Loyalties and priorities

Ted Sallis wrote this piece a few years ago as a response to critics of Pan-Europeanism or nationalism on a broad ethnoracial basis, rather than on the basis of one’s closest ethnic kin, or tribe.

Sallis directly mentions some of the specific objections I’ve made in previous blog posts over the  past several years, though I doubt he has visited my unfrequented corner of the blogosphere, or read my obscure rants. But obviously others on the ethnonationalist spectrum have expressed the same ideas.

“One meme asserts that pan-Europeanism means that all whites are “fungible/interchangeable.” I do not believe that most responsible pan-Europeanists hold that view. I certainly do not.”

He goes on to give a lengthy and somewhat abstruse explanation of his beliefs.

I believe in a mixture of racial conservationism—making certain that extant ethnoracial stocks are preserved in significant numbers in specific territorial states—and racial palingenesis—which supports eugenics as well as the acceptance of new, stabilized Euro-breeds that may occur in the European Diaspora and that can constitute new ethnies and expand the range of European-specific genetic and phenotypic biological diversity.

When the two ideas are in conflict, racial conservatism trumps racial palingenesis, since the original stocks, once lost, can never be recovered. Hybridization, if it occurs in Diaspora regions, should be carefully monitored so as to create productive new stabilized strains while, at the same time, not resulting in the elimination of parental stocks. This pan-Europeanism, which values and wishes to preserve intra-European differences, can be contrasted to other viewpoints.”

The above is written in terms that might be over the heads of the majority who are not versed in genetics/HBD.  But to me, the question is how does theory manifest in the real world? I’ve noticed, in regard to real-world developments, how people with healthy ethnocentrism/ethnopatriotism, if their views conflict with the abstractions about pan-Europeanism, are slapped down on the Internet by those who believe in putting skin color first.  A specific instance (actually I’ve witnessed it numerous times) on a forum: a British/English person complains that Poles (or other Eastern Europeans) are displacing English people by setting up enclaves and establishing Polish as the most frequently-heard language in certain areas. This is a legitimate complaint,  in my opinion, but all too often one of the ‘WNs’ or pan-European ‘nationalists’ tells him that he should just be grateful that it’s not Pakistanis displacing him, or taking jobs from indigenous English folk. ‘After all Poles are as White as you are; you ought to be glad to have them!”

I’ve seen this play out so many times on certain forums over recent years. Again and again these ‘pan-European’ ideologues shout down English/Irish people who object to their countries being colonized by Eastern Europeans whose presence does disrupt stability and bring unwanted changes.

So to me, it matters not if the people who believe these abstractions about pan-Europeanism have elaborate scholarly justifications for their ideas; in the real world their views work against healthy ethnocentrism: the desire of healthy English/British/Irish folk to preserve their own distinctive customs, institutions, and ways of life, much less their bloodlines,  in the face of mass immigration from countries that happen to be White.

In my corner of the world, there are lots of Eastern Europeans; entire small towns nearby are now mostly their turf. And these immigrants, their ‘Whiteness’ notwithstanding, are not very assimilable, or very congenial towards the local people. There are social problems, mainly drug use and high welfare use. I’ve also had occasion to have close contact with them over the years in social and non-social contexts, so I know what I am talking about.

We on the ethnonationalist right often have to repeat the fact that “it’s not about skin color.” We don’t ”hate” or object to anyone “just because of their skin color.” But do we automatically love anyone just because their complexion and appearance roughly resembles ours?

On that last point, maybe it’s just because of my experience with Russians that I can now distinguish Russians or Ukrainians at a glance; I am almost never wrong in my assessment. To me, they are not indistinguishable from Western Europeans. Often I see people who are Russian in appearance and when I hear them speaking Russian I find, most often, that I was right.

Genetically, Eastern Europeans are rather distant from Northwest Europeans.

See the genetic map below:


The Russian personality, ‘style’ of expressing themselves, is quite different and can be very opaque to a Westerner, and ours is not always understandable to them.

And by the way, up until very recent times, it was always a given that Russia and Eastern Europe were not part of the West.

But now there are people asserting that Eastern Europeans are our brothers, and essentially just like us in any way that matters. And to believe this is to deny the distinctions between ethnic groups.

