‘Rating’ ethnic groups

About a hundred years ago, a sociologist did a study of ten ethnic groups in America and rated their ‘relative social worth.’ This was during one of the peak periods of immigration, and nativist tendencies were very much alive then, despite the already-ongoing efforts to promote the ‘melting pot’ and the ‘all one happy family’ sentiment.

Today such a study would be unlikely to be done, unless it was commissioned specifically to paint immigrants in the most favorable light and to convince any skeptics out there to get with the program and celebrate diversity. After all, Latinos are hard workers with good family values, just doing the jobs that you lazy White folks won’t do.

As to the study, done by H. B. Woolston, the ratings of ten ethnic groups went as follows:

  1. Native-born White Americans
  2. Germans
  3. English
  4. “Polish and Russian Hebrews”
  5. Scandinavians
  6. Irish
  7. French-Canadians
  8. Austrian Slavs
  9. South Italians
  10. Negroes

The term “Polish and Russian Hebrews” is the language used in the study.

The sociologist who did this study notes the results with some dismay, remarking that there was, to use today’s lingo not enough ‘diversity’, a “lack of Negroes, Slavs, or Latins” among the study’s observers, so there may have been some ‘Anglo-Saxon prejudice’ at work there, according to the author.  Obviously Woolston was a relativist who thought that applying our standards measured only conformity to our standards of excellence. But wouldn’t the ‘Hebrews’ who rated #4 also have suffered from being judged by alien ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or Teutonic standards?

Obviously those who succeeded in our society were likely to be those from cultures closest to us, and their cultures would be similar because we are genetically similar. The top three ethnicities are more closely related, after all.

Can a study like this be truly objective? Everybody brings some degree of bias to making assessments like this; I’ve noted with some impatience that most White Americans have ‘favorite minorities’ for whom they plead, arguing that this or that group ‘make good Americans’, or ‘they are hard workers’, or in the case of East Asians, the argument is always that ‘they have high IQs and are not crime-prone’.

And then of course there is the more natural bias towards believing our own ethnicity to be preferable to all others, or to have accomplished more, or whatever. Some peoples have pride, apparently,  in claiming victimhood, recognizing the value and the power of victimhood in our ‘oppressor-vs.-victim’ hierarchy.

A study like this one, judging “relative social worth” of various immigrant groups is just too politically incorrect, and even apart from the open-borders, ‘we’re all one race, the human race’ crowd, many people on the right would be irate if their particular ethnic group (or groups) were not at the top of the list.

On a side note, I was reading a thread at Steve Sailer’s blog about ethnic cleansing or ‘White flight’, and someone mentioned the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Whites from Vancouver, B.C., while someone countered that Whites weren’t fleeing their Chinese replacements in Vancouver; after all nobody fears the Chinese because they are not a danger. I would disagree with that. Regardless of whether a group of people is a direct physical threat, the fact that they have a drastically different way of life, and that they change your familiar hometown surroundings beyond recognition, is significant. Nobody, at least nobody with normal feelings, wants to live in a neighborhood where an utterly foreign language is spoken, and people have different customs, habits, and etiquette. I don’t think the most ardent xenophiliac would want to be the ‘only White’ left in his former neighborhood.

As to the Chinese and other Asians having low-crime culture, well, there is crime, and there is crime. They may not be prone to violence (however,  see the story of the Wah Mee Social Club), and then there are Asians, and Asians. East Asians, or Northeast Asians, are not the same as South Asians or Southeast Asians, or West Asians. We too often think of the model minority in connection with all Asians, though the stereotype was based on the behavior of Japanese-Americans specifically.

Returning to the list of ethnic rankings, we might think that the America of 100 years ago was lucky in that most of the immigrants of that day were European at least, but the increasingly diverse European immigrants were getting us accustomed to more exotic cultures and peoples. I am convinced that it was always the plan to open the country to people from every continent and people; they just ‘warmed up’ with European groups, and actually by the turn of the 20th century there were waves of Asian immigration, especially to the West Coast. I think the idea was to do all this by degrees, gradually conditioning us to the idea that America was a place where anybody and everybody seeking ‘Freedom’ or a ‘better life’ could rightfully come.

Now, ‘relative social worth’ seems to have been thrown out the window, and the more dysfunctional and divergent from our culture a group is, the more they seem to be sought out by those who make policy for our country.

