A worthwhile read

I hope all of you have visited the link to the ‘Circa 1865‘ blog on my blogroll.

The latest post is about ‘Men Without a Country’, that is the men who, after Appomattox, had to make their way back to a devastated and desolate ‘home’.

The piece also tells us, if we didn’t already know, that the Union army at that time had recruited (sometimes conscripted) men of many nationalities, from many countries, and this was what the CSA army was up against. It put them at a considerable disadvantage.

More and more, speaking for myself, it feels like we are a people without a country.

If you haven’t read the Circa 1865 blog I highly recommend it; it’s very informative and the writer is knowledgeable in his subject. It is sad and vexing that the general public know so very little about the history behind the WBTS, and a great deal of misinformation is out there.

The ‘Galileo Gambit’

A former reader, ‘Flanders’, commenting on Savant’s blog, points out a logical fallacy called ‘The Galileo Gambit‘, which coincidentally ties in with my previous post.

In that post, expressing disagreement with the President’s sudden call for a large increase in legal immigration, I was inwardly pondering whether this change in direction was some kind of sudden decision or whether it was planned all along.

In posts during or just after the 2016 election I had questions as to whether Trump’s election was in fact intended to co-opt the dissident right all along.

I wondered the same about the election of G.W. Bush. Why? Because the left ramped up the insane anti-Bush rhetoric to previously unknown levels, even in the days of Nixon, when the left made Nixon out to be the biggest monster and villain in our history. It all seemed over-the-top and disconnected from reality. But then with the election of ‘W’ in 2000, along with the crazy antics of the left during the long election dispute, the left outdid themselves in histrionics and rabid rhetoric. But even that was mild compared to the 2016 election, when the millennials were all grieving and rending their garments about the ‘fear’ felt by their ‘Muslim and gay friends’  who feared for their lives — supposedly. I found this too absurd to be believed — but these young ‘snowflakes’ seemingly believed, silly as it seems. But did the Democrat party apparatchiks actually believe their own hysterical statements about Trump being ‘literally Hitler’? Or the rumors of roaming gangs of MAGA thugs attacking innocent people? Or was it a kind of calculated reverse psychology — a ‘Galileo Gambit’ plan?

So what is the Galileo Gambit fallacy? I admit I wasn’t familiar with that one:

“The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially “Galileo wannabes”. This logic is obviously flawed. For example, consider a horribly-oppressed ideology: Wahhabism. Western governments seek to persecute and censor Wahhabists at every opportunity. Does this mean that Wahhabism is correct?”

Obviously not; the fact that an idea or policy draws strong opposition or vilification — or to use the left’s favorite term, causes the proponent to be ‘demonized’ — does not necessarily prove that the idea is right or true, or that the proponent must be one of the good guys.

But we’ve all been conditioned to think that if the left opposes something, whatever they oppose must of necessity be true and sane and desirable — just because our foes are almost always found on the wrong side of every debate and dispute. They champion everything that is immoral, unnatural, destructive, and just deranged. (See their recent support of infanticide, as the most vivid example to date).

It’s normally safe to assume that the far left are likely to oppose anything and everything that’s good and wholesome and normal and true. But what if their excessive and exaggerated opposition to G.W. Bush, for example, was meant to induce the Republican party to champion and defend Bush — even when he was wrong on some issues, as he usually was? Things like the Iraq war, which many Republicans embraced all the more stubbornly because they thought Bush must be right if the left hated him so much. And it seems as if the Republicans stood by Bush and his open borders policy because they saw him as unfairly under attack by the scoundrels on the other side.

Suppose Donald Trump was the globalists’ preferred Republican opponent in the 2016 election, and the sudden rallying of the right to his cause was just the ‘briar patch’ that the Democrat globalists wanted to be thrown into. Whichever candidate won, the globalist, one-world cause would win. And yes, before anybody asks the rhetorical question ”would you rather have Hillary as President’? my response is no, I would not. But on the other hand, have we all been manipulated and ‘played’ by the ridiculous leftist attacks on Trump and on Trump voters?

