Home » ethnopatriotism

Category Archives: ethnopatriotism

Do we care?

Posted on by | 6 Comments

I’ve got my ballot ready to go; it will be deposited tomorrow first thing.

Like most people on the right, I see this election as the most crucial one of my lifetime. I don’t see how anyone on our side could sit this one out.

I care about my nation — by which I mean that I care about the people of this country, the ‘generational Americans’, the ‘legacy Americans’, or ‘birthright Americans’, the Posterity of the Founders. We are the ones with everything to lose now. Not the rest.

But when I ask, “do we care?” I mean: have we grown so complacent, so jaded, so apathetic, and in the case of the dissident right, have we grown so disillusioned and so alienated from the “normies”, also known as ‘the sheeple’ or ‘Amurkans’ that we are wishing for it all to come down?

To me, my nation is like my family. I have some lefty relatives, and lately I am ashamed to claim them. Some of us were temporarily not on speaking terms due to their confrontational political rantings in my presence. But the fact is they are still my kin, and we still share ancestry and memories, good as well as bad. They may ultimately see the light, God willing. I am not willing to write them off. And I hope some of our ignorant lefty countrymen may come around to the Truth. So I can’t hate them.

But do we care in that we still at least make our voices known, even suspecting that politics and voting alone will not save us? I keep on with this blog although I suspect that it’s a vain effort on my part; I often feel I am writing for about five people out there, and the comments are few and far between. Am I just indulging myself here? Maybe so, and like many on the dissident right, in my little efforts here I may be putting myself on the radar screen of the powers-that-be, even though this blog is insignificant in terms of traffic and even less significant in terms of influence. But I feel duty-bound to make my voice heard even though I reach few and influence fewer. I honestly believe we will be held accountable for what we failed to do, for failing to speak up on the side of right and Truth, in whatever small way we can find. The point is to raise our voices; we can only do what we can do, regardless of how little the apparent result.

“I do not believe the greatest threat to our future is from bombs or guided missiles. I don’t think our civilization will die that way. I think it will die when we no longer care. Arnold Toynbee has pointed out that 19 of 21 civilizations have died from within and not by conquest from without. There were no bands playing and flags waving when these civilizations decayed. It happened slowly, in the quiet and the dark when no one was aware.” – Laurence M. Gould, former president of Carleton College, 1968

 

No predictions, but…

Posted on by | 2 Comments

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?

 

Absolutely true

Posted on by | 6 Comments

from-fb-2016-11-03_043823

This was posted on Facebook.  I found it on Morgoth’s blog, on a thread which is featuring memes which could be used in trying to engage Hillary voters and the brainwashed left. Could it be useful? I like it because it is absolutely true. The kind of thinking that is denounced as ‘extremist’, ‘hateful’, and ‘bigoted’ was common to most normal people back then; even Democrats had views that are considered reprehensible today.  Yet right and wrong don’t change with time. Truth is not based on shifting, fickle public opinion. What was good and right in 1965 still is.

First we have the election ahead of us. I hope to persuade some of my lefty relatives to stay home and not vote; that may be the best possibility of preventing the disaster that the election might bring.

Old nations, new countries

Posted on by | 4 Comments

Germans and Swedes were recently told via advertising and other propaganda that their countries are essentially gone, and that they must integrate into a ‘new country,’ apparently multicultural and multiracial.

Despite the fact that we’ve all been watching this unfold, and we’ve all heard that the endgame is submersion of the indigenous peoples of Europe in a Third World tidal wave, it’s still shocking to hear it said so blatantly.

In Sweden, a tax-funded TV ad created by a government-backed “charity” called “Individuell Manniskohjalp” (Individual Relief), or IM, informs Swedes that their old country is never coming back. Translated to English, the slogan for the campaign is #TheNewNation. “There is no way back,” the ad begins. “Sweden will never be like it was. Europe is changing and Sweden is needed as a safe space for people who seek refuge. Now we must look forward and find a way to live side by side.”

As African and Middle Eastern faces intermixed with Swedish faces cycle through on the screen, the ad informs viewers that Sweden is in for some dramatic changes. “It’s time to realize the new Swedes will claim their space, and will take up room with cultures, languages and customs,” the narrators say in Swedish, alternating between male and female voices. “It’s time we see this as a positive force. The new country is about shaping a new future.”