I don’t write this to disparage or put down Eastern Europeans, whether Poles, Russians, or whoever else. I have met some congenial ones, and I’ve been in their homes, taught them (or tried to), eaten with them, learned some of their language. But I have never been able to get close to them; they are very reserved and aloof by our standards. I wish them well, but if they and we are to co-exist in the same countries, one culture will have to ‘give’, because their ways and ours differ.

However most of America is not in danger of becoming a Russian (or Polish) colony — Britain and Ireland, however, are a different story. Being small islands, and already being under siege from mass immigration,  their culture and people risk being wiped out by mass immigration. We may think half a million Poles is a drop in the bucket, but on a small island like Britain, that is a lot.

I just do not understand, even after reading several thousand words of apologetics for pan-Europeanism, how anyone thinks that Britain should welcome being colonized by Polish people because they are light-complexioned. To take that stance is to deny the very real diversity that exists within the European spectrum of cultures /peoples.

I believe that each and every distinct people is unique, and that each people/tribe are specialists of a sort; each nation has distinct gifts, things at which they excel. I believe God created and ordained these distinctions, and that each people has, over the millennia, perfected their special talents and abilities.  To recommend blending these peoples together, blurring the distinctions, also washes away, as it were the special character of that group. I think we’ve seen some of that in America, sadly. I’ve thought that the somewhat lower average I.Q. of Americans vs. our English cousins is due to the ‘panmixia’ that has taken place here. I also think that we are easier prey for the multicult because we have been remade into a mixed people, deficient in healthy ethnocentrism. If we all follow the path of ‘one Europe, one people’ where will our loyalties be? Can such a large and disparate collection of peoples feel commonality?

Yes, by all means, European-descended people can and should support one another and work together — but preserve their ethnic integrity. Groups with closer genetic ties can work more closely together, but do not ‘unequally yoke’ peoples together, in Biblical terminology.

Poll: most support euthanasia

Further to my previous post:

‘A Gallup poll released today, June 24, found that the majority of Americans believe euthanasia should be legal, with 69 percent agreeing that when a person has an incurable disease and requests euthanasia “doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means.”

The first time Gallup found a majority in favor of euthanasia was 1973. The percentage in favor of euthanasia grew from 53 percent in 1973 to 65 percent in 1990.

“In the last 25 years, Americans have solidly been in favor of doctors having the ability to end patients’ lives, with between 64% and 75% favoring the practice,” Gallup wrote.’

I wonder why this does not trouble most people? If we are a life-valuing society, (though we are becoming less so every year) it should be troubling. The shallow young think it euthanasia is not something that affects them because they are young and feel invulnerable and immortal. Old age? Serious illness? It can never happen to them, so they feel.

In our youth-obsessed, fitness-worshipping society, it’s no surprise that many people apparently feel that life is not worth preserving if you are old or unwell.  Just pull the plug; after all ‘I wouldn’t want to linger on if I were old or chronically ill, so they shouldn’t want to, either. It’s selfish. ‘

And all that’s necessary to carry out a program of passive euthanasia is to withhold vital medical care from the old and chronically ill. Just divert resources from the old and infirm citizenry to the ‘young and productive’, and just coincidentally the younger the demographic, the more ‘diverse’ they are, while the old are just coincidentally the Whitest demographic. Pattern? Coincidence?

Brexit fallout: ‘Ban’ the old people

From a Breitbart UK article:

“On Twitter, too, the line between hate and mockery was thin.

According to a YouGov exit poll, 75 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds backed Remain, compared to 39 per cent of over 65s. Sixty-one per cent of over 65s supported leaving the EU, whilst just 25 per cent of those under 24 agreed with them.”

It sounds as though the loathing for the older generations is a trans-Atlantic phenomenon, and it crosses political lines. The empty-headed adolescents (of any age from teens to 30s, these days) quoted above sound very much like the voices on a lot of alt-right blogs where Boomers are the target of considerable loathing. It goes so far that on one blog where a news story of elders being abused, molested, even killed in nursing homes was cheered by some commenters, the idea being that ”they deserve it because they are the cause of all our trouble.”

