0 comment Saturday, August 16, 2014 | admin
We've all probably seen or read about this poster which is the work of the Italian political party Lega Nord.
''The party has a tough, and often harsh, stance on crime, illegal immigration, especially from Muslim countries, and terrorism. It supports the promotion of immigration from non-Muslim countries in order to protect the "Christian identity" of Italy and Europe, which, according to party officials, should be based on "Judeo-Christian heritage").''
But I think the poster, depicting the Indian, with the message ''They allowed (endured) immigration and now they live on reservations', is rather inspired. The point is obvious: native Italians are in danger of being overrun and marginalized and displaced in their own country, just as native-born old-stock citizens in our country are slated to be the 21st century 'vanishing Americans.'
Political correctness apparently has a rather weaker hold in Italy than in most Western countries, if we are to judge by the campaign posters. Please scroll down the web page at the link above,and see the poster which says 'Indovina chi e el ultimo?' The image is that of several 'diverse' immigrants and one Italian man waiting in a social service line. Notice the rather caricatured features of the immigrants. Can we imagine such a poster by any political party in this country? Enough said. And the message, which translates to 'guess who is last?' is rather frank, too. We all know that in our Western countries, the immigrant and the minority (the two terms overlap) are given precedence, while the native-born citizen is pushed to the back of the line.
But is the American Indian's situation, or ''plight'', as the old books called it, analogous to that of white European-descended people as the West is being broken up and given away to Third Worlders? There are some parallels but the circumstances are rather different. At least the Indians were able to fight for their land, --- though they ultimately lost, but modern European-descended people are stifled by political correctness and thwarted in many places by laws proscribing any kind of 'hate speech' (i.e.criticism) against the invaders. The Indians at least were not crippled by guilt-trips and propaganda in their struggle to maintain their territory.
This question of how European colonists and settlers ''stole the Native Americans' land'' is a persistent thorn in the side of Americans who are resisting the loss of their country. I can't count the number of times that some liberal has triumphantly introduced this accusation in a debate over immigration. They always flourish this as their trump card, their ultimate retort, so they think. They smugly say 'white people stole this country from the Natives', and they then expect this rather juvenile statement to silence their opponents.
I've said to such people that if they truly believe this, they should show some integrity and give all their property to the Indians and pack up to go to Europe, rather than remaining on 'stolen' land where they have no right to remain. I haven't yet gotten a response to that from any liberal. They obviously don't literally believe that this land 'belongs to the Indians', or else they would vacate it.
Another question I pose to these pestilent liberals is: ''were the Indians racist and xenophobic when they tried to expel or kill the whites? Why didn't the Indians 'embrace diversity' and why weren't they 'tolerant' and inclusive enough to accept the whites rather than attack them?"
This usually elicits no response, or a changing of the subject, usually accompanied by angry sputtering.
I continue: "if the Indians were within their rights to try to keep their land, why aren't we?"
The usual answer, if any, to that is: ''well, that was different; they belonged here, but our ancestors didn't." This, of course, dodges the question of the origins of Indians, and of their being transplants from Asia.
As for the accusation that whites killed and dispossessed the Indians, I remind the accusers that Indians did the same to each other; there was mutual hostility among many tribes, with constant conflict and frequent skirmishes, and sometimes considerable bloodshed. Indians displaced other Indians in their conflicts.
Indians also enslaved other Indians. Captives became slaves in many cases. The foolish idea that all Indians lived in some kind of idyllic noble savage utopia before the whites intruded still persists.
The liberal always wants to introduce guilt trips about how the Indians were ''forced onto reservations."
David Yeagley gives an Indian point of view on this: he says that far from being forced into isolation, the Indians preferred this solution. They in no way desired to be part of white society; they just wanted to remain Indian and to continue to live in their traditional ways. In a way, their position was the opposite of the black demands for integration, and for the right to live, work, go to school, and mingle socially with whites. Indians preferred to stay with their own kind in most cases. The idea that Indians follow the pattern established by blacks in their campaign for integration and 'equality' is false.
And if it happens that we become, like the original 'vanishing Americans', displaced and relegated to being walking museum pieces, will we want to be 'integrated' into the polyglot, Babelized society that supplants our civilization, or would we want to have our own sovereign, separate areas, where we can continue our own culture and way of life? I think I would choose the latter, if I had to choose between the two. Being swallowed up by some alien culture, among people who are hostile to me and mine, would seem like annihilation to me.
