“They” will not divide “us”

Just who are the ‘they‘ in this meme, and who are the ‘us‘ to which this meme alludes?

The ‘they’ who are supposedly out to divide ‘us’ are, presumably, hateful haters who don’t accept the multicultural ‘we’, the pretend unity that the lefties are invoking in the wake of the latest terror attacks.

I guess the ‘they‘ would be ethnonationalists, realists, anti-globalists, anybody who is not conforming to the official multicult dogma, anybody who dissents. People like me, obviously, and presumably people like those who may be reading this blog or others like it.

The enemy, according to the PC meme-makers is not Islam or any other foreign group; it is the citizenry of one’s own country who are not sufficiently submissive to the official party line dogma issued by the globalist overlords and their puppet-rulers in Western countries. Foreign enemies are not in fashion now; what does the Bible say in Matthew 10:36? A man’s enemies will be those of his own household? The left designates us, the dissidents and recalcitrant ‘old Americans’ as their enemy, while expressing solidarity with militant Islam, even as Islam carries out violence against us. Yet some of our folk can’t get it through their heads that we are the enemy to the powers-that-be and their leftist ‘useful idiots.’

In that sense, we are deeply divided already, within our own ‘household’. The divisions are political as well as ethnic, regional, class, religious, sex/gender, generational, and (last but far from least) racial.

We could hardly be more divided than we are.

The left and their globalist bedfellows know this, yet they have the gall to invoke this nonexistent ‘unity’ and to piously proclaim that ”They” will not divide ”us.”

There is no ‘us’ in this country that encompasses all of us, across all the boundaries that I mention above. The powers-that-be and their media stooges have made sure of that. Their constant divisive rhetoric, their ‘divide-and-rule’ memes have left their mark on our society. Sadly few people recognize that these divisions need not exist in the extreme form in which they’ve taken shape even in the last 10 or 15 years. I have to say, when I started blogging only 11 years ago, we were not nearly as riven with dissension and intra-racial animus as we are now.

The same can be said of other once-White countries, to a greater or lesser extent. This is a big part of why we are so vulnerable to what is happening to us now. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (Sadly that last sentence is often attributed to Lincoln when he was merely quoting Jesus Christ).

As far as poisonous memes go, I have to mention another one: this ridiculous idea that if we alter our lives in response to terrorism, if we show fear or even sensible prudence and caution, we are ‘giving in to the terrorists’, because taking precautions against terrorism means, bizarrely, that ”the terrorists will have won.”  So go right out and take chances and risks, as a way of defying those terrorists, whose aim is only to ‘make us change our way of life‘ because they ‘envy our freedoms.

It seems to me that their aim is to kill as many of us as they can and to terrorize us, to make us passive. Incidentally this latter seems to be the goal of the powers-that-be, and our governments. Maybe they are just using Islam and its intrinsic aggression and violence to keep us resigned and passive. False flags? Why bother? Just let the moslems do what comes naturally to them, and there’s no need for complicated false flag conspiracies and crisis actors, etc.

But to return to the original theme of this post, the main work of dividing the once-homogeneous societies was done years ago by the architects of multiculturalism. We tend to blame the leftist parties and politicians, people like Emmanuel Celler and Philip Hart, or Teddy Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. But the GOP has been complicit in this too.

The George W. Bush administration was the main promoter of the meme about how ‘the terrorists will have won’ unless we learn to be oblivious to the terror attacks going on around us.  That meme is seeing a lot of service these days, along with ‘they won’t divide us.’

At the Smash Cultural Marxism blog there’s a very good piece dealing with the ‘unity’ memes, pointing out that we are already divided thanks to ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism, via mass immigration. The time for the ‘they won’t divide us’ mantra would have been pre-1965 in America, before they ripped apart the fabric of our society with mass immigration and slow-motion ethnic cleansing/race replacement.

