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 fraud: nothing new

Immigration alarms Roosevelt_2_pandexofpress02strerich_0034aa-vert

Madison Grant, in one of his books, made the statement that the steamship companies were involved in encouraging mass immigration for their own profit. I was not aware of this previously, and this article, from ca 1902, confirms it.

Many forms of fraud were thriving even back then. Nothing new under the sun, it seems.

A persistent myth

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’.

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.

 

 

Dwindling and vanishing?

2017-03-14_231426

The above was a comment posted on Vox Day’s blog, in response to an earlier comment.

I seem to remember that in the earlier incarnation of this blog, someone took exception to the term ‘Vanishing American’, on the grounds that it was pessimistic or fatalistic. I certainly hope I haven’t given that impression in using that term. I chose it (as many people know) because it referenced not only our precarious status in our country of birth, and also as a reminder of what happened to those who were originally called ‘the vanishing American’, that is, American Indians. No doubt they haven’t vanished altogether, as so many lefties who want to lay a “genocide” charge against Whites imply, but they were outnumbered and marginalized and (to some extent) ‘lost’ by outmarrying.

In the earlier days of this blog I think I focused more on trying to remind our folk of  heritage and history, to try to revive a sense of knowing who we are, where we came from, and of the need for regaining confidence in ourselves in this dark age. I’ve gotten away from that somewhat, maybe sensing that the mood has shifted away from respecting tradition and the past.

So in using the term ‘vanishing’ I think the sense, on this blog, always was ‘vanishing — if if we don’t face up to our predicament and do everything possible to reverse it. There are so many doomsayers and defeatists online (and in real life, depending on where you are) that it’s absolutely self-destructive to give way to that thinking.

I have to say, honestly, I have more pessimistic moods in recent years than I did in 2006, and maybe I have grown more cynical but my aim is always to be cautiously optimistic. Pessimism is not helpful to anyone, including the pessimist.

Worth it?

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.

 

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.

 

 

Immigration: planned or coincidence?

Steve Sailer posted the same video of Bill Clinton which I posted in my previous entry, asking the question ‘Is it too late for Hillary to stop being so extremist on borders?’ Commenters discuss how back in the 1990s it was not unheard of for even Democrats to express immigration restrictionist views, albeit more middle-of-the-road ones.

Nonetheless, I think Bill Clinton’s words were meant mostly for effect, not as a sincere intent to restrict immigration, legal or illegal. I think the fix was in even then, and when G.W. Bush came into office, his plan was to accelerate the demographic change. Maybe he was chosen to push for amnesty for the millions of illegals who had already entered our country because his being a Republican would make it easier for pro-border enforcement Republicans and conservatives to accept an amnesty bill. Just as ‘only Nixon could go to China.’

Still there remain lots of immigration skeptics who doubt that there was a plan to flood this country and all Western, historically White countries with millions upon millions of immigrants, legal or not. Why there is such stubborn resistance to this idea baffles me, except that there seem to be a great many Americans who are skeptical to a fault, shunning anything that smacks of ‘conspiracy theories’, preferring to believe that most things are coincidences, random events. As if those in high places, those with great power and wealth and ambition, are content to sit around and hope things go their way accidentally.

Despite the evidence of the reality of the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan (which some doubt) there is also this piece, from 2006, which I posted way back then on the blog, by Fredo Arias-King. He was a Mexican national who was an aide to Mexican president Vicente Fox in 1999-2000. I post the link again in case that there may, just may be someone looking in on this blog who is not familiar with the piece.

The article is titled Immigration and Usurpation: Elites, Power, and the People’s Will. It is just as timely now as it was then.

In that article, Arias-King discusses possible reasons why American politicians were willing to go against the will of their constituents in supporting mass immigration and demographic transformation of America.

“While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.”

He also noted that Republicans saw this engineered demographic change as a means to enabling them to escape from the constraints of the existing political system as planned by the Founding Fathers, and to further enlarge their own power at the expense of the people. It’s also telling that these same politicians and elected officials seemed to actually cheer on the demographic transformation of this country by the influx of Mexicans and other third-worlders.

“While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.”

This seems to me to be a very accurate and plausible picture of how “our” representatives regard us behind our backs, while, like Bill Clinton and so many others of both parties, they stand before the cameras and mikes lying about their intentions to enforce our laws. Behind our backs they are metaphorically or actually high-fiving our supplanters and apologizing for our ‘redneck’ ways.

Since Arias-King wrote his piece over a decade ago, things have worsened appreciably — and yet there are still those who refuse to believe that there is intent behind this situation, and there is still intent to thwart the will of the people.

The people: that’s us, the Founders’ posterity.