Suppressing facts

Following on yesterday’s post here about legal immigration (“good”) vs. illegal immigration (“less good”), I have been trying to find some statistics about criminality, comparing legal to illegal immigrants. There seems to be an effort  to show that legal immigrants do not commit more crimes than native-born, and that illegals are the only immigrants who tend to commit more crimes.

It’s obvious that of late, what with the effort to gradually choke out all dissenting (politically incorrect) opinions online, that any data which casts a negative impression of immigrants is being scrubbed from the internet. It seems that in general fewer search engines will link to anything that is politically incorrect, whether to blogs or news articles and opinion pieces. Of course the reliably dishonest media report only data and opinions that reinforce the ”narrative” and attempt to discredit and exclude dissident thought or information. So it is getting harder to find truthful, factual data.

Despite the plethora of articles from the usual Mendacious Media sources, assuring us that immigrants do not increase the crime rates — in fact, that they commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, I am not convinced.

At the very least we know of a good many crimes, reported in the media, involving immigrants, often ‘refugees.’ Examples: many cases of fraud by merchants (usually convenience-store owners) involving EBT/food stamps or other government benefits. These are not isolated stories, but part of a pattern.

We read of the rampant use by immigrants/refugees of counterfeit ID cards and theft of Social Security numbers/identity fraud. We need only go to certain areas in most cities of any size to find immigrants openly peddling forged ID cards for sale to anybody willing to pay. There are many people known, even by their employers, to be working under the table, not paying taxes on their earnings, because they are not legally here, or in some cases, some are here legally but unwilling to be taxed on their earnings — the money goes back ‘home’, so that billions of American dollars are sent to immigrants’ home countries each year.

The list could go on and on. Yet we are expected to believe that immigrants are scrupulously honest if they are here legally, despite many incentives to cheat and flout laws.

And what about prevalence of drunk driving on the part of many immigrants, especially Latinos? This is a well-known ”cultural practice” amongst Latinos, as is the ”cultural” acceptance of a very low age of consent for young girls to consort with adult men.

And as I have said before, look up the search term ”quinceanera shooting” or quinceanera stabbing. An inordinate number of assaults, even killings occur at girls’ fifteenth birthday celebrations, supposedly the age at which they are considered adult women.

But pay no attention to the facts; listen only to what the lying media tell us; nothing to see here. Immigrants, especially those with certain documents making them legal, are pure as driven snow, and do not have any proclivity to crime or violence.

However you might look up, for example, some of Ron Guhname’s data at the Inductivist website, where he provides interesting statistics on cultural habits and practices, broken down by nationality. This one, for example, on which ethnic groups are most arrested.

The usual rationalization is that ‘racist’ police ”target” certain groups. Given that most police forces now have ”diversity” quotas to ensure that “racist” White police can’t persecute innocent diversities, that excuse won’t cut it.

Another example from Inductivist, this time about the percentages, based on ethnicity, displaying traits like selfishness and pessimism.

And what about crime rates within certain countries, (most Latin American countries have far higher rates of violent crime, as is well-established as fact) but the data at Inductivist’s link show the effect of diversity (heterogeneity) in violent crime.

None of this is consistent with the Party Line laid down by immigration apologists and enthusiasts whether on the ”right” or on the left. We are being gaslighted, as usual, by both sides when it comes to immigration and diversity. And the disturbing thing is that there seems to be a more zealous effort to suppress any data that contradicts the propaganda. Soon this country may be more like Europe where even questioning offical dogma on ethnicity and immigration will be a criminal offense.

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.

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?

‘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.

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.

Our ‘lost’ faith

For some years now there has been ongoing debate about the role of Christianity in the demise of the ‘West’, which might more properly bed called ‘former Christendom.’

So is Christianity to blame, as some non-Christians continually assert, for what is happening to our countries now? Obviously I say no, as I’ve said all along, and the self-evident fact that our countries were not under siege when Christianity was in full flower and at its height of influence, whereas ever since our Christian faith began to wane and weaken, our countries and our peoples have been in deep trouble, and we now face a real existential threat.

Nowadays, though, Christianity itself has become so compromised and corrupted by ‘the world’ that Christians — or more properly, Churchians, make it all but impossible to effectively exonerate our faith from the charge of having destroyed the West. Non-believers see this impostor ‘Christianity’ and find it hard to believe that it could have sustained us so well, or been such a major influence in making us strong as nations and as individuals.

