Placing the blame

At Unz.com, there is a piece by Andrew Joyce in response to a short essay from the year 2007, by Curtis Yarvin. Yarvin is better known to many as erstwhile blogger ‘Mencius Moldbug’, who had a considerable following as the sort of guru to the Neoreactionary set of that time.

Joyce’s piece is lengthy and thorough; I recommend reading it if you are interested in the subject matter that is being examined in it, namely who is most responsible for the multiculturalism which is swallowing up Western civilization at the current hour.

If one reads the comments section on blogs which discuss that topic and related ones, you will soon become weary of reading comments blaming ‘WASPs’ and their Christianity for the impending death of Western civilization and those who created it. I will say I am more interested in the allegations of ‘WASP’ complicity in this crime; it may be that WASPs were too trusting and too subdued to try to avoid the loss of their identity and the loss of their primacy on this continent. But it is not true, in my opinion, that Anglo-Saxons conspired or acted in concert with ‘Zionists’ as some say, to bring about a multicultural America.

I’ve read some of Moldbug’s ideas about who was to blame in this situation, and as with Paul Gottfried, I find an effort to shift blame onto old-stock Anglo-Saxon Americans. One argument Moldbug/Yarvin makes is that his people, that is, Jewish-Americans, merely tried to assimilate to WASP norms. More blame-shifting.

“There is little question that Jews were keen to obtain the outward signs of social climbing in America — by, for example, entering certain professions or joining fashionable golf clubs. But underlying many of these economic advances was an outright hostility to the culture, politics, and behavior of the Protestant Brahmin class. In this regard, Yarvin’s definition of “assimilation” needs to be problematised. As I’ve argued elsewhere, and developed further in my forthcoming book, it is highly doubtful whether genuine Jewish group assimilation has ever occurred in any nation at any time. In the United States, Jewish “assimilation” has involved the academic deconstruction of WASP cultural heroes (e.g., T.S. Eliot, Richard Wagner), the pathologization of the WASP family (Freud, the Frankfurt School, and their intellectual followers), and the weaponisation of WASP children during the 1960s “New Left” revolution…”

The last part of the paragraph above, which alludes to the ‘weaponisation of WASP children’ during the ’60s New Left revolution is right on the money. The idea that WASPs were complicit in their own displacement and ultimately our loss of identity and diminution of power just makes no sense.

But for self-serving reasons, having to do with nepotism, or the promotion of mass immigration from third-world countries as a ‘survival strategy’ it appears that it’s in the interests of some to promote the replacement of the long-standing inhabitants of what was once Christendom.

Flag emblems

Gadsden flag

According to the book I’ve been reading, the English colonists preferred the above flag to the other options.

“The emblem which was most favored by the colonists seems to have been the rattle-snake, which was commended for its vigilance, for its character in never beginning an attack and never surrendering, and for generosity in giving notice with her rattle, and warning her enemies against treading on her.”

Pennsylvania Journal, 27 December, 1775, quoted by Preble, op.cit., 214

I always wondered why the rattlesnake was the emblem, not just on this flag but on the other flags which used similar symbols, for example, the ‘Join or Die’ flag, though the message conveyed on that one was self-evident.

It seems the Gadsden flag is under fire for not being politically correct somehow; whoever sits on high and tells us that something is bigoted or that it must be banned, it always looks 100 percent arbitrary to me; no rhyme or reason.

The book I’ve been reading, English influence on the United States, is a short read but interesting. I will probably blog about it later. It has to do not only with culture, etc., but with architecture, town planning, and so on. The writer appears to be focusing on New England rather than the South and its Anglo-Saxon origins and colonies but he does touch on those things.

National characteristics

From  “Heads, Faces, Types, Races” (1910) by Dr. Rocine

Obviously the above is from a book which is more than a century old; it may seem archaic. Much of what the author says about “National characteristics of the English people” may no longer be true, just as his comments about Americans above may not be accurate as a description of Americans in 2020.

I find ‘human biodiversity’ fascinating as there really are differences among the many ethnicities and races on this planet, all the while we are being told that people are ”all the same”, with skin color alone (so they say) being a distinguishing mark. No; there are differences physiologically and anatomically, though it is politically incorrect to notice these things.

And outward difference like the color or shade of one’s skin is not as important as the differences in ‘national characteristics’, ways of thinking, and culture and any number of factors.

Not long ago I posed a question on this blog, asking whether peoples can change over time, or be changed — say, by means of demographic changes to a country, or by propaganda, or any other means. I am still not sure if people can be changed to something different to what they originally were. It would seem we Americans are not exactly the same people who fought WWII or conquered the wilderness as our ancestors did, in fact.