The closest “our” country has come to spelling it out has been in the incident in Minnesota, in which Governor Mark Dayton told his constituents, the taxpaying citizens of that state, that if they don’t like mass Somali (and presumably, other) immigration, they must get out of the state, and find new homes.

The increasingly explicit message, in Germany, Sweden, and in Minnesota is: you citizens and native-born people no longer have any rights in your birthplace. You are not citizens but subjects in a totalitarian state, one in which you have no say, and no rights, except the right to shut up or get out. But if some wish to get out, per Mark Dayton’s advice, where do they go? The globalist regime is implementing the same twisted and tyrannical plan everywhere in the West.

We can see the handwriting on the wall as the situation in France worsens, with France on the brink of some kind of armed conflict. The recent attack on four policemen in Viry-Châtillon, where the officers were set on fire, has escalated things. Tiberge at Gallia Watch tells us that France is preparing for an ethnic civil war.

This is the entirely foreseeable and inevitable result of forcing mass immigration, mainly from Mohammedan countries, on France. Because anyone with an ounce of good sense could predict the outcome of decades of coerced ‘diversity’, it is inexcusable that those in authority continue to push more and more immigration and ‘tolerance.’ It beggars belief to blame this on just malfeasance or blundering; it’s deliberate. I concluded long ago that the explanation had to be either extreme stupidity and incompetence, or deliberate malice. And I don’t believe that the Oligarchs are that stupid and clueless.

Interestingly, Tiberge’s piece at Gallia Watch contains this passage:

Philippe de Villiers revealed the existence of secret, discreet agreements of submission, beyond the pale of legality, with the complicity of the French State, to surrender quietly portions of French territory to Islamic sharia law. The collaborating State is already negotiating with the invader.”

Not long ago I posted a link to piece quoting from a supposed ‘inside source’ in the UK who spoke of a plan in which at least some European leaders had a covert agreement with the Islamics to cede certain areas to them, or implicitly, to surrender the whole country provided they retained their positions as quisling puppets, presumably, within their respective countries. Nobody seems to be discussing that subject, though it is hinted at here and there. It seems more and more plausible to me that the deal is already done, and that the governments are now feeling bold enough to take off the masks and lay down the law, as the German and Swedish authorities (collaborators?) are doing.

Of course we’ve been aware for ages that there is a globalist agenda, and a plan to eradicate nations under some kind of One World system. But just because it hasn’t been officially announced in the Mainstream Media, some still insist that this is tinfoil-hat paranoia. But here it is, being put out in the open.

And when I speak of eradicating ‘nations’, I don’t just mean the geopolitical entities or the governmental apparatus, but ‘nations’ in the original, true sense: nations are peoples. They consist of flesh-and-blood human beings. The quote in my previous post, from Corneliu Codreanu, was dead-on; it’s about destroying nations.

Note: For an interesting piece on Philippe De Villiers, and the validation of some of his predictions about France, see this.

Relabeling the South

Posted on by | 2 Comments

There’s a blog piece here on the idea of relabeling the people of the Southern States, or at least those of the old Confederacy as ‘Dixians.’ I believe in holding to the old ways, as those who read here know. And the idea of the new flag of the South (the black ‘X’ on a white field) is not one I can be enthusiastic about. I’ve written about this before, and I know that amongst the younger generation, the idea is popular, but that still doesn’t sell it to me.

I do know that the ‘x’ on the flag is not the letter ‘x’ but represents St. Andrew’s Cross, as it appears on both the Scottish flag and the Union Jack, where it is layered with the St. George’s Cross of the English.

Traditionally — and I suspect the younger, secular folk don’t know this, the St. Andrew’s Cross symbolized the Biblical patriarch Jacob, with his crossed-arms blessing on his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh. As many of the young are agnostic/atheist/pagan or just a-religious people from once-Christian families it’s likely this symbolism is unknown to them and that it lacks meaning for them even when explained. Likewise, their black X on a white field is devoid of meaning for me — and I suspect it would have no real resonance for most Southrons. I agree with the following comment from the blog, regarding both new names and new flags:

relabeling_2016-10-25_054930

Yes, definitely — something like a flag, or a name, can’t be just coined out of thin air and imposed on people. It has to come from the folk, and from the heart more than the head.

