned miscegenation.
It is worth noting that one of the reasons Grant and other racialists opposed the new immigration was that it brought alien ideologies. The First World War had seen the triumph of Bolshevism, and continuing immigration from Eastern Europe brought Marxists. Like most racialists, Grant saw socialism as unfit for Nordics. When he was helping found the Galton Society in 1918, he wrote to the other organizers: "My proposal is the organization of an anthropological society � confined to native Americans, who are anthropologically, socially, and politically sound, no Bolsheviki need apply."
Again, though Grant is now anathema to the usual suspects, being generally mentioned as having been an inspiration to (who else?) Hitler, we can see that he was held in much higher regard in his own time, when people did not cower in fear of something called 'political correctness':
The Passing of the Great Race became an immediate best-seller, with new editions in 1918, 1920, and 1921, multiple printings, and translations into German, French, and Norwegian.
It was reviewed favorably by Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and by periodicals as diverse as the Journal of Heredity and The Saturday Evening Post. The editor of the Post commissioned a series of articles on immigration in a similar vein, and in an editorial in the May 7, 1921, issue wrote: "Two books in particular that every American should read if he wishes to understand the full gravity of our present immigration problem: Mr. Madison Grant�s The Passing of the Great Race and Dr. Lothrop Stoddard�s The Rising Tide of Color� . These books should do a vast amount of good if they fall into the hands of readers who can face without wincing the impact of new and disturbing ideas."
You can find several of Grant's works online here, though they are not very readable due to many typos. Amazon.com also has several of his books available in addition to the new book by Jonathan Spiro.
From Henry Fairfield Osborn's preface to Grant's book The Passing of the Great Race:
Thus conservation of that race which has given us the true spirit of Americanism is not a matter either of racial pride or of racial prejudice; it is a matter of love of country, of a true sentiment which is based upon knowledge and the lessons of history rather than upon the sentimentalism which is fostered by ignorance. If I were asked: What is the greatest danger which threatens the American republic to-day ? I would certainly reply: The gradual dying out among our people of those hereditary traits through which the principles of our religious, political and social foundations were laid down and their insidious replacement by traits of less noble character.''
It seems to me that these words represent ideas whose time has truly come; in his day, they were important, but today, they are crucial ideas.
And here, an excerpt from an interesting review by R.E. Prindle of Grant's 'A Conquest of a Continent'
In the immediacy of the moment one frequently overlooks or forgets the history leading up to the moment. One might think for instance that the current flap over Diversity and Multi-Culturalism is a recent occurrence. While the two terms are of recent provenance the argument under different names goes back much farther while the protagonists are essentially the same.
The story of immigration into America is almost always told from the point of view of the immigrant. Few books tell the tale from the Nativist point of view and they are universally and viciously derided as a tale told by bigoted idiots. While charity is demanded from the Nativists none is to be expected from the immigrationists.
Thus we get volumes like Strangers In The Land by John Higham and Carl Wittke�s We Who Built America that distort the issue in favor of immigrants while deprecating the Natives.
Gustavus Myers� History Of Bigotry In The United States on the other hand appears to be a willful misunderstanding of the nature of the relative status between immigrant and native resulting in a slanderous approach like that of the contemporary Greil Marcus.
Conquest Of A Continent has been placed on the Jewish Index Of Anti-Semitic Books. Based on that I expected a detailed derogatory examination of the Jews from their entry into America perhaps being the conquerors referred to. The President of the American Jewish Committee sent a letter to every Jewish publisher in the United States demanding that they refrain from either reviewing the book or noticing it at all. Dynamic silence was to prevail.
[...]
Grant�s book should prove useful to any unbiased reader. If his attitude of Nordic superiority offends you, ignore it. His history as history is sound. For those of you reared on Myer�s History of Bigory attitude you will probably be surprised to find that there is another point of view. Bigotry is not a matter solely of American destestation of immigrants as the program of Diversity and Multi-Culturalism indicates, bigotry is a red herring and not the issue. The issue is who will be Top Race. The contestants for the Top Spot have turned out to be the Africans, Semites (both Jews and Arab Moslems) Hispanics, Chinese and Euro-Americans. (Grant�s Nordics) As you can see race has replaced nationalism.
The contest is real and ongoing. Peace is merely another form of war. The prize will go to who wants it the most. If you don�t see the contest in these terms I suggest you remove your rose colored glasses.''