The time for Britain to have defiantly said ‘they won’t divide us’ would have been pre-1948, before the arrival of the Windrush. As Andrew Joyce points out in the article on the Windrush, the role of Jews was very prominent in that event, which should come as no surprise. So perhaps the roots of the multicultural divisiveness go back much further.

They have divided us already; the division is an accomplished fact. How we can walk things back and restore the cohesion and commonality that once existed is a complicated question.

We’ve already been divided, so pretending that there is some kind of imaginary unity between us and Islam — or us and Jews, or whoever else — is very hollow.

The defiant proclamation ‘they won’t divide us’ should be directed toward those who are responsible for shredding our society every which way, and that ‘they‘ is not nationalists or nativists.

 

One (European) world

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

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

Poster above: from 1951

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

 

On the uses of genealogy

I often urge people to investigate their family tree, if they haven’t already done so. It’s becoming more common for people to be DNA-tested, and that has its uses, but genealogy really brings our ancestors to life by giving them names, locations, and many other details that make them flesh-and-blood people to us.

The following quote is from a book published in 1881, and oddly it seems especially appropriate for our time in which there is so much confusion about nationality, ethnicity, and our place in this multicultural Babel in which we live.

I’ve bolded the parts I find most pertinent to our situation:

“Ought any one to be entirely indifferent to the channels in which his own blood has come to him?

Whether it has flowed down in the veins of nobles or peasants, whether he has a reason before his fellow-men for honest pride in the exploits or for satisfaction with the mere respectability of his ancestors he surely has ground for desiring to know for himself what are his connections with the past. But irrespective of all reference to the utility of such knowledge, there is an instinct in all right minds which constrains them to such an interest. A part of the same respect and love which every true man feels for the father and mother who bore him is carried back to the whole line of his progenitors. The pleasure which most persons take in such studies springs therefore from one of the profoundest and most useful of human instincts. It deserves encouragement, among all classes of society.

There is nothing to make it more appropriate for the rich than for the poor. An honored and virtuous ancestry is quite as much a source of pride to such as have no other inheritance, as those who glory in large ancestral titles and estates. And it may be as powerful an incentive so to live as to command the veneration and esteem of coming generations. There may be some exaggeration, but there is truth in the motto of the American College of Heraldry, “He who careth not whence he came, careth little whither he goeth.”

It is for this reason, we think, that there are instincts in nature which prompt to this as to all moral duties. The common proverb, “Blood is thicker than water,” expresses a truth which is almost universally felt, and implies an affection seldom appealed to in vain. It may at times need development, and often may be overborne by stronger passions, but such a fortune it shares with all other mental qualities. It is, therefore, one of those deep principles which are “the inspiration of the Almighty that giveth understanding.”

Americans have sometimes been tempted to speak contemptuously of family descent and family history. An interest in such matters has not infrequently been reproached as if it were inconsistent with republican simplicity. If what we have said be true it is inconsistent only with an arrogation to oneself of those titles which come from royal or aristocratic prescription. The time is coming, and has already begun, when many must take a pure delight in recollecting the part which those dear to them took, not only in establishing our national independence but in maintaining our national unity. “Beyond the stimulus which the desire of distinction gives to those who are rising in the world there is an important benefit derived from the sentiment of family antiquity, in the tendency it has to unite and hold together the mass of those families which have a stake in the country for their mutual preservation. Those who look upon the nation as composed of its honorable and patriotic families will feel bound together by a sacred tie, and communities will no longer be regarded as an incongruous mass of adventurers, but as a brotherhood animated by a kindred spirit.”

Let us bring to test these suggestions by noticing the associations connected with the contemplation of a family tree. There may, or there may not be branches in that tree which have formed a shadow for a nation or a world; but for every one who is a branch in that tree, however insignificant, it will have an illumination to which he cannot be indifferent. As he traces the limbs in various directions, his sympathies will be likely to be drawn forth to a larger circle, his consciousness of capabilities will be deepened by the suggestion of what his own flesh and blood has accomplished, and a respect for a common association will prompt to a higher style of living. He can hardly fail to have his scheme of life enlarged when he becomes conscious of a community animated by “one blood.” He will begin to regard himself, not as a mere accretion upon a dead mass, but as a member of an organism pervaded by a life leaving no minute part without a common sympathy. For want of such a sentiment many a family has never attained its appropriate character and position.’

