Begging and choosing

True to form, the ‘migrants’ from Central America who are massing at our Southern “borders” are making the usual demands.

These people are at worst, invaders and thus by definition criminals, or at best, they are beggars and chancers, with an arrogance that doesn’t befit their status. When you are trying to force your way into someone’s home, you are in no moral position to issue ”demands” to those whose hospitality and wordly goods you crave.

This situation need never have developed, if only our folk — I mean, everyday people, not our so-called leaders — had not been too willing to look for the best in everyone, even those whose intentions are not good.

These too-trusting, too ‘nice’ people may not be the majority amongst White Americans, but they seem to typify the response of a lot of us towards Hispanic people in general. Think of it: our history records that we have for a long time had a mutually hostile relationship with many of our neighbors in Latin America, most especially Mexico. Yet we’ve stood by ineffectually as increasing numbers of Latin Americans have come here, legally or otherwise, ostensibly to ‘help’ us with picking crops or doing other such manual labor.

Since the reign of political correctness has been established, more and more Americans have been taught lies and feel-good ‘brotherhood’ platitudes while back in the realm of reality, Latin Americans continue to show animosity towards us, while many well-intentioned White Americans still believe in the ‘hard-working, family-oriented’ stereotype promoted by George W. Bush and his ilk. Due to this pollyannaish, inclusive tendency of many White Americans, intermarriage between Hispanics and Whites have become more common in recent years, most often between White men and Hispanic women. Our folk have become more accepting of this in part because of the relentless propaganda preaching ‘colorblindness’ and the usual ”all one race, the human race.”

With the huge influx of Latino immigrants, many of us have gradually become more complacent about it through sheer familiarity, even in places which until fairly recently had few to no Latinos resident there.

Exposure to ”diversity” does inure people to the presence of many different ethnicities, and thus our innate wariness of outsiders is weakened, and because people can find some trivial way in which outsiders are ‘really just like us’ under the skin, we have become much more tolerant, to the point of being complacent and jaded about being increasingly surrounded in our country.

There is a somewhat heightened sentiment lately against this perpetual influx of Latin Americans, but for many White Americans, the only objection they can muster up is that the immigrants are mostly illegal. Somehow many people can’t get the message that the problem is immigration per se, not ”legal vs. illegal.” If someone had told me, some 12 years ago when I first began blogging, that in 2018 so many White Americans would still not get it, and would still be harping on the ‘legal vs. illegal’ red herring, I would not have believed it. Why is it that so many Americans are still stuck on that point, repeating it ad nausaeum, like parrots? Media lies and propaganda are a large part of the reason, but maybe it’s something in Americans, whether in our natures or in our upbringing and culture, that predisposes us to be pushovers for ‘victims’ or underdogs, or to think that learning to speak English will erase any significant differences between us and Hispanics, or any other immigrant groups.

We see similar processes taking place throughout all European and European-descendant countries, not just our own.

If I say that we are too trusting, too nice, too eager to ‘get along’ with everyone, can it be innate in us, this behavior? Certainly our forefathers, even up until mid-20th century, were not so ‘welcoming’ and passive, so it can’t be a genetic thing.

Regardless of the cause of this enfeebling of our society, and our inability to envision simply ‘sending the migrants home’, we will have to recover our forefathers’ strength and their determination to put their folk and their land ahead of the supposed obligation to foreign peoples who brazenly demand we surrender our land and our children’s future. The moment of truth is now; do we submit to the demanding, hostile beggars at our borders or will we choose our own people, putting them and posterity first?

‘Human rights’ — for all?

The proposed United Nations agreement on migration, according to reports, would make migration a “human right.”

‘The UN agreement[…]notes:

“Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times.” (Preamble, section 4)

It cannot be stressed enough that this agreement is not about refugees fleeing persecution, or their rights to protection under international law. Instead, the agreement propagates the radical idea that migration — for any reason — is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected.

Although most of the member states of the UN have agreed to sign the agreement in December, a few countries are declining.

