‘Civic nationalism’

At the Council of European Canadians blog, there’s a very good piece by Jon Foster on “Civic Nationalism”. I’ve mentioned Civic Nationalism a number of times, I think, in posts here on my blog.

I recommend reading the piece by Jon Foster; it’s a longish piece, but well worth it. He makes all the essential points and sums up the subject very well.

Obviously I think Civic Nationalism is detrimental to us for a number of reasons, which Foster explains well. But the main problem with it is that it keeps people from recognizing that the real solution to our dire situation is not to embrace the multicultural choice; ‘civic nationalism’ is, when you look at how it works in the real world, just proto-globalism, as it tries to make a multicultural, Tower-of–Babel nation an inevitability. This is what has happened in most of the Western nations, in former Christendom, in the UK as well as in Canada and the U.S.A.

The ‘Qanon’ movement promotes Civic Nationalism. The QAnon movement is not the ‘threat’ it’s made out to be by the complicit media — but I can’t approve it because it, too, is a ‘CivNat’ project, with their goal to restore America — but as a completely ‘civic nationalist’ country. You notice I don’t say ‘as a nation.’ A Tower of Babel is not a nation. Yet that is what they want to establish and to preserve, not an organic nation.

‘Q’ emphasizes how everyone has to learn to live in harmony with the burgeoning numbers of immigrants from literally everywhere, and people who make critical or politically incorrect statements about the Others will be scolded or warned that ‘that kind of talk gets us in trouble; we’ll be de-platformed,’ etc.

Civic Nationalism, in Foster’s words, is a fraud; it’s been perpetrated on us by degrees over a long period of time, and we, here in the U.S., went from being a country made up mostly of Anglo-Saxon descended people, with some kindred peoples here, to being a people of multi-ethnic immigrant stock — mostly European, though — to being a disparate collection or congeries of people, many not at all kindred to us, in language, customs, religion, cuisine, or genetics. And we are told this is somehow the highest form of human society, though we see it playing out differently in reality, with inter-ethnic tensions and conflicts.

Civic Nationalism, by being presented to us as an inevitability, or as an ideal form of society, deters many people from considering the ethno-nationalism that was once the default.

Civic Nationalists seem to be very dogmatic about their chosen system, and it appears they won’t brook any criticism of their system, often being proud of their multicultural, politically correct ideals, believing in their ‘rainbow society’ notions, and looking down on ethno-nationalists.

Do we need a new name?

Ar VDare.com, there is an article by Wayne Allensworth, about Naming the Historic American Nation. The subtitle: To Combat Dispossession, Middle America Must Find a New Name.

This piece would seem to be directed toward those of us of old colonial stock. I don’t know that my readers are necessarily part of that group, but I know that some of you fit the description. But Allensworth is directing this piece at a wider group, not just those who are of the original founding stock of this country.

He does grant that Anglos, that is, English colonists, were the founders of this country and the ‘core’ people of the country.

“The American core, then, is Anglo. That founding core went on to assimilate, sometimes with some difficulty, waves of other Europeans. “Americanization” was the program whereby other Europeans were forced to conform to an Anglo-Protestant foundational culture. The founding stock plus those that assimilated became the American people—what VDARE.com calls “The Historic American Nation”—the core that defines the nation in the political and cultural sense.”

I will go along with the writer’s premise for the moment, although I’m not clear on his definitions.

The author uses Russia as an example of a country with a definite ethnic identity, based on culture, religion, shared history, and so on. Still, even Russia represents a number of ethnicities, even though the old Soviet Union is gone. Russia for a long time promoted its multiculturalism, its many nationalities within its borders. But its history is not of the ‘melting pot’ variety so cherished by the government of this country.

The Founding Fathers of this country, almost all of whom were of English descent or ‘British’ descent (if British can be called a nationality) but they definitely had a shared culture and a sense of a shared history. Now, thanks to centuries of immigration of many disparate peoples, we are more fragmented, not a unified people.

