‘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.

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.

Are people easily swayed?

In the midst of the ongoing disaster in Europe, there’s been a lot of discussion of how Germany — which seems to be Ground Zero in the escalating war against Europeans — has become so self-abasing and unwilling to defend herself. ‘How could the Germans’, it’s often asked, ‘go from being a proud and racially conscious people to being self-flagellating, willing to commit national suicide?’

The consensus seems to be that gradually, over the years since WWII ended, the German people were ‘re-educated’ into believing that their past was shameful and evil, and that they had to atone perpetually for their history, especially during WWII. Slowly, between 1945 and now, they became a passive, PC-whipped people thanks to relentless chaming propaganda.

In light of that popular belief, it’s interesting and puzzling to look at this poll, which was taken in Germany in March, 1946. The poll is in a book titled ‘Public Opinion, 1935-46’, edited by Hadley Cantril, published by Princeton University Press, 1951. See the results below:

Germans on race 1946ab

I would have expected different results. It appears, assuming that the respondents gave honest replies, that even by 1946, not that long after the end of the War, that they held very liberal attitudes on race and intermarriage, views that we now call ‘politically correct.’ What does this say, I wonder? Are people’s opinions that shallow and fluid, that they could be reversed so quickly? Surely the globalist, Babelist propaganda merchants (who were at work even then) hadn’t had time to thoroughly change public opinion in Germany.

Incidentally, the book in question has many polls on various subjects, taken in various Western countries, and it’s fascinating — and depressing, at times — to see how different most people’s views were in that time period. I expect I will post more from these polls.

 

The ultimate in xenophilia

Some of us have used the term ‘xenophilia’ to describe the attitudes and behaviors of the multicultists, the diversity maniacs, those who value every race and people except their own. But it is not by any means limited to those people, as it is common across the political spectrum, as witness the tendency for men in different parts of the world to seek wives/brood mares from outside their ethny or race. The article tells of Chinese men, facing a shortage of potential mates in their own vast country seeking out Russian women in particular.

‘All the girls who we invited are under 35 years old. Initially men want to see brides with white skin and blue eyes – funnily enough, though, last year the girls who got into a relationship were brunettes with brown eyes.’

It’s odd that we often read how Asian people are ethnocentric and prefer their own kind, but this seems to belie that idea.

Meanwhile, back in Russia, the men seem to passively accept that their women are being spirited off to marry men in far-off countries — including the United States, Australia, and Europe, as well as China. Why this is, I haven’t got a clue; is it because Russian men have learned to devalue their women?

Speaking of devaluing one’s own females, read the first comment below the linked Siberian Times article. A young man from Louisiana states his intention to find a Chinese bride because he is “done with white women.” Does the whole situation not strike anyone as crazy? American men increasingly dislike American women (“fat, ugly, shrewish, masculinized”) while they seek Asian wives while Asian men seek Russian wives, while Russian men — seek what? Talk about games of musical chairs.

I am sure Count Coudenhouve-Kalergi is rejoicing wherever he is. His ‘dream’ for the future of Europeans is now being played out in bizarre ways.

On another blog, Morgoth’s Review I believe, someone expressed the idea that the antagonism and outright antipathy between the sexes seems like part of the cultural Marxist agenda, to drive a wedge between the sexes and thus to decrease intraracial marriages within White countries. Even having European-descended peoples marry outside their ethny (but still vaguely within their race) serves the agenda of mixing people up, breaking bonds of kinship and culture, decreasing the rootedness and stability within nations and ethnic groups. Whether we get the slow treatment of gradually ‘diversifying’ nations by inter-ethnic marriages first, leading to acceptance of further outmarrying, outside racial boundaries, or jump straight to miscegeny, the destination is the same, ultimately. I do believe that the gradual breakdown of boundaries in this country, first, by inter-European marriages and the trend toward people with mixed European heritage over time led to the gradual weakening of kinship loyalties and bonds. The melting pot idea and the idea that ”we’re all Americans, that’s all that matters” led inexorably to the present levels of interracial mating.