The UN has avoided acknowledging that the agreement would make ‘migration’ a human right, though details of the plan make it obvious that this is the practical effect of the plan. The linked article describes the plan as ‘non-binding’, but even if it were not put into effect, the proponents of the agreement would hardly be likely to give up. After all, this ‘immigration as a human right’ proposal has been around since the early 1960s, at least, as indicated here:

And an article from the Center for Immigration Studies, dated 1995,
noted that in 1965, Democrats advocated for passage of the 1965 Immigration Act as part and parcel of the Civil Rights movement. In the wake of their success in passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Democrats attempted to sell unrestricted third world immigration as an extension of ‘civil rights’. John F. Kennedy himself, during his term in office, spoke of immigration restriction as an act of discrimination, something which demanded correction. Discrimination, that is, choosing who gains entry to our countries, is in and of itself an evil, according to the UN plan.

The same arguments are still being used; the left (and the ‘open borders’ faction on the ‘right’) parrot the words of their 1965 counterparts.

Some of the countries which are opposed to signing the agreement are Eastern European countries, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic.

However it’s not too encouraging that the Czech Deputy Prime Minister Brabec says

“The Czech Republic has long favored the principle of separating legal and illegal migration.”

Why does that shortsighted attitude persist all these years? How does possession of documents assure that the immigrant is automatically good for our countries? It would seem obvious that legal immigration is not necessarily beneficial to us, while illegal is the only bad kind of immigration. Does it make our displacement any less a bitter pill if the immigrants have papers, or ‘official permission’ to live here amongst us? Many immigrants who ”did it the right way,” going through official procedures, have gone on to commit violence in our country, or to be caught in various illegal acts, such as fraud, people-smuggling, and other serious crimes. (One example: Fort Hood?)

The legal immigrants, generally, are from the same kinds of dysfunctional, ‘failed’ countries, and they often have similar education levels as the “undocumented”, despite what pro-immigration media say, for example the libertarian or ”conservative” think tank articles.

The author of the Gatestone article emphasizes that the UN plan would give country-shopping migrants the right to pick the countries that provide what they want, appearing to give them the prerogative of choosing. As it is now, the citizenry of Western countries have no say about who comes to our country, and it seems we are obliged to accept the migrants, just as we are seeing with the many thousands of ‘caravans’ from Central America. What is to protect us from another Marielito situation, in which the have-not countries empty out their mental hospitals and jails, freeing occupants to come knocking at our doors? It did happen, so why is the idea of it happening now considered a wild-eyed theory? I believe it also happened with Merkel’s Millions, too, and is happening.

But just as there is now a newly-discovered ‘human right’ to come and demand entry to other people’s homelands, I suppose there is no right for the people of the host country to notice the significant downside to these mass movements of whole populations into what were our homelands.

The caravan invasion

A little more than a century ago, a group of several hundred Mexicans, led by Pancho Villa, crossed our Southern border at Columbus, New Mexico. During this raid, seventeen Americans were killed.

A few months earlier, in January, 1916, Villa and his men had killed sixteen American citizens. This was in retaliation for President Wilson’s  recognition of Villa’s enemy, General Carranza, as the legitimate President of Mexico. Wilson, by March, ordered thousands of troops and personnel into Mexico, under General Pershing, to pursue Villa and his men.

Ultimately they failed to capture Villa, who was later killed by his own people rather than by American troops.

But consider that even Woodrow Wilson, usually described as one of our most liberal Presidents, was willing to send troops into Mexico, rather than let Villa and others like him cross our border at will and kill Americans. Consider that only 33 Americans were killed in these events which almost resulted in another war with Mexico.

Consider that now, our borders are a joke, and though there are thousands of troops supposedly defending our borders, nothing is being done to deter or repel the many thousands (how many? Nobody knows, apparently) of ‘migrants’ assailing our country.

I know that there are plenty of people on the right who are disgusted, or at least greatly disappointed at the administration’s decision to admit these people little by little and ‘process’ them as potential asylees or ‘refugees.’ Why didn’t they think of that back in 1916? They could have avoided a lot of bloodshed if only they had just invited everyone to come in. Villa et al were no doubt just looking for a better life.