The main thrust of the article, however, is that we as a people are “under assault”, facing dispossession, and that in order to ensure our continued existence as a national unit, we have to have more of a common identity, and we must, in the author’s opinion, find a new name for ourselves.

So what should we call ourselves?

“Core Americans” is one possibility. The term “foundational” has come into use as well in describing both black people with a long historical connection to America, as well as to the core American group. “Foundational Americans” is an accurate description of the core group.

I’ve used “Middle Americans” as a name for us, as it has been used before to describe those of us attached to the heartland.

We had this discussion on my original blog: how should we refer to ourselves? Some people used the term ‘legacy Americans’ or ‘heritage Americans’ and ‘old stock Americans’ or ‘colonial stock’, but those labels did not apply to everyone.

I don’t have a ready suggestion for what we should be called. The word ‘American’ has been stripped of meaning once anybody and everybody can cross our ‘borders’ and call themselves American. Many Latin Americans object to our use of the term ‘American’, saying that everyone in both North and South America is an ‘American’, and that we in the USA are arrogant to appropriate the label for ourselves.

And sadly, many young people born in this country ridicule the name ‘American’ by slurring it as ‘Amurkan’ or ‘Amur’can‘, which to them, seems to typify ignorant, loutish people who they see as being many of the American-born of this country.

The term ‘Amerikaner’ seems to have gained some traction among some of the younger people on the right, as a term which would include people of mixed European ancestry. It sounds very Germanic to me, but to many people that’s a plus.

Maybe a new name for the core people of this country would help in solidifying an identity. However this country is so sorely divided in so many ways, I am not sure that a new name would make a big difference.

I’m interested in hearing opinions from readers, if you have any input to offer.

Virginia Dare

I’m a little late in commemorating the birthday of Virginia Dare, who was the first English child born to English colonists on this continent. Her birthday was on the 18th of August, but better late than never.

When I first began blogging, I usually wrote a little piece about Virginia Dare, and the mystery of the Roanoke colonists, whose whereabouts and fate were unknown; they disappeared. Were they absorbed by the local Indian tribe, or were they killed? Did they starve, or lose their way, so that they could not re-unite with the other colonists?

“Making the strange story of the Roanoke Colony all the more mysterious were the eerie circumstances surrounding its disappearance. The baffling circumstances were compounded more by what was not found than any evidence left behind. The agonizing fact was, there was almost no indication at all of how or why these 107 people vanished. There was no sign of war with hostile natives, no burned houses left behind, and no bodies – just a crude abandoned fort. There was no evidence of struggle, warfare or battle. In fact, it seemed that what homes and buildings that had been built were methodically dismantled, indicating the colonists had moved on purpose, and not in a situation of duress.”

Totally History” website

We will likely never know the fate of the Roanoke colony.

I can’t help asking this question whenever I’ve written about Virginia Dare: will there be any evidence that we were ever here, or will we be the next ”lost colony”, replaced, and missing without a trace?

On ‘Puritanophobia’

I’ve just come across this piece at Counter-Currents, titled ‘Puritanophobia.’ It’s by Robert Hampton, whose writings I haven’t come across before. It’s a well-written piece.

The subject is one that I’ve addressed here, as my readers know, and it is a subject that should be discussed more often. It’s obvious that there is a deep dislike on the part of many Americans (or ‘Americans’) towards Puritans, and their descendants. I find this part odd and illogical, in that many descendants of those Puritans, in this day and age, may not even know of their Puritan ancestry. And they may have little in common with those Puritan forebears as far as their worldview, belief system, and habits. The Puritan way of life is long dead, in my opinion. I say this as a descendant of Puritan separatists who settled the Massachusetts colony.

I may overstate the case in saying Puritanism is ‘dead.’ I don’t say this disrespectfully; I would wish that the best aspects of the Puritan way could be preserved or even revived. I know that in the last couple of decades — maybe longer — books written by the old Puritans have become more popular and read by a certain number of Christians.