However the Breitbart story brings out the fact that, even in the UK, Boomers and the few ‘Silent Generation’ members who are left, are the most conservative generations politically, and they are usually vilified by the media and the young for being “racist”.. which these days merely means they have healthy ethnocentric impulses. And they are the only connection, the only living connection, with our vanishing past. Books, films, museum artifacts, these alone can’t preserve the world that was stolen from us. Without a connection to the past, to the days of a once-sane and healthy society, there is not much chance of ever reviving what was good and valuable. Anybody from Gen-X on down has memories only of an already-compromised and moribund society, a society that was already being mind-conditioned and politically corrected. The only living link to the pre-multicult world are the last remaining elders, comprising the Boomers and the few remaining Silent-Generation and ‘Greatest Generation’ members. But it seems that the younger people would happily see these people euthanized before their appointed time to go. And sadly this attitude pervades the ‘right’, wherein many young(er) people on the right share this loathing with their multicult leftist counterparts.

In some European countries, notably the Netherlands, euthanasia is accepted by most people, and I expect the same thing to happen here; surprisingly few younger Americans seem troubled by the prospect of it.

If our society survives the ethnic cleansing/race replacement agenda, will we become like a “Logan’s Run” society, wherein people are eliminated at age 30 or so, or like that bad 1960s movie, ”Wild in the Streets”, wherein the oldsters (anyone past youth) are stripped of any rights and put in camps?

If it were up to the tantrum-throwing young in the UK or here in the States, I can see it happening. If thoughts could kill.

But to make the old non-persons, to try to abrogate their right to participate in political life, to deny their worth to society, is to damage the future. Older people are our living history books; they are a vital part of this unbroken chain that connects us with our ancestors and the past, the real past, and they represent, to the powers-that-be, a threat, because the older generations can attest to the fact that the past was not as it is depicted by the propaganda-meisters who dominate the media and academia. Maybe it is they, the overlords, who are helping to foment this animus towards the older generations — though the young seem to require little goading to hate their elders.

We seem to have nurtured a generation that are, in their hearts at least, parricides.

And that should be a chilling realization. After all, even you who are young will soon  enough be middle-aged, then old, and will in your turn be considered obsolete and in the way.

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.

Who rules over us?

I am reading that TPTB are attempting to cover up stories about the recent sex assault by ‘refugees’ in Idaho, and that anybody who is commenting on it or writing about it is being intimidated.

There have been attempts ever since the story first broke, first, to contain it, then once it had ‘escaped’, to spin and manage the story.

Now a public official is threatening those who report the story or spread “false information” with prosecution. They are acting as protectors of and advocates for the accused and making law-abiding, justifiably concerned citizens the (potential) criminals.

“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities. I urge all citizens and residents to allow Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury and their teams to do their jobs.”

As one of 93 U.S. attorneys, Olson represents the federal government in all civil and criminal cases within her state.

Olson was appointed to her post in 2010 by President Obama and has a history of taking strong stands against “anti-Muslim bias.”

Anti-Muslim bias? What about anti-White bias? Anti-heterosexual bias?

Whose country is this? I ask rhetorically and I know the answer that would likely come from our ‘overlords’: “this country is a nation of immigrants and it is for everybody who seeks freedom and a better life,“, …”our Muslim brothers and neighbors“, etc. etc.

Somebody recently said to me that the way in which Western governments have acted in recent years indicates that we (meaning ‘our’ leaders) have already surrendered to Islam. It’s often said that in order to know who rules over us, just ascertain who is not to be criticized.  Some quote this to reference the Jews, and certainly we are conditioned not to criticize them, but it seems that lately we are reading more and more of people being prosecuted or jailed for speaking up against Moslems. In the EU people are being jailed for simply criticizing immigration. But ever since 9/11 it seems that Islam is more and more given special protected status.

Sure, we all say that figuratively, we have surrendered to Islam, but how can we tell if Western political ‘leaders’ haven’t, in actual fact, signed over our countries to Islam, and we are just being acclimated to it by degrees, until it is fully official?

Does this sound like what people call ‘paranoia’ (an overused word today)? If so, I think I might be pardoned for thinking this way, considering the overall insanity and Kafkaesque aura of our time.

Fatalists, doomsayers, and the all-powerful ”They”

Ever-present on the Internet, as well as in real life are the depressing presences whose role, as they seem to see it, is to throw cold water on any budding optimism or expression of hope. These are the people who tell us that any significant change for the better in our chaotic world is impossible. Usually the reason given for this is that ”They” just ”won’t allow it.”

“They” refers to the powers-that-be, in some cases meaning only the known governing class: the elected officials and the legally constituted authority. In other cases it refers to the shadowy ”elites”, only a few of whom are household names: Soros comes to mind. Most of us, however, don’t know who makes up this mostly anonymous group, other than the names mentioned on the membership rolls of these transnational groups who seem to be answerable to no one, at least no one known to us.

