Whose Americanism?

Once again, I can’t help but smirk while reading Adam Gopnik’s Trump’s Radical Anti-Americanism in The New Yorker:

“Beate and Serge Klarsfeld, the couple who did so much to bear witness to the terrible truths of the Second World War, came to town last week to introduce their new memoir to an American audience. In it, there is a photograph that can only be called heartbreaking in its happiness, unbearable in its ordinariness. It shows an eight-year-old Serge with his sister and their Romanian-Jewish parents walking along a promenade in Nice, in 1943, still smiling, still feeling confident, even at that late date, that they are safe in their new French home. Within a few months, the children and their mother were hiding in a false closet, as Gestapo agents took their father to Auschwitz, and his death.

What the photograph teaches is not that every tear in the fabric of civility opens a path to Auschwitz but that civilization is immeasurably fragile, and is easily turned to brutality and barbarism. The human capacity for hatred is terrifying in its volatility. (The same promenade in Nice was the site of the terrorist truck attack last year.) Americans have a hard time internalizing that truth, but the first days of the Trump Administration have helped bring it home. …

This is radical anti-Americanism—not simply illiberalism or anti-cosmopolitanism—because America is not only a nation but also an idea, cleanly if not tightly defined. …”

Whose Americanism?

Is it not obvious that Adam Gopnik is writing from a New York Jewish perspective? Since when is that perspective synonymous with Americanism? What sense does it make in light of American history? Even the most cursory reading of American history calls into question the value of “pluralism.”

If we are talking about the history of American immigration, then shouldn’t we note that whiteness was a requirement to become a naturalized American citizen from the Naturalization Act of 1790 until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952? What about the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which remained in force until we needed Chiang Kai-shek’s China to defeat the Japanese during the Second World War? What about TR’s Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan?

Do you think President Trump’s mild executive orders on refugees are outrageous? How about the Asiatic Barred Zone which banned immigration from all of South Asia in 1917? How about the Immigration Act of 1917 which banned all “idiots, feeble-minded persons, criminals, epileptics, insane persons, alcoholics, professional beggars” and all persons “mentally or physically defective, polygamists, and anarchists”? What do you think of the Immigration Act of 1924 which restricted immigration to preserve America’s Northwestern European White majority?

Here’s an example that ought to hit close to home with Adam Gopnik: in 1939, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt turned away the MS St. Louis which was carrying 900 Jewish refugees from the Third Reich. If Americanism is simply “pluralism” or “cosmopolitanism,” why was the MS St. Louis turned away from our shores by FDR? Shouldn’t that have violated “our values”? Maybe it was because we didn’t get the Refugee Act of 1980 until it was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter.

There’s no such thing as an inalienable right of refugees or foreign aliens to enter the United States. We didn’t even have a refugee resettlement program until the Carter administration. The vast majority of Third World immigration to the United States from Asia, Africa and Latin America dates back to President Lyndon Johnson’s disastrous Immigration Act of 1965. What’s more, there is ample precedent for the mass deportation of illegal aliens in American history. President Herbert Hoover deported millions of Mexicans during the Great Depression. President Eisenhower removed millions of illegal aliens from the Southwest during Operation Wetback in the 1950s.

Adam Gopnik invokes President James Madison writing about “pluralism” who served as the president of the American Colonization Society. The United States sponsored the creation of Liberia in West Africa as an outlet for free blacks who were then considered an undesirable element in our society. Monrovia, the capital of Liberia, was named after President James Monroe. Under President Andrew Jackson, we removed the Southeastern Indians to Oklahoma.

Do you want to get really offensive? Let’s do it.

Once upon a time, we had a vision of national greatness that was known as Manifest Destiny, which was the idea that it was the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race to conquer and spread our institutions across North America and that this was the work of divine providence. This was the spirit that led the pioneers into Oregon, White settlers into Texas where they launched the Texas Revolution, soldiers from the South into Mexico where our ancestors won the Southwest. There were even filibusters like William Walker who conquered Nicaragua while others tried and failed to conquer Cuba and Baja California.

“The Texas Revolution was from its beginnings interpreted in the United States and among Americans in Texas as a racial clash, not simply a revolt against unjust government or tyranny. Thomas Hart Benton said that the Texas revolt “has illustrated the Anglo-Saxon character, and given it new titles to the respect and admiration of the world. It shows that liberty, justice, valour – moral, physical, and intellectual power – discriminate that race wherever it goes.” Benton asked “old England” to rejoice that distant Texas streams had seen the exploits of “a people sprung from their loins, and carrying their language, laws and customs, their magna charta and all its glorious privileges, into new regions and far distant climes.”