The writer of the linked piece lists the various reasons why so many present-day people — and not just Americans — seem to loathe Puritans — or at least their image of Puritans, which is often a caricature of the actual people. We all know that Puritans are imagined to be ‘sexually repressed’ and most of the anti-Puritans think that the Puritans of old forced their rigid sexual morality on other people. This part is a misconception. Further, the Puritans were not ‘repressed’ in the sense of averse to sex; Governor John Winthrop, a staunch Puritan, fathered 13 or 14 children in his marriages. Large families were the norm. I doubt there were many repressed asexuals, as having a family was considered virtuous.

By contrast, the Shaker sect, which came to America later, was a sect that required celibacy for all its members; they had to be asexual for all intents and purposes. That’s also why their cult dwindled away; not enough recruits, while there were some dropouts. The Puritan faith, by contrast, acknowledged healthy sexuality and marriages were fruitful. These were not ‘repressed’ people, though they lived by Biblical teachings on monogamous marriage.

And for those who think their rules were too severe, remember that our society has a heavy bias toward libertinism, promiscuity, casual sex. It’s our present-day views that are warped, and which have caused a lot of suffering (abortions, diseases, unwanted children, fatherless ‘families’). I find it hard to believe that people think we are somehow the moral betters of the old Puritans.

Why do people hate the Puritans, or at least their distorted image of Puritans?

The hatred extends, as the piece notes, to the wider community of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, ‘WASPs’. (I don’t particularly like that acronym, but I suppose it’s here to stay.) Some of that animus is supposedly the result of arrogant or ‘snobbish’ behavior by these WASPs who were here before the waves of immigrants arrived. Of course being here first meant that they possessed some degree of privilege, having been established here for generations when the immigrants began settling in New England. The immigrants saw the WASPs as representing authority, which they felt was not earned, and an authority to which they did not want to subject themselves.

And I think that the immigrants and others who settled in the Puritan strongholds in the Northeast had a lot of insecurity when comparing themselves with the Anglo-Americans, and that led to envy and resentment.

It goes on to this day, though there are fewer identifiable Anglo-Protestant, old stock Americans to account for the degree of resentment and spite that still exists.

Old-stock Puritan descendants are either believed to be extinct (or wished to be, anyway) or they are said to be still in control of the levers of power in the U.S.

Some people claim that the WASP elites collude with a Jewish faction to control everything, particularly the financial system. Some people wrongly believe that these shadowy elites still live in New England. In fact, New England, except for the rural areas, is a very “diverse” place, not at all controlled by WASP elites. Many of the original Puritan stock of New England moved West in the 19th century, and their descendants are in many Western states and parts of the Midwest.

As to why there is apparently so much Jewish resentment of WASPs or Puritans — Moldbug, with his ”Cathedral” idea is shifting blame for what he dislikes to Anglo-Saxons and their innate defects. Paul Gottfried also takes a hypercritical tone when discussing WASPs, and apparently carries grudges and grievances based on perceived slights from WASPs in long-ago college days.

Some of the resentment of WASPs and Puritans is the reflection of the obsessions of a lot of ethnic academics, who pass on the resentful and invidious attitudes to their students, who absorb these attitudes unquestioningly.

Paul Gottfried has said that WASPs are ‘weaklings’ who are too wimpy to defend themselves; so on the one hand, WASPs are implied to be imperious and snobbish, hurting the ‘feelings’ of those of other ethnicities, but yet they are too weak and ineffectual to speak up in their own defense. Gottfried says that more ethnocentric groups like blacks and other ethnics would quickly defend themselves verbally if they were subject to being attacked as WASPs are.

If that’s true — and I’m sure it is — does Gottfried not notice that blacks are given the biggest megaphone to speak up for themselves? Their grievances, no matter how trivial or less-than-credible they seem, are given maximum attention, and always treated as gospel truth, automatically. Blacks are given a platform to air their perpetual grievances, and the widest possible audience. To a lesser extent, other POCs can speak up for ‘their people’, and be given a lot of latitude, like blacks, to make accusations or demands. WASPs, however, have “White privilege”, supposedly, and no attack, whether verbal or physical, is given any credence or attention.