Another question I’ve pondered is: are we and our English cousins becoming more disparate in our national character, so that we feel more estranged, on both sides?

How closely do we fit the descriptions in the pages of the book above?

Justice?

The Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland recently announced that no soldiers would face prosecution relating to the events on ‘Bloody Sunday’ in 1972. On January 30 of that year, 13 civilians were shot and killed, as a clash broke out between marchers and British soldiers who were there to maintain order.

The Daily Mail article about this incident indicates that the soldiers opened fire before projectiles were thrown at them. The scenario is a little reminiscent of the Kent State, Ohio incident in which National Guardsmen opened fire on students, four of whom died. But it may be more complicated than it appears.

Just an aside here, but these protests by the Northern Ireland Catholics were directly inspired by the activism of the Civil Rights revolutionaries in the U.S. The leadership of the activist groups openly said they emulated MLK et al.

The central story is, unfortunately, an example of how disparities within a population or a society seem inevitably to bring conflict and in worst cases, bloodshed. ‘Diversity’ is not a strength unless one thinks internal dissension and misunderstanding are desirable.

A common belief about the Northern Ireland problem is that it’s religious in nature. It is, but only partially. Religion is only one of the points of difference between the two longstanding populations, the Ulster folk, Ulster Scots, the people Americans like to call ‘Scotch-Irish’ and often misidentify as being one and the same as those we call just Irish. But besides the differing religions there is a different culture and history and mindset. As ever, people are not interchangeable.

And just to confuse things more, many of the ‘Scots-Irish’ are neither Scots (by blood) nor Irish; their ancestors, who were brought to Ulster in the 17th century, were from the English border counties, and were English. Some Southern Americans who claim ‘Scotch-Irish’ ancestry are in fact English, as DNA tests show, in the cases of some American celebrities I’ve read of.

The two peoples, the Catholic Irish and the Protestant Ulster folk differ on their religious beliefs, but if Northern Ireland is anything like the rest of former Christendom, religion is not as important as it once was. Ethnic identity used to be a strong motivator, and the Ulster Protestants identify as British. This is the part that many Americans don’t understand. This is why Northern Ireland felt so strongly at one time, that they not be merged into Catholic Ireland, living under liberal laws and rules, as Ireland has gone very left, being itself greatly weakened by a forced dose of diversity and socialism.

It’s a complicated situation, but it looks as though, if the self-styled elites have their way, there will be no more nations/states, just a monolithic world regime, so the whole national question would in theory be moot.

But back to the central issue here: is it right that the men who shot and killed the protesters should be exempt from prosecution? First I am sure that the Prosecutors in Northern Ireland have all the information, and we get just dribs and drabs from our sometimes incompetent, always dishonest media. I don’t feel qualified to judge here, as to what ideally should have happened.

To put this on more of a human basis, I have met (through friends on the other side of the pond) men who served as very young soldiers in Northern Ireland. Not all those who served there were battle-hardened soldiers. Some were quite green and they were often threatened by civilians there. That may have been a factor.

And of course show business had to exploit the deaths. Something like 11 years afterward, the Irish rock band U2 recorded the song, “Sunday, Bloody Sunday” though they said the song was not political, not taking sides. Interestingly, the Kent State shootings in the 70s also were the subject of a rock song, ‘Ohio.’

And finally here is one more take on this story via AltNewsMedia.

Free speech in England

The resentment of Norman ‘invaders’ is still, apparently, alive and well in parts of England. I do get the impression from what I have read and heard from English folk that it is not uncommon.

I actually used to believe that the Irish grudge against the Anglo-Normans took the prize for its persistence. Now I am wondering: the Norman Conquest began in 1066 (it will be a full thousand years ago this century) and the Anglo-Normans invaded Ireland in 1169 through 1171. Obviously the Norman conquest of England took place in a longer-ago time.

How can a group of people still be labeled “invaders” or considered alien when they have been in a country for almost a millennium? It’s not as though they are still speaking a foreign language, separating themselves from those of only Anglo-Saxon blood, or going back and forwards to their ‘native country’ as so many of the immigrants to modern Western countries do.

The Normans were not so genetically different from the Saxons. I don’t think the DNA testing now can differentiate precisely between the different ethnicities of Britain, not even as much as between Anglo-Saxons and Scots, or Anglo-Saxons and Welsh, or Dutch.

So why are those of Norman descent spoken of at times as being outsiders, not belonging on the island of Britain?

I can understand why being conquered would have a certain ‘sting’ to it, just as with Americans who might rightfully feel that we have not just been colonized, but thanks to the machinations of the Leftist infiltrators and subversives, we are not in control of our country any longer. It does wound the pride.

