The last taboo?

I was somewhat surprised to find at the Faith and Heritage blog a piece by David Carlton which dares to bring up the issue of the genetic origins of modern-day Jews. This question is one which seems to be deliberately avoided, not confronted. Why?

A recent genetic study reported in the mainstream media indicates that the Biblical Canaanites were apparently the ancestors of today’s Lebanese. But why are the media, as well as mainstream Christians, and even the so-called ”right-wing extremists”, who are not normally afraid to ‘name the Jew’ wary of raising the question of the origins of today’s Jews?  I raised this question before, and it apparently was of no interest to my readers.

I say I was surprised to find a Kinist raising the question of Jewish origins, because on the Faith and Heritage blog, I’ve seen unfavorable comments from readers about ‘CI’ or ‘Christian Identity’; the CI believers seem to be counted as ‘deplorables’ by some Kinists as well as by ‘mainstream’ or Judeo-Christians. And the kinists the are deplored by the politically correct Christians, as the blog article tells us.

The writer of the blog piece says in a footnote:

“The topic of Jewish genetics and descent is a fascinating one. Several different proposals exist for the origin of the Jewish ethnicity. Regardless of one’s opinion on the subject (and my mind is not yet made up), this doesn’t change the fact that Jews have no special status or covenant with God apart from faith in Christ.”

Yet I don’t see that the question of Jewish genetics is still up in the air. I know of no study that definitely establishes Jews as descendants of Biblical Israel.  The Infogalatic article seems only to cloud the issue further. However I’ve read widely on this subject off and on for some years, and I fail to see why scientists can trace the Lebanese to their Canaanite ancestry but we can’t find out who the Jews are with any certitude. Many studies have shown mixed origins for today’s Jews, and Biblically, Israel (all the tribes, not just Judah, that is, ‘Jews’) were not to mix with other peoples,  but to preserve their bloodline. So how can a mixed people be any more legitimately Israel than say, the mixed Samaritans, who were the pariahs in Jesus’ lifetime?

I don’t see why this study, from reputable Johns Hopkins, generated so very little discussion, or why so many have glibly dismissed it if they addressed it at all.

This website treats the study’s findings as accurate, stating that, according to the study’s author, the Jews are descendants, mostly, of the Khazars. Yet he concludes that Abraham’s descendants, wherever they may be, are not relevant, and that there is only ‘spiritual Israel’ now. Yet that does not line up with what the Bible has to say about the scattered ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ being found in due time.

What we are left with, as far as the origins of the Jews, is strictly their word that they are the Israel of the Bible. How do they know this? Word of mouth, through generations? Remember that the Gypsies claimed for centuries (until genetic testing was possible) that they were of Egyptian origin. Now we know they originated in the Indian subcontinent, far from Egypt.

Many Americans maintain stubbornly that they are of American Indian blood, and have told their children for generations that they are of Indian blood — and often were sorely disappointed when DNA testing showed all European blood.

‘Oral traditions’ are not very reliable, in many cases, especially where very long time spans are involved. That’s simple common sense.

Few if any people can account for their ancestry back thousands of years. Yet we accept that Jews somehow know with certainty who their ancestors were. And the fact that Jews do in fact claim to be the people of the Bible, God’s chosen, insulates them from any challenges or criticism, especially with Christians of today. We are not to doubt, much less criticize them because they are God’s people, the people of the Bible. But how can we know that? Don’t ask questions; they’re God’s chosen –and they are at the pinnacle of the pyramid of victimhood.

In the absence of real proof, and with much evidence to the contrary, why do we automatically accept, if only tacitly, claims like this? Should not the onus be on them to supply some evidence of their claim?

Why is the Johns Hopkins study ignored or scoffed at? I can only guess it’s for political reasons; most people don’t want to touch it. And who profits by this discreet turning of blind eyes?

To return to David Carlton’s piece, he mentions a John Weaver, of Freedom Ministries, and though I hadn’t heard of him previously it sounds like he has a great deal more sense and honesty in him than many of today’s Christian teachers, who just seek to ‘tickle people’s ears’ or speak smooth words. I plan to listen to Weaver’s podcasts or read what he has written.

And speaking of Christian teachers and preachers, the late Wesley Swift would be considered a religious ‘deplorable’ by most of today’s timid Christians and churchian SJWs.  Yet his sermons and talks, most of them from the 1950s and 60s, accurately foresaw what is going on in our world in 2017. It is uncanny to read or hear his words and note how relevant and current they are half a century or more later. Say what you will about him, but he seemed to know what was coming.

Many of today’s Christians prefer to forget, if they even know, that our forefathers had views much closer to Wesley Swift’s (or probably John Weaver’s) than to today’s politically correct eunuchs. Most of our forefathers were ‘deplorables’ by today’s standards, backward, extremist, bigoted. So today’s wisdom says.