Still, though a 'reservation' or enclave of some sort would be the lesser of evils, I think that most of us are not meant for that kind of life; ''we must be free or die...'' as the poet said.
But I think that Italian campaign poster is a timely warning. We, all of us in the West need to contemplate, and realize how late is the hour, and how precarious our position.
Labels: Demographics, History, Mass Immigration, National Suicide, Nationalism
0 comment Tuesday, June 24, 2014 | admin
We all know that Western nations in general are being swamped by Third World immigration, much of it of the legal variety, and that all Western nations are being transformed to a greater or lesser degree by all this wanton social engineering fostered by our derelict governments.
Here's a piece from a Canadian blog which links to a surprisingly frank article in a Vancouver paper, having to do with immigration, multiculturalism, and Canadian identity. The article is more open than I would expect to find in the Canadian media, and the blogger's own commentary is right on the money. It's reassuring to know that there are still people, regardless of the damper on free speech, who see what is going on and who are taking a stand against it.
I certainly wish our Canadian cousins well in their effort to preserve their country and their existing way of life.
H/T Refugee Resettlement Watch.
Here's a piece from a Canadian blog which links to a surprisingly frank article in a Vancouver paper, having to do with immigration, multiculturalism, and Canadian identity. The article is more open than I would expect to find in the Canadian media, and the blogger's own commentary is right on the money. It's reassuring to know that there are still people, regardless of the damper on free speech, who see what is going on and who are taking a stand against it.
I certainly wish our Canadian cousins well in their effort to preserve their country and their existing way of life.
H/T Refugee Resettlement Watch.
Labels: Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, National Suicide, Nationalism, Social Engineering, Western Civilization
0 comment Tuesday, May 13, 2014 | admin
The name of the first month of the year, January, comes from the Roman god, Janus, who was two-headed, with one head facing forward and the other, backward.
As we come to the end of another year, it's natural to look forward. But it's necessary first to look back and take stock, and muse on both achievements and setbacks, in our personal lives as well as in the world and the country.
At the end of 2007 I see immigration as still the number one issue facing our country (and probably the West in general) just as I did at the start of this year. And it does not take psychic powers to predict that immigration, whether our corrupt leaders acknowledge it or not, will be the most pressing issue in 2008. Not 'terror' and not the Middle East perpetual war, but borders and immigration and the threat to the very character of our country. Underlying this situation, of course, is the deeper issue of our out-of-touch, remote elites, and the fact that our government is completely detached from the will of the people, and by all appearances, indifferent at best to those they claim to represent and serve. At worst, they are more or less openly hostile to us, and seem to have declared war on us. Beyond that fact is the nagging question of why so many of us seem blithely oblivious to that state of affairs, and are happily prepared to vote for more of the same of what is doing us in. It is as though a patient is being slowly poisoned by his doctor, to whom he is slavishly attached, and continues to use the same doctor although his health is obviously failing and his life is ebbing. We need some new physicians, folks. As it is, it looks like we have the political equivalents of Dr. Kevorkian attending to us, and we don't want to admit it.
In some ways, however, the state of our country shows a few hopeful signs. It does seem as though there are increasing signs of awakenings, and of a resurgent sense of our national consciousness, after decades of decline and of multicultural indoctrination.
I see this in little ways, in everyday conversations among everyday people; there are a few rumblings here and there, although they are not nearly as vigorous as they ought to be.
In other ways, the signs are discouraging. The country, like the rest of the West, is seemingly farther down the road toward demographic transformation than we were last year. If the latest Census Bureau figures, released the other day, are accurate, we in America are now receiving another 'migrant' every 30 seconds. That is a staggering figure to contemplate, and it is probably a low estimate, like all the immigration statistics fed us by our mendacious bureaucrats.
So as our country heads toward multicultural oblivion, the question now is whether we can act to stop or even slow down the changes to our country.
Obviously, I am still here blogging away, and still doing what I can in whatever way I can, refusing to give in to resignation or fatalism. Yet there are those out there who preach those attitudes, the most recent and egregious example being the Dallas Morning News editorial staff, with their smarmy, politically correct paean to the Illegal Immigrant as 'Texan of the Year.'
