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.

 

 

Who’s culpable?

It’s become wearisome to even post on a terror attack when they predictably happen. Don’t misunderstand me; I am not expressing indifference to the victims, or to the country, whichever European or White country, where the latest attack occurs.

If anything, I care too much about the victims, thinking of the waste of human life and potential, especially among our besieged folk, and about their families and all those who loved the victims. Lives will be forever changed. I heard from an acquaintance in New York, after 9/11, of a little girl, a classmate of my friend’s twins, who lost both parents on 9/11. That little girl would now be 22 or so. Surely her life was changed irrevocably.

No doubt what happens in Britain, where the bones of many generations of my ancestors are buried, troubles me especially. I understand that many Americans feel no particular kinship to people in Britain, and considering that so many Americans now lack any genetic connection to Britain, I suppose they can’t be blamed for that.

Kinship, blood ties matter, even in a country which conditions us all to ‘civic nationalism’, telling us that birth on American soil makes brothers of us all. Not true, and even less true in today’s Britain, as illustrated by this now-viral photo from London yesterday.aliennation

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. There’s a reason why that photo, of all those available, went viral.

Meanwhile, the smarmy heads-of-state, after an event like yesterday’s, mouth their usual platitudes about ‘unity’, ‘coming together’ ‘reaffirming our nation’s values’, (meaning openness to outsiders, however hostile they are, and coerced diversity). Theresa May and as the Moslem mayor of London both recited such statements, though the London mayor was brazen enough to tell the British people that they had better get used to this kind of thing; after all, it’s “part and parcel” of life in a big city now. As I recall some official in France said roughly the same thing after an attack there. Will the passive and docile citizens of Western countries continue to accept this phony, condescending rhetoric about ”our values” or about “diversity and unity” — which, by the way, are opposites, and contradictory? Or is the passivity and docility merely an outward show, hiding inner misgivings and resentments?

The most disgusting bit of rhetoric, which is even used by many on the nationalist right, is the now-hackneyed statement that ”immigrants/Moslems are not the problem, only symptoms; they are just pawns in a game being controlled by the real powers, so it’s useless to direct anger at these pawns. They aren’t our real enemy.” The more liberal variation on this ‘argument’ is employed by the churchian types, who think ‘hatred’ or even honest anger, is wrong; if we give in to it, we are just reacting and playing into the hands of the enemy. If we do that, then ‘They will have won.’ Supposedly by refusing to show fear or act defensively, we are winning. Right.

Trouble is, who are the architects of all this? The shadowy ‘elites’, the globalist overlords? We know a few names; everyone’s heard of Soros. For some people, Jews are the ultimate cause behind the scenes, and the people who hold this view are often those who claim that immigrants are not the real problem. For others, the powers-that-be are simply the global corporate movers and shakers, the mega-rich, who are transnationalists and cosmopolitans, with no allegiance to any nation or people, faithful only to their own greedy interests.

Many Christians say only ‘spiritual forces of wickedness’ are truly to blame; everyone else is a pawn.

But without knowing who, exactly, is behind all this, and who is calling the shots — as they keep themselves mostly concealed — how can we act at all? Do we need to know the ultimate cause in order to save ourselves? Is it not more important to take steps against the visible agents of evil? It seems to me that that’s the only thing we can do: to focus on the proximate cause, the obvious and immediate actors in all this.

And who are the known actors? Elected politicians, hand-picked by corrupt political machines, who seem to be puppets acting for the shadowy elites. Then there are the traitorous and malice-driven ‘progressives’, antifa types. The media,  who seem to be nothing but lie merchants and ideologues, hostile to the real people of the countries they inhabit. And the Others, the colonizers, interlopers (whether legally or illegally), people with generational grudges against us and our countries.

The problem is not the Others alone, but at the moment it’s they who are killing us and our kinsmen in other countries.

The picture above illustrates that they are not of us; not us, can never be part of us.

The London attacker was born in the UK, showing that being ‘native’ to Britain no longer means much, if one is of foreign blood and origin, and especially if Islam is factored in.

The ‘melting pot’ disproved?

