Rise Of The WASP As Multicultural America Collapses

We know that liberal democracy has failed and with it the notion of “one world,” or a single mass of humanity moving from primitivism to Utopia through egalitarianism. The endgame of Leftism was revealed, and the West has recoiled from the idea of going out like the former Soviet Union.

The thing about Leftism is that it is both seductive and addictive. People want a purpose in life, are drawn to it, and then use it to justify their life path. At that point, they cannot retreat without hitting rock bottom, confessing their addiction and taking affirmative steps to remove it from their lives. Alcoholism and heroin use are easier to cure.

As the notion of the human world order fades, and with it the positive reputation of Leftism and democracy dies a prolonged death, the West will face a time of balkanization, or breakdown into small tribes comprised of overlapping heritage, religion, values and region. Governments have been trying to hold back this process, but it is happening naturally as “birds of a feather flock together” and people move near people who are genetically and philosophically like them:

The concept of various Anglo-Saxon nations existing within the United States has been thoroughly studied by David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed, and illuminated further by Colin Woodard’s American Nations, both of which have been the focus of prominent and further enlightening bloggers in the field of human biodiversity such as HBD Chick and Jayman.

…This concept is demonstrated in The Big Sort by Bill Bishop. Bishop argues that Americans are segregating themselves into like-minded geographic regions at increasing rates with the onset and ease of long-distance travel. Basically, the various Anglo-Saxon regions are more strongly becoming themselves.

…A recent (2017) study conducted by Han et al. divides the modern United States into genetic clusters of shared ancestry, revealing a map which is incredibly similar to the American nation as delineated by culture. Culture truly is a genetic construct.

The Old Inheritance clarifies the American meaning of Anglo-Saxon further as meaning those of Western European heritage who who folded themselves into the very similar — Western European cultures are more similar than different — English-style society:

The writer, Hengest, seems to be using the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in a rather inclusive way, to describe British Isles people generally, a practice which I see is now becoming more widespread. However as I like to point out, most British people of Celtic origin (Welsh, Scots, and Irish), emphatically state they are not of English/Anglo-Saxon origin, so it seems dubious to use ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in such an inclusive way. There is such a thing as an English nationalist, and if you encountered one, he would also tell you that he is not ‘British’ by ethnicity, but English, or Anglo-Saxon.

…The sloppy usage of the term ‘Anglo’ in America is akin to the usage of the semi-slur term ‘WASP’, meaning ‘White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.’ Many people of mixed Northwest European ancestry think of themselves as more or less WASP as they grew up English-speaking and Protestant, and maybe even grew up in the older American culture which was heavily English-derived.

This indicates compatibility with what Amerika has argued for some time: the founding group of the United States was the Western European, also known as the genetic basis for Western Civilization, and it worked best under this group and should be returned to them. The point is to preserve the unique genetic strain that is Western so that our civilization can rebirth itself.

Tags: , , ,

44 Responses to “Rise Of The WASP As Multicultural America Collapses”

  1. Though not WASP myself, I see this a a very good thing. The areas I grew up were heavily WASP and amazingly wholesome and wonderful places.

    • Under WASP care, everyone prospered. But will WASPs realize that they prosper only under a king?

      • Anonymous White Male says:

        I am confused by your continued support of monarchy. How would they be “chosen”? By plebiscite or conquest? You previous post about Spirit shows you consider religious belief in your world view. Perhaps you remember this:

        Samuel 8

        “So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

        But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”

        • I am confused by your continued support of monarchy. How would they be “chosen”?

          I cover this in my second book in more detail, but the short form is that there are natural leaders among us, and they choose the best among them, and we breed those people until we get an aristocracy, from which the monarchs are chosen by ascension.

          • Anonymous White Male says:

            And yet, we know, because of centuries of history, that while one generation may be a great leader, the next may be weak, evil, easily led, or a blithering idiot. Do you think the outcome of choosing a king would be any better if the choice was left up to a small population of “elites” each with a vested interest in being the next ruler? How is that different than today? You are making the mistake of believing that all humans will always do the right thing. A few might. The rest will either do that which is in their (not the herd’s) best interest and the remainder will follow the herd over a cliff.

            • “May be”… we need more of a statistical measurement here, such as likelihood. How about 80/20 for nature over nurture?

              • Anonymous White Male says:

                How about look at the British monarchy or the French monarchy and compare one King with the next generation descendent? Or, how many different royal dynasties were there in England?