In response, I nominate the Dallas News editorial staff as Turncoat of the Year.
That disgraceful column needs to be dealt with in another blog entry, but for now I will just say that, bad as it is, it is just one more example of a long-running campaign by the ideologues of the old media, who are the greatest friends the illegal invaders could ever pray to have. They work tirelessly, these media propagandists, to create sympathy for illegal (and legal) immigrants, regardless of the merit of the immigrants. And just to vary up their propaganda, they switch from the tearjerker mode to the cynical 'embrace-the-inevitable', lie-back-and-enjoy-it, line.
They serve the same function that Tokyo Rose served for the Japanese government in World War II. They work 24/7 at wearing us down, making us resigned, and then alternately berating us as bigots and racists. They are demoralizing many people, but I wonder if they are overplaying their paltry hand, and actually provoking a backlash by arousing the ire of many otherwise disengaged readers.
So we must not give in and accept the invitation to passivity by accepting the idea that 'we can't deport 12 million people' and 'we need immigrants to keep our economy afloat' and all the rest of those unprovable assertions.
So many of the often-repeated mantras which resurface in every conversation or discussion about this issue refuse to go away. For example, my long-time readers will know that the phrase that I find most irksome and stupid is some variation of "as long as it's legal, I have no problem with any immigration. It's only the illegal kind I object to.' Yet this phrase lingers on, with few people challenging it. Why? Is it just habit, by now? Or are people really so obtuse that they can't see the problem with that statement? Or are people so self-conscious about any statement that might be called 'racist' that they hurry to cover themselves? If I accomplish one thing in 2008 I would like to get people to stop saying that phrase or any variation thereof.
Another variation I see on places like Free Republic is 'I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-ILLEGAL immigrant.' This is said triumphantly in response to some article which refers to 'anti-immigration activists' and it is seen as a refutation of the 'anti-immigrant' label and a foolproof defense against the race card. Wrong. The opposition considers everybody who is not pro-open borders as racist. Period. You can cover yourself with protestations about legality and illegality and it makes not a whit of difference. To the opposition, all desire to control immigration, even in the most modest and limited fashion, is bigotry.
Let them call names. Stop playing their game by their rules. They win as long as we do that.
If we are going to prevail in this struggle, we have to stop counterproductive habits like the Politically Correct protestations about legality and illegality. Those who think that legality would make mass immigration just dandy are just not thinking.
Another unhealthy (but more politically incorrect) attitude I encounter is that of playing one minority group off against another. I hear a distressing number of people saying that 'the illegals have a much better work ethic than blacks.' What's that got to do with anything? Some people because they have had negative interactions with blacks will express a kind of Schadenfreude about illegals displacing blacks from jobs or from neighborhoods. I don't see anything to be pleased about there. And I don't see any proof of the supposed superiority of illegal Hispanics as compared to blacks.
Wishing for illegals to supplant American-born blacks is misguided to say the least.
One of the biggest obstacles to the recovery of our country is not only our corrupt political system, but their enablers in the media. However, for now, at least, we have the Internet, with some alternative voices being heard that would never get a chance in our controlled media. And the Internet, for now, is relatively free, though there are efforts to suppress real alternative voices.
We have to make the best possible use of the freedom we still have, while we still have it, and 2008 will be a crucial year, I think, not only because of the upcoming election but because I think we are coming to a point of no return. If we don't succeed in regaining our sense of ourselves and our traditions, and a common purpose, if we continue to be divided amongst ourselves while enemies come in and pillage our deteriorating homelands, we will have lost the opportunity we had.
There's still time. I believe that, and I will go into the New Year with a resolve to do all that I can. I hope that all people of goodwill have that same determination.
As we come to the end of another year, it's natural to look forward. But it's necessary first to look back and take stock, and muse on both achievements and setbacks, in our personal lives as well as in the world and the country.