And so we go on, intimidated into avoiding the taboos.




‘Rating’ ethnic groups

About a hundred years ago, a sociologist did a study of ten ethnic groups in America and rated their ‘relative social worth.’ This was during one of the peak periods of immigration, and nativist tendencies were very much alive then, despite the already-ongoing efforts to promote the ‘melting pot’ and the ‘all one happy family’ sentiment.

Today such a study would be unlikely to be done, unless it was commissioned specifically to paint immigrants in the most favorable light and to convince any skeptics out there to get with the program and celebrate diversity. After all, Latinos are hard workers with good family values, just doing the jobs that you lazy White folks won’t do.

As to the study, done by H. B. Woolston, the ratings of ten ethnic groups went as follows:

  1. Native-born White Americans
  2. Germans
  3. English
  4. “Polish and Russian Hebrews”
  5. Scandinavians
  6. Irish
  7. French-Canadians
  8. Austrian Slavs
  9. South Italians
  10. Negroes

The term “Polish and Russian Hebrews” is the language used in the study.

The sociologist who did this study notes the results with some dismay, remarking that there was, to use today’s lingo not enough ‘diversity’, a “lack of Negroes, Slavs, or Latins” among the study’s observers, so there may have been some ‘Anglo-Saxon prejudice’ at work there, according to the author.  Obviously Woolston was a relativist who thought that applying our standards measured only conformity to our standards of excellence. But wouldn’t the ‘Hebrews’ who rated #4 also have suffered from being judged by alien ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or Teutonic standards?

Obviously those who succeeded in our society were likely to be those from cultures closest to us, and their cultures would be similar because we are genetically similar. The top three ethnicities are more closely related, after all.

Can a study like this be truly objective? Everybody brings some degree of bias to making assessments like this; I’ve noted with some impatience that most White Americans have ‘favorite minorities’ for whom they plead, arguing that this or that group ‘make good Americans’, or ‘they are hard workers’, or in the case of East Asians, the argument is always that ‘they have high IQs and are not crime-prone’.

And then of course there is the more natural bias towards believing our own ethnicity to be preferable to all others, or to have accomplished more, or whatever. Some peoples have pride, apparently,  in claiming victimhood, recognizing the value and the power of victimhood in our ‘oppressor-vs.-victim’ hierarchy.

A study like this one, judging “relative social worth” of various immigrant groups is just too politically incorrect, and even apart from the open-borders, ‘we’re all one race, the human race’ crowd, many people on the right would be irate if their particular ethnic group (or groups) were not at the top of the list.

On a side note, I was reading a thread at Steve Sailer’s blog about ethnic cleansing or ‘White flight’, and someone mentioned the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Whites from Vancouver, B.C., while someone countered that Whites weren’t fleeing their Chinese replacements in Vancouver; after all nobody fears the Chinese because they are not a danger. I would disagree with that. Regardless of whether a group of people is a direct physical threat, the fact that they have a drastically different way of life, and that they change your familiar hometown surroundings beyond recognition, is significant. Nobody, at least nobody with normal feelings, wants to live in a neighborhood where an utterly foreign language is spoken, and people have different customs, habits, and etiquette. I don’t think the most ardent xenophiliac would want to be the ‘only White’ left in his former neighborhood.

As to the Chinese and other Asians having low-crime culture, well, there is crime, and there is crime. They may not be prone to violence (however,  see the story of the Wah Mee Social Club), and then there are Asians, and Asians. East Asians, or Northeast Asians, are not the same as South Asians or Southeast Asians, or West Asians. We too often think of the model minority in connection with all Asians, though the stereotype was based on the behavior of Japanese-Americans specifically.

Returning to the list of ethnic rankings, we might think that the America of 100 years ago was lucky in that most of the immigrants of that day were European at least, but the increasingly diverse European immigrants were getting us accustomed to more exotic cultures and peoples. I am convinced that it was always the plan to open the country to people from every continent and people; they just ‘warmed up’ with European groups, and actually by the turn of the 20th century there were waves of Asian immigration, especially to the West Coast. I think the idea was to do all this by degrees, gradually conditioning us to the idea that America was a place where anybody and everybody seeking ‘Freedom’ or a ‘better life’ could rightfully come.

Now, ‘relative social worth’ seems to have been thrown out the window, and the more dysfunctional and divergent from our culture a group is, the more they seem to be sought out by those who make policy for our country.

Secession: would it work?

