‘In the New World Order…’

“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

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.

Immigration history visualized

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.



Yes, they were always White

Steve Sailer links to a Washington Post piece which takes on the claim that the Irish were not always considered White.  Funny, I had a post ready to go in which I mention, once again, that silly canard. (My post was to have been about widely-believed myths.)

I had wondered how and why this idea became so widely repeated, and it appears that the source, at least in our time, is the notorious anti-White academic Noel Ignatiev with his book How the Irish Became White. Apparently that book’s use in the de rigueur ‘whiteness studies’ movement on campuses has spread the canard.

I’ve written about the claim in past posts, usually in exasperation with somebody spreading this idea on ‘right-wing’ blogs or forums. Now, we know the left loves to assert anything that makes Whites look bad, or casts the past in a bad light. The belief that other Whites refused to include the Irish (or the Italians, or whatever other ethnic White group) makes us look exclusionary and mean-spirited.

Usually the claim is bolstered by things like old political cartoons, satirical images like those in Punch magazines of long ago. There’s this exampleJudy, Or The London Serio-Comic Journal, 1876a.


from an 1876 British magazine, Judy, Or the London Serio-Comic Journal.

Some people see depictions like the one above as ‘simian’ in appearance. Whatever. I think it depicts a certain ‘type’ of Irishman, but I don’t see how the man in the above picture could be called non-White.

As for the Italians and Jews being considered non-White, well, if one’s standard of Whiteness is based on the Northern European type, then obviously Italians and Jews differ from that phenotype in certain ways, sometimes by darker skin.

The Jews (and the writer of the WaPo piece is named Bernstein) are another story, apparently considering themselves White when convenient and ‘Other’ when it serves a purpose. I have personally heard some Jewish people using the term ‘White folks’ or ‘Whites’  in the third person, and they certainly seem to side, in most cases with ‘The Other’, against Whites. The DNA studies reported by Johns Hopkins in 2013, to which I’ve alluded a couple of times, show a mixed origin for Jews. However when it came to immigration they were evidently considered White.

As the article points out, and as a commenter on the Sailer blog astutely points out, none of the above-mentioned ethnicities were excluded from marrying Whites, during the time when miscegenation was illegal, and interracial marriages forbidden. I’ve noted that before, too.

So why exactly is this idea that the ‘Irish weren’t considered White’ so popular these days, cropping up repeatedly amongst even ethnonationalist or ‘WN’ commenters?

My instinct is to say that it’s popular, in part, because the victimhood card is so often played these days; why not jump on the bandwagon? It amounts to trying to shame the alleged victimizer and to claim the moral high ground, having been unjustly treated and wronged. And who then is the target of the shaming? As usual, the WASP, the Angl0-American, because he was the dominant one in America in the days when this wrong was alleged to have happened. WASPs are often pictured in fiction and in leftist history books as snobs and haughty bigots who saw everyone else as inferior. They kept certain people out of their exclusive clubs! No doubt snobs exist in any group, but for people who were so intolerant, they oddly opened up the gates to admit millions of supposedly ‘non-White’ peoples in the past.

As far as the left is concerned, they spread these kinds of false ideas to divide White Americans along ethnic lines, as if we aren’t already divided in many ways.



A Free Republic poster links to an article from a news source in India, reporting that Hindu activists in America are demanding an apology from CNN. CNN’s crime? Hinduphobia.

To thinking Americans, CNN is synonymous with left-wing, anti-White and pro-multicultural content, at which it outdoes just about all the other purveyors of ‘news’ and commentary. So it’s hard to imagine that they would be anti-Hindu.

And just what did CNN do that was ‘Hinduphobic’? They had a series called ‘Believer’, in which correspondent Reza Aslan focused on Hindu religious figures and practices. The article does not seem to mention this specifically, but I would guess that the Hindu activists objected to a depiction of a guru and his followers who were shown eating human brains. Reza Aslan, the CNN reporter, apparently also consumed some of this unappealing meal, under coercion, some said.

So is it ‘xenophobic’, or more specifically ‘Hinduphobic’ to be shocked or repelled by a spectacle like that? We will have become a jaded people for sure if we can no longer be horrified at the thought of cannibalism, much less by the sight of it.

CNN displayed very bad judgement in showing that clip, even if they had displayed a warning before any such ‘graphic’ scene. What could have been their purpose in showing it? I doubt very much that they wanted to stir up antipathy towards Hindus, as dedicated as they are to the ‘all cultures/races are equal’ dogma. So what motive was there in showing it?