On the Al Fin, Next Level blog where I found the link to the Siberian Times story, he discusses the reasons why so many Russian women are being exported (or exporting themselves) to various places around the world,  for the purpose of either sexual exploitation or relatively benign ‘marriage bureaus.’ Why aren’t their men — fathers, brothers, boyfriends, or simply Russian men wanting good wives — making more of a fuss about their women being commodities sought out by foreign men? It sounds as though, from the information presented, the men are demoralized and suffering from what social scientists call ‘anomie’, often alcoholics or using drugs. They seem to be less physically healthy than their women, having a considerably shorter life expectancy. I’ve observed in some Russian immigrants living in our country that they tend to be heavy smokers and drinkers. (Notice I didn’t say ‘most’ or ‘all’, but it’s a noticeable tendency).

It may be that the same propaganda forces are at work there; I do believe that there truly is an effort on the part of the powers-that-be to divide every group in society, and the antagonism between the sexes in our country — even more so than in Europe, as I see it — is being egged on and manipulated. Men blame women; some women blame men. Why can’t we split the difference and say both sides bear their share of blame? Each side, or at least the extremists on both sides of the sexual divide, want to put 110 percent of the blame on the opposite sex. That’s not realistic.

Feminists are wrong, but to some degree so are their male counterparts.

But back to the Russians: Al Fin often describes the demographic decline in Russia. If we, that is we ethnonationalists, want all the various European peoples to survive and flourish, we should care about Russia’s future, and we should hope that their women would be able to stay at home (Russia is their rightful home) and not have to be basically sold off to men on the other side of the planet. We should hope that all Russian men who want to marry Russian women (the optimum choice), then this game of shuffling women around the planet should ideally be stopped.

Or do some of us believe that the Russian men shouldn’t mind their women being poached, as long as the poachers are ‘White’? That seems to be the strange rationalization on the part of many WNs.

As much as I take a contrarian, somewhat skeptical view of Russia, I truly do wish the Russian people well, and hope that they will not have their distinctive heritage, their DNA, and their particular talents and gifts, diluted by being mixed in with many nations. I wish that for all of our European peoples. Ethnicity does matter. Ethnicity is also not a social construct.

In praise of narrowness

On another dissident-right blog, a commenter is taken to task by several others; the charge is that he (or she?) is ‘too negative‘, especially towards other White ethnic groups or nationalities. I know that this attitude, this idea that one must not speak critically of other White ethnicities, is often de rigueur among WNs, because their belief system  holds that our White skin is our identity, not our specific ethnic group or tribe. By this particular tenet (which seems to place me outside the WN camp) ethnicity is too narrow an identification; survival necessitates that we identify with all people of European descent or else perish, because we cannot allow the petty divisiveness of ethnic identities; doing so is inviting our obliteration as a race.

However there are some quibbles here; some WNs define the White race more narrowly, excluding Mediterraneans, broadly speaking. The writer H.P. Lovecraft would probably have fallen into this camp, although I believe no one used the term ‘White Nationalist’ in his day, to my knowledge. I believe he called himself an Anglo-Saxonist, identifying most with his particular ethnic group, though he acknowledged he didn’t fit the stereotype of the blond, Viking-looking Northman which is important to some Nordicists, who believe very much in going by phenotypes. (And yes, phenotypes are useful).

However, though Lovecraft was Anglo-Saxonist by his own description, he embraced Northwestern/Northern Europeans generally as being his kinsmen. This is expressed in his personal writings. He did not think that all Europeans were his kinsmen in the same way that Northern Europeans were, and especially Englishmen.

Lovecraft, then, is often criticized by those who think that Lovecraft was excluding them or their ancestors from his kin group; they see his opinions as being bigoted or lacking in solidarity with all Europeans, which is now becoming the correct position amongst many on the pro-White or WN or Alt-Right side.

To be accused of being too narrow in one’s loyalties or identifications carries with it the implicit, or sometimes explicit, charge of jeopardizing White survival by refusing to embrace a pan-European identity in preference to narrow loyalty to one’s nearer kin. The rhetoric goes that only by uniting as one White race, irrespective of any genetic, linguistic, religious, or cultural distinctions, can Whites/European-descended people survive. Unite, by putting aside your petty ethnic loyalty, or die, your race forever extinct.

