America: always intended to be a white nation

surrender-of-general-burgoyne

If you describe to someone the process of making rice, you’re generally going to say something like, “Put a pot on the stove, fill it with two cups water, bring to a boil, then dump in a cup of rice.”

That description leaves out a lot however. You didn’t say to take the lid off the pot before adding the water. You didn’t mention what bringing to a boil is. You didn’t specifically say to check the rice for bugs.

It’s the same way with history.

Certain assumptions attach themselves not only to certain times, but to certain levels of proficiency. Among expert chefs, the rudiments of boiling rice need not be discussed, so they are left out in favor of finely graded details such as levels of heat and degree of inclination of the pot lid.

The United States was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. What is “equal”? What are “men”?

Since the 1960s especially, but throughout the history of our nation, the forces of subversion — those who feel incompatible with the majority and thus hate it and wish to destroy it — have been steadily working to re-define terms that we rely on.

They want you to think that America was founded on the idea that everyone from anywhere could come here anytime and by swearing that he or she loves “freedom,” be an American.

The founding fathers felt differently, as even heavily censored neo-Communist group graffiti wall Wikipedia admits:

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good character”. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

The Constitution, created the previous year and still under amendment at the time of that law, was a work in progress that like the instructions to boil rice left a lot out. The fact that the Bill of Rights had to be added is proof enough of this.

But the early Americans felt strongly enough to make a law in parallel which specified who could be an American. Specifically, “free white persons” of “good character.”

These are the group of people we call American Nativists, and they tend to be of German, English, Dutch, Scandinavian or Scots descent. If you go into any Revolutionary War-era town or settlement and read up on the names of the people there, especially in cemeteries and churches, you will find the names are from these groups.

We don’t need to specify what rice is. Neither did they specify what “free white persons” were. It was a cultural understanding that these people were exclusively Northwestern European. Not Irish, Slavic, Italian, Jewish, etc.

On the other hand, the early Americans were not fanatics either. They had Jewish people and even some Italians living among them. They treated these people well, but as long term visitors. The understanding was that these groups would want to preserve their own culture, and so lived apart, in Chinatown-like settlements of their own.

Until the neo-Marxists took over the United States in the 1960s, a similar understanding was had here. The Northwestern European American Nativist majority was tolerant of those who came to stay here. It in fact wished them well, but also was going to go about its own business.

Leftist rule changed that. Suddenly it became illegal to not hire someone, not rent to them, not sell to them, or deny them anything if their race was non-majority (in legal terms, it’s impossible to tell whether they were denied because of their race, or from something else, so race is assumed to be the cause).

The leftists pulled their usual move, which is to find a plurality and gang-rush the ramparts of power, then implement a crazy plan. Once it hasn’t failed for three weeks straight, they declare it a victory and start viciously attacking anyone who opposes it, rising in urgency as the plan ages and thus its inherent failings become more visible.

Currently the leftist push is to racially integrate America on a genetic level so that we are all a uniform shade of brown. Whatever reasons they give for this — pacifism, an end to racism, a new super-race — are all lies. They want to destroy the majority and take over in its place.

12 Comments

  1. 1349 says:

    They want to destroy the majority and take over in its place.

    Are they, themselves, aware of this goal?

    1. The hard part of that question is deciphering “aware” and “goal.”

      Are they aware? — well, at all? I don’t know. I think they operate by impulse and stimulus-response, and probably do not make deliberate decisions. It seems to me most people are this way, although some grow out of it.

      Do they have goals? — depends on what a goal is. To my mind, a goal is an external result using internal means; to them, the goal is an internal result using external means. It’s more of a manipulation impulse than anything.

      Would they recognize this in themselves? Certainly not: they’re insulated behind walls of denial.

      1. 1349 says:

        Well, if they don’t recognize this, we can’t say they are lying about their reasons/”goals”, as well as can’t say they want something.
        Anyway, i’m just cavilling at language.

        to them, the goal is an internal result using external means.

        Sounds interesting but i can’t understand this formula. =)) Would you mind elaborating this in a few words? An example?

        1. crow says:

          Oddly, I understood that sentence perfectly the first time I read it.
          But as soon as I engaged my thinking mind, the meaning slipped further and further away, until it meant absolutely nothing.
          A good example, perhaps, of words obscuring communication.

          1. 1349 says:

            Ha! Most of the time, i read these texts without a feeling that i read in a foreign language. And all ideas seem to run smoothly into my understanding. But there was a couple of times when i caught myself: hey, you’re reading in English! And sentences started disintegrating, so that, for a minute, i had to force them back together: recall the meaning of each word and analyze combinations. =)

            1. 1349 says:

              Hmm, i must’ve misused the word “together” here, but i hope you understand.

  2. Tony says:

    Very good Brett. Thanks for sharing.

  3. NotTheDude says:

    That sounds ideal. England used to be more like that too.

  4. Hank says:

    The inferior wish to destroy anything that is well constituted. That is how they get revenge on the superior and create equality by destroying the excellent, ideally leaving only the mediocre and debased.

  5. Hugo says:

    The main idea of the article is completely correct, and every informed person knows that. But this phrase fucked the whole thing up:

    “that these people were exclusively Northwestern European. Not Irish…”

    Because Ireland is not Northwestern Europe, you know. Not like Britain, which is.

    I’m not exactly irish, as anybody can guess.

    Going back to what matters…

    The problem is deeper: The “United” States of America were founded by british people, for british people, but they didn’t made it explicit. Once you accept dutch people, or germans, or french hugenots, there’s no way to keep out irish, italians, or polish guys.

    That’s obvious.

    Later, the “United” States were understood as a more general “White” country. But (almost) nobody wanted to be serious with the question of negroes, and (almost) nobody tried to develop a euroamerican identity, and (almost) nobody made explicit the white character of the US.

    Full disclosure: I don’t know if it is the Enlightment, Capitalism, the hunter-gatherer past, the lockean liberal stupidity, or what (maybe a bit of it all), but there’s been something profoundly FUCKED in the US soul since its very inception. That’s a fact.

    FUCKED. Fucked as hell. Completely, absolutely, throughly FUCKED in the US’ DNA.

    And now the USA are fucking the whole rest of the Eurosphere.

    1. NotTheDude says:

      I thought the same thing about that sentence. I take it that what was meant was that the aforementioned groups were more alike culturally then the Irish and watering things down too much makes them less meaningful, contrary to the Leftist idea of ‘more diversity, more beauty’! which smudges the integrity of what that group has or is trying to create through compromise.

    2. lost wanderer says:

      ”but there’s been something profoundly FUCKED in the US soul since its very inception. That’s a fact.”

      The fact is the USA wasn’t meant to be a real country in the first place. Only a colony. That’s why its bases are corrupt. The Independence hasn’t magically erased the ”old soul”. It also was the land where people who were outcasts in Europe went; religious minorities, criminals, people who were in a dead end. Plus, opportunistic merchants and adventurers. I’m not saying that all americans were like that but it’s hard to build a solid country from the scratch with all those elements. That person hasn’t necessarily a lot in commons with each other.

      Maybe I’m wrong here. I don’t know much about American history.

      Aside of this, I think it have been a grave mistake to have brought the African slaves to the continent. A lot of problems on all levels have resulted because of that.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.554 seconds