0 comment Sunday, November 30, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Thursday, November 6, 2014 | admin
Mark Steyn writes about 'Liberty and Loss' at NRO's The Corner.
He takes a gloomy view of the future for America on this Independence Day, and that angers most of the commenters at NRO, who somehow think 'conservatives' must be pollyannas or they are not real 'conservatives.' As Steyn is not waving the flag today, he is not getting the usual praise from the choir.
Steyn is an amusing writer, but it seems to me that he has always been fatalistic, writing flippantly about Europe becoming Eurabia, and yet he has never veered too far outside the PC limits. He barely acknowledges the demographic aspect of the destruction of America, and seems to be one of those who believes everything is ideological and economic in nature, not racial or ethnic.
Perhaps this is why Steyn has always been a favorite of the FReepers and the conventional right. (And he's not even black. Imagine that.)
The most interesting part of Steyn's piece is his quote from Thomas Jefferson:
''In my soon to be imminently forthcoming book, I quote one of the most poignant lines from the Declaration of Independence, one that never made it into the final text � Thomas Jefferson�s parting words to his fellow British subjects across the seas: "We might have been a free and great people together." There is a sense both of regret at the separation yet also of its inevitability.''
And Steyn asks at the end if a 21st century counterpart of Jefferson would say 'we might have stayed a free and great people together.'
Steyn seems not to recognize that when Jefferson wrote his words back in 1776, those words which were not included into the final draft of the Declaration, 'we' (American colonists and the English) were A People, together. We had common ancestry, language, traditions, and religion. The Declaration sundered us from our parent race in England. We have been taught to cheer that, and many Americans today are aggressively celebratory about ''breaking free of the Brits'', notwithstanding that the Founders were ''Brits'' or as they were more likely to say, Englishmen.
Have you all seen the video that's making the rounds, wherein Americans on a beach somewhere are asked on camera what the Fourth of July celebrates: independence from whom? Many of the respondents were clueless.
A shocking number of people have no inkling that America was originally under English rule, being a colony of England. Many Americans are so obtuse today that they cannot understand that the colonists were genetically and culturally English. America did not emerge from nowhere.
We can't know what course things might have taken if our colonist ancestors had not seceded from the home country. But we do know that the course we took somehow led us to this disaster that we now face. Instead of remaining tied to Great Britain, we chose to go independent. So today we are no longer 'a people' but a jumble of many peoples, and there is no commonality between most of us and the post-1965 immigrants, nor even between the founding stock people and the post-1865 immigrant wave. There is therefore no 'one people' anymore, and with no unity amongst ourselves, conflict looks less avoidable every day.
If we were to split this country along political or ideological lines, I would surely have to be in a separate country from the 'proposition nation' cult, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or something else. Let the 'America as an idea' people take their multicultural charges and form their own mix-n-match country somewhere, and leave the rest of us in peace in our own land, which will surely resemble the America of old more than the multicult Empire. My America is a kinship-based one, a blood-based one, not a 'notional nation.'
He takes a gloomy view of the future for America on this Independence Day, and that angers most of the commenters at NRO, who somehow think 'conservatives' must be pollyannas or they are not real 'conservatives.' As Steyn is not waving the flag today, he is not getting the usual praise from the choir.
Steyn is an amusing writer, but it seems to me that he has always been fatalistic, writing flippantly about Europe becoming Eurabia, and yet he has never veered too far outside the PC limits. He barely acknowledges the demographic aspect of the destruction of America, and seems to be one of those who believes everything is ideological and economic in nature, not racial or ethnic.
Perhaps this is why Steyn has always been a favorite of the FReepers and the conventional right. (And he's not even black. Imagine that.)
The most interesting part of Steyn's piece is his quote from Thomas Jefferson:
''In my soon to be imminently forthcoming book, I quote one of the most poignant lines from the Declaration of Independence, one that never made it into the final text � Thomas Jefferson�s parting words to his fellow British subjects across the seas: "We might have been a free and great people together." There is a sense both of regret at the separation yet also of its inevitability.''
And Steyn asks at the end if a 21st century counterpart of Jefferson would say 'we might have stayed a free and great people together.'
Steyn seems not to recognize that when Jefferson wrote his words back in 1776, those words which were not included into the final draft of the Declaration, 'we' (American colonists and the English) were A People, together. We had common ancestry, language, traditions, and religion. The Declaration sundered us from our parent race in England. We have been taught to cheer that, and many Americans today are aggressively celebratory about ''breaking free of the Brits'', notwithstanding that the Founders were ''Brits'' or as they were more likely to say, Englishmen.
Have you all seen the video that's making the rounds, wherein Americans on a beach somewhere are asked on camera what the Fourth of July celebrates: independence from whom? Many of the respondents were clueless.
A shocking number of people have no inkling that America was originally under English rule, being a colony of England. Many Americans are so obtuse today that they cannot understand that the colonists were genetically and culturally English. America did not emerge from nowhere.
We can't know what course things might have taken if our colonist ancestors had not seceded from the home country. But we do know that the course we took somehow led us to this disaster that we now face. Instead of remaining tied to Great Britain, we chose to go independent. So today we are no longer 'a people' but a jumble of many peoples, and there is no commonality between most of us and the post-1965 immigrants, nor even between the founding stock people and the post-1865 immigrant wave. There is therefore no 'one people' anymore, and with no unity amongst ourselves, conflict looks less avoidable every day.
If we were to split this country along political or ideological lines, I would surely have to be in a separate country from the 'proposition nation' cult, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or something else. Let the 'America as an idea' people take their multicultural charges and form their own mix-n-match country somewhere, and leave the rest of us in peace in our own land, which will surely resemble the America of old more than the multicult Empire. My America is a kinship-based one, a blood-based one, not a 'notional nation.'
Labels: American History, Ethnonationalism, Ethnopatriotism, Proposition Nation, Thomas Jefferson
0 comment Tuesday, November 4, 2014 | admin
Guy White has been discussing the ANP, the American National Party over at his blog. It seems it is still not clear exactly who the party founders or representatives are. Read Guy's blog entries to get the whole picture, at least as far as it's known.
When I first linked to the party's website and expressed a desire to know more before getting involved, there was little information posted on the website. However, I noticed that after my blog entry and the resulting discussion here, I saw that I did get a couple of hits on this blog from the party's website which indicates that they were aware of my post about them, probably having followed the link I posted.
One would have expected that given my expression of interest in the party, and my readers' interest, they would have paid us a visit and been forthcoming with some information, or a welcome to whoever was interested in learning more. No such response was forthcoming, which I considered odd. I mean, if I were starting such a party, I would try to get mentions on many sympathetic blogs and forums, and to respond to any expressions of interest in or curiosity about the party. After all, isn't the idea to drum up interest and get people to join and to spread the word? The ANP, whoever they are, seemed uninterested in attracting potential members.
Or did they, after checking out my blog and its contents, decide that this blog did not represent the image they were seeking to cultivate? Presuming they checked out my blog and read my questions about them, and my readers' comments, I might speculate they had not been favorably impressed with what they saw here, because shortly thereafter, I found they had posted this statement:
The ANP does not shy away from the particularly sensitive subjects of culture, identity, and ethnicity. As such, we recognize that we will be regarded by the powers-that-be as a controversial party, as if our ideas were out-of-the-ordinary.
The American National Party is an American political party designed with the interests of European Americans in mind. We represent European Americans, and, accordingly, our target demographic is European Americans. Given the modern political climate, we understand that this position can easily be manipulated and repositioned into something that it is not, by both supporters and detractors.
Let it be known that the American National Party thoroughly and completely rejects the idea of ethnic supremacy and ethnic hatred. The concept of ethnic supremacy is scientifically unfounded and purely subjective, and it corrupts healthy and positive expressions of authentic ethnic cohesion. Any person that seeks to use the party and its resources as a vehicle to spread such views shall be immediately removed from their post, condemned, and cast out of the party.
The people to whom we�d like to appeal are honest, law-abiding, and forward-thinking. We want people who understand the difference between the love of one�s own and the hatred of others. We do not aim to provoke a negative reaction from anyone. We want our own people to react in a positive manner to our message. We�d like to encourage loyal and dedicated European Americans to get involved with the American National Party and make their voices heard.''