But is this the only choice? Is this the one option for Whites or European peoples?

History shows us many examples of genetically similar peoples, closely akin, who were frequently at war with each other. To the outsider, the differences between such clashing peoples is often not detectable. Ukrainians and Russians appear similar to most casual outside observers, and they are at odds. Also, many people cannot see why the Protestant Northern Irish (Ulstermen) and the Catholic Irish of the North have a long history of bloodshed between them. No, it is not just about religion, but about ethnicity and different cultures as well. Granted, though, the ethnic differences are not all that great, as DNA shows. Likewise with the Irish and the English; all the British Isles peoples are fairly close genetically, but to each people, especially those identifying as ‘Celtic’, the differences are all-important.

If these closely-related peoples cannot get along, how can we expect peoples as dissimilar as Greeks and Scandinavians, or Finns and Portuguese, or Icelandic people and Corsicans, to think of one another as equally brothers, except in the most abstract sense?

We’ve seen how well that has worked out in America where we are all officially ‘one people’ and yet many ethnicities still have frictions between them despite long-time contact and the ‘unifying’ factor of Americanized culture. Yes, even people of differing European ethnicities have clashed and prefer to maintain their own cultures and enclaves.

How many Europeans and European-descended people on this planet are there? We are scattered widely from South America to Australia/New Zealand to Iceland and Greenland to North America, Southern Africa, and to Europe proper. How can we come to think of such a dispersed and disparate collection of peoples as equally our brethren, having an equal claim to our loyalty and support? I say it’s not practicable. Just as with the ‘One World’ mentality, our loyalties and attachments cannot be stretched that far without being so attenuated as to be nonexistent. We are built for concentric circles of loyalties, with those of our nearest genetic connections, our immediate families, being the strongest bonds, and as the circle of loyalties go outward, the bonds necessarily grow weaker. Those who are most distant not only geographically but genetically command the least claim on our obligations and affections.

It’s all but impossible for mere humans to love something distant and abstract. This is the weakness of the ‘One planet, one people’ nonsense, which is the globalist mantra. Brainwashed churchians and lefties notwithstanding, we just can’t love the distant and the unseen in the same way that we love those nearest to us and closest to us by blood bonds.

So if it’s sin in the pro-White world to prefer one’s own close kinsmen over far-distant relatives, then I plead guilty. No doubt I would be eighty-sixed from the blog I refer to in the opening paragraph of this post for being ”divisive” and “negative” towards my brothers from countries on the other side of the globe, and so be it. After all, in this increasingly New-Age, pop-psychology oriented world we live in, being “negative” is Sin Number One. Thou Shalt Not Be Negative, saith the feel-good law as expounded by people like Oprah and Dr. Phil and probably Joel Osteen. And especially shalt thou not be negative towards The Other, the Sacred Other. For most people, the Sacred Other about whom we must not be negative means specifically People of Color, or Immigrants of whatever color.But what if the truth is negative?

For the Pan-Europeanist, we must not be negative towards the Other European, even if they do in fact have bad cultural habits or at least, if you shrink from making ‘value judgments’  then let’s say some Others have traits that are just not compatible with our own ways of doing things.

For example, when I was in the New York City area, I quickly learned that having to ‘grease people’s palms’ was a necessary part of getting things done. You will be told that something can’t be done until you slip someone some money and suddenly it can be done. You’ve heard of the ‘baksheesh’ system; it’s not just in the Middle East. In Mexico it’s called ‘mordida.’ This kind of thing seems most common in Mediterranean countries or peoples, or those derived from that area. It isn’t generally an Anglo-Saxon thing.

So yes, in order for us to accommodate peoples from different cultures we end up absorbing some corrupt practices and habits. We compromised who we were, when we decided that we are all brothers under the skin.

Something has to give when disparate peoples are blended together. Most importantly of all, to be told that all Europeans are as brothers despite strong differences is just one step away from the multicult worldview that ‘we are all one race, the human race’, and that we all bleed red. We end by acquiescing in falsehoods, these denials of difference, and we live a lie. Christians cannot do this, not if they wish to live up to their faith.