Labels: American History, Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Demographics, Ethnoconservatism, Mass Immigration, Nativism, Political Correctness, Race Replacement, Racial Dispossession

I occasionally cite articles from LewRockwell.com and other libertarian-leaning blogs. I've linked to pieces by Justin Raimondo on occasion, but always with the awareness that he, like other libertarians, may only accidentally express an opinion that coincides with my own on some subject.
However, much as I can occasionally find something I agree with in libertarian thought, I have always recognized that in most senses, libertarians are my enemies as much as liberals and leftists/progressives are. I can hear somebody saying, ''no, liberals and libertarians are opposites; liberals want big, intrusive government and libertarians want minimal government. Liberals want social programs and a nanny state, whereas libertarians loathe these things, believing the individual should be as unfettered as possible and make his own decisions without governmental regulation and meddling. Or: ''liberals/leftists hate the free market, while libertarians believe in the free market and laissez-faire capitalism. '' And so on.
But the two groups seem to agree on some important basics, like their blind belief that human beings are some kind of blank slates, who owe nothing to race, family, heritage, or history. Each man is an island, his own sovereign country, to both kinds of 'libs.'
Conservatives, by and large, see human nature as a given, and see that human nature is flawed and in need of laws and restraints to curb the worst behavior, while liberals/libertarians see no such thing. The latter two groups are for the most part not Christian by belief or culture, and so they don't believe that there is a fallen human nature.
While liberals may want a strong state to 'take care' of everybody or to punish incorrect thoughts and ideas, they also believe that crime and deviancy should be defined downward, and people mostly left to their own devices when it comes to ''personal choices'' like abortion, drug usage and dealing, and aberrant sexual behaviors.
I think the liberals and libertarians, for the most part, are simply different factions of the same basic belief system, and have far more in common with each other than with those of a traditional, especially Christian, mindset.
During last year's campaign cycle, I supported Ron Paul's candidacy, though I said here and elsewhere that I was dissatisfied with his aracial and at times quite politically correct positions on racial matters. Libertarians, again like liberals, are ideologues, always trying to squeeze reality into their PC belief system, always denying the obvious realities that clash with the articles of their libertarian faith. Ron Paul, whatever his merits, is an ideologue on racial matters, though some have rationalized that he had to cover up his true beliefs for political reasons.
I think that he truly is an aracialist ideologue, like libertarians in general.
Here is Raimondo's latest piece, denigrating racialist Whites:
...what do the "white nationalists" want? What is their program? They are "nationalists" without a nation. Do they want to expel all non-whites from U.S. territory? Do they want to carve out their own ersatz "nation" in, say, the nether reaches of Idaho and the Dakotas? Do they want to create a caste system based on racial heritage, as the Nazis tried to do, with whites on top and the "mud people"�their disgusting term for non-whites�on the bottom? Or do they just want to abolish race preferences in law and custom�in which case they shed their "white nationalist" hoods and morph into white versions of Ward Connerly? Would Taylor outlaw miscegenation if he could? I have no doubt that he would, no matter what he says in public.''
Notice the allusion to ''hoods''. Not exactly subtle, is he? Read a little further, for his reference to the 'failed portrait-painter from Vienna.'
Americans don�t like racists, not because they have been indoctrinated by leftist professors and do-gooder social workers, but because "white nationalists" and their ilk are looking for the unearned: they want power, prestige, and money in the bank based on factors over which they had no control, that is, their genetic heritage. [...] It is a soulless, materialist, dogmatic view of life that has nothing in common with authentic conservatism, and which has all sorts of statist implications�not to mention a history of racialist-inspired statist measures�that make "white nationalism" antithetical to libertarianism.
Richard Spencer makes a big deal out of how "open-minded" and un-PC Takimag is in publishing Taylor�s tirade against "race-mixing." I cannot share his enthusiasm. There is a good reason to avoid the Taylorites, and their even cruder brothers-in-spirit in the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazi netherworld, and it has to do with maintaining the intellectual and spiritual integrity of the American Right. I agree with Pat Buchanan, who, in pointing out the disparity between his own ideas and those of David Duke, averred: "We come from different traditions." Indeed we do. Taylor�s is the legacy of Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, the Count de Gobineau, and that failed portrait painter from Vienna: ours is the legacy of Christianity, which recognized the centrality of the individual soul, and rejects collectivism, including racial collectivism, as inimical to freedom, reason, and just relations among men.
