There’s no identity, no sense of belonging. We ought to try to grow into a normal ethnicity.

Not to sound special, but my folks at least came over quite early. And the US South only recently started receiving mass immigration. I’d like for the rest of the country to come together to form some sort of nationality.

Anyway, I’m all for promoting whatever WASP values / interests can be promoted. The future is what matters, the interests of our unborn next generation.

What a fanatic.

The Catholic vs. Protestant angle is hardly any more useful.

I would point out however that much of the “liberal” mischief that bedevils and annoys modern Prots has it’s origin in Prot animus towards Cats, and the former’s active attempts to undermine the latter.

As with so much else; superficially there is a contrast between old fangled Nativism and modern deracinated globalism, but at a deeper level the two are connected.

And the Globalists know it.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/from-under-the-rubble-is-the-rule-of-law-immoral-part-ii-more-bishops-weigh-in

The point about genetic similarities is irrelevant. You can’t seriously be contending that Anglo-Saxons never oppressed Irish or Scots or were never oppressed in their turn by Danes and Normans. I guess genetically similar Yankees never oppressed Southernors and genetically similar British and Germans never engaged in large scale warfare against each other.

Likewise if I lived in Protestantlandia, I wouldn’t want a bunch of Catholics, or JW’s or Mormons or Hindus or Muslims for that matter, pouring into my country and changing its basic character.

Now America was never Protestantlandia, but the desire of native Protestants in America not to be overwhelmed by Catholic immigrants was entirely understandable, especially if it was based on legit theological concerns and not just ill informed prejudice.

And for the record, genetic studies show that all native British Islanders are very closely related so the idea that Anglo equals oppressors of the Celts is largely a myth. I think when people say Anglo they generally don’t mean English non-Celts, they mean English speaking +/- Protestant British Islanders.

lol. I guess I had you pegged right.

Apparently, ‘truth’ on this subject changes, as that article showed. But then I guess it is okay to investigate the Holocaust (TM) as long as you revise the number upward.

To use your own phrase, Weaver gets it. His post right above this one is spot-on.

I’m not myself an immigrant nor are my immediate ancestors. I am in a way a resident alien and not a very legal one at that. Every Christian should recognize that his real citizenship is not of this world.

“… the US was never founded as a nation of immigrants …”

This is true. It is also true that the US became a nation of immigrants. This should be self-evident as nearly every American you meet traces lineage to another country, and most do so after the eighteenth century.

This is one of the disconnected bits of Paleo discussion I mentioned above. On one hand, Paleo’s respect culture, kin, religion, and regional and national Western identity. It is indisputable that immigration is part of that culture.

Failing to embrace immigration as part of the culture denies the “American-ness” of most of the population. The vast tides of immigrants in the 1800′s and early 1900′s are not interlopers on the American scene — they are Americans.

As I mentioned above, I don’t believe that immigration per se is the problem. It is the magnitude of immigration, the illegal immigration, and the lack of assimilation that is negatively impacting the nation.

Regards,
Feltan

Of course I’m not saying we should go back to the anti-Catholicism of the KKK. The biggest threat to the traditional Protestant nature of America is from nominal Protestants and Jews, not from Catholics.

Weaver, I know that the dominant culture is anti-Anglo. It’s also profoundly influenced by its Anglo roots. There’s no contradiction there.

Again, I’m not saying Anglo-Americans should do anything. They’re an almost non-existent ethnie. I’m saying most Americans are to a large extent “Anglo-American,” whether they want to be or not, and we should try to make the new immigrants “Anglo-Americans” as well. Of course that’s obviously impossible politically, but that should be the goal. And yes, I’m aware that I’m spouting “neoconservatism.” This is Samuel Huntington’s message, and if he wasn’t a neoconservative, then no one is.

The dominant culture in the US is very much anti-Anglo. It doesn’t stand for anything more than opposing traditional Americans, blaming them for the wrongs of the world. The root issue is we’re cowed into not resisting dispossession, and not being able to resist. I don’t believe you’re living in this decade.

