Friday, April 21, 2017

Euronation

America is a white nation.

America is a Christian nation.

America is an Anglophone nation.

America is a nation built and led by white men.

America is a heterosexual nation.

America is a nation of male breadwinners and female homemakers.

America is a nation of natives born on its soil.

All of these assertions have been accurate for most of the country's history and remain accurate today. In contrast, the idea that America is a "nation of immigrants" is not accurate now nor was it accurate at any point in the past.

Despite that, none of those true statements are perceived as legitimate arguments for why America should continue to embrace these aspects of its character, while the mendacious falsity is treated as an argument for finally making it true by deluging the country with foreigners.

The phrase "nation of immigrants" first appeared in The New York Times in 1923 and for the first time in book form in 1935:


Truman, in 1952, was the first president to make use of it while in office.

Peak immigration occurred in 1890 when those born outside the US made up 14.7% of the country's population. At its historical height, then, 1-in-7 people living in the US were immigrants in a nation now putatively said to be comprised of them.

At the time of the nation-wrecking Hart-Celler act in 1965, only 1-in-20 residents were immigrants.

Anyone who claims America is a nation of immigrants is appallingly ignorant, lying through his teeth, or both--and there's a good chance he has to go back.

38 comments:

James said...

This should be obvious but it is lost on the average member of the herd. Saying we are a nation of immigrants is false. Saying that we are a nation of people descended from immigrants is not. Truth be told, what nation's people are not descended from immigrants? It is a red herring. But, the lie was put into place in the 19th century and the narrative continues to be pushed. Why? I know that people have been conditioned to fear being labelled a "conspiracy theorist". But, like the fact that you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you, it is a sign of mental health if you recognize that there are people who have ulterior motives that know what they are saying is a lie and continue to do so. Who are the people that promoted this lie and what is their reason for doing so? Ask yourselves these questions. You won't like the answers but the truth will set you free.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

"America is a nation of immigrants"
"America is an idea, not a country"
"America is exceptional because we have the Constitution"
"America is built on magic dirt and anyone who steps foot in it will integrate"
"Hispanics are natural conservatives"

Just a few of the many, many lies we keep telling ourselves as we lose control of this country to people from the third world.

Audacious Epigone said...

James,

Right, it's as meaningful as pointing out that everyone is somebody's grandchild.

Random Dude,

Right, all demonstrably false. They're used to humiliate and subordinate.

Jim Bowery said...

Culture is artificial selection. The result is race. The US's culture is settlement.
Conflating "immigrants" with "settlers" is one attack on that race. Another attack on that race is to re-define "culture" so as to deny its racial impact. Another attack on that race is to re-define "culture" in such a way that the statement "The US has no culture." is true.

While Philip Roth's rip-off of Philip K. Dick's "The Man In the High Castle" was wrong in portraying the counterfactual President Charles Lindbergh's as resettling Jews to frontier regions, it is the case that any non-genocidal (under Lemkin's original definition of "genocide") immigration policy would require new immigrants to the US to homestead land on a frontier before being accepted as citizens.

Feryl said...

I'm sure you've all seen this article by now: https://www.city-journal.org/html/french-coming-apart-15125.html

If you haven't read it, I recommend that you do. The heart of the modern West (Britian, France, Germany), in it's ancestral arteries, is experiencing massive sclerosis.

The very people who built the foundation upon which modern privilege and luxury is based, NW Euros, are under attack not just by racial foreigners but most of all by ideological foreigners who deride huge swaths of the white lower class and (the ever dwindling) white middle class.

The details may vary from one region to another. For example, France resisted racial based spoils for a long time out of pride that Frenchness surpassed racial consciousness. By contrast, Anglo and Germanic countries rushed to deride their national culture and embrace whatever culture was being imported. Ultimately, either approach doesn't work for the benefit of the native culture since racial heritage and culture always surpasses national pride and culture, even against attempts to suppress this sort of thing.

It seems too that liberal attitudes towards what it means to be an American, or a Frenchman, or whatever coincide with prosperity. Where we're at can be mostly traced to the (relatively) privileged and comfortable generation of people born in the 20's-60's. It should come as know surprise that as this group of people did more and more to squander the fortune of their inheritance, there's been increasing blowback evident in terms of mass murders, terrorism, racial conflict, etc. After declaring victory against collectivist movements (be they fascist or communist) in the early 1990's, "we" (as in G.I.s, Silents, and Boomers) decided to eliminate every last vestige of racial/nationalist vigilance under the guise of building "democracy" and "freedom". They sincerely believed that as Westerners embraced the (at the time) apparent benefits of neo-liberal individualism, we would knock the other ethnic/ideological dominoes down one by one. After all, with WW2 we extinguished the fires of fascism that raged in the West after WW1, and we proved our divinely approved superiority over communism with the dissolution of the Soviets in the late 80's/early 90's. The remaining opponents of globo-corporate dominance wouldn't be too hard to coerce, Dethrone them, bribe them, kill them, smear them, whatever.

Feryl said...

Good faith efforts to stop meddling in other countries, to stop the cynical making and breaking of alliances, and to install a moratorium on mass human migration, would all be a depressing (to some) admission that globalist attempts to extinguish racial consciousness and racial differences have been a failure. More so to younger generations who are fighting over the dwindling prizes available in a cruel race to the bottom.

The financial windfall and relative security enjoyed by older generations has made it all the easier for them to rationalize that we still are the good guys. I mean, if we weren't than why didn't God give us greater hardship and conflict in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's? Remember the End of History, of F. Fukuyama brashly titled the post-Soviet era? Older people truly felt that we entering an Eden. Understand that to those born before the 70's, the enemy wasn't racial Uncle Toms, or corporate malfeasance. Rather, it was those forces which rigidly imposed a vision of society/nationhood in which individual hopes and desires were suppressed in the name of keeping The State strong. Several generations that knew little to no real hardship felt no real obligation to their ethnic group or countrymen. Indeed, the only institution they ever really respected were corporations, which in the absence of social/state pressure, idealize status striving/individual winners and do not make "value" judgements regarding gender, sexuality, race, immigration status, etc.

