“In the New World Order, there will be neither national sovereignty nor national identity, and just as the population of the nation is to be replaced by Third World immigrants, so the culture of the nation is to be replaced by one suitable only for rootless and deracinated people—a people that can be deluded that what it is told to think and believe is really ‘universal’ and ‘culture-neutral’ because it has long since ceased to have any real culture of its own.” – Sam Francis
After reading yet another plea for White ‘internationalism’, in other words, White multiculturalism, I find myself compelled to reiterate why I believe this idea is wrong-headed and moreover, unlikely to be workable.
Looking at the practical side of it, how could all the disparate peoples of European descent (and they are disparate) be compelled to unite? By simply the threat of an outside enemy? That is the main argument usually; the White race is under dire threat from outside enemies who want us gone, or more accurately, under threat from enemies within and without. However it’s useful to remember that the European Union, once euphemistically called the ‘European Economic Union’ or ‘The Common Market’, was proposed as the way to shield Europe from an external threat.
Poster above: from 1951
The storm clouds above the little girl have hammers and sickles, representing Eastern bloc Communism, obviously.
And how did that work out? Europeans under the EU have shown no greater resistance to outside threats, and in fact the Communist threat was simply internalized, while the European peoples still retain their differences. Many differences are good, but old grudges and grievances persist along with the healthy differences.
But suppose a ‘new and improved’ right-wing EU arose, with all the European peoples under one government, determined to amalgamate themselves into some kind of generic European. Putting aside the big cultural and genetic gaps that exist even within Europe, assuming that could all be dealt with easily, whose culture would be the dominant one? We’ve seen in all multicultural experiments, even with White American multiculturalism, that some group’s culture, by design or simply by natural strength, will dominate — or will be perceived as dominating. Whose would that be? In America, as Anglo-Saxons were the original and dominant group, theirs was the default to which newcomers were expected to assimilate and conform. And how did that work out? Centuries later, certain groups nurse grievances over things that they imagine (or read in a history book) their great-great-grandparents ‘suffered’ at the hands of the oppressor. Even ethnicities who appeared to have assimilated successfully have in recent decades suddenly ‘remembered’ or been taught that their ancestors were ‘done wrong’ by the WASP elites, and now they are born-again partisans of a nationality and culture that their ancestors left behind 100 or more years ago.
Likewise, with language. Whose language would be the ‘official’ language in some kind of White multinational empire? English would be the most plausible, given that a great many Europeans are fluent in it (Scandinavians and Dutch, for example) but imagine the Francophones, just to name one group, quietly accepting English as the, ahem, lingua franca of the new Empire?
And religion? Catholic and Protestant seem more divided than at any time in my lifetime, and then there are growing numbers of proponents of paganism or some form of ‘nature worship’ supposedly based on the legendary ‘old religion’ who are very eager to proselytize and push for the elimination of Christianity as being an ‘alien’ faith as they often insist. What then? Invent a new religion out of whole cloth, as some people propose? As if religion is something that one can cook up to order, to serve a purpose. A religion professes to be true. If it is not true, and is just an invention of some human mind (a la L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology) then it is no religion and would not answer people’s needs for truth and meaning.
And then there are the militant atheists, who seem to exist mostly amongst White people, for some reason.
Culture, language, religion, these are all important components of a working civilization. To lack cohesion or a common basis would be fatal to the success of constructing a new ‘union’.
Can we say that, at minimum, the people (I would say more properly, peoples) of that proposed new entity should have a common blood origin, based in kinship? Because at heart that is what a nation is: a people united by a common origin and ancestry.
And along with that common origin and shared ancestry goes a shared history, a shared heritage and memory, which is naturally passed down in a body of folklore and custom and legend and tradition: holidays, commemorations of past triumphs and trials. Every nation has its heroes (and villains, too), people who are real or semi-legendary who embody the nation’s archetype, the archetype of the unique character of that particular kin-group and people. America, despite the frequent sneers that America is not a ‘real’ nation and never was, once had all the above things, and those things I tried to re-introduce into the common consciousness when I first began to blog, but that doesn’t ‘sell’ anymore.
Absent a desire to remember our past, we seem to have died a little more since the days I first began blogging.