The minorities that rule in a diverse state are those that get organised – develop their own institutions.

It’s impossible for Anglo-Americans to act because they haven’t an identity to orient around nor a culture to guide them.

We always hear how successful Jews are. Well, they’re successful because they have an identity and a culture. They’re organised. They exist. There isn’t really an Anglo existence. The only uniting force in the US is the “Rainbow Coalition” united against Anglos.

Kirt Higdon,

the US was never founded as a nation of immigrants, and there’s no sense in expecting Americans to tolerate what most outside the Western world would resist.

I don’t think persecuted Irishmen would have wanted mass immigration into Ireland… The Catholic pro-immigration line is nuts. You were persecuted so you wish to destroy yourself and the land you live in – very reasonable.

In Ireland and Scotland today, you mention these, patriots resist invasion too. The English aren’t the threat there today.

Anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment have always gone hand-in-hand in the US and still do. This is nothing new and explains why the Catholic hierarchy in the US is and always has been instinctively and habitually pro-immigrant. Happily the Anglos themselves seem to be turning from their long Protestant experiment. In the US, the Episcopal Church and in England the Church of England have become fruitful sources of adult converts to the Catholic Church.

There’s no policy of the Germans to exterminate Jews. There’s never this solid evidence. The evidence always vanishes. The camps look and operate like concentration camps and labour camps, not extermination camps. Disease and starvation was an issue, and there were clearly mass killings because we have mass graves.

Certainly people were murdered, but the numbers matters. I grew up being told lies about the South. I don’t trust anything but solid facts.

I’d love to see Mark Weber allowed to debate the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. His site hosts an excellent article asking “What is ‘Holocaust Denial’?” You have all sorts of experts who give lower-than-6-million reports.

And he hosts an excellent article on the persecution and killing of Germans.

I don’t blindly believe the website. I don’t like some on the far right, not for being “too extreme” but for holding philosophical views opposing to mine, opposing for their being what I consider left-wing and modern. But in this debate they come off as having meritorious criticism.

When watching how critics are treated, I’m struck by how similar it is to how we Southerners are treated. They’re labeled “extremist”, dismissed, or some “authority” is presented to silence debate. There’s never an exchange of facts.

They’re treated the same as I’m treated, so yes, I think there is something here. It’s not my fight, and this is compounded by the rule that one fight one taboo at a time, but the Southerner has little to lose as is. We’re already shunned for our ethnicity.

what does this even mean. There’s truth and there’s falsehood. how insufferable people are about it doesn’t change this.

and lol@that passage. The difference is that with Hitler, anti-Semitic genocide _was the program_. It’s not something his diehard supporters of the time could try afterwards to spin into a “side effect” of some allegedly great utopian vision, or the result of political upheaval. Eliminating all Jews was the vision.

but it’s good to know there’s a true neo-Na…errr conservative publication out there asking the tough questions that National Review won’t

As a matter of fact, British civilization still has a profound influence on post-1965 American society, almost as much as it did on pre-1965 American society. To deny that fact is not just incorrect, it helps those who would make America less of an Anglo-Protestant country.

Also, keep in mind that even a white American minority will be politically, economically, and – most important – culturally dominant.

Are we talking about the same polity?

The Closing-Down of British Studies in the American MindBy Peter Sayles (VDARE) on August 28, 2012:

America’s immigration-driven slide into Third World status affects all areas of life. Thus American higher education has jettisoned traditional areas of study in favor of trendy, multicultural topics. In particular, the closing-down of British Studies in History and English Departments fills a young academic like myself with woe. Within a generation, many college graduates will be largely ignorant of British civilization and its profound influence on (pre-1965) American society.

Chronicled by professional organization such as the North American Conference on British Studies, (NACBS) the decline of tenure-track positions since 1970 is staggering and frightening.[NACBS Report on the State and Future of British Studies in North America, November 18, 1999]

The following is a spot-on comment by James O’Meara to one of the recent Hitler articles at Alt-Right.