Suffice it to say that hostility regarding collectivism and fear of suppression of individual glory/competition has been taken way too far. They swung the pendulum way too far in the direction of promoting rootlessness and king of the heap status seeking, and any attempt to shame them is explained away as being the complaints of bitter, ignorant losers who need to get with the times.

BTW, I should qualify that globalist sentiment rises with status within a generation. So yes, lower class Boomers are more likely to object to muh diversity than the richest ones. It's a sure sign of decadence when elites refuse to accept accountability for what they've done to us. Whose punching up or down, again? Anybody ever see a middle aged to (increasingly) elderly member of the white managerial elite and want to shout in their face "you took the demographic advantages we had in your youth and then pissed 'em all away. Why?" Didja feel guilty that your generation had it too easy, somethin' like that?" We are the World? Nationalism should never have been treated like an embarrassment, an anachronism. Thanks to the cheapening of national identity, those under 45 have had to deal with chaos and the ravages of too much diversity their whole lives.

Feryl said...

In terms of reasserting control, the process is a bit different in Europe compared to America. Here in America, we've got a vast amount of territory outside the major/highly cosmopolitan metro areas. As globalist elites and the muh diversity brigade gang up on prole native born whites. they find that their reach can only go so far beyond New York, Los Angeles, Frisco, Chicago, Mpls/St. Paul, D.C., Atlanta, and so on in America. Particularly troubling to them is that between Bos-Wash (Bos-Charlotte, Bos-Atlanta?) and the Rockies are venerable communities of rooted whites now voting in their ethnic/class interests. Our electoral system gives a great deal of weight to us. The globalists have found that shoving more and more ringers into striverville just doesn't matter after enough white proles have waken up.

Alas, in places like the Netherlands and France the elections are a lot like elections in NY, CA, and Illinois. Striverville and it's ever growing ranks get to decide elections, especially when there are multiple candidates to split the prole vote. Trump would've lost a Euro style election with numerous viable parties fielding numerous candidates, while a full Brexit would've failed if voters were given some kind of half-assed compromise third choice between the two extremes.

Binary elections give people clarity, generally. Whereas in the clusterfuck of Western Euro elections, the number of options available seem to dilute both the intent and result of the vote. Imagine the torture of Sanders facing the others in a Euro style election, with direct popular vote. Ethnic nationalism vs ID politics vs. economic populism and youth appeal. What if, to our horror, Sanders grabs enough Millennials and Rust Belters to snatch 35-40% of the vote, Hillary grabs older liberals, blacks, and immigrants to the tune of 25-30% of the vote, leaving Trump with older whites and the the core white population of the South, Plains, and some lightly populated mountain states/Alaska, giving him 20-30% of the vote? America would have little to no sense of what direction we were heading in (other than Millennial striver pandering, see free college for all), not to mention the fact that the non-striverville white prole vote would be reduced in electoral weight and split to boot. Trumpism would be DOA.

The nice thing about America's system is that it lets us easily correct the worst excesses of the previous administration. Granted, that excess is partially enabled by the system in the first place, but hey, 4 years is what you get to cause trouble in the absence of impeachment/resignation/a worthless opposition party/candidate (see: Mitt Romney). Garbage in, garbage out. And we don't let urban striver machines/foreign ringers dictate our country's course.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Feryl,

You need to go read my posts on Trump the National Security President in the last thread.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

Is homesteading north central Alaska any help? I guess it's not a hurt. But its residency, not legal status, that is the heart of the matter. I think I may be missing your point, though.

Feryl,

I have. It's encouraging to see NR's brains stumbling towards an understanding of what we're facing. He identifies the mutually exclusive choice between diversity and equality, but the choice is even starker than that.

Liberty, equality, or diversity: Choose one.

Corvo said...

These myths are indeed predicated on the fallacy of tradition--we have stopped doing something in the past, so we must revert back to it. Of course, those who promote this line of thinking despise individuals 1) who make their own intellectual decisions, predicated on biological and environment factors, on how to interact with different races and cultures -and- 2) who exercise their freedom of association to put forth political and economic policies they collectively prefer.

Wow, just wow. Jarod Taylor needs a history lesson. Indeed, the ethnic group known as the English founded several colonies in North America. But the French, Swedish, Dutch, Germans, and Jews immigrated to these locations in large numbers in the 1600 and 1700’s. Indeed, from 1790 to 1820, the majority of Americans born in the United States was due to natural reproduction. Immigration to the United States, however, was restricted during this time frame in large part to the Napoleonic Wars. After their conclusion, immigration to the United States from Europe grew dramatically from about 20,000 in 1831 to over 430,000 in 1854. As a result, immigrants jumped from 1.6 percent of the population in the 1820s to 11.2 percent in 1860.

As far as the “all your myths are belong to us”...

“America is a white nation.”

America was a nation that consisted of Europeans who historically viewed themselves as competing ethnic groups. The idea that America is a white nation was borne out of the explanations Europeans had made in the late 1800’s during the Age of Exploration to justify their superiority to non-European nations and to serve as a rallying cry. Prior to this time period, Europeans harbored resentment and hostility toward one another--they referred to themselves by their individual ethnicity. Only when these groups began to conquer the world for their own political and economic gain did this label became vogue. More importantly, America had also consisted of red, brown, and black peoples since its inception.

“America is a Christian nation.”

Demographically speaking, our nation resembled a “nation of Christians” at the time of its creation. But the Founding Fathers used political rhetoric to ensure that religion was deliberately kept at arm’s length religion from the state. Despite the Founding Fathers respect for religion and their belief in the divine origins of the fundamental liberties of humans, they put protections in place in our Constitution since they believed religion would corrupt the state and, conversely, the state would corrupt religion. Remember, freedom of religion refers to our citizens practicing any, or no, religion.

