Words

We live in a very peculiar age, in which using a word can condemn us as individuals or as groups. There are certain words which are almost universally condemned in our society. But somehow the wrongness of a word hinges on who is using the word. One group of people can use such words with no objection from hearers, while others are castigated and perhaps even charged with crimes, and subject to legal sanctions, even imprisonment. Isn’t this a weird state of affairs? Why should this be?

How many people ever ponder the oddness of this situation? Surely if a word is wrong or forbidden, then it should be wrong for anyone to use the word.

And shouldn’t a society generally be in agreement about the intrinsic wrongness or offensiveness of a word? If general agreement should exist, (and it seems to me it should; such things should not be arbitrary and random) then surely the majority should decide which words are not to be tolerated, rather than a smaller group deciding unilaterally. Such a situation is tantamount to having dictatorial ruling groups deciding, if the majority have no say.

Mind you I am not a big fan of ‘democracy’ as it has played out in our current situation, but since our system pretends to honor ‘the will of the majority’ why are we content to kneel to the whim of a minority of — say — 15 percent?

If a small segment of a population can wield so much influence and control over the majority, can we be said to have anything like a ‘representative’ government? Our elected officials are more likely to cater to the loudest and most overbearing group as well as to wealthy factions who ally themselves to this demanding 14 or 15 percent.

So we have given up our freedom of speech in order to appear ‘fair’ to smaller groups who pretend to be harmed or traumatized by certain words. What kinds of words have such power? Mostly it amounts to simple slang terms or abbreviated words describing ethnic groups, regardless of whether those words contain any kind of insult or “slur” as they are usually called. The words designated as offensive and ‘hateful’ are judged as such by purely subjective criteria, and those who pay attention to this attempt to control speech will notice that the criteria change arbitrarily, when it comes to accusing people of wrong-speech or “hate” as it is described.

Is it a sin to call an American a ‘Yank’? Why not? Some of us don’t like the word ‘yank’, especially if the person so labeled is from the Southern states. But when we are in the UK or Australia we are often referred to as ‘Yanks’ or by semi-insulting terms like ‘Septics’ in Australia. (Septic=rhyming slang: ‘Septic tank’) So we could rightly claim offense but we aren’t prone to do that, so we accept it.

There are lots of ethnic designations that are simple abbreviations but yet they are considered OK if the target is of a White nationality. Some ethnic peoples don’t like terms like I-tie (Italian) or Mick or but when the label describes someone non-European in origin, then the term ‘hate speech’ is invoked. Some hapless woman in the Midwest, years ago, was turned in to the police (by some busybody eavesdropping on a private conversation) to report this woman saying ‘S—s should learn English.’ I think a jail sentence was her punishment — for a simple one-syllable word.

People have been killed for uttering a slang name to which someone objects, even saying that being called an ‘epithet’ drove them to kill the offender. Thus people have been given light sentences for murder because of a ‘taboo’ word.

Why are we so easily cowed by the power of these words?

The word that causes more high feelings is the familiar ‘r-word’, which has been given incredible amounts of power in our current day. And yet it is we and our undeniably corrupt legal system that have invested the word with the power to destroy lives, metaphorically if not always physically.

Why?

Why are we willing to condemn ourselves, or if not ourselves, then our kin and kind, because of a word? Some will say ”but it’s not just a word; it implies an evil attitude on the part of the speaker, and fear, plus psychological harm to the person to whom it’s directed.”

Again, how can something subjective be determined with certainty? Many ‘hate hoaxes’ have happened and do happen, and they are documented. In many cases the hoaxsters admit to concocting a false story. Yet such stories are treated as irrefutable right out of the box, because some people are held to be above scrutiny, and are not held to the same standards as the rest of us.

It’s become as if it’s unthinkable to hold certain people to any standard, much less to question their veracity. But any human being is capable of dishonesty, so why exempt anyone? One standard for all. But we know it doesn’t happen that way.

Today, in the wake of recent events, it seems a sizable segment of our population is obsessed with showing themselves to be concerned about the plight of this protected group, worrying that the ‘Democrats aren’t taking good care of” this group of people.

It seems that we are very solicitous and protective of certain groups, especially one, because it would appear that people see them as perpetual children, who need our protection and charity. In their estimation we owe them that, and more, indefinitely.

And now, it’s reached the point where our folk are willing to kneel and prostrate themselves to certain people. This seems like some kind of mental aberration which has taken hold on European-descended folk. Maybe it’s a sign of stress; it’s quite a strain to be under for all one’s life, to be told again and again how evil our ancestors were and how we are responsible for everyone’s troubles and disappointments in life, we and our evil genes.