Yes, I realize the obvious, that the situation in 1916 was much different in certain ways than the present crisis. Today the presence of women and children in the caravans, calculated and cynical though it appears, poses a quandary. Just as Mohandas Gandhi calculated that the British authorities in India would not generally use force against perceived ‘weak’ opponents, especially minors or the old or women, the organizers of this ‘caravan’ incursion count on our folk being too squeamish, too ‘nice’ to use any sort of force against the caravan people, even if the invaders instigate it.

Why were troops needed at the border? Was it just to keep the crowds civil as they queue up to be ‘processed’ ? President Trump tweeted that the caravan people should ‘turn around’ and basically to line up and cross legally, applying for citizenship ‘like millions of others.’

In other words, as the Free Republic crowd says, ”we love immigrants, as long as they do it legally, the right way.” This just reinforces the idea that a paper, a document makes anyone an American.

It seems not to matter that so far the ‘caravandals‘ as some Internet wit called them, have done very little in a legal or civil fashion. We’ve all read about the violence along the way, and the talk about many cartel members and common criminals amongst the thousands of border-crossers. But I do recall that Trump, during the 2016 campaign, spoke to all-Hispanic audiences, telling them that their people are ‘wonderful, wonderful people‘ and I remember his supportive words about the ”Dreamers.”  I supported Trump with a great many reservations. But  I’ve become very disillusioned, though I had few illusions to start with.

I don’t know what President Trump’s intentions were in talking tough and then reverting to the usual kid-glove approach with these wonderful, wonderful people. And I no longer believe in the excuse of ‘4-D chess’. It’s too much like the excuses made for G.W. Bush, (“He’s a great poker player; he’s gaming the system; he’s playing rope-a-dope.”)

For a very good take on this situation, see this piece by William S. Lind. I think his analysis is very good.

Meantime, we can only wonder what the next move is. Will the status quo prevail, and our usual coddling of the favored ‘migrants continue or can something change this stubborn and untenable situation?


Changing times, shifting definitions

Over the last decade or so, the political discussion has changed, which in itself isn’t surprising. Things are always changing, but it seems the pace at which change has happened is accelerating.

The changes that are the most disheartening, or should be, for an ethnonationalist are the changes in attitude and in language: for instance, there are people who title themselves ethnonationalists who spend most of their time expressing animosity towards our own kinsmen. Example? Blog pieces and long, long threads condemning their elders and all that they stand for, or people from one region of the U.S. ranting about those from another region or state.  Then there are many on the right, especially among certain age groups, who defend abortion-on-demand and even defend infanticide and euthanasia of the sick and even of elders, whether sick or not. Is there anyone who still finds this shocking? Is Christianity so altogether useless to preserve even basic morality anymore? Many of the people who defend these ideas are Christians, or so they say.

Do those who defend killing the sick, the old, and the ‘pre-born’ stop to think that one day it may be their child who is seriously ill? Or they themselves? Will they be ready to die, or sentence a loved one to death on the say-so of the euthanasia-mongers? In the Netherlands they have euthanized people who were merely depressed. They’ve also euthanized people by force, while the patient struggled for life. Is this what we want?

Another rift amongst our folk is the loathing of many on the right towards all conservatives, as if there is only one kind of conservative. The very word, the mere idea of conservatism is anathema to many of the young right. The cliche is that conservatives haven’t conserved anything. But it seems as if the critics themselves are absolutely opposed to conserving anything, because they, like their age-mates on the left, think that old America was worthless, 100 percent corrupt, and a sham. Most of us have some of that youthful arrogance when we are of, say, college age or younger; most people at that age think they know all the answers, while their elders are ignoramuses, having no clue. But when those attitudes are found amongst people who are old enough to have college-age children themselves, this is something new under the sun.