Now we live under a tyranny of lies in which people are being punished, even prosecuted and jailed, for speaking ‘ill’ of some protected group, because noticing differences and speaking unpleasant truths offends. So we have let truth be suppressed in many instances. Are we not to note the drawbacks of having those unlike ourselves living amongst us? Shall we choose, if we ever get out from under the globalist tyranny, to live in multicultural societies made up of disparate Europeans? It would be preferable to the Coudenhove-Kalergi nightmare, but it would still be fraught with problems. A European mega-nation would also be polyglot, multicultural, and multilingual, unless we want to impose one language and one culture.

To want to preserve our own peoples, languages, cultures, and traditions does not mean ‘hating’ our fellow Europeans/Whites. To say that ethnoloyalty is hatred of outsiders is the kind of cheap rhetoric that the leftist/multi-cultist uses towards us now. It should be beneath WNs or any pro-Whites to use such manipulation.

We can surely make common cause, offer moral and other support to our counterparts in Europe and elsewhere without trying to invent some pro-White version of the EU, which itself is proto-globalist. We can be allies with our kinsmen without putting them on a par with our more immediate kin, or without giving them all free rein to enter our countries at will. To imply otherwise is dishonest or foolish.

Personally I have always enjoyed other cultures at an arm’s length, and I am not in the habit of being hostile to people because of their different ethnic origins or even racial origins. But I still maintain that good fences make good neighbors. We all have relatives that, though they are our kin, we would not welcome as permanent guests in our homes. Why, then, should we be expected to welcome distantly-related strangers into our countries? Remember our countries are also our homes. Just as in English tradition, every man’s home is his castle, so our countries are our homes, our castles. They are our birthright and our rightful inheritance. Though the pan-Europeanist thinks that I must share my country with any White person who stakes a claim here, would those people reciprocate and give me the right to enter their country, and bring my extended clan with me? To impose this ideal on us all is depriving us of our sovereignty and our birthright, our homes, regardless of who the usurpers are.

And I ask this: what normal person, given that our Western countries are all being flooded with immigrants, thinks that it should be wrong to criticize these uninvited guests? I would say there is something off about people who still think that it is some kind of sin to object to more foreign neighbors, given the way in which our countries are being overwhelmed by strangers.

Are honest, factual, criticisms of other European peoples now ‘hatefacts’ as with racial Other groups? Is that acceptable?

I honestly suspect the motives of anyone who would chastise a kinsman for his honest feelings, while rushing to the defense of the poor immigrant, whoever he is. Loyalty is still a virtue, and loyalty to kin and kind comes first.

And real loyalties and loves must necessarily be narrow. We cannot be loyal to all things and all peoples, else it is not loyalty but promiscuity. Love by nature is exclusive, reserved for the closest and deepest bonds, else it is not love.

Politics replaces tribe, for some

Some ask why I bother to read Free Republic and the like. One answer I give is that it’s a fairly good place to find aggregated news stories that are of interest to me. (If anyone can recommend another that would serve this function, I’m open to suggestions.)

I also read there because I used to believe, based on some signs that I observed, that some of the “conservatives” there were potential converts or allies. Less and less do I think so. After rapidly worsening scenarios involving mass immigration and racial tensions over the last couple of decades, if these people haven’t ‘gotten it’ by now, they likely never will. In fact, for many of them, it seems they have dug in their heels and become more politically correct and deluded, somehow, because of what has been happening. It is as if denial has become stubbornly entrenched among some White folk. It is their way of plugging their ears and reciting the propaganda to shut out the truth. May God help these lost souls.

One example: a news story reports that Quanell X, (born Quanell Evans), a ‘black activist’ has endorsed Donald Trump. And this is one response:

Blacks aren’t our “enemies”. Blacks, and Hispanics and Asians and whomever want for themselves and their families the same things “we” want: peace, safety, jobs, good schools, to be left alone to pursue our dreams with the talents that God endowed us with…..and more.

“Thugs” do not represent the average American Black person any more than Klansmen or NAZIs represent White Americans.”