But the anonymous members of this group called ”They” evidently have superpowers; They control everything behind the scenes, and therefore our political system and our ”rights’ therein are just a hollow charade, because ”They” control all outcomes, somehow.

Recently I keep reading that the ”Brits” can never get out of the EU; the Brexit vote is rigged or will be tampered with to prevent the possibility of the measure’s approval.
Some of those who claim to be in favor of Britain leaving the EU nevertheless seem smug when they say ”They” won’t let the Brits leave, and besides, the Brits are zombies; brainwashed idiots who won’t save themselves, or other words to that effect.

(As if our country is not in equally bad shape, and our citizenry not just as mind-conditioned, if not more so; we have no cause to feel superior, in my opinion.)

Maybe Brexit is doomed to failure, though I pray it is not. I have no crystal ball. I keep my finger on the pulse of Britain to the extent that I can, but nobody, including these perpetual doomsayers, knows the future. Only the Lord God knows the future, and anyone who makes a bald statement that ‘Brexit will never pass; Britain is dead’ does not know what he or she is talking about. At least these arrogant know-it-alls might preface their remarks ‘I think‘ or ‘in my opinion.’ I suspect that these people are either expressing their nihilistic, misanthropic wishes for Britain, or at best, that they are hoping to be able to say ”I told you so!” if their dire predictions come to pass — out of malice, or because they simply want to be seen as great prognosticators.

Whatever. It takes all kinds, I suppose, but beyond the fact that the doomsayers are annoying, the worst thing about them is that their pessimistic, cynical predictions demoralize people. Yes, they do harm. They can make others feel hopeless and disheartened. They can actually cause some of us to disengage from the whole process because the supreme ”They” won’t let us change things. Why try? When we read and hear so many of these cynical, nay-saying comments, it can sap our energies. Even the most irrepressible or optimistic people can sometimes tire of trying to work against a seemingly invincible status quo, and an invisible enemy who seems never to flag or tire. Everybody gets discouraged at times, and the naysayers and the gloom-spreaders can quash enthusiasm and kill hope.

There are people who justify their lack of action by repeating what they hear from these fatalists: ‘What’s the use? “They” won’t let us change things.’ In discussing the American election many people say ”They” won’t let us elect Trump or anybody like him.’

Or: ‘ “They” will never let Texas [or the South] secede. Forget it.’

Who are “They”? Whoever ”They” are, ”They” are assuredly not God. They are not even small-g gods. They are not demigods. They are not superhuman. They undoubtedly have great wealth and the power that wealth brings, but their power is not infinite. “They” are not in charge of this world, though “They” doubtless imagine or wish it to be so.

This is still God’s world, though it’s temporarily in enemy hands. God is always in control, and no one has a chance against him.

Even those reading this who are not Christians realize that our enemies (who are also God’s enemies) are not omnipotent. Nor are they omniscient, despite their heavy-handed attempts to know everything about everybody everywhere.

Of these would-be rulers of all, we read in the Bible:

Psalms 2:4
4″He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.”

Psalms 37:13
“The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.”

And how many of the army of doomsayers and cynics, whose relentless message amounts to ‘resistance is useless’ are actually in the service of these people in some form or other? As of now I am assuming that anyone who seems to be pushing defeatism and counseling resignation is likely working for our enemies, wittingly or unwittingly.

On ‘Brexit’

From a British blogger, regarding the issues at stake in the Brexit referendum:

“No, the issues at stake in this debate are about sovereignty and love for one’s country. Love for one’s country is not racism (fear of foreigners), or xenophobia (fear of the wider world). It’s also not about hatred. It’s quite the opposite – it’s about love. It’s about a swelling in the heart that we sometimes feel when we walk in a bluebell wood in the Spring. Or when we come over a high ridge and we gasp with joy as we survey the rich, green valley spread out before us like a velvet carpet. There are thousands of such examples …

We love our land because our ancestors, going back 10,000 years at least, are buried in it, and our food is grown in the soil which their decomposing bodies have fed with nutrients, over all that time. The waters that we drink flow underground around their burial places and becomes informed with their energetic DNA. We all have feet of clay – and so this is what we mean when we say this is our land, because we are rooted in it, and it is what empowers us as human beings.