There was an interesting comment (of many) on a thread at Vox Day’s blog. It addresses something I’ve thought about considerably, and the writer’s experience parallels my own, regarding ancestral lines and the ‘gaslighting’ that we are subjected to regarding American ancestry and thus American identity. I trust that the commenter, ‘Harris’ won’t object if I excerpt:

“I have been working on my genealogy lately, and I’ve discovered something about the lack of mixing with other races in my own bloodline. So far, in the 400 years since my family settled in North America from England, there are only 4 non-Anglo women that have married into the family (out of over 4500 currently in the extended family tree) and the female descendants of those 4 women have NEVER married a non-anglo male. Those 4 women were 1 Irish woman, 1 German, 1 Cherokee woman, and 1 Swiss woman.

[…]My point is that while nearly my entire family arrived in the first wave of settlers in Massachusetts & Virginia, there has been very little intermarrying with other Caucasian races, much less non-Caucasians. I’ve noticed that other races also tend to marry their own kind.
[…]
Just in my own family, you see the myth of the melting pot disproved. This indicates that the bloodline ties are more than just cosmetic. There is something subconscious about seeking your own. How has the West lost sight of this truth?

There has to have been a determined and conscious effort to undermine the cultural homogeneity of our western societies, and this can be traced back to Darwinism, the progressive movement of the late 19th century, and the emergence of a communist philosophy that sought to undermine the Christian foundations of our various Caucasian civilizations. This was purposeful, and we large did this to ourselves.”

First, just in passing, it’s of interest to me that the writer’s family tree seems to intersect with mine at some points (which is not that uncommon, with colonial-stock Americans), then the rest of his comment (which can be read here) points out what I have often said. Many people make the claim that ”we’re all mixed-up; there are no Americans who are not at least mixed ethnicity if not racially mixed.”  This just isn’t necessarily true, especially as you go back through the generations.  Some parts of the country, having had lots of immigration, were likely to see marriages across ethnic lines, though rarely interracially. Miscegenation was illegal most everywhere until the late 1960s, though the rules slightly differed from state to state. But many places, those with low immigration rates, rural areas especially, did not experience much marriage across ethnic lines. People too often tend to interpret things through their own personal reality and extrapolate that to the rest of America.

Some of the comments on the thread linked above scoffed, to some extent, at the value of genealogy, as being unreliable. It’s true that there is a lot of false or partially-false information on genealogy websites where people upload their own (often mistaken) data, and there is little cross-checking and validation being done. But that doesn’t mean all online data is untrustworthy. It does need scrutiny and verification. But now there is the additional resource of DNA testing — but as in our family’s case, it verified pretty much what our previous information indicated.

But the commenter’s assertion that there has been an effort to undermine the homogeneity of our people and nation is a very plausible one. I think a big part of that has been a conscious effort to foster the myth of the ‘melting pot’ (the term a creation of Israel Zangwill, by the way) and the idea that we are all hopelessly mixed. Why would those ideas be important to implant? Because it fosters resignation to the continuing effort to blend us all together — after all, we’re all ‘mongrels’ as I believe our former POTUS said. I believe this whole process probably was in the works longer than we have realized, and that the Ellis Island experiment was to accustom us to more and more disparate peoples and cultures, as just one stage of the plan to blend Americans into one amorphous “people” and culture, rootless and identity-less, except for our identity in a civic sense.

If Americans could only start to realize that we are not this non-nation “of no race and no culture” as we hear some voices insisting. There is something still to be preserved.

 

 

Sensible discrimination

Anonymous Conservative writes about the appalling fact that refugees aren’t screened for tuberculosis, and this, in an age when tuberculosis has made a comeback in the First World, after a long period of absence.

From what I recall, the incidence of tuberculosis had dropped dramatically by the 1970s or so, thanks to improvements in medicine and hygiene, but according to this government website, it began to reappear by the 1980s. I wonder what mysterious cause there could have been for its reappearance?

From 1953 to 1984, tuberculosis disease incidence dropped steadily at an average rate of 5.8% per year to 9.4 cases per 100,000.

