0 comment Wednesday, November 5, 2014 | 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, May 6, 2014 | admin
I've just recently been spending some time looking at City-data.com, which provides statistics on many things about towns and cities in all 50 states. The information is on things like population, demographics, housing, education, crime rates, and so on. The website is one option for those who, contemplating ''flight'', are looking for a decent place to which they might relocate.
As I explored the website, I found this list of ''High-growth cities with relocation interest"
There are 100 cities listed there. I'm not familiar with many of the cities listed, but my curiosity is piqued by this list. Many of the cities look like prime destinations for illegal (and legal) immigrants, for example, #17, Los Angeles, and #19, Las Vegas. #1 and #4, Fort Worth and San Antonio, Texas, respectively. But I wonder how many of these places are popular destinations for people fleeing immigration and ''diversity"?
The site also has forums which enable visitors to post questions on a given locality and which allow those questions to be answered by posters who live in the area, or who have knowledge of it.
The one thing I notice from reading the forums is the sheer numbers of people who seem to be on the move in this country, or at least contemplating a move. Perusing the forums, a reader can get the impression that we are a nation of nomads, shifting from place to place to cope with the constant changes in our country.
Most of the questions on one forum for a Southeastern state are from would-be migrants seeking ''good schools" ''nice neighbors", low taxes, and so on. It's easy to connect the dots and see that these are people who are now in places which have been overrun with immigrants of either the legal or the illegal variety, once-orderly places which are now mini-Babels with deteriorating schools, rising crime and taxes, the whole raft of problems with which ''diversity" tends to ''enrich" us.
A few of the posts even ask how much ''diversity'' exists in the destination town; however when there is any inkling that the question is racially motivated, the questioners sometimes hastily add that they just don't want an area with many ''illegals'' because of the problems they bring.
There are others who state they are looking for a ''progressive" town, though the area is in the conservative Bible belt. It seems to me that these people are looking in the wrong place for ''progressive'' towns, unless they pick the big city or the college towns, which are usually more liberal than their environs.
Another questioner wants to know if the locals will be''welcoming'' of their interracial marriage. Someone else asks about the presence of a certain politically incorrect pro-White organization.
So it definitely looks as if not all White flight, so-called, is by conservative, racially conscious people. There seem to be just about as many liberals and 'colorblind' respectables of whichever party who are fleeing all the 'diversity' and 'change', too. The difference seems to be that the liberals and ''progressives'' would not admit that they prefer to live in a non-diverse, mostly White area, and even worse, the liberals and 'respectables' refuse to see that liberal and open policies regarding immigration and 'diversity' are lethal to good towns and neighborhoods. They refuse to acknowledge cause and effect. They seem to think that when an area succumbs to 'diversity' and all the ills which follow in its train, the decay is caused by some inevitable natural process, not by stupid choices and policies on the part of the town fathers and the citizens themselves.
A friend and I were having a discussion about the infllux to our town. My friend pointed out that no matter who the people are who are moving here, their presence in such large numbers changes this town irrevocably. Why don't people realize this? The people who are moving like Bedouins all around the country, looking for fresh pastures, don't seem to get it, and the immigrants don't care. They simply see this as a place to be despoiled, and they see us as prey.
While most of the "flight" people who are new arrivals here are well-off people, professionals and others who might otherwise be an asset, they are no doubt bringing their ''progressive'' attitudes which portend trouble for this town, sooner or later. These new neighbors, relieved to have found a town with old-fashioned attitudes, natural beauty, low crime rates, and relatively good schools, will eventually revert to liberal form and bring their ''progressive'' and tolerant attitudes into our local culture, eventually changing the place. The very things that drew them here will gradually -- or precipitately -- be destroyed, and these progressives will wonder why. And then they will move on to some new, pristine place -- if there are any such places left. And of course a few steps behind these people will be the immigrants, mostly illegals who are hired to build the big sprawling houses the ''White flight" liberals like, and the illegals who are hired as domestic help. These same White flight types, often even the 'conservative' ones, will be those who think a colony of refugees would just be wonderful here.
How do we avoid this? Can it be avoided?
I can only hope that many of these liberals and 'respectable Republicans' who are fleeing the mess made by their misguided policies elsewhere, are reading sites like City-Data and ruling out the kinds of conservative areas where they do not belong. I am all in favor of them restricting themselves to places populated by ''diversity'' and by fellow deluded liberals, places where the amount of damage they can do is limited, because the places are already in ruins. It's only just, too, that they be forced to live with the policies they have pushed so relentlessly.
It makes no sense for liberals to deliberately park themselves in the Bible belt, where all those people ''clinging to religion and guns" live. Why do they do it? I think it's much like the Mohammedans who hate infidels coming to the West; they intend to 'convert' us, set us straight, or drive us out and replace us. Or the Mexicans, who, despite hating gringos, come en masse to our country. They all intend to come, see, and conquer.
I wonder if those of us who live in areas receiving a lot of ''White flight" should make our presence felt on some of these sites where people are inquiring about relocating. I think we should do all we can to discourage the ''progressives'' and the politically correct Republican types to look elsewhere for their next move. It isn't only the immigrants themselves who bring unwelcome change. This vast game of musical chairs will soon leave our country utterly unrecognizable everywhere, and unlivable in most places.