There are fewer faithful churches or denominations left, and those that appear to prosper are often not as strong inwardly as they appear on the outside. Many of the megachurches are interested mainly in growth for its own sake, and have compromised their beliefs beyond recognition.

Some of the ‘Christian’ podcasts and programs that can be found on YouTube or on Roku, and especially on television, shows how lost we are, and how bereft of good leadership and sound teaching. And as much as these weak churches aim at being ‘relevant’ for the sake of the young people they hope to draw in, by means of rap and hip-hop music, casual dress codes, and other such trappings of the 21st century, they usually avoid any truly relevant commentary on what is going on in the world, such as the refugee invasion of Europe and all its appalling ramifications, as well as the more general subject of the ‘One World’ globalist agenda which is being pushed so relentlessly. If the Church in any of its guises really wanted to be ‘relevant’ they would be discussing these things, the same things that many of us are talking about on the dissident, anti-globalist right. Instead they studiously avoid those subjects, just as their secular counterparts in the controlled media do.

However those few half-brave souls in the Christian media who do address the globalist menace do so only very gingerly, trying to stay politically correct. Just how someone can claim to be anti-globalist and not discuss mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the race issue is a mystery to me.

And then there is the ‘JQ’, which finds far too many Christians kowtowing to Jews as ‘our elder brothers in faith’. I’ve noticed a trend with many Christian media outlets having sort of resident Jewish ‘advisors’ or gurus, as I call them, interpreting events for us, explaining the Bible to us. These personalities are often treated as sages and as authorities, as if we need Jewish interpreters to intercede for us or to tell us what Jesus meant. This is something of a new trend; I don’t remember an earlier era in which Jews were treated as spiritual advisers to Christians; yes, there was the mid-20th century invention of ‘ecumenism’, which devised the concept of ‘Judeo-Christianity’, but even then, that was more of an attempt to try to push ‘tolerance’ via understanding — but now it’s as though Christians are being taught we need Jews to validate our faith or tell us what to believe. Maybe some younger people or new Christians don’t know that it wasn’t always this way. Our parents and grandparents were very skeptical of Jews to say the least. I am sure the usual suspects at the $PLC would say the older generations were anti-Semites and bigots, but the fact is the older generations knew that Judaism was not Christianity, and they never heard of something called ‘Judeo-Christianity.’ Somehow most Christians have been turned into Zionists and some have even gone in for things like the ‘Hebrew Roots’ movement which has some confused Christians adopting Jewish holiday celebrations, Jewish accoutrements (prayer-shawls, fringes, etc.) and kosher foods. This is not the Christianity of our parents and our forefathers.

It’s all an indication of the confusion and lost-ness of Christianity in the 21st century.

Some of our ministers and preachers and teachers believe we are in the End Times, citing the ‘One World’ agenda as a fulfillment of prophecy. However they curiously avoid quoting any of the Scriptures that seem to speak  to our times, especially the immigrant invasions and the Mohammedan presence in our countries.

How many Christian teachers or pastors quote any of the following Scriptures?

‘The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.’ (Deuteronomy 28:43-44)

Or:

1 Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach.
2 Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens.
3 We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows.
4 We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us.
5 Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest.
6 We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread.
7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.
8 Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand.” (Lamentations 5).

Instead they want to lecture us about the Good Samaritan (welcome the refugees) or about ‘hospitality to the stranger’ and turning the other cheek. They are wrenching those scriptures out of their context. Apropos here is Hosea 4:6: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

How many Christians are aware of the origin of the title ‘Camp of the Saints’? It’s Revelation 20:9

”And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about…”

The Churches, for the most part, are silent on all this, and they should be teaching on these things, instead of acting as lap dogs to the powers-that-be by carefully obeying political correctness and the world’s fake morality.

Our church officials and Christian leaders should be seeing the signs of the times; instead they are dumb ‘watchdogs’ who don’t bark. In this sense they are accountable for refusing to address the pressing issues of our time.

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.

The last American?

lastamerican

 

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

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

Whose posterity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was I really so clueless then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“They” will not divide “us”

Just who are the ‘they‘ in this meme, and who are the ‘us‘ to which this meme alludes?