Conway P. Wing A Historical and Genealogical History of John Wing and his Descendants, 1881

Who is an American?

This question is a recurring one on right-wing blogs, and especially so since all the talk and heated rhetoric about deportations (also known as sending people home) and walls.

Because America has had a history of rather promiscuous immigration policies it’s a fact that the homogenous America our Founding ancestors wrote of is no longer a reality — but yet it is also not a reality that the Founding stock, that is, the ‘posterity’ of the Founders, is long gone and irrelevant, or that we are a ‘proposition nation.’

That last assertion is now the official dogma of the multicultists in both the GOP and the Democrat party. The fact is it was never true.

Those who object to any mention of sending foreigners back to their homelands protest that many of them are ”as American as you and me”, fully American in their culture and their tastes and their speech — in some cases. Some of these immigrant advocates go so far as to say that even the new arrivals are more American than the Americans themselves because ”they [immigrants] appreciate this Free Country; they love liberty”, unlike most spoiled, jaded native-born Americans.

But loving ”liberty”, whatever meaning that has for individuals who come here, does not an American make.

To my mind, it comes down to this: those of kindred stock to the original colonists, whose ancestors have been here since pre-Revolution times, are American. Those who are genetically and culturally more distant, and whose ancestors have not been here for at least several generations? Not necessarily. Assimilation is not an automatic and natural process; greater genetic and cultural distance may mean that they never fully assimilate to the original stock population or share our mores and standards.

Those belonging to some ‘victim’ group, holding grievances and nursing grudges about what their sometimes-distant ancestors suffered at the hands of the ‘xenophobic WASPs’ or whatever — are not Americans in any real sense. Here’s what it comes down to for me: if you don’t and apparently can’t identify with, or have some regard or loyalty to the original stock population, you aren’t of us, by your own choice. Loyalty to this nation would seem to imply identifying and sympathizing with the majority of ‘legacy’ Americans, and our national story. Absent that loyalty to the folk, you have defined yourself as being Other, with a capital ‘O’. These types of people, even if their ancestors came here 5 0r 6 generations back, still harp on the unfair treatment they imagine their distant forefathers suffered:”My great-great-grandfather wasn’t even considered White! I deserve reparations just as much as blacks! More so!”

Not American.

It’s also this group of perpetual-grievance-holders who most often champion today’s mass immigration, and support open borders, multiculturalism, and the Democrat Party — though one can be a GOPer and be all for those things, sad to say. These are the people who say “How can I be against immigration? My ancestors would never have been allowed in if the xenophobes had their way.” And how would America have even existed without these people and their ancestors having been admitted? America just wouldn’t have been America without them. So they flatter themselves.

In a sense they are right; America as it is now would not be the same country had we not let in millions of such immigrants in the past; it was the old melting pot philosophy, the proposition nation, Emma Lazarus ideology, that led to today’s ethnically and racially divided, conflict-ridden America. Immigration led to more immigration; it’s a perpetual cycle.

 

 

Politics replaces tribe, for some

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

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

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

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

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

Or this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

What we’ve lost

Ehud Would at Faith and Heritage has posted another of his worthy essays  on the subject of ‘The Way We Were.’ He begins by citing a 2003 piece by Gary North, which appeared on Lew Rockwell.com

In that piece, North mentions a scene in the classic 1934 movie, It Happened One Night,in which passengers on a Greyhound bus have a spontaneous sing-along. I remember that scene. Oddly enough I recently saw another 1930s movie with a similar scene.  Coincidentally, I wrote a blog piece some years ago about the loss of our social cohesion and commonality, and cited as an example a scene from a 1943 movie, The Human Comedy.