Anyone who thinks that Anglo-Americans are given the same consideration as official ‘victim’ groups like those Gottfried speaks of is deluded.

The Hampton piece mentions the prominent men of the old Puritan stock who were White advocates — men like Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, Henry Cabot Lodge. And on the science (HBD) side of it, men like Carleton Coon and Carleton Putnam. They are kinsmen of mine so I can’t help giving them credit.

On ‘who we are’

There’s an important piece at VDare by James Kirkpatrick on the issue of who ‘we’ Americans are, particularly as our country (like Canada and other Anglosphere countries) becomes unrecognizable due to mass immigration.

This question has been dealt with more than once on this blog; it’s at the center of the story of Anglo-Americans, especially as we have been effectively displaced from our position as the founders of the ‘First Effective Settlement‘ on the North American continent. The idea of the ‘First Effective Settlement’ comes from Wilbur Zelinsky. I’ve argued that consistently, with little success because everyone wants to champion their own ethnicity, or at least to denigrate Anglo-Americans, by reciting a list of every nationality who had a colony, however short-lived or unsuccessful, here in North America.

‘Critically, Huntington argued that the core American identity is not “white” or even Northern European. “America is a founded society created by seventeenth-and-eighteenth-century settlers almost all of whom came from the British Isles,” he wrote. Though he did not use the term, one could say that Huntington argues that America was shaped by “Anglo privilege.” Drawing on Wilbur Zelinsky’s “Doctrine of First Effective Settlement,” Huntington argued that the relatively small groups of British settlers who settled the future United States had a larger impact “than the contributions of tens of thousands of new immigrants a few generations later.”

I’ve cited the ‘First Effective Settlement’ point here and elsewhere, but people like the old melting pot idea, ”We’re all Americans and we’re all equal” as Americans; we all built America. And in the 20th century we have the counter-narrative that ”immigrants (Ellis Island varieties) built America” and now ”slaves built America.” Obviously history is not changed by rhetoric like this. The facts are still the facts despite the wish to celebrate multiculturalism.

But is multiculturalism obliterating the original Anglo-Protestant American culture — or the people themselves? Many Americans insist that ‘nobody is a ‘pure’ example of any ethnicity because we are all mixed; so then our English ancestors’ genes were submerged in the mixture. Wrong; though there is a lot of mixture of European genetics in this country, some places — like the South — had very low rates of immigration, and people did not stray far from home, tending to intermarry with those of the same background, genetically, socially, culturally, religiously. Now of course that the South is undergoing change thanks to mass immigration (look at Virginia, or the Carolinas, parts of Texas) but until recent generations the people have preserved their family lines — for now.

Whether the original character and culture of the Anglo-Protestant core is preserved is of importance, if Huntington were correct that the culture could be revitalized and maybe it might even mean a revitalized America.

Huntington’s book ‘Who Are We‘, was published in 2004, and is revisited in this VDare piece, the consensus today being that Huntington was mistaken in his belief that the Anglo-Protestant core of America would persist. Despite mass immigration and the (imposed and mandatory) multiculturalism Huntington appeared to believe that enough of the old Anglo-Protestant order still persisted, making it possible that the old order could be revived. It does seem, unfortunately, as if Huntington overestimated the ability of the original, old stock Anglos to re-assert any dominance. This situation is due in large part to a hostile media, which is generally anti-White, and especially so when the people in question are Anglo-Saxon. And of course the academic establishment teaches that Whites in general are guilty of many ‘crimes’ against the peoples seen as ‘victim groups’, or as they are officially called in some places, ‘protected groups.’ But somehow Anglo-Americans are singled out as blameworthy to a greater degree.