Colin Woodard made the case for his vision of the United States as divided into a ”country of regions.” Woodard’s map shows his idea of the ’11 countries” or nations that make up today’s United States.

woodard's eleven nations
I’ve expressed my skepticism about Woodard’s classification of the regions of the United States, because, among other things, it’s an oversimplification. I think that the uncritical way in which many people have seized on Woodard’s ideas and his map to press an agenda of their own is not a good thing. It’s helped to popularize this oversimplified, and I think inaccurate, way of seeing the U.S.

Another problem I have with Woodard’s ideas, (and those of his predecessors who pushed similar ideas in earlier decades) is that Woodard is apparently of a liberal bent, and he obviously does not take racial/ethnic realities into account in his ideas about the future of the Dis-United States.

One thing about his ideas which I find absurd is his classifying the regions according to the people who settled there many generations ago. In the past I questioned how it could be argued that ‘Yankees’, or Puritan Anglo-Saxon stock, could still exert influence over the Northeast when in fact there are, percentage-wise, relatively few of them still in the Northeast. In the article I link above, he argues that somehow all succeeding waves of immigrants have assimilated to Yankee norms, just as his Danish ancestors assimilated to ‘Midlands’ culture. But yet after so many waves of immigrants have washed over parts of these once-United States, surely the footprint of the original settlers has been trampled over so as to be effaced and lost. He is arguing for some kind of quasi-mystical influence that lives on after the actual people who shaped the place are dead and their posterity moved thousands of miles Westward.

I find it hard to believe that the Somalis, for example, who are now being shipped en masse to, say, Minnesota, are absorbing the good old Scandinavian Lutheran ways of the early White settlers. But if one believes Woodard or his followers, this must be what is happening.

Some years ago, I wrote a good bit about secession, and in recent years that subject has become a much more discussed — and popular — topic. And finally someone has written a good piece discussing the improbable situation of our current United States of America breaking up along state lines, or even regional lines, per Woodard et al. From Where the Strongest Evidence Leads blog:

Secession Must Be on the Basis of Race and Beliefs, Not Existing State Borders

“Secession at the state level solves few major problems. Huge divides exist within blue and red states. If California secedes, New Democrats will run it, or at least be the public face of power, until Marxian Hispanics take over, then Muslims take over, including Hispanic and other converts to Islam. If Texas secedes, Rick Perry’s donors will run Texas until the likes of Hugo Chavez take over, then the likes of Ibrahim Hooper replace them, with much violence resulting.

It is more accurate to call the left a coalition of incompatibles than what Steve Sailer calls a coalition of fringes. The same goes for the right.”

Read the whole thing at the blog. The writer takes into account the existence of many factions, including political/ideological as well as ethnic and religious groups who would not, or could not, coexist peaceably should the country break up into separate entities along existing state borders.

The obvious fact is that the powers-that-be have engineered much of the ‘diversity’ which resulted in the presence of so many incompatible and mutually hostile groups. This may indicate that they are hoping to control how a break-up of the United States would play out, should it happen.

It does seem that the more ‘diverse’ our country becomes, with so many competing if not warring groups, the less likely secession would be to change the situation to our advantage, as we would hope.

And maybe those in power are trying, among other things, to insure themselves against secession moves by irreparably breaking the cohesion of the country, sowing seeds of dissension and disunity, so that there can be no threat to the power of those in charge.

Update: I just found this related piece from The Roper Report, called Coloring within the lines. Written from the perspective of racial and ethnic divisions, it also questions the standard view of secession. It would seem that there is no easy solution, and that racial rifts would foil any attempt at a clean separation by region or state.

What’s in a name?

I’m glad someone addressed this issue, though it seems to be a hopeless cause to change the politically correct terminology that dominates our language.

Jmsmith at The Orthosphere blog writes about the varying names given to followers of Islam, with ‘Muslim’ being the politically correct usage employed by the media, the educational establishment, the lefties — by everybody, in fact, left or right, except for a few ornery people who say ‘Mohammedan’ or ‘muzzie’ or some other less-than-reverential term.

A Mohammedan is not a Christian or Jew because he is: “one who accepts the proposition that an Arab named Mohammed or Ahmad, son of Abdallah, of the city of Mecca, in Central Arabia, who died in A.D. 632 is the main and indeed ultimate channel whereby the will of the Creator of the world has been revealed to mankind.”*

If you accede to calling this man a Moslem (i.e. Truly Religious), I believe that you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. If you accede to calling his religion Islam (i.e. True Religion), I believe you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. To draw this to its sharpest possible point, a Christian who accedes to using the words Moslem or Islam is at least flirting with apostasy.**

Well, then as a Christian I might be apostate because I have held to using ‘Moslem‘. However I have a different recollection as to which term was considered ‘offensive’ to Moslems, besides ‘Mohammedan,’, that is. I was not sure if my memory was accurate so after a little searching I came across this:

“According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,”Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word.” But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means”one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means”one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

[…]Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.”