“America is an Anglophone nation.”

Not entirely accurate. Assuredly, the dominant language of the United States is English. But throughout our history, immigrants in their ethnic enclaves spoke in their native tongue, established schools that spoke in their native tongue, and worshipped in services in their native tongue. To this day, European and non-European groups continue with their tradition.

“America is a nation built and led by white men.”

Not entirely accurate. Our nation was initially constructed by European men and women, some of whom exploited indigenous groups for their own designs, as well as imported African labor to generate personal wealth. True, the womenfolk lacked any positions of authority during colonial times and early in our nation’s history, but human beings make progress through free will as granted by our Creator.

Corvo said...

“America is a heterosexual nation.”

I concur. You got one right.

“America is a nation of male breadwinners and female homemakers.”

Was, not is. Capitalism and industrialization were game changers. Not reverting back to the “glory days”. I suggest you adjust to the times.

“America is a nation of natives born on its soil.”

Stated more accurately --> America is a nation of individuals from different races and ethnicities who legally obtained citizenship by birth or by the naturalization process.

Now, some on the Alt Right would argue only those who directly trace their ancestors exclusively to the English are indeed “true Americans”. Indeed, the infusion on the non-English since the birth of our nation in 1787 was a repudiation of the Rights Of Englishmen. So why on earth would today’s white Americans join forces with the Alt Right in the impending race war knowing they are impotent tin this regard, given their ancestors outside of the British Isles “didn't grasp the concept of its theoretical limits” or “saw it as a game to be exploited for the benefit of their tribes?” This position taken by the Alt Right is profoundly anti-European slogan for people who have proven they are capable of properly applying the Rights of Englishmen.

The train is fine, everyone, the train is fine.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvo,

Read the post in its appropriate polemical and rhetorical contexts. You're projecting a lot of assumptions here.

Each one of those assertions is more accurate than is the assertion that the US is a "nation of immigrants". Nothing more than that is claimed. That isn't to say that the US is comprised entirely of whites, or that gender labor divisions are (or ever have been) absolute, etc.

Corvo said...

"Read the post in its appropriate polemical and rhetorical contexts. You're projecting a lot of assumptions here."

You listed seven statements that are other than true, yet you believe to be true. Your subsequent arguments are thus based on these assumptions.

"Each one of those assertions is more accurate than is the assertion that the US is a "nation of immigrants". Nothing more than that is claimed."

You are employing the Appeal To Tradition and the Appeal To Wishful Thinking fallacies. The requisite refutations were made. Your turn to offer counter evidence.

Be mindful, however, of the venerable Tom Kratman's ideas on the subject. HIS ideas. I merely summarized them for convenience. Again, HIS words, not mine.

"Posterity has three meanings, all of which are plausible in context, while the Constitution itself makes it abundantly clear they intended immigration and naturalization which limits posterity to two of those meanings. Neither of those is "genetic descendants." Remember, the Founding Fathers listed non-genetic requirements for serving in the House and Senate. Our nation’s first Naturalization Act used “natural born” and “native born” interchangeably. If the Philadelphia Convention intended that non-British peoples were to not enjoy citizenship rights, or that arguments had been made by the Founding Fathers as to how non-British peoples were other than able to comprehend the Rights of Englishmen, then robust evidence must be presented. In essence, the Founding Fathers accounted for immigration to occur, and designated it to future generations to determine as the issue was a significant problem or an insignificant issue regardless of the groups or their locations.

Citing the definition of Posterity according to an 1850’s publication (A Law Dictionary, John Bouvier--POSTERITY, descents. All the descendants of a person in a direct line”) is THE standard to refer to and and outright ignoring that contemporary or near contemporary definitions of POSTERITY, which offers three definitions (genetic posterity, future generations, simple future times) is other than logical. Moreover, the first edition to Black’s Law Dictionary, the one nearest to ratification, neglects to define posterity at all.

Regardless, neither Black's nor Bouvier's can quite overcome those provisions in Article One for complete citizenship for naturalized immigrants. Indeed, the Constitution was not written for lawyers. And the non-legal dictionaries give three types of posterity and, further, are in accord with Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, and Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3."

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvo,

If the 'argument' is put forward that the US is a "nation of immigrants" then it must also be a nation of all the things listed. The US has always been a majority white nation as white is contemporarily defined. It has never been a majority immigrant nation as contemporarily defined. That holds for every other assertion made.

I'm an empiricist, not a traditionalist, and am not interested in arguing airtight cases for any of those assertions. The point is that the "nation of immigrants" argument is mendacious garbage and here's why.

chris said...

Corvo, he is doing a proof by contraposition/modus tollens.

If "america is a nation of immigrants" is true, then "america is a white nation", "america is a patriarchy", "america is an etc" are all true as well.

aside:(they are all true by the same (indeed higher) standard of evidence, i.e. a greater proportion of america has all been white, patriarchal, etc then they have been immigrants.)

following on from proof above: since america is not "a white nation" a "patriarchy" an "etc", then it is not a "nation of immigrants" either.

Audacious Epigone said...

Chris,

That's what I was groping towards, thanks.

Corvo said...

“If the 'argument' is put forward that the US is a "nation of immigrants" then it must also be a nation of all the things listed.”

You are playing semantic games here. The conclusions you draw from “The U.S. is a nation of immigrants” are logically inconsistent. Rather, it should read “America is a white and non-white nation. America is a religious nation. America is a nation of natives born on its soil and individuals who secured citizenship.”

“The US has always been a majority white nation as white is contemporarily defined.”

So what. Throughout human history, the demographics of a nation change. Ask the English. Ask the Chinese. In truth, the U.S. began as settlers and immigrants from European nations as well as forced laborers from Africa and displaced tribal groups. Throughout its history, its demographics changed as people other than Europeans arrived and settled. The Irish, the Germans, the Russians--each clung to their traditions and animosities as ethnic groups--they only identified as being "white" in relation to their collective disdain for anyone non-white. That discord while still present in our society today is nowhere near the level of contempt that each individual ethnic had because of intermingling and intermarriage. Regardless, our nation is a nation of immigrants.

