0 comment Wednesday, November 5, 2014 | admin
Someone posted a link over on Free Republic, to a list of various types of conservatives. The three broad categories are Secular Right, Religious Right, and -- 'Xenophobic Right.' I don't quite appreciate their designation of that last category, for obvious reasons. They are putting a label which implies some kind of pathology on what is essentially a normal desire to live amongst one's own, and not to be dominated by nor surrounded by people of differing origins and ways.
A few years ago, before I started this blog, I might have been in a different category, but I definitely fall into the third category, which needs to be re-labeled with a less disparaging and condemnatory name.
The list does illustrate, if nothing else, the disparate strains within what is called 'conservatism' in this country, and it emphasizes why it is hard to create any kind of unity. How can we unify all these strands, or can it be done at all?
Which category do you belong to, if any?
A few years ago, before I started this blog, I might have been in a different category, but I definitely fall into the third category, which needs to be re-labeled with a less disparaging and condemnatory name.
The list does illustrate, if nothing else, the disparate strains within what is called 'conservatism' in this country, and it emphasizes why it is hard to create any kind of unity. How can we unify all these strands, or can it be done at all?
Which category do you belong to, if any?
Labels: Conservatism, Ethnoconservatism, Far Right, Nationalism, Nativism, Politics, The Right
0 comment | admin
I've just come from a forum where a group of people, mostly British, were discussing the question of whether to emigrate from their country (as the media have been telling us they are doing), or to stay and try to defend and preserve their country, or what may be left of it after decades of mass immigration and multicultural madness.
The discussion somewhat mirrored the one(s) we've had on this blog over the last year or so.
I recently read another discussion on Gates of Vienna, I believe, which dealt with the possibility of secession here in our country, as well as emigration. I could not locate the thread when I went back to find the link. In any case, it was an interesting thread, and it turned my mind again towards those issues.
When we last discussed emigration here on this blog, I was somewhat ambivalent. I can understand the impulse to flight, and I at times think it might be the only way to cope with what is promising to be a rather troubled future for our country. But at the same time, I find my views are inclining more in favor of the 'stand our ground' option.
For my own part, I am not in a position to run away. I have family ties and responsibilities as well as other strongly-rooted affections that make me inclined to hold fast in this country. I suppose those who are young, who have few responsibilities and roots as yet, as well as the youthful urge to experience the wider world, might be better candidates for leaving this country and settling elsewhere.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that most other Western or Anglosphere countries have immigration problems and leftist tyrannies of their own to deal with, it just seems to me that the 'flight' option is essentially making it easy for the invaders, and conceding defeat to them.
The departure of a great many of our younger citizens would mean that a great many older people would be left at the 'tender mercies' of the invading peoples, who have no love for us. This is not something that a real 'conservative' or traditionalist would do; respect for elders is a core conservative principle, and a Western chivalrous principle, I would say. And for Christians, honoring fathers and mothers (and to me, this includes our forefathers in general) is incumbent on us. Walking away leaving vulnerable elders behind is not the most honorable choice. I suppose if you subscribe to the 'every man for himself' and 'the devil take the hindmost' principles, it might be just fine.
But to me, it's not worthy of our heritage to take that attitude.
I've always been one who loved to travel, and I enjoyed my time on the other side of the pond, but during my sojourn there, I became acutely aware that it was not home, even though I have great affection for the British Isles as the home of most of my ancestors. I love the people and the way of life, or at least the real cultures of those lands, pre-multicult. I've seen the people as they are, and I love them as my kin, but I love my kin here in America more, and I love this land and its beauties most of all the places I've seen. 'Breathes there the man with soul so dead', as Scott wrote.
And though I met many people on the other side of the Atlantic who were very kind and hospitable to me (along with some who were not, just as anywhere), I was made aware that they regarded me as an American, a 'Yank' if you please, and though they might regard me as kin, I did not really belong there.
Maybe if one emigrates at a very young and malleable age, one might assimilate to the new country's culture and ways and habits. I think older people are not quite so readily adaptable.
A while back, I mentioned those regular commenters at AmRen and other such forums who are always urging people to run off to Europe. The one recent comment which I found particularly obnoxious boasted of going to Costa Rica, and saying that he was leaving the 'white miscreants' in this country to hold off the invading hordes. This poster had a pseudonym (or was it his real name?) which sounded very central European. Maybe that person never really belonged here among us American 'miscreants', or at least his attitude indicates. So good riddance to him; we don't need fair-weather friends or unassimilated ethnics. As for the choice of Costa Rica, or any Central American destination, I can only shake my head. I know some people claim that C.R. is mostly White, but I suspect that the demographics are rather different in reality than on paper. In any case, even if I believed those claims, I would not choose a Latin American country. I have had enough exposure to their culture and ways that I could not feel at home in any Latin country. I have a passable command of Spanish, but the very sound of the language has come to grate on my ears. I would not emigrate there.
But as for these people who post on various forums encouraging flight, I suspect their motives. I wonder if they are not people with an agenda, purposely trying to encourage self-exile of race-realist Whites, so as to remove the biggest obstacle to the complete remaking of this country.
I remember in our earlier discussion the point was made by a commenter that if we run to another country, we will in fact be doing to others what we so dislike being done to us: we would be going to another country, possibly a country to which other Americans have fled, perhaps settling in an enclave. I think that's a valid point. I choose not to be a thorn in somebody else's side, or an opportunist taking advantage of other people and asking for a piece of their birthright. That would, I think, make me a beggar like those who come here asking for a share in our inheritance.
The world has gone insane, it seems, with this mass movement of peoples in every direction -- mostly from the Third World, have-not sector to the successful First World, but also now with a lesser movement of Western peoples towards various destinations. Ultimately it's going to result in psychological as well as cultural and racial dislocation and confusion on a worldwide scale.
Some people say that our Pilgrim/Puritan ancestors were engaging in 'flight' when they set sail from England (or Holland) for the New World. I disagree. The situation was not analogous to present-day Western whites running away from a troubling situation, hoping only to avoid confrontation with the invaders or the tyrants presiding over this debacle. The Pilgrims and other colonists were not running away because they wanted the path of least resistance or the quick way out; they wanted to make a fresh start and create something new from scratch in a pristine new environment, in a sparsely-populated wilderness. If we had a similar prospect now, it might be a positive thing to leave and start a new society, our way. But there is no new frontier, no pristine wilderness in which we can start afresh. There's only the choice of going from the multicultural frying-pan into the multicultural fire somewhere else. Or, at best, it might be a delaying of the inevitable, if we choose to go to a country which, in five or ten years, may well be as bad or worse as what we may have left behind.
Given that there is supposedly a plan afoot to bring 56 million immigrants into Europe, that continent hardly seems the haven that the AmRen 'flight' proponents tell us it is. The same applies to most of the places emigrants might pick as destinations.
This may be it for us; do we make the best of it, and stick together, or do we all head for the lifeboats?
The discussion somewhat mirrored the one(s) we've had on this blog over the last year or so.
I recently read another discussion on Gates of Vienna, I believe, which dealt with the possibility of secession here in our country, as well as emigration. I could not locate the thread when I went back to find the link. In any case, it was an interesting thread, and it turned my mind again towards those issues.
When we last discussed emigration here on this blog, I was somewhat ambivalent. I can understand the impulse to flight, and I at times think it might be the only way to cope with what is promising to be a rather troubled future for our country. But at the same time, I find my views are inclining more in favor of the 'stand our ground' option.
For my own part, I am not in a position to run away. I have family ties and responsibilities as well as other strongly-rooted affections that make me inclined to hold fast in this country. I suppose those who are young, who have few responsibilities and roots as yet, as well as the youthful urge to experience the wider world, might be better candidates for leaving this country and settling elsewhere.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that most other Western or Anglosphere countries have immigration problems and leftist tyrannies of their own to deal with, it just seems to me that the 'flight' option is essentially making it easy for the invaders, and conceding defeat to them.
The departure of a great many of our younger citizens would mean that a great many older people would be left at the 'tender mercies' of the invading peoples, who have no love for us. This is not something that a real 'conservative' or traditionalist would do; respect for elders is a core conservative principle, and a Western chivalrous principle, I would say. And for Christians, honoring fathers and mothers (and to me, this includes our forefathers in general) is incumbent on us. Walking away leaving vulnerable elders behind is not the most honorable choice. I suppose if you subscribe to the 'every man for himself' and 'the devil take the hindmost' principles, it might be just fine.
But to me, it's not worthy of our heritage to take that attitude.
I've always been one who loved to travel, and I enjoyed my time on the other side of the pond, but during my sojourn there, I became acutely aware that it was not home, even though I have great affection for the British Isles as the home of most of my ancestors. I love the people and the way of life, or at least the real cultures of those lands, pre-multicult. I've seen the people as they are, and I love them as my kin, but I love my kin here in America more, and I love this land and its beauties most of all the places I've seen. 'Breathes there the man with soul so dead', as Scott wrote.
And though I met many people on the other side of the Atlantic who were very kind and hospitable to me (along with some who were not, just as anywhere), I was made aware that they regarded me as an American, a 'Yank' if you please, and though they might regard me as kin, I did not really belong there.
Maybe if one emigrates at a very young and malleable age, one might assimilate to the new country's culture and ways and habits. I think older people are not quite so readily adaptable.
A while back, I mentioned those regular commenters at AmRen and other such forums who are always urging people to run off to Europe. The one recent comment which I found particularly obnoxious boasted of going to Costa Rica, and saying that he was leaving the 'white miscreants' in this country to hold off the invading hordes. This poster had a pseudonym (or was it his real name?) which sounded very central European. Maybe that person never really belonged here among us American 'miscreants', or at least his attitude indicates. So good riddance to him; we don't need fair-weather friends or unassimilated ethnics. As for the choice of Costa Rica, or any Central American destination, I can only shake my head. I know some people claim that C.R. is mostly White, but I suspect that the demographics are rather different in reality than on paper. In any case, even if I believed those claims, I would not choose a Latin American country. I have had enough exposure to their culture and ways that I could not feel at home in any Latin country. I have a passable command of Spanish, but the very sound of the language has come to grate on my ears. I would not emigrate there.
But as for these people who post on various forums encouraging flight, I suspect their motives. I wonder if they are not people with an agenda, purposely trying to encourage self-exile of race-realist Whites, so as to remove the biggest obstacle to the complete remaking of this country.
I remember in our earlier discussion the point was made by a commenter that if we run to another country, we will in fact be doing to others what we so dislike being done to us: we would be going to another country, possibly a country to which other Americans have fled, perhaps settling in an enclave. I think that's a valid point. I choose not to be a thorn in somebody else's side, or an opportunist taking advantage of other people and asking for a piece of their birthright. That would, I think, make me a beggar like those who come here asking for a share in our inheritance.
The world has gone insane, it seems, with this mass movement of peoples in every direction -- mostly from the Third World, have-not sector to the successful First World, but also now with a lesser movement of Western peoples towards various destinations. Ultimately it's going to result in psychological as well as cultural and racial dislocation and confusion on a worldwide scale.
Some people say that our Pilgrim/Puritan ancestors were engaging in 'flight' when they set sail from England (or Holland) for the New World. I disagree. The situation was not analogous to present-day Western whites running away from a troubling situation, hoping only to avoid confrontation with the invaders or the tyrants presiding over this debacle. The Pilgrims and other colonists were not running away because they wanted the path of least resistance or the quick way out; they wanted to make a fresh start and create something new from scratch in a pristine new environment, in a sparsely-populated wilderness. If we had a similar prospect now, it might be a positive thing to leave and start a new society, our way. But there is no new frontier, no pristine wilderness in which we can start afresh. There's only the choice of going from the multicultural frying-pan into the multicultural fire somewhere else. Or, at best, it might be a delaying of the inevitable, if we choose to go to a country which, in five or ten years, may well be as bad or worse as what we may have left behind.
Given that there is supposedly a plan afoot to bring 56 million immigrants into Europe, that continent hardly seems the haven that the AmRen 'flight' proponents tell us it is. The same applies to most of the places emigrants might pick as destinations.
This may be it for us; do we make the best of it, and stick together, or do we all head for the lifeboats?
Labels: Demographics, Ethnic Solidarity, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, White Flight
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 Monday, October 20, 2014 | admin
This article, by Frank Zoretich, appeared in the Albuquerque Tribune nearly seven years ago, in 2000.It's a lengthy piece, reporting on the ideas of Charles Truxillo, a 'Professor of Chicano Studies' who said that the
Southwest shall secede from U.S.
Charles Truxillo, a professor of Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico, suggests "República del Norte" would be a good name for a new, sovereign Hispanic nation he foresees straddling the current border between the United States and Mexico.
The Republic of the North -- he predicts its creation as "an inevitability" -- would include all of the present U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, plus southern Colorado."
Stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, it would also include the northern tier of current Mexican states: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas.
Its capital would probably be Los Angeles. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being "by any means necessary."
But in a recent interview at a coffee shop near the UNM campus, Truxillo said it was "unlikely" civil war would attend its birth.
Instead, he said, the creation of the Republic of the North will be accomplished by political process, by the "electoral pressure" of the future majority Hispanic population throughout the region rather than by violence.
"Not within the next 20 years but within 80 years," he said. "I may not live to see the Hispanic homeland, but by the end of the century my students' kids will live in it, sovereign and free."
Truxillo said it's his task to help develop a "cadre of intellectuals" to begin thinking about the practicalities of how the Republic of the North can become a reality.''