Advertisements

The last American?

lastamerican

 

The above picture is one that I posted years ago and it seemed relevant to the post I wrote yesterday. I don’t know the source of the picture; it was on someone else’s blog back then, possibly the ‘Little Geneva’ blog, or was it Spirit, Water, Blood,  if anyone remembers those (sorely missed) blogs.

Whoever created that image above must have been prescient. Sadly.

Whose posterity?

At Vox Day’s blog, there’s a long discussion on the subject of just what the phrase “our posterity” means when used by the Founding Fathers (“ourselves and our posterity“, as you see above on my blog header.)

To me, the phrase’s meaning is self-evident, but apparently not to a lot of people. Maybe it depends, more than anything else, on ancestry. Those who are descendants of colonial stock, or at least descendants of the Revolutionary War generation, know who they are — or should know. Granted, though, many Americans are still vague about their origins — or worse, are ‘certain’ of what may be incorrect beliefs about their own genetics and ancestry, believing themselves to have some kind of ‘exotic’ ancestry that carries some kind of cachet for them or for the average American. But many people don’t know who their ancestors were, or perhaps know about only one or two lineages, or only the most recent ancestry.

Now for whatever reason, I can’t seem to get comments posted on Blogger blogs, and so I can’t take part in the VP discussion, so I’ll just post my thoughts here.

I am surprised at how many people seem to react negatively to Vox Day’s assertion that only the descendants of the actual Founding generation (and ethnicity) are the real posterity. Some people, as usually happens, feel personally offended if told that their ancestors, still being in the ‘old country’ when the Founders wrote their words, could not consider their own progeny to be the ‘posterity’ of the Founders or their generation.

Because people take this personally they respond with peevish statements along the lines of the following: ‘‘there aren’t any of the actual posterity of the Founders now; there are no ‘pure English’ or unmixed people left“, or there is legalistic arguing that immigrants and their posterity are just as much legitimate heirs as by adoption (naturalization being equated with adoption into a family).

If there are any of my old-time readers here these days, those with long memories may remember that when we had these discussions say, ten years ago, I was actually offering a ‘civic nationalist’ interpretation. As I wrote in a blog post some years ago:

‘[M]y ”we” includes all those who consider themselves ‘old Americans’, regardless of where your ancestors originated. All of you who identify with the America that was, and the America that might once again be.’

Was I really so clueless then?

Obviously many of those who are not of old-stock Anglo-Saxon roots are unwilling to ‘forgive’ those of us who are, judging by their grudging and resentful tone when referring to Anglo-Saxon Americans, even continuing the old denial that we even exist any longer. Many of those who admit to multiple European ancestries seem to want to believe that all White Americans are as they are, with a half-dozen or so different ancestries, and hence no particular identification with any one strain. They choose to believe that everyone must be like them.

For a long time it did seem as if the ‘just-American‘ identity, the old civic nationalist line, worked, at least passably, but sometime around the 1970s there was a kind of resurgence of ethnic identities, maybe in response to the increasing in-your-face ethnocentrism of nonwhites, so many Americans of remote Irish ancestry or German ancestry or Italian ancestry suddenly became more assertive about their roots, and sometimes this newly-found ethnocentrism became a more antagonistic dislike of ‘WASPs’, supposedly for some past imagined wrongs done by WASPs collectively against their immigrant ancestors, collectively. I honestly don’t remember there being as much anti-Anglo sentiment as we see now. My own increasing Anglocentrism is in part a response to that, merely an effort to speak up for too-reticent Anglo-Americans who are used to discreetly ignoring slurs from others.

From the same blog post of mine which I quote above:

“It is getting harder to cling to a ‘just American’ identity when our country is now according what was once a great prize, American citizenship, to people from every corner of the globe, people who speak no English and have no connection with old America. The American identity has been devalued, and stripped of its meaning. To be an American might mean anything and everything, but ultimately nothing when there is little commonality among those claiming the title.

What then? Are we all to identify with our varied European ancestry? Those who have several different ancestries with no clearly dominant one will face a dilemma in such a case.