“It has never been a majority immigrant nation as contemporarily defined. That holds for every other assertion made.”

You make it appear that the standard you created is an absolute, one that if a nation ever deviates from, it is no longer viable and/or legitimate. Of course our nation has never been a “majority immigrant nation”, has there ever been a case in global history? Moreover, just because America has not met your criteria does not mean immigrants have not come to our country in great numbers compared to natural reproduction in a given year or in a particular decade. Regardless, our nation is a nation of immigrants.

“I'm an empiricist, not a traditionalist, and am not interested in arguing airtight cases for any of those assertions.”

Exactly the problem. Any evidence to the contrary you automatically dismiss. It is intellectual arrogance and laziness on your part.

“The point is that the "nation of immigrants" argument is mendacious garbage and here's why.”

By 1900, New York City had as many Irish residents as Dublin. It had more Italians than any city outside Rome and more Poles than any city except Warsaw. It had more Jews than any other city in the world, as well as sizeable numbers of Slavs, Lithuanians, Chinese, and Scandinavians. 

Despite your posturing, America is a nation of immigrants. Just admit this irrefutable fact and move on. You will feel better in the end.

“Corvo, he is doing a proof by contraposition/modus tollens.”

Trying, not doing.


If America was settled by white colonists, they were not immigrants.
The British were white colonists.

Therefore, the British settled America because they were not immigrants.

But settlement by white colonists is not the only way a nation is formed since there are people other than the British and other than white who came to America and settled here.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvo,

The US has never been anywhere close to majority foreign-born.

Never in history? Uh, try Israel 65 years ago. You're a tedious disassembler.

Feryl said...

"America was a nation that consisted of Europeans who historically viewed themselves as competing ethnic groups. The idea that America is a white nation was borne out of the explanations Europeans had made in the late 1800’s"

Um, since when did anyone on this blog ever suggest that Europe and it's natives have always been harmonious? You clearly have not been doing much reading if you think we gloss over ethnic differences within a continent, Europe included. We've even talked about how white Americans differ, how that affected the election.

What really is the concern is that:

- diversity creates problems
- ethnic groups differ in ability and temperament

We're not naive, if we ever gave the impression that some kind of monolithic white identity movement is realistic, then we weren't being specific enough. We need to have distinct movements tailored to the ethnicity of a region. What French or Irish people need and want differs, and what whites in Appalachia need and want isn't the same thing as what Upper Midwestern whites need and want.

When we talk about "whites" or "white" America, it doesn't mean we're diminishing the complexity of things. Rather, it's tough to be anal-retentive enough to go through the tedium of breaking down every Euro ethnic group/region/nation every time white people are discussed.

I've proposed the phrase blonde-American to be used when discussing what most would consider traditional or "generic" white-Americans who long ago left the old country behind. Protestant-American doesn't quite work because it leaves out NW European Catholics, who adapted to Anglo-American norms eventually. It's no coincidence that the primary exceptions to this identity can be discerned by a lack of blondness; not just non-whites, but also Italian-Americans and especially Jews who aren't even fully European. I heard an NY Jew once talk about how, where he comes from, only women are blond. Actually, among blonde groups, men are more likely to have blonde hair. But how would ya know that when you grew up in a place where blonde-Americans were overwhelmed at some point by dark haired Catholics and Jews? The South and Midwest have high proportions of blonde-Americans to this day, as does much of the Mountain West and Pacific NW. Even here though, the cultural differences between the puritans/Lutherans of the Northern US and the Scots-Irish of America's central/Southern tier are evident. Be that as it may, these two groups still have greater affinity between each other than they do with non-blonde Americans.

Now, I get the "gotcha" move of saying that white Americans decrease in founding stock legitimacy the less rooted they are in the Mayflower. My response to that is: mass migration of any ethnic group is upsetting to natives who rightfully feel threatened by newcomers. But that's why migration should be judicious. As a card-carrying nativist, I support the right of any group who was there first to defend and keep what's theirs. I know whites weren't in America first. But that's history. Mostly Brit whites won the continent via superior organization and hard work. The Indians, and the Mexicans, and the Spanish/French had their chance and blew it. What you win, fair and square, and further develop is something to be protected and passed down to your kin. And it should never be overrun by hordes of aliens who will alter it's present and future character.

Mexicans, Muslims, Jews, etc. have no desire, on average, to preserve the character of blonde-America (and it's ancestral heart of Britain, Germany, France, and the Netherlands). If any successful civilization is decadent enough to be infiltrated and to some degree be controlled by aliens, it's become weak and vulnerable to destruction.

Corvo said...

“What really is the concern is that:
diversity creates problems
ethnic groups differ in ability and temperament”

Diversity MAY create problems.
Ethnic groups most likely differ in temperament, but when it comes to ability, there needs some specificity and clarity.

“We're not naive, if we ever gave the impression that some kind of monolithic white identity movement is realistic, then we weren't being specific enough. We need to have distinct movements tailored to the ethnicity of a region. What French or Irish people need and want differs, and what whites in Appalachia need and want isn't the same thing as what Upper Midwestern whites need and want.”


We, meaning you and those whites who favor such a movement. Other whites may be opposed to your line of thinking. Would they be referred to as "bad whites"? And if you are proposing these separate “distinct movements” for each particular white group, then there is hope on your part that this monolithic white identity would come to fruition.

“I've proposed the phrase blonde-American to be used when discussing what most would consider traditional or "generic" white-Americans who long ago left the old country behind….”

“Traditional” or “generic” white Americans came from various parts of Europe, some of whom had blonde hair.

“Protestant-American doesn't quite work because it leaves out NW European Catholics, who adapted to Anglo-American norms eventually.”