But are we in a real sense equal kin with all European-descended peoples? Maybe more Americans (or Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders) would feel more ‘inclusive’ towards Whites who are distantly related to us, but that is because we have been given infusions of multiculturalism from relatively early in our history, and have come to believe that people who are very different can ‘become us’ just by acquiring citizenship papers, or by learning a halting version of our language.
Many Europeans are not as ‘welcoming’ that way, because they have not been made to acclimate to ‘diversity’ as the Anglosphere nations have been. And, I suppose, good for them. The Eastern Europeans fit this category as of now, but suppose they too are made to acclimate to having very different people living in their midst?
Russia, remember, is a polyglot, multicultural, multiracial empire, even post-Soviet Russia.
I’ve lately begun to wonder if some of what is happening to the Western countries is in part happening because the globalists, who still sit firmly in charge, want European-descended peoples to react by willingly uniting and amalgamating. Obviously they have tried, via the EU, to do this, but it seems not to be proceeding as they want, and the Anglosphere still remains recalcitrant to some degree (Brexit, for example) and America’s (failed?)attempt to turn the clock back, to ‘Make America Great Again’.
White internationalism, or some kind of transcontinental Empire of Europeans would just be one more step, intentional or not, toward forming a ‘region’ which would fit nicely into the globalists’ theoretical One World system, divided into several ‘regions.’
It’s more centralization, which is not good.
It’s an attempt to fit disparate things and peoples together by political means. It is thus unnatural.
And most importantly, to me, it is based on the utopian idea that all European peoples are, or can be treated as, equals. This is a false idea, and a false god, truth be told. Since most Western countries have become hopelessly infected with the idea of ‘equality’ and egalitarianism, this would doom the project from the start. It is not true of nations, or of cultures, and especially not of flesh-and-blood human beings.
The idea of equality, of fungibility, of interchangeability, and of leveling out all differences in the name of the ‘rights of man’ or whatever slogan has been a toxic one on which our nation is mistakenly basing itself. To have a pan-European empire built on that false foundation would be a disaster.
Recently I made a list of a number of popular myths or canards of the ‘realist’ right. I wrote them in no particular order, and the last one on the list is the myth that goes something like this: ‘Mormons are the remnant of the old America. They are racially conscious and Utah is a mostly White state.’
This idea in some form crops up in the comments on this article. Oddly enough only a couple of commenters seem to disagree with the idea that Mormons are somehow the last guardians of the old White American ethos. Are so few people aware of what is happening within the Mormon fold in this decades-long reign of PC?
I have no grudge against Mormons; of course most of them are ‘nice’ people, as most Americans seem to agree, but then I am not a great admirer of ‘niceness‘. Modern ‘Churchianity’ is often little more than a cult of niceness, and I am seeing that phrase being used more often. Niceness is simply a counterfeit goodness, or at best, it’s a feeble, skin-deep form of goodness; goodness minus strength and conviction. Niceness is a passivist, pacifist simulation of goodness. Niceness won’t fight for its principles.
I say this as someone who has a close blood relative who converted to Mormonism, as well as another close relative who married into a strongly observant Mormon family. I’ve also known other Mormons in real life, and I know that in recent years they are very actively converting Third Worlders to Mormonism, championing ‘open borders,’ objecting to border enforcement, and welcoming refugee/colonists to Utah.
The last frontier is usually interracial marriage, and that, too, is becoming more visible and accepted, with White Mormons of both sexes marrying Third Worlders they have met on their sojourns in those countries. The old religious taboos against miscegeny have been officially repudiated, though some apparently resist this change, as can be seen in this online discussion.
Utah may still have a high percentage of Whites, but that is rapidly changing with immigration, legal and illegal. Hispanics are a growing percentage within the Mormon Church and in the state of Utah. There are Hispanics in the Utah legislature. Another group whose numbers have grown are Polynesians (Samoans), as someone on the Sailer thread noted. Remember the case of the Salt Lake City mall shooting ten years ago? The shooter was a Bosnian refugee. And more recently, another mall shooting was perpetrated by an apparent Southeast Asian shooter. Utah is not a ‘Whitopia’, and the Mormons appear just as ‘cucked’ as the most hopelessly feeble Churchians.
Yes, Mormons are ‘nice’ people but niceness is not something we need at this time in our history. Niceness is in part what is killing us. ‘Thou shalt be Nice’ is not one of the commandments on those stone tablets.