From what I recall, that pressure came from the militant ‘Black Muslim’ sect back in the late 1960s when the ‘establishment’ was leaning over backwards (as now) to placate minorities, especially militant blacks. I doubt that many people today are aware of the origins of that sect, and how outré their belief system was/is. To think that we automatically kowtowed to them on the issue of what we are “allowed” to call them or their faith is pretty shameful for us. It shows how ‘cucked’ we were, even back in the late 60s when all this nonsense began.

“But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP–the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World–published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut–is still The Moslem World.”

Interesting; I didn’t know anybody officially still used ‘Moslem’, apart from me and a few others. Incidentally a friend of mine began using ‘Moslem’ after hearing me use it only to be scolded by her leftist millennial offspring, who, of course, know everything since attending college (and a Christian college, at that).

I am not looking to be contentious here or to argue with Jmsmith; I am in agreement  that we should not simply give in to pressure from those of a religion which is contradicts with our own Christian beliefs, a group which is essentially at war with us, and has been since its inception. We should not accede automatically and go along with their terminology and definitions. In doing that we are being less than true to our Christian beliefs.

There are lots of terms for followers of Mohammed: Musulman, Mahometan, Moslem, Mohammedan. They served us well for many centuries. Why change just to placate those who are never going to be appeased by anything less than total submission? Because that is what Islam means: submission.

The ‘racism’ scare and other scares

There’s an interesting piece at TakiMag, called Skeered o’ the Racisms. The writer points out the way in which lefties/SJWs gin up a fear of this mysterious entity, ‘racism’, which is said to exist everywhere, at least everywhere White people (including White babies, according to Time magazine) exist.

And just in case there isn’t enough of this mysterious force everywhere, it has to be conjured, or hoaxed into existence, as the ‘demand for racism exceeds the supply‘ as I think Steve Sailer said. It seems Whitey is slacking off on the job, not committing the requisite number of ‘racist’ acts, so somebody’s got to do it.

Just an aside: there are a shocking number of politically correct commenters at TakiMag; are they ‘cuckservatives’ or SJWs? It’s getting hard to tell them apart these days.

But back to the need for a good ‘scare’ to motivate the Left and their mascots/pets: it’s ironic that the left is very fond of referring to legitimate threats as ‘scares’ or ‘witch hunts’. I read the IMDB website a lot because I watch many old movies, and maybe it’s masochistic on my part to read the reviews there but I do read them. It’s disturbing how very many commenters cannot watch an old movie without scrutinizing a film for the ‘racisms’ and all the other naughty ‘isms’ like ‘sexism’, as well as all the ‘phobias’ like homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia — have I left any of them out?  The IMDB commenters are also unhealthily obsessed with ‘pre-code’ films, which they prize very highly because, as one commenter said, it’s ”delightful” to find salaciousness and ‘corruption’ in old movies. Now, why this should evoke delight in a movie viewer is somewhat baffling to me, but I gather that it is because it confirms the lefty’s ‘faith’ that the popular image of the wholesome past is in fact false; that people were really hypocrites sinning it up behind closed doors, while putting up a false front of respectability. Human nature being what it is, certainly there were people who feigned innocence in public while being perverts, drunks, or druggies in private. But to say that ‘everyone’ was a liar and a hypocrite back then is just not true — still, it’s what the left believes. So they do love to see the pre-code movies in which we see drug usage (movies like ‘Three on a Match’) or other perversions (‘Wonderbar’).

Most of all, though, the left loves to uncover ‘racism’ in old movies, for example, a black character playing the role of a butler, maid, or janitor. And the SJWs are beside themselves with satisfaction if they spot an Oriental character (yes, I did say ‘Oriental’; it’s a perfectly good word) speaking pidgin English. One commenter on IMDB was shocked and troubled by the ‘‘degrading Chinese music‘ played in some movie with scenes of Chinese people or the Orient. I wasn’t aware that a musical score could be ‘degrading’ in and of itself. I actually found that complaint amusing.

Really, these obsessed lefties, these self-appointed advocates and ‘champions’ of their poor downtrodden minority clients/mascots, seem to need some evidence that their feared bogeyman, the spirit of ‘racism’, does exist now as then. It vindicates, for them at least, the enormous amounts of time and energy they devote to thinking and talking about it — and condemning it.

I think, personally, it’s a very appropriate use of the noun ‘scare‘ to describe their fixation with ‘racism’ as a scare. Interestingly, they almost always use the noun ‘scare’ to designate something they say is nonexistent: like the ‘Red scare’, as they call it, of the 1950s. There was no Communist threat in that era, so they say; it was all in the minds of the ‘far right’, people like Joe McCarthy and any number of others who warned of the presence of Communists in high places.  So it was just a ‘Red scare’, a mythical bogeyman created by the right.