                Norman (1066-), Plantaganet (1154-), Lancaster (1399-), York (1461-), Tudor (1485-), Stuart (1603-), Hanover (1714-1901), Windsor (1901/1917-present)

                Be aware however that the immediate list only covers dynasties. Like many sources, it omits the Houses of Blois (1135-54) as no dynasty was created, Anjou (where land held until 1209) as pseudo-Plantagenet (1154-1399), Orange (1689-1702) as no dynasty and ruled jointly with Mary Stuart, and Saxe-Coburg & Gotha (1901-1917) because it was later renamed Windsor during the Great War.

                Notice this does not contain the Anglo-Saxon kings.

                • Dynasties are specific families; aristocracy is a much broader net. Over time, all things degenerate, which is why aristocracy renews itself from its mesh of families who seem compelled toward adventure, discovery and learning. This is how they test themselves and keep the blood pure.

                  • Anonymous White Male says:

                    Sorry, this is where your argument falls apart. The “aristocracy”, with VERY few exceptions, doesn’t do anything for the good of the herd. Its all about what’s in it for them. Look, if people were inherently good then any form of government would work. They are not. But, when you put the reigns of the government in the hands of a small elite you are asking for a different kind of trouble than if you leave it in the hands of the middle class. I do not say this because I’m American, but a Republic seems to be the best of all the imperfect forms of government. And they all are imperfect. Now, the Roman Republic seems to be what you idealize in your concept of monarchy. An elite that made decisions for the herd. And it eventually became an empire. The “monarchy” after that is historically known as one of the most corrupt in written history. You should also recognize that what works well on a relatively small scale does not always translate with a larger population. Especially if that population is not homogenous.

                    • The “aristocracy”, with VERY few exceptions, doesn’t do anything for the good of the herd.

                      My reading of history is entirely different.

                      Now, the Roman Republic seems to be what you idealize in your concept of monarchy.

                      No, quite the opposite. Perhaps Edwardian England crossed with Beowulf.

                    • Anonymous White Male says:

                      “My reading of history is entirely different.”

                      Then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

                      “No, quite the opposite. Perhaps Edwardian England crossed with Beowulf.”

                      I don’t think there is any real world example of Edwardian England crossed with Beowulf.

                      “Over time, all things degenerate, which is why aristocracy renews itself from its mesh of families who seem compelled toward adventure, discovery and learning. This is how they test themselves and keep the blood pure.”

                      You said it yourself. Over time, all things degenerate. When did an aristocracy keep their blood pure? Over time, of course. How many of the British aristocracy today have jewish ancestry?

                    • Over time, all things degenerate.

                      Some degenerate less than others. The aristocracy were attacked, but before they were banished, they kept Europe peaceful, shepherded the development of technology and the arts, expanded our reach across the seas, and guided our people toward self-improvement. Has democracy done a tenth of that? No, but it certainly brought in the age of mass killing, secret police, lives destroyed, world wars, etc.

                    • Anonymous White Male says:

                      “The aristocracy were attacked, but before they were banished, they kept Europe peaceful,”

                      My reading of history is different. How many wars were fought between 1066 and 1918? Wouldn’t you say that was monarchy/aristocracy at its peak?

                      “shepherded the development of technology and the arts,”

                      I would think the Church was more important in the development of the arts. Plus, I don’t know Of any technology they “shepherded” that didn’t benefit them. Especially implements of destruction.

                      “expanded our reach across the seas,”

                      Out of the goodness of their hearts for the herd? No, because they were promised gold and silver and new routes to the Far East that they could monopolize for gold and silver.

                      “guided our people toward self-improvement.”

                      I would say, once again, that the church was more responsible for this. In fact, it wasn’t until the 19th century that aristocracies really did anything for the masses. Even then, it was a calculated decision because of revolution in the air.

                      “Has democracy done a tenth of that?”

                      No, but then, democracy is mob rule. Capitalism and businessmen have, however, much more than the aristocracy.

                      “(Democracy) certainly brought in the age of mass killing, secret police, lives destroyed, world wars, etc.”

                      I suppose the Crusades and the 30 years war weren’t mass killing? Plus, WWI was the result of monarchy. You don’t consider the millions killed to be mass killing or that to be a world war? Secret police? Every monarchy has had a “secret police”, right? Lives destroyed? How would you define what you mean? I’m sure those that were destroyed during the Napoleonic Wars might find that a bit ironic.