And if I were looking for a place to hide from mandatory Diversity, Utah would not be on my short list. Mormons, at least the hierarchy, are working hard to escape their reputation as ‘racist’ and ‘too hideously White.’ They have no will to defend their ethnic/racial heritage, only their religious system, which for them takes the place of ‘tribe’.
At metrocosm.com you can see an animated graphic of immigration to the U.S., by country of origin. Even if you are familiar with the dramatic changes in immigration to this country in the last century or so, it’s illuminating to see it depicted this way. (H/T to poster “eah” at Sailer’s blog.) Take a look.
Coincidentally I was recently looking at government statistics on immigration over the latter part of the 20th century, and if you like old-fashioned charts here are a couple of examples, showing the demographic changes in immigration.
I didn’t realize, until I looked at these, that at some point in the late 20th century, the Philippines became number 3 on the list of countries sending immigrants to the U.S.
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.
The Anti-Gnostic posted a piece on the recent disturbing story about a teen-aged Hispanic girl who, having recently fallen into the company of MS-13 gang members, was murdered. No less than six juveniles and four adults appear to have been involved in the killing. All the names of the suspects are Hispanic, and it seems probable most were foreign-born. Whether they were illegal is irrelevant; they could just as easily be here legally, or some might be ‘anchor babies’, considered legal by some.
This story, though it’s the latest, is one of many, as MS-13 and its equivalents put down stakes all over this country — even in the small community where I live, which is not all that ”diverse and enriched” as yet. It’s sad for the families and sad for our country as we risk becoming inured to this process of assimilation towards Third World norms.
I just began wondering, though, suppose the liberals’ hoped-for scenario comes into being, and that we gradually become used to all this diversity, and we become a rainbow nation wherein we all ‘accept and celebrate our mutual differences.’ Granted, Whites will be a small minority amongst the rest, but what of it? Race is a social construct; we all bleed red, and this is a proposition nation, after all. The Salvadorean and other gang-bangers’ progeny will be just one more variety of Americans amongst the colorful mosaic. And on and on.
But a hundred years from now, will people shrug their shoulders and accept the presence of these violent gangs and their ways as just one small price to be paid for the rich pageant of ‘diversity’ — much as most Americans now think that the Mafia isn’t so bad; we’ve enjoyed lots of good movies, novels, and TV series about the Mafiosi (the Sopranos, the Godfather, etc.), and then there’s all the wonderful food and cultural enrichment. So the introduction into our country of the Black Hand Society, the Mafia, and in our day, the (((‘Russian mafia‘))) and so on are just part of the package. Really not so bad, if we keep a sense of perspective, right?
One appalling story after another of gang murders and various atrocities and it’s all old hat, yesterday’s news. We have a way of growing jaded and accepting of things which should never be thought of as acceptable. That’s probably what the powers-that-be are counting on.
In a recent post I linked to Steve Sailer’s piece about the race card being played at the Grammy awards. The question was raised whether Whites should apologies for winning awards, with the implicit assumption being that the awards are ‘stolen’ from blacks, who are of course the rightful winners, or would be in a ‘colorblind’ society.
I’ve often pondered how it is that our popular music (and popular culture in general) is so dominated by blacks. Most people — even those who are somewhat racially aware — would defer to blacks by saying that blacks are just more talented at music, as they are supposedly in athletics. But the black ascendancy has black people accusing Whites of “cultural appropriation” when they emulate, even unconsciously, black styles.
Could we not say rightly that blacks have a kind of cultural hegemony in our society, in all Western societies, given their disproportionate numbers in entertainment and their pervasive influence on White performers and composers of music?
This is not a new thing. I came across an article in an old (dated 1927) article in an Argentine magazine, Cine-Mundial. The article was titled ‘Melanomania‘, a term that the writer, R. De Zayas Enriquez, apparently coined himself to describe the craze among White people for black entertainment. Maybe we should use that word; the ‘-mania’ suffix is apt, and it has become a more pronounced trend since the time that the article was written.