They also favor the term ‘witch hunt’ in describing things like the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) hearings. Just as they say there were no real witches in Salem or elsewhere, they say there were no Communists, the Venona papers notwithstanding.

So it was all a witch hunt, an attempt to harass and punish perfectly innocent people, for their political views. If it was a real ‘witch hunt’ the hunters were pretty inept, because despite the much-hyped ‘blacklists’ and other such measures, the Communist cabal went from strength to strength and they have pretty much enacted all their stated goals from the 1940s-50s. So who was paranoid?

Actually now the shoe is on the other foot; the lefties, despite having the whip hand, and having the media fully in their service, claim that the ‘far right’ is a threat to them.

I think it’s fitting to deploy their own terminology and rhetoric against them; yes, call the racism thing a ‘racism scare‘, in the spirit of their ‘Red scare’ propaganda. Call the racist hunt a ‘witch hunt’ because that, in truth, is what it is. Except that unlike in the past, there are no ‘witches’ on the White right working evil voodoo against the army of ‘victims’ the left has in tow.

I don’t know if the left really believes in their own hysterical rhetoric; some are utterly cynical and habitual liars, who lie to themselves, but it may be that some actually believe in their increasingly bizarre view of the world, especially the past. In any case, the SJWs are the ones who imagine, or pretend to imagine, threats and evil intentions around every corner.

If we’re lucky, in some saner time we will be able to read in honest history books about the ‘hysterical racism scare‘ of this era.

T.S. Eliot on tradition and community

T.S. Eliot had some relevant things to say about tradition, culture, and community, recorded in the book After Strange Gods: A Primer of Modern Heresy, which is material from lectures he gave in the 1930s.

He warns against being sentimental towards the past necessarily, because any ‘living tradition’ is bound to be a mix of good and bad. In other words, we have to be selective and discriminating about what we preserve and what we leave behind. I think these are important ideas to our age, as we seem to be at a crossroads.

But let’s look at what Eliot says here I’ve bolded parts I think most interesting or relevant.

“Nor can we safely, without very critical examination, dig ourselves in stubbornly to a few dogmatic notions, for what is a healthy belief at one time may, unless it is one of the few fundamental things, be a pernicious prejudice at another.
What we can do is to use our minds, remembering that a tradition without intelligence is not worth having, to discover what is the best life for us not as a political abstraction, but as a particular people in a particular place; what in the past is worth preserving and what should be rejected; and what conditions, within our power to bring about, would foster the society that we desire. Stability is obviously necessary. You are hardly likely to develop tradition except where the bulk of the population is relatively so well off that it has no incentive or pressure to move about. The population should be homogeneous; where two or more cultures exist in the same place they are likely to either be fiercely self-conscious or both to become adulterate. What is still more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable. There must be a proper balance between urban and rural, industrial and agricultural development. We must also remember that — in spite of every means of transport that can be devised — the local community must always be the most permanent, and that the concept of the nation is by no means fixed and invariable. It is, so to speak, only one fluctuating circle of loyalties between the centre of the family and the local community, and the periphery of humanity entire. Its strength and its geographical size depend upon the comprehensiveness of a way of life which can harmonise parts with distinct local characters of their own. When it becomes no more than a centralised machinery it may affect some of its parts to their detriment, or to what they believe to be their detriment; and we get the regional movements which have appeared within recent years. It is only a law of nature, that local patriotism, when it represents a distinct tradition and culture, takes precedence over a more abstract national patriotism. This remark should carry more weight for being uttered by a Yankee.

The last sentence hints at Eliot’s sympathetic views toward the South. Eliot was something of a maverick in his political sentiments, especially amongst so many liberal/leftist writers and ‘artists.’ His casual statement about Jews in the above excerpts makes it no surprise that he was accused of anti-Semitism.

Regardless of his political and social views, I think he shows very sound thinking on the issues he talked about in this particular segment, and it’s all very relevant to our world now, as tradition is being jettisoned by both the ‘Frankfurt School’/Critical Theory crowd on the left, and by segments of the right, who have decided that nothing in our past is worth saving, and that we can’t learn anything from our ignorant forefathers.

There is a place for stability, continuity, and tradition. It is not possible to built a culture from the ground up, to start from scratch, as some seem to think we ought to do if it is ever in our power to have a say in our future.  Eliot recognized this. We don’t have many men of his calibre today, and so much the worse for us.

Celebrating our independence

I trust you all enjoyed a pleasant Independence Day, though with each year the question “just what we are celebrating?” insistently recurs in my mind.