It’s probably part of this youth-worship culture in which we’ve been marinating for the last eight or so decades. The 1920s was the first glimmer of it in the 20th century, and it’s intensified ever since, rather than going away as do most fads. But the overemphasis on youth and its popular culture icons has made the youth-worship into what may be a permanent obsession in our culture.

So now we have the phenomenon of middle-aged people who emulate their kids’ dress styles, taste in music, slang, and sexual mores, rather than being an example and a good influence.

Being callow at a young age is one thing but we have some middle-aged and older people, believing themselves to be still young and up-to-date, promoting  what amounts to a ‘culture of death’ — euthanasia and abortion, as well as anti-family, anti-fertility ideas (widespread contraception, promiscuity, perversions, etc.) And all these ideas have been promoted in the media, the schools, and in popular culture — from the left, 100 percent of the time — until now, when we have those on the right joining in the chorus. So what, exactly, do the terms ‘left’ or ‘right’ mean anymore, when the sides are so much in agreement?

Generational warfare is practiced by the far-left; they and the young right are in full agreement that their elders are useless, obnoxious, and a waste of oxygen. Ezekiel Emanuel and Peter Singer, two far-leftists, have been arguing for killing the old and ‘aborting’ children who are already born; they’ve got their counterparts on the right.

So why are the left and right at such odds, since it seems that they agree on more things than not? It seems that the only thing on which the two sides differ is the HBD/racial question. That’s not enough of a difference, though, as it seems that many on the so-called ‘far right’ make their exceptions on racial and social issues. Many on the right, even those who focus on the JQ, find exceptions to their rule. Just look at how many Jewish thinkers or media personalities are favored by that segment of the right.  Why the inconsistency? Are the supporters on the right shills? Lefty moles? Subverters? Even if it’s unwitting, it creates suspicion as to their motives. If they are sincere, they are uninformed.

So are we headed for a complete political split in this society? Is secession on the cards? Or is this supposed ‘rift’ just for show or is it only a surface thing? I hope to be wrong, but I think there will be more internal splits, within our own kinsmen, as the popular culture, increasingly accepted by both left and right, will eventually win out over the ideological differences.

I hope to be wrong when I say that in a couple of decades at most, due to the weakening and loss of Christian moral laws, our society won’t be recognizable.

And things are getting bad when even Christians, on Christian blogs, who profess ethnonationalism are participating in the ritual denunciations of the older generations.

P.S.: Ethnonationalism must at minimum require a loyalty to, and love for, our own folk. At the very least, we owe something to those of our extended family, our kinsmen, our ethnic group, not just to those of our age cohort. A family — of which a nation is, on a wider scale — takes all ages. It’s an unbroken chain.

The phrase on my header says, what? ”Ourselves and our posterity” – but we all owe our lives to those who came before us. All those who gave us life.






The Melting Pot, then and now

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Those who are the critics of today’s uncontrolled, promiscuous immigration often say that today’s immigrants are not immigrants in the old sense, but colonists, here to establish a foothold, hoping to ensconce themselves in enclaves which are bound to grown into outright colonies, outposts of their people and culture and language. With the many different races, ethnicities, religions and languages, our country will be divided up into a crazyquilt of unrelated and competing peoples.

But this was already happening almost 100 years ago, when various European peoples had attained a place here in the U.S., with their own institutions, such as schools and churches — and many different foreign language newspapers across the country.

“At least some of the leaders among the immigrant peoples have thought of the United States as a region to be colonized by Europeans, where each language group would maintain its own language and culture, using English as a lingua franca and means of communicating among the different nationalities.”

Park, Robert Ezra, The Immigrant Press and Its Control, 1920, p. 60

A Polish-American priest says:

“There is no reason for the English to usurp the name of American. They should be called Yankees if anything. That is the name of English-Americans. There is no such thing as an American nation. Poles form a nation, but the United States is a country, under one government, inhabited by representatives of different nations.
[…]I do not think there will be amalgamation — one race composed of many. The Poles, Bohemians, and so forth, remain such, generation after generation.”

from Balch, Emily, Our Slavic Fellow Citizens, 1910, pp. 398-399

A German-American says, on the idea of the ‘Melting pot’:

“Some years ago there appeared under the title of ‘The Melting Pot,’ a drama of which the author, a well-known Zionist leader, Israel Zangwill, announced as wisdom’s last word, that America has become a melting pot into which the different races and nationalities, together with everything that mark them as such — their speech, their tradition, their customs, and their rules of life — were to be thrown in order that they might thereby be converted into Americans.

