Who ‘runs’ America?

Who is in charge in our country? This is an important question for those who (like many of us) are appalled and horrified by the direction of our country. Who is to blame? To whom can we assign responsibility for the decisions that are being made, ostensibly in ‘our’ name?

Most of us who grew up in the old America, the America that was and is no more, were imbued with the idea that we, the people, were ‘in charge’; that elected officials were ‘working for us’, being paid by us. Most of us no longer believe that; how is it possible to believe that the American citizen has power in this country, when we’ve seen our elected officials, at the highest levels, ignoring our expressed will, and seemingly doing the bidding of other interests?

For some people, The Jews are the real power, albeit indirectly or covertly. Others (strangely) still identify some kind of mysterious WASP ‘elites’ as being in control. Some people refer to ‘New England Yankees’ as a powerful cabal, though there are few colonial-stock Yankees in New England anymore.

Lately a great number of people on the right subscribe to the idea that ‘Boomers’ are and have been in charge, and that they are therefore to blame for the situation we are in. This idea is a recent one, relatively speaking. I started blogging in 2006 and I don’t remember hearing this meme then. It’s only caught on in the last several years at most. Yet it’s become strongly ensconced in the minds of many on the right.

It would be interesting to trace this meme, to follow it back to its source. I posted a comment from another ethnonationalist blog which named a few bloggers (on the right) as the likely source, but who knows? Lacking any other explanation I might accept it; I know it has been reinforced greatly through constant repetition on certain blogs, though it’s everywhere now.

I’ve tried, without success, to argue via data (polls, survey results, etc.) to refute the idea that boomers are far-left and that they constitute some kind of powerful force. However I’ve found that approach to be a failure. People seem to be operating out of a visceral dislike rather than a rational antipathy toward their favorite villains. Facts don’t matter; data does not persuade people who don’t want to believe the data.

If boomers were a monolithically leftist group, the gut-level loathing would be understandable.

And even if the charges against them were true, do they ‘run’ America? If so it would be logical to assume that they must be firmly in control of Congress and other such institutions. But at no time does one age group or cohort have exclusive control of Congress. There is always a cross-section of age groups and different generations in seats of power. The 115th Congress, which is the one sitting now, has quite a few very old members, people like Rep. Conyers, who is 87 years old (and thus not a Boomer), or Reps. Young and Johnson, from Alaska and Texas respectively. I am sure there are other octogenarians in Congress; what about Dianne Feinstein, the oldest Senator, at 83? And how old is John McCain?

The youngest Senator, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, is 39. I think that would make him a late Gen-Xer, for whatever that’s worth. So there is a mix of ages and generations in Congress. More demographic data on Congress members is here; it’s of interest that more immigrants are now sitting in Congress, as well as record number of nonwhites and women.

And what of the Supreme Court? Aren’t the ubiquitous Boomers dominating that institution? I think most of us know that there are a couple of octogenarians (pre-Boomers) on the Supreme Court, and according to this article the average age at which they are projected to retire will be 83.

Where else can we look for Boomers? They surely dominate college faculties, don’t they? They are being accused of ‘holding onto’ their jobs past the age when they should be forced out to pasture.

But does anyone seriously profess to believe that one age group can exercise so much influence in the important spheres of life? Some ‘anti-anti-Semites’ have accused those who warn against Jewish influence of attributing near-superhuman powers to Jews. It seems there are just as many people who must think Boomers have superhuman powers to exercise so much control over our society.

Simply reading a history book would make it clear that the crisis that has beset all the Western, formerly White-majority countries has its roots far back. It did not originate with Boomers, or even the Silent Generation (many of whom participated in the 60s countercultural movement). It is too facile to accuse any one age group or generation of being solely — or even mostly — to blame. Were all the other generations asleep or completely inert and passive when the Boomers were supposedly doing the dirty work of destroying Western Civilization? Even millennials have for years had the right to vote and to make their voices heard, yet only now are we seeing a percentage of them taking to the streets to oppose the left. Likewise with Gen-X. What was the saying attributed to black militant Eldridge Cleaver? “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem”? Everybody who is of age has the ability to ‘get involved’ in some way when they see things going down a dangerous path; people of every generation have had their chance to stand up and be counted, to play some part. It’s easy to point the finger at somebody else, and demand ‘why didn’t you stop it?’ or to say ‘it’s all your fault’.