In his two terms as president of Texas, Sam Houston consistently thought of the struggle in his region as one between a glorious Anglo-Saxon race and an inferior Mexican rabble. Victory for the Texans and the Americans in the Southwest would mean that large areas of the world were to be brought under the rule of a race that could make best use of them. Houston was less imbued with the harsh scientific racial theories that carried most Americans before them in the 1840s than with the romantic exaltation of the Saxons given by Sir Walter Scott and his followers.

Houston’s inaugural address in 1836 contrasted the harsh, uncivilized warfare of the Mexicans with the more human conduct of the Texans. He conjured up a vision of the civilized world proudly contemplating “conduct which reflected so much glory on the Anglo-Saxon race.” The idea of the Anglo-Saxons as the living embodiment of the chivalric ideal always fascinated Houston; the Mexicans were “the base invader” fleeing from “Anglo-Saxon chivalry.” In fighting Mexico the Texans were struggling to disarm tyranny, to overthrow oppression, and create representative government: “With these principles we will march across the Rio Grande, and … ere the banner of Mexico shall triumphantly float upon the banks of the Sabine, the Texian standard of the single star, borne by the Anglo-Saxon race, shall display its bright folds in Liberty’s triumph, on the isthmus of Darien.”

While conceiving of the Texas Revolution as that of a freedom-loving Anglo-Saxon race rising up to throw off the bonds of tyranny imposed by a foreign despot, Houston was also fully convinced of the inevitability of the general American Anglo-Saxon expansion. To him “the genius as well as the excitability” of the American people impelled them to war. “Their love of dominion,” he said, “and the extension of their territorial limits, also, is equal to that of Rome in the last ages of the Commonwealth and the first of the Caesars.” The people of the United States, he argued, were convinced that the North American continent had been bestowed on them, and if necessary they would take it by force. He told one correspondent in 1844 that there was no need to be concerned about the population said to occupy the vast area from the 29th to the 46th latitude on the Pacific: “They will, like the Indian race yield to the advance of the North American population …”

Wow. Just wow.

You can read about the true history of the Texas Revolution and much more in Reginald Horseman’s excellent book Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism. The worldview of Sam Houston was a million miles away from that of Adam Gopnik.

Gopnik continues:

“There is an alternative view, one long available and articulated, that America is not an idea but an ethnicity, that of the white Christian men who have dominated it, granting a grudging or probationary acceptance to women, or blacks, or immigrants. This was the view of Huck Finn’s pap, as he drank himself to death; of General Custer, as he approached Little Big Horn; of Major General Pickett, as he led the charge at Gettysburg. Until now, it has been the vision of those whom Trump would call the losers …”

By “there is an alternative view,” Gopnik means the worldview of the White people who founded and created the United States, whose ancestors were here long before the New York Intellectuals redefined Americanism in the 1930s:

“Central to our argument is the notion that the pre-World War I New York avant-garde valued expressive individualism and cosmopolitanism above all else. After the war, and coming of age in the late 1930s, a new generation of New York thinkers emerged to carry their torch. This group sported a larger Jewish contingent (owing to New York’s changing demographics), but its intellectual lineage came from the Young Intellectuals and carried forth their mantras. In David Hollinger’s estimation, these new intellectuals were formed from an equal fusion of Jewish and Anglo-Saxon radicalism and should be considered a united community, if not a surrogate ethnie. Nor was there an asymmetry of influence: the two groups of ethnic exiles influenced each other in dialectical fashion. Cardinal among their beliefs was the dictum that all attempts at collective representation, whether ethnonationalist or state-socialist, were to be shunned. …”

This is a really fascinating story.

If you want to learn more about how the New York Intellectuals redefined Americanism to mean cosmopolitanism, you should check out Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. We’ve already explored how they changed the symbolic meaning of the Statue of Liberty.

The Alt-Right represents an emerging consciousness and rejection of this alien elite. We’re rejecting their redefinition of Americanism which was the Jewish radicalism they brought to this country in the early 20th century from the ghettos of Central and Eastern Europe. There’s a reason why these people are so at odds with our ancestors and their symbols and it is because they only rose to power in the mid-20th century. Their false secular morality – the various -isms and -phobias, which they have imposed on the country through their control of the mass media – date back to their ascension to power.