Kirkpatrick’s piece outlines how the effort to be ‘inclusive’ of the many immigrants from widely disparate origins led to a seemingly insoluble dilemma. The new immigrants were taught about ‘Americanism’ and about civics and how to speak English. This worked for the most part with the European immigrants, but some groups remained alienated from society. Kirkpatrick cites Huntington who tells us that the ideas of Europeans like Gunnar Myrdal, with his extreme liberal views on race, was an influence on the approach of the social engineers in this country. Because of the effort to ‘include’ and integrate blacks, there was no longer an emphasis on the [White] ethnicity or racial consciousness; America was now supposed to be all things to all people, but reality proved to be not amenable to this effort. We can’t serve two (or more) masters; someone comes to dominate. Opposing sides can’t both have what they want or need. Somebody loses.

So Anglo-Saxon Americans lost our primacy, our pride of place, as the sons and daughters of those colonists who came here and accomplished so much, despite the odds.

I believe that genetics are not unimportant, contrary to what a lot of Americans think. I believe that it is not impossible that our folk, relatively few though we may be, could experience a renewal, if only we regained the confidence we once had, and that our fathers had. But I believe also that the faith of our colonist ancestors was an anchor, something that kept them strong and grounded, and at times, almost fearless.

Obviously we live in a turbulent time, when ‘things fall apart; the center cannot hold…’ but the center for our ancestors was their faith. If we remove that from the equation, then there’s an almost nil chance of a resurgence and a re-awakening.

Lovecraft still offending people

H.P. Lovecraft has been dead since 1937 — since March of 1937. That’s what, 83 years ago? And he is still offending people by his opinions on the subject of HBD.

It’s the Irish who are taking such umbrage at his outspoken opinions, although he can’t be said to have singled out the Irish for his blunt appraisals. I think he was equally “insensitive” toward Mediterraneans and anybody from the other side of the Hajnal Line.

One fact that the ‘victims’ of HPL’s frankness forget, or perhaps never knew, is that his opinions were not at all uncommon amongst his peers, or among most of the generations up until the time of the Civil Rights Revolution, when being offended and demanding apologies became the order of the day.

Do we have some kind of ‘Constitutional Right’ or guarantee protecting us from being offended by people’s opinions of us? If so,  Anglo-Saxon Americans have cause to complain because there are a considerable number of Immigrant-Americans who despise Anglos and who say so at every available opportunity. Yet we’re supposed to just take it and not respond in any way. Then they say we are weaklings who don’t defend ourselves.

I noticed that there is some new TV series with ‘Lovecraft’ in the title and it, oddly, features black characters. It looks as though it might supposedly be set during Lovecraft’s era and in rural New England (just a guess) — never mind that in rural New England in the early 20th century, black people were scarce outside the cities of the Northeast. This kind of game the media have of placing POC in areas and times where they were all but nonexistent is just another form of media gaslighting. It’s insulting to our intelligence.

The media will have convinced the majority, by at least the next generation, that black people have always lived in every corner of the globe, and that they were just omitted from movie portrayals or textbook history because of ”racism.” So I suppose the globalist-multicult has to convince people that Lovecraft’s rural New England was populated by blacks as well as all other races and ethnicities. HPL would be incredulous that lies would be so readily resorted to in order to promote an agenda.

The thing is, today we are all supposed to worship at the altar of ”equality”, ever since the post-WWII years. But since then most of us (those of us with open eyes and the ability to accept reality) have learned that there is no equality; it’s absurd to have to pretend that we are all ‘the same’ or that we have the same capabilities. An alarming number of people do believe that, or at least pretend to. But if we acknowledge that truth is objective, and that it’s not ‘relative’, we have to reject this mandatory cult of equality.

Yet the ”equality” (actually the left seems to prefer the word ‘equity’ now for some reason) is not equality; it merely inverts the existing order. Anglo-Saxons once dominated this land — because they established lasting colonies, and their culture predominated over that of the other smaller colonies — so now they have to be demoted to being just one of many ethnicities and races in this country. People of other ethnicities now claim to outnumber us, so they assert primacy.

Anglo-Saxons are the favored culprit of the other people who hold grievances about the pecking order in this country, so we take the lion’s share of criticism. We are considered sort of the arch-Whites of this country, exemplifying everything the aggrieved people resent.