A certain female politician notoriously said ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child. And it takes more than a ‘village’ to destroy a nation, a people, a culture. There is more than enough blame to go around.

And just a reminder for those who note accusingly that the ‘Boomers’ aren’t out on the barricades in these recent skirmishes: Boomers are now elderly, with the oldest being septuagenarians. Actually in the 1990s there were still a good many Boomers who were actively taking part in rallies and protests in border states, where some were assaulted by immigrants or their supporters. I can think of two such cases involving older people being injured. Do the critics really think grandma or grandpa should be mixing it up with violent young immigrants and antifa types? That’s a job for the young and fit. And the opposition has no respect for the aged or those who are weaker — but then few people on either side do.

Some people openly wish harm to Boomers for their ‘sins’, but be patient; at seventy or so, people begin to die of natural causes, as we’ve seen with a few Boomer celebrities recently. Time is catching up with them as with all of us, and the Boomers will be gone soon enough, vacating the role of scapegoat for someone else. And how does this blame game change anything? It doesn’t. It divides us. It polarizes and paralyzes us. We need to regain a sense of common purpose to unify us. We should, for the greater good, be able to put differences aside.

The American Indians lost control of this continent because they were so lacking in unity; our colonist ancestors benefited from the divisions that kept the different tribes at each others’ throats. Somebody is benefiting from our divisions.

And it ain’t us.

 

 

‘The load of calumny…’

“My duty will have been discharged, when the load of calumny which rests upon this people is lifted, when the story of Southern outrages against negroes and their allies is explained, and the Church of Christ is rescued from the suspicion of winking at lawlessness and crime — holding the nation breathless at the persecutions endured in the cause of equal rights, without a sigh of remonstrance from those who call themselves Christians.”

So wrote Joseph Pere Bell Wilmer in his ‘A Defense of Louisiana’, written during the troubled Reconstruction era. The ‘load of calumny’ to which he refers has to do with the accusations made against the White citizens of his state, and against the South generally, by the White allies of the black freedmen.

I feel the same burden that Wilmer felt; I somehow feel I have a duty to my folk and to my own ancestors, specifically, to answer the ‘load of calumny’ that not only continues these many decades later, but continues to intensify.

But let’s let Wilmer speak:

“To what is this tending? Nothing is more practicable than the cultivation of harmony among the States of this Union. Not less practicable, is the restoration of amity and affection between the two races in the South. Our hope is to live in peace with the negroes, ourselves and our children — but not while a respectable body of citizens are busy in segregating them and nursing distrust and alienation in their breasts; not while the public journals are teeming with accusations unknown in political warfare and foreign to the spirit of civilization, invoking upon the white race the restraints due to a turbulent and sanguinary people.”

I can’t say I share his optimism about the possibility of restoring ‘amity and affection’ between the two races; things have become that much worse since his words were written, and so much water has passed under the bridge. And I don’t think that it is now just a matter of troublemaking White traitors sowing distrust and animosity between the two races. If only it were that simple.

“Posterity will read with admiration, not unmingled with regret, of the patient struggles of the South to recover its forfeited rights in the Union. The privileges of representation first proffered were rendered imaginary in this State. Its representative men had all been in arms, and these by the will of Congress were excluded. This act of discrimination was not accepted by the people. From motives honorable to their spirit of chivalry, but fatal to their returning prosperity, the opportunity was lost to the Southern States to recover their influence in the councils of the nation.

[…] That the Reconstruction measures adopted by Congress for the South, were punitive in their design, I will not assert; that their aim was to establish the supremacy of a party, it is not my province to judge; that they were disastrous in their results, will be the verdict of history.”