President Donald Trump is only the first symptom of their waning power and loss of legitimacy.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. I never knew that General Pickett was only granting a “probationary acceptance” to the Southern women for whom he and his men were fighting.

  2. F*** this never ending Jewish suffering Holocaust narrative. Let’s replace the NY Jew journo’s passage from a Palestinian perspective.

    “Sari Nusseibeih, the Palestinian Historian who did so much to bear witness to the terrible truths of the Naqba, came to town last week to introduce their new memoir to an American audience. In it, there is a photograph that can only be called heartbreaking in its happiness, unbearable in its ordinariness. It shows an eight-year-old Sari with his sister and their Palestinian parents walking along a promenade in Gaza, in 1947, still smiling, still feeling confident, even at that late date, that they are safe in their Palestinian home. Within a few months, the children and their mother were hiding in a false closet, as Irgun agents took their father to Tel Aviv, and his death.

    What the photograph teaches is not that every tear in the fabric of civility opens a path to the Naqba but that civilization is immeasurably fragile, and is easily turned to brutality and barbarism. The human capacity for hatred is terrifying in its volatility. (The same promenade in Gaza was the site of an IDF helicopter gunship attack last year.) Israelis have a hard time internalizing that truth, but the first days of the Netanyahu Administration have helped bring it home. …

    This is radical Zionism—not simply illiberalism or anti-cosmopolitanism—because Israel is not only a nation but also an idea, cleanly if not tightly defined as a Jewish state”

    Oh yeah its never the Jews’ fault. They aren’t hypocritical bastards who keep pissing the world off at them.

    • Fuck Jews, fuck all of them. Their incessant, nauseating bullshit has caused me to lose every ounce of sympathy I once had for them. Judaism is a sick, supremacist cult whose tenets unavoidably bring it into conflict with the rest of mankind. The onus is on Jews to repudiate these tenets, not on the rest of us to make way for them.

      And I had to laugh at your post, because that is exactly the sort of parody I was going to write until I read yours. Send it to Gopnik and let him know we’re onto their bullshit. We’ll never be lied to again. Never Again.

  3. It’s amazing to watch these New York kikes purport to know more about America than Americans do.

    As I get older, I find my patience for these people diminishes.

    • There is NOTHING worse about America than East Coast Jews and their manipulations. The Blacks can be given their own ethnostate in a large part of the American South, but what do we about the Northeast and the Axis of Jewish power that resides there?

      • It’s off to the Russian Far East with the jews. Stalin wanted to give them Birobijzhan. It’s either that or send them to labor camps in the Arctic Circle.

      • “The Blacks can be given their own ethnostate in a large part of the American South”

        They already have one. It’s called Liberia.

        • Yeah, I don’t want to expel 30 million people across the ocean. Seems the humane thing to do is reserve a State for the Blacks and utilize peaceful ethnic cleansing as happened after WWII to create clearly defined ethno states in Europe. Also allow the American Indians to keep their reservations or form their own ethnostate.

          • “Yeah, I don’t want to expel 30 million people across the ocean”

            You may not want to. But Southern Whites would. I’m not giving up my land. And neither are any other Southerners. This whole notion of turning over Southern lands to Blacks, is a major sticking point between Southern Nationalists and White Nationalists outside of the South. Remember, the Abolitionists wanted to turn the slaves loose to slaughter the White population of the South. Then they themselves would recolonise the land, after having exterminated the survivors, Black and White. So they claimed. Succession was caused by fear of race war and genocide, not fear of the loss of a labour resource. You can work around that. But not being dead. This is a sore spot for us in Dixie.

          • Not a Southerner, but I can’t understand why White Southerners would want to live in majority black areas like the massive Black Belt in the American South.


            The simplest solution would be population transfers involving monetary and land compensation for both Whites and Blacks in the South to form their own ethnostate. There were tricky issues like this in Europe, Hitler was not going to torpedo the alliance with Mussolini over the Germans in the Italian Sudtirol region. American Whites shouldn’t forego an ethnostate over the hard fact that many Whites in the South may have to be relocated.

          • Its land transfers, if you take a black person’s property in Michigan and move them to the American South, you compensate them. The same goes for White people, if you take a White person’s land in Mississippi to create a black Ethnostate, you compensate him with land somewhere like West Virginia.