For us German-Americans the teaching of this play is simply a mixture of insipid phrases and unhistorical thinking. It is just the contrary of that toward which we strive, and this doctrine must be so much the more sharply and decisively antagonized by us as it is enthusiastically accepted by the thoughtless rabble. For we did not come into this American nation as an expelled and persecuted race, seeking help and protection, but as a part of this nation, entitled to the same consideration as every other, and as a member of a noble race that has found here its second home and in common with its blood-related Anglo-Saxon peoples, founded and built up this nation. Neither is it necessary for us to permit ourselves to be twisted and reformed into Americans, for we are Americans in the political sense — and only in this — as soon as we swear allegiance and unite ourselves to the common body of our German-American people.”

Further on, he adds that ‘forced uniformity’ of the different peoples in America amounted to the destruction of those things they held most dear in their people and culture. He objected to the threat to the  ‘God-given diversity’ which would be lost in amalgamating everyone into an ‘artificial mold’ of Americanness.

“The open or secret attempt to do away with our German cultural type[…]our speech, our customs, and our views of life — in the smudge kitchen of a national melting pot has its source in a similar illusion and will likewise, even if some other way, revenge itself.”

The book in which the above quotes appeared, being about the immigrant press, emphasizes the importance of the foreign language press which played a big part in maintaining a sense of separateness and national distinctions in the increasinly polyglot America of 1920.

The German press in America, directed at immigrant newcomers, was also read by the American-born descendants of the early immigrants, as was the case with much of the ethnic press.

The purpose of these foreign-language papers, for many, was to
maintain a sense of ethnic cohesion within the immigrant groups, and a feeling of separateness from the native-born American population. The German-language press in America continued to be important among the immigrants and their progeny until World War II, when the stress of possible divided loyalties took its toll.

It would seem that for some generations, there was little desire on the part of European immigrants to be melted down in the fabled melting pot. Robert Park’s book hints that the popular belief, that early immigrants came here eager to assimilate and willing to give up their ties to Europe, was erroneous. That rosy version of American history seems widespread amongst many White Americans.

The author of the book, Robert Ezra Park, emphasized that the act of emigrating usually increases attachment to the ‘old country’ and natural feelings of nostalgia, the pull of pleasant memories of one’s homeland. Nationalistic and ethnocentric feelings often increase when people emigrate. This seems as true now as then. It seems that most of those immigrating to the West in our day expect to bring their homeland with them, and to stay immersed in their own culture, in their native language. Here in the US, Latino immigrants have several Spanish-language TV channels, filled with open-borders propaganda and anti-Gringo sentiments, hardly likely to make Americans of them.

But is this bad? People are not interchangeable, and immigrants, depending on their native culture and their genetic distance from us, may be unable as well as unwilling to ‘assimilate’ to us.

For many civic nationalists, assimilation is the goal; immigrants, supposedly, should be Americanized as much as possible, and adopt our language and our ways. But what if this ‘assimilation’ entails our adapting to their ways more than vice-versa?

And assimilation ultimately means intermarriage, blending of our genetics with the colonizers. Few civic nationalists and ‘middle-of-the-road’ type Republicans seem to get this, or maybe they have already made their peace with our folk being the ones melted down in the cauldron. Judging by the self-reported prevalence of our folk intermarrying with the colonizers, we’re already on the way to becoming Brazil of the North.

Changes in the blogging world

I’ve noticed that yet again, some of the blogs I formerly checked in on regularly are now gone from the Internet, apparently not by the blogger’s own choice. That’s dismaying, and it does leave an uneasy feeling, causing some of us to wonder if we’re next for the chop. I personally won’t court trouble but neither will I make obeisance to political correctness. However maybe my obscurity will cause me to be less of a target for the vigilantes.