And the idea of changing the name of the people of the South is very reminiscent of how blacks re-label themselves every so often (or are re-named by the PC commissars who decreed that ‘colored’ had to be replaced by ‘negro’ which had to be changed to ‘black’ which gave way to ‘African-American.’) Obviously it was thought that the negative image was associated with the name, and changing the name would eliminate the “stigma”. Admittedly those who invented the new flag thought that a new name would remove the stigma attached to the South and its symbols.

But will it? Are the left that easily fooled? If the new flag catches on, will that prevent the $PLC from denouncing it as a ‘symbol of hate’? Really? Likewise, with a name change for the people of the South. The people  of the South, however educated, polite, urbane, and ‘respectable’ will forever be depicted as rednecks, bigots, hillbillies, and the rest of the insults. I (and my then-readers) had those slurs hurled at us on the old blog. Nobody is exempt, if they support the South and its history and heritage.

And then there’s the fact that to renounce the old flag, the flag under which our ancestors fought, is essentially conceding defeat to the Left and the anti-Whites. I hope to meet my ancestors in eternity one day, (not just yet, though) and I want to meet them knowing that I kept faith with them, and did not disgrace them in renouncing them and the cause they fought for — the Southern land and people and Christian heritage.

‘Touch not the ancient landmark’. That flag and the statues, they fall under that category, as I understand it.

Look, I know it’s hip and cool to follow after European ‘isms’ like ‘Identitarianism’ but we do not need to look to European intellectuals to interpret the world for us; we are not second-rate European descendants who have to rely on them to impart the truth. Good luck to them; I wish our European cousins well. But their ways of thinking are not those of this country and its heritage. Truth never becomes passe; fashion and popular opinion are passing, trifling things.

Ethnonationalism or ethnopatriotism are things of the heart, not the intellect, when it comes down to it. When we swell with pride hearing a national anthem or see our flag raised in battle — these things have inspired many songs, poems, and stories — that comes from within the heart, and cannot be artificially created.

The ultimate in xenophilia

Posted on by | Leave a comment

Some of us have used the term ‘xenophilia’ to describe the attitudes and behaviors of the multicultists, the diversity maniacs, those who value every race and people except their own. But it is not by any means limited to those people, as it is common across the political spectrum, as witness the tendency for men in different parts of the world to seek wives/brood mares from outside their ethny or race. The article tells of Chinese men, facing a shortage of potential mates in their own vast country seeking out Russian women in particular.

‘All the girls who we invited are under 35 years old. Initially men want to see brides with white skin and blue eyes – funnily enough, though, last year the girls who got into a relationship were brunettes with brown eyes.’

It’s odd that we often read how Asian people are ethnocentric and prefer their own kind, but this seems to belie that idea.

Meanwhile, back in Russia, the men seem to passively accept that their women are being spirited off to marry men in far-off countries — including the United States, Australia, and Europe, as well as China. Why this is, I haven’t got a clue; is it because Russian men have learned to devalue their women?

Speaking of devaluing one’s own females, read the first comment below the linked Siberian Times article. A young man from Louisiana states his intention to find a Chinese bride because he is “done with white women.” Does the whole situation not strike anyone as crazy? American men increasingly dislike American women (“fat, ugly, shrewish, masculinized”) while they seek Asian wives while Asian men seek Russian wives, while Russian men — seek what? Talk about games of musical chairs.

I am sure Count Coudenhouve-Kalergi is rejoicing wherever he is. His ‘dream’ for the future of Europeans is now being played out in bizarre ways.

On another blog, Morgoth’s Review I believe, someone expressed the idea that the antagonism and outright antipathy between the sexes seems like part of the cultural Marxist agenda, to drive a wedge between the sexes and thus to decrease intraracial marriages within White countries. Even having European-descended peoples marry outside their ethny (but still vaguely within their race) serves the agenda of mixing people up, breaking bonds of kinship and culture, decreasing the rootedness and stability within nations and ethnic groups. Whether we get the slow treatment of gradually ‘diversifying’ nations by inter-ethnic marriages first, leading to acceptance of further outmarrying, outside racial boundaries, or jump straight to miscegeny, the destination is the same, ultimately. I do believe that the gradual breakdown of boundaries in this country, first, by inter-European marriages and the trend toward people with mixed European heritage over time led to the gradual weakening of kinship loyalties and bonds. The melting pot idea and the idea that ”we’re all Americans, that’s all that matters” led inexorably to the present levels of interracial mating.