A cadre of intellectuals? Please; I have seen your Chicano 'intellectuals' and they have not a shred of logic or wisdom or knowledge in a whole crowd of them. They are irrational, childish, and lacking in respect for truth and facts.
In the past, of course, wars have erupted when states seceded from either parent nation -- including the U.S. Civil War to keep the South in the Union and, in Truxillo's quick description, "the Alamo and all that" when Texas declared itself independent of Mexico.
Truxillo said the U.S. Civil War settled the question of secession militarily but not in a legal sense. States do have the right to secede, he maintained, if -- as was untrue in the 1860s -- the rest of the country is willing to let them go.''
Let me interject here: Truxillo may be an affirmative action professor of some bogus discipline called 'Chicano studies' but he is ignorant here as regards state's rights. But let's go on:
How realistic is it? That's one of the key issues," Truxillo said. "It's not unfeasible as a premise -- and a realistic possibility when you consider global geopolitical trends. It could happen with the support of the U.S. government."
Yes, and obviously our rogue U.S. government is providing its full support to you and your co-ethnics.
He listed a number of international developments that he said would have seemed "far-fetched in the 1950s," including the breakup of the Soviet Union, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the apparently imminent creation of an independent West Bank Palestinian state agreed to by Israel, and ballot-box separatist movements aimed at achieving a Quebec independent of Canada.
The "tide of history" is moving the U.S.-Mexico border region toward political autonomy, Truxillo said.''
Well, I can't gainsay him there; it looks as though, tragically for us, he was right.
Truxillo goes on to relate how he 'learned' the 'truth' about the Southwest being stolen from his Hispanic ancestors by evil Anglos. He learned this from a radical 'Chicano' who, in 1967, participated in a takeover of a courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, N.M. He claims that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, by which Mexico surrendered claim to the Southwest, was not legitimate, and that the United States had not honored the terms of that treaty.
None of the rights of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were fulfilled," he told Tijerina. "None of the obligations were upheld. You told us this was our country, our patria, and that we should fight for our rights, that all colonized and exploited peoples should rise up in struggle for independence.
"We will one day be a majority and reclaim our birthright by any means necessary -- and we shouldn't shy away."
[emphasis mine]
Who told Truxillo that he and his people (and why aren't Americans your people, Charles? You're American-born, probably of American-born parents) should 'fight for their rights'? Or that 'all colonized and exploited peoples should rise up in struggle for independence'? Which of our founders said that? To take that Marxist nonsense as being part of American tradition is to pervert American tradition, which is what I said was happening: the enemies of the West, including unfortunately our homegrown enemies, pervert the meaning of our Constitution and our founding philosophies, just as they steal and corrupt the teachings of Christianity.
But notice his ominous words about Mexicans reclaiming 'their birthright' by any means necessary.
Even now, despite all the visible evidence that this takeover effort is well underway, there are the usual suspects, who try to dismiss the reconquista as a 'myth' and a conspiracy theory. And then there are the pestilential bleeding-heart types who say 'I know lots of very nice Hispanic people; it's only a few who are the extremists.' Heaven save us from the nice, stupid people in our country.
Truxillo says that some American-born Hispanics will resist the reconquista idea, but he predicted they would have a kind of identity crisis as the momentum for Hispanic independence grows. This is something I have predicted, too: Americanized Hispanics may seem to be on our side but many, especially the young, will find they are ambivalent and conflicted, and may become re-Hispanicized and ethnically militant, as young Moslems in Europe have done. Blood is thicker than 'national ideals.' Ethnicity trumps the 'proposition nation'. Truxillo's words:
There will be the negative reaction, the tortured response of someone who thinks, 'Give me a break. I just want to go to Wal-Mart.' But the idea will seep into their consciousness, and cause an internal crisis, a pain of conscience, an internal dialogue as they ask themselves: 'Who am I in this system?'"
Along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border "there is a growing fusion, a reviving of connections," Truxillo said. "Southwest Chicanos and Norteño Mexicanos are becoming one people again."
Read the rest of the article. The Anglo-American professors who are consulted by the reporter have their heads stuck in the sand, although to be fair, this was in 2000, before the illegal invasion was as far advanced as it is now. I wonder if these professors were interviewed today, would they have changed their tune?
A La Raza activist, Pena, is interviewed, and he says that Mexicans were, at that time, not organized enough to mount a successful independence movement. He notes, tellingly, that a 'Chicano' separatist movement couldn't have succeeded because they lacked the firepower. Now, of course, they have several tens of millions of footsoldiers within our borders, some of them heavily armed gang members. And even more importantly, they are accomplishing their objective without having to use the firepower; they are doing it the easy way, by demographics and manipulation of the native Anglo population -- and with the willing collaboration of the government.
If Truxillo and his reconquista buddies retake this country, it won't have been accomplished honorably or legitimately; it will have been done by sneaky, underhanded means, by stealth, deception, and manipulation. Again, our basic chivalric values are being used against us by sneaks and opportunists.
This link quotes Truxillo, in another source, saying
'A new age of nationalism is sweeping the planet. Norteños are like Palestinians, Quebecois and Sri Lanka Tamils.''
However, I don't believe that, once having achieved a solid majority and control of the institutions in the Southwest that this new 'Aztlan' would actually secede or declare autonomy. No way. They will simply remain attached to the U.S. Why be independent and become another loser country like Mexico if you can cling to Uncle Sam and his moneybags? And further, they are smart enough to realize that they can control the entire country if they simply keep doing what they are doing now. They would be extremely foolish to stop with the Southwest. I am sure these grasping reconquistadores won't settle for less than the whole country. They've already decided that as 'indigenous' people, this whole continent is rightfully theirs.
By any means necessary, as he said.
Obviously Truxillo and his fellow reconquistadores have counted us out already. He is counting on our nationalism not asserting itself in opposition to his. Maybe this 'new age of nationalism' he is talking about may hold some surprises for him and his invader friends.
Labels: Const, Demographics, Illegal Immigration, Mexico, Nationalism, Revisionist History
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 Thursday, September 18, 2014 | admin
Paul Belien at Brussels Journal asks 'Are We All Nazis Now?'
Sadly, I think that, as seen through the distorted lens of the neocons, the answer is 'yes.' All of us who believe in nationalism in any way, shape, or form are 'nazis' or 'fascists' or extremists. Again, we can split hairs over nationalism vs. patriotism, or quibble over whether a nation or a state are the same thing, and we can argue about whether a nation and a people are the same. But neocons care only about the nation as a set of propositions, or a geographical entity, not a nation as a distinct, historic group of people based on kinship and ancestry. Anybody who does care about these things, intrinsic though they are to the traditional understanding of nation, is a nazi.
Belien describes the whole furore over the Vlaams Belang over on a certain 'conservative' forum, and I won't go into detail on that as it has been discussed in minute detail already by others. I think most of us here are familiar with the basics of it. But Belien describes the attitude of one of his American hosts in the context of the current debate:
As Roger Scruton says it needs courage to brave the charges of racism, xenophobia or neo-Nazism in order to speak out. This courage is what Europe lacks.
Unfortunately, some Americans realize that Europe is in for a disaster but seem to think that it is only getting what it deserves. Europe has to be destroyed by the Muslims as a punishment for the Nazis� crimes during WWII. Last year, I was invited to speak about the situation in Europe at one of America�s major universities. For two days my host subjected me to the most terrible accusations. He told me I would have to suffer for what my ancestors had done to his ancestors. "One cannot respect the Europeans," he said. "America should have nuked Europe during WWII instead of Japan. If ever things turn nasty in Europe I will make sure that neither you nor any white European will be allowed to seek shelter in the US. I would rather invite the Muslims in than you and your lot, because one can respect Muslims but not Europeans." Since my host was Jewish and had lost his family in the war I could understand his anger, but not his short-sightedness. I think he did not mean all he said, though it was an upsetting experience and one of the most unpleasant moments in my life.''
[emphasis mine]
I can fully believe that an American would say this kind of thing. I have heard this kind of anti-European self-righteousness from a number of 'conservative' Americans, and I have to say, in all honesty, it disgusts me as much as 'racism' or 'xenophobia' disgust the neocons and their leftist cousins. It should disgust us even more; why? Because it amounts to turning on our own in favor of outsiders, which by my lights is an unnatural thing to do. There is something inverted about taking the side of outsiders (the professor says he would rather have Moslems than Europeans in our country) against one's own. However, to be fair to the professor who made the ugly comments, he obviously does not consider Europeans his kin, and probably not even European-descended Americans. His kinship circle does not include those among whom he lives. And this seems to be true of many neocons. I am reminded of an ugly exchange I had with a neocon 'Texan' who told me that Mexican illegals were better Americans than I am because I was a xenophobe who wanted to exclude people from this country. There are plenty on the so-called right with similar sympathies. To them, their country is just an address with a transient population.
But to return to Belien's post, he describes the dispute over Vlaams Belang, and the reasons for the American neocons' vendetta against it.
Last week almost 80 people from 15 European countries, plus sympathizers from the US, Canada and Israel, convened in the European Parliament in Brussels to discuss a common strategy to fight Islamism. This important and historical event, which shows that there still is a fighting spirit among some Europeans, has been criticized by Charles Johnson, the owner of Little Green Footballs, an influential American neo-conservative website, because members of the Vlaams Belang were present. Though the VB did not organize the conference, it provided an important part of the logistics and the security of those attending. Johnson says the VB is a neo-Nazi party. His arguments are:
(1) that the party abstained in the European Parliament from approving the above mentioned Holocaust resolution;
(2) that early this month the party organized a "white supremacist" demonstration;
(3) that Nazi skinheads applaud the party;
(4) that neo-Nazis link to VB videos.''
So there we are: guilt by association. This is the kind of thing leftists use; it's their stock-in-trade, when they want to smear somebody. We see the left and the neocons trying to smear Ron Paul for similar reasons: supposedly 'neo-Nazis' and 'racists' have supported him so by association he must be one of them. Might I remind those on the left that the Communist Party almost always endorses the Democrat candidate? In response, Democrats will hastily say that 'the candidate has no control over their choice to endorse him, and besides, the Communists are a pathetically irrelevant party, with few members, and the Right is paranoid about the insignificant Communists.'
We can rightly say the same thing about these right-wing bogeymen the neocons and leftists like to bring up: how many actual 'neo-Nazis' are there in this country, or anywhere in the West? And groups like the SPLC are not a good authority on such matters; periodically they put out their propaganda about a vast 'right-wing extremist' conspiracy out to wreak violence, but there is no evidence in real life of any such threat. A few extremists out there do not a movement make. So why all this hysteria and condemnation over a mostly imaginary 'right-wing extremist' movement? It's just a scare tactic, to keep people within the accepted bounds of political dialogue, which these days is strictly limited, ranging from the far left to the so-called 'right' which represents more the rightward edge of liberalism than it represents anything conservative. The so-called 'right' in America is more often liberalism with a hawkish edge.
On another blog's comments section, I asked, in sincerity, are neocons simply half-converted liberals, or are they Gramscian moles in conservative parties? In some cases, I truly suspect the latter to be true. We know that the Gramscian idea was to infiltrate every institution, including academia, churches, and yes, political parties, and slowly transform them in the left's image, with leftist/liberal values. It looks very much to me like this is what has happened, and is happening.
Now, I am not saying that every person who spouts neocon ideology is a Gramscian leftist; many people have simply been influenced by these ideas which have been let loose in our society, via the media (Fox News, talk radio, 'conservative' punditry, 'right-wing' blogs and forums) and they truly do not realize that what they believe is at odds with what traditional America stood for, or with Western Christian values. They know that their admired political leaders and pastors and talk-radio personalities and neighbors and fellow country-club members believe the same things, and people tend to absorb the ideas of those they identify with.
So without even realizing it, many people inadvertently absorbed many liberal values and presuppositions because these ideas permeate our national atmosphere. They don't realize how liberal those ideas are.
On the Brussels Journal thread, a commenter named darrinh says the following:
It is remarkable how neo-cons go into throes of self-flagellation whenever nationalism is mentioned. Both LGF and TimBlair.net do this. By using the same catch-cries of the left, all they are doing really is assisting the Islamic propaganda machine and ultimately, despite their best intentions, will fail in the struggle against an enemy who does not care for such niceties.
The road to hell was indeed paved by good intentions and is maintained by the reasonable man. I do not intend to be that reasonable man.''
Amen.
The commenter above also mentions an important point: this division and competing for PC purity among Westerners is weakening us.
I would like to ask the 'conservatives' who are so holier-than-thou with anything they deem to be 'extremist', do you honestly, in your heart-of-hearts, believe that there is a resurgent 'nazism' waiting to happen in Europe or in America? Why? Do you believe, with most leftists, that people of European descent have some kind of gene for 'hatred' or 'fascism', some kind of atavistic Berserker gene which will cause them to revert to a barbaric past and start some kind of violent purge of foreigners in the West? If you believe that, isn't that a 'racist' attitude towards Europeans? I say it is, and since liberals and neocons have established that we can arbitrarily call anything 'racist', with or without proof, I say it's racist to accuse European-descended people of innate 'fascism.' And some have come quite close to doing that, notably some like the neocon hawk Ralph Peters, who bizarrely vacillates between fulminating against Islam and all its works and all its pomps, and fulminating against the 'Islamophobes', especially those in Europe, who are just itching to take up the sword against Islam again.