At the end of 2007 I see immigration as still the number one issue facing our country (and probably the West in general) just as I did at the start of this year. And it does not take psychic powers to predict that immigration, whether our corrupt leaders acknowledge it or not, will be the most pressing issue in 2008. Not 'terror' and not the Middle East perpetual war, but borders and immigration and the threat to the very character of our country. Underlying this situation, of course, is the deeper issue of our out-of-touch, remote elites, and the fact that our government is completely detached from the will of the people, and by all appearances, indifferent at best to those they claim to represent and serve. At worst, they are more or less openly hostile to us, and seem to have declared war on us. Beyond that fact is the nagging question of why so many of us seem blithely oblivious to that state of affairs, and are happily prepared to vote for more of the same of what is doing us in. It is as though a patient is being slowly poisoned by his doctor, to whom he is slavishly attached, and continues to use the same doctor although his health is obviously failing and his life is ebbing. We need some new physicians, folks. As it is, it looks like we have the political equivalents of Dr. Kevorkian attending to us, and we don't want to admit it.
In some ways, however, the state of our country shows a few hopeful signs. It does seem as though there are increasing signs of awakenings, and of a resurgent sense of our national consciousness, after decades of decline and of multicultural indoctrination.
I see this in little ways, in everyday conversations among everyday people; there are a few rumblings here and there, although they are not nearly as vigorous as they ought to be.
In other ways, the signs are discouraging. The country, like the rest of the West, is seemingly farther down the road toward demographic transformation than we were last year. If the latest Census Bureau figures, released the other day, are accurate, we in America are now receiving another 'migrant' every 30 seconds. That is a staggering figure to contemplate, and it is probably a low estimate, like all the immigration statistics fed us by our mendacious bureaucrats.
So as our country heads toward multicultural oblivion, the question now is whether we can act to stop or even slow down the changes to our country.
Obviously, I am still here blogging away, and still doing what I can in whatever way I can, refusing to give in to resignation or fatalism. Yet there are those out there who preach those attitudes, the most recent and egregious example being the Dallas Morning News editorial staff, with their smarmy, politically correct paean to the Illegal Immigrant as 'Texan of the Year.'
In response, I nominate the Dallas News editorial staff as Turncoat of the Year.
That disgraceful column needs to be dealt with in another blog entry, but for now I will just say that, bad as it is, it is just one more example of a long-running campaign by the ideologues of the old media, who are the greatest friends the illegal invaders could ever pray to have. They work tirelessly, these media propagandists, to create sympathy for illegal (and legal) immigrants, regardless of the merit of the immigrants. And just to vary up their propaganda, they switch from the tearjerker mode to the cynical 'embrace-the-inevitable', lie-back-and-enjoy-it, line.
They serve the same function that Tokyo Rose served for the Japanese government in World War II. They work 24/7 at wearing us down, making us resigned, and then alternately berating us as bigots and racists. They are demoralizing many people, but I wonder if they are overplaying their paltry hand, and actually provoking a backlash by arousing the ire of many otherwise disengaged readers.
So we must not give in and accept the invitation to passivity by accepting the idea that 'we can't deport 12 million people' and 'we need immigrants to keep our economy afloat' and all the rest of those unprovable assertions.
So many of the often-repeated mantras which resurface in every conversation or discussion about this issue refuse to go away. For example, my long-time readers will know that the phrase that I find most irksome and stupid is some variation of "as long as it's legal, I have no problem with any immigration. It's only the illegal kind I object to.' Yet this phrase lingers on, with few people challenging it. Why? Is it just habit, by now? Or are people really so obtuse that they can't see the problem with that statement? Or are people so self-conscious about any statement that might be called 'racist' that they hurry to cover themselves? If I accomplish one thing in 2008 I would like to get people to stop saying that phrase or any variation thereof.
Another variation I see on places like Free Republic is 'I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm anti-ILLEGAL immigrant.' This is said triumphantly in response to some article which refers to 'anti-immigration activists' and it is seen as a refutation of the 'anti-immigrant' label and a foolproof defense against the race card. Wrong. The opposition considers everybody who is not pro-open borders as racist. Period. You can cover yourself with protestations about legality and illegality and it makes not a whit of difference. To the opposition, all desire to control immigration, even in the most modest and limited fashion, is bigotry.
Let them call names. Stop playing their game by their rules. They win as long as we do that.
If we are going to prevail in this struggle, we have to stop counterproductive habits like the Politically Correct protestations about legality and illegality. Those who think that legality would make mass immigration just dandy are just not thinking.