On the Al Fin, Next Level blog where I found the link to the Siberian Times story, he discusses the reasons why so many Russian women are being exported (or exporting themselves) to various places around the world,  for the purpose of either sexual exploitation or relatively benign ‘marriage bureaus.’ Why aren’t their men — fathers, brothers, boyfriends, or simply Russian men wanting good wives — making more of a fuss about their women being commodities sought out by foreign men? It sounds as though, from the information presented, the men are demoralized and suffering from what social scientists call ‘anomie’, often alcoholics or using drugs. They seem to be less physically healthy than their women, having a considerably shorter life expectancy. I’ve observed in some Russian immigrants living in our country that they tend to be heavy smokers and drinkers. (Notice I didn’t say ‘most’ or ‘all’, but it’s a noticeable tendency).

It may be that the same propaganda forces are at work there; I do believe that there truly is an effort on the part of the powers-that-be to divide every group in society, and the antagonism between the sexes in our country — even more so than in Europe, as I see it — is being egged on and manipulated. Men blame women; some women blame men. Why can’t we split the difference and say both sides bear their share of blame? Each side, or at least the extremists on both sides of the sexual divide, want to put 110 percent of the blame on the opposite sex. That’s not realistic.

Feminists are wrong, but to some degree so are their male counterparts.

But back to the Russians: Al Fin often describes the demographic decline in Russia. If we, that is we ethnonationalists, want all the various European peoples to survive and flourish, we should care about Russia’s future, and we should hope that their women would be able to stay at home (Russia is their rightful home) and not have to be basically sold off to men on the other side of the planet. We should hope that all Russian men who want to marry Russian women (the optimum choice), then this game of shuffling women around the planet should ideally be stopped.

Or do some of us believe that the Russian men shouldn’t mind their women being poached, as long as the poachers are ‘White’? That seems to be the strange rationalization on the part of many WNs.

As much as I take a contrarian, somewhat skeptical view of Russia, I truly do wish the Russian people well, and hope that they will not have their distinctive heritage, their DNA, and their particular talents and gifts, diluted by being mixed in with many nations. I wish that for all of our European peoples. Ethnicity does matter. Ethnicity is also not a social construct.

On the generational warfare front…

Posted on by | 1 Comment

If the following was written about most groups, it would be considered some kind of incitement. Which it is.

Anonymous” —- said…

Old people are committing White genocide. Baby boomers are DESTROYING the next generation of Whites. Generation identitaire are correct.

The older generation are RAPING the young, forcing them to fund their retirements with rent.

A backlash will occur. Old whites are going to hell. When Tim Wise’s clock stops ticking, immigrants will vote to not pay them.

Old retired whites ARE destroying the white race, and none of them seem to care. “But I paid into my retirement account my whole life.” Maybe they did, but ALL that money is gone. The younger generations actually owe them nothing. The western social welfare ponzi scheme is white genocide.”

Wonder which generation the writer is part of, and how he would justify his generation’s existence? What have he and his age cohort done to reverse things? Let some of these daddy-haters explain themselves and their (lack of) action other than reviling their parents and/or grandparents and cheering for their demise.

Until proven otherwise, these people are plants/operatives paid to sow division or to exacerbate division that already exists. Or they are self-haters, because you cannot, can not love your folk while hating your progenitors.

Hate is a natural human emotion. It is part of our makeup. It is not condemned in the Bible as a sin. We are to hate what is evil — but that’s not enough. We are to love that which is good, and cleave to it.

Hating our own folk is not consistent with being pro-White or an ethnopatriot. Anyone who preaches this kind of elder-loathing venom should be called out on it. And no one is doing so. Apparently it’s OK with most, judging by the loud silence.

 

‘Come and take it’

Posted on by | Leave a comment

The following is a reworking of a post I made about 9 years ago on the old blog:

This time ever year, the ‘Come and Take It!’ festival, in Gonzales, Texas, is held. Gonzales County is where six generations of my kin have lived and died.