In 1985, however, the United States saw a reversal in this long-standing downward trend, and tuberculosis reemerged as a public health threat. From 1985 to 1992, not only did the number of cases increase from 22,201 to 26,673, but also large outbreaks were reported. Many of these, especially in hospitals and other health-care settings in large cities (5), were caused by multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis. Several factors contributed to this increase, including the emergence of the HIV epidemic and large influxes of immigrants from countries in which tuberculosis was common.”

Yes, I remember reading in local newspapers back in the late 7os, and hearing from people in health care professions that the influx of Southeast Asian ‘refugees’ and immigrants was the source of the resurgence.

Now we are reading of yet new strains of drug-resistant TB.

From the above-linked website:

The proportion of cases in persons born in other countries will probably continue to rise, unless domestic programs providing tuberculosis services for immigrants are strengthened and international programs are expanded. Another risk, in the current climate of bioterrorism, is the possible intentional spread of multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis.”

Oh, of course, the answer is not to limit immigration but to ‘provide tuberculosis services for immigrants.’ The obvious and sensible answer, to limit immigration and to screen would-be immigrants and ‘refugees’, is off the table; unthinkable.

The even more troubling fact is that not only do we not screen for tuberculosis, neither do we screen for other communicable diseases. During the recent ebola outbreak “we” deliberately brought ebola cases here for treatment. It’s as though they are courting an epidemic or a plague. Our government officials are ‘bug-chasers’, in the ‘gay’ parlance.

We, the people, are not given any say. We must be the guinea pigs, as “our” government is apparently experimenting with introducing various new (or once-extinct) diseases into our population.

Anonymous Conservative is right; screening for TB and all other communicable (and non-communicable) diseases should be re-introduced. It was once standard procedure, but that was in the days when our government actually seemed to have our well-being at heart.

Screening for diseases would be a good way to put the brakes on out-of-control immigration; it would be hard for any sane person to argue against it, but then of course the left are obviously not sane people.

The administration would be acting wisely and sensibly to start screening again.

Non-discrimination can be deadly

This story illustrates the fact that not discriminating can cost innocent lives, as well as damaging our societies in numerous ways.

As Val Koinen points out here, it’s insanity on parade. I fully agree with his outrage and apparent exasperation. The older generations, could they have seen into the future, into our time, would surely have been incredulous at this story. Imagine, a crazed killer could behead a man in full view of witnesses, on a bus, then be institutionalized in a ‘hospital’ for a short while — then be granted full freedom — and Canadian citizenship to boot. So now, the crazed killer,  (poor, sick individual, in PC terminology), one Vince Li is a Canadian citizen, with all the privileges and freedoms thereof, and he is known as ‘Will Baker’, for some bizarre reason.

Understandably, the mother of the murdered young man in this story, has opposed freeing the killer, and is quoted as saying ‘I have no words’ in response to the news.

Lest the victim be forgotten, as is usually the case, his name was Tim McLean. He was all of 22 years old. His apparent offense against the murderous Li (aka ‘Will Baker) was in smiling at him as he sat down, and asking Li how he was doing.

There are so many things wrong in this story, things which are symptomatic of how our countries (Canada, our country, and all the West) have lost their way. For instance, the obvious thing is the injustices of our ‘justice systems’, in all Western countries subverted by leftism/bleeding-heart pop psychology, and moral relativism. Then there is the ever-present issue of mass, promiscuous, un-vetted immigration, weighted towards the Third World and hostile, primitive countries in most cases, this being no exception. I am really weary of hearing about how ‘East Asians can produce civilized societies; they have high IQs and low criminality.’ Statements like that show a real ignorance of conditions on the ground in most East Asian countries. I consider Japan an exception, but I don’t idealize Japan, either.

Was this man vetted before immigrating to Canada? Since Canada has one of the most promiscuous immigration policies, being besotted with the idea of “diversity”, they seem to be actively recruiting people from the most backward and most hostile cultures on earth, given the statements their politicians are making. Not that our country is much better, if any. We can only hope that our President means what he has said about curtailing immigration, especially from certain societies. But poor Canada; they seem to have no political leader or other prominent voice to speak up for common sense and for the real, historic people of Canada.