For those of us who might be looking for an area which is not too devastated by ''diversity'' just yet, we have to be aware of who else is looking to flee there; what's the use of relocating to some idyllic new place, only to find our new neighbors are our old liberal enemies from the big city?
As I explored the website, I found this list of ''High-growth cities with relocation interest"
There are 100 cities listed there. I'm not familiar with many of the cities listed, but my curiosity is piqued by this list. Many of the cities look like prime destinations for illegal (and legal) immigrants, for example, #17, Los Angeles, and #19, Las Vegas. #1 and #4, Fort Worth and San Antonio, Texas, respectively. But I wonder how many of these places are popular destinations for people fleeing immigration and ''diversity"?
The site also has forums which enable visitors to post questions on a given locality and which allow those questions to be answered by posters who live in the area, or who have knowledge of it.
The one thing I notice from reading the forums is the sheer numbers of people who seem to be on the move in this country, or at least contemplating a move. Perusing the forums, a reader can get the impression that we are a nation of nomads, shifting from place to place to cope with the constant changes in our country.
Most of the questions on one forum for a Southeastern state are from would-be migrants seeking ''good schools" ''nice neighbors", low taxes, and so on. It's easy to connect the dots and see that these are people who are now in places which have been overrun with immigrants of either the legal or the illegal variety, once-orderly places which are now mini-Babels with deteriorating schools, rising crime and taxes, the whole raft of problems with which ''diversity" tends to ''enrich" us.
A few of the posts even ask how much ''diversity'' exists in the destination town; however when there is any inkling that the question is racially motivated, the questioners sometimes hastily add that they just don't want an area with many ''illegals'' because of the problems they bring.
There are others who state they are looking for a ''progressive" town, though the area is in the conservative Bible belt. It seems to me that these people are looking in the wrong place for ''progressive'' towns, unless they pick the big city or the college towns, which are usually more liberal than their environs.
Another questioner wants to know if the locals will be''welcoming'' of their interracial marriage. Someone else asks about the presence of a certain politically incorrect pro-White organization.
So it definitely looks as if not all White flight, so-called, is by conservative, racially conscious people. There seem to be just about as many liberals and 'colorblind' respectables of whichever party who are fleeing all the 'diversity' and 'change', too. The difference seems to be that the liberals and ''progressives'' would not admit that they prefer to live in a non-diverse, mostly White area, and even worse, the liberals and 'respectables' refuse to see that liberal and open policies regarding immigration and 'diversity' are lethal to good towns and neighborhoods. They refuse to acknowledge cause and effect. They seem to think that when an area succumbs to 'diversity' and all the ills which follow in its train, the decay is caused by some inevitable natural process, not by stupid choices and policies on the part of the town fathers and the citizens themselves.
A friend and I were having a discussion about the infllux to our town. My friend pointed out that no matter who the people are who are moving here, their presence in such large numbers changes this town irrevocably. Why don't people realize this? The people who are moving like Bedouins all around the country, looking for fresh pastures, don't seem to get it, and the immigrants don't care. They simply see this as a place to be despoiled, and they see us as prey.
While most of the "flight" people who are new arrivals here are well-off people, professionals and others who might otherwise be an asset, they are no doubt bringing their ''progressive'' attitudes which portend trouble for this town, sooner or later. These new neighbors, relieved to have found a town with old-fashioned attitudes, natural beauty, low crime rates, and relatively good schools, will eventually revert to liberal form and bring their ''progressive'' and tolerant attitudes into our local culture, eventually changing the place. The very things that drew them here will gradually -- or precipitately -- be destroyed, and these progressives will wonder why. And then they will move on to some new, pristine place -- if there are any such places left. And of course a few steps behind these people will be the immigrants, mostly illegals who are hired to build the big sprawling houses the ''White flight" liberals like, and the illegals who are hired as domestic help. These same White flight types, often even the 'conservative' ones, will be those who think a colony of refugees would just be wonderful here.
How do we avoid this? Can it be avoided?
I can only hope that many of these liberals and 'respectable Republicans' who are fleeing the mess made by their misguided policies elsewhere, are reading sites like City-Data and ruling out the kinds of conservative areas where they do not belong. I am all in favor of them restricting themselves to places populated by ''diversity'' and by fellow deluded liberals, places where the amount of damage they can do is limited, because the places are already in ruins. It's only just, too, that they be forced to live with the policies they have pushed so relentlessly.
It makes no sense for liberals to deliberately park themselves in the Bible belt, where all those people ''clinging to religion and guns" live. Why do they do it? I think it's much like the Mohammedans who hate infidels coming to the West; they intend to 'convert' us, set us straight, or drive us out and replace us. Or the Mexicans, who, despite hating gringos, come en masse to our country. They all intend to come, see, and conquer.
I wonder if those of us who live in areas receiving a lot of ''White flight" should make our presence felt on some of these sites where people are inquiring about relocating. I think we should do all we can to discourage the ''progressives'' and the politically correct Republican types to look elsewhere for their next move. It isn't only the immigrants themselves who bring unwelcome change. This vast game of musical chairs will soon leave our country utterly unrecognizable everywhere, and unlivable in most places.
For those of us who might be looking for an area which is not too devastated by ''diversity'' just yet, we have to be aware of who else is looking to flee there; what's the use of relocating to some idyllic new place, only to find our new neighbors are our old liberal enemies from the big city?
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Demographics, Diversity, Ethnic Division, Ethnoconservatism, Liberalism, Overpopulation, White Flight