                    • How many wars were fought between 1066 and 1918? Wouldn’t you say that was monarchy/aristocracy at its peak?

                      Depends on which nation. In England, it was already in decline.

                      No, but then, democracy is mob rule. Capitalism and businessmen have, however, much more than the aristocracy.

                      The mob always makes carnies who offer services it likes into very wealthy people. Celebrity culture is one example.

                      WWI was the result of monarchy.

                      A thousand times no. WWI was a response to the conditions created by Napoleonic Wars and the related shakeout over the next eighty years. Those were wars against monarchy as you recall.

                    • EX says:

                      The fish rots from the head.

                    • Anonymous White Male says:

                      Fine. Just be sure to realize that I am the One, True King. I’m sure no one will argue with that!

                    • You are replying to yourself, so it seems you have the vote already in the bag! Funny critique of democracy.

        • Asian Reactionary says:

          I believe its not inasmuch that aristocracy is the solution to all problems – its probably just that it works better than demotism. Demotism is fundamentally self-destructive, it promotes individualism, individuals who ultimately will keep endlessly expanding their desire for “rights” and other resources. This ultimately implodes.

          The US is a great example of this, even before the modern era – enfranchisement was given to white property owners, then to all white males, then to all males, then to all, and soon will probably be extended to 16 year olds. The nature of demotism is that for the opposition party to “win”, they will keep trying to expand the franchise to increase their base.

          Unfortunately, the franchise will just keep voting for more gibs for themselves, in greater or smaller quantities, and ultimately bring about the heat death of civilization.

          Aristocracy is a lot like the original idea of having only white property owners vote: at least they might be hoped to have some skin in the game, since they are responsible for the next decade or two. Along with the hereditary qualities of families, it might be hoped that this will reduce the excesses of demotic unrealism, with more worthy people leading the others. Demotism is going to leak even into an aristocratic system – even Alexander heard the groans of his men in the end, so its just an effort to curb the toxic effects of mass delusion.

          • All good points. To this I add: there is no single solution to all problems, only a collection of things that we know work together, which is why they are phrased here as “the four pillars.”

      • Asian Reactionary says:

        Well, the US was formed with a strong anti-monarchy feeling. This may have endured.

        • And now we realize this was a historical error. Alexis de Tocqueville did warn us of the dangers, as did the experience of Athens.

          • dienw says:

            It is not an error. You on the other hand, are making the same idolatrous error the ancient Israelites did by turning from God to Man to be your head: because you want to be as other nations.

            And, quite frankly, you’re over two centuries behind the times: modern elites and their followers have made the same demand: that they be as other nations; Man as king, in this case, the socialist state as both king and god.

            • Hoyos says:

              Well it’s an interesting question. There are passages in the Torah that make an assumption of a later king if I remember correctly.

              One thought was not that the Israelites wanted a king, but what they meant by king and why they wanted it. They were in a position to have God govern them directly and as opposed to trusting Him, they demanded an extra layer because “the rest of the world is this way”. Forgetting of course that the rest of the world was awful.

              Because of the Torah passages, it might be that God would have eventually organized them under a king, but a man of His choosing and His timing that would not have been a superfluous barrier. One interpretation is that Saul was the king God gave them that fit their desires, and David would have been the original plan if the Israelites had been less stupid.

              • They were in a position to have God govern them directly and as opposed to trusting Him, they demanded an extra layer because “the rest of the world is this way”. Forgetting of course that the rest of the world was awful.

                Therein it seems a mistake was made.

                Humans need human governance; God, who is not active in our world, represents a set of principles but there are also real-world problems.

                Religion is great but tends toward solipsism because it focuses on principles applied to the individual, not the human ecosystem known as a civilization.

      • Sean says:

        Indeed. One need only read Romans, Galatians and the Gospels to see that.

  2. Orthodox says:

    Aren’t a lot of WASPs in the progressive movement?

    • There is no data on this that I know of, another casualty of the dubious category “white.” But in my experience, the percentage of Leftist WASPs is lower than the percentage of outer European Leftists.

      The Old Inheritance has more:

      This strikes me as incorrect. I’ve long noticed the frequency in New England, even in some rural areas, of surnames which are Irish, French, Italian or Portuguese, when one might expect English surnames to far outnumber them.