On one of the blogs where this whole furor is being discussed, an angry commenter defends the counterjihadist blogger who is at the center of it, saying that he does a great service by telling Americans and others of the 'horrors of Islam.' Now, I am always baffled by the many Americans who will zealously and angrily defend their favorite personalities, whether a pundit, a blogger, or a talk radio host -- or a President. If only we in the West had this kind of loyalty and zeal for our people and our civilization as we display for a personality or a political party or a president, then we would assuredly not be in this terrible predicament vis-a-vis Islam or immigrant invasions. I think this, too, is one of the unhappy fruits of the inroads of leftism: since allegiance to our people is now in disrepute, and since loyalty to kin and nation has been declared tantamount to Nazism, then the natural, normal, healthy, wholesome, good tendency to fight for one's own has been re-channeled, diverted into unnatural 'us-vs.-them' factions, such as political party and personality cults, cults of political figures and vacuous celebrities and false religious leaders. This is all a perversion of natural human tendency to ally with a group.
There is just something pathetic about being fighting mad over words, over someone 'dissing' your favorite blogger or favorite talk radio pundit or your political party. It's pathetic because it is an unnatural thing.
Over on Free Republic, when people post news stories, they are allowed to alter or add to headlines and make 'editorializing' comments thereby. The other day, a news story announced 'scientist predicts humans to split into two branches'. The poster had added: 'Conservatives and liberals?' What an illustrative question. To the people who frequent Free Republic, the most important division among human beings is 'conservative vs. liberal.' Truly. Or more accurately, 'Republican vs. Democrat.' There are people there who defend illegal immigrants, some doing so quite angrily and forcibly. Some will defend 'moderate Muslims' but Democrats and liberals are the root of all evil in the world. I can sympathize somewhat, because liberals and leftists have wrought considerable destruction to our world and our way of life. Though liberals disclaim violence as a tactic, there is more than one kind of violence, and their effort to dismantle and pull down our traditonal societies has caused a great deal of destruction and yes, even loss of life. But there is always the possibility that a liberal might become more conservative, or have a complete change of heart. It has happened. Whereas some people are congenitally our enemies, and will never be really on our side.
So here is where I part company, vehemently, with neocons. They really, honestly, seem to think that their fellow countrymen or Westerners who are more right wing than they are (and that could include a lot of people) are a more serious danger than Islam at its worst. They would rather risk terror attacks by Moslems in our countries than to be 'Islamophobic' enough to ban Moslem immigration or deport anyone. To me, this is proof positive that their thinking is deranged. Should another terror attack happen (as our blithely feckless government assures us it will), it will be partly on the head of the neocons who are too squeamish or too holier-than-thou to expel anyone. They would rather die and see other Westerners die than deport -- because that would be 'extremist', you see. In that respect, how are they one whit different from the leftists? How?
And as for the counterjihad bloggers who are praised by their followers for doing such great service, I have mixed feelings. I used to be a regular visitor to some of those blogs and forums, and I did learn from what I read there -- but on the other hand, 9/11 taught me all I needed to know about Islam. Actually, I had an inkling before that terrible day. Way back in 1972, after the terror attacks at the Munich Olympics, I wrote about the violent fruits of Islam. So I knew the score on Islam back then, but little did I notice, in the intervening decades, how many Moslems were quietly slipping into our country and setting up shop here. I think few of us realized there was a conscious policy of colonizing, and establishing their presence and power by degrees in Western countries.
The counterjihad blogs and forums do a good service -- but if those who run them stop short of recommending deportation or exclusion, what then? After they have spent years warning everyone about the dangerous designs of Islam on the West, about the violent admonitions of the Koran and the Hadiths, after years (it's more than six years since 9/11, after all!) of recounting many horror stories, what now? After years of telling us of honor killings, beheadings, rapes, bombings, terror threats, random attacks in our country and elsewhere, reports of cruel punishments in Islamic lands, slavery, repression, persecution, desecrations of churches, what now? What's our move, if not deportations, or at the very minimum, stopping all Moslem immigration? What is the point of all the hand-wringing, the warning, the lamenting, if there is nothing we can do about it except to wage an endless, expensive war 'over there, so we don't have to fight them over here?'
And why are some of the most ardent supporters of the 'War on Terror' and of the war in Iraq the most vehement opponents of deporting or excluding Moslems? Does that make sense? It's 'mean' and hateful to deport or exclude, but sending an army into their countries is just dandy?
What is the solution to the Islamic problem? What do the neocons who think deportation is racist propose we do then? Do they think we can convert them? Kill them with kindness? Intermarry with them? Convert en masse? Pay jizya to make them stop killing us? Accommodate to them? Or do they believe we can reform Islam? Make them 'enter the 21st century' as some optimists say we must do? How do we do that?
If the counterjihad blogs and forums are nothing more than places to vent or tsk-tsk about the latest atrocity in some far-off corner of Araby, then what good is that? Is it just a way to defuse and channel some of the anti-Islamic fears and frustrations?
It appears to me that some of these forums are essentially just a debating society or a way to defuse some of the fear or anger. If there is no solution, if we categorically rule out the most obvious solution, why even bother to spend so much of one's life thinking about the problem and talking about it?
Those on the left will continue to denounce anyone who holds the forbidden 'nationalist' views, because that is what they do. But how can a conservative believe that nationalism and the desire to protect and preserve one's country and culture is evil and wrong? It seems we are seeing who is truly conservative and who is not.
And as far as the irrelevant idea of some of the European parties having been associated with Nazism or collaborationists -- excuse me. That was more than six decades ago. Most of the people alive and active in that era of history are now long since dead. Why is anyone trying to keep that dead past alive? And before someone invokes the Holocaust, I have to say the same as I would say about slavery: what does that have to do with today's generation? The Moslems are the main enemies of Jews today; why pretend that Europeans are a threat? And why dredge up history as a weapon to use against people of today who had no part in the events of six or more decades ago? I suppose my patience is wearing thin for those whose main identity has to do with victimhood. The guilt industry and the concomitant victim industry are the main factors in the inability of the West to claim the natural right to self-defense, and the God-given right to exist.
Sadly, I think that, as seen through the distorted lens of the neocons, the answer is 'yes.' All of us who believe in nationalism in any way, shape, or form are 'nazis' or 'fascists' or extremists. Again, we can split hairs over nationalism vs. patriotism, or quibble over whether a nation or a state are the same thing, and we can argue about whether a nation and a people are the same. But neocons care only about the nation as a set of propositions, or a geographical entity, not a nation as a distinct, historic group of people based on kinship and ancestry. Anybody who does care about these things, intrinsic though they are to the traditional understanding of nation, is a nazi.
Belien describes the whole furore over the Vlaams Belang over on a certain 'conservative' forum, and I won't go into detail on that as it has been discussed in minute detail already by others. I think most of us here are familiar with the basics of it. But Belien describes the attitude of one of his American hosts in the context of the current debate:
As Roger Scruton says it needs courage to brave the charges of racism, xenophobia or neo-Nazism in order to speak out. This courage is what Europe lacks.
Unfortunately, some Americans realize that Europe is in for a disaster but seem to think that it is only getting what it deserves. Europe has to be destroyed by the Muslims as a punishment for the Nazis� crimes during WWII. Last year, I was invited to speak about the situation in Europe at one of America�s major universities. For two days my host subjected me to the most terrible accusations. He told me I would have to suffer for what my ancestors had done to his ancestors. "One cannot respect the Europeans," he said. "America should have nuked Europe during WWII instead of Japan. If ever things turn nasty in Europe I will make sure that neither you nor any white European will be allowed to seek shelter in the US. I would rather invite the Muslims in than you and your lot, because one can respect Muslims but not Europeans." Since my host was Jewish and had lost his family in the war I could understand his anger, but not his short-sightedness. I think he did not mean all he said, though it was an upsetting experience and one of the most unpleasant moments in my life.''
[emphasis mine]
I can fully believe that an American would say this kind of thing. I have heard this kind of anti-European self-righteousness from a number of 'conservative' Americans, and I have to say, in all honesty, it disgusts me as much as 'racism' or 'xenophobia' disgust the neocons and their leftist cousins. It should disgust us even more; why? Because it amounts to turning on our own in favor of outsiders, which by my lights is an unnatural thing to do. There is something inverted about taking the side of outsiders (the professor says he would rather have Moslems than Europeans in our country) against one's own. However, to be fair to the professor who made the ugly comments, he obviously does not consider Europeans his kin, and probably not even European-descended Americans. His kinship circle does not include those among whom he lives. And this seems to be true of many neocons. I am reminded of an ugly exchange I had with a neocon 'Texan' who told me that Mexican illegals were better Americans than I am because I was a xenophobe who wanted to exclude people from this country. There are plenty on the so-called right with similar sympathies. To them, their country is just an address with a transient population.
But to return to Belien's post, he describes the dispute over Vlaams Belang, and the reasons for the American neocons' vendetta against it.
Last week almost 80 people from 15 European countries, plus sympathizers from the US, Canada and Israel, convened in the European Parliament in Brussels to discuss a common strategy to fight Islamism. This important and historical event, which shows that there still is a fighting spirit among some Europeans, has been criticized by Charles Johnson, the owner of Little Green Footballs, an influential American neo-conservative website, because members of the Vlaams Belang were present. Though the VB did not organize the conference, it provided an important part of the logistics and the security of those attending. Johnson says the VB is a neo-Nazi party. His arguments are:
(1) that the party abstained in the European Parliament from approving the above mentioned Holocaust resolution;
(2) that early this month the party organized a "white supremacist" demonstration;
(3) that Nazi skinheads applaud the party;
(4) that neo-Nazis link to VB videos.''
So there we are: guilt by association. This is the kind of thing leftists use; it's their stock-in-trade, when they want to smear somebody. We see the left and the neocons trying to smear Ron Paul for similar reasons: supposedly 'neo-Nazis' and 'racists' have supported him so by association he must be one of them. Might I remind those on the left that the Communist Party almost always endorses the Democrat candidate? In response, Democrats will hastily say that 'the candidate has no control over their choice to endorse him, and besides, the Communists are a pathetically irrelevant party, with few members, and the Right is paranoid about the insignificant Communists.'
We can rightly say the same thing about these right-wing bogeymen the neocons and leftists like to bring up: how many actual 'neo-Nazis' are there in this country, or anywhere in the West? And groups like the SPLC are not a good authority on such matters; periodically they put out their propaganda about a vast 'right-wing extremist' conspiracy out to wreak violence, but there is no evidence in real life of any such threat. A few extremists out there do not a movement make. So why all this hysteria and condemnation over a mostly imaginary 'right-wing extremist' movement? It's just a scare tactic, to keep people within the accepted bounds of political dialogue, which these days is strictly limited, ranging from the far left to the so-called 'right' which represents more the rightward edge of liberalism than it represents anything conservative. The so-called 'right' in America is more often liberalism with a hawkish edge.
On another blog's comments section, I asked, in sincerity, are neocons simply half-converted liberals, or are they Gramscian moles in conservative parties? In some cases, I truly suspect the latter to be true. We know that the Gramscian idea was to infiltrate every institution, including academia, churches, and yes, political parties, and slowly transform them in the left's image, with leftist/liberal values. It looks very much to me like this is what has happened, and is happening.
Now, I am not saying that every person who spouts neocon ideology is a Gramscian leftist; many people have simply been influenced by these ideas which have been let loose in our society, via the media (Fox News, talk radio, 'conservative' punditry, 'right-wing' blogs and forums) and they truly do not realize that what they believe is at odds with what traditional America stood for, or with Western Christian values. They know that their admired political leaders and pastors and talk-radio personalities and neighbors and fellow country-club members believe the same things, and people tend to absorb the ideas of those they identify with.
So without even realizing it, many people inadvertently absorbed many liberal values and presuppositions because these ideas permeate our national atmosphere. They don't realize how liberal those ideas are.
On the Brussels Journal thread, a commenter named darrinh says the following:
It is remarkable how neo-cons go into throes of self-flagellation whenever nationalism is mentioned. Both LGF and TimBlair.net do this. By using the same catch-cries of the left, all they are doing really is assisting the Islamic propaganda machine and ultimately, despite their best intentions, will fail in the struggle against an enemy who does not care for such niceties.
The road to hell was indeed paved by good intentions and is maintained by the reasonable man. I do not intend to be that reasonable man.''
Amen.
The commenter above also mentions an important point: this division and competing for PC purity among Westerners is weakening us.
I would like to ask the 'conservatives' who are so holier-than-thou with anything they deem to be 'extremist', do you honestly, in your heart-of-hearts, believe that there is a resurgent 'nazism' waiting to happen in Europe or in America? Why? Do you believe, with most leftists, that people of European descent have some kind of gene for 'hatred' or 'fascism', some kind of atavistic Berserker gene which will cause them to revert to a barbaric past and start some kind of violent purge of foreigners in the West? If you believe that, isn't that a 'racist' attitude towards Europeans? I say it is, and since liberals and neocons have established that we can arbitrarily call anything 'racist', with or without proof, I say it's racist to accuse European-descended people of innate 'fascism.' And some have come quite close to doing that, notably some like the neocon hawk Ralph Peters, who bizarrely vacillates between fulminating against Islam and all its works and all its pomps, and fulminating against the 'Islamophobes', especially those in Europe, who are just itching to take up the sword against Islam again.