So how many more homicidal or otherwise dangerous and problematic immigrants are in Canada — or in our country — now? How many future Lis does Canada have roaming their country? How many does America have? We are letting millions of un-vetted strangers into our countries, offering up our citizens, our children, our elderly, as potential sacrificial victims — and why? Because it is wrong to discriminate. Always wrong. It is evil. We are not to discriminate about who we allow into our countries on any basis, be it religion, nationality, race, creed, gender(!), health condition, character — any basis whatsoever. Send us your wretched refuse, by all means. We don’t discriminate. Let’s put that phrase on our national epitaphs: ”At least we didn’t discriminate.”

But not to discriminate is to give up our right to choose. It means we take huge risks; we leave it all to random chance. It amounts to having no standards whatsoever. It amounts to saying that one thing is as good as another. Law-abiding or criminal, healthy or contagiously diseased — we don’t care. It’s all the same. Ignorant or educated, skilled or uselessly unskilled, what’s the difference? Those who hate us? Just as welcome as those who like us. Come on in, one and all. And there are no limits on numbers, no quotas. Just keep ’em coming, always room for a few million more.

Imagine applying this kind of insanity to our own homes. If we did so, we’d have no locks on our doors; in fact we ought to leave the doors wide open so that nobody would have to trouble themselves to knock; they can walk right in. And bring their friends, families, in-laws, their whole clan, their whole village from the old country.

This is the essence of our immigration policies, on the premise that we ‘need’ more warm bodies — but most especially, ”diverse” warm bodies. People of color. Visible minorities, vis-mins, isn’t that what Canadians call them?

Insanity, as Val Koinen says, indeed, but our overlords, who are masterminding this whole ‘fundamental transformation’ of our national homes, are not insane as much as power-mad, greedy, and determined. They know what they are doing. There is a plan at work, though it seems  madness to the sane amongst us.

So our cultural Marxist system is busily destroying our countries under the guise of humane, compassionate ‘non-discrimination.’ Unless we commit ourselves to returning to common sense discernment, to choosing between good and evil, safe and unsafe, beneficial or destructive, we will continue to see many other stories like this one.

Lindbergh: visionary or ideologue?

During the time I was not blogging, I spent many hours going through old printed material on Archive.org. I came across this transcript in an old radio magazine, Radio Digest, from the year 1930, titled Lindbergh’s Message. It appears that Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator (and ‘America First’ proponent) delivered this address somewhere, or was it written for the magazine in which it appeared? In any case, I found this piece very pertinent to our present-day crisis, in which the West is inundated with immigrants and ‘refugees’, mostly thanks to cheap, easy air travel. Lindbergh foresees this in 1930, and yet seems very sanguine about the consequences. From the piece:

“As methods of transportation improved, it was found impossible for the individual or the community to remain completely independent of other individuals and communities. Contact with foreign countries brought about an intellectual development together with the commercial. Men became no longer content with the bare necessities of existence of a more modern world. The intercourse which sprang up as a result was responsible for the banding together of larger and larger communities under one central government and eventually brought about the comparatively high standard of living.

Every great advance in transportation has forecast a greater unity in world government. Directly or indirectly, whether by peaceful negotiation of by warfare, the demands of commerce have made it both impossible and undesirable for an entirely independent community to exist permanently.
[…]Transoceanic traffic with its worldwide commerce brought about the necessity of international regulation and agreement. In every instance the advantages of cooperation and exchange broke down the barriers of sectionalism.”

Lindbergh seemed to see this as an unqualified good, this breaking down of barriers and the erasure of distances.

“When measured in hours of flying time the great distances of the old world no longer exist. Nations and races are not separated by the traditional obstacles of earthbound travel.”

I’m by no means the only one to note that our present situation, facing an ongoing invasion from the Third World, would not be happening had it not been for the advent of cheap and easy air travel — along with the ‘advertising’ by the global media of the material attractions of the West, luring the ‘have-nots’ plus the ‘have-somes-who-want-more’ to enter our countries bent on conquest, slow or otherwise.