Yet our reprobate ”leaders” and politicians side against us, and help load us down with more burdens of guilt and blame. These political hacks are not our ‘representatives’ nor are they our advocates nor are they our ‘friends’. If they are leaders, they are leading us to destruction.

How many times a day do we hear or read the ubiquitous ‘r-word’? Hundreds? Surely the word should lose some of its power, given how it is overused, ad nauseam? Or have we decided to surrender to that word?

And is the thing described by that word a ‘sin’ in God’s eyes? Let’s look at what the word is supposed to mean, (though we all know there is no fixed meaning; they keep changing the meaning according to expediency). At its core, the invented word (not in use before 1930s) just means wariness of, or dislike for, a particular ethnic group or people. I am talking about common parlance, not any fluid dictionary definition.

Is it a sin to dislike, or be wary of, a group of people? It may be unfair to judge a people as a group — so we’re told — but is it a sin, much less a crime?

Remember, it isn’t we who decide what constitutes a sin. That’s God’s prerogative. Popular vote, or peer pressure has no say in what is a sin. My neighbor may not approve of an act, as I might, but neither of us has the power to make it a ‘sin.’

So what ‘people’, even the majority say, about the ‘r-word’ holds no weight in a religious sense. That’s just fallible human opinion.

Is it possible to ‘love everyone’ as we’re always told? Is that required of Christians? The Bible condemns hating ‘our brother without a cause.’ Notice that phrase ‘without a cause.’ That phrase is there for a reason.

Most of us would not hate someone without a cause. Yet that is what the Left and the clueless Civic Nationalist right thinks is the case: ”just because of the color of their skin!”

Only an idiot would hate someone because of outward appearance, skin color, etc. Scarcely anybody is guilty of that. Yet it’s what the ‘r-word’ supposedly implies.

Very few on the right judge people just according to their skin color. It is because of drastically different behavioral patterns and cultures that friction, animosity, and misunderstanding happen — and will always happen, based on what history shows.

It is the liberal ‘right’ who think that we can shoehorn everyone into one country and pretend that no differences exist, that ‘we’re all one race, the human race.’

What makes the ‘patriotic civnats’ think that the Others want to be just like us? Our culture and our ways are laughed at by other ethnicities: we are bland, boring, we eat tasteless foods, we can’t dance, we have no coordination, and we’re silly dupes who are easily manipulated. And maybe there’s good reason for believing that last one. Remember ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me’? Yet it seems names and words have got us, in truth, on our knees.

Stopping immigration?

Is there any truth to that story which appeared yesterday? Is the President going to ‘ban immigration‘ from Mexico or anywhere else?

I am still waiting for his executive order ending birthright citizenship. Whatever happened to that? Evidently the political classes count on Americans having a very, very short attention span and a chronic case of amnesia when it comes to promises made by politicians.

It seems to me that Americans have come to expect — and to settle for — very little from their political leaders. Most of those who are pro-Trump are not upset at the lack of follow-through on these immigration issues (which played a big part in getting Trump nominated and elected) and they are loath to criticize anything he does or does not do.

Some of this may be because of the constant shrill carping and criticizing by the left, which produces an instinct to defend the President no matter what, but blind loyalty is never a good thing — all Presidents (well, most) are human and are capable of being wrong at times. But sometimes I have wondered whether the left’s constant attacks are a deliberate attempt to elicit knee-jerk reactions from the right. If so, it’s working like a charm. It worked during the G.W. Bush administration too, when a lot of Republicans defended ‘W’ and the Iraq war just because the left constantly attacked Bush. The same loyal Republicans also started attacking those to their right (anyone who didn’t support the war, or failed to defend W constantly.)

I did vote for Trump, but with considerable reservations about it.

It seems the ‘right’, very broadly speaking, is divided into the pro-Trump camp, and the Q believers. There is some overlap; they are mostly civic nationalists who are content with milk-and-water civnattery. Q’s message, from the drops I’ve seen, seems to be that we can have a kumbaya multicult society as long as everybody is ‘conservative’ and patriotic, and that division is only artificial, created solely by the left or the PTB, not by any innate or cultural differences.