On one of the blogs where this whole furor is being discussed, an angry commenter defends the counterjihadist blogger who is at the center of it, saying that he does a great service by telling Americans and others of the 'horrors of Islam.' Now, I am always baffled by the many Americans who will zealously and angrily defend their favorite personalities, whether a pundit, a blogger, or a talk radio host -- or a President. If only we in the West had this kind of loyalty and zeal for our people and our civilization as we display for a personality or a political party or a president, then we would assuredly not be in this terrible predicament vis-a-vis Islam or immigrant invasions. I think this, too, is one of the unhappy fruits of the inroads of leftism: since allegiance to our people is now in disrepute, and since loyalty to kin and nation has been declared tantamount to Nazism, then the natural, normal, healthy, wholesome, good tendency to fight for one's own has been re-channeled, diverted into unnatural 'us-vs.-them' factions, such as political party and personality cults, cults of political figures and vacuous celebrities and false religious leaders. This is all a perversion of natural human tendency to ally with a group.
There is just something pathetic about being fighting mad over words, over someone 'dissing' your favorite blogger or favorite talk radio pundit or your political party. It's pathetic because it is an unnatural thing.
Over on Free Republic, when people post news stories, they are allowed to alter or add to headlines and make 'editorializing' comments thereby. The other day, a news story announced 'scientist predicts humans to split into two branches'. The poster had added: 'Conservatives and liberals?' What an illustrative question. To the people who frequent Free Republic, the most important division among human beings is 'conservative vs. liberal.' Truly. Or more accurately, 'Republican vs. Democrat.' There are people there who defend illegal immigrants, some doing so quite angrily and forcibly. Some will defend 'moderate Muslims' but Democrats and liberals are the root of all evil in the world. I can sympathize somewhat, because liberals and leftists have wrought considerable destruction to our world and our way of life. Though liberals disclaim violence as a tactic, there is more than one kind of violence, and their effort to dismantle and pull down our traditonal societies has caused a great deal of destruction and yes, even loss of life. But there is always the possibility that a liberal might become more conservative, or have a complete change of heart. It has happened. Whereas some people are congenitally our enemies, and will never be really on our side.
So here is where I part company, vehemently, with neocons. They really, honestly, seem to think that their fellow countrymen or Westerners who are more right wing than they are (and that could include a lot of people) are a more serious danger than Islam at its worst. They would rather risk terror attacks by Moslems in our countries than to be 'Islamophobic' enough to ban Moslem immigration or deport anyone. To me, this is proof positive that their thinking is deranged. Should another terror attack happen (as our blithely feckless government assures us it will), it will be partly on the head of the neocons who are too squeamish or too holier-than-thou to expel anyone. They would rather die and see other Westerners die than deport -- because that would be 'extremist', you see. In that respect, how are they one whit different from the leftists? How?
And as for the counterjihad bloggers who are praised by their followers for doing such great service, I have mixed feelings. I used to be a regular visitor to some of those blogs and forums, and I did learn from what I read there -- but on the other hand, 9/11 taught me all I needed to know about Islam. Actually, I had an inkling before that terrible day. Way back in 1972, after the terror attacks at the Munich Olympics, I wrote about the violent fruits of Islam. So I knew the score on Islam back then, but little did I notice, in the intervening decades, how many Moslems were quietly slipping into our country and setting up shop here. I think few of us realized there was a conscious policy of colonizing, and establishing their presence and power by degrees in Western countries.
The counterjihad blogs and forums do a good service -- but if those who run them stop short of recommending deportation or exclusion, what then? After they have spent years warning everyone about the dangerous designs of Islam on the West, about the violent admonitions of the Koran and the Hadiths, after years (it's more than six years since 9/11, after all!) of recounting many horror stories, what now? After years of telling us of honor killings, beheadings, rapes, bombings, terror threats, random attacks in our country and elsewhere, reports of cruel punishments in Islamic lands, slavery, repression, persecution, desecrations of churches, what now? What's our move, if not deportations, or at the very minimum, stopping all Moslem immigration? What is the point of all the hand-wringing, the warning, the lamenting, if there is nothing we can do about it except to wage an endless, expensive war 'over there, so we don't have to fight them over here?'
And why are some of the most ardent supporters of the 'War on Terror' and of the war in Iraq the most vehement opponents of deporting or excluding Moslems? Does that make sense? It's 'mean' and hateful to deport or exclude, but sending an army into their countries is just dandy?
What is the solution to the Islamic problem? What do the neocons who think deportation is racist propose we do then? Do they think we can convert them? Kill them with kindness? Intermarry with them? Convert en masse? Pay jizya to make them stop killing us? Accommodate to them? Or do they believe we can reform Islam? Make them 'enter the 21st century' as some optimists say we must do? How do we do that?
If the counterjihad blogs and forums are nothing more than places to vent or tsk-tsk about the latest atrocity in some far-off corner of Araby, then what good is that? Is it just a way to defuse and channel some of the anti-Islamic fears and frustrations?
It appears to me that some of these forums are essentially just a debating society or a way to defuse some of the fear or anger. If there is no solution, if we categorically rule out the most obvious solution, why even bother to spend so much of one's life thinking about the problem and talking about it?
Those on the left will continue to denounce anyone who holds the forbidden 'nationalist' views, because that is what they do. But how can a conservative believe that nationalism and the desire to protect and preserve one's country and culture is evil and wrong? It seems we are seeing who is truly conservative and who is not.
And as far as the irrelevant idea of some of the European parties having been associated with Nazism or collaborationists -- excuse me. That was more than six decades ago. Most of the people alive and active in that era of history are now long since dead. Why is anyone trying to keep that dead past alive? And before someone invokes the Holocaust, I have to say the same as I would say about slavery: what does that have to do with today's generation? The Moslems are the main enemies of Jews today; why pretend that Europeans are a threat? And why dredge up history as a weapon to use against people of today who had no part in the events of six or more decades ago? I suppose my patience is wearing thin for those whose main identity has to do with victimhood. The guilt industry and the concomitant victim industry are the main factors in the inability of the West to claim the natural right to self-defense, and the God-given right to exist.
Labels: Deportation, Europe, Extremism, Jihad, Nationalism, Political Correctness, Repatriation, Vlaams Belang
0 comment Thursday, September 4, 2014 | admin
Behold the face of Political Correctness: Willie Rae, Chief Constable of the Strathclyde Police.During his statement, after the Glasgow attack, in which he allowed that the Airport incident 'was terrorism', he proceeded to go into the obligatory song-and-dance about how the authorities would not tolerate any kind of 'harassment' of the local 'minority communities' and that any such behavior would be dealt with.
How typical of our weakling Western authorities now. It's a ritual that whenever any attack is made on citizens, even one in which lives are lost and people are injured and maimed, we have to be subjected to such lectures by our authorities, who obviously think that preserving the feelings of 'minority communities' is their chief mission. What it means is that we would rather see innocent lives sacrificed and people horribly killed and maimed rather than 'offend' any of our 'minority communities.' It's beginning to look as though our authorities, who are ostensibly charged with providing for our safety and security, instead see themselves as charged with protecting 'minority communities' from the rest of us.
I remember that Willie Rae's London counterpart, 'Sir' Ian Blair, made a disgustingly dhimmi-like speech just after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005. He said something about how the word violence and the word Islam do not belong together, and that terrorism is the work of merely a tiny minority of extremists, etc. etc. You know how the speech goes.
Our Western leaders are saying implicitly that they will see many of their own citizens dead rather than risk being mean to Moslems. So 'profiling' and exclusion of Mohammedans is not even to be discussed or considered or thought. 'Fairness' and tolerance and openness take precedence over life and survival itself.
Is this not the definition of derangement? Or is it just craven cowardice? Or is it ideological tunnel vision?
And as if Willie Rae was not bad enough, here we have Alex Salmond, Scotland's 'first minister' lecturing the Scottish people:
Mr Salmond appealed for calm, following the attack at Glasgow Airport, while stressing that steps were being taken to keep people safe.
He also told BBC Scotland that individuals, not communities, were responsible for their actions.
[...]
"No community in Scotland should feel threatened or under suspicion because of this incident."
Community relations in Scotland, he said, were strong, adding: "They've withstood a number of pressures over recent years and they'll withstand this pressure as well." '
Translation: the multicultural agenda will go on as before, regardless of its cost to human life, to civil liberties, and to the quality of life in Scotland or elsewhere. And the people will have to like it and go along with it, or else. You can be sure that any Scottish or British citizen who offends the protected Moslems will be dealt with much more harshly than any apprehended terror suspects, who will be treated with kid gloves and protected by various liberal organizations like Amnesty International.
And here in our country, it is not much better; whenever any terror plot is uncovered, the media are full of stories about the 'backlash' that never happens, and our elected officials lecture us in the same way that the PC-addled officials in the UK lecture their people. Something is really, seriously wrong with this picture.
The news coverage on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC follow the usual PC template, with inane questions from the anchors and the usual talking heads providing their useless commentary. The British correspondent Simon Marks, when asked about immigration and terror, immediately got up on his high horse and said that the 7/7 attacks were done by British citizens, and that therefore they had nothing to do with immigration.. How obtuse can one get? Of course the bombers
may have been technically 'British nationals', to use the very legalistic term, but in no sense were they part of the historic British nation and the historic British people. The very fact of their alien origins and their alien belief system is the source of their desire to do harm to British people. But this must not be acknowledged; it might offend other such 'British nationals' who nonetheless hate their adopted country and culture.
One side note: Alex Salmond, quoted above, is the leader of the Scottish National Party. Now, traditionally Scottish nationalists (like Irish and Welsh nationalists in their countries) championed their right to be free of English domination. These nationalist parties denounce the wrongs of the Sassenachs dating back hundreds of years. So why on earth do each and all of these parties support multiculturalism and the presence of Moslems and other foreign cultures in their midst? Wasn't the idea for Scotland to be under Scottish control, with a fully Scottish culture and way of life? If not, then what does nationalism mean, or what use is it? The English at their worst could never be as inimical to Scotland (or Ireland or Wales) than the Moslems and other such unassimilable alien peoples.
I noticed that some paleocons have applauded the rise of the SNP and the other nationalist parties, oblivious to the fact that these faux nationalists support the leftist, multicult agenda, and hence are no friends of true nationalism.
A 'nationalism' that stands for political correctness and multicult ideas is not what is needed in any Western country now, in these days of mass immigration, demographic warfare, and jihad.
What is needed, first of all, is a containment of Islam within its own sphere. The adnerents of that cult have proven time and again that they are both unwilling and incapable of living peaceably among non-Moslems.
Labels: Illegal Immigration, Nationalism, Political Correctness, Terrorism, War On Terror
0 comment Thursday, August 28, 2014 | admin
Over at the Forum, commenter cabbageroll has started a topic: Freedom and Separatism.
She asks:
''Does "Inherent Human Freedom" allow people to declare independence/secede from their countries?''
This has bearing on a lot of the issues we have discussed here, like various independence movements in Europe as well as with the War Between the States aka the War of Secession or the 'Civil War' in this country. It's a subject that seems to be more relevant than ever these days. So I hope some of you will click over to the Forum and add your two cents to the discussion.
She asks:
''Does "Inherent Human Freedom" allow people to declare independence/secede from their countries?''
This has bearing on a lot of the issues we have discussed here, like various independence movements in Europe as well as with the War Between the States aka the War of Secession or the 'Civil War' in this country. It's a subject that seems to be more relevant than ever these days. So I hope some of you will click over to the Forum and add your two cents to the discussion.
Labels: Balkanization, Freedom Of Association, Nationalism, Secession, Self-Determination
0 comment Sunday, August 17, 2014 | admin
England, Your England
From The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius, 1941
George Orwell, it is true, was a leftist; but the leftists of his day were apparently not the same breed as the nihilistic, life-hating leftists of today -- or it may simply be that he was a much more clear-thinking and honest man than his fellow leftists.
But whichever is the case, it is true, without a doubt, that the England of his time bears scant resemblance to the England or the United Kingdom of our day.
In the above-linked essay, England, Your England, written during World War II, he discusses the English character. Now today, the epithet 'English' is rarely used, as it is considered too exclusive, too restricted. It makes all those diverse residents of today's UK feel left out, offended, and persecuted, so the adjective 'English' is used far less than it was in Orwell's day.
But Orwell makes some very interesting observations about the English character, and patriotism, and discussing, as we have been, the present sad state of the UK, it is instructive to look at what he says. As we read his words, we might ponder whether the character of the country still persists, or whether that mysterious force called patriotism can be summoned up to revive Orwell's country.
One cannot see the modern world as it is unless one recognizes the overwhelming strength of patriotism, national loyalty. In certain circumstances it can break down, at certain levels of civilization it does not exist, but as a positive force there is nothing to set beside it. Christianity and international Socialism are as weak as straw in comparison with it. Hitler and Mussolini rose to power in their own countries very largely because they could grasp this fact and their opponents could not.
Also, one must admit that the divisions between nation and nation are founded on real differences of outlook. Till recently it was thought proper to pretend that all human beings are very much alike, but in fact anyone able to use his eyes knows that the average of human behaviour differs enormously from country to country. Things that could happen in one country could not happen in another. Hitler's June purge, for instance, could not have happened in England. And, as western peoples go, the English are very highly differentiated. There is a sort of back-handed admission of this in the dislike which nearly all foreigners feel for our national way of life. Few Europeans can endure living in England, and even Americans often feel more at home in Europe.