So even if they had not been favorably impressed with my blog and my viewpoints, I have to say I was underwhelmed by that statement, to put it mildly. In fact I would say I wrote off the party at that point, because the statement has the definite whiff of political correctness about it. I mean, I understand that some think it best to present a moderate image which does not scare off the respectables or the timid folks. So perhaps they don't want those who are politically incorrect to join their party or to darken their door. Fine. We understand each other, I suppose, and the party is not a good match for me, certainly, just as they may see people like me as not being party material.
I think all of us who meet on this blog are 'honest, law-abiding, forward-thinking,' as per their description. And I think we express love of our own without hatred of others. I agree with not espousing 'ethnic supremacy' and 'hatred', but the thing is, those terms are used as loosely these days as the word 'racism'. Who is defining the terms as they are used in the party's statement? How do they define 'ethnic hatred'?
All of us on the realist right have been accused of 'hatred' and just about anybody who believes in White survival or separation is called a 'supremacist.' The leftists who have made themselves the ultimate arbiters of who is a 'hater' or a 'supremacist' have a very broad and inclusive definition, and it doesn't take much to get put on their little list. All too often 'hatred' is in the eye of the beholder.
As I've said before, I don't care to participate in a forum or blog where political incorrectness might be called 'hate'. So neither do I want to be in a party or any organization where I have to constantly watch my speech and my opinions lest somebody catch me in an infraction of PC and eject me. I don't want to walk on eggshells or be afraid of offending some coddled group or other.
I see that the linked page now has quite a few favorable and encouraging comments though I have heard that some people have had comments removed for raising certain sensitive issues. Have any of you out there had a comment on the site deleted or censored?
But I wish the party well if they truly are a nationalist party which advocates for White people, but I know that I don't belong in a party which is in any sense dependent on staying on the good side of the PC police. I've accepted that criticism and name-calling goes with the territory, and I believe that it does us no good to try to toe the PC line and end up being condemned and called names anyway; far better to let the names roll off like the proverbial water off a duck's back, and press on.
There's a place, I suppose, for the respectable, middle-of-the-road efforts as well as the more "radical" ones; one size does not fit all. I simply think that time is scarce, and we don't have the luxury of taking the slow, stealth approach. Those who are frightened off by political incorrectness are not likely to even approach any kind of European-American or White nationalism.
Still good luck to whoever sincerely has our interests at heart, and whoever is willing to speak up for us, as there are few who will do so.
When I first linked to the party's website and expressed a desire to know more before getting involved, there was little information posted on the website. However, I noticed that after my blog entry and the resulting discussion here, I saw that I did get a couple of hits on this blog from the party's website which indicates that they were aware of my post about them, probably having followed the link I posted.
One would have expected that given my expression of interest in the party, and my readers' interest, they would have paid us a visit and been forthcoming with some information, or a welcome to whoever was interested in learning more. No such response was forthcoming, which I considered odd. I mean, if I were starting such a party, I would try to get mentions on many sympathetic blogs and forums, and to respond to any expressions of interest in or curiosity about the party. After all, isn't the idea to drum up interest and get people to join and to spread the word? The ANP, whoever they are, seemed uninterested in attracting potential members.
Or did they, after checking out my blog and its contents, decide that this blog did not represent the image they were seeking to cultivate? Presuming they checked out my blog and read my questions about them, and my readers' comments, I might speculate they had not been favorably impressed with what they saw here, because shortly thereafter, I found they had posted this statement:
The ANP does not shy away from the particularly sensitive subjects of culture, identity, and ethnicity. As such, we recognize that we will be regarded by the powers-that-be as a controversial party, as if our ideas were out-of-the-ordinary.
The American National Party is an American political party designed with the interests of European Americans in mind. We represent European Americans, and, accordingly, our target demographic is European Americans. Given the modern political climate, we understand that this position can easily be manipulated and repositioned into something that it is not, by both supporters and detractors.
Let it be known that the American National Party thoroughly and completely rejects the idea of ethnic supremacy and ethnic hatred. The concept of ethnic supremacy is scientifically unfounded and purely subjective, and it corrupts healthy and positive expressions of authentic ethnic cohesion. Any person that seeks to use the party and its resources as a vehicle to spread such views shall be immediately removed from their post, condemned, and cast out of the party.
The people to whom we�d like to appeal are honest, law-abiding, and forward-thinking. We want people who understand the difference between the love of one�s own and the hatred of others. We do not aim to provoke a negative reaction from anyone. We want our own people to react in a positive manner to our message. We�d like to encourage loyal and dedicated European Americans to get involved with the American National Party and make their voices heard.''
So even if they had not been favorably impressed with my blog and my viewpoints, I have to say I was underwhelmed by that statement, to put it mildly. In fact I would say I wrote off the party at that point, because the statement has the definite whiff of political correctness about it. I mean, I understand that some think it best to present a moderate image which does not scare off the respectables or the timid folks. So perhaps they don't want those who are politically incorrect to join their party or to darken their door. Fine. We understand each other, I suppose, and the party is not a good match for me, certainly, just as they may see people like me as not being party material.
I think all of us who meet on this blog are 'honest, law-abiding, forward-thinking,' as per their description. And I think we express love of our own without hatred of others. I agree with not espousing 'ethnic supremacy' and 'hatred', but the thing is, those terms are used as loosely these days as the word 'racism'. Who is defining the terms as they are used in the party's statement? How do they define 'ethnic hatred'?
All of us on the realist right have been accused of 'hatred' and just about anybody who believes in White survival or separation is called a 'supremacist.' The leftists who have made themselves the ultimate arbiters of who is a 'hater' or a 'supremacist' have a very broad and inclusive definition, and it doesn't take much to get put on their little list. All too often 'hatred' is in the eye of the beholder.
As I've said before, I don't care to participate in a forum or blog where political incorrectness might be called 'hate'. So neither do I want to be in a party or any organization where I have to constantly watch my speech and my opinions lest somebody catch me in an infraction of PC and eject me. I don't want to walk on eggshells or be afraid of offending some coddled group or other.
I see that the linked page now has quite a few favorable and encouraging comments though I have heard that some people have had comments removed for raising certain sensitive issues. Have any of you out there had a comment on the site deleted or censored?
But I wish the party well if they truly are a nationalist party which advocates for White people, but I know that I don't belong in a party which is in any sense dependent on staying on the good side of the PC police. I've accepted that criticism and name-calling goes with the territory, and I believe that it does us no good to try to toe the PC line and end up being condemned and called names anyway; far better to let the names roll off like the proverbial water off a duck's back, and press on.
There's a place, I suppose, for the respectable, middle-of-the-road efforts as well as the more "radical" ones; one size does not fit all. I simply think that time is scarce, and we don't have the luxury of taking the slow, stealth approach. Those who are frightened off by political incorrectness are not likely to even approach any kind of European-American or White nationalism.
Still good luck to whoever sincerely has our interests at heart, and whoever is willing to speak up for us, as there are few who will do so.
Labels: Ethnonationalism, Nationalism, Political Correctness, Political Parties, Pro-White, Realism
0 comment Thursday, October 30, 2014 | admin
This response from Dr. Frank Ellis, answering David Cameron's speech at the Munich Security Conference, has been making the rounds, and has provoked a lot of discussion and much approbation.
I first saw it at Sarah, Maid of Albion's blog but it has been posted in many places. It's very incisive, very well-written, and he makes points that very much need to be made.
I am doubtful about how much 'mainstream' coverage Ellis will receive from this, though if we had an honest and objective, or even a non-hostile media, it would be widely covered.
This is very apposite right now:
In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.
You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: 'hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy�. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt�s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.''
But the most important part, to my mind, is his answer to Cameron's nonsense about multiculturalism and assimilation. Ellis says:
''Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We�ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We�ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.
For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of "we" does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of 'we� refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population 'to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong�. If, according to you, the 'we� failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this 'vision�? If they have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of 'vision of society�.
You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that 'instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone�. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is 'open to everyone� is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult�s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others.''
Bravo.