"If you can�t beat 'em," says Taylor, "join 'em!" The paleoconservative answer to this must be: Never! ''
Where does he get off trying to define 'authentic conservatism', since he himself does not claim that label? Even more ironic is his allusion to the 'legacy of Christianity.' Excuse me? I thought libertarians consider themselves, like liberals, self-created, autonomous individuals, with no debt owed to heritage or tradition. And I understand he is also a non-believing ex-Catholic, and openly living a lifestyle that Christianity does not accept.
Raimondo more or less equates Jared Taylor and other such moderate racialists with the usual liberal ''racist'' villains, tarring all with the same brush. Again, this illustrates that no matter how moderate or genteel the message and the messenger may be, it will be condemned by the Nazi/Hitler/Klan analogies. Raimondo must surely know that every generation of Americans, up until the mid-20th century, held views very much like those of Stoddard, Grant, et al. Racial views like Raimondo's would have been aberrant to all pre-PC generations.
What is going on with this recent volley of anti-racialist (read: anti-White, anti-heartland American) articles at TakiMag? It seems they have 'WNs' in their sights. If racialists are fringe characters and as marginal as these people would have us believe, wouldn't ignoring be a more logical approach? Or are they afraid or threatened by what they see as a resurgence of the old America, the one they've declared anathema?
To the extent that paleos take Raimondo's advice, they will render themselves totally irrelevant; if paleoconservatives go completely PC they will be as useless as the 'colorblind' Republican crowd, the party of Steele et al.
I've noticed for some years now that libertarianism has grown in influence on the right, and I see this, in part, as one of the reasons why there are so many conservatives whose conservatism has more to do with venerating the 'free market' and legalizing drugs than preserving any aspect of traditional America, including (and especially) race and heritage.
The 'colorblind conservatives' who dominate the Republican party are often libertarians at heart who simply see the GOP as the imperfect but necessary vehicle for their political agenda. And because they are libertarians who see race as unimportant if not non-existent, they care nothing for the future of White Americans, seeing themselves only as individuals, and perhaps generic Americans with no particular traditional ties.
If Raimondo and others of similar ideas have their way, White Americans would have no party representing us and our interests, which interests they perceive as illegitimate and immoral anyway. Here is Raimondo from an earlier piece:
...I deny the validity of the concept of "race." We are nearly all of us racial mixtures, except for some isolated peoples who are the exceptions that prove the rule, and therefore when dealing with individuals�and we are all of us individuals�"racial" criteria are practically useless. Furthermore, this is the natural historical trend: in the end we�re all going to be somewhat coffee-colored, and so the racial theorists are headed for the dustbin of history.
It isn�t race, but culture that is the determining factor in human behavior: not genes, but environment that forms the human character and allows us to interact with each other in a way that makes sense. IQ tests don�t measure only inherent genetic limits, but the quality of the environmental factors that have shaped individual characteristics�and, in any case, since the concept of "race" is so imprecise, the idea of racial superiority or inferiority is a meaningless floating abstraction. That�s why there is no "white solidarity"�people generally termed "white" are Italian, Polish, Greek, Scots, Irish, and whatever. That is where their ethnic loyalties, if any, are located. The idea that "whites" should band together against the encroaching Third World masses is a literary-political construct that has no meaning, at least in America�and thank the gods for that.
I would argue that the problems experienced by the black community are the result of State intervention and social engineering programs, starting with slavery�surely the most damaging�and continuing on with the "Great Society" and all the other social experiments supposedly designed to lift blacks up, and which in reality have only kept them down. The social programs of the 1960s destroyed the black family, and led to the appalling statistics the commenters below have remarked on.
In anser [sic]to Paul Gottfried�s remarks, I would add that the degeneration of the "white" (i.e. racially mixed) population in the US shows that my thesis on the environmental factors as determinative is correct. The welfare state has eroded values that were once considered unquestionable: it isn�t our genetic stock that is the problem, but our political and economic structure, which encourages�indeed, subsidizes�destructive social trends.''
He sounds exactly like most of the liberals I know in that part, except for the part about 'social engineering programs.'
So are we 'nationalists without a nation'? We might be a nation without a state or a country, since the country that our forefathers created for us, their posterity, has been commandeered by others. But a nation is a people, not a governmental system or apparatus. We are a nation nonetheless, with the same right to exist as any other nation, regardless of whether we have any political voice in this corrupt empire in which we now dwell.