When you come back to England from any foreign country, you have immediately the sensation of breathing a different air. Even in the first few minutes dozens of small things conspire to give you this feeling. The beer is bitterer, the coins are heavier, the grass is greener, the advertisements are more blatant. The crowds in the big towns, with their mild knobby faces, their bad teeth and gentle manners, are different from a European crowd. Then the vastness of England swallows you up, and you lose for a while your feeling that the whole nation has a single identifiable character. Are there really such things as nations? Are we not forty-six million individuals, all different? And the diversity of it, the chaos! The clatter of clogs in the Lancashire mill towns, the to-and-fro of the lorries on the Great North Road, the queues outside the Labour Exchanges, the rattle of pin-tables in the Soho pubs, the old maids hiking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn morning � all these are not only fragments, but characteristic fragments, of the English scene. How can one make a pattern out of this muddle?
But talk to foreigners, read foreign books or newspapers, and you are brought back to the same thought. Yes, there is something distinctive and recognizable in English civilization. It is a culture as individual as that of Spain. It is somehow bound up with solid breakfasts and gloomy Sundays, smoky towns and winding roads, green fields and red pillar-boxes. It has a flavour of its own. Moreover it is continuous, it stretches into the future and the past, there is something in it that persists, as in a living creature. What can the England of 1940 have in common with the England of 1840? But then, what have you in common with the child of five whose photograph your mother keeps on the mantelpiece? Nothing, except that you happen to be the same person.
And above all, it is your civilization, it is you. However much you hate it or laugh at it, you will never be happy away from it for any length of time. The suet puddings and the red pillar-boxes have entered into your soul. Good or evil, it is yours, you belong to it, and this side the grave you will never get away from the marks that it has given you.
Meanwhile England, together with the rest of the world, is changing. And like everything else it can change only in certain directions, which up to a point can be foreseen. That is not to say that the future is fixed, merely that certain alternatives are possible and others not. A seed may grow or not grow, but at any rate a turnip seed never grows into a parsnip. It is therefore of the deepest importance to try and determine what England is, before guessing what part England can play in the huge events that are happening.''
If only Orwell could have known just how much England would change, and in how short a time. What would he have thought? Of course he foresaw the totalitarian trends which would develop in the years ahead; he was quite prescient in that regard. But I wonder if, as a leftist, he would have envisioned multiculturalism and the 'war against the people' by the Western elites?
Still, if we re-read the passages above, we see that Orwell clearly believed that there was an intrinsic national character, and that it persisted in spite of profound societal changes. He alludes to the changes between 1840 and 1940, and declares, that in spite of those changes, the people are still the same.
He clearly says that the whole nation has 'a single, identifiable character' and he seems to mean that the nation, through time, maintains that character.
He also says something quite important: that the divisions between nations are founded on real differences of outlook; the divisions from one nation to another reflect the innate differences. They are not simply a matter of geopolitical boundaries, or lines arbitrarily drawn on a map. Of course there have been and are 'nations' which are merely artificially-drawn nations, with no unifying genetic or cultural bonds. Iraq comes to mind, and increasingly, our own country -- and the UK. There are unfortunate consequences that follow in creating these unnatural 'nations' which are no nations. We are seeing those consequences playing out in the UK, in our country, and throughout the West.
To return to Orwell's description of the English character:
Here are a couple of generalizations about England that would be accepted by almost all observers. One is that the English are not gifted artistically. They are not as musical as the Germans or Italians, painting and sculpture have never flourished in England as they have in France. Another is that, as Europeans go, the English are not intellectual. They have a horror of abstract thought, they feel no need for any philosophy or systematic 'world-view�. Nor is this because they are 'practical�, as they are so fond of claiming for themselves. [...]
But they have a certain power of acting without taking thought. Their world-famed hypocrisy � their double-faced attitude towards the Empire, for instance � is bound up with this. Also, in moments of supreme crisis the whole nation can suddenly draw together and act upon a species of instinct, really a code of conduct which is understood by almost everyone, though never formulated. The phrase that Hitler coined for the Germans, 'a sleep-walking people�, would have been better applied to the English. Not that there is anything to be proud of in being called a sleep-walker.
But here it is worth noting a minor English trait which is extremely well marked though not often commented on, and that is a love of flowers. This is one of the first things that one notices when one reaches England from abroad, especially if one is coming from southern Europe. Does it not contradict the English indifference to the arts? Not really, because it is found in people who have no aesthetic feelings whatever. What it does link up with, however, is another English characteristic which is so much a part of us that we barely notice it, and that is the addiction to hobbies and spare-time occupations, the privateness of English life. We are a nation of flower-lovers, but also a nation of stamp-collectors, pigeon-fanciers, amateur carpenters, coupon-snippers, darts-players, crossword-puzzle fans. All the culture that is most truly native centres round things which even when they are communal are not official � the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the 'nice cup of tea�. The liberty of the individual is still believed in, almost as in the nineteenth century. But this has nothing to do with economic liberty, the right to exploit others for profit. It is the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above. The most hateful of all names in an English ear is Nosey Parker. It is obvious, of course, that even this purely private liberty is a lost cause. Like all other modern people, the English are in process of being numbered, labelled, conscripted, 'co-ordinated�. But the pull of their impulses is in the other direction, and the kind of regimentation that can be imposed on them will be modified in consequence.'' [Emphasis mine]
First, I am struck by the extent to which much of what Orwell says about the English character can also be applied to Americans, most importantly the part about the belief in the liberty of the individual. Too often we here in America like to claim that we invented this love of liberty, or that it sprang full-grown here among our colonists, like Athena from the head of Zeus. No; it is part of our British heritage. And the more weakened our ties to our old colonial heritage, the more we lose that natural aptitude for freedom. I believe the 'melting pot' philosophy watered down our essential strengths and gifts, and the more 'diverse' our country becomes, the greater the distance between us and our founding ancestors. This is no less true in the UK as they dilute their indigenous heritage via mass immigration.
But here, we come to the part in which Orwell notes the essential gentleness of the English, and their natural aversion to martial pursuits:
One can learn a good deal about the spirit of England from the comic coloured postcards that you see in the windows of cheap stationers� shops. These things are a sort of diary upon which the English people have unconsciously recorded themselves. Their old-fashioned outlook, their graded snobberies, their mixture of bawdiness and hypocrisy, their extreme gentleness, their deeply moral attitude to life, are all mirrored there.
The gentleness of the English civilization is perhaps its most marked characteristic. You notice it the instant you set foot on English soil. It is a land where the bus conductors are good-tempered and the policemen carry no revolvers. In no country inhabited by white men is it easier to shove people off the pavement. And with this goes something that is always written off by European observers as 'decadence� or hypocrisy, the English hatred of war and militarism. It is rooted deep in history, and it is strong in the lower-middle class as well as the working class.
[...]
In peace time, even when there are two million unemployed, it is difficult to fill the ranks of the tiny standing army, which is officered by the country gentry and a specialized stratum of the middle class, and manned by farm labourers and slum proletarians. The mass of the people are without military knowledge or tradition, and their attitude towards war is invariably defensive. No politician could rise to power by promising them conquests or military 'glory�, no Hymn of Hate has ever made any appeal to them.''
As we saw in the O'Sullivan article which I blogged on, the gentleness of British society is their vulnerability, with the presence of so many hostile and violent outsiders, who have at best a sullen indifference toward the native British people and at worst, a burning hostility to them. We here in this country are probably made vulnerable by the same traits, although they may be less marked in America, because of our mixed heritage. We, too, are by nature more polite, more hospitable, and too welcoming and trusting for our own good. This is true to some extent of all Western European peoples, but especially so of the English and Anglo-derived peoples in the West. It is said that J.R.R. Tolkien modeled the Hobbits after the English; they were essentially a gentle, stay-at-home, family-and-hearth people.
Here again, Orwell describes the English regard for the law, and the idea of the Rule of Law, which we too have traditionally valued very highly in America:
And yet the gentleness of English civilization is mixed up with barbarities and anachronisms. Our criminal law is as out-of-date as the muskets in the Tower. Over against the Nazi Storm Trooper you have got to set that typically English figure, the hanging judge, some gouty old bully with his mind rooted in the nineteenth century, handing out savage sentences. In England people are still hanged by the neck and flogged with the cat o� nine tails. Both of these punishments are obscene as well as cruel, but there has never been any genuinely popular outcry against them. People accept them (and Dartmoor, and Borstal) almost as they accept the weather. They are part of 'the law�, which is assumed to be unalterable.
[Note - Orwell apparently didn't foresee that the British would abolish capital punishment, thanks to leftism, and become very lenient, too lenient, in their treatment of criminals.]
Here one comes upon an all-important English trait: the respect for constitutionalism and legality, the belief in 'the law� as something above the State and above the individual, something which is cruel and stupid, of course, but at any rate incorruptible.
It is not that anyone imagines the law to be just. Everyone knows that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. But no one accepts the implications of this, everyone takes it for granted that the law, such as it is, will be respected, and feels a sense of outrage when it is not. Remarks like 'They can't run me in; I haven't done anything wrong�, or 'They can't do that; it's against the law�, are part of the atmosphere of England. The professed enemies of society have this feeling as strongly as anyone else.
[...]
Everyone believes in his heart that the law can be, ought to be, and, on the whole, will be impartially administered. The totalitarian idea that there is no such thing as law, there is only power, has never taken root. Even the intelligentsia have only accepted it in theory.
[...]
In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are very powerful illusions.''
I wonder to what extent that last is still true in Britain? Leftism and post-modernism, as taught by the left-controlled media and government, have seemingly weakened such beliefs. And here in America, the same is true, although I think we are a few steps behind the British on that path. We would do well to reverse our course before we reach the point where our British cousins seem to be.
Orwell talks about the sense of national unity, which seems to be very precarious in the UK at this time, with so many nationalities and races, each with their own 'communities' and allegiances, and with the indigenous British people so weakened in their national identity due to leftism and its anti-nationalistic jihad.
Up to a point, the sense of national unity is a substitute for a 'world-view�. Just because patriotism is all but universal and not even the rich are uninfluenced by it, there can be moments when the whole nation suddenly swings together and does the same thing, like a herd of cattle facing a wolf. There was such a moment, unmistakably, at the time of the disaster in France. After eight months of vaguely wondering what the war was about, the people suddenly knew what they had got to do: first, to get the army away from Dunkirk, and secondly to prevent invasion. It was like the awakening of a giant. Quick! Danger! The Philistines be upon thee, Samson! And then the swift unanimous action � and, then, alas, the prompt relapse into sleep. In a divided nation that would have been exactly the moment for a big peace movement to arise. But does this mean that the instinct of the English will always tell them to do the right thing? Not at all, merely that it will tell them to do the same thing. In the 1931 General Election, for instance, we all did the wrong thing in perfect unison. We were as single-minded as the Gadarene swine. But I honestly doubt whether we can say that we were shoved down the slope against our will.''
The sense of unity, the oneness in spirit and in national character, is what enabled Britain during the War to pull together and to survive. Without that sense of national unity, survival is doubtful.
One more little trivial note: Orwell, in that last passage, makes a couple of Biblical allusions: the reference to the Philistines and Samson, and the reference to the Gadarene swine. Do any leftists of today recognize such allusions, and would any leftist dare to refer to the Bible today, other than those leftists wearing backwards collars? I doubt it. And even among the general population, how many British people would recognize those Biblical references or names, or know the symbolism inherent therein? Precious few, and I am afraid that even in a more 'religious' country like America, not many are Biblically literate enough to get the allusions. My point is not just to lament that we in America are not the Biblically-conversant country we once were, or that Britain has lost its religion (though both are cause for lament) but also that we no longer have a common grounding in Western culture; we no longer have these common reference points and cultural bonds which enabled us to speak in shorthand amongst ourselves. We can no longer make such an allusion, whether Biblical or from the old classics, or from Shakespeare, and trust that our readers or hearers will understand. To that extent, we are weaker and less connected. Such is the fruit of multiculturalism. It eats away at the cultural connections and bonds.
But Orwell, later in the essay, concludes that
England is not the jewelled isle of Shakespeare's much-quoted message, nor is it the inferno depicted by Dr Goebbels. More than either it resembles a family, a rather stuffy Victorian family, with not many black sheep in it but with all its cupboards bursting with skeletons. It has rich relations who have to be kow-towed to and poor relations who are horribly sat upon, and there is a deep conspiracy of silence about the source of the family income. It is a family in which the young are generally thwarted and most of the power is in the hands of irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts. Still, it is a family. It has its private language and its common memories, and at the approach of an enemy it closes its ranks. A family with the wrong members in control � that, perhaps, is as near as one can come to describing England in a phrase.''
I've often used the family as the analogy for our American nation; at first, we were truly a kin group, a nation in the original sense, and later our family circle expanded to welcome in those who became ours by adoption. Now, the family analogy is being stretched to the breaking point. If the family's would-be new members are simply there to exploit and to plunder, and have no wish to join the family circle and conform to the family and its ways, then there is no more family; it's everybody for himself.
And I have no doubt that to use Orwell's analogy, the British family, or what still remains of it, has the wrong members in control -- as do we in America.
Will Britain recover this natural character of which Orwell writes, or will the corrosive influences, in John O'Sullivan's parlance, have destroyed the essential character and the strengths of the British family?
We will see, because it appears that Britain is being tested by very difficult circumstances, just as we are.