          • Yeah, I want to be compensated for the money I’ve given to Jews to fight their bullshit wars. Don’t think its going to happen.

          • You seriously think land transfers are going to happen like that? Ethnic cleansings don’t happen outside of wars and losers don’t get compensated when they are driven out.

          • Look at Stalin’s post WWII population transfers. That’s about as peaceful and orderly as we can hope for.

          • White Southerners would want to live in majority black areas like the massive Black Belt in the American South.

            They don’t. They live on the periphery. Nobody goes in there if they don’t have to. It’s like the Jewish Pale in Russia. White faces aren’t really welcome there. Black Belt also refers to Black Land Prairie, which extends all the way here, to Northeast Texas. It was/is some of the most productive farmland around. It’s too valuable to give up.

          • Do you feel the same way about the California Central Valley, which is now 2/3 Hispanic? The Central Valley is the most productive AG region in the world.

          • Here’s the problem, it’s much easier to reclaim California by repatriating Mexicans to their homeland than it is to create some pie in the sky scheme to send all Southern Blacks back to Africa.

          • Gotta disagree here. I live in the black belt. I will die before I leave my home and take some spot of land in WV or MN where my ancestors have not lived for 7 GENERATIONS as they have here. The presence of blacks is not the problem. The Non-Southern imposed egalitarianism, integration, and just general anti-white anti-South policies are the problem. 80%+ black Apartheid South Africa managed to produce a nuclear weapons program despite being sanctioned by virtually the entire world. Again, leave us the hell alone and we will produce a highly advanced civilization in the Black Belt.

          • I live on the western edge of the Texas black belt. I don’t blame you for not giving up you’re land. Same here. Friend of mine in school went with his parents to Alabama and passed through the black belt. They weren’t too friendly. Blacks told his dad to gas up, pay up, and get out. This was back in the 70’s. You’re a hundred percent right about outsiders stirring up the blacks. They’re always here in Texas, trying to change our laws, government and culture. Near where I live, a black kid got run over by a gravel truck and the Yankee news media turned it into Klan murder.

          • Geez. Yea I can relate. I’m just sayin, as a fellow Southerner, PLEASE don’t give u on us man. We need as many tough Texans as possible. The anti-Southern attitude within the Alt-Right is watered down, but still very much there. Long before the JQ became an issue, the battle was essentially between groups of whites with the two largest camps being Southerners and Northerners. That has not just gone away because of the Jewish presence. And it exist within the Alt-Right. Thus ppl saying with a straight face “oh we should just grant blacks an ethnostate in the South and white southerners can just get over it.”

          • I hadn’t given up. But I get tired of these people talking about us like we’re their subjects or property to dispose of at their leisure.

          • I find it highly suspicious there is support for a Black homeland smack bang in the middle of the South, since Southerners are the ONLY coherent group that have consistently resisted the White Genocide scam in the long term.

          • Apartheid South Africa was untenable and collapsed within 50 years. Multicultural America is also untenable. Whites living in a black majority area like the Black Belt put themselves at great risk, just like Afrikaners are at risk in South Africa. Personally, I would advocate European retrenchment and retreat from territories like South Africa and the Black Belt in order to save the White people living there.

            Leaving what are essentially White colonies surrounded by a Sea of Africans in SA or the Black Belt in order to focus on the White core territories was advocated by Lothrop Stoddard 100 years ago as a means to preserve Whites in their homelands.

          • SA collapsed under sustained international pressure. Left alone, I am convinced they would have bn fine.

            White ppl in the black belt do not need saving. We just need to be left alone.

            The black belt is not a white colony. It was created by whites with white and black labor.

            The Deep South *IS* our homeland. So help us save it,please. Or don’t. Just, I say again, leave us alone and we will be fine.

          • And lots of counties in the black belt are 50-55 % back and 45-50 % white. We are hardly “surrounded by a sea of Africans.”

          • Then you will die, H.D., simple as that. The interests of the race at large outweigh what some sentimental southern shithead thinks the world owes him.

          • HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! We have made it this long, we will continue to make it. What on earth have I asked of the world? I said “just leave us alone” at least 4 times in 2 comments. And I love how all you tough guy “Master Race” (LOL) internet warriors that would totally beat the hell out of or even lynch any black person that messed with you seem to cower in fear at the presence of blacks here in the real world, not on the internet. We will die because we are only 45% of the population? HA!!! Dont worry tho silvio. If the big bad black men ever come for you and yours, we will have your back. We wont expect u to abandon ur home because Mandingo and crew are so tough we could possibly defeat them. What a pussy you are. Keyboard warrior. Nothing else

          • The point is, you petty little southern shithead, that if a certain territory is going to be set aside and that territory happens to be “yours”, bad fucking luck. It’s the same rules we all have to play by. There is simply no morally realistic alternative.

          • Defending my homeland while expecting zero help from the outside world (u just completely made that up in ur first post) is in no way petty. Where on earth do you get the idea that it is up to u wether or not my homeland gets set aside. And not only that, but I get no say in the matte. Who “thinks the world owes them somethin” here buddy? Clearly not me.

          • If left to our own devices this would not be a problem. Non-Southern meddling in Southern affairs s what has made so much of the Black Belt unlivable. Not simply the presence of blacks.Leave us alone and we will be just fine.

          • How would it be “fine”? You’d start deporting blacks? Not a chance. Morally impermissible. Civil War II and the south gets its ass kicked all over again.

          • No. The natural hierarchal racial order that existed before Yankee meddling 1.0 and was actually BROUGHT BACK after reconstruction when outsiders stopped meddling in our affairs only to be once again destroyed by meddling outsiders with Yankee meddling 2.0 would return within 10 years.

          • And why would it touch of Civil War 2? Are you admitting what I have always known? That if we ever started to get a handle on living in a biracial society (again) northern whites would step in to stop it (again). Shows how concerned you are with “the race as a whole.” Well of course you are. Yall view us a YOUR colony. While still white, yall view us as “lesser than.”

          • Some nationalists surrender their land so easily. What are they going to do when the land they haven’t given away today, is reoccupied with diversity in 50 years due to inevitable treason? Keep dividing and retreating until nothing is left?

          • ‘Yeah, I don’t want to expel 30 million people across the ocean.’

            30 million into the ocean would be better.

      • Good question, although the distinction between ‘East Coast Jews’ and the rest of them is only one of style and assigned role.

        • East Coast Jews are even worse than Hollywood Jews or Jews living in urban centers like Chicago. There are many Hasidic Jews in the Northeast and Hasids are rude, disgusting people.

          • Jews in general are often rude, disgusting people (in the northeast). But it’s jewish propaganda to portray the worst elements from the seemingly tolerable ones. They are a nation state that works together. ALWAYS.

          • Hasids don’t even adhere to American cultural norms such as saying Hello back to someone that greets you. I’m not excusing Jewish behavior in general, just pointing out that the worst elements amongst the Jews reside in the Northeast.

          • There’s no difference between the Hollywood Jews and the religious Jews. The Talmud “great enlightenment” basically says that everyone not Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human unless they’re Jews and their lives don’t matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic people.

            The Jews have been kicked out of every single country they’ve ever been to in any numbers. Every last one. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths and must be deported.

  4. HW, your commentary on (((Gopnik’s))) article was first-rate. I can’t say the same for the article itself, however. With the possible exception of Philip Roth I can’t think of any really good jew writers.

    • Are you talking about current writers?

      Chomsky, although a leftist asshole, sometimes cuts to the heart of the matter. He’s defended the right of Robert Faurisson to speak his mind.

    • He’s famous for creating a character who fantasized about ‘sticking his dick up her entire [WASP] culture,’ and for coming from Essex County, NJ.


  5. “There’s no such thing as an inalienable right of refugees or foreign aliens to enter the United States.”

    Down to the nut cuttin’.

  6. I am so sick of the New York Jewish perspective of obessing over WWII. That war is so over and is just one aspect of history that defined Americans…..and they seem to forget the Americans were not the Nazis.

    • In the words of former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer, “Why is there a massive Holocaust Memorial Museum in a nation that worked to save Jews from the Holocaust?”

      • Russian pogroms and the Black Hundred.

        Most American Jews are descendants of Russian Jews. Its why Jews spew their anti Russian hate on TV and are openly Anti Christian. Many of the Anti Semitic pogroms were aided by the Russian Orthodox Church.

        • There are three main reasons Jews hate Russia:
          1.) Stalin’s defenestration of Jews from political power in the purges of the 1930’s & ’40’s,
          2.) Soviet support of the Arabs against Israel and,
          3.) Putin’s defenestration of the Jewish oligarchs.