CNN’s faithful audience are no doubt mostly of a like mind. So I doubt that they would react to these scenes with disgust or shock or ‘phobias’ toward Hindus. Many leftists are very familiar with the various manifestations of the Hindu religion and culture. There are pictures online of some sort of Hindu cult members eating charred human bodies they pulled out of the Ganges. So this kind of thing is not completely unknown.

Are the Hindu activists defending cannibalism in an oblique way, here, or do they just object to having anyone shine a spotlight on it? That is, are they blaming the messenger?

I doubt, though, that most Americans, hearing of this controversy, would respond by hating Hindus; in fact we have become a very jaded and tolerant people for the most part, hardly blinking at this kind of thing, whereas once upon a time, cannibalism and other such gruesome things evoked real shock and horror among civilized Westerners. But we are a post-Christian people, unfortunately, and Hollywood has helped to desensitize us to all sorts of once-unthinkable things.

And we do seem to have become, overall, very accepting of this diversity which has been thrust on us, as you can see from some of the Freepers’ comments about how they prefer Hindus to some varieties of ‘diversity.’ The usual line is that ‘at least they’re not Muslims’ or some variation of that. Every ethnicity, Hindus included, has its defenders and advocates among White Americans. But how many White Americans are willing to defend their own?




Clever coinages

The commenters at Steve Sailer’s blog are somewhat of a mixed bag. Most of the comments there are intelligent and sound, although a few of the people, apparently longtime readers, mystifyingly, still don’t seem to ‘get it’ when it comes to race and HBD. Then again, that’s true on a number of other politically incorrect/race realist/racially aware blogs. Why that is, I am not sure, but that’s another story.

Lately I’ve seen some clever and witty turns of phrase in the comments at Sailer’s blog, such as ‘Tragic Dirt.’ I gather that would be the opposite of ‘Magic Dirt’, which, as we know, transforms immigrants into model citizens of ‘their’ new country, simply by their act of standing on the soil. So ‘Tragic Dirt’ would be the explanation for why these immigrants can never prosper in their homelands; the soil has some deleterious quality that ensures their failure in their own land, or their lack of development.

I suppose it would be akin to the old theory of the ‘miasma’, back in the Victorian era, when supposed noxious vapors in certain places accounted for all kinds of bad things.

But the theory of environmental causes for a people’s lack of advancement, a la ‘Tragic Dirt’ sort of makes me think of Jared Diamond’s belief system.

One more coinage I came across at Sailer’s blog, from a commenter: a reference to ‘Cloven Hoof-Kalergi‘ for ‘Coudenhove-Kalergi.’ I’d say that’s apt.

UVa Profs: stop quoting Jefferson

The ‘Old Dominion’ continues to decay. The usual academic suspects are now, along with their brainwashed adolescent charges, clamoring for the president of UVa to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson. 469 ignoramuses and budding totalitarians signed a petition to this effect.

The school’s president, Teresa Sullivan, said the following, which prompted the demands:

“Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes,’” Ms. Sullivan wrote in the email. “I encourage today’s U.Va. students to embrace that responsibility.”

The students and their academic allies cited Thomas Jefferson’s ownership of slaves, along with his ”racist” beliefs, as reasons for banning his words.

Was Jefferson a ”racist”? We all know that term has been overused and has become so fluid and subjective that it is almost impossible to defend against the charge. As someone at VDare, perhaps, once said, to be accused of racism is to be convicted. It is not possible to prove a negative, especially when one’s accusers are ‘POCs’ or White leftists; both groups are immune to reason, facts, and common sense.

I see that Steve Sailer has a thread on this story, and to my (pleasant) surprise, the comments are mostly defensive of Jefferson, which sad to say is becoming more and more rare, as even many “conservatives”, ethnopatriots, and race-realists (so-called) are willing to pile on and baldly state that Jefferson was a ‘hypocrite’, a ‘race-mixer’ or even a slave-rapist. Examples? I can’t easily locate a specific thread, but I’ve seen such comments on AmRen (a site I long since abandoned, for various reasons) and on the OD blog, where at least one regular commenter pointedly condemns Jefferson at every possible occasion. And no one disputes what he says. I haven’t commented at OD since the comments are now under the Disqus system, so the slanders go unanswered.