It is the land of our forefathers. Many of them fought to defend this land and some lay buried where they fell, in those battles.  They have passed this land on to us – we are its custodians, we don’t own it – which is why although it is our land for now, it is not our land to give away … to Brussels, or to anyone else.”


The sentiments expressed above are very much in line with the running theme of my old blog; when I began blogging, I hoped to stir some kind of memory of what this country once was, of what I called ‘the old America’, and to connect us to our forefathers and the land which they won for us at such a great cost in toil and in blood. The ‘land where my fathers died.’ It troubles me very much to think that our family cemetery where five generations of my kin lie buried may one day soon be Mexican territory, or part of some unholy ‘North American Union’.

And I can empathize with the blogger who wrote the quote above, about the soil of Britain being the burial place of many generations of ancestors. In fact the great majority of my ancestors lie buried in England, many generations of them. So the fate of Britain has personal import for me, and it should be so for any of us who have
Anglo-Saxon roots.

If Britain does succeed in escaping the EU, I hope that event will be an inspiration to others, and that ‘Texit’ will follow one day.


Falling into a trap

I’ve continued to ponder over this sudden ‘epiphany’ some on the right, especially the alt-right, are having, regarding homosexuality. I wondered if in fact there was not a plan to subvert or even emasculate the alt-right by leading them toward ‘gay acceptance.’ Along comes Milo, and suddenly many who earlier were not so favorably disposed towards homosexuality are defending Milo and his sexual predilection against their fellow rightists who are now holding the cause back by their ‘homophobic’ feelings. Live and let live; if they are on our side, we should welcome them.

In this post at Bloody Shovel the blogger touches on a similar thought: Islam and its attacks on White men seem to encourage White men, (even on the ‘far right’, in my opinion) to defend “progressive culture”:

And the more hostile Muslims are to white men, the more white men fall into the trap of considering modern progressive culture as their turf. See how White nativists are using slogans about Islam being bad for women and gays. Or Gavin McInnes making out with Milo Yiannopoulos. I don’t know if it’s NSFW but it’s frankly revolting.

The more hostile Muslims are against Europeans, the more progressive can get away with, the farther left the leftist singularity can advance, as White men close ranks around the only thing they’re allowed to close ranks around: progressive denigration of men.”

I would elaborate on that by saying that this kind of thing, with Moslems attacking homosexuals, seems to cause Whites in general to (misguidedly) want to defend not just homosexuality and all this gender madness, but all ‘progressive’ corruption of Western society.

In the past I blogged about how the old Soviet Union was, unlike our present day leftists, socially conservative, banning pornography or anything sexually explicit, calling it ‘Western decadence.’ One of the most common criticisms of the Western ”free world” was that it was a corrupt and decadent place, where people were shameless and promiscuous. The Eastern bloc countries were ‘puritanical’ by contrast. And how did our country, especially Hollywood, respond? By stepping up their effort to remove all restraints on sexual behavior. By flaunting our ‘Western decadence’ and calling it ‘freedom’. The idea was that our ‘freedom’ should be celebrated unconditionally, even when it led to obvious social problems, like widespread prostitution, illegitimacy, unstable families, drug addiction, and sexual deviancy. Our society, even our ”leadership”, conflated freedom with license, and our leaders seemed hell-bent on accelerating the ‘permissive society’, as if to say ‘‘that’ll show those prudish Soviets! They think we’re decadent and degenerate? They ain’t seen nothin’ yet!” And in truth, we hadn’t, because most of us couldn’t have dreamed how permissive and yes, decadent the West would become.

Ironically, though, it seems the old Soviet Union, now likewise ‘free’, has become plagued with promiscuity, widespread abortion, illegitimacy, and sex-trafficking/prostitution.

This is probably all part of the globalist plan to undermine White cultures and weaken our peoples. It’s just a fact that most decadent societies, that is, societies which encourage sexual license and lack of restraint, become weak and effete, and lack the will or power to defend themselves.

It seems as if TPTB want Islam to be the dominant religion/social system in the world, though why this is so is open to question.

But thanks to Islam and its contempt for our hedonistic, decadent ways, some people think that we have to defend that decadence and corruption, simply as a knee-jerk response to Islam. Just as they did in the days of the old, once-puritanical U.S.S.R.

It’s just sad that now it is the ”right” which is falling for this deliberate ploy, and making moves to ally with, and eventually welcome in, ”gay” activists.

Pre-‘diversity’ diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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