He obviously perceives the dishonesty and the hypocrisy in the blather by Cameron. Not only Cameron, but all the other Western 'leaders' recite the ritual disavowals of multiculturalism, knowing full well that they plan to continue to push that fraudulent ideology on their subjects despite their pretenses at being concerned about their own people, and about the grave problems of multiculturalism.
Despite the transparency of Cameron's attempt to delude his listeners, there are, believe it or not, still people all over the Internet cheering Cameron's supposed conversion. What has happened to people's attention spans that they no longer remember that these empty statements about multiculturalism are now a regular event? They say the words, these ''leaders'' and yet things don't change. Mass immigration goes on unchecked, and the 'hate speech' laws persist, and dispossession proceeds apace. Shouldn't a few people, besides Dr. Ellis, begin to perceive the obvious? The obvious fact is that Western political leaders are not serving their own people, and are in fact serving alien interests, or those of unseen 'elites' who pull their strings.
In any case, Ellis is right on target with this response.
I have noticed that commenters here and there keep saying Ellis is wasting his time because Cameron et al will not listen. It's likely true that none of the political leaders will heed what Ellis says, given that they serve other masters. But the value of Ellis's words are that they are, as in open letters generally, meant to convey a message, or set an example, or to inspire a wider audience. It may be that Ellis is seeking to energize others, to exhort them and perhaps give them courage to speak out or otherwise assert themselves. He may want to encourage more discussion of the dire situation in his country. Those are all reasons that may be motivating him. And I think those motivations are in a sense more worthy than trying to awaken some sense of conscience among the elected officials, which I think is mostly a lost cause. So I hope this statement by Ellis continues to be read and discussed, and that it has a snowball effect. Sooner or later, something has to get through to the somnambulists in our Western countries.
I first saw it at Sarah, Maid of Albion's blog but it has been posted in many places. It's very incisive, very well-written, and he makes points that very much need to be made.
I am doubtful about how much 'mainstream' coverage Ellis will receive from this, though if we had an honest and objective, or even a non-hostile media, it would be widely covered.
This is very apposite right now:
In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.
You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: 'hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy�. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt�s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.''
But the most important part, to my mind, is his answer to Cameron's nonsense about multiculturalism and assimilation. Ellis says:
''Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We�ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We�ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.
For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of "we" does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of 'we� refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population 'to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong�. If, according to you, the 'we� failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this 'vision�? If they have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of 'vision of society�.
You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that 'instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone�. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is 'open to everyone� is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult�s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others.''
Bravo.
He obviously perceives the dishonesty and the hypocrisy in the blather by Cameron. Not only Cameron, but all the other Western 'leaders' recite the ritual disavowals of multiculturalism, knowing full well that they plan to continue to push that fraudulent ideology on their subjects despite their pretenses at being concerned about their own people, and about the grave problems of multiculturalism.
Despite the transparency of Cameron's attempt to delude his listeners, there are, believe it or not, still people all over the Internet cheering Cameron's supposed conversion. What has happened to people's attention spans that they no longer remember that these empty statements about multiculturalism are now a regular event? They say the words, these ''leaders'' and yet things don't change. Mass immigration goes on unchecked, and the 'hate speech' laws persist, and dispossession proceeds apace. Shouldn't a few people, besides Dr. Ellis, begin to perceive the obvious? The obvious fact is that Western political leaders are not serving their own people, and are in fact serving alien interests, or those of unseen 'elites' who pull their strings.
In any case, Ellis is right on target with this response.
I have noticed that commenters here and there keep saying Ellis is wasting his time because Cameron et al will not listen. It's likely true that none of the political leaders will heed what Ellis says, given that they serve other masters. But the value of Ellis's words are that they are, as in open letters generally, meant to convey a message, or set an example, or to inspire a wider audience. It may be that Ellis is seeking to energize others, to exhort them and perhaps give them courage to speak out or otherwise assert themselves. He may want to encourage more discussion of the dire situation in his country. Those are all reasons that may be motivating him. And I think those motivations are in a sense more worthy than trying to awaken some sense of conscience among the elected officials, which I think is mostly a lost cause. So I hope this statement by Ellis continues to be read and discussed, and that it has a snowball effect. Sooner or later, something has to get through to the somnambulists in our Western countries.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnonationalism, Mass Immigration, Multicult, United Kingdom
0 comment Sunday, October 19, 2014 | admin
In my previous post, the issue of a Catholic Bishop's liberal position on illegal immigration was raised. Unhappily, there are many Protestant clergy and lay people who share the post-modern liberal interpretation of Christian doctrine.
The problem is such that it is becoming increasingly hard for the faithful Christian to answer the ever-louder voices of the critics on the right who say that Christianity is to blame, solely or in part, for the fall of the West and the threatened loss of our country.
AmRen in particular, among racial-realist websites and forums, has its insistent critics and enemies of Christianity, a couple of whom regularly post quite disparaging comments about Christianity and Christians. I can only assume that their viewpoints are agreeable to the moderators of AmRen if not also to the site owner. It's a fact that many comments in general do not get past the moderators, so those which do see the light of day are apparently agreeable to the mods and/or to the site owner.
I know some will say this is just even-handedness. It's not. Islam has its critics on AmRen, but none as insistent as the regular anti-Christian voices. Judaism is not considered fair game for criticism on AmRen, presumably because this is a group which is being courted and whose support is apparently valued more than that of Christians. This makes little tactical sense, because Christians make up a much larger demographic.
For whatever reason, Christians are now on the defensive on the right as well as on the left, and Christianity's detractors are stubbornly unwilling to listen to any defense of Christianity.
It's noteworthy, and heartening, that a British clergyman, Reverend Robert West of the British National Party, has spoken out on the issues of immigration, race, and repatriation in light of Christian belief.
Whilst the BNP is a secular and not a religious party, its views generally agree with the Bible�s own teaching that we are to live as nations, in our nations, and not to submit to a "resurrection" of the Babel thesis of one undifferentiated mass under some form of, probably dictatorial and very unstable, world governance.''
To the credit of AmRen, the issue of Christianity's culpability for the decline of the West was debated there some dozen years ago, and this piece by H.A. Scott Trask was posted there later, although I do wonder if something similar would be posted today. (Incidentally, thanks to Dr. D for calling Trask's piece to my attention once again.)
The Christian Doctrine of Nations
Biblical law respects boundaries of race and nation
by H. A. Scott Trask
In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters ("How Christianity Harms the Race") acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig ("Defense of the Faith") acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.
The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World "refugees:" "These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion." Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one�s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.
Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of "diversity," conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.
If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children�s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.'
[...]
Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated "civil rights" lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe "racism" is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to "bridge the racial divide," integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.
White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.''
Trask goes on to refute the frequently-cited interpretation of Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
I will let you read the entire essay for yourselves. It's a very thorough job of answering the liberalized postmodern Christians who have no problem with breaking with two millennia of Christian belief to embrace the 'one-world' agenda. I often repeat this, and it doesn't seem to pierce through the indoctrination, but how do such Christians reconcile their radical departure from what their parents and grandparents and so on, as far back as you can go, believed? Our Christian parents and our forefathers did not believe there were no nations or races; they did not believe we were to drop all barriers and tear down borders and fences and become one undifferentiated mass of humanity, as today's PC pharisees have decreed we must do.
If we believe that the traditional understanding of nations, as laid out in the Bible and by centuries of custom and tradition were not only mistaken but sinful and immoral, where does that put our ancestors, who held such 'immoral' beliefs and lived by such 'hateful' customs? If today's politically correct believers are right, most of our forefathers will not enter the kingdom of heaven, having not known the 'truth' according to today's wisdom, and having lived what today's generation would call 'racist' and xenophobic lives.
As for me, I am not prepared to condemn our forefathers in that way, while assuming that today's confused Christians are the standard by which to judge.
I suppose there is little chance of exonerating Christianity from the accusations made by some nationalists and realists; I have always had the feeling that they have rejected Christianity already, and are simply looking for further reasons to denigrate the faith and to vilify Christians. So I don't think that anything will change their condemnation of Christianity.