One of the aims was to establish the supremacy of the Radical Republican party in the South, in case the allusion above is not self-evident. The Radical Republicans were the equivalent, in their anti-White tendencies, to the Democrat party of our day — or shall we include today’s Republicans in that category too? Why not?

“A more consuming policy could not have been devised. It excluded the statesmen of the land, and a large body of its ablest and best citizens, from any share in the rehabilitation of the State, and exalted to the highest functions of government, men wholly ignorant and incompetent to the task, bewildered indeed by this sudden transformation from slaves, into magistrates and rulers. So perilous a change was not wise statesmanship. The capacity of the Africans for government had been tested on their own native shores. Again, in the Islands of the Gulf of Mexico. The attempt to transfer to this race the fairest portion of the South, reckoning on their numerical strength to hold it under their sway, was to laugh to scorn the lessons of history. Ought we to be surprised that the inhabitants, — proprietors of the soil, men of our race and lineage — should revolt at this offence to their pride, not to speak of the inevitable spoliation and destruction of their property. Witness the result — in the present condition of this State, vividly, but imperfectly described in the message of the President to Congress, and the testimony before the Committee, in this city. Was anything else to be expected from African supremacy? A state illustrious in history, unrivalled in its resources, intense in its submission to Federal authority, reduced to shame and bankruptcy. Over its ample domain, or the larger portion of it, the eye ranges hopelessly for some object to break the monotony of suffering. Homes dilapidated and deserted, fields stretching far and wide uncultivated as a Libyan desert, schools suspended, churches closed, and when opened, half the congregation left to guard their property and homes from spoliation. No law exists against vagrancy, consequently in many parishes little or no stock is raised, no poultry, not even vegetables, so unsparing is the spirit of depredation. Disgrace is never attached to stealing from the whites, among a large class, and the convict emerges from the penitentiary with no sense of shame, and no loss of respectability. Indeed, the forbearance displayed by the planters under these outrages, if the facts were known as I know them, would often be regarded with amazement.”

I realize many of these facts are known to Southern folk, but I reiterate them for those who never learned of these things in our politically correct, anti-White school system. I happen to know that many private schools, sadly, even Christian schools, are just as derelict in their duties of teaching real history to their students.

And it’s important to provide some context for this controversy over the history of the South, and the wanton destruction and censorship of the history of the Confederacy, and the blackout (!) of any information about Reconstruction.

We need to be aware of the other side to the story rather than relying on the ‘history’ as related by Mitch Landrieu’s speechwriters.

More on this subject to come.

 

 

 

 

The continuing war on the Confederacy

It truly makes me feel sick to write about the recent events in which time-honored monuments in the South have been vandalized, desecrated, and destroyed.  And all of this is being done so as to destroy, finally, the image of the Confederacy and the good name of the White people of the South. It’s being done to appease, to flatter, and to pander to blacks, to reassure them that they, in fact, are THE people now; the time of Whitey has passed, and it is now their turn, their time to exact revenge and to demand homage and ‘respect’ from those who (as they believe) have ‘held them down’.

As I’ve written before, the real ‘dark days’ of the South were the days of so-called ‘Reconstruction’, in  which nothing was rebuilt, but much was savaged and destroyed. Newly-freed blacks were then being instructed by their unprincipled ‘carpetbagger’ mentors and ‘protectors’ that they were now entitled to payback for the past, and that they were now free to behave as they pleased. Search out older history books (if the leftists have not eliminated them all) and you may find that the White population of the South was on the receiving end of a great deal of violence thanks to ‘freedmen’, Northern carpetbaggers, and Southron scallywags, all of whom, together, fomented disorder and fear in the South. Those days, Mitch Landrieu, were really dark days; not the antebellum days in the South as you implied in your recent anti-White speech in New Orleans, justifying the destruction of Confederate monuments.