Gonzales, as it happens,  was the site of the first shot fired in the Texas Revolution, on October 2, 1835. For this reason, Gonzales has been called the ‘Lexington of Texas,’ and ‘the Birthplace of Texas Independence.’

The ‘Come and Take It’ festivities include a battle re-enactment at Pioneer Village, races, a historical presentation, parades, food booths, and music.

From Wikipedia:

“Gonzales is one of the earliest Anglo-American settlements in Texas, the first west of the Colorado River. It was established by Empresario Green DeWitt as the capital of his colony in August 1825. DeWitt named the community for Rafael Gonzáles, governor of Coahuila y Tejas.

[…]Gonzales is referred to as the “Lexington of Texas” because it was the site of the first skirmish of the Texas Revolution. In 1831, the Mexican government had granted Green DeWitt’s request for a small cannon for protection against Indian attacks. At the outbreak of disputes between the Anglo settlers and the Mexican authorities in 1835, a contingent of more than 100 Mexican soldiers was sent from San Antonio to retrieve the cannon.

When the soldiers arrived, there were only 18 men in Gonzales, but they refused to return the cannon, and soon men from the surrounding area joined them. Texians under the command of John H. Moore confronted them. Sarah DeWitt and her daughter sewed a flag bearing the likeness of the cannon and the words “Come and Take It,” which was flown when the first shots of Texan independence were fired on October 2, 1835. The Texians successfully resisted the Mexican troops in what became known as the Battle of Gonzales.”

After this opening shot in the Texas revolution was fired, a number of dramatic events led the way to the independence of Texas. Along the way were decisive events, such as the Alamo, and the terrible massacre at Goliad, and the victory at San Jacinto.

These events are part of my family history, as they are for many old-stock Texas families; they are real events to me, not just dry dates and facts in a history textbook. There are family names on those memorials, citing the names of my kin who died there. The Goliad massacre is especially heart-wrenching:

“Boys, they are going to kill us—die with your faces to them, like men!”……two other young men, flourishing their caps over their heads, shouted at the top of their voices: ‘Hurra for Texas!’

Can Texas cease to cherish the memory of those, whose dying words gave a pledge of their devotion to her cause? — Capt. Jack Shackelford, Survivor of the Massacre”

It’s surprising how few people outside Texas are aware that Texas actually won its independence from Mexico. There is a kind of tragic irony to the fact that at this time, there is talk of a merger between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I have to wonder what my Texan colonist ancestors would think had they known that only a few generations after their heroic efforts to win Texas’ independence, that Mexico would seemingly be taking Texas by stealth colonization and by demographic conquest. I can only believe my steadfast forefathers would be astounded at the actions of our present-day leaders and their kowtowing to a failed third-world country to our south, and at our submissive posture.

My ancestors, along with other DeWitt colonists, were there by invitation of the Mexican government. Those colonists were productive, industrious, can-do people; they created Texas in what was an untamed wilderness. There was no Mexican settlement there of any note; the Mexicans could not establish flourishing colonies therem because they were not able to subdue the fractious Indian tribes. So they brought in Americans to do that.

The colonists were not needy, not coming hat in hand, to ask for employment or help from Mexico. They were self-reliant, unlike the colonists who are coming north now into the United States. Despite their recently-coined reputation for ‘hard work’, today’s Mexican colonizers are in no way comparable to those Americans who came and built Texas.

Now the situation is reversed, with Mexicans colonizing Texas, largely by stealth, although most of our politicians are giving the Mexican colonists tacit approval and a covert invitation. Inviting them, it appears,  to come and to take Texas, which it seems they are enthusiastically doing.

gonzls

Our Texas forefathers, when they flew the ‘Come and Take It’ flag, used that phrase in defiance of the Mexican authorities, in refusing to surrender their cannon. When they used these words, they were knowingly echoing the defiant taunt ‘Molon Labe‘ – or ‘come and take them’  by Spartan King Leonidas, directed at the Persian King Xerxes at Thermopylae . Xerxes offered to spare Leonidas and his men if they gave up their weapons and surrendered. Xerxes refused, knowing they were vastly outnumbered. ‘Molon labe’ — ‘come and take them’, was the defiant answer of the Spartans, despite the fact that they  numbered only three hundred. Still, they held off the much larger force of 600,000 Persians for seven days. They fought to the last man. Although they were crushed by the Persians, their brave example inspired the Greeks to resist the Persians and later defeat them at Salamis, which was a momentous and decisive victory, affecting the whole course of Western history.