      Statistics indicate that people of English (presumably Colonial-stock) descent are in a minority in much of New England. The Census records from back in 2000 for the state of Vermont showed that the percentage of people of English descent was 18.4%, followed closely by Irish at 16.4 percent, followed by German and French(Canadian). Obviously in the last couple of decades, mass immigration and the shifting of native-born populations (urban people moving to suburbs or rural areas due to ‘ethnic cleansing’ and other causes) has changed the makeup of many parts of America.

      A relevant fact: the scarcity of old-stock ‘Yankee’ Congressmen.

      In my personal experience, almost all Irish, Italians, Slavs, Jews, Greeks, Spaniards, etc. tend to be Leftist — most likely a consequence of not perceiving themselves as the majority, thus engaging in victimhood mentation, plus the tendency to want societies like the ones in which their recent answers were selected — with the few notable exceptions being fervently and articulately otherwise. For example, some of the most radical conservatives are Irish, but the vast majority of Irish are Democrat.

  3. thordaddy says:

    WASP = “white supremacy” as perceived by the radical liberationists.

    WASP = white (S)upremacy as perceived by white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

  4. Ivar says:

    I suggest the term, “Old Stock,” instead of Anglo-Saxon or WASP. WASP is completely inappropriate, because the term was created to refer to English descended Old Philadelphia Families and their descendants. I suppose it could be extended to include the same type of people in the Philadelphia-Boston axis. However, most of the Anglo-Saxons in the U.S. are not WASPs. Nobody from the American South is a WASP. Robert E. Lee was not a WASP. Anglo-Saxon is inappropriate because, as Brett mentioned, the term refers specifically to English descended folk.

    Why is it that the English, alone among Europeans, are the only people who are not allowed at least a nod to their ancestry? The fact that people use the term sloppily does not somehow validate the usage.

    • Why is it that the English, alone among Europeans, are the only people who are not allowed at least a nod to their ancestry?

      A profound question…

    • Ernst says:

      I’ll do my best to answer your question.

      One of the main reasons why the 13 colonies independence themselves from England is because they had affirm their own identity, they didn’t want to be ruled by England because the were not English anymore: they were Americans, an self-defined identity independent from England as country, culture and origin. So to see yourself as English is to betrayed the creation of american identity. So american will see themselves as Americans in culture and origin.

      Other is that the English-descendant represented (and still represent): the power-economic elite, and most of the educated and/or entrepreneurial middle class, as well as a great portion of the working class with the technical “know how” and “can do” spirit (and this last sample includes many of the military personnel). That’s why its socio-political-economic rivals have made a media propaganda campaign to discredit English-descent characteristics of american culture and peoples mainly. And yes from that any culture white European origin is ridiculed too.

  5. J.j. Cintia says:

    Kings are chosen by “Divine Right”. In practice, they are the natural leaders who rise to the occasions known as crisis points. They lead the armies that form to right the wrongs, crush the invaders and destroy the falsehoods that caused the problems. There are always falsehoods behind all crises. Whether you believe them to be some dark hidden power, or simply the evil that lies in the minds of the people but are driven forward by those who are weak in spirit or character, these falsehoods that betray the Truth and deny the natural order are always the Real Enemy.
    Of course, there are quaint traditions and legends for the passing of Rights to Kings. Signs in the sky, legends fulfilled, and of course the romantic overtones of poets and coarse lies of seedy scholars and historians.
    At the end of it all, there is a Man of Vision, who answers the call. Stands against perdition. Takes the mantle, ascends the throne, and takes the hard task of fighting and leading the army of angry men who have had enough and say, “No More!”

    And no. Its not Trump. He’s not a King or God-Emperor. He’s a part of the system. Whether he is serious or not, no one invested in this dessicated and diseased system can do what must be done. A corrupt system cannot right itself. After the rot has gone too deep and for too long, a house must be knocked down and replaced. The rot is too deep to fix, and the corruption too pervasive to remove.

    • In practice, they are the natural leaders who rise to the occasions known as crisis points.

      Insightful. Autonomous rise versus compulsory compliance, in a way that can “game the system.”

  6. The Prog Problem or Proglem.

    Progs saw society and noticed social inequalities. Some inequalities resulted from laws and cultures. Laws might favor one group over others. Or culture might restrain some groups from opening up to new opportunities. It’s like some ultra-orthodox Jews stuck with old way and say NO to new way.