Update: Please see the deft response to Raimondo's piece here, at Occidental Dissent. Prozium does a great job of answering Raimondo.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Ethnoconservatism, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Political Correctness, Race Denial, Race Realism

I don't know how many of you have seen this. It looks promising, but the website is very short on details. It looks to be very much under construction.
The look of the site, the logo, and the name itself indicate that it is patterned after the BNP, but evidently there is no direct connection.
Nor does the site provide information on who precisely is behind this party, where the funding comes from, and so on.
I would love to see a political party which would be a nationalist party, advocating for our interests, that is, the interests of native-born, White Americans. I realize that to be explicit in these things leaves a group vulnerable to the usual accusations from the usual PC minions, but our interests are at least as legitimate and honorable as those of any other racial/ethnic group in this country, in fact, even more so because this is our country by inheritance, and was intended by our fathers to be our country. Now we are taught to believe that we have no legitimacy when it comes to organizing ourselves politically or in any other way.
Every now and then on blogs or forums like this one, somebody demands to know what we are 'doing', and why we aren't organizing politically or forming an activist group or party. While I understand the desire for concrete action in the 'real world', I think those things have to happen in their time, and I don't think the cart can be put before the horse. There is a popular tendency to denigrate blogs and other such efforts as being the province of 'cowards' or ineffectual keyboard warriors, but words and ideas are powerful in their own way. In one sense, I think that we are not yet at the point, really, of organizing politically. It may be that the Republican Party must be more thoroughly and completely discredited before alternatives (including an American national party) can really gain momentum, and despite all the failures and missteps of the GOP, some still resolutely cling to that party as some kind of hope for the future. Things may have to change considerably before a new party has a chance.
If, however, some are champing at the bit for a political party or other such activism, I say go to it; be the leader you are looking for. It's easy to chide others for not being 'leaders', but are you yourself trying to organize or lead, while criticizing others for not doing so? If not, why not?
In the meantime, I think it's misguided to disparage the role of blogs, forums, and other such efforts. To everything there is a season.
Do any of you have any information on the ANP? If so, please share it with the rest of us here.
I would like to think that there is a party which represents us, but more information is needed before I throw my support behind it.

Labels: Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Nationalism, Nativism, Political Parties, Politics, Third Party

Hillbilly No More
''West Virginia's governor is launching a massive campaign to liberate his state from ugly and unyielding stereotypes. He's got his work cut out for him.''
Born and raised in central Appalachia, Shawn Grim is a walking hillbilly cliché. His mother has no teeth, none of his relatives graduated from high school and there's a gun rack on the wall of his family's ramshackle trailer. But he was still shocked last year when his brother, "Little Man," was caught in flagrante with his half-sister. "That is really disgusting in my book," said his mother of the incident, apparently not a one-off.
The scene, one of several shockers from ABC's recent documentary "Children of the Mountains," was shot on the Kentucky�West Virginia border, where the poverty rate is three times the national average, decay-ravaged "Mountain Dew mouth" is widespread and the life span is shorter than almost anywhere in America. But chances are that the stigma of these hoary Appalachian stereotypes will tar West Virginia far more than its less-mountainous neighbor. That's because while we know Kentucky for Louisville, bluegrass and basketball, West Virginia's perceived backwardness has been one its most durable cultural memes�an unshakable label for a state that lacks a big city, a famous musical heritage or championship team to offer as an alternative.
That may soon change. Shedding the state's hillbilly image has become a personal crusade of Gov. Joe Manchin, a charismatic Democrat who has authorized a multimillion blast of cash and marketing aimed not only at rehabilitating the region's reputation, but also stemming a three-decade exodus of the state's best and brightest residents'''
It looks like the multicultists probably have West Virginia in their sights. Take a look at the above hit piece from Newsweek. While pretending to decry 'ugly and unbending stereotypes' such as the inbred hillbilly image, which they gleefully cite, the writer seems to reinforce them, emphasizing the need for the state to undergo some kind of 'makeover', led by the Democrat governor and his grandiose plans for trying to attract 'growth', which in today's multicult America usually implies immigration of whatever kind.
There isn't much helpful information on Governor Manchin on the Internet, beyond his own website with its typical self-aggrandizing political boasts. However, he is working the 'grandson of immigrants' angle, and that usually implies a pro-immigration, pro-diversity stance.