In it, young men in uniform, on their way to be shipped out to the front, engage in a sing-along. The song they agree to sing is an old hymn, ”Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.” I found that very poignant in the context of the scene, where the young men, off to face possible death in battle, sing ”What have I to dread, what have I to fear? Leaning on the everlasting arms.” I thought of how a movie of today would never have such a scene, and would never include a Christian hymn, at least not in a positive light. And worse than that, is that a random group of soldiers or Americans in general would not be likely to know that song by heart, or to even be familiar with it — even in the Bible Belt of the South. Today’s churches most often shun the old hymns sung by generations of our forefathers in favor of bland, vague ‘love songs’ that may or may not mention Jesus, or God; these songs are called ‘praise songs.’ But in the world of 1943 America, most heartland Americans knew songs like ‘Leaning on the Everlasting Arms’, and not only knew them but would sing them unashamedly in public, as in that train scene. Such would not be the case today. We were a more closely-knit people then.

So yes, these scenes of communal singing amongst strangers on public conveyances were not some kind of quaint ‘Norman Rockwellization’ of the old days by Hollywood, but were not far-fetched at all. Americans in general had certain common customs and shared experience, a shared culture. We were much more a nation and a people then, in a cultural and social sense, because we were a people descended from common ancestors, with a common history, language, and religion. Now multiculturalism has destroyed that, and we are a grab-bag of peoples divided by mutual suspicion in many cases, or at least wary of ”offending” each other or some third party who may be eavesdropping on private conversations. People have been arrested for things said in private conversations.

The America of 2016 is very much a different country than the one many of us grew up in. I hear this sentiment expressed even by people who grew up in the 1980s, so it is not peculiar to the oldest citizens now.

One of the things that is most unattractive for me about much of the ‘far right’ of today is the utter cynicism toward the past that is on display amongst some of those under 40 or so. They are in agreement with the left that the old America is dead and gone and that the clock can never be turned back in any way, nor should it be. In fact many of them have accepted the left’s depiction of the pre-PC America as mostly a falsified, whitewashed (in more ways than one) memory of what was really an already-corrupt America, and that there was no idyllic America, no golden age. No, there is no perfect or spotless  era, but the America of old was definitely a happier and more peaceful and a safer time. Those who say otherwise are likely expressing ‘sour grapes’ sentiments, or else they are people who actually prefer the leftist-created ‘America’ in which there is more ”freedom”, freedom to transgress.

The left has destroyed our social cohesion in many ways, and it is not just in a racial and ethnic sense that they have undermined our country; it is in a social/ethical/religious sense. They have given us a post-Christian — no, anti-Christian replacement America, and many of the younger generations prefer this part of the Left’s reconstructed America. The past appears bland, homogenous, conformist, and boring to many of those weaned on the Left’s cynicism.

So even on the ”right”, the Left has succeeded in creating division.
In the religious sphere, the Left has subverted Christianity so that Babelist, multicult ‘churchians’ go to battle against their brethren who hold to the more truthful and more Biblically-grounded faith of our fathers. And sad to say, many of these politically correct Babelists are in denominations that were once known as ‘conservative’ and Biblically sound. The Southern Baptists spring to mind, and institutions like Bob Jones University, which has repented of it previous political incorrectness in opposing miscegenation.

I’ve gone far afield from the points made by Ehud Would in his piece; I do recommend you read it.

As for the popular view that looking to the past is useless and counterproductive, what about this:

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”

However, the next verse says:

But they said, We will not walk therein.”

The more things change…

Why pan-Europeanism is wrong

There’s been a kind of low-grade ongoing debate over the merits of ‘pan-Europeanism,’ or nationalism based only on broad racial classification vs. ethnonationalism, in which our immediate ethnic kinsmen are our ‘nation.’

Obviously I come down on the side of the latter. I think the idea that we can unite promiscuously with all those of European descent (wherever the borders of Europe may end, anyway; that can be argued) is misguided and would not work.

For an illustration see what’s going on, and has been going on in Britain, a country which has recently shown that it wants to be more self-determining.