‘I think those whose families have been here for generations should be able to identify with the historic culture and people of the United States, and that means the Anglo-Celtic identity which has dominated. It used to be that this was the default culture with which everyone identified, and few chose to reject that. Now it’s reversed; it’s cool to be ”ethnic” because that is vibrant and colorful and ‘rich’.

Sadly we seem to be beyond that point. Everybody scents blood where old-stock WASP Americans are concerned; ‘WASPs’ are considered weak or effete, or even (as some claim) extinct altogether, blended out of existence, hence we are fair game, to be discussed in the third person — ”they”– as if Anglo-Americans are like the Etruscans or some other long-gone race. We’ve been pronounced dead, or as good as, by some people, people who have their own ethnic agenda.

One more claim from some ‘civic nationalists’ I meant to address is the claim that ‘other ethnic groups were here from the very beginning’, and usually a litany of nationalities is recited, ‘Swedish, Dutch, German, Slavic, French, Spanish’, etc. etc. The deceptiveness in this line of argument is in implying that these other groups were equal in numbers to the English colonists, or that they were here contemporaneously with the English colonies when they may not have been. Yes. There were these other ethnicities who had colonies here, or who came to the English colonies — in very, very small numbers. But they were fewer, and did not leave the same cultural/social/genetic/political imprint as the English. They were here, but their presence was not as significant, like it or not.

It’s funny how this subject of national identity continues to come up again and again, despite having been discussed so frequently by so many; we seem to be farther than ever from settling it, and all the while our country continues to be colonized by people who seem to be here just to feast off the carcase of English-speaking America. And all the while we are squabbling amongst ourselves, while others are busy taking our birthright.

‘D & C meme’

Divide and conquer, divide and rule, as cited by an English commenter on another blog.

2017-05-25_235410

I noticed that this particular meme began some years ago; it wasn’t always widely used. Was it started because of resentments of parents or grandparents of that generation? Was it based on a simple revulsion toward older people generally?

Was it started because those ‘seeding’ it really believed the popular media stereotype of all boomers as counterculturists and ‘hippies’? Or was it deliberately introduced as a divide-and-conquer weapon?

Or was it, as the comment quoted above implies, used as a diversion from other possible suspects? On at least one blog I used to peruse regularly, the former emphasis on the Jewish role has all but disappeared in favor of blaming ‘boomers’ (who are supposedly 100 percent left-wing and ‘cucked’) and WASPs/Puritans (!) and the opposite sex. Some dislike most of their fellow Americans whom they label with derisive names like ‘Murkans’.

Funny how that works. It distracts the attention nicely from some of the actual culprits. So I suspect the ‘D&C’ memes will continue to be used.

In reading British blogs I’ve found the generational warfare meme to be less common; why should that be? The UK had the Sixties madness as well, but somehow there seems to be less evidence of a virulent anti-boomer sentiment there. The real bitterness seems to flourish on this side of the Atlantic. I find this interesting though very destructive of healthy solidarity and ethnonationalism. I get the feeling that some would like a ‘purist’ movement with only the younger generations who are ideologically correct as members, and the rest be damned.

The boomer-bashing meme is so common on many right-wing blogs that really, a content warning ought to be used so that those of us who are disheartened and put off by this stuff could avoid it rather than finding ourselves mired in it unexpectedly.

Ironically, almost laughably, some of the same people who insist that we have to be as one with our brothers in Europe or wherever (because of our common genetics) can’t find much to like about those closest to them. It’s because of this kind of thing that Roger Scruton coined the term ‘oikophobia’, which he mentioned was often part of the adolescent phase of development. Many of us in adolescence resented our elders, who of course were old fogies, hidebound, out of touch, and embarrassing to us, and many of us thought our own country and heritage were so crass and backward compared with sophisticated Europe. This all sounds strangely familiar, except that it seems to be happening among mature adults in their 30s and 40s who should have outgrown these feelings long ago.

We have to learn to accept our own folk, warts and all, and try to ‘redeem’ those we can, rather than resent or condescend to them — otherwise any kind of ethnonationalism or other nationalism would be a very hollow thing.

 

Note: This blog piece from way back in 2006 deals with oikophobia as well as, in passing, something called ‘Crow-Jim-ism.’ It makes for an interesting read.

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’.

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.