The unrelenting attacks on the President elicited an automatic knee-jerk response from me, though I was ambivalent at best, harboring considerable doubts (expressed on this blog, if you remember) about whether Trump was the real thing. I had serious reservations, given his lavish praise of Hispanic immigrants as “wonderful, wonderful people” — even as he lamented Kate Steinle’s death at the hands of a many-times-deported Jose Zarate, one of those ‘wonderful, wonderful people.’ Was Trump channeling Jeb Bush, (remember Jeb’s ‘immigration is an act of love‘ drivel?) And after all the promises about a wall, why coddle the so-called ‘Dreamers’ and why invite millions more immigrants, even if they are ‘legal’?

Before the 2016 election many populists/dissident rightists held to the consensus that both parties were complicit in the destruction of legacy America; neither side was to be trusted, both parties, despite the fake ‘pro wrestling’ rhetoric were working towards the same ends, ultimately. I hate to return to that cynical assessment because I am not by nature a cynical person, but I am rethinking that.

I, at least, was probably fooled by the ‘Galileo Gambit’ fallacy.

Southern tradition: Black-eyed peas on New Year’s

I know New Year’s Day is past, but at Identity Dixie, I read an interesting and historical piece on why Southerners eat black-eyed peas on New Year’s day. I was always told it was ”good luck”, but there is more to this custom.

I learned some history from reading the piece. And it makes you think about the importance of ”culture, people, identity.”

 

‘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.

Transforming America

A certain political candidate several years ago spoke (ominously, in my opinion) about ‘fundamentally transforming America.” The audience, as I recall, cheered this phrase.

Any sane person should be afraid when someone offers to ‘fundamentally transform’ the world or society, especially when it’s to be an open-ended process, constant change, or what was it Chairman Mao said? “Perpetual revolution”? There’s no end to trying to ‘transform the world’; the people who want to engineer these changes are never happy or satisfied with their work; the revolution must go on. There’s still so much more ‘work that needs to be done.’

And the social engineers, as we know, are not always politicians.

Look in on Vox Day’s blog, here.  Read the excerpts from a Hollywood story conference which included Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Larry Kasdan.

The year was 1978, and the story being discussed was “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Spielberg et al discuss the idea that the character Indiana Jones and his ‘love interest’ in that movie had a relationship starting when the ex-lover was very much underage. Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan ‘negotiate’ over just how early this relationship started; the age of eleven is suggested by Lucas, (!) and eventually they settle on a compromise: fifteen is settled on. Sixteen or seventeen? “Not interesting anymore.”

Surely they knew they couldn’t get this kind of thing accepted by the mainstream movie audiences — yet — but these people take the long view; it may take decades of slowly pushing the boundaries back, but they do it relentlessly.

The metaphor of slowly boiling the frog, though overused now, is very appropriate here.

Most people would probably classify Spielberg, Lucas, and company as being purveyors of ”family” movies, of wholesome good old-fashioned entertainment. But as someone commenting on the Vox Day thread says, Spielberg was “pushing the envelope” with his ”wholesome” movies like ET, with the foul-mouthed kids in that film. I remember some parents being shocked by the crude talk from the children in the movie, but most were willing to let it go because the movie was “cute”. This is how we’ve gotten to where we are culturally, what with increasingly vile movies being accepted by mass audiences, and our culture reflects what the movies promote: children who are ‘worldly-wise’ at a very young age, and young adults who are very much jaded and experienced before they are out of their teens.

The older generations don’t escape blame; many who grew up in a more civilized society have gradually come to accept the corrupted world that we live in now, and made their peace with it. Few people are willing to reject the values of Hollywood and the entertainment/propaganda business; people love their pop culture and their distractions.

Recently in another blog post here I referred to the fascination many young people seem to have with ‘Pre-Code’ movies, that is, movies that were made in the early talkie days, before the Hays Office began to restrict the content of movies. The Pre-Code movie devotees never get enough of railing against the Hays Office and its namesake, Will Hays. They are, to the leftist post-modern movie fan, the equivalent of the hated Joe McCarthy of the political world. The Hays Office and the McCarthy ‘witch hunts’, so-called, are a favorite bete noire of the left.

The ‘Hays Code’ or the Motion Picture Production Code is often denounced as a heavy-handed, prudish censorship which infringed on people’s ”freedoms” and stifled artistic endeavors, and thwarted creativity. It does seem odd, if these criticisms were valid, that so many of Hollywood’s best efforts were movies made during the era of the Hays Code. It’s also strange that since the rules were first, loosened, then abandoned, movies have declined, becoming ever darker and more nihilistic as well as cruder and more profane.