I apologize for the scarcity of recent posts, and I am still working on getting back in the swing of things. My recovery is slower than expected though I am making slow-but-sure progress.

I also see, with some disappointment, that Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch is taking a break from blogging, after some years of steady blogging. I think a rigorous posting schedule (along with work in the ‘real world) does take its toll. I think I began blogging around the same time as Ann Corcoran, so I can appreciate that she has earned a rest.

As for me, I’ve had the occasional long hiatus from blogging, including the recent long absence so I can’t plead blogging fatigue.

I also noticed that Porter at Kakistocracy is also taking a break, and I hope he will feel ready to resume; I know he has lots of faithful readers looking for his next post.

The ‘most beloved’ religious group

At the Inductivist blog, there’s an interesting if somewhat perplexing poll from Pew Research Center, showing the result from various religious groups rating other religious groups. What it seems to show is that Jews are the most favorably rated overall by those of other religions.

From the blog entry:

“In the wake of the Pittsburgh shooting, the main number that jumps out me is that Jews are the most beloved of all groups (not counting warmth towards one’s one group). People who dislike Jews are a tiny slice of American society.”

I wonder if the poll was conducted after the Pittsburgh shootings, or if it’s uninfluenced by recent events. I also wonder if in polls of this kind, people say the politically correct thing, knowing that to do otherwise would brand the respondent as being anti-Semitic or bigoted or “hateful”, according to the PC orthodoxy of the day. A group which has lots of ‘victimhood’ points is more immune from criticism, and it seems that the strongest taboo is that associated with any criticism or even scrutiny of Jews.

The graph shows that Protestants, and especially White evangelicals are among the lowest rated by many of the other groups. That’s believable. It’s always open season on White evangelicals or Protestants generally. Southern Protestants are usually ridiculed as ‘snake handlers’ or other such names, especially by the Left.

But it may be that Jews are held in some kind of reverence by many Americans for obvious reasons; in recent decades (post-1980 or so, I would say) Evangelicals seem to have reversed the age-old attitudes of Protestants and have become very philo-Semitic, to a servile degree. But that would be another blog post.

Meanwhile, on another popular blog, there’s a discussion of bloggers or other public figures — Jared Taylor, for instance, or anyone who doesn’t talk about the JQ to the satisfaction of some critics on the right. The consensus seems to be that any blogger or personality on the right who seems averse to discussing the JQ can therfore be called ‘controlled opposition’ or ”useless”, deserving to be shunned.

Is it true that any blogger or vlogger or writer who focuses ”insufficiently” on the all-important JQ is not legitimate, or is a shill, or a Judas goat? Yes, according to some on the right, who believe the JQ is THE issue. All else is irrelevant or just a way to divert people away from the JQ.

In my early days of blogging, for a while some of my commenters more or less demanded I write about the Jewish question, saying that if I failed to do that I would prove myself somehow on the wrong side of the question; some critics said I obviously had a Jewish spouse or some other connection to Jews — which is untrue. A few people said that I was suspect because I didn’t write about the issue constantly, and they goaded me to write about the Jews or show I was not trustworthy. Needless to say I would not be told what I should write about, or what I should think; I wouldn’t be pressured that way. On the other side I had a Jewish regular who commented frequently and she informed me that if I wrote anything critical of Jews she would never visit my blog again. I didn’t give in to her either, and didn’t miss her when her comments stopped.

So, it was damned if I did, damned if I didn’t.

My critics, who wanted to educate me on the JQ, were not aware that I’m not unfamiliar with Jewish religion, history, culture(s), and also the languages (Yiddish and Hebrew), though I have no connection to any Jews. It’s just that work, and my life-path, and the places I’ve lived brought me into close proximity to Jews on the East Coast and elsewhere. So I am not ignorant on the topic. But while some on the right may have judged me to be in the dark about the subject, others would be suspicious if I showed myself knowledgeable. It seemed a no-win situation.