As we are in black history month, wherein many claims are made about blacks having invented just about everything, we are bound to hear that blacks invented, among other things, rock ‘n roll, a claim which is usually conceded by most Whites. Yet it could just as convincingly be argued that rock ‘n roll derives more from country music in the form of old-time string-band music, via what was called ‘rockabilly.’ Chuck Berry’s music shows more influence from White country/rockabilly than vice-versa. Does it matter who invented it? Rock ‘n roll is something I grew up with, as did most of us today, and I enjoy a lot of it, but it isn’t exactly our crowning cultural achievement. Still, the truth matters, and it does serve the cultural Marxist, anti-White agenda to claim that blacks are the source of all our popular musical genres, as does the writer of this following excerpt. The writer is Isaac Goldberg (are triple parentheses even necessary there?) in a book called Tin Pan Alley, from 1930. [NB: the language in the following is the author’s; everyone was politically incorrect in 1930].
“Before the various types of jazz was the modern coon song; before the coon song was the minstrel show; before the minstrel show was the plantation melody and the spiritual. It is safe to say that without the Negro we should have had no Tin Pan Alley; or, if this sounds like exaggeration, certainly Tin Pan alley would have been a far less picturesque Melody Land than it is to-day.
Why has the coon song become so representative of our popular music? Why is it impossible to think of our street songs for long without encountering the influence — whether pseudo or real — of the black? Why, whether in the early days of the southland, or in the contemporary life of Gotham, is the rhythm, the lingo, the accent of the Negro so persistent?
The Negro is the symbol of our uninhibited expression, of our uninhibited action. He is our catharsis. He is the disguise behind which we may, for a releasing moment, rejoin that part of ourselves which we have sacrificed to civilization. He helps us to a double deliverance. What we dare not say, often we freely sing. Music, too, is an absolution. And what we would not dare to sing in our own plain speech we freely sing in the Negro dialect, or in terms of the black. The popular son, like an unseen Cyrano, provides love phrases for that speechless Christian, the Public. And the Negro, a black Cyrano, adds lust to passion.
Can this be one of the reasons why the American Anglo-Saxon has held aloof from the exploitation and particularly the creation of songs in the musical vernacular? Can it be only a coincidence that the three races who have contributed most to our popular song — the Negro, the Irish and the Jew — should be the familiar example of oppressed nationalities, credited with a fine intensity of inner life and with passions less bridled than those of the more conventional — not necessarily the more frigid — American Anglo-Saxon?”
We can see the politics showing through the writer’s statements involving ‘oppressed’ races, and his biases towards Anglo-Saxons.
I will explore this further in future posts, because it seems that the cultural revolution has been more insidious and more important than the gradualist political revolution.
We already saw how the powers-that-be and their media arm spun the Fort Hood massacre by a Mohammedan as ‘workplace violence.’ Now they are already calling the latest incident, in Amarillo, Texas of all places, as more ‘workplace violence’ because the Somali Moslem shooter was an ex-employee of the Walmart where the incident happened.
Within a 76-minute period, shots rang out inside an Amarillo Walmart, a disgruntled employee took two hostages, panicked customers fled, an army of area law enforcement descended, the national news media covered and, ultimately, a gunman was left dead.
Amarillo police shot and killed 54-year-old Mohammad Moghaddam and rescued two hostages in just a little more than an hour. The incident paralyzed blocks along South Georgia Street and the Canyon E-Way for hours and had many in the city following the tense period through social media and other channels.”
And this same newspaper reporting this incident, about six months ago, was bemoaning the fact that blogs were stirring ‘controversy’ over the big surge in refugees being settled in Amarillo. The Mayor of Amarillo was insisting that the problem was the sheer number of refugees, not the fact that they were Moslem.
“It’s sad these groups are blaming (refugees for) some threat of an ISIS terrorist. That doesn’t translate at all to the situation in Amarillo. I would go anywhere with the refugees here,” Harpole said. “(The blogs) misquoted me about five times.”
Well, Mayor Harpole, I am not misquoting you, unless the quote I pasted above from the Amarillo Globe-News misquoted you. I doubt that they would do that, given that most public officials are liberal as are 99.9999 percent of the ‘newspapers’ in America. I am sure the Globe-News will faithfully report the party line carried by most politicians, namely: “Islam is a religion of peace. These are hardworking people looking for a better life. And this is a nation of immigrants.” Etc., etc., repeat as needed.
Leaving aside that risible cliche that ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ it’s just a fact that Somalia is a violent place — one of the most violent on this planet. No, it is not America with its ”gun culture” that is the worst, as leftists ignorantly say. According to most reliable statistics, Somalia up there near the top.