For years I’ve been saying, when hearing of Hollywood’s latest over-hyped sleaze, ”how much worse can it get”? And I keep being surprised at how the movie moguls seem to outdo themselves in producing something worse, because that seems to be their mission: to drag society down to the gutter level at which the movie industry seems to operate. They are succeeding, and it seems to me that even the fact that movie attendance seems to be declining for some years does not discourage them. They are on a mission, and even shrinking profits don’t seem to daunt them.

The Hays Office and the Code, far from being villains as most movie fans seem to believe, served a good purpose for as long as it lasted. America — and the post-Christian West generally, was already in a moral crisis after World War I in particular. The ‘Roaring 20s’ are an example of how sexual morals became lax; drug and alcohol abuse and all the accompanying problems weakened us in many ways. Societies which are hedonistic and libertine are rarely, if ever, strong and powerful. Dissolute societies are always prey for invasion and conquest.

If not for the Hays Code, Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan would not have been having their discussion about how young the ‘love interest’ of Indiana Jones could have been — because by that time, had not the movie moguls been compelled to ‘clean up their act’, we would long since have had movies featuring “inter-generational love” or ”zoophilia” or whatever other euphemisms they’ve dreamed up for these various deviancies. The Hays Office was fighting a sort of rearguard action against the trends, which were already present in 1930s America. They at least bought us some time in which the worst tendencies of Hollywood were kept restrained to some extent, imperfectly. But that was better than nothing, better than just letting Hollywood and the rest of the ”entertainment” world run amok, as now, transforming our society at will, with our complicity.

Secession: would it work?

Colin Woodard made the case for his vision of the United States as divided into a ”country of regions.” Woodard’s map shows his idea of the ’11 countries” or nations that make up today’s United States.

woodard's eleven nations
I’ve expressed my skepticism about Woodard’s classification of the regions of the United States, because, among other things, it’s an oversimplification. I think that the uncritical way in which many people have seized on Woodard’s ideas and his map to press an agenda of their own is not a good thing. It’s helped to popularize this oversimplified, and I think inaccurate, way of seeing the U.S.

Another problem I have with Woodard’s ideas, (and those of his predecessors who pushed similar ideas in earlier decades) is that Woodard is apparently of a liberal bent, and he obviously does not take racial/ethnic realities into account in his ideas about the future of the Dis-United States.

One thing about his ideas which I find absurd is his classifying the regions according to the people who settled there many generations ago. In the past I questioned how it could be argued that ‘Yankees’, or Puritan Anglo-Saxon stock, could still exert influence over the Northeast when in fact there are, percentage-wise, relatively few of them still in the Northeast. In the article I link above, he argues that somehow all succeeding waves of immigrants have assimilated to Yankee norms, just as his Danish ancestors assimilated to ‘Midlands’ culture. But yet after so many waves of immigrants have washed over parts of these once-United States, surely the footprint of the original settlers has been trampled over so as to be effaced and lost. He is arguing for some kind of quasi-mystical influence that lives on after the actual people who shaped the place are dead and their posterity moved thousands of miles Westward.

I find it hard to believe that the Somalis, for example, who are now being shipped en masse to, say, Minnesota, are absorbing the good old Scandinavian Lutheran ways of the early White settlers. But if one believes Woodard or his followers, this must be what is happening.

Some years ago, I wrote a good bit about secession, and in recent years that subject has become a much more discussed — and popular — topic. And finally someone has written a good piece discussing the improbable situation of our current United States of America breaking up along state lines, or even regional lines, per Woodard et al. From Where the Strongest Evidence Leads blog:

Secession Must Be on the Basis of Race and Beliefs, Not Existing State Borders

“Secession at the state level solves few major problems. Huge divides exist within blue and red states. If California secedes, New Democrats will run it, or at least be the public face of power, until Marxian Hispanics take over, then Muslims take over, including Hispanic and other converts to Islam. If Texas secedes, Rick Perry’s donors will run Texas until the likes of Hugo Chavez take over, then the likes of Ibrahim Hooper replace them, with much violence resulting.

It is more accurate to call the left a coalition of incompatibles than what Steve Sailer calls a coalition of fringes. The same goes for the right.”