Just for some perspective, this map:

immigration England Wales

In the number one position, immigrants from Poland. And this is only to England and Wales, not including all of Britain.

If you are a real ethnonationalist, you would say that all mass immigration is harmful to the peoples of England and Wales. If you are a pan-European (“we’re all white”) or White nationalist you will likely say, as our Freeper brethren do here, that the British should stop worrying about Polish immigrants because at least they are White. But whether the face of the United Kingdom is transformed by Polish immigrants coming en masse, or by Moslems (who, granted, are a threat) the country is nonetheless being changed into something else by the mere presence of masses of immigrants of ANY origin. To say “but they will assimilate” is to affirm your belief in ‘magic dirt.’ Poles are Poles. Welsh folk are Welsh, English are English.

The Poles have a very different language and culture. Britain has had immigrants from every corner of the globe thrust on her, and it is time they might have a chance at being themselves in the land of their ancestors, true to their own heritage and traditions.

And I ask this question to those who side with the Poles: do you think the Poles ought to accept half a million English, or Welsh, or Irish or Italians into their country? if not, why not? We’ll revisit that question at the end of this piece.

Recently some pro-White blogs have noted the fierce national pride and resurgent nationalism in Poland. “Poland for the Poles!” was mentioned as the rallying cry — doesn’t anyone see the irony in that, when the Poles have sent millions of their people to Britain and to Ireland and wherever else they are accepted as ‘guest workers’? Poland for the Poles should also imply England for the English, Wales for the Welsh.

Any other option means more of the ‘melting pot’/proposition nation/magic dirt scenario, and we’ve seen how that works out.

One more hard fact to chew on: Eastern Europeans in Britain and in Ireland seem to commit more than their share of violent crimes, and I’ve posted links corroborating that in the past. I won’t do so this time because those who doubt can google it up for themselves, and need not be spoon-fed. Some apologists for the Eastern Europeans (and BTW, note the high numbers of Lithuanians in Britain as well) claim that the criminals are not Poles or Lithuanians or Romanians, but Roma gypsies posing as non-gypsies. Nice try, but no, surely not in every case. I have speculated whether some countries are not sending their undesirables West, just as I’ve said about the ‘refugee’ flood into Europe generally, and the Latin American onslaught. I find it hard to believe that this is not being done by some countries wanting to get rid of their bad apples by dumping them onto the ‘richer’ countries, thus saving themselves some expense.

The link above in this piece is to a Free Republic discussion of an Al-Jazeera article. Obviously that is not an unimpeachable source; they are a propaganda outlet and not to be credited with being 100 percent truthful, but no doubt in some areas of Britain where there are large colonies of Poles, there is tension and resentment. And this should not be condemned as ‘xenophobia’ on the part of the British. And to say that just because the Moslems are far worse candidates for British residence, the Poles should be welcomed is just a non sequitur. Not an argument at all, much less a convincing one.

The Freepers on another thread also sputtered that ‘the Poles were brave fighters’ in WWII or whenever; that’s all well and good. But does their bravery give them carte blanche to live in the UK or Ireland or even our country? Here in America we had many Polish immigrants during the Ellis Island era and later, to the extent that large Polish enclaves existed in several cities. Immigrants, especially of that era, tend to become romanticized and a mystique has built up around them. The ethnic kin of those immigrants see them in a rosy glow. Some of that rosy glow has to dissipate, and we have to begin to look at immigration with a colder and more detached eye. We, meaning we in the ‘wealthier’ countries which are destinations for the world’s restless masses, will have to stop being sentimental and think of what is best for our folk, our progeny, not for the world’s hard luck cases.

I wish the Polish people well, in their own country, where it seems they are needed; there are stories that Poland ‘needs’ immigrants to fill jobs that are going begging.

Ironically, the Polish view immigrants with a jaundiced eye. And they are right to do so. But they should accord Western Europeans the right to feel the same.