That kind of blank-slate ‘Americanism’, plus the lack of will to do anything to slow, much less stop, mass immigration, will guarantee us a multicultural, polyglot, patchwork nation which is no nation. The die is cast, it appears to me. Half-measures — even half-measures would be better than what we are doing now — and half-truths and unkept promises, empty rhetoric — all adds up to defeat. I always said I would quit blogging once it seemed all hope was lost. I think ours is a lost cause and given the utter passivity I see in the way people are reacting to our present predicament I don’t expect to see the necessary changes that would salvage what is left of what was our country.

I believe that justice and truth will win, because ultimately Truth must prevail. But I don’t believe politics or politicians are to be our ‘salvation’. We have to look elsewhere for that.

People’s Party of Canada vs. multicult

Maxime Bernier, candidate for the People’s Party of Canada, is proposing a new policy regarding the increasing ‘diversity’ of Canada. Sometime ago I seem to remember that the Canadian government was sending out a call for ‘more diversity’, that is, more immigrants ‘of color’.

So why the need for rethinking the policy on increasing immigration, specifically, requesting immigrants unlike the founding — and once dominant — ethnic group?

David Grant at the Council of European Canadians blog, writes about this.

Speaking strictly for myself, I don’t know much about Canadian politics, but one thing that jumps out at me, as an American, is that Bernier’s ‘new’ ideas are not exactly new; those same ideas have been foisted on Americans, to replace our early beginnings as a nation made up mostly of people of British Isles descent, as well as some Northern and Western Europeans. As more and more disparate peoples were entering our country, and we soon had a polyglot population as increasingly exotic peoples immigrated here, it was gradually taught in schools that our nation was a set of propositions.

And this is the track on which Mr. Bernier would put Canada. Canada, at least officially, prides itself on its ‘diversity’ and its many cultures.

Bernier, it seems, wants to make Canada a proposition nation, in which people are Canadian by virtue of accepting a set of beliefs and ‘values.’

David Grant rightly points out that language, ethnicity, and history are ignored in Bernier’s plan:

Already he has shot himself in the foot. If Canada was just based off a sense of belonging and common values than why did the English and the French have to fight a war for the land? How will Maxime Bernier explain the distinct Quebecois identity that has been trying to tear away from Canada almost from inception? In these things Maxime’s belief makes it impossible to objectively understand Canada’s history. “

Bernier apparently repeats the line that we’ve so often heard from our politicians in the U.S.: the statement that Canada has ”always been diverse.” This is the official dogma in our country and in most Western countries. Both in Canada and in the U.S. it is false; both Canada and the U.S. had homogeneous populations early on, with the greatest percentage being of British descent — English as well as Scots and Irish. Just as this country was not ‘diverse’ according to the PC definition (meaning mostly POC’s). But this mantra ‘we were always diverse’ is a glaring bit of gaslighting, to condition people to accept the changes in their homeland(s).

It appears Mr. Bernier’s list of ‘values’ that should be core values of Canada include the usual: ‘freedom’ (in a vague general sense), freedom of religion, equality between the sexes, democracy, tolerance, pluralism, etc. Read the whole list at the link.

The question of what makes a nation is always very relevant these days. The comments below the article are worth reading; despite the official dogma about these subjects, the comments show that there are people in Canada who are not easily fooled, and they take issue with ithe status quo regarding, as Trudeau says, ‘what makes a Canadian.’

I believe that most thinking people in Western countries see through the offical rhetoric and propaganda, but even if Bernier’s new policy were to be implemented, I don’t see it making much difference; multiculturalism and multilingualism will prevail unless someone is finally able to gain influence and freedom to offer real changes inot imposed from the top down, but from the ground up.

Civic nationalism, as a substitute for natural ethnonationalism based on shared descent, religion, culture, and language, has always been a poor replacement.

‘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.

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.

 

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.

 

One (European) world

After reading yet another plea for White ‘internationalism’, in other words, White multiculturalism, I find myself compelled to reiterate why I believe this idea is wrong-headed and moreover, unlikely to be workable.

Looking at the practical side of it, how could all the disparate peoples of European descent (and they are disparate) be compelled to unite? By simply the threat of an outside enemy? That is the main argument usually; the White race is under dire threat from outside enemies who want us gone, or more accurately, under threat from enemies within and without. However it’s useful to remember that the European Union, once euphemistically called the ‘European Economic Union’ or ‘The Common Market’, was proposed as the way to shield Europe from an external threat.
propaganda poster, 1951

Poster above: from 1951

The storm clouds above the little girl have hammers and sickles, representing Eastern bloc Communism, obviously.

And how did that work out? Europeans under the EU have shown no greater resistance to outside threats, and in fact the Communist threat was simply internalized, while the European peoples still retain their differences. Many differences are good, but old grudges and grievances persist along with the healthy differences.