    So, there were lots of divisions and inequalities among many groups.

    Progs figure more freedom, more equality under the law, and more opportunity would result in equal success for all groups. Convergence of rights, freedoms, and opportunities would lead to the convergence of results. This could have been the case IF all groups were equal in everything except social treatment and cultural attitudes.
    But as things turn out, there are genetic differences among races. (It’s like Juan Thompson’s behavior is so typical among blacks. It’s like Jayson Blair’s. Obama has similar sociopathic personality but got away with his shtick cuz his white side mellowed him some.)
    So, convergence of freedoms leads to divergence of outcomes. The new outcome may be different from old outcome, but there is still divergence, not convergence.
    For example, whites used to dominate basketball and football because laws and attitudes favored whites and discriminated against blacks. So, whites ruled, and blacks were kept down or out. Later, there was equal opportunity for all. So, did it lead to convergence of results among all races in sports? No, the new divergence based on genetics led to black domination and virtual exclusion of others.

    Genes do matter. Consider the difference among Meso-Americans and black-Americans. Both were subjugated peoples whose cultures were suppressed or erased. Mesos were forced to speak Spanish and adopt Christianity. And blacks weren’t allowed to do jungle stuff on the plantations. They were trained to be docile and respectful. And they were forced to give up African voodoo stuff and adopt Christianity.

    Yet, genes affected divergent outcomes in the long run. Blacks, even as Christians, felt this genetic drive to add boogie-woogie to their worship, and eventually black Christianity went from restrained Negro spiritual to hollering walloping Gospel, sheeeeiiiit. Also, even though blacks were trained to be docile and respectful by the white massuhs, they couldn’t help acting like Chicken George and being colorful and jivey. Also, black genetics soon proved that blacky can whup whitey, as with Jack Johnson and others. Once blacks realized this genetic advantage, they began to look down on whitey as weak and wussy. So, genetics reshaped the racial relations. It went from ‘ho-de-do’ to ‘honkey dead!’

    In contrast, Meso-Americans are short. Being of distant Asiatic origin, they have some of that passive submissive Asian genes. So, they are favored as docile workers and laborers to pick tomatoes and lettuce. And even Progs talk of them that way.
    I mean no Prog would say, “Hey, all those blacks are on welfare! Why not cut the benefits and make them pick cotton and other stuff?” That would be scandalous.
    But we often hear progs say stuff about Meso-Americans in such manner: “We need Mexicans to pick tomatoes, pick lettuce, change diapers, and do all the dirty work… the kind of work we Americans won’t do because it’s beneath us and our children.”
    Now, some may argue that it’s wrong to talk of blacks picking cotton cuz of legacy of slavery. But Meso-Americans suffered conquest, slavery, ‘genocide’, mass ‘rape’, and class oppression. So, why is it wrong to see blacks as ‘cotton-pickers’ but okay to see Mexicans as ‘tomato pickers’ and ‘diaper-changers’?
    Because of genetics. Whites(even progressives) figure that blacks, being stronger and more musical, should be admired and given ‘cool’ things to do, whereas those short, squat, and dull Mexicans are a different matter despite their tragic history. Let them be like Guillermo and just say, “yes Jimmy” and pick tomatoes and change diapers. So, genes matter a lot in public perception. “We need those docile submissive Mexicans to come here to do work that no self-respecting American, white or black, would ever do.” In the South, it could be that Mexers are now picking cotton too.

    Even though culture and nature(genes) are different entities, they always function together since all cultures are processed through the nature of human emotions and drives.
    Indeed, it is amazing that, despite all attempts by whites to erase black-African culture from black slaves, so much of the African Way remained via the genes. But then, African Cultures have always been the expressions of African genes. So, even if African Cultures were to be wiped off the earth, something approximating them will arise again from black genes. Something ugabuga-ish will arise again even if not exactly same as earlier cultures.

    Whites did all they could to eliminate black jungle-ness, black hunter-warrior culture, black lasciviousness, and black voodoo paganism during slavery. Blacks were taught docility, manners, and Christianity. But given black genetics and their relation to white genes — whereupon blacks realized they could whup whitey — , black genes reasserted themselves in making black-American culture revert to the African Way.