But here is an article by Peter Hitchens which I happened across; ithas some interesting thoughts about the changes in the UK and about the state of Free Speech and other liberties, along class and regional lines. He also writes about the Norman-Anglo-Saxon divisions. Interesting subject matter.

The Puritan punching-bag

In the never-ending discussion about Puritanism and its supposed effects which continue to this day in our American society, at the OD blog, Hunter Wallace quotes Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen, from her book American Nietzsche: an Icon and His Ideas.

“While today it is commonplace to bewail the puritanical prudery and provincialism of American culture, the Puritans didn’t always have such a bad reputation. Only when early twentieth-century critics like Goldman, Mencken and [Randolph] Bourne started to excavate the past for the historical conditions conspiring against the free intellect did the modern conception of the Puritan develop. The radicals collapsed Nietzsche’s analysis of Christian asceticism and sentimentalism into a critique of the lingering effects of Puritan psychology and piety. While the philistines treated ideas as if they were merely decorative, the Puritan viewed them as disciplinary. In their efforts to find a usable past to critique what they regarded as a culture of rigid moralizing, the radicals discovered the wrathful “Puritan” who policed free thought, hounded liberated spirits, and damaged the free play of personality. …

Once the impressionistic archetype of the austere, self-righteous premodern Puritan began to take shape, it was relatively easy to survey American society – from the vice campaigns of the Progressive Era through the wartime hysteria to the postwar return to “normalcy” – and discover modern Puritans incapable of free thought and eager to police those who weren’t.”

It’s little wonder that the Puritan has such an unfavorable reputation in America these days, given that the people who have given so much attention to fashioning the image of the Puritan through their own lenses of resentment and contempt: H.L. Mencken, with his profoundly anti-Christian ax to grind, for example. His own popularity amongst young males who see in him a symbol of rebellion against ‘repression’ says something about our society, which has become mostly libertine, anti-Christian, libertarian, focused on the individual — of course the Puritans will be seen as the enemy.

Randolph Bourne, however, though he was part of this circle of ”intellectuals” who were very anti-Puritan and anti-Christian, was willing to look at Puritans through a slightly different lens, and considered that the conflict with Puritan principles of ‘repression’ or tyranny was a conflict within the Self. Here we enter into the speculative nature of psychology, which purports to have all the answers when it comes to human behavior.

Most of the negative things I have read about Puritans amount to juvenile whinings about ‘repression’, which seems to be the standard Freudian reading of human nature: all our problems are due to sexual repression and the lack of opportunity to be a ‘free spirit’ who makes up his or her own rules, complete autonomy supposedly being a good thing. These are all adolescent preoccupations. They are not the hallmark of a mature adult.

But then what do I know? I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist; only experts understand human behavior, right? I have a friend who is degreed in psychology and who counsels people. She informs me that Freud is passe, he’s old hat and nobody takes Freudian ideas seriously. But those ideas do live on, because, in Christian terms, they appeal strongly to the ‘flesh’, and we are all susceptible to that pull.

Almost everybody believes in the validity of psychology despite the obvious fact that it hasn’t improved our society in any visible way, in fact it has produced more people who love to be victims and who accept anything found in a pop psychology book.

And let’s face it: psychology is a rival belief system, counter to Christianity. Our Puritan ancestors believed the Biblical teachings, and today’s people, “wise in their own estimation” scoff at those Puritans for believing in Calvinism. Calvinism is little understood and is one of those belief systems that is highly unpopular now; the ‘scholarly’ sources written about Puritanism sneer at the idea of predestination — though it is explicitly in the Bible, in more than one place. People tend to cherry-pick, and grasp onto those things which please them. Our Puritan forefathers chose a serious, austere form of Christianity not because they were all naturally prone to those habits — but because they wanted to be true to the Bible. Nowadays that’s neither popular nor ‘cool.’

The Puritans were the ancestors of only some of us; the latecomers to this country had no act nor part in Puritanism. I suppose naturally it feels alien to them. Fine; they have their right to worship in a way that they ‘enjoy’ more if that’s how they see it.

What with recent events we ought to wonder if any form of Christian worship will be allowed in public. History may repeat. Our ancestors proved that they were stoic and strong and that their faith could tide them over. If we are true to our forefathers maybe we will have an advantage in situations where religious freedom is curtailed. Our ancestors will be our inspiration, then, I hope.

I suppose those who find some outlet in vilifying Puritans will continue to use our ancestors as their punching-bag. Can’t they find some real threat to be incensed about in this world? One would think there is no lack of targets for animus or suspicion.
The mature people will turn their attention to something more urgent than fighting against people who are gone to the grave centuries ago. And Puritans are no threat to anybody, insofar as any Puritanical people still survive in this sex-and-corruption-obsessed world.