But suppose a ‘new and improved’ right-wing EU arose, with all the European peoples under one government, determined to amalgamate themselves into some kind of generic European. Putting aside the big cultural and genetic gaps that exist even within Europe, assuming that could all be dealt with easily, whose culture would be the dominant one? We’ve seen in all multicultural experiments, even with White American multiculturalism, that some group’s culture, by design or simply by natural strength, will dominate — or will be perceived as dominating. Whose would that be? In America, as Anglo-Saxons were the original and dominant group, theirs was the default to which newcomers were expected to assimilate and conform. And how did that work out? Centuries later, certain groups nurse grievances over things that they imagine (or read in a history book) their great-great-grandparents ‘suffered’ at the hands of the oppressor. Even ethnicities who appeared to have assimilated successfully have in recent decades suddenly ‘remembered’ or been taught that their ancestors were ‘done wrong’ by the WASP elites, and now they are born-again partisans of a nationality and culture that their ancestors left behind 100 or more years ago.

Likewise, with language. Whose language would be the ‘official’ language in some kind of White multinational empire? English would be the most plausible, given that a great many Europeans are fluent in it (Scandinavians and Dutch, for example) but imagine the Francophones, just to name one group, quietly accepting English as the, ahem, lingua franca of the new Empire?

And religion? Catholic and Protestant seem more divided than at any time in my lifetime, and then there are growing numbers of proponents of paganism or some form of ‘nature worship’ supposedly based on the legendary ‘old religion’ who are very eager to proselytize and push for the elimination of Christianity as being an ‘alien’ faith as they often insist. What then? Invent a new religion out of whole cloth, as some people propose? As if religion is something that one can cook up to order, to serve a purpose. A religion professes to be true. If it is not true, and is just an invention of some human mind (a la L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology) then it is no religion and would not answer people’s needs for truth and meaning.

And then there are the militant atheists, who seem to exist mostly amongst White people, for some reason.

Culture, language, religion, these are all important components of a working civilization. To lack cohesion or a common basis would be fatal to the success of constructing a new ‘union’.

Can we say that, at minimum, the people (I would say more properly, peoples) of that proposed new entity should have a common blood origin, based in kinship? Because at heart that is what a nation is: a people united by a common origin and ancestry.

And along with that common origin and shared ancestry goes a shared history, a shared heritage and memory, which is naturally passed down in a body of folklore and custom and legend and tradition: holidays, commemorations of past triumphs and trials. Every nation has its heroes (and villains, too), people who are real or semi-legendary who embody the nation’s archetype, the archetype of the unique character of that particular kin-group and people. America, despite the frequent sneers that America is not a ‘real’ nation and never was, once had all the above things, and those things I tried to re-introduce into the common consciousness when I first began to blog, but that doesn’t ‘sell’ anymore.

Absent a desire to remember our past, we seem to have died a little more since the days I first began blogging.

But are we in a real sense equal kin with all European-descended peoples? Maybe more Americans (or Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders) would feel more ‘inclusive’ towards Whites who are distantly related to us, but that is because we have been given infusions of multiculturalism from relatively early in our history, and have come to believe that people who are very different can ‘become us’ just by acquiring citizenship papers, or by learning a halting version of our language.

Many Europeans are not as ‘welcoming’ that way, because they have not been made to acclimate to ‘diversity’ as the Anglosphere nations have been. And, I suppose, good for them. The Eastern Europeans fit this category as of now, but suppose they too are made to acclimate to having very different people living in their midst?

Russia, remember, is a polyglot, multicultural, multiracial empire, even post-Soviet Russia.

I’ve lately begun to wonder if some of what is happening to the Western countries is in part happening because the globalists, who still sit firmly in charge, want European-descended peoples to react by willingly uniting and amalgamating. Obviously they have tried, via the EU, to do this, but it seems not to be proceeding as they want, and the Anglosphere still remains recalcitrant to some degree (Brexit, for example) and America’s (failed?)attempt to turn the clock back, to ‘Make America Great Again’.

White internationalism, or some kind of transcontinental Empire of Europeans would just be one more step, intentional or not, toward forming a ‘region’ which would fit nicely into the globalists’ theoretical One World system, divided into several ‘regions.’

It’s more centralization, which is not good.
It’s an attempt to fit disparate things and peoples together by political means. It is thus unnatural.