          • I think the hatred began before the 1930’s. The majority of Jews fell from privilege or never made it into that status and 6 million oy gavults resulted.

          • You bring up valid points, but Jewish Antipathy towards Russia goes back farther than Stalin. Most American Jews are descended from Russian Jews who came to America during the Tsarist era.

      • The Czar. Funnily enough Hitler arrives politically right around the time the Czar is killed.

    • The Nazis weren’t ‘nazis.’

      There was no ‘Holocaust.’ About 300-600,000 jews died from overall conditions of war. There were no gas chambers and no mass extermination plans.

    • “and they seem to forget the Americans were not the Nazis.”

      Don’t you get it yet? “Nazi” is their code word for White.

  7. “If we are talking about the history of American immigration, then shouldn’t we note that whiteness was a requirement to become a naturalized American citizen from the Naturalization Act of 1790 until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952?”

    ‘We’ are conveniently ignoring the many conflicting definition of ‘whiteness’ which undergirded the changing immigration laws during this period.

    Also, 23andme didn’t distinguish between my irish and british ancestry, which it places in one category. Anyone with eyes, ears and a rudimentary grasp of geography and history knows that my german/scandinavian ancestry and biology isn’t so easily separable from the ‘irish and british’ category.

    ‘We’ or ‘white’ = northwestern europeans.

    • ETA Lots of people don’t seem to know that ‘anglo saxon’ derives from Denmark. The Angles and the Saxons came from Denmark to England. The other tribe that took control of England as the Roman Empire dissolved was the Jutes, don’t know what became of them.

      England was totally celtic prior to the roman invasion. Whole parts of Germany were also dominated by celtic tribes at one point. Supposedly some of the regions which remained catholic were the more celtic ones. My own german ancestors who emigrated to America were catholics but they came from north central Germany to escape religious persecution or thereabouts.

      Finer distinctions between us might exist but we are a race. If one lived around a mix of these nationalities and also among mediterraneans and slavs the differences are obvious without having to study them. The slavs are our cousins, the mediterraneans our colonizers.

      • …I should qualify the term ‘mediterranean.’ It refers to Italians and Jews primarily, as neither’s culture comes originally from Europe. I recognize the Greeks and some parts of the Spanish as native european cultures, whether all people in either have pure european blood.

        While some italians are mostly biologically european in the north and some in central and southern Italy picked up european blood from various sources, they’re still corrupt and probably profoundly shaped in their mercenary degenerate culture from having been overrun by north africans and semites and from being middlemen in general.

        ‘White’ in the US primarily means anglo/german/celtic (and more often just anglo) when it comes to the most derogatory uses of it, and to the worst oppressions that use enables.

      • It’s highly unlikely that the British tribes were entirely Celtic. Look at the map and see how close to Belgium and Holland are Kent, Essex and East Anglia. People around Thanet, Dover, Hastings, Margate are.

        The Romans under Claudius used Batavian (Dutch) Legions to invade Britain. Many would have settled. Many Batavians would have settled before that. Before that the Belgic tribes came over…

        • I tend to doubt that. For one, because I’ve never heard any historian mention this drift from Belgium and Holland into England. Pre-Roman England is described as celt, period. The Vikings did alight in northern parts of England and in parts of Ireland, as well. Both the english and the irish have some streaks of roman and spanish (closely related) to boot, which probably accounts for them being categorized by 23andme as one group, ‘Irish and British.’ But the dominant celtic base of both groups explains why my part scandinavian and german DNA is recognizable, although some part is unidentifiable ‘northwestern european,’ too.

          Do you have family who hail from all these parts, Captain? Because I do (Ireland, Holland, Germany, Scotland, England) and judging from a cultural perspective, the brits resemble the irish in ways the dutch and germans don’t.

          • You’re not discerning between pre-Roman times and after. I think it very likely the invaders weren’t real ‘romans,’ since the biological traces the romans left were just that, mere traces. And they or someone were there for a few hundred years, at least in the ruling class.

            I’m talking pre-Roman times, when England was celtic. Since the romans only administered the region (without fully occupying it) even their appointees’ DNA didn’t leave that profound a mark. The danish invasion did leave more of one, definitely.

          • I’m pretty sure that the British didn’t mind outlanders who came as individuals, brides or husbands.