Read the whole thing at the blog. The writer takes into account the existence of many factions, including political/ideological as well as ethnic and religious groups who would not, or could not, coexist peaceably should the country break up into separate entities along existing state borders.

The obvious fact is that the powers-that-be have engineered much of the ‘diversity’ which resulted in the presence of so many incompatible and mutually hostile groups. This may indicate that they are hoping to control how a break-up of the United States would play out, should it happen.

It does seem that the more ‘diverse’ our country becomes, with so many competing if not warring groups, the less likely secession would be to change the situation to our advantage, as we would hope.

And maybe those in power are trying, among other things, to insure themselves against secession moves by irreparably breaking the cohesion of the country, sowing seeds of dissension and disunity, so that there can be no threat to the power of those in charge.

Update: I just found this related piece from The Roper Report, called Coloring within the lines. Written from the perspective of racial and ethnic divisions, it also questions the standard view of secession. It would seem that there is no easy solution, and that racial rifts would foil any attempt at a clean separation by region or state.

What’s in a name?

I’m glad someone addressed this issue, though it seems to be a hopeless cause to change the politically correct terminology that dominates our language.

Jmsmith at The Orthosphere blog writes about the varying names given to followers of Islam, with ‘Muslim’ being the politically correct usage employed by the media, the educational establishment, the lefties — by everybody, in fact, left or right, except for a few ornery people who say ‘Mohammedan’ or ‘muzzie’ or some other less-than-reverential term.

A Mohammedan is not a Christian or Jew because he is: “one who accepts the proposition that an Arab named Mohammed or Ahmad, son of Abdallah, of the city of Mecca, in Central Arabia, who died in A.D. 632 is the main and indeed ultimate channel whereby the will of the Creator of the world has been revealed to mankind.”*

If you accede to calling this man a Moslem (i.e. Truly Religious), I believe that you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. If you accede to calling his religion Islam (i.e. True Religion), I believe you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. To draw this to its sharpest possible point, a Christian who accedes to using the words Moslem or Islam is at least flirting with apostasy.**

Well, then as a Christian I might be apostate because I have held to using ‘Moslem‘. However I have a different recollection as to which term was considered ‘offensive’ to Moslems, besides ‘Mohammedan,’, that is. I was not sure if my memory was accurate so after a little searching I came across this:

“According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,”Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word.” But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means”one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means”one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

[…]Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.”

From what I recall, that pressure came from the militant ‘Black Muslim’ sect back in the late 1960s when the ‘establishment’ was leaning over backwards (as now) to placate minorities, especially militant blacks. I doubt that many people today are aware of the origins of that sect, and how outré their belief system was/is. To think that we automatically kowtowed to them on the issue of what we are “allowed” to call them or their faith is pretty shameful for us. It shows how ‘cucked’ we were, even back in the late 60s when all this nonsense began.

“But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP–the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World–published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut–is still The Moslem World.”

Interesting; I didn’t know anybody officially still used ‘Moslem’, apart from me and a few others. Incidentally a friend of mine began using ‘Moslem’ after hearing me use it only to be scolded by her leftist millennial offspring, who, of course, know everything since attending college (and a Christian college, at that).

I am not looking to be contentious here or to argue with Jmsmith; I am in agreement  that we should not simply give in to pressure from those of a religion which is contradicts with our own Christian beliefs, a group which is essentially at war with us, and has been since its inception. We should not accede automatically and go along with their terminology and definitions. In doing that we are being less than true to our Christian beliefs.

There are lots of terms for followers of Mohammed: Musulman, Mahometan, Moslem, Mohammedan. They served us well for many centuries. Why change just to placate those who are never going to be appeased by anything less than total submission? Because that is what Islam means: submission.

‘A safety valve’

Francesco Guicciardini, the Italian historian and statesman of the early 16th century, said some things about the uses of ‘angry words’:

guicciardini - safety valve in words_result

It’s not an original thought on my part, obviously, but I’ve often wondered if this is one of the reasons why the powers-that-be ”allow” the degree of freedom of speech that we still retain. It can’t be because they respect our Constitutional rights or that they really want to give every opinion a chance to be heard. Obviously they would like to shut down free speech altogether if it is not in line with the official PC dogma.