The quoted message from Lindbergh is causing me to re-assess what I thought of his aviation pioneering; I was brought up to see ‘Lucky Lindy’ as simply a rugged individualist, the ‘Lone Eagle’, as he was called, the adventuring spirit in the tradition of our Western European ancestors, driven only by the desire to explore and surmount barriers. Yet in this piece he sounds just like so many of the peace-at-all-costs globalists who were especially vocal in the years between the two world wars. The world was understandably sickened by the ugliness and the destruction of World War I, so that they were determined that the world must be unified, and that an official universal brotherhood of man, institutionalized in something like a League of Nations must be put in place to prevent another war, in fact, to make all future war impossible. So they naively thought.

Was Lindy just another globalist utopian ideologue, and was he conscious that when he made his transatlantic solo flight that he was taking a big step towards unifying the world, and breaking down the barriers, the ‘bounds of nations’ as instituted by God?

I wonder. Nevertheless he did seem to foresee what would happen once worldwide air travel was a reality. Maybe he thought it would be worth it, regardless. Too bad he could not seem to foresee the dire downside to it all.

[To see an enlarged image of the complete text, click on the image below.]

lindberghs-message_radiodigest193025radi_0734sm

Tech companies for open borders

Amazon and Microsoft, along with other tech companies, are joining in a lawsuit over President Trump’s immigration measures. Bill Gates et al have long been known as double-dyed leftists/globalists.

As for Amazon, I personally have been less inclined to do business with them; I find their business practices not the most advantageous to the average customer, so I now look to buy things elsewhere when I buy online. I also dislike their practice of profiling customers (yes, I know that they all do it, probably). An example: I had bought, some years ago, Andrew Fraser’s book The WASP Question. (I also promised to review it at his request, a promise I’m embarrassed to say I neglected to keep, but that’s another story). In any case, I rarely buy new books online or elsewhere, because there are few new books that are of any interest to me; if I need books on history or any other subject I choose to turn to old books which are sounder and more trustworthy.

So I have bought few new books from Amazon, but I kept getting recommendations for other books they ‘thought’ would interest me. One such book was a book with ‘White Supremacy’ in the title. I wondered how they came up with the idea that I was ‘White Supremacist’, if they were basing that on my history of purchases from them. All I could think of was that the Fraser book, on the ‘WASP Question’ somehow equated to ‘White Supremacy’ according to their twisted reckoning.

Yes, the Amazon people have long been known as politically correct and leftist. I remember when they were boycotted by some for stocking ‘how-to’ books for pedophiles: basically, how to lure children. So Amazon is boycott-worthy as far as I am concerned, and doubly so since their choosing to take a pro-open-borders position and to oppose President Trump.

The linked article also mentions other Seattle-based tech companies that are likewise anti-Trump, and for open borders/globalism. Another like-minded company is Reddit, whose co-founder Alexis Ohanian, says Trump’s measures on immigration are ‘anti-American.’

I’m well-past tired of people (such as people named ‘Ohanian’ or other non-American names) telling me what is ‘American’ and what is not. Shall I go to Armenia and tell them what Armenians should think or what constitutes the ‘Armenian way’? Why is it always someone from a profoundly alien immigrant background lecturing me and people like me about what our country stands for, or should stand for? Or telling me that our traditional, time-honored ways are ”un-American”? I believe there is a certain other ethnic group that refers to this attitude as ‘chutzpah’, a term which implies brazenness and unmitigated gall.

Many immigrants and their descendants (like the Armenian millennial Ohanian and many others of immigrant stock) have been filled so full of fawning propaganda about the noble immigrant and his immeasurable value to America that they have come to believe their own publicity. P.S.: that publicity was nothing more, at least at first, than a patronizing and condescending effort on the part of misguided Americans to make the mendicant newcomers feel ‘included and welcome.’ It was born out of pity for the immigrant. It was simply an early attempt, on the part of some, to impart “self-esteem” to the immigrants, and it backfired on us enormously. The immigrants’ descendants came to believe that their ancestors did America a huge favor by coming here; we original settlers were actually their inferiors. They, the immigrant descendants, are ‘vibrant and colorful’, and oh-so-genuine and exotic, while our ancestors (and we, of course) are dull, bland, ‘white-bread’, plain vanilla, boring, and in desperate need of their enriching presence.