Or this:

Add that to the list of things I’d never thought I’d see. Civic nationalism has a broad appeal.”

One commenter notes that blacks have been angry at Democrats for ”failing them for 54 years”. The commenter thinks they have a right to be angry, the implication being that yes, Democrats have ”failed” blacks. Right, just as schools keep ”failing” blacks and the ”justice system” has ”failed” blacks. That is, none of these institutions have done enough to free blacks from personal responsibility or to coddle and cater to them.

But the part about blacks like Quanell X possibly turning to Republicans in a fit of pique against the insufficiently servile Democrats makes sense. In other words, they are saying ‘the Republicans may make us a better offer, and unless you raise their bid, we won’t vote for you. You don’t want to lose our valuable votes, do you? Or be called ”racist”, do you?

It’s the same with the ever-elusive Hispanic vote. The country club GOP types, and the ‘Main Street’ GOP, think we should win over the Hispanics by wooing them and flattering them, making concessions to them — little things like amnesty. And of course the Hispanics like to flirt with both sides, like a vain and manipulative woman. If she can have two or more men bidding for her affections, she can get both sides to woo her and make promises and lavish her with gifts. This is how Hispanics and now, blacks play the two parties (really one party) against each other. Will Quanell X and his ilk really vote for Trump? If they do, it will not be because they are ‘natural conservatives’ and suddenly believers in the Free Market and Smaller Government. No; it may only be because they dislike Mexicans more than they dislike Whites at this moment, or more cynically, because they want Trump to side with them against their Mexican rivals. But then I think they are trusting too much if they believe he will close the borders.

And again, their support will come with a price tag. Quid pro quo.

Quanell X’s ‘turf’ is the Houston area, as the article mentions; illegal Latino (and other) immigration — as well as legal immigration — has changed that area immensely, so blacks in that part of Texas do see and feel the results of racial displacement and conflict. Would someone as militantly anti-White as Quanell be willing to ally with Whites against mass immigration? Doubtful; the minority groups may just be jockeying for a greater share of the government handouts and status.

But the ‘conservatives’ who are sold out to the ‘Big Tent’, multicult rainbow America are really diehards, for whom their politics replace natural tribe affinities. And as such they are bound to be used and abused and ultimately very disappointed as things do not move towards a happy, multicultural utopia based, of course, on ”conservative ideology.”

 

 

The left’s ‘human shields’

For a while I didn’t care to read Ann Coulter’s commentaries; maybe I associated her with the other Fox News ‘pundits’. Needless to say I tuned out Fox News years ago, when it was more than obvious that they are not conservative or right-wing, much less pro-White, even implicitly.

But I think she makes a very good analogy in this piece about the Khan controversy.

Khizr Khan, the Muslim “Gold Star Father” who harangued Americans at the Democratic National Convention, with a mute, hijab-wearing wife at his side, is just another in a long string of human shields liberals send out to defend their heinous policies.

Human shields. Yes, that’s exactly the purpose they serve. Just as in the Moslem world they notoriously use children as human shields, counting on the European Christian tradition of chivalry to ensure that our side holds their fire. Surely nobody will criticize the Khans; after all their son ”died a hero”, supposedly shielding ‘his’ soldiers, our guys. Mr. and Mrs. Khan are ‘Gold Star Parents’ who are thus immune from any criticism, and anybody who dares question them or their agenda would automatically be branded as heartless and/or unpatriotic. And the people who are most susceptible to this kind of approach are pro-military Republicans.

To me it just seems as if the Khans are being used in much the same way as Cindy Sheehan, who apparently was funded to travel all over this country making a nuisance of herself because of her son’s death in the Iraq war. After Sheehan was no longer useful to the Democrats, it appeared they dropped her, because she was no longer all over the media.

The Khans, however, present a better image for the left to exploit; they are Moslem, they are immigrants, they are non-white, and they claim to be patriotic ‘Americans’, with Mr. Khan brandishing his pocket-size Constitution which he purportedly carries with him. But just look at the expression on his face in that famous shot of him and his silent wife at the podium. What anger; what contempt. These are not exactly sympathetic characters with their surly attitudes and their evident lack of adaptation to this country.