They adapted to American norms, which had its antecedents from British and non-British cultural elements.

“It's no coincidence that the primary exceptions to this identity can be discerned by a lack of blondness; not just non-whites, but also Italian-Americans and especially Jews who aren't even fully European.”



Most Americans today who are white do not make this distinction regarding “blonde” and “non-blonde”. They do not regularly characterize their potential friends or mates in this fashion. Is your nomenclature based on direct observation? on anecdotal evidence?

“Even here though, the cultural differences between the puritans/Lutherans of the Northern US and the Scots-Irish of America's central/Southern tier are evident. Be that as it may, these two groups still have greater affinity between each other than they do with non-blonde Americans.”


How does one even measure this “greater affinity”? What metrics are involved? Perhaps you are referring to yesteryear. But regarding modern day America, you will have to offer specifics as to how and why “blond” Americans today have other than a “natural liking to” compared to their “non blonde” counterparts.

“Now, I get the "gotcha" move of saying that white Americans decrease in founding stock legitimacy the less rooted they are in the Mayflower. My response to that is: mass migration of any ethnic group is upsetting to natives who rightfully feel threatened by newcomers.”

Talk to Vox Day. He would still characterize you as a “Fake American”.

“As a card-carrying nativist, I support the right of any group who was there first to defend and keep what's theirs. I know whites weren't in America first.”

Including Mexicans who were there first in Texas in the 1820’s and 1830’s? Including the Japanese and Chinese who came to America in the mid to late 1800’s were there first as non-whites in California?

Corvo said...

“What you win, fair and square, and further develop is something to be protected and passed down to your kin. And it should never be overrun by hordes of aliens who will alter it's present and future character.”



You can’t have it both ways here. If these “hordes of aliens” have been already present and accountable for in the States—referring to legal citizens—they have the liberty to defend what they have earned. Remember, those “hordes of aliens” had referred to white Europeans who altered the “present and future character” of pre-European dominated North America. They won “fair and square”. So, for you to be logically consistent, those groups of people who have been here in America since the mid and late 1800’s may also “play to win”.

“Mexicans, Muslims, Jews, etc. have no desire, on average, to preserve the character of blonde-America (and it's ancestral heart of Britain, Germany, France, and the Netherlands).”

That would be your opinion on the matter.

Feryl said...

Ah, but "America" did not effectively exist before whites. There were certain tribes who had developed settlements of varying sophistication, but clearly, the ease with which whites settled and advanced in the (mostly undeveloped) area is proof in and of itself that NA Indians were but a couple steps above tropical savages. Politics and geography aren't the same thing. America has changed geographically numerous times, under different circumstances. WRT the Southwest and Mexicans, yeah they're still bitter over it. But seeing as how West of the Plains whites don't seem to feel that they ever really "owned" the territory, perhaps they're not interested in defending it and making sure that's it's as American as the Eastern US is.

The Indians lost. Get over it. Different white groups have also suffered various indignities, but at the end of the day, intelligence and temperament enable certain ethnic groups to rise above whatever was inflicted on them at some point. I read that 1st gen Asian immigrants tend to be conservative, as they are grateful for the opportunities and streamlined nature of Western countries. But their kids and grandkids are much more liberal, since they hear about evil white people and don't have any moral/cultural point of reference to expose how absurd the white-man-as-oppressor narrative is. Fact is, non-white ethnic groups have done terrible things to each other and themselves in the absence of whites. Rival tribes in the New world, Africans, Arabs, Asians, etc. were not taught war or cruelty by whites.

And yes, duh, ethnic groups are always competing against each other and I don't morally resent them for doing so. It's just the way it is. Liberal platitudes and Christ cuckery notwithstanding, we are never going to fully get along. Which is why we need to stop doing two things: taking dumps in foreign countries which creates blowback, and no longer importing so many damn people who drive up living expenses, believe weird crap, aren't honest about taxes, drive down wages, commit crimes, and so on. Not to mention aliens lowering social trust and changing us racially.

Feryl said...


Older generations of whites were blessed by constant political and/or economic victories and they developed a delusion that the West was so self-evidently awesome that Western ways should be introduced to all kinds of places and hey, why not bring all kinds of people into Western countries and see if we can't Westernize them? This is the glib attitude one develops after being spoiled for decades. Some of these people practically seemed to think that if they had so much, perhaps they owed a lot of people something. News of the day: younger people in particular don't have jack shit anymore. How do you owe what you never had in the first place? They have to drill into white people's heads about privilege and "you're still benefiting from your ancestors" and a "legacy of racism" since young whites are frickin' broke and don't self-evidently feel like they owe anybody anything as they watch a decaying society fall on it's ass as middle aged charlatans wonder how we got here as they brashly interrupt and shout at their fellow "experts".

I really do think that as a whole, society is at it's lowest point since the Carter era. But even then, we had enough inertia from prior success that older people in particular were stoic and modest, even in the face of Boomers screwing and partying their faces off instead of learning to be better citizens.

I heard in interview with Neil Howe where the shitlib show host basically tried to bully Howe into saying that the concept of the historical cycle is either wrong, or at best, is forbidden knowledge liable to be misused by people who want to trigger a crisis or take advantage of it. These bubble-dwelling fashionable "winners" have absolutely no self-awareness of how their very demeanor is incredibly aggravating to the "losers" who they keep prodding again and again, thinking they can get away with it forever. Howe, whose an early Boomer uber-WASP, was clearly getting frustrated by what a know-it-all dick the host was. The host was a baby crying about not getting his way, instead of being earnestly curious or good-faith skeptical of Howe's theories.

Most elites, with the growing threats being presented, are if anything becoming more hostile towards those whom they ought to be listening too.

Feryl said...

Most Americans today who are white do not make this distinction regarding “blonde” and “non-blonde”. They do not regularly characterize their potential friends or mates in this fashion. Is your nomenclature based on direct observation? on anecdotal evidence?