Lovecraft’s opinions and mindset were accepted in his day — not because people of that generation were ‘hateful bigots’ but because they called them as they saw them. They were honest. But honesty’s out of fashion in the 21st century.





The ‘black pill’: Canada

If my readers followthe immigration situation on the Canadian blogs, you will be aware of the blatant discrimination against Anglophone Canadians, and old-stock Canadians in particular.

This information via a Twitter discussion on immigration to Canada, and the rapid demographic transformation we see playing out now,  is the ‘black pill.’ I hope that more people will become aware of what is happening. It seems we are in a time when people are either unaware, or aware and apathetic.

So why does this situation get so little attention or discussion in the media? It should get more attention, even outside Canada, because parallel situations exist in all Western countries, including ours and the UK, really all the Anglosphere countries. The same plans to demographically ‘transform’ our countries continue apace, despite economic problems (Covid and its effect on businesses, especially small business) and Covid itself which is (so we’re told) still out there, a threat to public health. Given this situation,  mass immigration hardly seems like something we need;  What about the scarcity or high cost of housing and other necessities? The public health implications? The answer would not appear to be adding millions more warm bodies to our countries, yet an invitation, ‘come one, come all’ to the Third World seems to be a standing invitation, open-ended.

Meantime, the border between Canada and the U.S. is still closed.

I hope our Anglo-Canadian cousins are fully awake to the intensifying of the situation there, and to the implications for them.

Francis Bacon on preserving the past

Francis Bacon__


By an exact and scrupulous diligence and observation, out of monuments, names, words, proverbs, traditions, private records and evidences, fragments of stories, passages of books that concern not story and the like, industrious persons do save and recover somewhat from the deluge of time.

– Francis Bacon, on Advancement of Learning

‘Migrant’ crisis in the UK

As more and more boats carrying ‘migrants’ continue to arrive in the UK, Nigel Farage is now accusing Boris Johnson of not having the ‘guts’ to deal with the situation.

“On Monday morning, Mr Farage said that he doesn’t think the Prime Minister will tackle the issue out of fear of backlash and accusations of racism.


Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Farage said that statements from the government about trying to secure a deal with France to immediately return boat migrants “will remain hollow and meaningless until there is real political action,” adding: “it needs to come soon.”

The part played by France in ferrying these ‘migrants’ over to Britain is strange. Surely this wasn’t part of some agreement between the two peoples, was it? Otherwise it looks very much like an act of aggression.

The Breitbart article I link to speaks of PM Boris Johnson as being ‘paralyzed’ by Political Correctness. It’s certainly true that PC does paralyze people, preventing them from experiencing normal feelings about this situation. It’s meant to do just that. It disarms us psychologically, making us think that we don’t dare oppose these wrongs because we might then be shown as ‘bad’ people, heartless people who don’t want to help the oppressed and the needy. We’re manipulated into feeling that we have no moral right to act in our own interest, but must exist only to serve others.

However I don’t think this is afflicting Boris Johnson or any of his colleagues in government. It appears to me that all the political leaders are of one mind, more or less; even those in opposing political parties are globalists at heart, or so it seems. In their world, things are probably going according to plan.

Nigel Farage is starting to sound more like an ethnopatriot — or is he just playing a  part?

Farage is somewhat popular with a lot of right-leaning Americans, but I can’t say with certainty what I think of his politics. I like that he always stood up to the EU apparatchiks in Brussels.

The migrant boats will keep coming; it’s obvious that the ‘Grand Remplacement’ is under way in the UK and in Europe and here; a real life Camp of the Saints. However I can hope that somehow this could be stopped; Britain is a small island, densely populated, and it cannot hold millions more people.  I have never been an environmentalist in the sense of the leftist tree-huggers, but to destroy so much green space and pave over the landscape, to urbanize lots of beautiful rural areas — all for the sake of greed, really — it’s so wrongheaded, and it’s an offense against nature. And most of all, it’s a great wrong to the people of England — and the people of the whole island, really. The ethnic English, as well as the Welsh and the Scots — those people belong to that land and it belongs to them.