‘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.

Transforming America

A certain political candidate several years ago spoke (ominously, in my opinion) about ‘fundamentally transforming America.” The audience, as I recall, cheered this phrase.

Any sane person should be afraid when someone offers to ‘fundamentally transform’ the world or society, especially when it’s to be an open-ended process, constant change, or what was it Chairman Mao said? “Perpetual revolution”? There’s no end to trying to ‘transform the world’; the people who want to engineer these changes are never happy or satisfied with their work; the revolution must go on. There’s still so much more ‘work that needs to be done.’

And the social engineers, as we know, are not always politicians.

Look in on Vox Day’s blog, here.  Read the excerpts from a Hollywood story conference which included Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Larry Kasdan.

The year was 1978, and the story being discussed was “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Spielberg et al discuss the idea that the character Indiana Jones and his ‘love interest’ in that movie had a relationship starting when the ex-lover was very much underage. Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan ‘negotiate’ over just how early this relationship started; the age of eleven is suggested by Lucas, (!) and eventually they settle on a compromise: fifteen is settled on. Sixteen or seventeen? “Not interesting anymore.”

Surely they knew they couldn’t get this kind of thing accepted by the mainstream movie audiences — yet — but these people take the long view; it may take decades of slowly pushing the boundaries back, but they do it relentlessly.

The metaphor of slowly boiling the frog, though overused now, is very appropriate here.

Most people would probably classify Spielberg, Lucas, and company as being purveyors of ”family” movies, of wholesome good old-fashioned entertainment. But as someone commenting on the Vox Day thread says, Spielberg was “pushing the envelope” with his ”wholesome” movies like ET, with the foul-mouthed kids in that film. I remember some parents being shocked by the crude talk from the children in the movie, but most were willing to let it go because the movie was “cute”. This is how we’ve gotten to where we are culturally, what with increasingly vile movies being accepted by mass audiences, and our culture reflects what the movies promote: children who are ‘worldly-wise’ at a very young age, and young adults who are very much jaded and experienced before they are out of their teens.

The older generations don’t escape blame; many who grew up in a more civilized society have gradually come to accept the corrupted world that we live in now, and made their peace with it. Few people are willing to reject the values of Hollywood and the entertainment/propaganda business; people love their pop culture and their distractions.

Recently in another blog post here I referred to the fascination many young people seem to have with ‘Pre-Code’ movies, that is, movies that were made in the early talkie days, before the Hays Office began to restrict the content of movies. The Pre-Code movie devotees never get enough of railing against the Hays Office and its namesake, Will Hays. They are, to the leftist post-modern movie fan, the equivalent of the hated Joe McCarthy of the political world. The Hays Office and the McCarthy ‘witch hunts’, so-called, are a favorite bete noire of the left.

The ‘Hays Code’ or the Motion Picture Production Code is often denounced as a heavy-handed, prudish censorship which infringed on people’s ”freedoms” and stifled artistic endeavors, and thwarted creativity. It does seem odd, if these criticisms were valid, that so many of Hollywood’s best efforts were movies made during the era of the Hays Code. It’s also strange that since the rules were first, loosened, then abandoned, movies have declined, becoming ever darker and more nihilistic as well as cruder and more profane.

For years I’ve been saying, when hearing of Hollywood’s latest over-hyped sleaze, ”how much worse can it get”? And I keep being surprised at how the movie moguls seem to outdo themselves in producing something worse, because that seems to be their mission: to drag society down to the gutter level at which the movie industry seems to operate. They are succeeding, and it seems to me that even the fact that movie attendance seems to be declining for some years does not discourage them. They are on a mission, and even shrinking profits don’t seem to daunt them.

The Hays Office and the Code, far from being villains as most movie fans seem to believe, served a good purpose for as long as it lasted. America — and the post-Christian West generally, was already in a moral crisis after World War I in particular. The ‘Roaring 20s’ are an example of how sexual morals became lax; drug and alcohol abuse and all the accompanying problems weakened us in many ways. Societies which are hedonistic and libertine are rarely, if ever, strong and powerful. Dissolute societies are always prey for invasion and conquest.

If not for the Hays Code, Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan would not have been having their discussion about how young the ‘love interest’ of Indiana Jones could have been — because by that time, had not the movie moguls been compelled to ‘clean up their act’, we would long since have had movies featuring “inter-generational love” or ”zoophilia” or whatever other euphemisms they’ve dreamed up for these various deviancies. The Hays Office was fighting a sort of rearguard action against the trends, which were already present in 1930s America. They at least bought us some time in which the worst tendencies of Hollywood were kept restrained to some extent, imperfectly. But that was better than nothing, better than just letting Hollywood and the rest of the ”entertainment” world run amok, as now, transforming our society at will, with our complicity.