Some of you may remember that I used to try to counter all attacks on Jefferson, even attempting to comment on AmRen, where my comments rarely got approved. And I have tried to defend Jefferson not just because I am a Jefferson descendant — it’s personal — but because I believe in his innocence of the slanders made against his character. I realize I am out of step with the cynicism of the times regarding all the Founding generation, and that defending Jefferson is often sneered at as being a ‘patriotard’ and the like, but the fact is there is not any definitive proof that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’ or any slave’s brood of children. Some of the Hemings descendants say they have Jefferson DNA according to tests, but the DNA is not that of Thomas Jefferson, but just of a Jefferson male. That could include many possible sires.

I used to cite a link from Ashbrook Center, Ashland University, which offered the counter-evidence to the Jefferson slander, but it seems they’ve taken that page down. Why? Too politically incorrect?

A link on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog which dealt with that subject, and offered an argument against the claim from an informed commenter, is likewise gone. Why? The comment was from the Jefferson Family historian, Herbert Barger. Why did the Britannica people not consider that this was valuable information?

There’s obviously an effort across the board to re-write history in a way that discredits the Founders, and by extension, the Founding stock of this country and their progeny. Us. Why are so many of ‘us’ going along with this, and even aiding and abetting it?

There used to be an older gentleman, another Jefferson descendant, who tried to combat these stories online, but maybe he has passed on now. I used to try to take up the slack and answer as many as I could, but it seems such a vain effort, and I have begun to feel that if nobody else cares to preserve Jefferson’s name and his legacy, then why should I waste my time and energy? Yet here I am doing it again. I guess I am a sucker for lost causes.

But back to the original charge of those ‘scholars’ at UVa and wherever this kind of nonsense is being encouraged: was Jefferson a ”racist”, whatever that means on any given day? He was definitely a ‘realist’ in that he (being something of a scientist and “HBD” man in his time) observed and noted the many differences between the two races, black and White, and he predicted — accurately — that the two races would not be able to live side-by-side in harmony, and that it would all end in conflict.  In other words, he was a truth-teller. And that’s the crime nowadays.

And Jefferson’s statement that the students of UVa would be those who would govern the country in the future is unfortunately true — and frightening, given the obvious fact that those ignorant and fanatical misfits will in fact be in charge one day, if we go on that long. I think that reality would dismay Thomas Jefferson if he had but known.

The ultimate in xenophilia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The real Ali

Jim Goad at TakiMag writes about The Greatest Anti-White Boxer of All Time, namely Muhammad Ali, of course. He notes the (ahem) whitewashing of Ali now that he is dead, and the fawning eulogies. Even on the ‘realist right’, people seemed to focus solely on Ali’s famous (or infamous) interview in which he spoke out bluntly against interracial mating/marrying. In the 1970s no doubt that statement made a lot of liberal Whites uncomfortable but it did not carry the incendiary potential that it does in 2016.

The ‘colorblind’ portion of the White population seemed to regard Ali as a sainted hero,  in the tradition of most black celebrities, not quite as exalted as Nelson Mandela (terrorist, ex-convict) and not nearly as revered as MLK, but still a hero. I wonder how the sensitive teens at Tumblr would react to the quotes Joad offers at TakiMag?

“Integration is wrong. The white people don’t want integration. I don’t believe in forcing it….”
1964 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal

“The white man want me hugging on a white women, or endorsing some whiskey, or some skin bleach, lightening the skin when I’m promoting black as best.”
1966 interview with Sports Illustrated

“My enemies are white people, not Viet Congs or Chinese or Japanese.”
1967 interview regarding the draft

“All Jews and gentiles are devils….Blacks are no devils….Everything black people doing wrong comes from (the white people—drinking, smoking, prostitution, homosexuality, stealing, gambling—it all comes from (the white people).”
1969 interview with David Frost”

On that last quote, shades of Thomas Sowell who resorted to blaming ‘Southern redneck culture’ for ”everything black people doing wrong” as Ali bluntly put it.

Meanwhile it seems that Ali will become another black ‘icon’ revered by the likes of the Tumblr teens, along with Nelson Mandela, MLK, Rosa Parks and the rest of the pantheon. And it seems that ‘race realist’ Whites will remember Ali solely by his statements against interracial marriage. The trouble is, it’s likely nobody but White people will ever see or hear of his remarks, as the controlled media will never publicize anything that deviates from their agenda. Illusion wins over reality again, at least for now.