I am dismayed by the numbers of articles and blog comments by ‘conservatives’ who flatly state that the Khans’ son ‘was a hero’, and that the Khans, being Gold Star  parents should be honored. But being utterly honest, is everyone killed on active duty automatically a ‘hero’? It seems to me that we have so devalued that word by applying it too inclusively that we have essentially stripped it of its original meaning. It used to be reserved for people who showed extraordinary bravery in dire circumstances, or people who did selfless, even self-sacrificing things for the greater good, or to save innocent lives. From what I have read of the death of the Khans’ son, it is not at all  clear that this definition fits him.

Many Republicans objected when the young female soldier, Jessica Lynch, was made out to be a heroine (PC version: ‘hero’, because ‘heroine’ is a sexist term) by being ambushed and taken captive. She was raked over the coals by some who said she did not deserve to be called heroic — including raving lesbian leftie Rachel Maddow. I believe women should not be in combat, and that the co-ed military is disastrous for all involved, But Lynch did not make herself out to be a hero; the PC military apparently did so, probably to bolster the case for female ‘equality’ in the military. It may be that this Khan case is also likewise a result of the politically correct military promoting the idea of ‘patriotic Muslims’ fighting alongside us, etc.

I don’t know how effective this blatant propaganda effort has been among average voters; I would imagine that only the most zealous ideologues are buying it. I do hope that further information will come out about the Khans We already know he has influential associates, so he is not a poor struggling immigrant, and that his business is involved with bringing more Moslem immigrants to this country, and that he has a financial incentive to do so as well as an ethnocentric bias towards it. Not to mention that his religion advocates for Moslems immigrating en masse into infidel countries, and that his religion recommends lying as a tactic to advance Islam.

So the Khans are being exploited by the left, but let’s not make them out to be hapless victims thereby; they are also doing some exploiting of their own.

 

 

The new Ireland

Many Irish-Americans, provided they haven’t actually visited Ireland lately, still think of Ireland as a country which is religious and socially conservative, safe, and above all, populated by Irish (mostly Catholic).

Meanwhile, in the real Ireland of 2016, the Minister of Social Protection is surnamed Varadkar, and he is ‘out’ as a homosexual. I can just hear someone say ‘Ireland is a nation of immigrants’ — oh, wait, that’s what they say about our country. They say it also about Britain or any historically White country these days. Whatever. By their constant use of that refrain to pummel immigration skeptics into submission, they succeed in making it true, as propagandized populations begin to believe the lies over time.

Varadkar, in case you are wondering, has a father from India and an Irish-born mother.

But all the same, no doubt, he is more Irish than the Irish themselves.

However he does not seem to share the same set of ethics as most Irish people, who, despite the social changes accompanying the transition to post-Christianity, are probably still more pro-life than many other Western nations.

An Ireland with African mayors, an Ireland where a native-born mayor is driven to quit following a controversy over his remarks about African migrants — where are the ethnopatriots in Ireland? I know there are a few but it seems the Irish are in the throes of xenophilia or more properly xenomania. It seems they have so identified with the ‘immigrant’ because their folk have so often immigrated to other countries for economic reasons, and because of the famine and colonialism, they see Africans as fellow oppressed folk.

It appears that much of the nationalist fervor that led to past rebellions against the much-hated Brits was not motivated mainly by ethnopatriotism but enmity towards, and envy of, the British. The result we see in these news stories out of Ireland is what happens when nationalism is not so much based on love, or above all, on loyalty to one’s kinsmen, but on hatred of some outside group.

Several years ago I wrote a post addressing this in an American context. We are very united in dislike for ‘the elites’ or some other group — everyone has their favorite minority, it seems, and many have their favorite enemy as well. But do we love our own folk, do we have enough loyalty to our own, to attain some kind of solidarity? I believe that love for folk and family and Faith have to animate our desire to prevail; animus cannot take us that far, especially when we can’t always agree on exactly who or what is ultimately responsible for our predicament.

Time will tell. I hope Ireland wakes up, and I hope the same for the American majority.