Interestingly, many liken Thermopylae to the Alamo:

“There are times when a defeat can become a triumph. Just as the heroic death of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae gave courage to the rest of Greece; so the last stand of a handful of brave Texians in a fortified Mission became a rallying cry for Texas’ independence: Remember the Alamo!”

Like the roll call of the defenders of the Alamo, the name of every individual Spartan who died at Thermopylae was remembered for as long as ancient Sparta endured. They were engraved on a stone tablet in Sparta that could still be read over seven centuries later. Will the Alamo still stand in 700 years? Would it matter? It is what the Alamo represents that is immortal, not the tangible remains of the buildings. Heroism, once achieved and honored, is never forgotten entirely.”

In paying tribute to those massacred at Goliad, Gen. Thomas Rusk, in his poignant speech at the site, said

“FELLOW SOLDIERS: In the order of Providence we are this day called upon to pay the last sad offices of respect to the remains of the noble and heroic band, who, battling for our sacred rights, have fallen beneath the ruthless hand of a tyrant. Their chivalrous conduct entitles them to the heartfelt gratitude of the people of Texas. Without any further interest in the country than that which all noble hearts feel at the bare mention of liberty, they rallied to our standard. Relinquishing the ease, peace, and comforts of their homes, leaving behind them all they held dear, their mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives, they subjected themselves to fatigue and privation, and nobly threw themselves between the people of Texas and the legions of Santa Anna.

There, unaided by re-inforcements and far from help and hope, they battled bravely with the minions of a tyrant, ten to one. Surrounded in the open prairie by this fearful odds, cut off from provisions and even water, they were induced, under the sacred promise of receiving the treatment usual to prisoners of war, to surrender. They were marched back, and for a week treated with the utmost inhumanity and barbarity. They were marched out of yonder fort under the pretense of getting provisions, and it was not until the firing of musketry did the shrieks of the dying, that they were satisfied of their approaching fate. Some endeavored to make their escape, but they were pursued by the ruthless cavalry and most of them cut down with their swords. A small number of them stand by the grave – a bare remnant of that noble band. Our tribute of respect is due to them; it is due to the mothers, sisters, and wives who weep their untimely end, that we should mingle our tears with theirs. In that mass of remains and fragments of bones, many a mother might see her son…
[…]while liberty has a habitation and a name, their chivalrous deeds will be handed down upon the bright pages of history.”

And will their chivalrous deeds be remembered, when Texas is de facto Mexican territory, a Spanish-speaking province, which will no doubt see this history very differently than we, the posterity of those massacred there? Are we honoring their memory by meekly giving back what they bought with their blood?

These are questions I ponder when I think of those fateful events in Texas. Will the Alamo still stand in 700 years, the Alamo Journal writer cited earlier asks. Given current trends, will the Alamo still stand in 70 years, much less 700? Will the Lone Star flag still fly over it then, or the Stars and Stripes? Or will the Mexican flag with its bird of prey be flying there? If anyone remembers the Alamo, will they remember that small group of valiant defenders, or will they be honoring Santa Anna?

I hope the writer is right; that the heroism of those Texas patriots at the Alamo and at Goliad and all the rest,  will be remembered and honored; I hope that what they fought and died for will not be overturned by our supine tolerance of the slow-motion invasion which threatens now to undo all that our forefathers shed their blood to establish.

In praise of narrowness

Posted on by | Leave a comment

On another dissident-right blog, a commenter is taken to task by several others; the charge is that he (or she?) is ‘too negative‘, especially towards other White ethnic groups or nationalities. I know that this attitude, this idea that one must not speak critically of other White ethnicities, is often de rigueur among WNs, because their belief system  holds that our White skin is our identity, not our specific ethnic group or tribe. By this particular tenet (which seems to place me outside the WN camp) ethnicity is too narrow an identification; survival necessitates that we identify with all people of European descent or else perish, because we cannot allow the petty divisiveness of ethnic identities; doing so is inviting our obliteration as a race.