    Likewise, so much of the Meso-American genes survived despite Conquistador project of erasure. Even though Meso-Americans underwent similar history of oppression and discrimination as blacks did, their culture and attitudes turned out different from those of Negroes due to genetic differences. Mesos are naturally more docile. And even though there are horrible crimes in Mexico, Mexicans tend to be more organized than blacks in their criminal enterprise. This owes to the fact that Mexicans, despite their mediocrity and corruption, are more likely to obey orders than blacks who just wanna wing it cuz they just feel like it.

    Nature and Culture always work together. Though Culture is not same as Nature, cultural traits and flavors derive from the nature(genes) of a people. Even among primitive cultures around the world, different tribes tend to have different rhythms to their music based on genetic differences. Compare African beat with American Indian or Eskimo beat. Compare Arab musical characteristics with those of Nordics and Slavs.

    Also, even when different peoples are given the same culture, their different genes go about using and shaping the culture in different ways. So, what blacks will do with Christianity will differ from what whites will do with it. Give blacks Buddism, and Nirvana might become a form of dance.
    And we see this in music. When blacks take from white music, they make it ‘black’. When whites take from black music, they make it ‘white’. When Japanese take from ‘white rock’ or ‘black rap’, they give it their own twist based on their genetic leanings.
    Even when one group totally tries to imitate the other group, the differences in genetics produce different results. So, even when Rolling Stones and Yardbirds were trying to be most faithful to black bluesmen, they sounded differently and created different sounds.
    We can see this among individuals too, obviously. Give the same role to different actors, and their different genes work on the role differently EVEN IF they aim for the same result. If the role of Cool Hand Luke were given to Woody Allen, Clint Eastwood, Danny Devito, Jack Nicholson, Marlon Brando, Harvey Keitel, Don Knotts, Robert Deniro, Charles Grodin, or Sean Penn, the results would vary greatly even if they all tried to do it like Paul Newman. Nature/genes do matter. They shape or reshape culture.

    Some people point to Europe and say, “But it wasn’t always advanced and powerful. It was once inhabited by pagan barbarians who were uncouth and backward.” The idea is that the rise of the West had nothing to do with genes and entirely with the kind of cultural influences that spread over there.
    Now, there is some truth to that. There is no guarantee that any people will build great civilization. At our base root, we are all savages, hairless apes. So, the rise of the West owes to certain ideas and values that spread over there and changed the way people think and act.
    If the West had been totally isolated from the developments in southern Europe, Near East, and North Africa, then who knows what might have happened? So far, so true.

    But the FALLACY among progs is this: “Because Europeans, with exposure to good ideas and values, made great progress, this must be equally true of ALL races and all humanity. And genes got nothing to do with it.”
    But this is clearly false. If Europeans had the genetic material of Australian Aborigines or Bushmen of Kalahari, could they have done much with those fine ideas that came from the South and Near East? If exposure to good ideas is the trick, why did the Japanese do more with Western ideas than Indonesians or others did?
    And if exposure to ideas is the key, then why did Jews do so much more with availability of modern education than other groups did?

    It’s like sports. It is true that black Africans achieve far less in sports than blacks in US, EU, and Canada. Blacks in modern nations have access to gyms and sports programs. Many blacks in Africa kick around a rag as a ball in dirt poor communities. So, access to modern equipment and programs make a huge difference.
    BUT, there are still differences among races in sports achievement based on genetics. In the US, ALL groups have equal access to sports, but some groups succeed far more. And this has something to do with genetics. I mean LA is filled with Mexicans and Asians, but LA Lakers is all black(and some white). Also, Nigerian immigrants achieve far more than Chinese immigrants in sports despite same access to sports. (Some will argue that this is because Chinese are more into study than sports. But maybe they don’t bother with sports since they know their chance of success is low in it. Also, China has a huge sports program funded by sports, but it is not competitive in basketball and track & field.)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/sports/more-nigerian-americans-are-reaching-highest-levels-of-sports.html?_r=0

    So, while it is true that the rise of the West owes a great deal to good ideas arriving from south and Near East, it is also true that whites had certain genetic attributes that made their use of those ideas more fruitful and productive than if the ideas had landed among Polynesians, Maori, Amazonian tribes, or Sudanese Nuba folks.