If they are intellectually honest, they would surely at least try to explain why, as I often ask, Europe and the West generally were at their zenith when Christianity still reigned, and when it was a strong and muscular faith. And why, conversely, did the West become effete and passive and self-doubting as the Christian faith waned, and Christianity became stripped of its original power?
These questions are often touched on in various essays of Cambria Will Not Yield, such as this one.
If the ''Christianity did it'' theory of the West's demise were true, should not the West have fallen centuries ago when Christianity was at its peak of power, when the majority of people in the West truly lived their lives according to Christianity's precepts? Why did the fall of the West come only as Christianity became enfeebled and had strayed from its original truths, and when only a small number of faithful believers remain? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet I have never heard any of the anti-Christian critics explain why this paradox exists, if their theory is true.
I don't hold any hope of dissuading the 'Christianity did it'' sect from their beliefs. I would, however, hope that some Christians who think it is sinful and evil to close our borders, or to want to preserve our nation and our people, will rethink that position based on what Trask has to say, or better yet, what their Bible has to say, minus the politicized interpretations of our day.
The problem is such that it is becoming increasingly hard for the faithful Christian to answer the ever-louder voices of the critics on the right who say that Christianity is to blame, solely or in part, for the fall of the West and the threatened loss of our country.
AmRen in particular, among racial-realist websites and forums, has its insistent critics and enemies of Christianity, a couple of whom regularly post quite disparaging comments about Christianity and Christians. I can only assume that their viewpoints are agreeable to the moderators of AmRen if not also to the site owner. It's a fact that many comments in general do not get past the moderators, so those which do see the light of day are apparently agreeable to the mods and/or to the site owner.
I know some will say this is just even-handedness. It's not. Islam has its critics on AmRen, but none as insistent as the regular anti-Christian voices. Judaism is not considered fair game for criticism on AmRen, presumably because this is a group which is being courted and whose support is apparently valued more than that of Christians. This makes little tactical sense, because Christians make up a much larger demographic.
For whatever reason, Christians are now on the defensive on the right as well as on the left, and Christianity's detractors are stubbornly unwilling to listen to any defense of Christianity.
It's noteworthy, and heartening, that a British clergyman, Reverend Robert West of the British National Party, has spoken out on the issues of immigration, race, and repatriation in light of Christian belief.
Whilst the BNP is a secular and not a religious party, its views generally agree with the Bible�s own teaching that we are to live as nations, in our nations, and not to submit to a "resurrection" of the Babel thesis of one undifferentiated mass under some form of, probably dictatorial and very unstable, world governance.''
To the credit of AmRen, the issue of Christianity's culpability for the decline of the West was debated there some dozen years ago, and this piece by H.A. Scott Trask was posted there later, although I do wonder if something similar would be posted today. (Incidentally, thanks to Dr. D for calling Trask's piece to my attention once again.)
The Christian Doctrine of Nations
Biblical law respects boundaries of race and nation
by H. A. Scott Trask
In the September 1997 issue of AR there was a debate on whether Christianity is at least partly to blame for the demise of Western Civilization and the suicidal course being pursued by Western peoples. Both positions were ably argued, and on the whole I had to agree that the key to the controversy was a distinction between historical Christianity and contemporary Christianity. As Michael W. Masters ("How Christianity Harms the Race") acknowledged implicitly and Victor Craig ("Defense of the Faith") acknowledged explicitly, the two are not the same; and, as Mr. Craig argued persuasively, historical Christianity has not been indifferent to the fate of the European peoples.
The situation today is quite different. Whether Catholic or Protestant, conservative or liberal, all Western churches have embraced leftist dogmas on questions of nationality and race. The only difference appears to be that the more liberal churches openly support the multicultural and anti-white agenda, while the conservative churches ignore it. Of course, ignoring an agenda that pervades everything from politics to advertising is a form of tacit acceptance. The question is not whether Western churches are betraying their predominantly white congregations; they are. The question is whether they have doctrinal justification to do so.
It would be hard to overestimate the extent to which churches have surrendered to the leftist racial world view. Two years ago, the Pope said this about the inundation of Western countries by Third-World "refugees:" "These foreigners are above all our brothers, and no one should be excepted for reasons of race and religion." Of course, one could argue that race and religion are the two most important reasons to prevent foreigners from settling in one�s homeland. A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.
Leaving aside the race question for a moment, what kind of insanity has gripped the Catholic hierarchy that it would maintain that a Christian country should not keep out non-Christians? Whatever the answer, Protestant churches in Northern Europe and North America suffer a similar affliction. While liberal Protestants prate about the endless benefits of "diversity," conservative Protestants boast they will convert the newcomers. So lost have they become in the mists of political correctness, so effeminate has become their Christianity, they do not realize the erection of mosques, Hindu temples, and Buddhist shrines in the formerly Christian lands of the West is not a sign of progress in world evangelism but is terrible regress and defeat.
If the children of these pagan newcomers are, indeed, to be converted from the religions of their parents the contest will be between evangelicals and hedonistic liberals. Is there any doubt that the latter will sweep the field? These children�s parents came here to enjoy the good life and escape the challenges of building up their own nations. Their children will inherit this materialistic and self-seeking orientation. Christians can boast all they want about tolerance and love of foreigners, but immigration is only further marginalizing Christianity in our culture.'
[...]
Most Christians never mention, much less oppose, policies that directly harm whites: racial quotas, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, forced busing, extortion-motivated "civil rights" lawsuits, black-on-white hate crimes, interracial marriage, and Third-World immigration. They believe Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American Christian hero who truly deserves to be the only American with a national holiday in his honor. They believe "racism" is a sin, but a sin only when it is white racial consciousness or loyalty, never non-white racial consciousness or identity. They believe whites have a moral and Christian obligation to "bridge the racial divide," integrate their churches, reach out to people of color, etc. It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority.
White Christians became racial liberals mainly because the Church has been besieged by the same forces that now dominate every other Western institution. The universalistic and egalitarian ideas of the Enlightenment have now fully penetrated Western culture. Feminist and socialist values have worked their way into Western culture and have overthrown traditional ideals of manhood, patriarchy, and chivalry. Biblical illiteracy, illogic, and historical ignorance have created an environment in which the Scriptures have been perverted into a religious justification for racial liberalism.''
Trask goes on to refute the frequently-cited interpretation of Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
I will let you read the entire essay for yourselves. It's a very thorough job of answering the liberalized postmodern Christians who have no problem with breaking with two millennia of Christian belief to embrace the 'one-world' agenda. I often repeat this, and it doesn't seem to pierce through the indoctrination, but how do such Christians reconcile their radical departure from what their parents and grandparents and so on, as far back as you can go, believed? Our Christian parents and our forefathers did not believe there were no nations or races; they did not believe we were to drop all barriers and tear down borders and fences and become one undifferentiated mass of humanity, as today's PC pharisees have decreed we must do.
If we believe that the traditional understanding of nations, as laid out in the Bible and by centuries of custom and tradition were not only mistaken but sinful and immoral, where does that put our ancestors, who held such 'immoral' beliefs and lived by such 'hateful' customs? If today's politically correct believers are right, most of our forefathers will not enter the kingdom of heaven, having not known the 'truth' according to today's wisdom, and having lived what today's generation would call 'racist' and xenophobic lives.
As for me, I am not prepared to condemn our forefathers in that way, while assuming that today's confused Christians are the standard by which to judge.
I suppose there is little chance of exonerating Christianity from the accusations made by some nationalists and realists; I have always had the feeling that they have rejected Christianity already, and are simply looking for further reasons to denigrate the faith and to vilify Christians. So I don't think that anything will change their condemnation of Christianity.
If they are intellectually honest, they would surely at least try to explain why, as I often ask, Europe and the West generally were at their zenith when Christianity still reigned, and when it was a strong and muscular faith. And why, conversely, did the West become effete and passive and self-doubting as the Christian faith waned, and Christianity became stripped of its original power?
These questions are often touched on in various essays of Cambria Will Not Yield, such as this one.
If the ''Christianity did it'' theory of the West's demise were true, should not the West have fallen centuries ago when Christianity was at its peak of power, when the majority of people in the West truly lived their lives according to Christianity's precepts? Why did the fall of the West come only as Christianity became enfeebled and had strayed from its original truths, and when only a small number of faithful believers remain? It makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet I have never heard any of the anti-Christian critics explain why this paradox exists, if their theory is true.