It makes sense that letting dissidents and political out-groups vent their thoughts on the Internet, if not in the government-controlled newspapers and TV outlets, is a means of letting us blow off steam, and though this is a necessary thing sometimes, as few of us have chances to express our ideas openly without repercussions, it’s also a bad thing potentially, as it may serve as a substitute for some sort of action.

As much as I dislike the frequent taunts from certain people online accusing those who blog or comment of being mere ‘keyboard warriors’, and of ‘doing nothing’, there might be some truth in that for some people.

Another reason for “allowing” dissenters and so-called ‘thought criminals’ to express themselves online is that it allows TPTB to keep tabs on the state of the average citizen, to gauge how much resistance is out there to the agenda. After all, the powers-that-be have to get some idea of ‘how much work still needs to be done‘ as the left always puts it. They want to know how much more relentless propaganda and gas-lighting they still have to churn out to get the population in the properly passive and compliant state, or to more fully demoralize us (in both the old and the new sense of the word).

Some of us have been saying for years now that any day now, our freedom of speech, such as it is, will be taken away and we will no longer have any opportunity to present our case to the fence-sitting ‘normies’ or apoliticals out there. However it seems it would be more profitable for those in authority to let us go on venting so that they can keep tabs on the state of the people, and also be alerted to those out there who they deem a ‘danger’ — at least among the White citizenry; dangerous folk of other ethnicities and races are allowed free rein to be a public danger.

And then, as Guicciardini said all those centuries ago, the use of ‘harsh words’ by dissenting elements may take the edge off their righteous indignation and enable them to refrain from doing anything that poses a ‘threat’ to the agenda. Still, though it may to some extent be a way of keeping us subdued and passive, there may be a limit to its usefulness in that way.

It isn’t wise, ultimately, to believe that we are still ‘free’ because we can still speak relatively frankly on certain subjects. It may just be part of creating an illusion of freedom, an illusion that seems to suffice for many middle-of-the-road Americans. The appearance of freedom is good enough for them, even without the substance.

Celebrating our independence

I trust you all enjoyed a pleasant Independence Day, though with each year the question “just what we are celebrating?” insistently recurs in my mind.

For a lot of Americans it seems as though we are celebrating just out of habit, or just for the sake of celebrating — with the customary fireworks, barbecues, parades — but for some of us the day has assumed overtones of mourning — mourning what has become of our country, mourning for what should have been but now is not.

If we choose, we can look back at the genuine accomplishments and heroism of our forefathers in creating this country, though it seems fewer Americans each year are inclined to do that. Cynicism on the part of many on the right is the order of the day, and I seem to see as much bitterness towards our forebears from the ‘right’ as from the left. No matter which way you cut it, that is sad. No matter how wrong America has gone in this ‘grand experiment’ that we call our country, is there really any comfort in denouncing the Founders of this country? Does it serve any useful purpose? I say it doesn’t; if we are truly ethnonationalists or ethnopatriots there has to be something in our history and our folk that we can love and defend. Of course we have to separate our nation (and our folk; they are one) from our government, which does not represent us, nor does it seem to care about our safety and happiness.

But must we trash the past and the people who made our country? I can’t take part in that, though I am decidedly not one of those people the right (and left) disparage as ‘patriotards.’

Even the use of names like ‘patriotard’ is an example of jaded cynicism, something I dislike, especially if I find it growing in my own heart.

Pat Buchanan, in a very good article, asks the question of whether we are still a nation. In my opinion it’s one of the best things he’s written lately, though I often felt he did not ‘go far enough’ in the past in addressing some issues.

I think most of us would agree that the country, as we know it today, does not embody a true nation, a people descended from a common ancestry and with shared history and culture. But there is still a core, a remnant, that exists. Those who are part of this know it, and it is to this that we should and must be loyal. Cynicism and bitterness are not motivating influences; instead they seem to lead to apathy and resignation, and to a perverse kind of superiority feeling based on being above the simple-minded ‘normies’ or ‘Murkans.’ Nothing positive can be built on this.

I don’t know what the future of this ‘Republic’ of ours holds; I am sorry to say I am not as optimistic as I once was (though my optimism was always cautious and tempered by realism). I don’t know that we have any cause to celebrate on Independence Day except to remember our forebears and their great efforts and sacrifices for our benefit, and the fact that their posterity failed to ‘keep’ the Republic they created for us is to our discredit, not theirs.