And as cousins, we and the British should try to restore the lost connections between us, so as to offer help and support, if only moral support, to each other -- as 'the Philistines are upon us' both.
From The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius, 1941
George Orwell, it is true, was a leftist; but the leftists of his day were apparently not the same breed as the nihilistic, life-hating leftists of today -- or it may simply be that he was a much more clear-thinking and honest man than his fellow leftists.
But whichever is the case, it is true, without a doubt, that the England of his time bears scant resemblance to the England or the United Kingdom of our day.
In the above-linked essay, England, Your England, written during World War II, he discusses the English character. Now today, the epithet 'English' is rarely used, as it is considered too exclusive, too restricted. It makes all those diverse residents of today's UK feel left out, offended, and persecuted, so the adjective 'English' is used far less than it was in Orwell's day.
But Orwell makes some very interesting observations about the English character, and patriotism, and discussing, as we have been, the present sad state of the UK, it is instructive to look at what he says. As we read his words, we might ponder whether the character of the country still persists, or whether that mysterious force called patriotism can be summoned up to revive Orwell's country.
One cannot see the modern world as it is unless one recognizes the overwhelming strength of patriotism, national loyalty. In certain circumstances it can break down, at certain levels of civilization it does not exist, but as a positive force there is nothing to set beside it. Christianity and international Socialism are as weak as straw in comparison with it. Hitler and Mussolini rose to power in their own countries very largely because they could grasp this fact and their opponents could not.
Also, one must admit that the divisions between nation and nation are founded on real differences of outlook. Till recently it was thought proper to pretend that all human beings are very much alike, but in fact anyone able to use his eyes knows that the average of human behaviour differs enormously from country to country. Things that could happen in one country could not happen in another. Hitler's June purge, for instance, could not have happened in England. And, as western peoples go, the English are very highly differentiated. There is a sort of back-handed admission of this in the dislike which nearly all foreigners feel for our national way of life. Few Europeans can endure living in England, and even Americans often feel more at home in Europe.
When you come back to England from any foreign country, you have immediately the sensation of breathing a different air. Even in the first few minutes dozens of small things conspire to give you this feeling. The beer is bitterer, the coins are heavier, the grass is greener, the advertisements are more blatant. The crowds in the big towns, with their mild knobby faces, their bad teeth and gentle manners, are different from a European crowd. Then the vastness of England swallows you up, and you lose for a while your feeling that the whole nation has a single identifiable character. Are there really such things as nations? Are we not forty-six million individuals, all different? And the diversity of it, the chaos! The clatter of clogs in the Lancashire mill towns, the to-and-fro of the lorries on the Great North Road, the queues outside the Labour Exchanges, the rattle of pin-tables in the Soho pubs, the old maids hiking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn morning � all these are not only fragments, but characteristic fragments, of the English scene. How can one make a pattern out of this muddle?
But talk to foreigners, read foreign books or newspapers, and you are brought back to the same thought. Yes, there is something distinctive and recognizable in English civilization. It is a culture as individual as that of Spain. It is somehow bound up with solid breakfasts and gloomy Sundays, smoky towns and winding roads, green fields and red pillar-boxes. It has a flavour of its own. Moreover it is continuous, it stretches into the future and the past, there is something in it that persists, as in a living creature. What can the England of 1940 have in common with the England of 1840? But then, what have you in common with the child of five whose photograph your mother keeps on the mantelpiece? Nothing, except that you happen to be the same person.
And above all, it is your civilization, it is you. However much you hate it or laugh at it, you will never be happy away from it for any length of time. The suet puddings and the red pillar-boxes have entered into your soul. Good or evil, it is yours, you belong to it, and this side the grave you will never get away from the marks that it has given you.
Meanwhile England, together with the rest of the world, is changing. And like everything else it can change only in certain directions, which up to a point can be foreseen. That is not to say that the future is fixed, merely that certain alternatives are possible and others not. A seed may grow or not grow, but at any rate a turnip seed never grows into a parsnip. It is therefore of the deepest importance to try and determine what England is, before guessing what part England can play in the huge events that are happening.''
If only Orwell could have known just how much England would change, and in how short a time. What would he have thought? Of course he foresaw the totalitarian trends which would develop in the years ahead; he was quite prescient in that regard. But I wonder if, as a leftist, he would have envisioned multiculturalism and the 'war against the people' by the Western elites?
Still, if we re-read the passages above, we see that Orwell clearly believed that there was an intrinsic national character, and that it persisted in spite of profound societal changes. He alludes to the changes between 1840 and 1940, and declares, that in spite of those changes, the people are still the same.
He clearly says that the whole nation has 'a single, identifiable character' and he seems to mean that the nation, through time, maintains that character.
He also says something quite important: that the divisions between nations are founded on real differences of outlook; the divisions from one nation to another reflect the innate differences. They are not simply a matter of geopolitical boundaries, or lines arbitrarily drawn on a map. Of course there have been and are 'nations' which are merely artificially-drawn nations, with no unifying genetic or cultural bonds. Iraq comes to mind, and increasingly, our own country -- and the UK. There are unfortunate consequences that follow in creating these unnatural 'nations' which are no nations. We are seeing those consequences playing out in the UK, in our country, and throughout the West.
To return to Orwell's description of the English character:
Here are a couple of generalizations about England that would be accepted by almost all observers. One is that the English are not gifted artistically. They are not as musical as the Germans or Italians, painting and sculpture have never flourished in England as they have in France. Another is that, as Europeans go, the English are not intellectual. They have a horror of abstract thought, they feel no need for any philosophy or systematic 'world-view�. Nor is this because they are 'practical�, as they are so fond of claiming for themselves. [...]
But they have a certain power of acting without taking thought. Their world-famed hypocrisy � their double-faced attitude towards the Empire, for instance � is bound up with this. Also, in moments of supreme crisis the whole nation can suddenly draw together and act upon a species of instinct, really a code of conduct which is understood by almost everyone, though never formulated. The phrase that Hitler coined for the Germans, 'a sleep-walking people�, would have been better applied to the English. Not that there is anything to be proud of in being called a sleep-walker.
But here it is worth noting a minor English trait which is extremely well marked though not often commented on, and that is a love of flowers. This is one of the first things that one notices when one reaches England from abroad, especially if one is coming from southern Europe. Does it not contradict the English indifference to the arts? Not really, because it is found in people who have no aesthetic feelings whatever. What it does link up with, however, is another English characteristic which is so much a part of us that we barely notice it, and that is the addiction to hobbies and spare-time occupations, the privateness of English life. We are a nation of flower-lovers, but also a nation of stamp-collectors, pigeon-fanciers, amateur carpenters, coupon-snippers, darts-players, crossword-puzzle fans. All the culture that is most truly native centres round things which even when they are communal are not official � the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the 'nice cup of tea�. The liberty of the individual is still believed in, almost as in the nineteenth century. But this has nothing to do with economic liberty, the right to exploit others for profit. It is the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above. The most hateful of all names in an English ear is Nosey Parker. It is obvious, of course, that even this purely private liberty is a lost cause. Like all other modern people, the English are in process of being numbered, labelled, conscripted, 'co-ordinated�. But the pull of their impulses is in the other direction, and the kind of regimentation that can be imposed on them will be modified in consequence.'' [Emphasis mine]
First, I am struck by the extent to which much of what Orwell says about the English character can also be applied to Americans, most importantly the part about the belief in the liberty of the individual. Too often we here in America like to claim that we invented this love of liberty, or that it sprang full-grown here among our colonists, like Athena from the head of Zeus. No; it is part of our British heritage. And the more weakened our ties to our old colonial heritage, the more we lose that natural aptitude for freedom. I believe the 'melting pot' philosophy watered down our essential strengths and gifts, and the more 'diverse' our country becomes, the greater the distance between us and our founding ancestors. This is no less true in the UK as they dilute their indigenous heritage via mass immigration.
But here, we come to the part in which Orwell notes the essential gentleness of the English, and their natural aversion to martial pursuits:
One can learn a good deal about the spirit of England from the comic coloured postcards that you see in the windows of cheap stationers� shops. These things are a sort of diary upon which the English people have unconsciously recorded themselves. Their old-fashioned outlook, their graded snobberies, their mixture of bawdiness and hypocrisy, their extreme gentleness, their deeply moral attitude to life, are all mirrored there.
The gentleness of the English civilization is perhaps its most marked characteristic. You notice it the instant you set foot on English soil. It is a land where the bus conductors are good-tempered and the policemen carry no revolvers. In no country inhabited by white men is it easier to shove people off the pavement. And with this goes something that is always written off by European observers as 'decadence� or hypocrisy, the English hatred of war and militarism. It is rooted deep in history, and it is strong in the lower-middle class as well as the working class.
[...]
In peace time, even when there are two million unemployed, it is difficult to fill the ranks of the tiny standing army, which is officered by the country gentry and a specialized stratum of the middle class, and manned by farm labourers and slum proletarians. The mass of the people are without military knowledge or tradition, and their attitude towards war is invariably defensive. No politician could rise to power by promising them conquests or military 'glory�, no Hymn of Hate has ever made any appeal to them.''
As we saw in the O'Sullivan article which I blogged on, the gentleness of British society is their vulnerability, with the presence of so many hostile and violent outsiders, who have at best a sullen indifference toward the native British people and at worst, a burning hostility to them. We here in this country are probably made vulnerable by the same traits, although they may be less marked in America, because of our mixed heritage. We, too, are by nature more polite, more hospitable, and too welcoming and trusting for our own good. This is true to some extent of all Western European peoples, but especially so of the English and Anglo-derived peoples in the West. It is said that J.R.R. Tolkien modeled the Hobbits after the English; they were essentially a gentle, stay-at-home, family-and-hearth people.
Here again, Orwell describes the English regard for the law, and the idea of the Rule of Law, which we too have traditionally valued very highly in America:
And yet the gentleness of English civilization is mixed up with barbarities and anachronisms. Our criminal law is as out-of-date as the muskets in the Tower. Over against the Nazi Storm Trooper you have got to set that typically English figure, the hanging judge, some gouty old bully with his mind rooted in the nineteenth century, handing out savage sentences. In England people are still hanged by the neck and flogged with the cat o� nine tails. Both of these punishments are obscene as well as cruel, but there has never been any genuinely popular outcry against them. People accept them (and Dartmoor, and Borstal) almost as they accept the weather. They are part of 'the law�, which is assumed to be unalterable.
[Note - Orwell apparently didn't foresee that the British would abolish capital punishment, thanks to leftism, and become very lenient, too lenient, in their treatment of criminals.]
Here one comes upon an all-important English trait: the respect for constitutionalism and legality, the belief in 'the law� as something above the State and above the individual, something which is cruel and stupid, of course, but at any rate incorruptible.
It is not that anyone imagines the law to be just. Everyone knows that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. But no one accepts the implications of this, everyone takes it for granted that the law, such as it is, will be respected, and feels a sense of outrage when it is not. Remarks like 'They can't run me in; I haven't done anything wrong�, or 'They can't do that; it's against the law�, are part of the atmosphere of England. The professed enemies of society have this feeling as strongly as anyone else.
[...]
Everyone believes in his heart that the law can be, ought to be, and, on the whole, will be impartially administered. The totalitarian idea that there is no such thing as law, there is only power, has never taken root. Even the intelligentsia have only accepted it in theory.
[...]
In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are very powerful illusions.''
I wonder to what extent that last is still true in Britain? Leftism and post-modernism, as taught by the left-controlled media and government, have seemingly weakened such beliefs. And here in America, the same is true, although I think we are a few steps behind the British on that path. We would do well to reverse our course before we reach the point where our British cousins seem to be.
Orwell talks about the sense of national unity, which seems to be very precarious in the UK at this time, with so many nationalities and races, each with their own 'communities' and allegiances, and with the indigenous British people so weakened in their national identity due to leftism and its anti-nationalistic jihad.
Up to a point, the sense of national unity is a substitute for a 'world-view�. Just because patriotism is all but universal and not even the rich are uninfluenced by it, there can be moments when the whole nation suddenly swings together and does the same thing, like a herd of cattle facing a wolf. There was such a moment, unmistakably, at the time of the disaster in France. After eight months of vaguely wondering what the war was about, the people suddenly knew what they had got to do: first, to get the army away from Dunkirk, and secondly to prevent invasion. It was like the awakening of a giant. Quick! Danger! The Philistines be upon thee, Samson! And then the swift unanimous action � and, then, alas, the prompt relapse into sleep. In a divided nation that would have been exactly the moment for a big peace movement to arise. But does this mean that the instinct of the English will always tell them to do the right thing? Not at all, merely that it will tell them to do the same thing. In the 1931 General Election, for instance, we all did the wrong thing in perfect unison. We were as single-minded as the Gadarene swine. But I honestly doubt whether we can say that we were shoved down the slope against our will.''
The sense of unity, the oneness in spirit and in national character, is what enabled Britain during the War to pull together and to survive. Without that sense of national unity, survival is doubtful.
One more little trivial note: Orwell, in that last passage, makes a couple of Biblical allusions: the reference to the Philistines and Samson, and the reference to the Gadarene swine. Do any leftists of today recognize such allusions, and would any leftist dare to refer to the Bible today, other than those leftists wearing backwards collars? I doubt it. And even among the general population, how many British people would recognize those Biblical references or names, or know the symbolism inherent therein? Precious few, and I am afraid that even in a more 'religious' country like America, not many are Biblically literate enough to get the allusions. My point is not just to lament that we in America are not the Biblically-conversant country we once were, or that Britain has lost its religion (though both are cause for lament) but also that we no longer have a common grounding in Western culture; we no longer have these common reference points and cultural bonds which enabled us to speak in shorthand amongst ourselves. We can no longer make such an allusion, whether Biblical or from the old classics, or from Shakespeare, and trust that our readers or hearers will understand. To that extent, we are weaker and less connected. Such is the fruit of multiculturalism. It eats away at the cultural connections and bonds.