Do I believe it’s unimportant? No, I don’t, not at all. The issue is important but the poll I linked to above shows what anyone who broaches the JQ is up against. Evangelicals in particular seem to have become enthralled, in recent years, by Jews, and seem to believe that Jews and Israel (the geographical/political Israel) is all-important, on a par with God himself, almost. That, again, is another blog post.

And even on this blog, when I have discussed anything related to Jews, such as the interesting results of DNA studies of Jews, such as that by Johns Hopkins, nobody seemed interested. This has happened when I have discussed Jew-related topics. The response was usually crickets, so I’ve tended to write about other things which seem to draw more interest.

It is an interesting question as to why the former skepticism of Christians toward Jews has become near-reverence, and of course why Jews are now the most warmly regarded of the various religious groups, given their apparent animosity towards White Christians and Western civilization. I wonder how many real honest opinions were expressed in that poll.

Why the Fourteenth Amendment?

On one of the blogs (the name of which escapes me for now) in a discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment, a commenter made a comment which I intended to post myself. The comment contained the observation that the motivation behind that amendment was, in part, a desire by the North to punish the South for what the North saw as ‘treason’ or rebellion, rather than an attempt at peaceful secession. The Union government had not ‘forgiven’ the South for being on the wrong side on the slavery issue, and the freedmen were being used to exact vengeance on the White population, for the North’s satisfaction as well as for their own grievances.

The issue of citizenship for freed slaves was apparently important to the North because of the numbers of ex-slaves who would be given the vote, and of course the Radical Republican party steered the newly enfranchised citizens to vote the correct way, for their benefactors, the Radical Republicans. Not many Americans seem aware that the Republicans of that day were the ‘progressives’ of their time, with all that implies. Many modern-day Republicans are proud that the Radical Republicans ‘freed the slaves’ and enfranchised them, in fact putting many newly-minted voters in the governing bodies of the Southern States, which of course worked out very badly for the White citizens — who were under the repressive rule of Northern carpetbaggers and Southern scallywags, plus the Freedman. White Southrons were at the mercy of the Reconstruction occupiers, having stripped them of their rights during the Reconstruction era, thought to further punish them by putting them under the rule of mostly black State Legislatures. Without the protection of the rule of law, Whites found it necessary to form ‘secret societies’ to guarantee the safety of their families and themselves. How many Americans know this? They know only the politically correct version of history, and have never heard the other side of the story.

Some modern-day Republicans actually boast about their political party ending slavery and giving newly-freed slaves the vote. Yet the future of this Republic was supposed to be reliant on an informed and mature electorate. Now, of course the Democrats, the ideological heirs of the Radical Republicans, want to give the vote and citizenship to non-English speaking immigrants who have no knowledge of how our system works, and no concept of what makes America. All they know is to vote for the benefit of their people and not the common good. And just as in the Reconstruction South, where Whites had to look to their own interests or be subjugated, ‘identity politics’ are a means of survival, though our ‘betters’ tell us we are wrong to play the game being played by all other ethnic groups.


Gustave Le Bon on immigration

From Le Bon’s book The Psychology of Peoples, 1898, a book which may be unpopular today, but nonetheless is relevant to our present situation.

Warning: it’s a fairly lengthy excerpt, so you’ve been forewarned.

…[I]t may seem that nowadays there are no longer any barbarians, or at any rate that these barbarians, relegated to the depths of Asia and Africa, are too far from us to be very redoubtable. Assuredly we have not to fear being invaded by them; and if they are to be dreaded it will only be, as I have shown in another work, because the time may come when they will enter into economic rivalry with Europe. It is not with them in consequence that we are concerned here, but though the Barbarians may seem to be very distant, they are in reality very close, far closer than at the time of the Roman emperors. The fact is that they exist in the very bosom of civilised nations. In consequence of the complication of our modern civilisation, and of that progressive differentiation of individuals to which I have referred, each people contains an immense number of inferior elements incapable of adapting themselves to a civilisation that is too superior for them. There results an enormous waste population, and the peoples who come to be invaded by it will have reason to dread the experience.