 

Popular music and race

In a recent post I linked to Steve Sailer’s piece about the race card being played at the Grammy awards. The question was raised whether Whites should apologies for winning awards, with the implicit assumption being that the awards are ‘stolen’ from blacks, who are of course the rightful winners, or would be in a ‘colorblind’ society.

I’ve often pondered how it is that our popular music (and popular culture in general) is so dominated by blacks. Most people — even those who are somewhat racially aware — would defer to blacks by saying that blacks are just more talented at music, as they are supposedly in athletics. But the black ascendancy has black people accusing Whites of “cultural appropriation” when they emulate, even unconsciously, black styles.

Could we not say rightly that blacks have a kind of cultural hegemony in our society, in all Western societies, given their disproportionate numbers in entertainment and their pervasive influence on White performers and composers of music?

This is not a new thing. I came across an article in an old (dated 1927) article in an Argentine magazine, Cine-Mundial. The article was titled ‘Melanomania‘, a term that the writer, R. De Zayas Enriquez, apparently coined himself to describe the craze among White people for black entertainment. Maybe we should use that word; the ‘-mania’ suffix is apt, and it has become a more pronounced trend since the time that the article was written.

As we are in black history month, wherein many claims are made about blacks having invented just about everything, we are bound to hear that blacks invented, among other things, rock ‘n roll, a claim which is usually conceded by most Whites. Yet it could just as convincingly be argued that rock ‘n roll derives more from country music in the form of old-time string-band music, via what was called ‘rockabilly.’ Chuck Berry’s music shows more influence from White country/rockabilly than vice-versa. Does it matter who invented it? Rock ‘n roll is something I grew up with, as did most of us today, and I enjoy a lot of it, but it isn’t exactly our crowning cultural achievement. Still, the truth matters, and it does serve the cultural Marxist, anti-White agenda to claim that blacks are the source of all our popular musical genres, as does the writer of this following excerpt. The writer is Isaac Goldberg (are triple parentheses even necessary there?) in a book called Tin Pan Alley, from 1930. [NB: the language in the following is the author’s;  everyone was politically incorrect in 1930].

“Before the various types of jazz was the modern coon song; before the coon song was the minstrel show; before the minstrel show was the plantation melody and the spiritual. It is safe to say that without the Negro we should have had no Tin Pan Alley; or, if this sounds like exaggeration, certainly Tin Pan alley would have been a far less picturesque Melody Land than it is to-day.

Why has the coon song become so representative of our popular music? Why is it impossible to think of our street songs for long without encountering the influence — whether pseudo or real — of the black? Why, whether in the early days of the southland, or in the contemporary life of Gotham, is the rhythm, the lingo, the accent of the Negro so persistent?

The Negro is the symbol of our uninhibited expression, of our uninhibited action. He is our catharsis. He is the disguise behind which we may, for a releasing moment, rejoin that part of ourselves which we have sacrificed to civilization. He helps us to a double deliverance. What we dare not say, often we freely sing. Music, too, is an absolution. And what we would not dare to sing in our own plain speech we freely sing in the Negro dialect, or in terms of the black. The popular son, like an unseen Cyrano, provides love phrases for that speechless Christian, the Public. And the Negro, a black Cyrano, adds lust to passion.

Can this be one of the reasons why the American Anglo-Saxon has held aloof from the exploitation and particularly the creation of songs in the musical vernacular? Can it be only a coincidence that the three races who have contributed most to our popular song — the Negro, the Irish and the Jew — should be the familiar example of oppressed nationalities, credited with a fine intensity of inner life and with passions less bridled than those of the more conventional — not necessarily the more frigid — American Anglo-Saxon?”

We can see the politics showing through the writer’s statements involving ‘oppressed’ races, and his biases towards Anglo-Saxons.

I will explore this further in future posts, because it seems that the cultural revolution has been more insidious and more important than the gradualist political revolution.

 

 

Tech companies for open borders

Amazon and Microsoft, along with other tech companies, are joining in a lawsuit over President Trump’s immigration measures. Bill Gates et al have long been known as double-dyed leftists/globalists.