I don't hold any hope of dissuading the 'Christianity did it'' sect from their beliefs. I would, however, hope that some Christians who think it is sinful and evil to close our borders, or to want to preserve our nation and our people, will rethink that position based on what Trask has to say, or better yet, what their Bible has to say, minus the politicized interpretations of our day.
Labels: Babel, Bible, Christendom, Death Of The West, Ethnonationalism, Liberal Christianity, Nationality, Nations, Political Correctness, Western Decline
0 comment Tuesday, October 14, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Monday, October 13, 2014 | admin
Leo McKinstry, writing for the Express, asks 'Just what does it mean to be called British these days?' It's a pertinent question these days, what with mass immigration threatening to overwhelm much of the West, or former Christendom.
We could just as appropriately ask 'just what does it mean to be called American these days?' The difference between our country and the UK is that Britain, unlike this country of ours, was not a nation of immigrants, or 'multicultural from the beginning', as leftwing propagandists shamelessly assert.
Our country, though I reject the ''nation of immigrants'' label, did, gradually, admit many immigrants from very disparate places and cultures, and we did so at considerable cost to our sense of commonality and our very identity. Nowadays almost anyone who has set foot on this soil with an intention to stay here is deemed an 'American', even if they speak no English, and even if they are openly hostile to the people of this country and our traditions. Sadly, this seems to be the case in Britain, too, though their subjection to 'diversity' is of a much more recent origin.
One element of the British identity crisis is that ironically, it is the English who seem to be marginalized and at a disadvantage, in the country which is at its core, their country. Many Americans seem not to be aware that 'British' is a kind of civic identity, whereas 'English' is an ethnic designation. Aliens and foreigners can become 'British' by obtaining a British passport and obtaining all the rights of British nationality -- but they can never be 'English', because English is an exclusive identity, based on lineage, not documents. Many Americans seem unable to grasp that the Scots are British in a civic sense, as are the Welsh, but both groups would likely object to being termed 'English', as they have their own, separate, ethnic identity. They can fly their national flags, but the English are not given the same leeway to express their ethnicity.
I would liken this to the position of White, old-stock Americans, who are oftentimes of English descent, lacking an ethnic identity. The descendants of the Irish and Scots, including Ulster Scots, have their identity and their symbols and their pride, but the Anglo-American is the invisible and silent ethnicity. In a sense I suppose this could in part be attributed to having been dominant for a long time, and taking such dominance for granted, until one day we wake up dispossessed and pushed to the margins of the society our ancestors created here.
But perhaps the English, in a similar situation in their land, will become more conscious of their own identity as they face dispossession and domination by outsiders. In a world in which everyone around you is very assertive about their own race and ethnicity and religion, it's hard to remain unaware of one's own roots and origins.
One point with which I will disagree with McKinstry in this article is his statement about the European immigrants of older times. He says that
''...the small numbers that arrived here, such as Irish labourers, or Jewish or French refugees fleeing religious persecution, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian culture that built our civilisation.''
I disagree that there is a 'Judeo-Christian culture.' There is a Jewish culture and a Christian one. Their commonalities are few; they share very different outlooks on God, life, and human nature. They live by rather different moral codes.
It might have been a turning point for our country, when, as the proposition nation idea grew, we began to think that there is a common Judeo-Christian culture that binds us together. Lately, building on that idea, we have the talk about the 'three Abrahamic faiths', Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is a false notion, that we share some kind of common ground. The religious ''right'' in this country is thoroughly persuaded that there is such a bond, though it does not really exist.
It's with such small steps that Western countries gradually found ourselves in the multicultural soup. There needs to be a re-thinking of some of the deceptive notions that put us here.
We could just as appropriately ask 'just what does it mean to be called American these days?' The difference between our country and the UK is that Britain, unlike this country of ours, was not a nation of immigrants, or 'multicultural from the beginning', as leftwing propagandists shamelessly assert.
Our country, though I reject the ''nation of immigrants'' label, did, gradually, admit many immigrants from very disparate places and cultures, and we did so at considerable cost to our sense of commonality and our very identity. Nowadays almost anyone who has set foot on this soil with an intention to stay here is deemed an 'American', even if they speak no English, and even if they are openly hostile to the people of this country and our traditions. Sadly, this seems to be the case in Britain, too, though their subjection to 'diversity' is of a much more recent origin.
One element of the British identity crisis is that ironically, it is the English who seem to be marginalized and at a disadvantage, in the country which is at its core, their country. Many Americans seem not to be aware that 'British' is a kind of civic identity, whereas 'English' is an ethnic designation. Aliens and foreigners can become 'British' by obtaining a British passport and obtaining all the rights of British nationality -- but they can never be 'English', because English is an exclusive identity, based on lineage, not documents. Many Americans seem unable to grasp that the Scots are British in a civic sense, as are the Welsh, but both groups would likely object to being termed 'English', as they have their own, separate, ethnic identity. They can fly their national flags, but the English are not given the same leeway to express their ethnicity.
I would liken this to the position of White, old-stock Americans, who are oftentimes of English descent, lacking an ethnic identity. The descendants of the Irish and Scots, including Ulster Scots, have their identity and their symbols and their pride, but the Anglo-American is the invisible and silent ethnicity. In a sense I suppose this could in part be attributed to having been dominant for a long time, and taking such dominance for granted, until one day we wake up dispossessed and pushed to the margins of the society our ancestors created here.
But perhaps the English, in a similar situation in their land, will become more conscious of their own identity as they face dispossession and domination by outsiders. In a world in which everyone around you is very assertive about their own race and ethnicity and religion, it's hard to remain unaware of one's own roots and origins.
One point with which I will disagree with McKinstry in this article is his statement about the European immigrants of older times. He says that
''...the small numbers that arrived here, such as Irish labourers, or Jewish or French refugees fleeing religious persecution, were steeped in the Judeo-Christian culture that built our civilisation.''
I disagree that there is a 'Judeo-Christian culture.' There is a Jewish culture and a Christian one. Their commonalities are few; they share very different outlooks on God, life, and human nature. They live by rather different moral codes.
It might have been a turning point for our country, when, as the proposition nation idea grew, we began to think that there is a common Judeo-Christian culture that binds us together. Lately, building on that idea, we have the talk about the 'three Abrahamic faiths', Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is a false notion, that we share some kind of common ground. The religious ''right'' in this country is thoroughly persuaded that there is such a bond, though it does not really exist.
It's with such small steps that Western countries gradually found ourselves in the multicultural soup. There needs to be a re-thinking of some of the deceptive notions that put us here.
Labels: Britain, England, Ethnonationalism, Multuculturalism, Nationality, Proposition Nation
0 comment Monday, October 6, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Wednesday, September 24, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Saturday, September 20, 2014 | admin
These Are Not Negotiable
''...it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our "line in the sand" and that we will not surrender under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing�no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred�that we will not surrender to Big Government.
Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry. It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean "absolute Despotism" and would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be "thrown off."
[...]
God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part of any hemispheric or global union.''
Many of you may have read this piece already, or discussed it elsewhere. It's by Chuck Baldwin.
He lists what he considers the absolutely essential principles, the ones we would never compromise or give up, as free people.
He starts out, wisely I think, with the right to bear arms. I think many of our Founding Fathers considered this right basic, and the only sure means of guaranteeing our other freedoms.
Please read the whole piece, and the list of Pastor Baldwin's essential principles.
On further considering the list, I think the last right, that of living as an independent and sovereign people, is central.
Pastor Baldwin mentions, importantly, that in the Christian view, the nations are and must remain separate, not blended together as in the arrogant attempt to unify the world at the Tower of Babel. The nations are meant, at least in part, as God's checks and balances. If the world were unified under one system, and that system were, or became, corrupt and tyrannical -- which would be likely -- there would be no alternative, no escape, no haven of refuge.