Mitch Landrieu’s uninformed references to the days of slavery and the whole history of the Confederacy amount to the usual anti-White, anti-Southron boilerplate, and it sounds like history as told via Hollywood scriptwriters looking to sensationalize that era (a la Django, 12 Years a Slave, etc. etc.) as one of incredible cruelty, rape, and inhumanity. I believe Landrieu even uses those words.

Most Americans have been force-fed a steady diet of lies regarding the past, especially concerning racial differences, and Landrieu perhaps believes it all himself; but liberals are much more free to make up ‘history’ as it suits them, believing as they do that there is no such thing as objective truth; nothing is absolute, all is relative. It’s all a matter of whose narrative you choose. Obviously Landrieu chooses the nonwhite version of “history”, in which nonwhites are ever-sinned against, never sinning. Nonwhites, in their own eyes, can never be wrong or do wrong. It is always ‘Whitey’s’ fault; the blame can never lie elsewhere; it can never even be shared. Guilt is exclusively the property of Whitey. No one else. Ever.

I wonder if Mitch Landrieu or any lefty has ever heard of the Slave Narratives? If so, the response is simply to ignore it, and failing that, to deny the truth therein. If any of  my readers have not read from that source, I recommend reading some of the stories. The overall picture is not at all the lurid picture of White cruelty and rapine that the current powers-that-be continue to push. I won’t be surprised when and if the politically correct archivists and historians yield fully to PC and expunge those stories from the Internet as well as from libraries. Can’t allow competing narratives, can we? Only the anti-White narrative must be allowed to be read or heard or seen; all else must be silenced, or, as with the Confederate monuments, pulled down, razed, and turned to rubble.

And now that all those who were actually slaves are long gone, there is no one to gainsay the lying depictions of the South as a cesspool of inhumanity, exploitation, torture, rape, and degradation. So the Mitch Landrieus of the world can spread their mendacious stories likening the antebellum South to ‘Nazi Germany’ or whatever other example of ultimate ‘White evil’ they are hyping.

What makes Landrieu’s posturing especially ironic is that there is at least some doubt about his own ancestry; sources say Landrieu’s family was listed as ‘black’ on past census records, and Mitch’s grandfather altered their identity to White. So is Mitch Landrieu a ‘White supremacist’ because he and his relatives now choose to downplay if not deny any black ancestry? I would say hardly; no ‘White supremacist’ would take such a hard-line anti-White, anti-Confederate stand as he is taking. At worst he is a hypocrite on his racial identity, though why he does not proudly claim any black ancestry is beyond me, considering that he extols ‘diversity’ and the holy ‘melting pot’ in his speech. In fact he praises everybody under the sun in that speech except Whites, for whom he reserves his greatest vitriol.  So is Landrieu White or not? Is he self-hating? I mean, if even Rachel Dolezal can proudly claim her black ancestry, why not Landrieu?

Maybe he enjoys posing as the noble White defender of poor downtrodden diversities, hence the decision to be ‘White.’ But he knows that by the old code of the South — and indeed, of pretty much all of old White America — the one-drop rule was applied. If one was a fraction black, one was black. Period. Full stop. End of story. One drop was all it took. Hence people like Adam Clayton Powell. Or some of these people.

For some bizarre reason, The Atlantic seems to insist on Landrieu’s ‘white’ identity; wait — I thought race was just a social construct anyway.

Mitch Landrieu is a politician, and they come and go. So he is not really the issue here; he is just one of many. There are plenty of other anti-White ‘Southern’ politicians today, who deserve the shameful label ‘scallywag’ that our Southron ancestors used for them. When Landrieu and that whole clan are no longer in office (if Louisiana ever runs out of Landrieus to run for office) there will be others, by other names, just as much scoundrels, to take their place.

I don’t know how North and South,black and White, can coexist under the same government, but for some reason the perverse pro-Union types insist, demand, that live together we must, whether we like it or not. Some people, strange though it may seem,  believe that this hideous ‘shotgun (re)marriage must continue, despite divisions and, increasingly, open violence. Is this abstract thing called the ‘Union’ really worth coercing people who distrust and despise and resent each other to live together? And how is that called ‘freedom’?