The ‘they’ who are supposedly out to divide ‘us’ are, presumably, hateful haters who don’t accept the multicultural ‘we’, the pretend unity that the lefties are invoking in the wake of the latest terror attacks.

I guess the ‘they‘ would be ethnonationalists, realists, anti-globalists, anybody who is not conforming to the official multicult dogma, anybody who dissents. People like me, obviously, and presumably people like those who may be reading this blog or others like it.

The enemy, according to the PC meme-makers is not Islam or any other foreign group; it is the citizenry of one’s own country who are not sufficiently submissive to the official party line dogma issued by the globalist overlords and their puppet-rulers in Western countries. Foreign enemies are not in fashion now; what does the Bible say in Matthew 10:36? A man’s enemies will be those of his own household? The left designates us, the dissidents and recalcitrant ‘old Americans’ as their enemy, while expressing solidarity with militant Islam, even as Islam carries out violence against us. Yet some of our folk can’t get it through their heads that we are the enemy to the powers-that-be and their leftist ‘useful idiots.’

In that sense, we are deeply divided already, within our own ‘household’. The divisions are political as well as ethnic, regional, class, religious, sex/gender, generational, and (last but far from least) racial.

We could hardly be more divided than we are.

The left and their globalist bedfellows know this, yet they have the gall to invoke this nonexistent ‘unity’ and to piously proclaim that ”They” will not divide ”us.”

There is no ‘us’ in this country that encompasses all of us, across all the boundaries that I mention above. The powers-that-be and their media stooges have made sure of that. Their constant divisive rhetoric, their ‘divide-and-rule’ memes have left their mark on our society. Sadly few people recognize that these divisions need not exist in the extreme form in which they’ve taken shape even in the last 10 or 15 years. I have to say, when I started blogging only 11 years ago, we were not nearly as riven with dissension and intra-racial animus as we are now.

The same can be said of other once-White countries, to a greater or lesser extent. This is a big part of why we are so vulnerable to what is happening to us now. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (Sadly that last sentence is often attributed to Lincoln when he was merely quoting Jesus Christ).

As far as poisonous memes go, I have to mention another one: this ridiculous idea that if we alter our lives in response to terrorism, if we show fear or even sensible prudence and caution, we are ‘giving in to the terrorists’, because taking precautions against terrorism means, bizarrely, that ”the terrorists will have won.”  So go right out and take chances and risks, as a way of defying those terrorists, whose aim is only to ‘make us change our way of life‘ because they ‘envy our freedoms.

It seems to me that their aim is to kill as many of us as they can and to terrorize us, to make us passive. Incidentally this latter seems to be the goal of the powers-that-be, and our governments. Maybe they are just using Islam and its intrinsic aggression and violence to keep us resigned and passive. False flags? Why bother? Just let the moslems do what comes naturally to them, and there’s no need for complicated false flag conspiracies and crisis actors, etc.

But to return to the original theme of this post, the main work of dividing the once-homogeneous societies was done years ago by the architects of multiculturalism. We tend to blame the leftist parties and politicians, people like Emmanuel Celler and Philip Hart, or Teddy Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. But the GOP has been complicit in this too.

The George W. Bush administration was the main promoter of the meme about how ‘the terrorists will have won’ unless we learn to be oblivious to the terror attacks going on around us.  That meme is seeing a lot of service these days, along with ‘they won’t divide us.’

At the Smash Cultural Marxism blog there’s a very good piece dealing with the ‘unity’ memes, pointing out that we are already divided thanks to ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism, via mass immigration. The time for the ‘they won’t divide us’ mantra would have been pre-1965 in America, before they ripped apart the fabric of our society with mass immigration and slow-motion ethnic cleansing/race replacement.

The time for Britain to have defiantly said ‘they won’t divide us’ would have been pre-1948, before the arrival of the Windrush. As Andrew Joyce points out in the article on the Windrush, the role of Jews was very prominent in that event, which should come as no surprise. So perhaps the roots of the multicultural divisiveness go back much further.

They have divided us already; the division is an accomplished fact. How we can walk things back and restore the cohesion and commonality that once existed is a complicated question.

We’ve already been divided, so pretending that there is some kind of imaginary unity between us and Islam — or us and Jews, or whoever else — is very hollow.

The defiant proclamation ‘they won’t divide us’ should be directed toward those who are responsible for shredding our society every which way, and that ‘they‘ is not nationalists or nativists.