Color is the criterion?

Yes, I know my point of view on this subject is a minority opinion, but I’m long since used to being outside the ‘consensus.’

This murdered young lady in the UK argued for the ‘right’ of immigrant criminals to stay in Britain.

“Alice Gross, the 14-year-old whose sexual assault and killing in August 2014 at the hands of a Latvian man was used by pro-Brexit campaigners to argue against free movement, wrote a thoughtful essay in defence of the EU just months before her death, her parents have revealed.

Gross wrote compassionately about the cultural benefits of European migration and, with an unsettling prescience, the flaws of blocking foreign criminals from entering the country.”

Alice wrote that she thought Britain should remain in the failed European Union because being part of that body showed Britain to be a ‘communal and friendly’ country. Alice was only 14 years old, so she may be forgiven for her naivete. The same can’t be said of mature adults who express the same opinion.

“In an interview with the Guardian, Alice’s mother Rosalind Hodgkiss said the essay was “horribly ironic”. Her daughter’s killer, Arnis Zalkalns, had served eight years in jail in Latvia for the brutal murder of his wife. Zalkalns entered the UK in 2007 and had even been arrested by the Metropolitan police on suspicion of sexual assault in 2009 before he attacked Alice in August 2014. But it was not until after he was reported missing that the builder’s criminal record came to light.”

I feel compelled to point out that some ‘White nationalists’ who defend free movement throughout the EU for White immigrants say that ‘criticizing Eastern European immigrants is safe and politically correct; the people who object to Eastern European immigration are too cowardly and PC to speak against non-white immigration.’ But note this:

‘Hodgkiss and Alice’s father, Jose Gross, say the essay underlines Alice’s compassion towards others. They have decided to release it because anti-immigration groups, Brexiters including the official Vote Leave campaign, and individuals with a “racist agenda” have seized on Alice’s death in an attempt to further their arguments.”

So yes, in fact it is being called ”racist” to object to Eastern European or other problematic White immigration.

Those who are saying that it is ‘politically acceptable’ or ‘safe’ or ‘politically correct’ to criticize White immigration are either not in the know, or are being dishonest in their statements.

And if nothing else, many ‘WNs’ or ‘race-realist’ commenters pounce all over commenters who criticize or complain of Eastern European immigration. They,  too, can be as intolerant and as prone to name-call as the Left, and of course the multicultists see any kind of immigration skepticism as evil and racist. So the alt-right, or segments of it at least, agree with leftists that nationalists are bigoted when they criticize mass immigration of Whites, as well as nonwhites.

I’ve also called attention before to the crime problems amongst Eastern European immigrants in both Ireland and the UK.

‘More than 54,000 European Union citizens have been convicted of crimes — including murder — in the past two years The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Poles and Romanians are the worst offenders according to the figures, adding to concerns over the impact of the two most recent EU expansions.

And because of EU rules on freedom of movement, only those sentenced to at least two years in prison face deportation after they complete their punishment.”

I watch UK news sources (biased though they are, just as our own media) and there have been numbers of ugly crimes involving Eastern European immigrants. Maybe these problem immigrants are not typical of the population back home, but just as with nonwhite immigrants, they are migrating to where the pickings are good, where there is more prosperity and more opportunities for criminals as well as for the vaunted ‘hard-working immigrants.’ Maybe the ‘hard-working’ immigrants provide convenient cover for the criminals, just as here. We can’t always know which is which until the damage is done.

We in America welcomed in many criminals in the waves of Ellis Island immigrants. I can back up that statement with statistics from that era if need be. So today’s immigrants are likely to be a mix of both ‘honest’ (though opportunistic) and dishonest, violent types like poor Alice’s killer.

Ethnonationalist beliefs do not call for welcoming a wide range of ethnicities and cultures just because of a similar complexion or pigmentation. Western/Northern Europeans are of a different strain than Eastern Europeans, and anyone who has met and known enough of a variety of European peoples would not argue for the idea that ‘we are all brothers and sisters as Europeans.’ Cousins? Yes, but not kissing cousins. Good fences, etc.

In the words of Kipling:

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf —
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.