 

 

Woodrow Wilson, to immigrants

The following message from President Woodrow Wilson appeared in ‘Gateway to Citizenship’, a government handbook for immigrants being prepared for naturalization. The now-familiar tropes about ‘dreams’ and ‘dreamers’ was already being employed almost a hundred years ago:

Woodrow Wilson to immgrants_Gateway

Yes, the propaganda was already there: immigrants ‘enriching us’, and ‘realizing their dreams.’ But the last paragraph shows where it was headed: if America did not commit itself to perpetual ‘enrichment’ and ‘renewal’ by ever-more-disparate immigrants, then we would be a ‘narrow and prejudiced’ kind of ‘family’, and obviously being a family is not desirable; we have to be a people of no fixed genetics or culture or history, just an ever-changing, ever in flux, amorphous collection of people(s). Such is the melting pot; such is ‘civic nationalism’.

What’s the solution?

My lack of activity on this blog for several days now reflects my state of mind about current events and my less-than-optimistic take on our future prospects as a people.

My stock-in-trade, at least in my early days of blogging, was hope in the resilience of the people of this country, and in the legacy our forefathers passed down to us. I believed that we, as a nation, had a history and a culture which was not yet lost and which could still inspire us to change things for the better. These days it’s hard impossible to maintain that kind of hope. So rather than write pessimistic pieces I’ve simply lost the impulse to write much about the news and the political chaos.

I hope I can be excused for writing a somewhat pessimistic (or is it just realistic) piece this time.

I think our system of government served us very well for a good while but as the nature of the people of this country has changed — or was changed — we’ve become estranged from what our forebears were; they would likely not recognize us as their descendants and heirs, so different have we become. Founding Father John Adams explicitly said that the (political) system they designed for us was made only for a ‘moral and religious people’ . These days, with the exception of an ever-smaller number on the right, we are neither of those things. Nor do most of us aspire to be ‘moral or religious’; those traits are despised these days, along with the Christian faith to which they were tied.

Without sound ethics and morals, and without a sense of being an organic nation, a nation ‘descended from a common stock’, what is there to hold us together as a people?

For this reason, I suppose, many on the (new) right are happy to see the old order die, so that they can build, on the ruins, something more up-to-date and suited to their tastes and needs. I suspect that the ‘new and improved’ America that some on the right envision would be post-Christian and post-modern, hence not at all like the country that existed only a few decades ago.

Even if the right does not gain ascendancy in this country or elsewhere in the West, it looks as though the future will be framed along egalitarian lines, with more coerced ‘equality and brotherhood’, something like the Harrison Bergeron dystopia envisioned by Vonnegut.

Is there any chance that an ascendant right would ditch egalitarianism and the ‘leveling’ impulse? I see it as unlikely because it seems most Westerners have absorbed egalitarianism into their worldview, regardless of whether they are on the left or right end of the political spectrum. I remember writing a blog post some years ago in which I mentioned that I saw no reason why some sort of aristocratic order should be rejected out of hand, and that monarchy was not in itself evil as most Americans seem to think. Some of my readers got quite irate that I wrote such things.

Nevertheless since I wrote that fairly innocuous, yet apparently ‘heretical’ piece years ago, I’ve become less and less favorable toward ‘democracy’ and I have never been a fan of ‘equality’ because it is a false ideal; it can’t be attained, except in the narrowest sense, and temporarily.

So why, then, are most Americans still opposed in principle to an aristocratic order or to the very idea of monarchy? How has our electoral system served us in giving us men of character and integrity, men of ability and courage? As far as I can see, in recent times it’s given us, at best, a succession of mediocrities, time-servers. At worst we’ve elected (or had selected for us) venal, corrupt, incompetent, arrogant men (and women), who have undermined if not destroyed everything of value.