Pre-‘diversity’ diversity

At the Atlantic Centurion blog, there is a piece titled ‘Anglo-American Diversity’, which deals with the American identity, and civic nationalism vs. ethnonationalism.

The way in which, under the Cultural Marxist regime, artificial civic nationalism has taken the place of organic nationalism, with the original stock of this country being declared to be no people, with no culture, is outlined in the piece. Also we are given an ironic summary of how the post-American generations are taught American ”history.”

Even if you buy that White people are bad and diversity is good, there is still a powerful ignorance being espoused. Though the founding stock of this country was overwhelmingly British, within that context there was substantial cultural as well as ethnic heterogeneity that continues to have an impact on American culture and society. Ironically, we wuz diverse. And in a lot of ways, we frankly still are.”

I agree, as I’ve written before of what I referred to as simply ‘American diversity’, the diversity that was present even within the Anglo-American population. There was regional diversity, encompassing differing customs from one region to the next, and within that category, linguistic diversity, with a variety of dialects of English being spoken. There were differing customs depending on one’s religious background as well. And there was ethnic diversity of a certain degree existing even amongst colonial stock Americans. Think of the Cajuns; they are colonial-stock, having been in North America since at least the 1700s, though they first settled in what is now Nova Scotia. They came to Louisiana when it was still a French territory and became Americans by annexation. They kept a great deal of their culture, language, and customs and yet, unlike most ethnically distinct ‘Americans’, they are very much a part of our country and are loyal Americans who are not in conflict with others as with many immigrant groups.

The fact that the Cajuns blended into our society while keeping a distinct culture and heritage does not mean that we can expect other groups to fit as comfortably — yet today’s variety of ”diversity” seems to imply that the more exotic and “Other” a group, the more desirability for our country. Pre-1965 ‘diversity’ is not the same creature as post-1965 diversity. We are seeing the fruits of that now.

One problem I have with the piece is that it ends with a paean to David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed.

I don’t know Fischer’s ancestry; his last name implies some German ancestry. But if his work is mostly about the seed of Albion, it does us a disservice, in my opinion, by further encouraging divisions among English or British-descended Americans. In following many discussions of that book online, I see it being used  most often as a way for especially Southrons to distance themselves from possible English roots, and identify as ‘Scots-Irish’ or ‘Celtic’, while claiming the South for ‘Celts’, saying baldly that the South, especially anything worthwhile about it, is the product of Celts, not those effete, evil Englishmen. Every virtue of the Southron people — their love of life, their sense of humor, their family closeness, their love of music — is proof positive of their ‘Celtic’ origins, so they claim. I listened to a podcast in which a Southron academic said that it’s obvious that the Southrons are Celtic (Scots-Irish) because they are fun-loving, rollicking people, generous, bold. This is hardly a persuasive argument against their Anglo-Saxon roots. It’s also very odd in that the Scots are not known as being exuberant, outgoing people; the old image was the ‘dour Scotsman‘, and the ‘thrifty, frugal’ Scot.

I’ve met and known real-life Scots and Irish and English people, and each group has its good qualities. Neither the Scots nor the Irish have a monopoly on the positive qualities. And believe it or not, it’s the English who are widely known for their distinctive sense of humor. Think of the writings of Dickens, or Shakespeare. Think of all the British film comedies from Ealing studios. Or the TV ‘Britcoms‘ Americans have enjoyed, including Monty Python.

So it’s absurd to try to assign humor or good nature to Celts (Scots, Scots-Irish or otherwise) only. But this is an example of the result of taking David Hackett Fischer’s tome as gospel. That book has driven a wedge between the distinct varieties of Angl0-Americans. The “Puritans as ultimate villains” thesis also owes a lot to Fischer’s writings, though maybe readers are taking his ideas beyond his original intentions.

Dividing Anglo-Americans, or at least old-stock, British-descended Americans, serves somebody’s agenda — but not ours.

Nevertheless, a good piece at Atlantic Centurion, though I differ about Fischer.