For a lot of Americans it seems as though we are celebrating just out of habit, or just for the sake of celebrating — with the customary fireworks, barbecues, parades — but for some of us the day has assumed overtones of mourning — mourning what has become of our country, mourning for what should have been but now is not.

If we choose, we can look back at the genuine accomplishments and heroism of our forefathers in creating this country, though it seems fewer Americans each year are inclined to do that. Cynicism on the part of many on the right is the order of the day, and I seem to see as much bitterness towards our forebears from the ‘right’ as from the left. No matter which way you cut it, that is sad. No matter how wrong America has gone in this ‘grand experiment’ that we call our country, is there really any comfort in denouncing the Founders of this country? Does it serve any useful purpose? I say it doesn’t; if we are truly ethnonationalists or ethnopatriots there has to be something in our history and our folk that we can love and defend. Of course we have to separate our nation (and our folk; they are one) from our government, which does not represent us, nor does it seem to care about our safety and happiness.

But must we trash the past and the people who made our country? I can’t take part in that, though I am decidedly not one of those people the right (and left) disparage as ‘patriotards.’

Even the use of names like ‘patriotard’ is an example of jaded cynicism, something I dislike, especially if I find it growing in my own heart.

Pat Buchanan, in a very good article, asks the question of whether we are still a nation. In my opinion it’s one of the best things he’s written lately, though I often felt he did not ‘go far enough’ in the past in addressing some issues.

I think most of us would agree that the country, as we know it today, does not embody a true nation, a people descended from a common ancestry and with shared history and culture. But there is still a core, a remnant, that exists. Those who are part of this know it, and it is to this that we should and must be loyal. Cynicism and bitterness are not motivating influences; instead they seem to lead to apathy and resignation, and to a perverse kind of superiority feeling based on being above the simple-minded ‘normies’ or ‘Murkans.’ Nothing positive can be built on this.

I don’t know what the future of this ‘Republic’ of ours holds; I am sorry to say I am not as optimistic as I once was (though my optimism was always cautious and tempered by realism). I don’t know that we have any cause to celebrate on Independence Day except to remember our forebears and their great efforts and sacrifices for our benefit, and the fact that their posterity failed to ‘keep’ the Republic they created for us is to our discredit, not theirs.


Poland rejects mass immigration?

The Daily Caller reports on Trump’s planned visit to Poland, where he will praise the Polish government’s decision to reject ‘refugees and mass immigration.’

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said of the President’s upcoming speech:

“McMaster said that Trump will deliver a “major speech” in which he will “praise Polish courage” and its “emergence as a European power.” The nation is currently ruled by a nationalist Christian party that has rejected refugee resettlement and mass immigration.”

As everybody applauds the Poles for their resistance to the globalist program, I have to spoil the party by asking, if the current ruling faction in Poland is truly nationalist (and anti-globalist, which to me, go together) why are they insistent on colonizing parts of Western Europe? Ask the people of Britain or Ireland, or even France, as I’ve heard, into which countries a total of millions of Poles have immigrated.

Now, for the sake of fairness, I will say that there are people in the receiving Western European countries who say they don’t  mind the mass immigration by Poles, because they are “hard-working”, “Christian (Catholic)”, and “they assimilate better than the others.” Yet on the other hand, many, many Americans say identical things about Latin Americans settling our country en masse, changing neighborhoods and towns, taking jobs and making the English language even more rarely spoken. (How many people are aware that Polish is now the second most spoken language in the UK?)

And I will concede, on the other hand, that Poles probably are preferable, if one must have mass immigration, to Moslems from whatever country or Third Worlders generally.

But if enough foreign people keep arriving to Western European countries, the countries, their culture and genetics, will change just as surely, regardless of who the colonizers may be.

And then, there’s the question, as I say above, of whether we must have mass immigration of anybody from anywhere. The answer that I keep coming up with as I ponder this is NO. It is not an imperative, not morally or demographically or economically or whatever else. The pro-immigration people, whether they call themselves conservatives or progressives, imply that we have no choice; it’s inevitable, and besides it’s the right thing to do in all the ways listed above, and not to do so is backward and mean-spirited and bigoted. And short-sighted, because we ‘need’ immigration.

The moral claim is made that the Middle Eastern and African ‘refugees’ descending on Europe, those presumably being refused by the Poles, are in fear for their lives, or are so destitute and desperate that it’s inhumane not to allow them in and welcome them.

The same claim was and is being made even for the Mexicans and assorted Latin Americans entering our country: ‘they’re poor; if I lived in Mexico I’d try to sneak into America to feed my family; wouldn’t you?’

But the same claim can’t plausibly be made for Poland’s emigrants who go to Western Europe; there is no mass starvation or want in Poland that I’m aware of. And though their people hold mass rallies chanting ‘Poland for the Poles’, if they are true nationalists, why don’t they recognize the theoretical right of the people of Britain and Ireland or France to limit or refuse immigration from any or all countries?