This is the way things are shaping up in our time: as this proposed 'global governance' takes on the air of inevitability, where will any dissenter go to opt out of such a regime? My ancestors were able to flee to this continent and build a new society here. And even now, where can we go to flee the global multiculturalist regime? Its tentacles are everywhere. There is nowhere to go.
One more reason why our sovereignty, or any people's sovereignty and independence are important to freedom: it is only by means of a kindred population of equally freedom-loving people that you and I can hope to enjoy any degree of liberty. Our Founding Fathers stated that only a people who were essentially moral, sharing common ideas of God-given rights and freedoms, could even establish, much less maintain a free republic like our original America.
Introducing a mixed multitude of people from drastically different stocks, people with differing priorities and different proclivities, disparate ideas of how to live together, guarantees the failure of liberty and freedom.
Only by having a closely-connected group of people with a common store of traditions, and agreed-upon beliefs about rights and freedoms and morals, can we have a free and peaceful home. We cannot have a mixed-multitude nation (otherwise known as ''diversity'') and have our sovereignty and independence.
On my list, if I were to make one, I think I would put Pastor Baldwin's last item as the first.
What about you?
''...it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our "line in the sand" and that we will not surrender under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing�no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred�that we will not surrender to Big Government.
Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry. It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean "absolute Despotism" and would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be "thrown off."
[...]
God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part of any hemispheric or global union.''
Many of you may have read this piece already, or discussed it elsewhere. It's by Chuck Baldwin.
He lists what he considers the absolutely essential principles, the ones we would never compromise or give up, as free people.
He starts out, wisely I think, with the right to bear arms. I think many of our Founding Fathers considered this right basic, and the only sure means of guaranteeing our other freedoms.
Please read the whole piece, and the list of Pastor Baldwin's essential principles.
On further considering the list, I think the last right, that of living as an independent and sovereign people, is central.
Pastor Baldwin mentions, importantly, that in the Christian view, the nations are and must remain separate, not blended together as in the arrogant attempt to unify the world at the Tower of Babel. The nations are meant, at least in part, as God's checks and balances. If the world were unified under one system, and that system were, or became, corrupt and tyrannical -- which would be likely -- there would be no alternative, no escape, no haven of refuge.
This is the way things are shaping up in our time: as this proposed 'global governance' takes on the air of inevitability, where will any dissenter go to opt out of such a regime? My ancestors were able to flee to this continent and build a new society here. And even now, where can we go to flee the global multiculturalist regime? Its tentacles are everywhere. There is nowhere to go.
One more reason why our sovereignty, or any people's sovereignty and independence are important to freedom: it is only by means of a kindred population of equally freedom-loving people that you and I can hope to enjoy any degree of liberty. Our Founding Fathers stated that only a people who were essentially moral, sharing common ideas of God-given rights and freedoms, could even establish, much less maintain a free republic like our original America.
Introducing a mixed multitude of people from drastically different stocks, people with differing priorities and different proclivities, disparate ideas of how to live together, guarantees the failure of liberty and freedom.
Only by having a closely-connected group of people with a common store of traditions, and agreed-upon beliefs about rights and freedoms and morals, can we have a free and peaceful home. We cannot have a mixed-multitude nation (otherwise known as ''diversity'') and have our sovereignty and independence.
On my list, if I were to make one, I think I would put Pastor Baldwin's last item as the first.
What about you?
Labels: Ethnonationalism, Freedom, Globalism, Liberty, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, One World, Sovereignty
0 comment Tuesday, August 19, 2014 | admin
At the blog The West's Darkest Hour, blogger Chechar weighs in on the ongoing discussion of women in ethnonationalism. It's a very interesting read.
He quotes from the discussion at the Counter-Currents blog on the subject of women, and he quotes mostly from a commenter named Karsten, who makes very good points, which I generally agree heartily with. This part in particular:
''Focussing on attracting women (or any minority) is the standard recipe for how a movement kills itself. It�s how traditional conservatism was distorted into the abomination known as "neoconservatism." First, it too asked, "Where are the women?" and became pro-feminist. Then "Where are the Jews?" and became philosemitic. Then "Where are the blacks?" and became "anti-racist," and so forth, until this more "inclusive" conservatism hadnothing conservative about it, and was just another kind of leftism.
It was the Janelle Antases and their equivalents among Jews, blacks, and other minority groups that destroyed the Old Right, because they whined and whined and wanted the Right to change to suit them, and sure enough, it did, until all of its principles were gone.''
This is such an important point. It's what is weakening, and threatening to destroy, any kind of dissident group in our society, from even the mildest dissenters like the Tea Partiers (with their 'diversity' mania, and their fear of being 'racist), to the nationalist political parties in Europe. And now even the harder-core right is succumbing to this desire to 'expand the base' or bring in more warm bodies, or whatever. In the effort to become all things to all people and thus attract more support, and with it more respectability if not power, the ethnonationalist right risks becoming an empty shell.
And the very fact of needing and craving the support of minorities (or indifferent women) is in itself a symptom, a sad indication of how lacking in confidence most Whites are these days. The apparent need for validation by having minorities on board with us, or even speaking for us, is sad and disheartening.
However, the situation between men and women is a different case.
The difference between the male-female divide and those between races and ethnicities is that to state the obvious, men and women need each other. We can have, and did have, our own societies divided along racial/national lines. But men and women cannot form separate societies and survive, although some fanatical feminists believed that total separation of the sexes was the ideal. But that is not a natural or healthy situation.
My only problem with Chechar's post was nothing to do with the ideas he expressed; it was simply that at times, as I read it, I was confused as to where Chechar's comments stopped and the quotes from Counter-Currents began or ended. Otherwise it is a very thought-provoking post, and you may want to follow the link to the discussion from which the quotes come at Counter-Currents.
I do think it's crucial that people on our side accept that we will likely never be a majority; to attract real mass support would necessarily require a loss of our very identity and an assimilation to the prevailing corrupted society around us.
Pandering or accommodating to women (or minorities) is a losing proposition, in the starkest terms.
And I do have to agree with many of those who say that it should, it must, be men who constitute any kind of ethnonationalist movement. Women can act in supporting parts but 'putting a feminine face' on it would compromise it and render it useless.
He quotes from the discussion at the Counter-Currents blog on the subject of women, and he quotes mostly from a commenter named Karsten, who makes very good points, which I generally agree heartily with. This part in particular:
''Focussing on attracting women (or any minority) is the standard recipe for how a movement kills itself. It�s how traditional conservatism was distorted into the abomination known as "neoconservatism." First, it too asked, "Where are the women?" and became pro-feminist. Then "Where are the Jews?" and became philosemitic. Then "Where are the blacks?" and became "anti-racist," and so forth, until this more "inclusive" conservatism hadnothing conservative about it, and was just another kind of leftism.
It was the Janelle Antases and their equivalents among Jews, blacks, and other minority groups that destroyed the Old Right, because they whined and whined and wanted the Right to change to suit them, and sure enough, it did, until all of its principles were gone.''
This is such an important point. It's what is weakening, and threatening to destroy, any kind of dissident group in our society, from even the mildest dissenters like the Tea Partiers (with their 'diversity' mania, and their fear of being 'racist), to the nationalist political parties in Europe. And now even the harder-core right is succumbing to this desire to 'expand the base' or bring in more warm bodies, or whatever. In the effort to become all things to all people and thus attract more support, and with it more respectability if not power, the ethnonationalist right risks becoming an empty shell.
And the very fact of needing and craving the support of minorities (or indifferent women) is in itself a symptom, a sad indication of how lacking in confidence most Whites are these days. The apparent need for validation by having minorities on board with us, or even speaking for us, is sad and disheartening.
However, the situation between men and women is a different case.
The difference between the male-female divide and those between races and ethnicities is that to state the obvious, men and women need each other. We can have, and did have, our own societies divided along racial/national lines. But men and women cannot form separate societies and survive, although some fanatical feminists believed that total separation of the sexes was the ideal. But that is not a natural or healthy situation.
My only problem with Chechar's post was nothing to do with the ideas he expressed; it was simply that at times, as I read it, I was confused as to where Chechar's comments stopped and the quotes from Counter-Currents began or ended. Otherwise it is a very thought-provoking post, and you may want to follow the link to the discussion from which the quotes come at Counter-Currents.