At the present day it is towards the United States of America that these new barbarians direct their steps with a common accord, and it is by them that the civilisation of this great nation is seriously threatened. So long as the foreign immigration was on a small scale, and composed in the main of English elements, its absorption was easy and useful. It has brought about the astonishing greatness of America. The United States are now exposed to a gigantic invasion of inferior elements which they neither wish nor are able to assimilate. Between 1880 and 1890 they received nearly six millions of emigrants, almost exclusively composed of workmen of a low class and of every nationality. To-day of the 1,100,000 inhabitants of Chicago not a quarter are Americans. The population includes 400,000 Germans, 220,000 Irish, 50,000 Poles, 55,000 Czechs, etc. There is no fusion between these immigrants and the Americans. They do not even take the trouble to learn the language of their new country, in which they form mere colonies engaged in badly paid occupations. They are discontented and in consequence dangerous. During the recent railway strike Chicago narrowly escaped being burned down by them, and it was necessary to fire on them pitilessly. It is solely among their ranks that are recruited the adepts of that barbarous and levelling socialism, which is perhaps realisable in decadent Europe, but is quite antipathetic to the character of true Americans. The conflicts which socialism is about to engender on the soil of the great Republic will be, in reality, conflicts between races which have reached different levels of evolution.

It seems evident that in the civil war that is preparing between the America of the Americans and the America of the foreigners, the triumph will not rest with the barbarians. This gigantic struggle will doubtless end in a hecatomb reproducing on an immense scale the complete extermination of the Cimbrians by Marius. If the struggle is at all delayed and the invasion continues, it will become impossible that the solution should be total destruction. In that case the destiny of the United States will probably be that of the Roman Empire that is to say, the breaking up of the existing provinces of the republic into independent states, as divided and as frequently at war as those of Europe or as those of Spanish America.

America is not the only country threatened by these invasions. There is one State in Europe, France, which is menaced in the same way. It is a rich country, whose population does not increase, surrounded by poor countries whose population is constantly increasing. The immigration of these neighbours is inevitable, and the more so as it is rendered necessary by the growing exigencies of our working classes, taken in connection with the needs of agriculture and industry. The advantages these immigrants find on our soil are evident. They are freed from the obligation of military service, being foreign nomads they have few or no taxes to pay, and the work is easier and better paid than in their native territory. Further, they invade our country, not merely because of its riches, but because the majority of other countries are always passing laws forbidding their entrance.

This invasion of foreigners is the more redoubtable, in that it is naturally the most inferior elements, those that cannot succeed in making a livelihood in their own country, that emigrate. Our humanitarian principles condemn us to undergo an ever increasing foreign invasion. Forty years ago there were only 400,000 such foreign immigrants; to-day they number over 1,200,000, and they are always flocking in in increasing hordes. Considered merely in respect to the number of Italians it contains, Marseilles might be called an Italian colony. Italy does not possess a single colony that contains a like number of Italians. If the present conditions do not change, if, that is to say, these invasions do not stop, but a very short time will have to elapse before a third of the population of France has become German and a third Italian. What can become of the unity, or even of the existence of a people under such conditions? The worst disasters on the battlefield would be infinitely less grave than such invasions. It was a very sure instinct that taught the ancient peoples to dread foreigners; they were well aware that the situation of a country is judged not by the number of its inhabitants, but by that of its citizens.

Once more we find that at the bottom of all historical and social questions lies the inevitable racial problem. It dominates all the others.

These invasions being the consequence of certain economical phenomena it is impossible to control, they cannot be prevented. Still, certain measures might be taken which would at least check them: obligatory military service in the Foreign Legion for all foreigners less than twenty-five years of age and counting two years’ residence; military tax on the older immigrants; almost entire suppression of naturalisation; tax amounting to a quarter of the income or salary on all foreigners established in France for less than fifty years. The Deputy who should cause such a law to be voted would be worthy of a statue erected by his grateful country.”