And most importantly, to me, it is based on the utopian idea that all European peoples are, or can be treated as, equals. This is a false idea, and a false god, truth be told. Since most Western countries have become hopelessly infected with the idea of ‘equality’ and egalitarianism, this would doom the project from the start. It is not true of nations, or of cultures, and especially not of flesh-and-blood human beings.

The idea of equality, of fungibility, of interchangeability, and of leveling out all differences in the name of the ‘rights of man’ or whatever slogan has been a toxic one on which our nation is mistakenly basing itself. To have a pan-European empire built on that false foundation would be a disaster.

Who’s culpable?

It’s become wearisome to even post on a terror attack when they predictably happen. Don’t misunderstand me; I am not expressing indifference to the victims, or to the country, whichever European or White country, where the latest attack occurs.

If anything, I care too much about the victims, thinking of the waste of human life and potential, especially among our besieged folk, and about their families and all those who loved the victims. Lives will be forever changed. I heard from an acquaintance in New York, after 9/11, of a little girl, a classmate of my friend’s twins, who lost both parents on 9/11. That little girl would now be 22 or so. Surely her life was changed irrevocably.

No doubt what happens in Britain, where the bones of many generations of my ancestors are buried, troubles me especially. I understand that many Americans feel no particular kinship to people in Britain, and considering that so many Americans now lack any genetic connection to Britain, I suppose they can’t be blamed for that.

Kinship, blood ties matter, even in a country which conditions us all to ‘civic nationalism’, telling us that birth on American soil makes brothers of us all. Not true, and even less true in today’s Britain, as illustrated by this now-viral photo from London yesterday.aliennation

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. There’s a reason why that photo, of all those available, went viral.

Meanwhile, the smarmy heads-of-state, after an event like yesterday’s, mouth their usual platitudes about ‘unity’, ‘coming together’ ‘reaffirming our nation’s values’, (meaning openness to outsiders, however hostile they are, and coerced diversity). Theresa May and as the Moslem mayor of London both recited such statements, though the London mayor was brazen enough to tell the British people that they had better get used to this kind of thing; after all, it’s “part and parcel” of life in a big city now. As I recall some official in France said roughly the same thing after an attack there. Will the passive and docile citizens of Western countries continue to accept this phony, condescending rhetoric about ”our values” or about “diversity and unity” — which, by the way, are opposites, and contradictory? Or is the passivity and docility merely an outward show, hiding inner misgivings and resentments?

The most disgusting bit of rhetoric, which is even used by many on the nationalist right, is the now-hackneyed statement that ”immigrants/Moslems are not the problem, only symptoms; they are just pawns in a game being controlled by the real powers, so it’s useless to direct anger at these pawns. They aren’t our real enemy.” The more liberal variation on this ‘argument’ is employed by the churchian types, who think ‘hatred’ or even honest anger, is wrong; if we give in to it, we are just reacting and playing into the hands of the enemy. If we do that, then ‘They will have won.’ Supposedly by refusing to show fear or act defensively, we are winning. Right.

Trouble is, who are the architects of all this? The shadowy ‘elites’, the globalist overlords? We know a few names; everyone’s heard of Soros. For some people, Jews are the ultimate cause behind the scenes, and the people who hold this view are often those who claim that immigrants are not the real problem. For others, the powers-that-be are simply the global corporate movers and shakers, the mega-rich, who are transnationalists and cosmopolitans, with no allegiance to any nation or people, faithful only to their own greedy interests.

Many Christians say only ‘spiritual forces of wickedness’ are truly to blame; everyone else is a pawn.

But without knowing who, exactly, is behind all this, and who is calling the shots — as they keep themselves mostly concealed — how can we act at all? Do we need to know the ultimate cause in order to save ourselves? Is it not more important to take steps against the visible agents of evil? It seems to me that that’s the only thing we can do: to focus on the proximate cause, the obvious and immediate actors in all this.

And who are the known actors? Elected politicians, hand-picked by corrupt political machines, who seem to be puppets acting for the shadowy elites. Then there are the traitorous and malice-driven ‘progressives’, antifa types. The media,  who seem to be nothing but lie merchants and ideologues, hostile to the real people of the countries they inhabit. And the Others, the colonizers, interlopers (whether legally or illegally), people with generational grudges against us and our countries.

The problem is not the Others alone, but at the moment it’s they who are killing us and our kinsmen in other countries.

The picture above illustrates that they are not of us; not us, can never be part of us.

The London attacker was born in the UK, showing that being ‘native’ to Britain no longer means much, if one is of foreign blood and origin, and especially if Islam is factored in.