I do think it's crucial that people on our side accept that we will likely never be a majority; to attract real mass support would necessarily require a loss of our very identity and an assimilation to the prevailing corrupted society around us.
Pandering or accommodating to women (or minorities) is a losing proposition, in the starkest terms.
And I do have to agree with many of those who say that it should, it must, be men who constitute any kind of ethnonationalist movement. Women can act in supporting parts but 'putting a feminine face' on it would compromise it and render it useless.
Labels: Ethnonationalism, Ethnopatriotism, Feminism, Inclusiveness, Wn
0 comment Thursday, August 7, 2014 | admin
This writer seems to be a one-man cottage industry, writing articles like this about 'American exceptionalism' and trying to commandeer the Founding Fathers in service of his Politically Correct America.
His facts are confused, probably purposely. He conflates 'White nationalism' with supremacism, and denies that the Founding Fathers saw any ethnic/racial aspect to American citizenship.
''White nationalism and minority identity-based political organizations both equally denigrate the American Dream. More precisely, these ideologies represent a tragic abandonment of the American Dream, and appear to arrive at the same conclusion that American exceptionalism simply does not exist. Their moral and factual foundations, however are infirm, and give hope that the silent majority of Americans will reject such pernicious ideologies and work towards a better future for our nation.
White nationalists often cite the fact that Thomas Jefferson included the phrase "of our common blood" in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence as evidence that our Founding Fathers intended to create a blood-and-soil state.
However, the canons of statutory construction mandate the exact opposite conclusion.''
He does not explain how the latter is true, just states it baldly.
I am sure I don't need to explain the difference between 'supremacism' and nationalism to any of my regular readers; however, just in case there is some casual visitor to this blog that does not know the difference, supremacism involves subjugation or domination of another group or groups. Nationalism does not. Nationalists want self-determination for a given people. People like Malik, that is, descendants of recent arrivals to this country, seem very threatened by the idea of nationalism, since nationalism does imply a common descent, and of course most people of recent immigrant descent would not be included as part of the American nation, were it determined by blood and common culture.
I also object to the way in which he connects people like Sam Francis with odious groups like La Raza.
Most ethnonationalists do not want to rule over other peoples, but simply to have their own country, based on age-old criteria of descent and language and culture, and preferably, faith. There should be nothing threatening or sinister about that.
There is a growing effort to discredit nationalism in White countries by linking it to 'supremacism' and 'hate'. This is a malicious misrepresentation, and those who perpetuate it must know this -- or can it be that they just don't care to use a dictionary so as to use the correct word in its proper sense?
I am also fed up with having John Winthrop, Thomas Jefferson, and many others quoted to justify something (a creedal nation, open borders, egalitarianism) which they never believed, nor planned to promote. If ever I meet Winthrop or Thomas Jefferson in the hereafter, I plan to ask them why they wrote the sentences that have led to this mischief and misrepresentation. If only they had used different phrasings, different words, perhaps we would not have these manipulations of their writings in support of pernicious claims.
If it matters, it appears that the writer is of Pakistani descent. I say it matters because the writer thus has a vested interest in legitimizing the 'creedal nation' where people from every corner of the globe can stake a claim.
His facts are confused, probably purposely. He conflates 'White nationalism' with supremacism, and denies that the Founding Fathers saw any ethnic/racial aspect to American citizenship.
''White nationalism and minority identity-based political organizations both equally denigrate the American Dream. More precisely, these ideologies represent a tragic abandonment of the American Dream, and appear to arrive at the same conclusion that American exceptionalism simply does not exist. Their moral and factual foundations, however are infirm, and give hope that the silent majority of Americans will reject such pernicious ideologies and work towards a better future for our nation.
White nationalists often cite the fact that Thomas Jefferson included the phrase "of our common blood" in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence as evidence that our Founding Fathers intended to create a blood-and-soil state.
However, the canons of statutory construction mandate the exact opposite conclusion.''
He does not explain how the latter is true, just states it baldly.
I am sure I don't need to explain the difference between 'supremacism' and nationalism to any of my regular readers; however, just in case there is some casual visitor to this blog that does not know the difference, supremacism involves subjugation or domination of another group or groups. Nationalism does not. Nationalists want self-determination for a given people. People like Malik, that is, descendants of recent arrivals to this country, seem very threatened by the idea of nationalism, since nationalism does imply a common descent, and of course most people of recent immigrant descent would not be included as part of the American nation, were it determined by blood and common culture.
I also object to the way in which he connects people like Sam Francis with odious groups like La Raza.
Most ethnonationalists do not want to rule over other peoples, but simply to have their own country, based on age-old criteria of descent and language and culture, and preferably, faith. There should be nothing threatening or sinister about that.
There is a growing effort to discredit nationalism in White countries by linking it to 'supremacism' and 'hate'. This is a malicious misrepresentation, and those who perpetuate it must know this -- or can it be that they just don't care to use a dictionary so as to use the correct word in its proper sense?
I am also fed up with having John Winthrop, Thomas Jefferson, and many others quoted to justify something (a creedal nation, open borders, egalitarianism) which they never believed, nor planned to promote. If ever I meet Winthrop or Thomas Jefferson in the hereafter, I plan to ask them why they wrote the sentences that have led to this mischief and misrepresentation. If only they had used different phrasings, different words, perhaps we would not have these manipulations of their writings in support of pernicious claims.
If it matters, it appears that the writer is of Pakistani descent. I say it matters because the writer thus has a vested interest in legitimizing the 'creedal nation' where people from every corner of the globe can stake a claim.
Labels: American Exceptionalism, Creedal Patriotism, Cultural Nationalism, Ethnonationalism
0 comment Wednesday, July 16, 2014 | admin
As if to illustrate what I was blogging about yesterday, from the Anglo-Saxon forum, a thread requesting ''More English ladies comments, please" -- from a forum participant who thinks too few women post on the nationalist forum.
And as if to confirm the idea that many women ''don't get it", see this response from a female commenter:
Okay, I'm English and female but having had an albeit brief look around the site my feelings are that there seems to be a lot of anger/agression around (although as I said I've only had a brief gander). I'd also like to add that there seem to be some friendly folk on here too though.
I realise this in an 'ethnic English site' (maybe it's me who is in the wrong place? ) and I'm interested in all things English...but I'm also interested in other places and people too and hope I'm tolerant of others. Maybe it's a male thing or maybe I just need to look around here more but could it be that first impressions could be a bit off putting?
I'm not planning to form an opinion that quickly but just thought I'd give you feedback on my first impressions...and seeing as you seem interested in possible reasons more females don't post.''
I know this is not ladylike of me, but it's lucky I cannot reach through the computer screen to this woman.
I would certainly love to have a talk with her, shall I say. Does she not see any reason to be angry? Does she live in some part of the UK which has been blissfully free from the ''enrichment'' that has been visited in other less fortunate areas? Or is she just one of those pathologically ''nice'' ladies who thinks we can all just get along if we try hard enough, and avoid playing rough?
The men who respond to her post, sadly, also show that they haven't eradicated political correctness from their minds, and feel compelled to half-apologize for their feelings of anger, and assure the lady with the delicate sensibilities that they really aren't bigoted:
You have to realise where the anger is aimed. Its not at all foreigners. Its at ALL those who would erase or undermine our identity and culture for the supposed reason of tolerance.
ALL nations have tolerant people so tolerance is no indication of identity national or ethnical.
I have several black and masses of Asian friends. All my asian friends talk English around me they dress in English clothing they appreciate that there is an ethnic English who have claim to be the indiginous folc of England.
Just as I accept their Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnicity.''
This makes me sad. Please, stop protesting that you have nonwhite friends; nobody on the other side is the least bit impressed. Boast that you have friends from your own folk; that shows integrity, and takes more courage these days.
This man gives a good, honest response, not grammatically or orthographically correct, but most importantly, not politically correct, so I give him high marks:
We have been accused of being white sumpremists, nazi, ignorant, everything you can think. Well we come out fighting when this happens , ans we beive that patriotic ethnci englsin peopl should no longer havetput up with ths. Or idenity is being squeesed to death by multicult rubbish and pc liberal appeasemnt.