According to this website Somalia is number one. This site lists Mogadishu, the Somali capital, as the third most dangerous city in the world. There are plenty of other stats out there which verify this fact; I needn’t go on providing more of the same. Liberals and assorted ”conservative” pollyannas may make excuses such as ”but the violence is done by extremist groups, warlords, etc.; the Somalis are mostly innocent victims not perpetrators. We need to rescue them from their violent cultures.” But where does their violent culture come from? The people make the place. The culture is a product of the people, not the other way around, no matter what the ‘nurture over nature’ cult says.
And in this article we can read how America’s ‘magic dirt’ has transformed the Somalis once they are breathing America’s ‘magic free air.’ :
The decision taken in the early 1990s by the US’s former president, Bill Clinton, to import tens of thousands of backward Somalis into the American heartland of Minnesota has turned into an entirely predictable tale of crime, violence—and now, as demonstrated in the Nairobi, Kenya, shopping mall atrocity, terrorism.”
Since the above was written in 2013, I am sure that other examples could be added to the above list.
So Mayor Harpole and the many other elected officials like him are simply in massive denial about the habits and behaviors of Somalis, and about the nature of the so-called ‘religion of peace.’
Part of my upbringing was in a West Texas town not far from Amarillo. At that time, most of the panhandle and West Texas was populated by old-stock Texans, mostly ‘Anglos’, to use the Hispanic term, though there were Mexican migrant workers who actually did migrate back to Mexico when the crops were in. There was little ‘diversity’ in today’s sense, just the natural diversity of the various kinds of Anglo Texans.
Since I spoke of the Fort Hood shootings at the beginning of this piece, I remember one of the more shocking statements made afterward by one of the public figures, General Casey. He warned (as usual) of a possible ”backlash” by Americans:
General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding dozens of others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”
“I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” General Casey said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union. “It would be a shame—as great a tragedy as this was—it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”
So General Casey, a military man whose job is allegedly to defend American citizens against foreign enemies (what else is a military for?) is being more protective of ‘Muslim [sic] soldiers.’ What about American soldiers? American civilians, too, some of whom were murdered at Fort Hood? All Casey seemed to care about was his precious ‘diversity’. The potential damage to ‘diversity’ was more of a concern to him than the loss of American human beings, men, women, children, old, young — diversity is all that matters, right, General Casey? Mayor Harpole?
Heaven forbid ”Holy diversity” be damaged.
At least, thank the Lord, none of our folk were killed in this incident. But that was only by the grace of God, not through any efforts by American officials to protect their citizens and constituents. However, credit to the police who did what was necessary, and perhaps Texas is not yet as PC-paralyzed as many American states are. But the best cure is prevention. This situation was one of human making. Import large numbers of people from a violent country and you get — surprise, surprise — violence.
Elected officials? They are too busy protecting The Narrative, and Holy Diversity.
“It was workplace violence, Islam is a religion of peace, and diversity is our strength.”
Once again: diversity is not our strength. It is our greatest weakness, our greatest vulnerability in this day and time. It will be the end of us, either by slow demographic ‘swamping’, as we are blended beyond recognition, as our country becomes another Third World panmixia country like Brazil, or as we are slowly picked off by people like the Orlando shooter, the San Bernadino ‘Mr. and Mrs. Terrorists’, and all the rest of the vibrant enrichers, whose presence must be protected and defended at all costs. even at the cost of American lives. Diversity is all.
Police in San Jose, California got around to doing their job of arresting some of the attackers who assaulted attendees at a Donald Trump rally. Better late than never, but better still if they had done their job as the attacks were in progress, rather than standing by as people were being brutalized by the riff-raff. Had they done so, then maybe there would not have been any crimes committed against innocent people.
Speaking of riff-raff, was there any doubt about the demographics of the ‘anti’s?
The suspects have been identified as Ahmed Abdirahman, 19 of Santa Clara; Robert Trillo, 18 of San Jose; Antonio Fernandez, 19 of San Jose; and Michael Kitaigorodsky, 19 of San Jose.[…]Abdirahman, Trillo, and Fernandez were arrested on felony charges of assault with a deadly weapon. Kitaigorodsky was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of failure to disperse.”
So, two of the attackers were Hispanic, probably Mexican, one a Somali (refugee? likely) and the last, Kitaigorodsky, (presumably the grinning idiot with blue-green hair) could be Russian? Ukrainian? Jewish? Another likely immigrant or son of immigrants. Emma Lazarus’s kind of people.