            The high status bowman they found at Stonehenge grew up in the Alps according to dental chronological

          • Eh, lots of pseudo science is coming out to make us look bad, Cap’n. And to justify mediterranean et al invasion of our homelands. Like, out of nowhere in the last five years I think ‘scientists’ are suddenly claiming the celts came from the North into Spain instead of vice versa, based on ‘remains.’ Such a reversal justifies north african invasions of Spain, and portrays celts as conquerors, which I don’t think they ever were. I’d be very careful of who and when this anthropological ‘science’ comes from.

          • It’s complicated. Whatever the historical and Organic connections the English have to Holland, Scotland, Ireland,Denmark, France don’t justify a bunch of niggers or Pakis overrunning the place.

            The Celt is a Greek term anyway. It’s more cultural than biological from that point of view.

    • There is nothing wrong with urbanism per se – and a hell of a lot right. Want to say Jew, say Jew, okay bumpkin?

  8. I think Trump’s Justice Department will have to take the immigration ban all the way to the Supreme Court. Ninth Circuit will probably side with Washington’s AG and I think Minnesota’s is filing a brief. Other federal judges besides Robart are trying to rule around the ban…although it only lasts 90 days so who knows.

    Trump was going for a symbolic victory but the maniacal left couldn’t just let him have it.

    • The 9th Circuit is the the most liberal appellate court in the land. The 9th Circuit one said “Under God” was Unconstitutional. Some form of Trump’s policy like a Muslim ban will eventually get to the Supreme Court. Lets hope Gorsuch and whoever replaces Anthony Kennedy don’t cuck out.

      • There might be 100% real, spontaneous riots when Trump’s appointees decide in his favor. God that would be funny.

  9. It is not just the mass media. The kikes have rewritten American history books and American national myths. They have created incentives for minorities to retain their identities and join the anti-white coalition. They have divided the white European majority into oppressed women and oppressed homosexuals. They have created anti-white anti-Christian alliances with black, hispanics, Muslims, Asians and homosexuals.

  10. I was hoping Trump would do what President Jackson did and tell the federal courts to go soak their heads, he’s in charge, he was elected, not some dirtbag judge.

  11. It is the nexus of the Anglo-Saxon (and Anglo-Celtic) with Jesus Christ and Christendom. A Holy Crusade.

    Barbarians can conquer, but only destroy and leave ruins.

    It is the civilized, especially Western Civilization, whose pinnacle was a selection of Christian nonconformists from the British isles (whom I am not descended from but recognize).

    But they – in the Constitution – noted even they were (morally) weak and fallen so had to disperse power. Juries. Several branches of government. The states v.s. the feds. The Anglos achieved greatness in their humility. Washington placed his sword in Congress when the war was over. Then heeded the call for the Constitutional Convention. Then to be President, but limited himself to two terms. King George said Washington was a better man because of this virtue.

    Yet this is the point. It is not the barbarian Saxon, but the civilized one, acting with force and violence, that is holy.

  12. “Manifest Destiny, which was the idea that it was the destiny of the
    Anglo-Saxon race to conquer and spread our institutions across North
    America and that this was the work of divine providence”

    This has been going on since at least 4000 BC; the myth of Prometheus is a take on a real phenomena, namely, Aryan warrior-priests the spreading of the Aryan concept of Truth, Order, and Right (arta) along with astronomy, mechanics, and metallurgy to the lesser tribes of the world.


  13. “these new intellectuals were formed from an EQUAL fusion of Jewish AND Anglo-Saxon radicalism and should be considered a UNITED community”

    So glad this has been pointed out. The Jew and the Yankee joined forces. Obvious to Southerners. Unfortunately not so obvious to all.

  14. We should use their own memes against them. When they say “never again” we should agree. We should “never again” allow ourselves to be manipulated with phony atrocity stories and tear jerking narratives. It’s our country and we intend to keep it. If even after several generations of living in our country you identify more with “refugees” than Americans because a policy of secure borders might have kept your ancestors from coming here, then you aren’t really one of us. That itself is a good argument for not only keeping out any future refugees, who will likely identify with their own ethnic kinsmen over Americans, but that we should have kept your ancestors out to begin with. If we properly frame this it’s a losing argument for them. I’d just love to see them telling Americans that they can’t have borders because it would be bad for the Jews.

  15. The 2009 post along a similar theme was also excellent.

    Douthats latest is good. I wonder if he reads this site.

Comments are closed.