Really? Most American whites who are just 1/2 Italian or or 1/2 Jewish are acutely aware of their ethnicity. Why? They stand out a great deal compared to New England puritans, Scots-Irish from the South and Central US, and the Germans/Nords of the Upper Midwest. English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Dutch, German, Austrian, Scandinavian, Czech, Polish, Dutch, French ancestry all got blended together in America over the ages, and some of these ancestries are sometimes not well-understood or appreciated by those who are descended from them (self-reported English ancestry has been declining for decades, which is absurd as it's probably the most common ancestry among both white and historical black Americans.).

Blonde-American is shorthand for white people who are mostly or entirely descended from the natives of north central and north western Europe. As opposed to Caucasians of far Eastern, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern descent. It's not really that hard to understand.

Corvo said...

“Ah, but "America" did not effectively exist before whites.”

According to European standards regarding political systems and technological innovations. Furthermore, the English would have argued that they were the primary contributors in this creation of an “effective” America. So their position was from an ethnic rather than a racial perspective. It would appear you are overvaluing “white” contributions.

“There were certain tribes who had developed settlements of varying sophistication, but clearly, the ease with which whites settled and advanced in the (mostly undeveloped) area is proof in and of itself that NA Indians were but a couple steps above tropical savages.”

Assuming that sophistication of one’s civilization is indeed the end all and be all of a group. For indigenous peoples, they made due with their available resources. They were content to live their lives in the manner they prescribed. Certainly, they would be open to new ways, like any group, to improve their lot in life. However, natives regarded Europeans to be “savage” and “less than civilized” when it came to European attitudes regarding land use, property ownership, and the purpose of war.

“I read that 1st gen Asian immigrants tend to be conservative, as they are grateful for the opportunities and streamlined nature of Western countries. But their kids and grandkids are much more liberal, since they hear about evil white people and don't have any moral/cultural point of reference to expose how absurd the white-man-as-oppressor narrative is.”

An overgeneralization on your part.

“Fact is, non-white ethnic groups have done terrible things to each other and themselves in the absence of whites."

Of course, such is the nature of humans. But it also stands to reason that if those whites who take credit for building civilizations, they ought to admit that they also have a knack when it comes to the destruction of societies. Taking the HbD approach, one could assume that it is their nature, i.e. in-born tendencies.

“Liberal platitudes and Christ cuckery notwithstanding, we are never going to fully get along.”

“Cuckery” or “cuck” or “cuckservative” is a useless meme.

“Which is why we need to stop doing two things: taking dumps in foreign countries which creates blowback”

I concur.

“and no longer importing so many damn people who drive up living expenses, believe weird crap, aren't honest about taxes, drive down wages, commit crimes, and so on. Not to mention aliens lowering social trust and changing us racially.”



You are entitled to your opinion on this matter.


“Older generations of whites were blessed by constant political and/or economic victories and they developed a delusion that the West was so self-evidently awesome that Western ways should be introduced to all kinds of places and hey, why not bring all kinds of people into Western countries and see if we can't Westernize them?”

It was the white leaders of European nations and the majority of their peoples who embraced the precursor to “Invade the world, Invite the world”. This course of action was the preferred direction during the Age of Exploration and Age of Imperialism. As I correctly stated earlier, “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” are universal—“foreigners” and “aliens” fully comprehend and put into practice these concepts.

“Really? Most American whites who are just 1/2 Italian or or 1/2 Jewish are acutely aware of their ethnicity.”

Of course the majority of American whites are cognizant of their ethnic identity. But since when do they openly refer to themselves as being “blond” or “non-blond”? This shorthand is YOUR creation.

“Most elites, with the growing threats being presented, are if anything becoming more hostile towards those whom they ought to be listening too.”



I keep hearing how “elites” are ruining everything. So, if that be the case, what are you personally doing to stop them from carrying out their machinations? What specific courses of action are you taking?

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The GSS shows that Asians born in the US are modestly more politically liberal than those born outside the US (using RACECEN1(4-10)). The opposite is the case for whites. Perspicacious.

Feryl said...

"This shorthand is YOUR creation."

That's what I said at the outset. "Blond-American" is intended to clarify what defines, genetically and culturally, the majority of white Americans. Are you a millennial or something? Ask a Boomer sometime about how, pre-1990's, it was common to distinguish between WASPy whites and "ethnic" whites (primarily Italians and Jews, with urban and/or East coast Irish-Catholics generally thrown in too). WASP is kind of the pre-cursor to blonde-American, but WASP never really took into account the genetic/cultural affinity between Brits and NW/Central Euro groups.

The simultaneous growth in people marrying outside of their ethnic group and rapid growth of America's non-white population by the 1990's led to whites being (stupidly) all lumped together. It's now considered scandalous in the mainstream for anyone to distinguish WASP/Blonde-Americans from Meds and Jews. Moronic. Jews have never even come close to fully adopting blonde-American culture, and before 90's PC this was well-understood. Jews, in general, are now showing their true (non-white) colors by being some of the biggest opponents of attempts to maintain or increase the whiteness of erstwhile white countries, up to and including the homelands of whites. Jews are more likely to be gay, too, with a clear correlation between urban living and exposure to bugs that cause biological disruptions in the womb leading to various abnormalities in the child (not for nothing are Jews observed to be butt-ugly in comparison to other Caucasian groups). Extreme selection for verbal IQ (aka inbreeding) also probably account for how damn ugly they are.

There's a real reluctance to trace the lineage of most white Americans, because to do so would be to admit that essentially America was built mostly by NW Euros. The embarrassing fact is that other ethnic groups have been able to achieve greater success because of the craftsmanship of, in Sailer's words, blue-eyed utopias. They couldn't do it on their on, with their own blood.

Feryl said...

BTW, anyone ever really tried to figure out cuckery over Jews? They're not white. Literally, as "we" (as in HBD woke folk and traditionalists) know, those who are 30-75% Semitic in heritage are not white. Period. End of story.