It seems to me they should, as nationalists, not be colonizing others’ countries, taking advantage of the anti-indigenous policies elsewhere. It seems to me that they should admit their own double standard and hypocrisy, and call their emigrants home. Poland should want its people to stay home and raise their families there.

Incidentally there have been calls from some quarters in Poland for ‘guest workers’ or immigrants — to replace the native Polish workers who are colonizing other countries.

One other issue that this leads to: there is a discussion on several blogs about the question of whether White Nationalism is just a form of multiculturalism or whether it implies (as I’ve said) a White egalitarianism, with all Whites equal and interchangeable, or a pan-European, ethnically homogenized form of identity. Some commenters vehemently deny that WNs believe we should ideally erase national and ethnic boundaries amongst European-descended people and allow open borders for all such people to emigrate/immigrate freely.

Yet these kinds of ideas are propounded on some forums and blogs I’ve visited. Oftentimes it came up when some nationalistic British people would complain of the increasing Polish presence, and others would tell them that they should be glad to have Poles because they are white. So this certainly implies that skin color determines who should be welcomed into a country; if this philosophy were adopted then Britain, for example, would be a polyglot country of various White ethnicities — a tower of Babel, but ‘as long as it’s a White Babel, then what’s the problem?’ is the implicit assumption.

The problem is that a nationalist believes that a country embodies a particular people, an extended kin group with a shared history, culture, and (preferably) religion. Skin color alone is not sufficient to form a cohesive nation. Being European alone, or European-descended, is not enough to bind a people together; it never has been.

Whose posterity?

At Vox Day’s blog, there’s a long discussion on the subject of just what the phrase “our posterity” means when used by the Founding Fathers (“ourselves and our posterity“, as you see above on my blog header.)

To me, the phrase’s meaning is self-evident, but apparently not to a lot of people. Maybe it depends, more than anything else, on ancestry. Those who are descendants of colonial stock, or at least descendants of the Revolutionary War generation, know who they are — or should know. Granted, though, many Americans are still vague about their origins — or worse, are ‘certain’ of what may be incorrect beliefs about their own genetics and ancestry, believing themselves to have some kind of ‘exotic’ ancestry that carries some kind of cachet for them or for the average American. But many people don’t know who their ancestors were, or perhaps know about only one or two lineages, or only the most recent ancestry.

Now for whatever reason, I can’t seem to get comments posted on Blogger blogs, and so I can’t take part in the VP discussion, so I’ll just post my thoughts here.

I am surprised at how many people seem to react negatively to Vox Day’s assertion that only the descendants of the actual Founding generation (and ethnicity) are the real posterity. Some people, as usually happens, feel personally offended if told that their ancestors, still being in the ‘old country’ when the Founders wrote their words, could not consider their own progeny to be the ‘posterity’ of the Founders or their generation.

Because people take this personally they respond with peevish statements along the lines of the following: ‘‘there aren’t any of the actual posterity of the Founders now; there are no ‘pure English’ or unmixed people left“, or there is legalistic arguing that immigrants and their posterity are just as much legitimate heirs as by adoption (naturalization being equated with adoption into a family).

If there are any of my old-time readers here these days, those with long memories may remember that when we had these discussions say, ten years ago, I was actually offering a ‘civic nationalist’ interpretation. As I wrote in a blog post some years ago:

‘[M]y ”we” includes all those who consider themselves ‘old Americans’, regardless of where your ancestors originated. All of you who identify with the America that was, and the America that might once again be.’

Was I really so clueless then?

Obviously many of those who are not of old-stock Anglo-Saxon roots are unwilling to ‘forgive’ those of us who are, judging by their grudging and resentful tone when referring to Anglo-Saxon Americans, even continuing the old denial that we even exist any longer. Many of those who admit to multiple European ancestries seem to want to believe that all White Americans are as they are, with a half-dozen or so different ancestries, and hence no particular identification with any one strain. They choose to believe that everyone must be like them.

For a long time it did seem as if the ‘just-American‘ identity, the old civic nationalist line, worked, at least passably, but sometime around the 1970s there was a kind of resurgence of ethnic identities, maybe in response to the increasing in-your-face ethnocentrism of nonwhites, so many Americans of remote Irish ancestry or German ancestry or Italian ancestry suddenly became more assertive about their roots, and sometimes this newly-found ethnocentrism became a more antagonistic dislike of ‘WASPs’, supposedly for some past imagined wrongs done by WASPs collectively against their immigrant ancestors, collectively. I honestly don’t remember there being as much anti-Anglo sentiment as we see now. My own increasing Anglocentrism is in part a response to that, merely an effort to speak up for too-reticent Anglo-Americans who are used to discreetly ignoring slurs from others.