But Orwell, later in the essay, concludes that
England is not the jewelled isle of Shakespeare's much-quoted message, nor is it the inferno depicted by Dr Goebbels. More than either it resembles a family, a rather stuffy Victorian family, with not many black sheep in it but with all its cupboards bursting with skeletons. It has rich relations who have to be kow-towed to and poor relations who are horribly sat upon, and there is a deep conspiracy of silence about the source of the family income. It is a family in which the young are generally thwarted and most of the power is in the hands of irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts. Still, it is a family. It has its private language and its common memories, and at the approach of an enemy it closes its ranks. A family with the wrong members in control � that, perhaps, is as near as one can come to describing England in a phrase.''
I've often used the family as the analogy for our American nation; at first, we were truly a kin group, a nation in the original sense, and later our family circle expanded to welcome in those who became ours by adoption. Now, the family analogy is being stretched to the breaking point. If the family's would-be new members are simply there to exploit and to plunder, and have no wish to join the family circle and conform to the family and its ways, then there is no more family; it's everybody for himself.
And I have no doubt that to use Orwell's analogy, the British family, or what still remains of it, has the wrong members in control -- as do we in America.
Will Britain recover this natural character of which Orwell writes, or will the corrosive influences, in John O'Sullivan's parlance, have destroyed the essential character and the strengths of the British family?
We will see, because it appears that Britain is being tested by very difficult circumstances, just as we are.
And as cousins, we and the British should try to restore the lost connections between us, so as to offer help and support, if only moral support, to each other -- as 'the Philistines are upon us' both.
Labels: American Identity, British Culture, Nationalism, Nationality, Patriotism, United Kingdom
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 Monday, July 28, 2014 | admin
We are in the midst of a great transition from narrow nationalism to international partnership. - Lyndon B. Johnson
"Sept. 11th must spur us to launch a new era of American internationalism. Let's not squander this opportunity." - Robert Kagan, January 2002
"There is a higher form of patriotism than nationalism, and that higher form is not limited by the boundaries of one's country but by a duty to mankind to safeguard the trust of civilization." - Oscar S. Straus
"As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education and world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism." - Sir John Huxley, father of the U.N. education program
"It is, if people will but think steadfastly, inconceivable that there should be world control without a merger of sovereignty, but the framers of these early tentatives toward world unity have lacked the courage of frankness in this respect. They have been afraid of bawling outbreaks of patriotism, and they have tried to believe, that they contemplate nothing more than a league of nations, when in reality they contemplate a subordination of nations and administrations to one common rule and law." - H.G. Wells, The Salvaging Of Civilization
"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands." - Arnold Toynbee, "The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International Affairs, Nov 1931
''I think the subject which will be of utmost importance politically is mass psychology. ... Various results will soon be arrived at [including] that the influence of home is obstructive ... in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can reach the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. ... Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. ... Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism.'' - Bertrand Russell, 1953, The Impact of Science on Society
"Born in iniquity and conceived in sin, the spirit of nationalism has never ceased to bend human institutions to the service of dissonance and stress." - Thorstein Veblen
"The root of the problem is very simply stated, if there were no sovereign independent states, if the states of the civilized world were organized in some sort of federalism, as the states of the American Union, for instance, are organized, there would be no international war as we know it...The main obstacle is nationalism." - Norman Angell
"It is our clear duty to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all...." from Vatican II document, 'Pastoral Constitution On the Church In the Modern World', 1965
"�You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians! There are no Arabs! There are no third worlds! There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast immanne, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars���It is the international system of currency that determins the totality of life today��There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT & T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the Nations of the world today��..We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations��our children, Mr. Beale, will live to see that perfect world in which there is no war and famine�.one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit�..all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused." - from the movie 'Network', 1975
"The old order passes from view; the new world rises upon our vision....We have vindicated the right of social control....There must be developed a national spirit of service....Society must break the stranglehold of capitalism....The natural resources of the nation must be socialized....The state must socialize every group....Men must learn to have world patriotism. World patriotism must be a faith....There is no more justice for the claim of absolute sovereignty on the part of a nation than on the part of an individual....The only alternative is World Federation...with a world parliament, an international court, and an international police force....Men must have an international mind before there can be a world federation. They must see and affirm that above the nation is humanity. Internationalism must first be a religion before it can be a reality and a system." - Samuel Zane Batten, 'The New World Order'
"Sept. 11th must spur us to launch a new era of American internationalism. Let's not squander this opportunity." - Robert Kagan, January 2002
"There is a higher form of patriotism than nationalism, and that higher form is not limited by the boundaries of one's country but by a duty to mankind to safeguard the trust of civilization." - Oscar S. Straus
"As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education and world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism." - Sir John Huxley, father of the U.N. education program
"It is, if people will but think steadfastly, inconceivable that there should be world control without a merger of sovereignty, but the framers of these early tentatives toward world unity have lacked the courage of frankness in this respect. They have been afraid of bawling outbreaks of patriotism, and they have tried to believe, that they contemplate nothing more than a league of nations, when in reality they contemplate a subordination of nations and administrations to one common rule and law." - H.G. Wells, The Salvaging Of Civilization
"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands." - Arnold Toynbee, "The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International Affairs, Nov 1931
''I think the subject which will be of utmost importance politically is mass psychology. ... Various results will soon be arrived at [including] that the influence of home is obstructive ... in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can reach the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. ... Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. ... Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism.'' - Bertrand Russell, 1953, The Impact of Science on Society
"Born in iniquity and conceived in sin, the spirit of nationalism has never ceased to bend human institutions to the service of dissonance and stress." - Thorstein Veblen
"The root of the problem is very simply stated, if there were no sovereign independent states, if the states of the civilized world were organized in some sort of federalism, as the states of the American Union, for instance, are organized, there would be no international war as we know it...The main obstacle is nationalism." - Norman Angell
"It is our clear duty to strain every muscle in working for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all and endowed with the power to safeguard on the behalf of all...." from Vatican II document, 'Pastoral Constitution On the Church In the Modern World', 1965
"�You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians! There are no Arabs! There are no third worlds! There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast immanne, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars���It is the international system of currency that determins the totality of life today��There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT & T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the Nations of the world today��..We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations��our children, Mr. Beale, will live to see that perfect world in which there is no war and famine�.one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit�..all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused." - from the movie 'Network', 1975
"The old order passes from view; the new world rises upon our vision....We have vindicated the right of social control....There must be developed a national spirit of service....Society must break the stranglehold of capitalism....The natural resources of the nation must be socialized....The state must socialize every group....Men must learn to have world patriotism. World patriotism must be a faith....There is no more justice for the claim of absolute sovereignty on the part of a nation than on the part of an individual....The only alternative is World Federation...with a world parliament, an international court, and an international police force....Men must have an international mind before there can be a world federation. They must see and affirm that above the nation is humanity. Internationalism must first be a religion before it can be a reality and a system." - Samuel Zane Batten, 'The New World Order'
Labels: Globalism, Internationalism, Nationalism, One World, Quotations
0 comment Thursday, July 17, 2014 | admin
I happened across these two pieces, one by Kenneth Minogue and one by James Pinkerton, both of them from a while back, but they seemed like bookend pieces, and they address the very relevant issue of universalism vs nationalism or patriotism, and national sovereignty vs. internationalism or globalism.
Minogue notes that the people who are most determinedly pushing globalism and universalism are an odd collection of people who nevertheless have similar goals. He examines the different motives which lead a rather disparate collection of people to pursue similar ends. The most obvious people who advocate the universalist view are the 'humanitarian' types, the do-gooders who want to save suffering humanity, end war, and bring about some global utopia.
Kenneth Minogue on National Sovereignty Vs. Internationalism
...In arguing that sovereignty has become an irrelevant, indeed obstructive, hangover from the past, humanitarians present themselves less as assassins, than as executioners of the verdict of history.
Such is the negative element in the humanitarian project. The positive project is nothing less than that of transforming the human situation. It aims to remove the oppressions of torture and poverty so that each individual on the planet can be assured of what activists often call "a good quality of life", and what philosophers refer to these days as "flourishing". Each person must be given what one might call a "quality assured" life.
This is obviously a secular vision -- religious concerns are merely lifestyle choices within it -- and there is a sense in which one might well think it a highly desirable utopia. One could hardly say that it is a noble vision, however, because it treats the inhabitants of the globe as a set of victims who must be provided with these desirabilities. Humanity is to be the passive beneficiary of a perfection supplied by an élite of busy humanitarians.''
[A quote from H.L. Mencken comes to mind here: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."]
Minogue continues:
Still, given the horrors that take place in many parts of the world, humanitarianism is a very understandable aspiration. And as it operates in contemporary politics, it takes the form of internationalism, since its most evident character is the aspiration to transcend sovereign national independence and replace it with rights enforced by a benign world authority. Internationalism is a political movement, and its exponents are, as it were, the patriots of a patria which does not yet exist. Since most people seem instinctively to prefer their own values to those of foreigners, our next question must be to ask: who advances the project of internationalism?
The answer is that internationalism appeals to a self-consciously enlightened public opinion, an opinion whose doctrines descend, indeed, from the movement which actually called itself the Enlightenment. This is a public opinion prone to express its preferences in terms of abstractions such as rights, peace, negotiation, equality, rule of law, inclusion, etcetera. It is evidently a rationalist cast of mind, which treats every defect in the human condition as a problem for which lawyers and experts (lawyers especially) can always find a solution.
To say this is to say that internationalist activists have commonly been trained at universities in the social sciences, but have understood their training as having transcended the academic disciplines (which recognise that every logic of inquiry has its own specific limitations) in favour of a more general ideological orientation. This orientation rejects the current world order as radically imperfect, and aims at salvation by implementing whatever the favoured abstractions currently seem to intimate. Implementing such policies commonly collides, however, with the instincts and prejudices of most of the populations even of Western countries, and this is the reason I have on occasions referred to this area of public opinion as "Olympian".
[...]
Here, then, in the Olympians we have a new class, as they have been called, consisting of academics, journalists, lawyers, teachers, clergymen, politicians and administrators. They are not only prepared to take issue with their own governments, but positively take a pride in doing so. Such dissidence is thought to express a virtue above the mere parochialities of local patriotism. But as political actors seeking to transform the world, Olympians have several disadvantages. One of them is that they are not a very warlike set of people. They are crusaders of the pen rather than the sword. Today the levers of power in Western societies give Olympians access to a military power to which (except when they need it) they are essentially hostile. Their ultimate aim is to create a world that won't need soldiers -- indeed, even now they are trying to turn warriors into a different kind of thing called a "peace keeper".
There is another problem impeding their project of perfecting the world. Almost all of them are to be found in Western countries. They are all the products of Western liberalism. Their challenge lies in presenting an essentially Western middle class view of the world as if it expressed the essence of humanity itself. On the other hand, in their doctrines of rights and their recourse to international law, they do at least have instruments capable of disrupting other societies. Their secret weapon against non-Western societies is women, who have a great deal to gain from Westernisation.
Acute readers may already have recognised a contradiction in my account of the Olympians who sustain the humanitarian movement. On the one hand they stand for humanity itself, and therefore espouse equality, but on the other hand they conceive of themselves as having a rather superior status. But we need not dwell greatly on this point, for it merely reveals that we are dealing with something entirely familiar: namely, a new version of the Marxist doctrine of the vanguard of the proletariat.
...We began with something like a mystery: who is trying to kill sovereignty and the nation state ? We have discovered that there are many suspects both within and without the state, but that the real situation is that sovereignty is to be killed in order to turn the state into something that will subserve the Olympian ambition to create a world guaranteeing a good quality of life to every individual on the planet.''
However, James Pinkerton expresses a belief that these utopian 'Olympians' do not have human nature on their side, and hence have less of an advantage than we may think.
Pinkerton notes the presence of another faction of people who are aggressively promoting globalism: the right-wing corporate interests.
Universalism vs. Nationalism
Here's a question: Why do Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and The Wall Street Journal editorial page have such similar views on immigration?
The answer is that all four of the above -- Mahony, CAIR, the ACLU, and the Journal -- have chosen universalism over nationalism. The four embrace different visions of universalism, to be sure, but each one of them is similar insofar as it seeks to transcend passports and borders. Each of the four pursues a trans-nationalizing, world-flattening globalism that regards nation-states as, at best, necessary evils -- and at worst, unnecessary evils. Far better, the universalists say, to unite the world, regardless of color and class, according to common belief. In terms of either religion or ideology, many find it inspiring to think that the whole world might be united into one big system, in which all pursue purity or prosperity. It's all pretty heady stuff, these universalisms.
But there's one big catch: Such universalizing is terrible politics -- the folks at home don't like it, and they won't vote for it. Regular people don't seem to like universalism; they like nationalism, particularism, localism. Electorates, each in their own homeland, seem to reject new world orders, preferring to organize themselves into something that many thought was dead and discredited: the nation state.''