As for Amazon, I personally have been less inclined to do business with them; I find their business practices not the most advantageous to the average customer, so I now look to buy things elsewhere when I buy online. I also dislike their practice of profiling customers (yes, I know that they all do it, probably). An example: I had bought, some years ago, Andrew Fraser’s book The WASP Question. (I also promised to review it at his request, a promise I’m embarrassed to say I neglected to keep, but that’s another story). In any case, I rarely buy new books online or elsewhere, because there are few new books that are of any interest to me; if I need books on history or any other subject I choose to turn to old books which are sounder and more trustworthy.

So I have bought few new books from Amazon, but I kept getting recommendations for other books they ‘thought’ would interest me. One such book was a book with ‘White Supremacy’ in the title. I wondered how they came up with the idea that I was ‘White Supremacist’, if they were basing that on my history of purchases from them. All I could think of was that the Fraser book, on the ‘WASP Question’ somehow equated to ‘White Supremacy’ according to their twisted reckoning.

Yes, the Amazon people have long been known as politically correct and leftist. I remember when they were boycotted by some for stocking ‘how-to’ books for pedophiles: basically, how to lure children. So Amazon is boycott-worthy as far as I am concerned, and doubly so since their choosing to take a pro-open-borders position and to oppose President Trump.

The linked article also mentions other Seattle-based tech companies that are likewise anti-Trump, and for open borders/globalism. Another like-minded company is Reddit, whose co-founder Alexis Ohanian, says Trump’s measures on immigration are ‘anti-American.’

I’m well-past tired of people (such as people named ‘Ohanian’ or other non-American names) telling me what is ‘American’ and what is not. Shall I go to Armenia and tell them what Armenians should think or what constitutes the ‘Armenian way’? Why is it always someone from a profoundly alien immigrant background lecturing me and people like me about what our country stands for, or should stand for? Or telling me that our traditional, time-honored ways are ”un-American”? I believe there is a certain other ethnic group that refers to this attitude as ‘chutzpah’, a term which implies brazenness and unmitigated gall.

Many immigrants and their descendants (like the Armenian millennial Ohanian and many others of immigrant stock) have been filled so full of fawning propaganda about the noble immigrant and his immeasurable value to America that they have come to believe their own publicity. P.S.: that publicity was nothing more, at least at first, than a patronizing and condescending effort on the part of misguided Americans to make the mendicant newcomers feel ‘included and welcome.’ It was born out of pity for the immigrant. It was simply an early attempt, on the part of some, to impart “self-esteem” to the immigrants, and it backfired on us enormously. The immigrants’ descendants came to believe that their ancestors did America a huge favor by coming here; we original settlers were actually their inferiors. They, the immigrant descendants, are ‘vibrant and colorful’, and oh-so-genuine and exotic, while our ancestors (and we, of course) are dull, bland, ‘white-bread’, plain vanilla, boring, and in desperate need of their enriching presence.

Sad to say, many old-stock Americans have come to believe that pro-immigrant hype, and to be self-abasing and given to sentimentalizing the Ellis Island crowd. That will have to stop if we are ever to regain our rightful primacy and pride in the very real accomplishments of our ancestors.

Boycott all these companies: Microsoft (if possible), Amazon, Reddit, Starbuck’s, all of them.

Sam Francis on globalism, and…

From The Social Pathologist, a very good quote from the late Sam Francis on the subject of globalism. I’ve long admired Sam Francis, and consider him one of the most lucid and sound thinkers on our side.

However, read the comment below the quote at Social Pathologist. The commenter ‘refutes’ Francis by an extensive quote from Mencius Moldbug, and the seeming gist of Moldbug’s words, quoted as gospel apparently, are that Puritans/”Brahmins” and ultimately Christians are the real ‘elites’, not those considered elites by most of us.

Really? Who are these ”Brahmins”? That word was traditionally used to refer to primarily Bostonians, old-stock Anglo-Saxons, usually ‘Mayflower descendants’ or at least the most prominent families in the Boston Social Register. Famous people like the Lowells, the Cabots, and related families.  Read this PBS piece on the ”Brahmins” and you get very much the same jaundiced view of them as the one advanced by Moldbug.