Now, I wasn�t born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I like to say that I am a child of privilege. My grandparents were Italian and Czechoslovakian immigrants whose search for a better life led them to the small West Virginia coal mining towns of Farmington and Rachel. They understood that life in America was a privilege. In exchange for that privilege, they believed they had a responsibility to give something back. They taught me the importance not only of hard work, but also of having compassion for all people.''
I am not going to put words in the Governor's mouth; it may be that he is not specifically looking to increase the presence of immigrants or to change the character of his state in the guise of ''growth.'' But we all know that this is the overall plan, and that there are those who somehow find it offensive that a state may be 96 percent White as of the 2000 census. Now, since 2000, every state in the Union, including Alaska and Hawaii, has received more immigrants and hence more ''diversity'' but as far as I can determine, West Virginia is one of the Whitest states in the Union. That surely cannot be pleasing to the 'diversity' commissars, so as I said, West Virginia, like Maine before her, is probably next in line for an infusion of 'diversity'.
It looks like the refugee hucksters have already been busy in West Virginia, but I am sure they think there is more to be done there. If I sound suspicious and cynical, it's only because I've been following the pattern throughout the United States. We all know that there is this mindset which regards a homogeneous, majority White area as somehow being deficient and -- what was the word the Iowa officials used a few years ago? -- ''sterile.'' Yes, they regard a mostly White community as ''sterile'' and barren, in need of 'enriching.' Oddly though, that form of enrichment somehow always leads to a drain on the state's coffers, as we see in California.
So let's hope West Virginia isn't ''enriched'' in that fashion.
I'm sorry to say I haven't been to West Virginia, but I am comforted by the thought that there might be one state in these not-so-United States that retains most of its original composition and character. What is being caricatured by the Newsweek article and the popular cliches about Appalachia is the ''mountaineer'' people and their way of life. There might be some who fit the stereotypes which the New York elites revel in perpetuating, but each region has its own mix of stereotypes, some of them less than attractive. Every area of the country has those who fit the 'underclass' image. However it seems that only states associated with the South or Appalachia are denigrated to such an extent, and looked down upon by virtually everybody. And from my firsthand knowledge of so-called 'rednecks', I will say in their defense that I would prefer their company to that of the self-important big city dwellers or the urban underclass of the big cities up North.
I see that West Virginia has a program called 'Come Home to West Virginia', which is meant to encourage its natives who have moved elsewhere to come back. This surely is the best approach to trying to promote 'growth', in contrast to the disastrous idea of so many state and civic leaders who openly solicit immigrants and 'diversity' for their communities. There seems to be some kind of perverse 'immigrant envy' or 'diversity lust' on the part of communities which are ''too White."
I wish our brethren in West Virginia the best, and I hope that your state will not go the way of so many once-beautiful parts of this country which have become overpopulated casualties of mass immigration or uncontrolled growth and sprawl. We often fail to realize what we have until it is irretrievably changed or lost.
West Virginia is the kind of place I might consider as a destination to try to stay a few steps ahead of the social engineers, and to find some still-recognizable pocket of the old America. So West Virginians, don't let them 'remake' your state.

Labels: Appalachia, Demographics, Diversity, Ethnoconservatism, Homogeneity, Mass Immigration

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

When was public virtue to be found where private was not? Can he love the whole who loves no part? He be a nation's friend who is, in truth, the friend of no man there? Who slights the charities for whose dear sake, that country, if at all, must be beloved?
- CowperThinking about the Tea Party movement, and the disagreement that exists on the right about it, it seems to me a shame that many on the pro-White side regard the Tea Partiers in general as what they disparagingly call ''patriotards'' or sheeple.
I've certainly been critical of the deluded efforts of the Tea Parties to scurry away from any sign of political incorrectness, and their need to quickly grasp at some evidence of their lack of 'racism.'
However, I don't want to leave the impression that I look down on the many White Americans who are involved in, or sympathetic to the Tea Parties. For many people this seems the only opportunity to express a growing sense of unease, at the least, if not a sense of outrage about what is being done to our country and to the soon-to-be-dispossessed majority. Having been propagandized into believing that there is no option other than the TP, they are grasping at it as a drowning man reaches for a lifeline.
It does disturb me that there is so much rancor for those people, many of them good and decent Americans, who are not racially conscious enough for some people on the pro-White end of the spectrum.