From the same blog post of mine which I quote above:

“It is getting harder to cling to a ‘just American’ identity when our country is now according what was once a great prize, American citizenship, to people from every corner of the globe, people who speak no English and have no connection with old America. The American identity has been devalued, and stripped of its meaning. To be an American might mean anything and everything, but ultimately nothing when there is little commonality among those claiming the title.

What then? Are we all to identify with our varied European ancestry? Those who have several different ancestries with no clearly dominant one will face a dilemma in such a case.

‘I think those whose families have been here for generations should be able to identify with the historic culture and people of the United States, and that means the Anglo-Celtic identity which has dominated. It used to be that this was the default culture with which everyone identified, and few chose to reject that. Now it’s reversed; it’s cool to be ”ethnic” because that is vibrant and colorful and ‘rich’.

Sadly we seem to be beyond that point. Everybody scents blood where old-stock WASP Americans are concerned; ‘WASPs’ are considered weak or effete, or even (as some claim) extinct altogether, blended out of existence, hence we are fair game, to be discussed in the third person — ”they”– as if Anglo-Americans are like the Etruscans or some other long-gone race. We’ve been pronounced dead, or as good as, by some people, people who have their own ethnic agenda.

One more claim from some ‘civic nationalists’ I meant to address is the claim that ‘other ethnic groups were here from the very beginning’, and usually a litany of nationalities is recited, ‘Swedish, Dutch, German, Slavic, French, Spanish’, etc. etc. The deceptiveness in this line of argument is in implying that these other groups were equal in numbers to the English colonists, or that they were here contemporaneously with the English colonies when they may not have been. Yes. There were these other ethnicities who had colonies here, or who came to the English colonies — in very, very small numbers. But they were fewer, and did not leave the same cultural/social/genetic/political imprint as the English. They were here, but their presence was not as significant, like it or not.

It’s funny how this subject of national identity continues to come up again and again, despite having been discussed so frequently by so many; we seem to be farther than ever from settling it, and all the while our country continues to be colonized by people who seem to be here just to feast off the carcase of English-speaking America. And all the while we are squabbling amongst ourselves, while others are busy taking our birthright.

On ‘national degeneracy’

“A people is said to be degenerated, when it is badly governed, abuses its riches, is fanatical, or irreligious; in short, when it has lost the characteristic virtues of its forefathers. This is begging the question. Thus, communities succumb under the burden of social and political evils only when they are degenerate, and they are degenerate only when such evils prevail. This circular argument proves nothing but the small progress hitherto made in the science of national biology. I readily admit that nations perish from degeneracy, and from no other cause; it is when in that wretched condition, that foreign attacks are fatal to them, for then they no longer possess the strength to protect themselves against adverse fortune, or to recover from its blows. They die, because, though exposed to the same perils as their ancestors, they have not the same powers of overcoming them. I repeat it, the term degeneracy is correct; but it is necessary to define it, to give it a real and tangible meaning. It is necessary to say how and why this vigor, this capacity of overcoming surrounding dangers, are lost. Hitherto, we have been satisfied with a mere word, but the thing itself is as little known as ever. The step beyond, I shall attempt to make.

In my opinion, a nation is degenerate, when the blood of its founders no longer flows in its veins, but has been gradually deteriorated by successive foreign admixtures; so that the nation, while retaining its original name, is no longer composed of the same elements. The attenuation of the original blood is attended by a modification of the original instincts, or modes of thinking; the new elements assert their influence, and when they have once gained perfect and entire preponderance, the degeneration may be considered as complete. With the last remnant of the original ethnical principle, expires the life of the society and its civilization. The masses, which composed it, have thenceforth no separate, independent, social and political existence; they are attracted to different centres of civilization, and swell the ranks of new societies having new instincts and new purposes.

In attempting to establish this theorem, I am met by a question which involves the solution of a far more difficult problem than any I have yet approached. This question, so momentous in its bearings, is the following:

Is there, in reality, a serious and palpable difference in the capacity and intrinsic worth of different branches of the human family?

For the sake of clearness, I shall advance, a priori, that this difference exists. It then remains to show how the ethnical character of a nation can undergo such a total change as I designate by the term degeneracy.

Physiologists assert that the human frame is subject to a constant wear and tear, which would soon destroy the whole machine, but for new particles which are continually taking the form and place of the old ones. So rapid is this change said to be, that, in a few years, the whole framework is renovated, and the material identity of the individual changed. The same, to a great extent, may be said of nations, only that, while the individual always preserves a certain similarity of form and features, those of a nation are subject to innumerable and ever-varying changes.”

From Gobineau, The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races