It's cute that a handful of Jews side with us, but that doesn't off-set the mass pozzing generally favored by Jews.

One thing that consistently embarrasses Leftists is when blacks give realtalks about Jew duplicity and greed. In addition to making a highly Left-wing group look bad, it's an uncomfortable reminder that even blacks can readily distinguish Jew merchants from strapping goy farmers. "White" my arse.

The rampant out-marriage of American Jews is, however, blurring the lines as time goes on.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvo,

The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain are all majority-immigrant--right now, in 2017.

Corvo said...

"I said at the outset. "Blond-American" is intended to clarify what defines, genetically and culturally, the majority of white Americans."

Listen carefully..white .Americans for the most part do NOT characterize themselves or others as "blonde" or "non-blonde". Since when is hair color the defining characteristic of white Americans of European ancestry? Hint: It's not.

From this list...https://www.infoplease.com/us/race-population/ancestry-us-population-rank

we can see that there were 148,471,345 US nationals of European descent in 2011. This means between 15.9 and 18.9 million blonde Americans. Given that there were a total of 310 million Americans, we can estimate that in percentage, blondes are between 5.1% and 6.0%.

"Ask a Boomer sometime about how, pre-1990's, it was common to distinguish between WASPy whites and "ethnic" whites (primarily Italians and Jews, with urban and/or East coast Irish-Catholics generally thrown in too)."

I thought Boomers were generally leftist, which would mean they refrained from making this distinction. Because diversity, remember? You are referring to the parents of Boomers, who I believe are referred to as "Maturists" or "The Greatest Generation".
Again, you have this fixation that if and when white Americans recognize this difference, then this monolithic white identity movement becomes a reachable goal. Today's white Americans have other pressing matters.

"WASP is kind of the pre-cursor to blonde-American, but WASP never really took into account the genetic/cultural affinity between Brits and NW/Central Euro groups."

Categorical error on your part. WASP and blonde-American are not even remotely similar--WASP refers to a particular ethnic identity. The British would NOT have a "genetic/cultural affinity" with the non-British, as they were traditionally political and economic rivals with the French, Germans, and Russians. Historically, each ethnic group held one another in ethnic contempt.

"The simultaneous growth in people marrying outside of their ethnic group and rapid growth of America's non-white population by the 1990's led to whites being (stupidly) all lumped together."

Unless those "stupid" American whites do not view race and ethnicity in the same lens as yourself.

"Jews have never even come close to fully adopting blonde-American culture, and before 90's PC this was well-understood."

Thank you. I just made $100. I bet that it was only a matter of time that someone would bring in da Joos to the conversation. Sounds like a personal problem to me. Again, you are entitled to your opinions regarding this group of people.

"There's a real reluctance to trace the lineage of most white Americans, because to do so would be to admit that essentially America was built mostly by NW Euros. The embarrassing fact is that other ethnic groups have been able to achieve greater success because of the craftsmanship of, in Sailer's words, blue-eyed utopias. They couldn't do it on their on, with their own blood."

Most white Americans do trace their lineage. They are proud regardless of their origins. The Italians, the Greeks, the Poles, the Russians--each group had significant contributions to the further development of the United States. The construction of America in its early days was a joint effort consisting of several European groups. When you insist that American was "built mostly by NW Euros", you are clearly making a value judgement. It can be supported with evidence, but not definitively proven. In essence, you have an informed opinion. But way smarter people than you and I would be able to craft an argument that would call into question your hypothesis. Period. End of story.

"BTW, anyone ever really tried to figure out cuckery over Jews?"

Only those individuals with way too much time on their hands.

Corvo said...

"The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain are all majority-immigrant--right now, in 2017."

Employer led, large-scale guest worker program for skilled and unskilled workers. The wealthy here can afford to sit on their asses with the money they are earning through petroleum.

Feryl said...


"Categorical error on your part. WASP and blonde-American are not even remotely similar--WASP refers to a particular ethnic identity. The British would NOT have a "genetic/cultural affinity" with the non-British, as they were traditionally political and economic rivals with the French, Germans, and Russians. Historically, each ethnic group held one another in ethnic contempt."

What's your problem? You tell me what I've already said. I already said that WASPs are distinct from (but related to) other Northern Euros. I also alluded to people erroneously describing various whites as WASPs. I said that "blonde-American" is intended to be a more inclusive term for Americans of NW/N Central European descent which supersedes prior terms used to describe white Americans of mostly or entirely Northern Euro descent.

Tensions have always existed between Euro groups. I get it. But the majority of blond-Americans have through generations of shared culture and intermarriage committed themselves to a distinct white-American identity, albeit with a dash or whichever region they grew up in (for the sake of brevity, the Northeast, South, Midwest, and everything West of the Plains). The reason I "take a stand" for this is because it's the legacy of the people and culture who made America what it is. Italians, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, blah blah blah have done varying degrees of contributions or devaluations to trad. AMERICAN culture, but it's still not their culture. If it was, why isn't Italy or Mexico more similar to America?

The most genetically dominant strains in white Americans derive from Britain, Ireland, and Germany, with genetically similar peoples from the Netherlands, France, and Scandinavia being well-represented to. What countries does America resemble? Not Greece, Italy, or, most ludicrously of all, Russia or Southeastern Europe (how many orthodox Christians does America have? Hardly any compared to the number of white-American Prots. and Catholics). I honestly can tell you that growing up, I did not know that a thing called Orthodox Christianity even existed.

Feryl said...


'Listen carefully..white .Americans for the most part do NOT characterize themselves or others as "blonde" or "non-blonde". Since when is hair color the defining characteristic of white Americans of European ancestry? Hint: It's not."

Are YOU Jewish or something? Blonde and light brown hair is quite common among NW/NC Europeans. It's much rarer among Mediterraneans and Semites. In MN, in which whites are overwhelmingly North. European, many white children are blonde. Since blonde hair is most common among these ethnics, I figured, why not call them blond-Americans?