With a maleducated, mind-conditioned, dumbed-down electorate, there is not much chance of our prospects improving.

Given that it’s extremely unlikely that our population will reconsider their false gods ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’, it’s only a remote possibility that we could turn to another system.

And maybe the answer is not political, in any case. There would need to be a benevolent despotism to bring about such a change, absent a change of heart and mind in such a cynical populace, but in any case, we seem to live under an anarcho-tyranny, so what do we have to lose?

One (European) world

After reading yet another plea for White ‘internationalism’, in other words, White multiculturalism, I find myself compelled to reiterate why I believe this idea is wrong-headed and moreover, unlikely to be workable.

Looking at the practical side of it, how could all the disparate peoples of European descent (and they are disparate) be compelled to unite? By simply the threat of an outside enemy? That is the main argument usually; the White race is under dire threat from outside enemies who want us gone, or more accurately, under threat from enemies within and without. However it’s useful to remember that the European Union, once euphemistically called the ‘European Economic Union’ or ‘The Common Market’, was proposed as the way to shield Europe from an external threat.
propaganda poster, 1951

Poster above: from 1951

The storm clouds above the little girl have hammers and sickles, representing Eastern bloc Communism, obviously.

And how did that work out? Europeans under the EU have shown no greater resistance to outside threats, and in fact the Communist threat was simply internalized, while the European peoples still retain their differences. Many differences are good, but old grudges and grievances persist along with the healthy differences.

But suppose a ‘new and improved’ right-wing EU arose, with all the European peoples under one government, determined to amalgamate themselves into some kind of generic European. Putting aside the big cultural and genetic gaps that exist even within Europe, assuming that could all be dealt with easily, whose culture would be the dominant one? We’ve seen in all multicultural experiments, even with White American multiculturalism, that some group’s culture, by design or simply by natural strength, will dominate — or will be perceived as dominating. Whose would that be? In America, as Anglo-Saxons were the original and dominant group, theirs was the default to which newcomers were expected to assimilate and conform. And how did that work out? Centuries later, certain groups nurse grievances over things that they imagine (or read in a history book) their great-great-grandparents ‘suffered’ at the hands of the oppressor. Even ethnicities who appeared to have assimilated successfully have in recent decades suddenly ‘remembered’ or been taught that their ancestors were ‘done wrong’ by the WASP elites, and now they are born-again partisans of a nationality and culture that their ancestors left behind 100 or more years ago.

Likewise, with language. Whose language would be the ‘official’ language in some kind of White multinational empire? English would be the most plausible, given that a great many Europeans are fluent in it (Scandinavians and Dutch, for example) but imagine the Francophones, just to name one group, quietly accepting English as the, ahem, lingua franca of the new Empire?

And religion? Catholic and Protestant seem more divided than at any time in my lifetime, and then there are growing numbers of proponents of paganism or some form of ‘nature worship’ supposedly based on the legendary ‘old religion’ who are very eager to proselytize and push for the elimination of Christianity as being an ‘alien’ faith as they often insist. What then? Invent a new religion out of whole cloth, as some people propose? As if religion is something that one can cook up to order, to serve a purpose. A religion professes to be true. If it is not true, and is just an invention of some human mind (a la L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology) then it is no religion and would not answer people’s needs for truth and meaning.

And then there are the militant atheists, who seem to exist mostly amongst White people, for some reason.

Culture, language, religion, these are all important components of a working civilization. To lack cohesion or a common basis would be fatal to the success of constructing a new ‘union’.

Can we say that, at minimum, the people (I would say more properly, peoples) of that proposed new entity should have a common blood origin, based in kinship? Because at heart that is what a nation is: a people united by a common origin and ancestry.