However there are some quibbles here; some WNs define the White race more narrowly, excluding Mediterraneans, broadly speaking. The writer H.P. Lovecraft would probably have fallen into this camp, although I believe no one used the term ‘White Nationalist’ in his day, to my knowledge. I believe he called himself an Anglo-Saxonist, identifying most with his particular ethnic group, though he acknowledged he didn’t fit the stereotype of the blond, Viking-looking Northman which is important to some Nordicists, who believe very much in going by phenotypes. (And yes, phenotypes are useful).

However, though Lovecraft was Anglo-Saxonist by his own description, he embraced Northwestern/Northern Europeans generally as being his kinsmen. This is expressed in his personal writings. He did not think that all Europeans were his kinsmen in the same way that Northern Europeans were, and especially Englishmen.

Lovecraft, then, is often criticized by those who think that Lovecraft was excluding them or their ancestors from his kin group; they see his opinions as being bigoted or lacking in solidarity with all Europeans, which is now becoming the correct position amongst many on the pro-White or WN or Alt-Right side.

To be accused of being too narrow in one’s loyalties or identifications carries with it the implicit, or sometimes explicit, charge of jeopardizing White survival by refusing to embrace a pan-European identity in preference to narrow loyalty to one’s nearer kin. The rhetoric goes that only by uniting as one White race, irrespective of any genetic, linguistic, religious, or cultural distinctions, can Whites/European-descended people survive. Unite, by putting aside your petty ethnic loyalty, or die, your race forever extinct.

But is this the only choice? Is this the one option for Whites or European peoples?

History shows us many examples of genetically similar peoples, closely akin, who were frequently at war with each other. To the outsider, the differences between such clashing peoples is often not detectable. Ukrainians and Russians appear similar to most casual outside observers, and they are at odds. Also, many people cannot see why the Protestant Northern Irish (Ulstermen) and the Catholic Irish of the North have a long history of bloodshed between them. No, it is not just about religion, but about ethnicity and different cultures as well. Granted, though, the ethnic differences are not all that great, as DNA shows. Likewise with the Irish and the English; all the British Isles peoples are fairly close genetically, but to each people, especially those identifying as ‘Celtic’, the differences are all-important.

If these closely-related peoples cannot get along, how can we expect peoples as dissimilar as Greeks and Scandinavians, or Finns and Portuguese, or Icelandic people and Corsicans, to think of one another as equally brothers, except in the most abstract sense?

We’ve seen how well that has worked out in America where we are all officially ‘one people’ and yet many ethnicities still have frictions between them despite long-time contact and the ‘unifying’ factor of Americanized culture. Yes, even people of differing European ethnicities have clashed and prefer to maintain their own cultures and enclaves.

How many Europeans and European-descended people on this planet are there? We are scattered widely from South America to Australia/New Zealand to Iceland and Greenland to North America, Southern Africa, and to Europe proper. How can we come to think of such a dispersed and disparate collection of peoples as equally our brethren, having an equal claim to our loyalty and support? I say it’s not practicable. Just as with the ‘One World’ mentality, our loyalties and attachments cannot be stretched that far without being so attenuated as to be nonexistent. We are built for concentric circles of loyalties, with those of our nearest genetic connections, our immediate families, being the strongest bonds, and as the circle of loyalties go outward, the bonds necessarily grow weaker. Those who are most distant not only geographically but genetically command the least claim on our obligations and affections.

It’s all but impossible for mere humans to love something distant and abstract. This is the weakness of the ‘One planet, one people’ nonsense, which is the globalist mantra. Brainwashed churchians and lefties notwithstanding, we just can’t love the distant and the unseen in the same way that we love those nearest to us and closest to us by blood bonds.

So if it’s sin in the pro-White world to prefer one’s own close kinsmen over far-distant relatives, then I plead guilty. No doubt I would be eighty-sixed from the blog I refer to in the opening paragraph of this post for being ”divisive” and “negative” towards my brothers from countries on the other side of the globe, and so be it. After all, in this increasingly New-Age, pop-psychology oriented world we live in, being “negative” is Sin Number One. Thou Shalt Not Be Negative, saith the feel-good law as expounded by people like Oprah and Dr. Phil and probably Joel Osteen. And especially shalt thou not be negative towards The Other, the Sacred Other. For most people, the Sacred Other about whom we must not be negative means specifically People of Color, or Immigrants of whatever color.But what if the truth is negative?