Its so not matter of being tolerant, we have been that for to long hence our current dire straights and troubles. I love thework reinactors and living hisrory doe, they do a huge amont to keep our culture al heritahe and ideniity going. BUT i do not want to see our idenity tobe eventually only be found in those places. All of England is my home. I taked pride in putting my ethnic englsh idenity, people and counrty first. This right not wrong. This is England so our people our culture and our idenity must be dominate and come first. (as other countries culureis and idenity should do in their own lands)
No one are fefending ethnnic english interests and our country so t is up for us to do this. We may at times coem across a angry and at time we are, but we have aims and one is not to roll over.''
Meanwhile, things are hotting up in Luton, Bedfordshire. The BBC offers the usual biased, servile, politically correct version of a protest march in Luton, in response to a recent clash when Islamic hecklers disrupted an event welcoming British troops home.
Here is blogger Lionheart's report of things, complete with video coverage.
From what I could see, the young English men protesting were mostly restrained, if a bit rough around the edges.
The police, however, seemed more ready to intimidate and confront these young men than they were in recent videos I saw, where they retreated from hostile Pakistanis running through the streets. What a disgraceful police force; politically correct to the core. Brave when confronting their own, but servile when facing Islamics. What a disgrace.
The discussion on Lionheart's blog is interesting; the first comment is critical of Lionheart and the protesters, but he answers quite adequately.
Meanwhile the BNP website apparently suffered a DOS attack over the weekend, the 'Largest Cyber-Attack in History'
The Green Arrow quotes Nick Griffin:
The size of the renewed assault is unparalleled and there is no doubt that whoever has organised this has had to pay out a serious amount of money to the criminal underworld.
On Friday the servers of Clear Channel, part of a huge conglomerate that provides billboard advertising to the BNP, suffered a similar attack. Their IT professionals tracked the criminal activity back to a notorious "anti-fascist" organisation openly aligned to the Labour Party and supported by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. This organisation was protesting at the decision by Clear Channel to allow the BNP to display advertising in support of our European Election Campaign.
[...]
The attack on the BNP website is an indication of the increasing desperation of our opponents, who, unable to defeat us in democratic debate, would rather just have us closed down. BUT THEY WILL NEVER WEAKEN OUR RESOLVE TO WIN BACK OUR COUNTRY!''
I hope he is correct, and I know that in the UK as in all of the West, the women will have to get on board and support the effort, or at least stop holding the men back with all that prissy, self-righteous niceness. Women of past generations knew that sometimes niceness and palaver is not enough; sometimes it's necessary to defend yourself, your people, and your way of life.
It appears as though things may come to the boil sooner in the UK than here in our country, and the way things play out there may influence events here; the converse will be true if things heat up here first. We can only guess and speculate, however; the situation is unpredictable. But I certainly wish our British and English cousins well.
And as if to confirm the idea that many women ''don't get it", see this response from a female commenter:
Okay, I'm English and female but having had an albeit brief look around the site my feelings are that there seems to be a lot of anger/agression around (although as I said I've only had a brief gander). I'd also like to add that there seem to be some friendly folk on here too though.
I realise this in an 'ethnic English site' (maybe it's me who is in the wrong place? ) and I'm interested in all things English...but I'm also interested in other places and people too and hope I'm tolerant of others. Maybe it's a male thing or maybe I just need to look around here more but could it be that first impressions could be a bit off putting?
I'm not planning to form an opinion that quickly but just thought I'd give you feedback on my first impressions...and seeing as you seem interested in possible reasons more females don't post.''
I know this is not ladylike of me, but it's lucky I cannot reach through the computer screen to this woman.
I would certainly love to have a talk with her, shall I say. Does she not see any reason to be angry? Does she live in some part of the UK which has been blissfully free from the ''enrichment'' that has been visited in other less fortunate areas? Or is she just one of those pathologically ''nice'' ladies who thinks we can all just get along if we try hard enough, and avoid playing rough?
The men who respond to her post, sadly, also show that they haven't eradicated political correctness from their minds, and feel compelled to half-apologize for their feelings of anger, and assure the lady with the delicate sensibilities that they really aren't bigoted:
You have to realise where the anger is aimed. Its not at all foreigners. Its at ALL those who would erase or undermine our identity and culture for the supposed reason of tolerance.
ALL nations have tolerant people so tolerance is no indication of identity national or ethnical.
I have several black and masses of Asian friends. All my asian friends talk English around me they dress in English clothing they appreciate that there is an ethnic English who have claim to be the indiginous folc of England.
Just as I accept their Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnicity.''
This makes me sad. Please, stop protesting that you have nonwhite friends; nobody on the other side is the least bit impressed. Boast that you have friends from your own folk; that shows integrity, and takes more courage these days.
This man gives a good, honest response, not grammatically or orthographically correct, but most importantly, not politically correct, so I give him high marks:
We have been accused of being white sumpremists, nazi, ignorant, everything you can think. Well we come out fighting when this happens , ans we beive that patriotic ethnci englsin peopl should no longer havetput up with ths. Or idenity is being squeesed to death by multicult rubbish and pc liberal appeasemnt.
Its so not matter of being tolerant, we have been that for to long hence our current dire straights and troubles. I love thework reinactors and living hisrory doe, they do a huge amont to keep our culture al heritahe and ideniity going. BUT i do not want to see our idenity tobe eventually only be found in those places. All of England is my home. I taked pride in putting my ethnic englsh idenity, people and counrty first. This right not wrong. This is England so our people our culture and our idenity must be dominate and come first. (as other countries culureis and idenity should do in their own lands)
No one are fefending ethnnic english interests and our country so t is up for us to do this. We may at times coem across a angry and at time we are, but we have aims and one is not to roll over.''
Meanwhile, things are hotting up in Luton, Bedfordshire. The BBC offers the usual biased, servile, politically correct version of a protest march in Luton, in response to a recent clash when Islamic hecklers disrupted an event welcoming British troops home.
Here is blogger Lionheart's report of things, complete with video coverage.
From what I could see, the young English men protesting were mostly restrained, if a bit rough around the edges.
The police, however, seemed more ready to intimidate and confront these young men than they were in recent videos I saw, where they retreated from hostile Pakistanis running through the streets. What a disgraceful police force; politically correct to the core. Brave when confronting their own, but servile when facing Islamics. What a disgrace.
The discussion on Lionheart's blog is interesting; the first comment is critical of Lionheart and the protesters, but he answers quite adequately.
Meanwhile the BNP website apparently suffered a DOS attack over the weekend, the 'Largest Cyber-Attack in History'
The Green Arrow quotes Nick Griffin:
The size of the renewed assault is unparalleled and there is no doubt that whoever has organised this has had to pay out a serious amount of money to the criminal underworld.
On Friday the servers of Clear Channel, part of a huge conglomerate that provides billboard advertising to the BNP, suffered a similar attack. Their IT professionals tracked the criminal activity back to a notorious "anti-fascist" organisation openly aligned to the Labour Party and supported by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. This organisation was protesting at the decision by Clear Channel to allow the BNP to display advertising in support of our European Election Campaign.
[...]
The attack on the BNP website is an indication of the increasing desperation of our opponents, who, unable to defeat us in democratic debate, would rather just have us closed down. BUT THEY WILL NEVER WEAKEN OUR RESOLVE TO WIN BACK OUR COUNTRY!''
I hope he is correct, and I know that in the UK as in all of the West, the women will have to get on board and support the effort, or at least stop holding the men back with all that prissy, self-righteous niceness. Women of past generations knew that sometimes niceness and palaver is not enough; sometimes it's necessary to defend yourself, your people, and your way of life.
It appears as though things may come to the boil sooner in the UK than here in our country, and the way things play out there may influence events here; the converse will be true if things heat up here first. We can only guess and speculate, however; the situation is unpredictable. But I certainly wish our British and English cousins well.
Labels: Activists, England, Ethnonationalism, Feminism, Jihad, Nationalism, United Kingdom
0 comment Thursday, July 3, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Monday, June 16, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Tuesday, June 10, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Sunday, June 8, 2014 | admin
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.
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