And along with that common origin and shared ancestry goes a shared history, a shared heritage and memory, which is naturally passed down in a body of folklore and custom and legend and tradition: holidays, commemorations of past triumphs and trials. Every nation has its heroes (and villains, too), people who are real or semi-legendary who embody the nation’s archetype, the archetype of the unique character of that particular kin-group and people. America, despite the frequent sneers that America is not a ‘real’ nation and never was, once had all the above things, and those things I tried to re-introduce into the common consciousness when I first began to blog, but that doesn’t ‘sell’ anymore.

Absent a desire to remember our past, we seem to have died a little more since the days I first began blogging.

But are we in a real sense equal kin with all European-descended peoples? Maybe more Americans (or Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders) would feel more ‘inclusive’ towards Whites who are distantly related to us, but that is because we have been given infusions of multiculturalism from relatively early in our history, and have come to believe that people who are very different can ‘become us’ just by acquiring citizenship papers, or by learning a halting version of our language.

Many Europeans are not as ‘welcoming’ that way, because they have not been made to acclimate to ‘diversity’ as the Anglosphere nations have been. And, I suppose, good for them. The Eastern Europeans fit this category as of now, but suppose they too are made to acclimate to having very different people living in their midst?

Russia, remember, is a polyglot, multicultural, multiracial empire, even post-Soviet Russia.

I’ve lately begun to wonder if some of what is happening to the Western countries is in part happening because the globalists, who still sit firmly in charge, want European-descended peoples to react by willingly uniting and amalgamating. Obviously they have tried, via the EU, to do this, but it seems not to be proceeding as they want, and the Anglosphere still remains recalcitrant to some degree (Brexit, for example) and America’s (failed?)attempt to turn the clock back, to ‘Make America Great Again’.

White internationalism, or some kind of transcontinental Empire of Europeans would just be one more step, intentional or not, toward forming a ‘region’ which would fit nicely into the globalists’ theoretical One World system, divided into several ‘regions.’

It’s more centralization, which is not good.
It’s an attempt to fit disparate things and peoples together by political means. It is thus unnatural.

And most importantly, to me, it is based on the utopian idea that all European peoples are, or can be treated as, equals. This is a false idea, and a false god, truth be told. Since most Western countries have become hopelessly infected with the idea of ‘equality’ and egalitarianism, this would doom the project from the start. It is not true of nations, or of cultures, and especially not of flesh-and-blood human beings.

The idea of equality, of fungibility, of interchangeability, and of leveling out all differences in the name of the ‘rights of man’ or whatever slogan has been a toxic one on which our nation is mistakenly basing itself. To have a pan-European empire built on that false foundation would be a disaster.

A glimpse into the millennial mind

As seen on Tumblr:

millennials

For those not up on lefty millennial jargon, ‘terf’ is an acronym for ‘Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist’, in plain English, a ‘radical feminist’ (is there any other  kind these days?) who does not accept ‘trans women’ as women.

I suppose you could say the ‘terf’ (who is being disinvited from following the Tumblr blogger who posted the above) still has some kind of tenuous grasp on what is called reality. No realists welcome in the lefty fold; it seems that’s a basic tenet of leftism in the millennial universe.

Then there was this gem from last November:

millennials 2016-11-23_025425

It appears that they didn’t do their job of ‘educating’ the wayward older generation, as their side didn’t succeed in electing Hillary — or even getting Bernie past the primaries.

But did ‘we’ win, after all, or did they? Time will tell. As I say, ‘they’ are winning the cultural/societal battles, handily. It’s about so much more than politics.

 

A persistent myth

Recently I made a list of a number of popular myths or canards of the ‘realist’ right. I wrote them in no particular order, and the last one on the list is the myth that goes something like this: ‘Mormons are the remnant of the old America. They are racially conscious and Utah is a mostly White state.’

This idea in some form crops up in the comments on this article. Oddly enough only a couple of commenters seem to disagree with the idea that Mormons are somehow the last guardians of the old White American ethos. Are so few people aware of what is happening within the Mormon fold in this decades-long reign of PC?