 

Poland rejects mass immigration?

The Daily Caller reports on Trump’s planned visit to Poland, where he will praise the Polish government’s decision to reject ‘refugees and mass immigration.’

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said of the President’s upcoming speech:

“McMaster said that Trump will deliver a “major speech” in which he will “praise Polish courage” and its “emergence as a European power.” The nation is currently ruled by a nationalist Christian party that has rejected refugee resettlement and mass immigration.”

As everybody applauds the Poles for their resistance to the globalist program, I have to spoil the party by asking, if the current ruling faction in Poland is truly nationalist (and anti-globalist, which to me, go together) why are they insistent on colonizing parts of Western Europe? Ask the people of Britain or Ireland, or even France, as I’ve heard, into which countries a total of millions of Poles have immigrated.

Now, for the sake of fairness, I will say that there are people in the receiving Western European countries who say they don’t  mind the mass immigration by Poles, because they are “hard-working”, “Christian (Catholic)”, and “they assimilate better than the others.” Yet on the other hand, many, many Americans say identical things about Latin Americans settling our country en masse, changing neighborhoods and towns, taking jobs and making the English language even more rarely spoken. (How many people are aware that Polish is now the second most spoken language in the UK?)

And I will concede, on the other hand, that Poles probably are preferable, if one must have mass immigration, to Moslems from whatever country or Third Worlders generally.

But if enough foreign people keep arriving to Western European countries, the countries, their culture and genetics, will change just as surely, regardless of who the colonizers may be.

And then, there’s the question, as I say above, of whether we must have mass immigration of anybody from anywhere. The answer that I keep coming up with as I ponder this is NO. It is not an imperative, not morally or demographically or economically or whatever else. The pro-immigration people, whether they call themselves conservatives or progressives, imply that we have no choice; it’s inevitable, and besides it’s the right thing to do in all the ways listed above, and not to do so is backward and mean-spirited and bigoted. And short-sighted, because we ‘need’ immigration.

The moral claim is made that the Middle Eastern and African ‘refugees’ descending on Europe, those presumably being refused by the Poles, are in fear for their lives, or are so destitute and desperate that it’s inhumane not to allow them in and welcome them.

The same claim was and is being made even for the Mexicans and assorted Latin Americans entering our country: ‘they’re poor; if I lived in Mexico I’d try to sneak into America to feed my family; wouldn’t you?’

But the same claim can’t plausibly be made for Poland’s emigrants who go to Western Europe; there is no mass starvation or want in Poland that I’m aware of. And though their people hold mass rallies chanting ‘Poland for the Poles’, if they are true nationalists, why don’t they recognize the theoretical right of the people of Britain and Ireland or France to limit or refuse immigration from any or all countries?

It seems to me they should, as nationalists, not be colonizing others’ countries, taking advantage of the anti-indigenous policies elsewhere. It seems to me that they should admit their own double standard and hypocrisy, and call their emigrants home. Poland should want its people to stay home and raise their families there.

Incidentally there have been calls from some quarters in Poland for ‘guest workers’ or immigrants — to replace the native Polish workers who are colonizing other countries.

One other issue that this leads to: there is a discussion on several blogs about the question of whether White Nationalism is just a form of multiculturalism or whether it implies (as I’ve said) a White egalitarianism, with all Whites equal and interchangeable, or a pan-European, ethnically homogenized form of identity. Some commenters vehemently deny that WNs believe we should ideally erase national and ethnic boundaries amongst European-descended people and allow open borders for all such people to emigrate/immigrate freely.

Yet these kinds of ideas are propounded on some forums and blogs I’ve visited. Oftentimes it came up when some nationalistic British people would complain of the increasing Polish presence, and others would tell them that they should be glad to have Poles because they are white. So this certainly implies that skin color determines who should be welcomed into a country; if this philosophy were adopted then Britain, for example, would be a polyglot country of various White ethnicities — a tower of Babel, but ‘as long as it’s a White Babel, then what’s the problem?’ is the implicit assumption.

The problem is that a nationalist believes that a country embodies a particular people, an extended kin group with a shared history, culture, and (preferably) religion. Skin color alone is not sufficient to form a cohesive nation. Being European alone, or European-descended, is not enough to bind a people together; it never has been.