The ‘racism’ scare and other scares

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘National suicide’

Integrity of Home_safeguardOfNationalStability_vitalogy

The above was written in 1899, and the book which is the source of the quote has been subject to ridicule from the usual crowd in this cynical and “know-it-all” age. Nevertheless there is a lot of truth in that little quote. We can see it playing out now as the author predicted.

Our age has produced generations of people who think that our era symbolizes some kind of pinnacle of human knowledge and wisdom. Yet we are not wise enough to admit or even to see, in many cases, that today’s philosophy of life has brought a lot of misery and unhappiness, and may end in our disappearance as a people. Speaking for  myself, I don’t find the past worthy of derision; my grandparents and their generation were far wiser, though perhaps less ‘educated’ than today’s self-absorbed perpetual adolescents of all ages. It’s too bad we chose to abandon the rules and standards by which we lived in their day, which produced stability and a legacy they passed on to posterity. Is it too late to restore that?

 

Our ‘lost’ faith

For some years now there has been ongoing debate about the role of Christianity in the demise of the ‘West’, which might more properly bed called ‘former Christendom.’

So is Christianity to blame, as some non-Christians continually assert, for what is happening to our countries now? Obviously I say no, as I’ve said all along, and the self-evident fact that our countries were not under siege when Christianity was in full flower and at its height of influence, whereas ever since our Christian faith began to wane and weaken, our countries and our peoples have been in deep trouble, and we now face a real existential threat.

Nowadays, though, Christianity itself has become so compromised and corrupted by ‘the world’ that Christians — or more properly, Churchians, make it all but impossible to effectively exonerate our faith from the charge of having destroyed the West. Non-believers see this impostor ‘Christianity’ and find it hard to believe that it could have sustained us so well, or been such a major influence in making us strong as nations and as individuals.

There are fewer faithful churches or denominations left, and those that appear to prosper are often not as strong inwardly as they appear on the outside. Many of the megachurches are interested mainly in growth for its own sake, and have compromised their beliefs beyond recognition.

Some of the ‘Christian’ podcasts and programs that can be found on YouTube or on Roku, and especially on television, shows how lost we are, and how bereft of good leadership and sound teaching. And as much as these weak churches aim at being ‘relevant’ for the sake of the young people they hope to draw in, by means of rap and hip-hop music, casual dress codes, and other such trappings of the 21st century, they usually avoid any truly relevant commentary on what is going on in the world, such as the refugee invasion of Europe and all its appalling ramifications, as well as the more general subject of the ‘One World’ globalist agenda which is being pushed so relentlessly. If the Church in any of its guises really wanted to be ‘relevant’ they would be discussing these things, the same things that many of us are talking about on the dissident, anti-globalist right. Instead they studiously avoid those subjects, just as their secular counterparts in the controlled media do.

However those few half-brave souls in the Christian media who do address the globalist menace do so only very gingerly, trying to stay politically correct. Just how someone can claim to be anti-globalist and not discuss mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the race issue is a mystery to me.

And then there is the ‘JQ’, which finds far too many Christians kowtowing to Jews as ‘our elder brothers in faith’. I’ve noticed a trend with many Christian media outlets having sort of resident Jewish ‘advisors’ or gurus, as I call them, interpreting events for us, explaining the Bible to us. These personalities are often treated as sages and as authorities, as if we need Jewish interpreters to intercede for us or to tell us what Jesus meant. This is something of a new trend; I don’t remember an earlier era in which Jews were treated as spiritual advisers to Christians; yes, there was the mid-20th century invention of ‘ecumenism’, which devised the concept of ‘Judeo-Christianity’, but even then, that was more of an attempt to try to push ‘tolerance’ via understanding — but now it’s as though Christians are being taught we need Jews to validate our faith or tell us what to believe. Maybe some younger people or new Christians don’t know that it wasn’t always this way. Our parents and grandparents were very skeptical of Jews to say the least. I am sure the usual suspects at the $PLC would say the older generations were anti-Semites and bigots, but the fact is the older generations knew that Judaism was not Christianity, and they never heard of something called ‘Judeo-Christianity.’ Somehow most Christians have been turned into Zionists and some have even gone in for things like the ‘Hebrew Roots’ movement which has some confused Christians adopting Jewish holiday celebrations, Jewish accoutrements (prayer-shawls, fringes, etc.) and kosher foods. This is not the Christianity of our parents and our forefathers.