We've all been subjected to the propaganda of the existing multicult system, with its taboos and shibboleths, and with its relentless methods of shaming and punishing those who violate its ubiquitous rules. Some of us were among those 'patriotards' not very long ago, and some of us have, nevertheless, made our way past the hedges and barriers of political correctness to a more realistic and honest point of view. Some of us are still on that path, and those who are farthest along might have a little more patience and empathy with the stragglers and strugglers who are moving towards truth, however slowly.
This piece, by Samuel J. Phillips, from TOQ deals with the Tea Party movement. It's a very good piece, and in it he says:
''It is tempting to simply dismiss such people as saps or fools. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to at least try to engage. Our numbers are too small and our forces too weak to write off any potential allies.''
Lest I be considered one of those who dismiss the Tea Party attendees as 'saps or fools', I second what Phillips says there. In a recent piece in which I disparaged Glenn Beck and the rest of the self-appointed 'leaders' of the movement, my intention was simply to point out the suspect motives of the 'leadership'. Does this mean I think that the Tea Partiers are not potential allies? Not at all, provided they are able to take off the blinders and listen to something outside Fox News and 'conservative' talk radio. As always, there will only be a small minority that is really seeking the truth; unfortunately most will not go against what they perceive to be the tide of popular opinion among their Republican friends. But some can be led in the right direction.
Phillips implies that it will be necessary to engage with the people that many on our side look down on as dupes and fools, to 'reach out' to them, in the cant phrase that is so much used nowadays.
I think he may be right.
'Intellectually, there is the beginning of an alternative right that is capable of confronting and destroying the premises of the system that oppresses us. We have to build on this foundation and create institutions that are capable of real political action. This will require compromise, sacrifice, and innumerable defeats. It will also require many white advocates to leave their comfort zones and engage with people that they may regard as mistaken or even immoral. However, there is no other way forward.''
Phillips also links to this piece by Mark Hackard at Alternative Right.
Towards the end of that piece, he says
''What then is the core of American identity? It is a point of hope that throughout the land there are still many Americans of strong faith and generous heart. They love their country without conditions, as they love their family. And they would see America as a Christian nation, though its ideology belies the notion. These positive qualities and instincts are exploited in the service of democratic pluralism, a pseudo-religious creed.''
That is the point at which we have to try to engage with the people some write off as 'patriotards.' I have to say, sadly, that there are some on the pro-White side who really don't like most of their fellow Americans very much, and that is a huge problem. Without the 'strong faith and generous heart' and the love of country (which to me, means the love of the people) we will not reach many of our kinsmen with our message. As Hackard's essay implies, these good qualities of our people have been misused and exploited to turn us into a people without a country, a people who are afraid to assert their own interests, and instead put everyone else's interests first.
Hatred of a common enemy can only unite people for a brief time, and the alliance will be an uneasy one. A common love for our people and heritage and yes, the land which is our birthright is the only thing that might truly unite us.
Love of country, as in love of our people and the land itself, is a good thing, , despite the cynicism with which many have come to view it. If we can connect with these lost sheep, who at least have some vestigial love for their people and nation, we might salvage this country and the future of our progeny. We will not prevail if we neither like nor respect our fellow Americans, even those who are bewitched and exploited by unscrupulous 'leaders.'

Labels: Activism, Ethnoconservatism, Ethnopatriotism, Nationalism

I've just recently been spending some time looking at City-data.com, which provides statistics on many things about towns and cities in all 50 states. The information is on things like population, demographics, housing, education, crime rates, and so on. The website is one option for those who, contemplating ''flight'', are looking for a decent place to which they might relocate.
As I explored the website, I found this list of ''High-growth cities with relocation interest"
There are 100 cities listed there. I'm not familiar with many of the cities listed, but my curiosity is piqued by this list. Many of the cities look like prime destinations for illegal (and legal) immigrants, for example, #17, Los Angeles, and #19, Las Vegas. #1 and #4, Fort Worth and San Antonio, Texas, respectively. But I wonder how many of these places are popular destinations for people fleeing immigration and ''diversity"?
The site also has forums which enable visitors to post questions on a given locality and which allow those questions to be answered by posters who live in the area, or who have knowledge of it.
The one thing I notice from reading the forums is the sheer numbers of people who seem to be on the move in this country, or at least contemplating a move. Perusing the forums, a reader can get the impression that we are a nation of nomads, shifting from place to place to cope with the constant changes in our country.