Another unhealthy (but more politically incorrect) attitude I encounter is that of playing one minority group off against another. I hear a distressing number of people saying that 'the illegals have a much better work ethic than blacks.' What's that got to do with anything? Some people because they have had negative interactions with blacks will express a kind of Schadenfreude about illegals displacing blacks from jobs or from neighborhoods. I don't see anything to be pleased about there. And I don't see any proof of the supposed superiority of illegal Hispanics as compared to blacks.
Wishing for illegals to supplant American-born blacks is misguided to say the least.
One of the biggest obstacles to the recovery of our country is not only our corrupt political system, but their enablers in the media. However, for now, at least, we have the Internet, with some alternative voices being heard that would never get a chance in our controlled media. And the Internet, for now, is relatively free, though there are efforts to suppress real alternative voices.
We have to make the best possible use of the freedom we still have, while we still have it, and 2008 will be a crucial year, I think, not only because of the upcoming election but because I think we are coming to a point of no return. If we don't succeed in regaining our sense of ourselves and our traditions, and a common purpose, if we continue to be divided amongst ourselves while enemies come in and pillage our deteriorating homelands, we will have lost the opportunity we had.
There's still time. I believe that, and I will go into the New Year with a resolve to do all that I can. I hope that all people of goodwill have that same determination.
Labels: Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, National Suicide, Propaganda
0 comment Wednesday, April 30, 2014 | admin
At VDare, Kevin MacDonald has a review of the book by Eric P. Kaufmann, called The Fall and Rise of Anglo-America.
The full version of it can be found here.
There are discussions of it here and here, where Prozium says that
It is a sad testament to the decrepit state of American intellectual life that all of two books have been written about the most important subject in American history: the decline of its indigenous White majority. Even taken together, MacDonald and Kaufmann have barely scratched the surface of the subject. In contrast, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and volumes have been written about the Holocaust and can be easily accessed in any decent college library, an event which didn�t even take place on American soil. This fact alone speaks volumes about ethnic constitution of America�s ruling class and their priorities.''
Given the politically incorrect nature of the subject matter it is surprising that even two books have been written on the subject. I'm not sure that it can be laid at the feet of an invisible Yankee WASP elite that this is the case.
As this reviewer points out, however, similar ground was covered in Samuel P. Huntington's Who Are We?,
And speaking of 'Who Are We?', the thought occurred to me to ask: Who is Eric Kaufmann, in other words, what particular axe is he grinding? Sure, I know, there is a presumption that books like this should present facts and not prejudices, but just about everything published these days has some implicit or explicit bias. I make mine known up front on this blog. But who is Kaufmann?
In his final chapter, Kaufmann introduces his own background: a Canadian born in Hong Kong with Jewish, Chinese and Hispanic ancestry but who is, in effect, just another North American Anglo in most social situations. With this mixed heritage established, he proposes a cultural regeneration of America based around what he terms "liberal ethnicity". He suggests that Wasp identity be accepted as just another ethnic option within the range of identities available for American people. He looks to a future in which the state is culturally neutral and all ethnic identities are expressed in cultural rather than racial terms, and are hence open to anyone who wishes to participate in them, on the understanding that those buying into a new culture do not expect it to change to suit them. He even postulates a future mixed-American identity, blending Anglo, African and Indian, akin to the fusion of Aztec and Spanish in Mexico. It is so refreshing to read a generous, open and positive book on this subject - what a pity that it is Huntington who has attracted the attention.''
Ah. One of those men-without-a-country, a real cosmopolitan.
It's clear that the reviewer shares this multicult viewpoint, too.
He betrays his preconceptions in this part also:
Kaufmann opens with an account of the creation of the Wasp culture, showing how American intellectuals, from Thomas Jefferson through to Henry Adams, seized on Dark-Age Anglo-Saxon culture as a mythic point of origin.''
I like his use of the term 'Dark Age Anglo-Saxon culture.' I personally think today is the dark age of Anglo-Saxonry, and I think that tomorrow looks to be darker if people like this have their way.
His implication seems to be that American intellectuals created a make-believe origin for themselves. The reviewer being British presumably shares the same ''dark ages'' culture; is his origin mythical too?
In any case, though I haven't read Kaufmann's book, the reviews don't make me want to go out and buy it (at $60 or so) or even to order it through my local library.