In my earlier days of blogging someone mentioned my blog in the same sentence with Moldbug’s Unqualified Reservations blog, somehow likening us. Some people criticized Moldbug’s tendency to verbosity, thus compared me to him. In any case, though I looked in on his blog I never read it habitually. Maybe it was his manner of expression that was a little opaque and hard to follow, but from reading others’ analyses of his work, I gathered that he had a very idiosyncratic view of the world which I found hard to relate to. For one thing, his constant references to ‘The Cathedral‘, a term which to me seems a very Christian reference, and it seems that ultimately he blamed Christianity, or ‘Puritanism’ in particular for all that has gone wrong in the West. Now of course there are all those influenced heavily by him who perpetuate this meme. Personally I object to the references to ‘The Cathedral’ and I think his idea that these shadowy ‘Brahmins’ are controlling the world behind the scenes is ridiculous.

Some people like this bizarre idea that there are all these Anglo-Saxon Mayflower descendants, all obscenely wealthy, who are somehow, somewhere, exerting all kinds of power. Who and where are these all-powerful Brahmins who have managed to survive the centuries? Some think they are still living in Boston, but have any of these people been to Boston lately? Most of the old stock Anglo-Saxon Puritan descendants (having lost their Christian faith and became Unitarians or agnostics) are moved to happier climes, having gone to the Midwest and the Far West long ago, ethnically cleansed by the immigrants who came in waves, starting before the War Between the States. My own ‘Puritan Yankee Brahmin’ great-grandfather came to the far West long ago, as did many cousins. So where are these elusive ‘Brahmins’ and ‘Puritans’?

It seems to me that for Moldbug, the Brahmins are invoked as a way of deflecting blame from the Jews, and that is their function for many people looking to redirect the criticism of Jews.

Moldbug, whose name is Curtis Yarvin, is Jewish by ancestry though probably an atheist or agnostic. But then one can be an ethnic and cultural Jew though one professes no belief in God.

Yarvin, I think, is a pied piper, and I find that a great many people quote his words as if he were an infallible source, the last word. And most oddly, these are often people who profess awareness of the Jewish influence in the anti-White, anti-nationalist tyrannies with which we have to deal today. I can name at least one other Jewish blogger who also has a loyal and almost reverential set of followers among Alt-right or ‘pro-White’ readers and bloggers on the internet.

This is one of those paradoxes which always keep me shaking my head. Is it not wise to treat such writers as at least potentially working an agenda which is against our interests? I don’t understand this uncritical embrace of those who probably have some anti-White, anti-Christian axe to grind.

Harvard Republican Club rejects Trump

I see that the Harvard Republican Club has refused to endorse Donald Trump. According to their own statement, this is the first time in 128 years that they have rejected the Republican nominee for the presidency.

The statement spells out their reasons for taking this unprecedented position.

Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans. The rhetoric he espouses –from racist slander to misogynistic taunts– is not consistent with our conservative principles, and his repeated mocking of the disabled and belittling of the sacrifices made by prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and Purple Heart recipients is not only bad politics, but absurdly cruel.”

There’s a lot of hyperventilating exaggeration here, all laced with political correctness or ‘virtue signalling’, if you prefer.

Our” values? “our” conservative principles? What universe do these self-important adolescents inhabit? Not mine, and not the same universe as all previous generations of Americans.

Some of the comments online about this Republican Club statement imply that the members of this Club are ‘elitists’, probably old-line WASPs, because everyone knows that is who goes to Hahvahd, right? Well, maybe not. Harvard, like just about every university in this corrupt society, courts diversity. They have many special fellowship and scholarship programs set up specifically for ‘diversity’ of one sort or another, probably everything from LGBTQ-whatever to immigrants, (especially illegal immigrants), for Womyn, for American Indians. I think the percentages of old-stock Americans, especially WASPs, at Harvard are dwindling all the time.

The statement by the Club is a collective one, with no spokesman or leader named or quoted. From a 2013 list of some members’ names it appears that it’s the usual ‘diverse’ and multicultural cast of characters, as is found on just about every campus in this country, thanks to mandatory diversity admissions. For example, a Jewish name, a Chinese name, a Hindu name, and a couple of American-sounding names that may or may not belong to White students. In other words, this statement is not coming from an all-White ‘elite’ club as some are insinuating.

Harvard is not what it used to be.  In fact, every American institution, even those going back to colonial days like Harvard, is not what it started out to be, nor even what it was 30 years (or less) in the past.

This ritual denunciation of Donald Trump is just what would be expected, considering the source. It is not an indication of anything except the callow opinions of indoctrinated millennials in a very left-wing institution.