I have no grudge against Mormons; of course most of them are ‘nice’ people, as most Americans seem to agree, but then I am not a great admirer of ‘niceness‘. Modern ‘Churchianity’ is often little more than a cult of niceness, and I am seeing that phrase being used more often. Niceness is simply a counterfeit goodness, or at best, it’s a feeble, skin-deep form of goodness; goodness minus strength and conviction. Niceness is a passivist, pacifist simulation of goodness. Niceness won’t fight for its principles.

I say this as someone who has a close blood relative who converted to Mormonism, as well as another close relative who married into a strongly observant Mormon family. I’ve also known other Mormons in real life, and I know that in recent years they are very actively converting Third Worlders to Mormonism, championing ‘open borders,’ objecting to border enforcement, and welcoming refugee/colonists to Utah.

The last frontier is usually interracial marriage, and that, too, is becoming more visible and accepted, with White Mormons of both sexes marrying Third Worlders they have met on their sojourns in those countries.  The old religious taboos against miscegeny have been officially repudiated, though some apparently resist this change, as can be seen in this online discussion.

Utah may still have a high percentage of Whites, but that is rapidly changing with immigration, legal and illegal. Hispanics are a growing percentage within the Mormon Church and in the state of Utah. There are Hispanics in the Utah legislature. Another group whose numbers have grown are Polynesians (Samoans), as someone on the Sailer thread noted. Remember the case of the Salt Lake City mall shooting ten years ago? The shooter was a Bosnian refugee. And more recently, another mall shooting was perpetrated by an apparent Southeast Asian shooter. Utah is not a ‘Whitopia’, and the Mormons appear just as ‘cucked’ as the most hopelessly feeble Churchians.

Yes, Mormons are ‘nice’ people but niceness is not something we need at this time in our history. Niceness is in part what is killing us. ‘Thou shalt be Nice’ is not one of the commandments on those stone tablets.

And if I were looking for a place to hide from mandatory Diversity, Utah would not be on my short list. Mormons, at least the hierarchy, are working hard to escape their reputation as ‘racist’ and ‘too hideously White.’ They have no will to defend their ethnic/racial heritage, only their religious system, which for them takes the place of ‘tribe’.

Ulster’s economic migrants

For some time, many of us who keep an eye on these issues thought that Northern Ireland, that is, Ulster, was spared from the mass immigration which has swamped the UK and many other Western countries. We thought wrong, as this article from the ethnonationalist blog Ulster Awake shows us. Ulster, it appears, is in the crosshairs too, and is being ‘enriched’ with diversity, mostly in the form of economic migrants.

Naturally this is hurting the native people of Ulster.

Why employ Brendan or Billy at £9 p/h when we can have Pablo or Gregori doing the same job for £6.95-£7.20 without moaning about overtime/nights or weekends as those much needed funds are needed back home, and with nine to a two up/two down terrace house their living expenses are to a bare minimum!”

It appears that some of the immigration is coming from Eastern Europe and Portugal. For those who are pan-Europeanists or WNs, the thinking is: “what’s the problem as long as they are White?”, after all Eastern Europeans and Portuguese are White (in the latter case, to varying degrees).

But would the people of Ulster agree with that viewpoint? I would say the real ethnonationalist favors his own people over others, and no ethnonationalist would agree with those who imply that all European peoples are basically interchangeable.

Given the false choice of deciding which immigrant group replaces you in your own homeland, how can it be less disastrous to be replaced by those of roughly similar complexion, as opposed to people of another race? Absurd. The real question should be not about who is the least objectionable replacement for your folk, but why that replacement and ethnic cleansing process is accepted at all?

Nor, as some say, is mass immigration acceptable as long as it’s not Moslems who are replacing the native people. It’s pretty cold comfort to be told ‘at least they aren’t Moslems‘, as you watch your neighborhood and country being transformed.

Each people is unique; cultures are not equal, because people — individual people and the various ethnic groups — are not equal.

We can only wish the Ulster folk the best; I believe and hope they have a strong enough sense of their identity and their roots to resist this forced change to their country.