[Note: Apropos of this, James Burnham once said]
But modern liberalism does not offer ordinary men compelling motives for personal suffering, sacrifice and death. There is no tragic dimension in its picture of the good life . . . In their place Liberalism proposes a set of pale and bloodless abstractions - pale and bloodless for the very reason that they have no roots in the past, in deep feeling and in suffering. Except for mercenaries, saints and neurotics, no one is willing to sacrifice and die for progressive education, medicare, humanity in the abstract, the United Nations and a ten percent rise in Social Security payments."
He seems to have been right; despite what the 'proposition nation' neocons and the left-liberal do-gooders say, loyalties to abstractions are watery and thin, compared to our allegiances to kith and kin, home, and native soil.
Pinkerton describes the four universalizing forces as Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Church, Islam, leftist internationalism, and right-wing internationalism, or globalism. Though on the surface, these groups might seem to be at odds, they are in general agreement on some things. Pinkerton continues:
All these universalists have come to agreement on the desirability of more immigration. And they have something else in common too: they are being routed in the public square by the nationalist immigration-restricters. Grand belief systems, vaulting overhead, are being shattered on the low-rising rocks of stable communities and reliable neighborliness.
The universalists have big ideas, but they are, well, too big. Albert Einstein, a big thinker if there ever was one -- who would be categorized into the lefty ACLU grouping -- disdained anything less than full internationalism: "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." But half a century after Einstein's death, it's apparent that humanity isn't growing out of its nationalism. The Kurds, the Chechens, the Palestinians, the Tamils, and the Montenegrins, to name just five groups insistently pressing for independence, would say that the full realization of nationalism has a way to go.
To the endless consternation of the globalists, most people prefer to think small: to express affection for their own, first.
[...]
To put it another way, the wind is in the face of the border-openers, such as George W. Bush.
[...]
In the long run, "normal" wins, because normal is also numerous. Which is why Bush & the Open Borderers are being beaten so badly on the immigration issue -- they are outnumbered. As we have seen, the normal mode of behavior is to be loyal to people, family, flag, and place, as distinct from distantly vaporous abstractions.
Those who aspire toward abstract universalism thus had better learn an important lesson: humility. And yet "humility" and "universalism" don't naturally go well together; after all, if one Knows the Truth about the whole wide world, it's hard to be modest.''
[Emphasis mine]
Minogue describes these 'Olympians' as people who conceive of themselves as a moral as well as intellectual elite, and Pinkerton seems to agree, adding that not only are the Olympian internationalists out of touch, but they are not likely to succeed in the long run since they are in opposition to human nature.
If Pinkerton is right, and I surely hope he is, then we who want to maintain our natural human loyalty to our people, our homes, and our faith and heritage, have the advantage of normality, of our following the dictates of healthy human nature.
The prescient Carleton Putnam said
I have already said something about brotherhood, but I will add one thing more. Love, like charity, begins at home. A man who loves all countries, and all races, as much as he loves his own, is like the man who loves all women as much as he loves his wife. He merits suspicion. I have seldom seen the matter put better than by William Massey in his article "The New Fanatics," in the section entitled "Whither Brotherhood?" To that question Mr. Massey answers: "Nowhere. The current furor over brotherhood is compounded of fallacy and foolishness. For it is fallacy to believe that men are no longer separated by enduring differences, and it is foolishness wilfully to believe this fallacy. Yet this fallacy is the basis for the present campaign for brotherhood. This is not a campaign by men who love humanity, but by men obsessed with a vision. Their vision is of a united mankind marching toward a Utopian world. It is the stylized, inhuman vision they love, not man. They do not look at man dispassionately, or even with affection, to see his condition and help him. Instead they preach a mystic brotherhood of man that is both goal and means to the goal. This brotherhood is not reached by good will, understanding and tolerance. It is a fanatic's dream, a will-o'-the-wisp that gives them the self-righteousness to vent their hatreds with a clear conscience. Better an honest enemy than so strange a brother."
Minogue notes that the people who are most determinedly pushing globalism and universalism are an odd collection of people who nevertheless have similar goals. He examines the different motives which lead a rather disparate collection of people to pursue similar ends. The most obvious people who advocate the universalist view are the 'humanitarian' types, the do-gooders who want to save suffering humanity, end war, and bring about some global utopia.
Kenneth Minogue on National Sovereignty Vs. Internationalism
...In arguing that sovereignty has become an irrelevant, indeed obstructive, hangover from the past, humanitarians present themselves less as assassins, than as executioners of the verdict of history.
Such is the negative element in the humanitarian project. The positive project is nothing less than that of transforming the human situation. It aims to remove the oppressions of torture and poverty so that each individual on the planet can be assured of what activists often call "a good quality of life", and what philosophers refer to these days as "flourishing". Each person must be given what one might call a "quality assured" life.
This is obviously a secular vision -- religious concerns are merely lifestyle choices within it -- and there is a sense in which one might well think it a highly desirable utopia. One could hardly say that it is a noble vision, however, because it treats the inhabitants of the globe as a set of victims who must be provided with these desirabilities. Humanity is to be the passive beneficiary of a perfection supplied by an élite of busy humanitarians.''
[A quote from H.L. Mencken comes to mind here: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."]
Minogue continues:
Still, given the horrors that take place in many parts of the world, humanitarianism is a very understandable aspiration. And as it operates in contemporary politics, it takes the form of internationalism, since its most evident character is the aspiration to transcend sovereign national independence and replace it with rights enforced by a benign world authority. Internationalism is a political movement, and its exponents are, as it were, the patriots of a patria which does not yet exist. Since most people seem instinctively to prefer their own values to those of foreigners, our next question must be to ask: who advances the project of internationalism?
The answer is that internationalism appeals to a self-consciously enlightened public opinion, an opinion whose doctrines descend, indeed, from the movement which actually called itself the Enlightenment. This is a public opinion prone to express its preferences in terms of abstractions such as rights, peace, negotiation, equality, rule of law, inclusion, etcetera. It is evidently a rationalist cast of mind, which treats every defect in the human condition as a problem for which lawyers and experts (lawyers especially) can always find a solution.
To say this is to say that internationalist activists have commonly been trained at universities in the social sciences, but have understood their training as having transcended the academic disciplines (which recognise that every logic of inquiry has its own specific limitations) in favour of a more general ideological orientation. This orientation rejects the current world order as radically imperfect, and aims at salvation by implementing whatever the favoured abstractions currently seem to intimate. Implementing such policies commonly collides, however, with the instincts and prejudices of most of the populations even of Western countries, and this is the reason I have on occasions referred to this area of public opinion as "Olympian".
[...]
Here, then, in the Olympians we have a new class, as they have been called, consisting of academics, journalists, lawyers, teachers, clergymen, politicians and administrators. They are not only prepared to take issue with their own governments, but positively take a pride in doing so. Such dissidence is thought to express a virtue above the mere parochialities of local patriotism. But as political actors seeking to transform the world, Olympians have several disadvantages. One of them is that they are not a very warlike set of people. They are crusaders of the pen rather than the sword. Today the levers of power in Western societies give Olympians access to a military power to which (except when they need it) they are essentially hostile. Their ultimate aim is to create a world that won't need soldiers -- indeed, even now they are trying to turn warriors into a different kind of thing called a "peace keeper".
There is another problem impeding their project of perfecting the world. Almost all of them are to be found in Western countries. They are all the products of Western liberalism. Their challenge lies in presenting an essentially Western middle class view of the world as if it expressed the essence of humanity itself. On the other hand, in their doctrines of rights and their recourse to international law, they do at least have instruments capable of disrupting other societies. Their secret weapon against non-Western societies is women, who have a great deal to gain from Westernisation.
Acute readers may already have recognised a contradiction in my account of the Olympians who sustain the humanitarian movement. On the one hand they stand for humanity itself, and therefore espouse equality, but on the other hand they conceive of themselves as having a rather superior status. But we need not dwell greatly on this point, for it merely reveals that we are dealing with something entirely familiar: namely, a new version of the Marxist doctrine of the vanguard of the proletariat.
...We began with something like a mystery: who is trying to kill sovereignty and the nation state ? We have discovered that there are many suspects both within and without the state, but that the real situation is that sovereignty is to be killed in order to turn the state into something that will subserve the Olympian ambition to create a world guaranteeing a good quality of life to every individual on the planet.''
However, James Pinkerton expresses a belief that these utopian 'Olympians' do not have human nature on their side, and hence have less of an advantage than we may think.
Pinkerton notes the presence of another faction of people who are aggressively promoting globalism: the right-wing corporate interests.
Universalism vs. Nationalism
Here's a question: Why do Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and The Wall Street Journal editorial page have such similar views on immigration?
The answer is that all four of the above -- Mahony, CAIR, the ACLU, and the Journal -- have chosen universalism over nationalism. The four embrace different visions of universalism, to be sure, but each one of them is similar insofar as it seeks to transcend passports and borders. Each of the four pursues a trans-nationalizing, world-flattening globalism that regards nation-states as, at best, necessary evils -- and at worst, unnecessary evils. Far better, the universalists say, to unite the world, regardless of color and class, according to common belief. In terms of either religion or ideology, many find it inspiring to think that the whole world might be united into one big system, in which all pursue purity or prosperity. It's all pretty heady stuff, these universalisms.
But there's one big catch: Such universalizing is terrible politics -- the folks at home don't like it, and they won't vote for it. Regular people don't seem to like universalism; they like nationalism, particularism, localism. Electorates, each in their own homeland, seem to reject new world orders, preferring to organize themselves into something that many thought was dead and discredited: the nation state.''
[Note: Apropos of this, James Burnham once said]
But modern liberalism does not offer ordinary men compelling motives for personal suffering, sacrifice and death. There is no tragic dimension in its picture of the good life . . . In their place Liberalism proposes a set of pale and bloodless abstractions - pale and bloodless for the very reason that they have no roots in the past, in deep feeling and in suffering. Except for mercenaries, saints and neurotics, no one is willing to sacrifice and die for progressive education, medicare, humanity in the abstract, the United Nations and a ten percent rise in Social Security payments."
He seems to have been right; despite what the 'proposition nation' neocons and the left-liberal do-gooders say, loyalties to abstractions are watery and thin, compared to our allegiances to kith and kin, home, and native soil.
Pinkerton describes the four universalizing forces as Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Church, Islam, leftist internationalism, and right-wing internationalism, or globalism. Though on the surface, these groups might seem to be at odds, they are in general agreement on some things. Pinkerton continues:
All these universalists have come to agreement on the desirability of more immigration. And they have something else in common too: they are being routed in the public square by the nationalist immigration-restricters. Grand belief systems, vaulting overhead, are being shattered on the low-rising rocks of stable communities and reliable neighborliness.
The universalists have big ideas, but they are, well, too big. Albert Einstein, a big thinker if there ever was one -- who would be categorized into the lefty ACLU grouping -- disdained anything less than full internationalism: "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." But half a century after Einstein's death, it's apparent that humanity isn't growing out of its nationalism. The Kurds, the Chechens, the Palestinians, the Tamils, and the Montenegrins, to name just five groups insistently pressing for independence, would say that the full realization of nationalism has a way to go.
To the endless consternation of the globalists, most people prefer to think small: to express affection for their own, first.
[...]
To put it another way, the wind is in the face of the border-openers, such as George W. Bush.
[...]
In the long run, "normal" wins, because normal is also numerous. Which is why Bush & the Open Borderers are being beaten so badly on the immigration issue -- they are outnumbered. As we have seen, the normal mode of behavior is to be loyal to people, family, flag, and place, as distinct from distantly vaporous abstractions.
Those who aspire toward abstract universalism thus had better learn an important lesson: humility. And yet "humility" and "universalism" don't naturally go well together; after all, if one Knows the Truth about the whole wide world, it's hard to be modest.''
[Emphasis mine]
Minogue describes these 'Olympians' as people who conceive of themselves as a moral as well as intellectual elite, and Pinkerton seems to agree, adding that not only are the Olympian internationalists out of touch, but they are not likely to succeed in the long run since they are in opposition to human nature.
If Pinkerton is right, and I surely hope he is, then we who want to maintain our natural human loyalty to our people, our homes, and our faith and heritage, have the advantage of normality, of our following the dictates of healthy human nature.
The prescient Carleton Putnam said
I have already said something about brotherhood, but I will add one thing more. Love, like charity, begins at home. A man who loves all countries, and all races, as much as he loves his own, is like the man who loves all women as much as he loves his wife. He merits suspicion. I have seldom seen the matter put better than by William Massey in his article "The New Fanatics," in the section entitled "Whither Brotherhood?" To that question Mr. Massey answers: "Nowhere. The current furor over brotherhood is compounded of fallacy and foolishness. For it is fallacy to believe that men are no longer separated by enduring differences, and it is foolishness wilfully to believe this fallacy. Yet this fallacy is the basis for the present campaign for brotherhood. This is not a campaign by men who love humanity, but by men obsessed with a vision. Their vision is of a united mankind marching toward a Utopian world. It is the stylized, inhuman vision they love, not man. They do not look at man dispassionately, or even with affection, to see his condition and help him. Instead they preach a mystic brotherhood of man that is both goal and means to the goal. This brotherhood is not reached by good will, understanding and tolerance. It is a fanatic's dream, a will-o'-the-wisp that gives them the self-righteousness to vent their hatreds with a clear conscience. Better an honest enemy than so strange a brother."
Labels: Globalism, National Sovereignty, Nationalism, Nations, Universalism
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