WRT self-reported hair color, it's a worthless measure. Try reading Carlton Coon's work on white ethnic groups to get a better idea of which groups are most pre-disposed to it. Also, many people of N. Euro descent often have blonde hair in youth that darkens to light brown in maturity, and many also have lighter brown hair in youth that darkens to dark brown in maturity.

BTW, it's really spergy to suggest that people don't define and group themselves by physical characteristics, hair color included. Irish people are famously pale, Jews have big noses and curly hair, etc. We notice and judge people, and ourselves, based on these things. Sailer often jokes that Hollywood seems to be developing stronger Anglo/Celtic/Nordic-philia, judging from the number of pale, blond, and redheaded actors from the Anglosphere that Hollywood can't get enough of. Compare this trend to the number of Italian-American celebrities who emerged in the 50's-70's (Dean Martin, Perry Como, Al Pacino, Sly Stallone, etc.) who seemed to gain momentum to defy the Nordic beauty that Hollywood, however Jewish, has a hard time not falling in love with in most eras. Hell, I know of an Italian American movie producer who started in the 80's and was known to demand that his movies have blonde leading ladies.

Feryl said...

I heard an actor once chuckle about how he initially though it was funny that he, as a short Italian guy from New York, was supposed to be best friends with a character played by a tall blonde guy from West Virginia. "Blonde" in this instance was clearly referring to both hair color and presumed Northern Euro. ancestry.

You must be delusional if you think hair color has no relevance as a social and ethnic marker.

Corvo said...

“But the majority of blond-Americans have through generations of shared culture and intermarriage committed themselves to a distinct white-American identity, albeit with a dash or whichever region they grew up in (for the sake of brevity, the Northeast, South, Midwest, and everything West of the Plains).”

Actually, the majority of various racial and ethnic groups through the generations have committed themselves to creating and
adding to our distinct American culture as well as preserving the customs and traditions reflective of those two identities. Certainly some Americans have committed themselves to a “distinct white-American identity”, but that is a personal decision. You act as if it ought to be mandatory among white Americans. Newsflash—It is NOT a requirement.

“Italians, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, blah blah blah have done varying degrees of contributions or devaluations to trad. AMERICAN culture, but it's still not their culture.”

Your white knighting of blond-Americans is admirable. Here are “hate” facts. The “original” American culture found in the Thirteen Colonies was the result of different ethnic and religious groups. You may insist that Northern and Western European contributions is the “gold standard”, that what other groups of people brought to the table thereafter pales in comparison, that the dilution of our society by “outsiders” is other than desirable. But traditional American culture is other than an exclusive N-W European creation, it other than absolute and therefore current generations are not bound to adhere to its basic tenets.

American culture in in the Thirteen Colonies consisted of the ideas and conventions of various ethnic groups, political ideologies, and religious faiths. Certainly, the British Isles heavily influenced its political, economic, and social institutions, similar in a way the Romans had shaped the institutions and values created by the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Norse, and the Normans individually and collectively. From the 1600 and 1700's, the Dutch, the Germans, and the Scots-Irish, along with the Quakers and Jews, made their distinct mark in the Thirteen Colonies. And as other immigrants came to our country, whether it be the Irish and Germans in the 1840’s and 1850’s, and whether it be those newcomers from Eastern and Southern Europe in the 1890’s, or whether it those “vibrants” post-1965, they added significantly to our culture. Historically, American culture has been other than static. It morphs. It is pliable. America is unique in this fashion. We are "mutts".

“If it was, why isn't Italy or Mexico more similar to America?”

First, each nation has their own process of assimilation. Second, America has always been a nation of immigrants—different groups of people adding to the culture over generations.

“The most genetically dominant strains in white Americans derive from Britain, Ireland, and Germany, with genetically similar peoples from the Netherlands, France, and Scandinavia being well-represented to.”


Which means little the average white American today.

“What countries does America resemble? Not Greece, Italy, or, most ludicrously of all, Russia or Southeastern Europe (how many orthodox Christians does America have? Hardly any compared to the number of white-American Prots. and Catholics). I honestly can tell you that growing up, I did not know that a thing called Orthodox Christianity even existed.”


America resembles the people that colonized it, settled it, and immigrated here. Again, America is a “mutt” nation.

Corvo said...

“Are YOU Jewish or something? Blonde and light brown hair is quite common among NW/NC Europeans. It's much rarer among Mediterraneans and Semites. In MN, in which whites are overwhelmingly North. European, many white children are blonde. Since blonde hair is most common among these ethnics, I figured, why not call them blond-Americans?”



Go ahead, no one is stopping you. The average white American would probably find it odd since this designation is other than mainstream. Perhaps you could form a movement to indoctrinate, I mean convince, them. And, no, I'm not Jewish. What is about this fixation among some on the Alt Right and conservatives about this group?

“You must be delusional if you think hair color has no relevance as a social and ethnic marker.”

Straw man argument. Hair color is a social and ethnic marker, I never directly or implied otherwise. However, it bears little relevance to most white Americans today. They have other important issues to deal with.

“BTW, it's really spergy to suggest that people don't define and group themselves by physical characteristics, hair color included.”



You mean that people today are not necessarily fixated on defining and grouping themselves by physical characteristics compared to yourself.

Talk about being spergy…

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvo,

That's what the Chamber of Commerce--a big proponent of the "nation of immigrants" mendacity--would like the US to become.

Corvo said...

'Tis accurate to state that millions of white Americans are proponents of the "nation of immigrants".

Have they been duped by Cultural Marxists? How will they ever be deprogrammed? OR, is it just likely that they have made their own racial and cultural decisions in light of the available evidence? Do not these whites in general possess high IQ's?

American whites will not be goaded by those on the Alt Right to admit that they are "fake Americans" who must be "sent back". This elitist mentality will decidedly NOT unify whites in the upcoming race war with non-whites.