Of all the viewpoints I've read in this discussion, it seems that MacDonald's is the least inimical towards WASPs and Anglo-America. I think his review offers a number of good points. For instance, this part, discussing the declining dominance by WASP intellectuals. Kaufmann sees this as having been effected by both sides, with WASPs abdicating their dominant role, as much as by deliberate efforts of Jewish intellectuals:
Kaufmann also fails to recognize that many of the basic ideas of the New York Intellectuals derived from other Jewish intellectual movements, particularly psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School. For example, the elitist, anti-populist attitudes of the Frankfurt School paralleled the attitudes of the New York Intellectuals and likely influenced them, and indeed some of the New York Intellectuals are also associated with the Frankfurt School (see Ch. 5 of C of C).
Common themes in this body of writing are hostility to American populism, the need for leadership by an elite cadre of intellectuals, and the belief that concerns about ethnic displacement and the rise of the power of ethnic minorities are irrational and indicative of psychiatric disorder.
This point should be emphasized.''
Not only in this context, but in general, I think the rise of the psychoanalytic point of view has had a massive effect on our society, in our perceptions of ourselves, of human behavior and human nature, the problem of good vs. evil, and moral responsibility. The rise of the psychoanalytic belief system coincided with the decline of traditional Christianity and the worldview that was part of it. The two belief systems are diametrically opposed, but the therapeutic faith has infiltrated much of Christianity, producing this changeling which is now so widely blamed for the fall of the West, and of Anglo-Saxon America particularly.
MacDonald also points out something that I allude to frequently: the fact that fewer people identify as Anglo-Saxon:
Even people of mixed European heritage now tend to identify with the non-Anglo-Saxon side of the family. For example, people of Italian-Scottish descent chose to identify themselves as Italian by a 3-1 ratio.''
It's generally said that only one-fifth of White Americans claim British or English origins. I wonder if someone who is expert with figures would be able to calculate how many British descendants there should be in America, based on the founding populations of English colonists 400 years ago? I should think it would be more than a paltry 20 percent of the population.
I see a tendency to oversimplify the question of what caused the fall of Anglo-America, and a danger of reducing it to 'self-hating WASPs' committing demographic suicide, as an easy alternative to what some see as the excessive blaming of Jews.
In addition, there is a popular caricature of WASPs as some kind of prim, cold, ''judgmental'' people (think: the Puritan witch-trials), and for Southrons, the WASPs have to be Yankees, as in the War Between the States. In recent years many people in the South have changed their self-identification to Celtic as a way of distancing themselves from those Yankees who were all WASPs. Actually, by the time of the War, there were many ethnic Northerners, recent immigrants or their sons, in the Union Army. They were by no means all WASPs wearing that blue uniform. And there were in fact plenty of Anglo-Normans in the gray uniform, including my kin. I think there is far too much caricaturing regarding WASPs going on.
I see also a trend toward considering the Puritan colonists as somehow a separate people from the Cavaliers who settled Virginia; again, I think that's oversimplifying. Is there that much innate difference between East Anglians and men from the South and West of England? I agree that today's Southron people are different in important ways from Northerners -- but the latter are by no means mostly WASP now, as many Southrons are. But that's another question that would need a separate blog entry.
There is a tendency to attribute excessive power to WASPs, which is absurd given that they have been underrepresented in influential positions for many decades now. Is there a vast WASP conspiracy, with crypto-WASPs passing themselves off as ethnics, controlling everything behind the scenes? Perhaps some leftists believe that, but I hope people on the right know better.
In the end does it really matter who is/was to blame for what happened in the past? As our ship is taking on water and looks ready to sink, does it help us to blame Anglo-Saxons in general, or prim Yankee Puritans? There is no identifiable Anglo-Saxon elite to hold to account. All that need concern us is: what do we do to reverse things? If we believe either that our destruction is inevitable or deserved, then let's just resign ourselves, and eat, drink, and be merry as the ship goes down.
Otherwise, it seems mostly counterproductive to verbally assail Anglo-Saxons for what has happened to America. I suppose, however, they are an easy target as so few will rise to their defense. A few bloggers out there will defend our Anglo heritage, and I give them credit (Old Atlantic, for one) but they are thin on the ground. So yes, it's easy to beat up on a group that does not even perceive itself to exist as a group, or see themselves as a group worth defending.