It’s all an indication of the confusion and lost-ness of Christianity in the 21st century.

Some of our ministers and preachers and teachers believe we are in the End Times, citing the ‘One World’ agenda as a fulfillment of prophecy. However they curiously avoid quoting any of the Scriptures that seem to speak  to our times, especially the immigrant invasions and the Mohammedan presence in our countries.

How many Christian teachers or pastors quote any of the following Scriptures?

‘The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.’ (Deuteronomy 28:43-44)

Or:

1 Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach.
2 Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens.
3 We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows.
4 We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us.
5 Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest.
6 We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread.
7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.
8 Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand.” (Lamentations 5).

Instead they want to lecture us about the Good Samaritan (welcome the refugees) or about ‘hospitality to the stranger’ and turning the other cheek. They are wrenching those scriptures out of their context. Apropos here is Hosea 4:6: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

How many Christians are aware of the origin of the title ‘Camp of the Saints’? It’s Revelation 20:9

”And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about…”

The Churches, for the most part, are silent on all this, and they should be teaching on these things, instead of acting as lap dogs to the powers-that-be by carefully obeying political correctness and the world’s fake morality.

Our church officials and Christian leaders should be seeing the signs of the times; instead they are dumb ‘watchdogs’ who don’t bark. In this sense they are accountable for refusing to address the pressing issues of our time.

‘A safety valve’

Francesco Guicciardini, the Italian historian and statesman of the early 16th century, said some things about the uses of ‘angry words’:

guicciardini - safety valve in words_result

It’s not an original thought on my part, obviously, but I’ve often wondered if this is one of the reasons why the powers-that-be ”allow” the degree of freedom of speech that we still retain. It can’t be because they respect our Constitutional rights or that they really want to give every opinion a chance to be heard. Obviously they would like to shut down free speech altogether if it is not in line with the official PC dogma.

It makes sense that letting dissidents and political out-groups vent their thoughts on the Internet, if not in the government-controlled newspapers and TV outlets, is a means of letting us blow off steam, and though this is a necessary thing sometimes, as few of us have chances to express our ideas openly without repercussions, it’s also a bad thing potentially, as it may serve as a substitute for some sort of action.

As much as I dislike the frequent taunts from certain people online accusing those who blog or comment of being mere ‘keyboard warriors’, and of ‘doing nothing’, there might be some truth in that for some people.

Another reason for “allowing” dissenters and so-called ‘thought criminals’ to express themselves online is that it allows TPTB to keep tabs on the state of the average citizen, to gauge how much resistance is out there to the agenda. After all, the powers-that-be have to get some idea of ‘how much work still needs to be done‘ as the left always puts it. They want to know how much more relentless propaganda and gas-lighting they still have to churn out to get the population in the properly passive and compliant state, or to more fully demoralize us (in both the old and the new sense of the word).

Some of us have been saying for years now that any day now, our freedom of speech, such as it is, will be taken away and we will no longer have any opportunity to present our case to the fence-sitting ‘normies’ or apoliticals out there. However it seems it would be more profitable for those in authority to let us go on venting so that they can keep tabs on the state of the people, and also be alerted to those out there who they deem a ‘danger’ — at least among the White citizenry; dangerous folk of other ethnicities and races are allowed free rein to be a public danger.

And then, as Guicciardini said all those centuries ago, the use of ‘harsh words’ by dissenting elements may take the edge off their righteous indignation and enable them to refrain from doing anything that poses a ‘threat’ to the agenda. Still, though it may to some extent be a way of keeping us subdued and passive, there may be a limit to its usefulness in that way.

It isn’t wise, ultimately, to believe that we are still ‘free’ because we can still speak relatively frankly on certain subjects. It may just be part of creating an illusion of freedom, an illusion that seems to suffice for many middle-of-the-road Americans. The appearance of freedom is good enough for them, even without the substance.

T.S. Eliot on tradition and community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celebrating our independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

On the men we honor

In these days of former heroes being dragged down by the cultural vandals, the heroes we are ‘allowed’ to have tell a lot about what kind of society we have, and the kinds of people who shape this society.

Thomas Carlyle spoke to this situation long ago:

Carlyle on the men we honour_2017-06-16_063934