Sad to say, many old-stock Americans have come to believe that pro-immigrant hype, and to be self-abasing and given to sentimentalizing the Ellis Island crowd. That will have to stop if we are ever to regain our rightful primacy and pride in the very real accomplishments of our ancestors.

Boycott all these companies: Microsoft (if possible), Amazon, Reddit, Starbuck’s, all of them.

Old nations, new countries

Germans and Swedes were recently told via advertising and other propaganda that their countries are essentially gone, and that they must integrate into a ‘new country,’ apparently multicultural and multiracial.

Despite the fact that we’ve all been watching this unfold, and we’ve all heard that the endgame is submersion of the indigenous peoples of Europe in a Third World tidal wave, it’s still shocking to hear it said so blatantly.

In Sweden, a tax-funded TV ad created by a government-backed “charity” called “Individuell Manniskohjalp” (Individual Relief), or IM, informs Swedes that their old country is never coming back. Translated to English, the slogan for the campaign is #TheNewNation. “There is no way back,” the ad begins. “Sweden will never be like it was. Europe is changing and Sweden is needed as a safe space for people who seek refuge. Now we must look forward and find a way to live side by side.”

As African and Middle Eastern faces intermixed with Swedish faces cycle through on the screen, the ad informs viewers that Sweden is in for some dramatic changes. “It’s time to realize the new Swedes will claim their space, and will take up room with cultures, languages and customs,” the narrators say in Swedish, alternating between male and female voices. “It’s time we see this as a positive force. The new country is about shaping a new future.”

The closest “our” country has come to spelling it out has been in the incident in Minnesota, in which Governor Mark Dayton told his constituents, the taxpaying citizens of that state, that if they don’t like mass Somali (and presumably, other) immigration, they must get out of the state, and find new homes.

The increasingly explicit message, in Germany, Sweden, and in Minnesota is: you citizens and native-born people no longer have any rights in your birthplace. You are not citizens but subjects in a totalitarian state, one in which you have no say, and no rights, except the right to shut up or get out. But if some wish to get out, per Mark Dayton’s advice, where do they go? The globalist regime is implementing the same twisted and tyrannical plan everywhere in the West.

We can see the handwriting on the wall as the situation in France worsens, with France on the brink of some kind of armed conflict. The recent attack on four policemen in Viry-Châtillon, where the officers were set on fire, has escalated things. Tiberge at Gallia Watch tells us that France is preparing for an ethnic civil war.

This is the entirely foreseeable and inevitable result of forcing mass immigration, mainly from Mohammedan countries, on France. Because anyone with an ounce of good sense could predict the outcome of decades of coerced ‘diversity’, it is inexcusable that those in authority continue to push more and more immigration and ‘tolerance.’ It beggars belief to blame this on just malfeasance or blundering; it’s deliberate. I concluded long ago that the explanation had to be either extreme stupidity and incompetence, or deliberate malice. And I don’t believe that the Oligarchs are that stupid and clueless.

Interestingly, Tiberge’s piece at Gallia Watch contains this passage:

Philippe de Villiers revealed the existence of secret, discreet agreements of submission, beyond the pale of legality, with the complicity of the French State, to surrender quietly portions of French territory to Islamic sharia law. The collaborating State is already negotiating with the invader.”

Not long ago I posted a link to piece quoting from a supposed ‘inside source’ in the UK who spoke of a plan in which at least some European leaders had a covert agreement with the Islamics to cede certain areas to them, or implicitly, to surrender the whole country provided they retained their positions as quisling puppets, presumably, within their respective countries. Nobody seems to be discussing that subject, though it is hinted at here and there. It seems more and more plausible to me that the deal is already done, and that the governments are now feeling bold enough to take off the masks and lay down the law, as the German and Swedish authorities (collaborators?) are doing.