Really, this makes Trump’s point about immigration for him.
…Specifically White nationalism, which someone named David Marcus thinks is a bad thing, a uniquely undesirable form of nationalism. David Marcus says Whites must not tribalize, like every other group of people on the planet do; we must look at others only as individuals, not as members of a group.
I guess that is to be expected coming from someone named David Marcus; there is a definite pattern of Jews discouraging ethnocentrism or ethnopatriotism on the part of White ‘gentiles’, especially Christians, while claiming the right for their own people to be the most ethnocentric and nepotistic people on planet Earth.
As some of you reading this know to be true, I was a latecomer to acknowledging the Jewish role in what is happening to White countries. Maybe I was just unwilling to touch such a radioactive subject, seeing how anyone who criticizes or even notices patterns among Jews is slapped down as an ”anti-Semite” who is thereby discredited.
But at a certain point I could not avoid noticing the part played by Jews in promoting multiculturalism, and cultural Marxism in all its forms, as well as opposing the influence of Christianity in our society. And it is obvious that Jews have, because of the victim culture, been placed above scrutiny heretofore — which is the ultimate form of political correctness.
The Jewish question aside, it is indefensible to deny Whites the simple right to secure and promote their own ethnic/genetic interests, especially in a world in which everyone else asserts their own tribal/ethnic/racial/religious identities, often in the most militant and aggressive ways. And yet we, and we alone, are carefully monitored and censured if we dare to think of ourselves as a discrete group with ethnic interests of our own, or heaven forbid, to assert our identity.
And it is hardly possible for anyone to deny that the percentage of Whites is fast diminishing in this upside-down world in which the most backward countries are seeing their populations explode, hence the spillover into Europe and North America as well as Australia and New Zealand. Wherever White people live, their relative numbers are shrinking in proportion to the population of the undeveloped nations. White people are a small minority of the total world population, and getting smaller. Yet paradoxically only Whites have been hectored about limiting family size or foregoing having children at all. Mother Earth can’t support more people — at least White people, apparently.
We are under an existential threat. And yet we are being told to think of ourselves only as isolated individuals with no kinship ties, cultural heritage, or history. We are just two-legged, tool-using mammals and that’s all the identity we need.
I would love to see this Marcus write the same piece addressed to the people of Israel and see how well it sells there. Or the diaspora Jewish community; are they willing to give up their group identity in favor of being ‘just individuals’?
And let’s not single out Jews; blacks are extremely ethnocentric. Think of the O.J. Simpson verdict; blacks cheered the verdict because one of their ‘own’ was getting off Scot-free, and they thought that was ‘justice.’ Blacks see everything through the prism of their race. Mexicans are nationalistic/ethnocentric to an extreme degree also; let’s see Mr. Marcus preach ‘individualism’ to Latinos, and warn against the extremists in La Raza or MeCha or any other nationalistic extremist organization.
This passe libertarian idea of ‘just individuals’ is inimical to our survival in today’s tribalistic world. Why should we alone be expected to give up our identity (which we have always had; it is not artificially created) and make ourselves vulnerable to the multitude of aggressive ethnic groups who have been introduced without our consent into our national home, our living space?
Mr. Marcus, like many of the deracinated ”right”, tries to make ”nationalism” a dirty word. “White” nationalism is a doubly-dirty term in the minds of such people because to them Whites are congenitally guilty of something. These same people use terms like ‘White nationalism’ promiscuously and inaccurately. They also conflate WNism with ‘Supremacy’, and that is dishonest or ignorant. Scarcely anyone wants ‘supremacy’ in the sense of ruling over other races. We simply want what all peoples have wanted: a place to be ourselves, amongst our own, in a land that is our homeland, our secure place. And the evil ”14 words” are about nothing more than the right to live unmolested amongst our own ethnic kin, the right to live and to ensure a future for our children, our progeny.
That is, after all, what brought our forefathers to this country. And when they established an independent nation here, they said explicitly that it was for themselves and their progeny. Not for the whole world, and most certainly not for those who were openly hostile or incompatible with this nation’s people, or for anyone who openly worked against the interests of the people of this nation.
Below the title of this blog, you will see the words ‘Ourselves and our posterity.’
From the beginning, this country was about securing the existence of our people and a future for their/our children.
Where is the evil in that? And why should we willingly renounce that?