And if we completely demolish and discredit Anglo-Saxons as some kind of congenitally self-hating neurotics, as Austin Bramwell depicted them in a recent piece, then how can we salvage what is left of our Anglo heritage, or any kind of American identity that does not substantially include Anglo-Saxons?
What is left would be a hollowed-out America indeed.
It is, however, useful to try to unravel what is still going on now that prevents people from defending their people and their heritage, and their children's future. Along those lines, I would like to examine a lot of unexamined things, certain sacred cows of our time, one being that psychoanalytic belief system, and the way it has changed our society and our thinking in destructive ways. We might find more under that rock than poking around trying to find ways in which those old Puritan fathers caused this mess that we find ourselves in.
The full version of it can be found here.
There are discussions of it here and here, where Prozium says that
It is a sad testament to the decrepit state of American intellectual life that all of two books have been written about the most important subject in American history: the decline of its indigenous White majority. Even taken together, MacDonald and Kaufmann have barely scratched the surface of the subject. In contrast, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and volumes have been written about the Holocaust and can be easily accessed in any decent college library, an event which didn�t even take place on American soil. This fact alone speaks volumes about ethnic constitution of America�s ruling class and their priorities.''
Given the politically incorrect nature of the subject matter it is surprising that even two books have been written on the subject. I'm not sure that it can be laid at the feet of an invisible Yankee WASP elite that this is the case.
As this reviewer points out, however, similar ground was covered in Samuel P. Huntington's Who Are We?,
And speaking of 'Who Are We?', the thought occurred to me to ask: Who is Eric Kaufmann, in other words, what particular axe is he grinding? Sure, I know, there is a presumption that books like this should present facts and not prejudices, but just about everything published these days has some implicit or explicit bias. I make mine known up front on this blog. But who is Kaufmann?
In his final chapter, Kaufmann introduces his own background: a Canadian born in Hong Kong with Jewish, Chinese and Hispanic ancestry but who is, in effect, just another North American Anglo in most social situations. With this mixed heritage established, he proposes a cultural regeneration of America based around what he terms "liberal ethnicity". He suggests that Wasp identity be accepted as just another ethnic option within the range of identities available for American people. He looks to a future in which the state is culturally neutral and all ethnic identities are expressed in cultural rather than racial terms, and are hence open to anyone who wishes to participate in them, on the understanding that those buying into a new culture do not expect it to change to suit them. He even postulates a future mixed-American identity, blending Anglo, African and Indian, akin to the fusion of Aztec and Spanish in Mexico. It is so refreshing to read a generous, open and positive book on this subject - what a pity that it is Huntington who has attracted the attention.''
Ah. One of those men-without-a-country, a real cosmopolitan.
It's clear that the reviewer shares this multicult viewpoint, too.
He betrays his preconceptions in this part also:
Kaufmann opens with an account of the creation of the Wasp culture, showing how American intellectuals, from Thomas Jefferson through to Henry Adams, seized on Dark-Age Anglo-Saxon culture as a mythic point of origin.''
I like his use of the term 'Dark Age Anglo-Saxon culture.' I personally think today is the dark age of Anglo-Saxonry, and I think that tomorrow looks to be darker if people like this have their way.
His implication seems to be that American intellectuals created a make-believe origin for themselves. The reviewer being British presumably shares the same ''dark ages'' culture; is his origin mythical too?
In any case, though I haven't read Kaufmann's book, the reviews don't make me want to go out and buy it (at $60 or so) or even to order it through my local library.
Of all the viewpoints I've read in this discussion, it seems that MacDonald's is the least inimical towards WASPs and Anglo-America. I think his review offers a number of good points. For instance, this part, discussing the declining dominance by WASP intellectuals. Kaufmann sees this as having been effected by both sides, with WASPs abdicating their dominant role, as much as by deliberate efforts of Jewish intellectuals:
Kaufmann also fails to recognize that many of the basic ideas of the New York Intellectuals derived from other Jewish intellectual movements, particularly psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School. For example, the elitist, anti-populist attitudes of the Frankfurt School paralleled the attitudes of the New York Intellectuals and likely influenced them, and indeed some of the New York Intellectuals are also associated with the Frankfurt School (see Ch. 5 of C of C).
Common themes in this body of writing are hostility to American populism, the need for leadership by an elite cadre of intellectuals, and the belief that concerns about ethnic displacement and the rise of the power of ethnic minorities are irrational and indicative of psychiatric disorder.