I’m reminded of a quote from C.S. Lewis, who was a Christian but not a Puritan:

“We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under.

Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the dangers of mere ‘understanding.’ Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritanism.”

The Screwtape Letters

Horatio Nelson born, 1758

Lord Horatio Nelson was born, 29 September 1758, in Burnham Thorpe, Norfolk. He died at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, in the midst of his victory there.

Nelson is known to the English-speaking world, surely, as one of the great English heroes. As history itself is under attack, and our great men as part of it, I think it’s good to commemorate the lives and accomplishments of the great men our forefathers’ civilization has produced.

‘IDEA’: Dialects of the English language

The English language always interests me, especially in its many different dialects.

Some of you may be familiar with the IDEA website. I’ve blogged about it before, but I thought it might be of interest for readers here to check out the IDEA site. The acronym stands for ‘International Dialects of English Archive.‘ If you follow the link you will see the page which contains sound files of American dialects, with the voices of people from various parts of the U.S.. The participants are given material to read aloud, and thus we get some idea of their regional or local dialect.

On the IDEA website there are people from every region of the U.S., and if you find the drop-down menu at the top left of the page you can find voice samples from other English-speaking countries.

This is fascinating to me; I love our language, though I do get the impression that all our regional or local American dialects are fading away and being leveled out, so that the dialects become less distinct and more similar to each other. It seems the younger the speaker, the more generic is the accent or dialect. Some exceptions exist, of course. People from rural areas tend to retain more of an accent though even they are affected by ‘media English’, (the sort of non-accent, or more accurately, mid-American accent) which usually overpowers the natural accent.

I wonder if those of you reading this blog find that the accents on the recordings are like those of the average native of your area, or not? I thought the New England speech samples were identifiable as such.

But speaking for myself, it seemed many of the speakers from Texas didn’t sound as though they are Texans or even from the South, whereas in the past, accents were very noticeable and well-defined.

Most of the recordings are from several years back, and even in that length of time, people’s speech can change, especially as our society is undergoing so many changes.

No WASPs need apply

Now that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed on, it looks like we are in for a lot of agitation and rampaging from the malcontents on the left. They are making threats about ‘burning it all down’ if Trump replaces Ginsburg on the Court. It may be all talk — but judging by past and current behavior from those people I don’t think they will quiet down and be civilized.

The talk is that Trump has a female candidate to take RBG’s place. That’s Trump being politically correct again, as if a female candidate will placate the obstructionist left. If she is a POC (and I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump chose that way, hoping to appease) well, even that wouldn’t satisfy the left. Then there’s the ‘never-Trump’ fake conservatives.

But why, since there is only one on the Supreme Court who can be called a WASP, can’t we have one nominated? Or a few nominated? It seems to be some kind of unwritten law of Political Correctness that once a position is filled by POCs it can never, ever revert to an Anglo-Saxon-descended person. That would be regressing to the evil past, I suppose.

In the above picture of the SCOTUS justices from 1920, most of the justices were of old-stock WASP origins. In the photo we see Brandeis (who was of course Jewish), Pitney, Reynolds, and Clarke (on the top row, L-R), then the seated men in the front row are Day, McKenna, White, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Van Devanter.

Already we see how changing demographics, and the 19th century immigrant wave, were affecting institutions. The Court then had one Jewish justice, as well as McKenna, the son of Irish Catholic immigrants, and then Van Devanter is of Dutch ancestry. However Dutch were often considered sort of ‘honorary WASPs’ as they had as long a tenure in America as those of the early English stock, and they had fully assimilated by this time. Genetically, too, the Dutch and the English are seen as close kindred. In addition they were of the Protestant fold.

So most of the men on the Court, except for McKenna, the Irish Catholic, and Brandeis, were Protestant by faith, fitting the ‘WASP’ definition.

As people have pointed out, the majority faith in this country is still Protestant, though that includes Protestants of disparate denominations. But why should the majority population be subordinate to those of other origins and faiths? Why should we as the core people not have more input and representation? This country has made ‘diversity’ and antiracism the center of any ‘religion’ this country has.

It’s not likely to happen; there will be no resurgence of WASP influence, much less a return to dominance. It does not look as though common sense or fair play will ever make a comeback. For now we are stuck with the victimhood sweepstakes, and the truckling attitudes — to think we were once pre-eminent in this society.

I trust Trump to make the politically correct choices in this business, and I expect the left to oppose him at every step nonetheless.