Most of the questions on one forum for a Southeastern state are from would-be migrants seeking ''good schools" ''nice neighbors", low taxes, and so on. It's easy to connect the dots and see that these are people who are now in places which have been overrun with immigrants of either the legal or the illegal variety, once-orderly places which are now mini-Babels with deteriorating schools, rising crime and taxes, the whole raft of problems with which ''diversity" tends to ''enrich" us.
A few of the posts even ask how much ''diversity'' exists in the destination town; however when there is any inkling that the question is racially motivated, the questioners sometimes hastily add that they just don't want an area with many ''illegals'' because of the problems they bring.
There are others who state they are looking for a ''progressive" town, though the area is in the conservative Bible belt. It seems to me that these people are looking in the wrong place for ''progressive'' towns, unless they pick the big city or the college towns, which are usually more liberal than their environs.
Another questioner wants to know if the locals will be''welcoming'' of their interracial marriage. Someone else asks about the presence of a certain politically incorrect pro-White organization.
So it definitely looks as if not all White flight, so-called, is by conservative, racially conscious people. There seem to be just about as many liberals and 'colorblind' respectables of whichever party who are fleeing all the 'diversity' and 'change', too. The difference seems to be that the liberals and ''progressives'' would not admit that they prefer to live in a non-diverse, mostly White area, and even worse, the liberals and 'respectables' refuse to see that liberal and open policies regarding immigration and 'diversity' are lethal to good towns and neighborhoods. They refuse to acknowledge cause and effect. They seem to think that when an area succumbs to 'diversity' and all the ills which follow in its train, the decay is caused by some inevitable natural process, not by stupid choices and policies on the part of the town fathers and the citizens themselves.
A friend and I were having a discussion about the infllux to our town. My friend pointed out that no matter who the people are who are moving here, their presence in such large numbers changes this town irrevocably. Why don't people realize this? The people who are moving like Bedouins all around the country, looking for fresh pastures, don't seem to get it, and the immigrants don't care. They simply see this as a place to be despoiled, and they see us as prey.
While most of the "flight" people who are new arrivals here are well-off people, professionals and others who might otherwise be an asset, they are no doubt bringing their ''progressive'' attitudes which portend trouble for this town, sooner or later. These new neighbors, relieved to have found a town with old-fashioned attitudes, natural beauty, low crime rates, and relatively good schools, will eventually revert to liberal form and bring their ''progressive'' and tolerant attitudes into our local culture, eventually changing the place. The very things that drew them here will gradually -- or precipitately -- be destroyed, and these progressives will wonder why. And then they will move on to some new, pristine place -- if there are any such places left. And of course a few steps behind these people will be the immigrants, mostly illegals who are hired to build the big sprawling houses the ''White flight" liberals like, and the illegals who are hired as domestic help. These same White flight types, often even the 'conservative' ones, will be those who think a colony of refugees would just be wonderful here.
How do we avoid this? Can it be avoided?
I can only hope that many of these liberals and 'respectable Republicans' who are fleeing the mess made by their misguided policies elsewhere, are reading sites like City-Data and ruling out the kinds of conservative areas where they do not belong. I am all in favor of them restricting themselves to places populated by ''diversity'' and by fellow deluded liberals, places where the amount of damage they can do is limited, because the places are already in ruins. It's only just, too, that they be forced to live with the policies they have pushed so relentlessly.
It makes no sense for liberals to deliberately park themselves in the Bible belt, where all those people ''clinging to religion and guns" live. Why do they do it? I think it's much like the Mohammedans who hate infidels coming to the West; they intend to 'convert' us, set us straight, or drive us out and replace us. Or the Mexicans, who, despite hating gringos, come en masse to our country. They all intend to come, see, and conquer.
I wonder if those of us who live in areas receiving a lot of ''White flight" should make our presence felt on some of these sites where people are inquiring about relocating. I think we should do all we can to discourage the ''progressives'' and the politically correct Republican types to look elsewhere for their next move. It isn't only the immigrants themselves who bring unwelcome change. This vast game of musical chairs will soon leave our country utterly unrecognizable everywhere, and unlivable in most places.
For those of us who might be looking for an area which is not too devastated by ''diversity'' just yet, we have to be aware of who else is looking to flee there; what's the use of relocating to some idyllic new place, only to find our new neighbors are our old liberal enemies from the big city?

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Demographics, Diversity, Ethnic Division, Ethnoconservatism, Liberalism, Overpopulation, White Flight