For the Pan-Europeanist, we must not be negative towards the Other European, even if they do in fact have bad cultural habits or at least, if you shrink from making ‘value judgments’  then let’s say some Others have traits that are just not compatible with our own ways of doing things.

For example, when I was in the New York City area, I quickly learned that having to ‘grease people’s palms’ was a necessary part of getting things done. You will be told that something can’t be done until you slip someone some money and suddenly it can be done. You’ve heard of the ‘baksheesh’ system; it’s not just in the Middle East. In Mexico it’s called ‘mordida.’ This kind of thing seems most common in Mediterranean countries or peoples, or those derived from that area. It isn’t generally an Anglo-Saxon thing.

So yes, in order for us to accommodate peoples from different cultures we end up absorbing some corrupt practices and habits. We compromised who we were, when we decided that we are all brothers under the skin.

Something has to give when disparate peoples are blended together. Most importantly of all, to be told that all Europeans are as brothers despite strong differences is just one step away from the multicult worldview that ‘we are all one race, the human race’, and that we all bleed red. We end by acquiescing in falsehoods, these denials of difference, and we live a lie. Christians cannot do this, not if they wish to live up to their faith.

Now we live under a tyranny of lies in which people are being punished, even prosecuted and jailed, for speaking ‘ill’ of some protected group, because noticing differences and speaking unpleasant truths offends. So we have let truth be suppressed in many instances. Are we not to note the drawbacks of having those unlike ourselves living amongst us? Shall we choose, if we ever get out from under the globalist tyranny, to live in multicultural societies made up of disparate Europeans? It would be preferable to the Coudenhove-Kalergi nightmare, but it would still be fraught with problems. A European mega-nation would also be polyglot, multicultural, and multilingual, unless we want to impose one language and one culture.

To want to preserve our own peoples, languages, cultures, and traditions does not mean ‘hating’ our fellow Europeans/Whites. To say that ethnoloyalty is hatred of outsiders is the kind of cheap rhetoric that the leftist/multi-cultist uses towards us now. It should be beneath WNs or any pro-Whites to use such manipulation.

We can surely make common cause, offer moral and other support to our counterparts in Europe and elsewhere without trying to invent some pro-White version of the EU, which itself is proto-globalist. We can be allies with our kinsmen without putting them on a par with our more immediate kin, or without giving them all free rein to enter our countries at will. To imply otherwise is dishonest or foolish.

Personally I have always enjoyed other cultures at an arm’s length, and I am not in the habit of being hostile to people because of their different ethnic origins or even racial origins. But I still maintain that good fences make good neighbors. We all have relatives that, though they are our kin, we would not welcome as permanent guests in our homes. Why, then, should we be expected to welcome distantly-related strangers into our countries? Remember our countries are also our homes. Just as in English tradition, every man’s home is his castle, so our countries are our homes, our castles. They are our birthright and our rightful inheritance. Though the pan-Europeanist thinks that I must share my country with any White person who stakes a claim here, would those people reciprocate and give me the right to enter their country, and bring my extended clan with me? To impose this ideal on us all is depriving us of our sovereignty and our birthright, our homes, regardless of who the usurpers are.

And I ask this: what normal person, given that our Western countries are all being flooded with immigrants, thinks that it should be wrong to criticize these uninvited guests? I would say there is something off about people who still think that it is some kind of sin to object to more foreign neighbors, given the way in which our countries are being overwhelmed by strangers.

Are honest, factual, criticisms of other European peoples now ‘hatefacts’ as with racial Other groups? Is that acceptable?

I honestly suspect the motives of anyone who would chastise a kinsman for his honest feelings, while rushing to the defense of the poor immigrant, whoever he is. Loyalty is still a virtue, and loyalty to kin and kind comes first.

And real loyalties and loves must necessarily be narrow. We cannot be loyal to all things and all peoples, else it is not loyalty but promiscuity. Love by nature is exclusive, reserved for the closest and deepest bonds, else it is not love.