This point should be emphasized.''
Not only in this context, but in general, I think the rise of the psychoanalytic point of view has had a massive effect on our society, in our perceptions of ourselves, of human behavior and human nature, the problem of good vs. evil, and moral responsibility. The rise of the psychoanalytic belief system coincided with the decline of traditional Christianity and the worldview that was part of it. The two belief systems are diametrically opposed, but the therapeutic faith has infiltrated much of Christianity, producing this changeling which is now so widely blamed for the fall of the West, and of Anglo-Saxon America particularly.
MacDonald also points out something that I allude to frequently: the fact that fewer people identify as Anglo-Saxon:
Even people of mixed European heritage now tend to identify with the non-Anglo-Saxon side of the family. For example, people of Italian-Scottish descent chose to identify themselves as Italian by a 3-1 ratio.''
It's generally said that only one-fifth of White Americans claim British or English origins. I wonder if someone who is expert with figures would be able to calculate how many British descendants there should be in America, based on the founding populations of English colonists 400 years ago? I should think it would be more than a paltry 20 percent of the population.
I see a tendency to oversimplify the question of what caused the fall of Anglo-America, and a danger of reducing it to 'self-hating WASPs' committing demographic suicide, as an easy alternative to what some see as the excessive blaming of Jews.
In addition, there is a popular caricature of WASPs as some kind of prim, cold, ''judgmental'' people (think: the Puritan witch-trials), and for Southrons, the WASPs have to be Yankees, as in the War Between the States. In recent years many people in the South have changed their self-identification to Celtic as a way of distancing themselves from those Yankees who were all WASPs. Actually, by the time of the War, there were many ethnic Northerners, recent immigrants or their sons, in the Union Army. They were by no means all WASPs wearing that blue uniform. And there were in fact plenty of Anglo-Normans in the gray uniform, including my kin. I think there is far too much caricaturing regarding WASPs going on.
I see also a trend toward considering the Puritan colonists as somehow a separate people from the Cavaliers who settled Virginia; again, I think that's oversimplifying. Is there that much innate difference between East Anglians and men from the South and West of England? I agree that today's Southron people are different in important ways from Northerners -- but the latter are by no means mostly WASP now, as many Southrons are. But that's another question that would need a separate blog entry.
There is a tendency to attribute excessive power to WASPs, which is absurd given that they have been underrepresented in influential positions for many decades now. Is there a vast WASP conspiracy, with crypto-WASPs passing themselves off as ethnics, controlling everything behind the scenes? Perhaps some leftists believe that, but I hope people on the right know better.
In the end does it really matter who is/was to blame for what happened in the past? As our ship is taking on water and looks ready to sink, does it help us to blame Anglo-Saxons in general, or prim Yankee Puritans? There is no identifiable Anglo-Saxon elite to hold to account. All that need concern us is: what do we do to reverse things? If we believe either that our destruction is inevitable or deserved, then let's just resign ourselves, and eat, drink, and be merry as the ship goes down.
Otherwise, it seems mostly counterproductive to verbally assail Anglo-Saxons for what has happened to America. I suppose, however, they are an easy target as so few will rise to their defense. A few bloggers out there will defend our Anglo heritage, and I give them credit (Old Atlantic, for one) but they are thin on the ground. So yes, it's easy to beat up on a group that does not even perceive itself to exist as a group, or see themselves as a group worth defending.
And if we completely demolish and discredit Anglo-Saxons as some kind of congenitally self-hating neurotics, as Austin Bramwell depicted them in a recent piece, then how can we salvage what is left of our Anglo heritage, or any kind of American identity that does not substantially include Anglo-Saxons?
What is left would be a hollowed-out America indeed.
It is, however, useful to try to unravel what is still going on now that prevents people from defending their people and their heritage, and their children's future. Along those lines, I would like to examine a lot of unexamined things, certain sacred cows of our time, one being that psychoanalytic belief system, and the way it has changed our society and our thinking in destructive ways. We might find more under that rock than poking around trying to find ways in which those old Puritan fathers caused this mess that we find ourselves in.
Labels: Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Saxon Heritage, Cosmopolitanism, Multiculturalism, National Question, National Suicide, Western Decline