“The significance of Hitler is that the White race will not be free or ‘equal’ until he can be discussed as calmly as the Chinese discuss Mao [see China: What you need to Know (Oxford) where the author patiently explains to the silly Westerner "why do the Chinese not consider Mao to be a great monster?" -- answer: a great liberator, but mistakes were made, so solly.], the Russians discuss Stalin, or Obama discusses Bill Ayers. In all such cases, the “terms of legitimate debate” are set by the victors.”

Not really…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9906771/Nazis-may-have-killed-up-to-20m-claims-shocking-new-Holocaust-study.html

If this ‘painstaking’ study gains traction, I’m sure at some point in the future incurious, self-righteous, status-mongering dolts will take great offense if someone dares to suggest it was only six million.

Just because the immigration battle is basically lost, doesn’t mean people should give up. Isn’t it better to reduce immigration a little bit than not at all?

Also, I know this is kind of a hobby horse of mine, but culturally our job is to keep emphasizing that America is an Anglo-Protestant country, and that it should remain that way, no matter what the national ancestry of its population. Also, keep in mind that even a white American minority will be politically, economically, and – most important – culturally dominant.

My ancestors all fought for the Allies… And I did speak to one of my grandfathers about the war before he passed. His tale was the war was a terrible thing. He certainly did not sympathise with their ideas either though. He was an FDR man, as most Southerners of his time were. FDR gave him his first job… Anyway, he didn’t hate the Axis but the war itself. Both sides did much that was sinful.

I haven’t studied the Holocaust. I know it’s a source of white guilt and Jewish special rights. And I know debate on the South, among other topics, is suppressed (so I readily believe other topics are suppressed.) And i know the Holocaust numbers are absurdly high, with the German defenders having many interesting points. And it’s a boy’s duty to defend his father if his crimes are exaggerated.

I also know there are false flag activists, people who act wrongly under an opponent’s flag. So, it’s possible some of the Hitler-worshipers are such. Also however, it’s possible a Hitler-worshiper doesn’t love him for the bad things he did, perhaps doesn’t even believe he acted wrongly. Does that necessarily make the worshiper a bad person? Certainly hating Jews is wrong though.

I might believe history is malleable, but I don’t believe in promoting propaganda. I think the good side fights with truth, and its opponents use lies. That’s just how the battle is fought. Everyone is biased, but it is important to seek truth.

A recent mini-TV segment of Stone Mountain is a perfect example: The defender offered an historical example of Jackson being an unusually good man to blacks; the aggressor declared he had 2 history degrees and didn’t say more. The host ended the segment.

There’s no dishonour in that for the Southerner.

The word “Holocaust” might in the future refer to events in China.

The numbers do matter, but yes murder is a terrible sin.

I think you prove the point that defending the bad guys tends to link one with the bad guys. I certainly don’t revere Hitler. He might have intended to save Germany from Communism, but he clearly made mistakes in that respect. Killing people isn’t a good thing of course. My ideal is a world of diverse, traditional states. I like diversity.

It’s terrible what happened though, by and to all participants. Even the Germans suffered horribly. I expect history will be rewritten somewhat in Germany if the EU collapses and after the US currency ceases to be the global currency. The balance of power will shift there.

I suppose new immigrants will watch “24″ and “American Idol”, but if anything of Western Civilisation is to endure, we’ll have to build those institutions. Increasingly they do not exist. America is an economy and a government but not a people.

I don’t myself want to assimilate immigrants, nor be assimilated myself. I would rather be a multicultural state than a state without any cultures or peoples.

Hopefully home-schooling remains legal for years to come, so that we do continue to have an option of not allowing our children to be ruined.

Minority status doesn’t have to be torment. We just need to organise, develop minority cultural institutions. VDARE had a recent article on a British Literature group.

“Automatically” is doing a lot of work here. No one is saying that it is impossible to investigate the Holocaust numbers without being an anti-semite. But anti-semitism is a thing, and the vast majority of “skeptics” on this question are motivated by it. Why is it ok to use statistical patterns to form prejudices based on e.g. racial crime rates, but in this case we’re all supposed to play dumb? Because they’re on our “side”?