Of course we’ve been aware for ages that there is a globalist agenda, and a plan to eradicate nations under some kind of One World system. But just because it hasn’t been officially announced in the Mainstream Media, some still insist that this is tinfoil-hat paranoia. But here it is, being put out in the open.

And when I speak of eradicating ‘nations’, I don’t just mean the geopolitical entities or the governmental apparatus, but ‘nations’ in the original, true sense: nations are peoples. They consist of flesh-and-blood human beings. The quote in my previous post, from Corneliu Codreanu, was dead-on; it’s about destroying nations.

Note: For an interesting piece on Philippe De Villiers, and the validation of some of his predictions about France, see this.

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.

Yet another incident

Another incident involving a ‘refugee’, in news from El Cajon, California. A man, shot by the police while behaving ‘erratically’, has since died at a local hospital.

The inevitable unrest, protests, and agitprop from the media follow in the wake.

“A black man was shot in an encounter with El Cajon Police Tuesday, multiple witnesses said, while a woman wailed nearby, demanding to know why police shot her brother.

Hours later, police officers told NBC 7 San Diego the man, now identified as Alfred Olango, was acting erratically and failed to comply, although they did not release details on the specific threat he presented to officers.”

The man is said to be a refugee, ‘with mental problems’, from Uganda. The news stories I’ve seen don’t indicate whether he is one of the latest wave of ‘refugees’ from African coming across the Southern border, or whether he arrived earlier.

Somewhat amusingly, CNN’s news story referred to the Ugandan man as ‘African-American.’ If he is a refugee, obviously he’s not an ‘African-American’ nor any kind of American at all, simply Ugandan or African. But political correctness results in just such kinds of absurdities.

Speaking of incidents involving refugees, someone in the comments section at Refugee Resettlement watch asked the other day if Arcan Cetin, the Turkish shooter at the mall in Washington State was a refugee. That question immediately occurred to me when his identity was disclosed — not that it is ultimately relevant whether a homicidal foreign person arrived as a refugee or as an immigrant. The fact is such people need not be here, and should not be here, as our promiscuous ‘immigration’ and refugee policies are a disaster. And even less does it matter whether an immigrant was illegal or legal; both kinds have proven to be a problem in too many cases. Major Hasan, the notorious Fort Hood killer, was the child of parents who came here legally, as were the Tsarnaevs.

Legal or illegal, it’s irrelevant ultimately. Being legal does not make someone a good choice for American residence or citizenship.

But was Arcan Cetin a refugee or the son of refugees? Neither, it appears. I had read from a comment online, ostensibly from somebody who knew the family, that his mother had married an American who was in the miltary over in Turkey, and he brought mother and son to this country — legally, of course, and I’d bet that there are probably a number of other relatives who are now here via chain migration.

This story verifies some of those details.  It also mentions his blog postings in connection with his religion:

“One post on Cetin’s Tumblr page urged readers to repeat the phrase “Subhan Allah” (“Glory to God”) 10 times “and then reblog this, do not stop reblogging it.”

But of course according to the media, his motives are unknown.

The Cetin story has all but vanished from the media, and I expect we’ll hear little about it as it can’t easily be turned to good use by the media propagandists. But it is necessary, it seems to me, to mention these facts because there is still some talk on the Internet that he was just a disgruntled ‘beta male’ who was spurned by some girl, and that she was the intended target of his shooting spree. Not true, or at least that does not appear to be his main motivation.

It’s also assumed by quite a few that the supposed ex-girlfriend was one of those killed at the mall, and this is evidently incorrect; the victims were apparently unknown to him. He was just seething with resentments and went after random targets — probably White people, though one of his victims had a possibly Hispanic name.

Whether these problem ‘refugees/immigrants’ arrive by one means or another, or whether they are here legally or otherwise is not the main concern; it’s that our policy of admitting just anybody, especially people from hostile countries and cultures, is costing us many lives, as well as destroying our cultural fabric and our social cohesion. It is not in any way beneficial to us; it serves interests other than those of the people of this country. It’s in fact killing us, quickly or slowly.