    But so much of the academia and media will not even consider these ideas.
    I think the main problem is emotional than intellectual. The elites develop their own culture of righteousness, propriety, sanctimony, and respectability. And certain ideas no longer just become ideas but ‘virtues’ and sacraments. So, believing in Equality isn’t just some dry idea. It is to the academic elites what belief in God was among the Jesuits. It is a MUST. (To be sure, the issue of equality is more sensitive regarding certain groups. So, if someone said his studies show that Turks are smarter than Iraqis, not many will care. But if any study shows that whites are smarter than blacks… oh boy!!! Such a view is immediately linked with the entire ‘pseudo-science’ of white ‘racism’, slavery, Nazism, etc. It’s an idea that trigger off alarm bells of moral panic.) As such, an alternative view will not be seen merely as an opinion or argument but as an infamia.

    https://youtu.be/6jpwqWPKAUc?t=2m59s

    I think scientists and intellectuals can tolerate lotsa differences of views. They can also weather refutation of their ideas as ideas. So, if someone proposed a theory, and if 100% of peers said it is dead wrong, he could live with it, and his peers wouldn’t see him as a bad guy. Just a guy who was wrong with a theory. But scientists and intellectuals also have human emotions, and most of them cannot deal with moral condemnation. Such would mean that only is their idea wrong but THEY themselves are wrong. It is akin to excommunication.
    Even the Old Church allowed debate and discussion on the nature of God and such. But there were some views that were seen as SO HERETICAL that proposing them meant more than wrongness of thought. It meant wrongness, even wickedness, of soul.

    According to PC, any deviance from RACIAL EQUALITY dogma(esp involving blacks) is an infamia. Charles Murray should know. Not only was his idea opposed but his character was attacked. He became baldie Nazi. They treated him like he blew the most wicked rotten-egg-fart in the room. Something foul came from within him.

    And this is why PC is so damaging. It doesn’t just attack an idea. It targets the emotions of the person’s entire being. And most people don’t have the stomach and spine to deal with it.
    Indeed, most intellectuals prefer to be thought of as a good person with wrong ideas than a bad person with right ideas.

    Some systems can adapt to drastic or fundamental shifts in paradigms. It’s like the West finally found a way to accept the geo-centric explanation of the solar system. It also made peace with Darwin and evolution.

    But some systems cannot allow a major shift, despite all the evidence that contradicts the dogma.
    In such cases, the revolution can happen ONLY from the outside while the system rots and rots in its own shell to the point of irrelevance.

    • Anonymous White Male says:

      “blacks, being stronger and more musical”.

      Oh, so blacks are the strongest weight lifters? No. Look at all the Olympic champions. Come to think of it, have there been any great black weight lifters? Isn’t that how you compute strength? Musical? You consider rap musical? There is nothing blacks did that can even come close to touching Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini, etc. There may be a certain rhythmic attribute to black music, but White music is more melodic and harmonic. Plus, black music was built on White musical structure, White musical instruments, and the White music business, plus records, radio, television, etc.

      • There is nothing blacks did that can even come close to touching Bach, Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini, etc.

        Who cares? They need their culture, we need ours. Any further comparison is unnecessary.

        What pains me more is that we have nothing in recent memory that is as elegant as Haydn and Beethoven.

        Most white people are making rock music, which is a degraded form of German and Celtic folk music.

  7. U-551 says:

    Wasps, or Anglos are a minority of Western Europeans in the US. The Majority – German, Dutch, Scandinavian, French, Celts and others are a silent majority – but constitute the strength and brains of the American nation. These Europeans have absolutely no confidence or trust in the abilities or good faith of Anglos. Therefore they will wipe you off the map with complete ease (I may add) if you try to assume control of a ‘white’ America on behalf of the English.
    You should stick to being American like the others, because you guarantee your annihilation as a America ethnic group by this ridiculous egotism of ‘owning’ or having dibs on American society. Do you understand ‘hubris’. Have you forgotten even the American wasps fought a war to be rid of you? Doing it again is absolutely no challenge.

    • Have you forgotten even the American wasps fought a war to be rid of you?

      Actually, the South was more WASP than the North.

      These Europeans have absolutely no confidence or trust in the abilities or good faith of Anglos.

      This is a problem of diversity: it offends their sense of identity to admit that Anglos built this nation and ran it better than the mixed Anglo/Other-European population has.

  8. Stork-Slayer says:

    Even “birds of a feather” will poke each others’ eyes out when resources will dry up.

    Talk more about overpopulation on your site.
    This is THE most important topic of the century. In fact, THE ONLY ONE. Compared to this, NOTHING else matters.

    Not rightism, no alt rightism, not leftism, not racial mixing, not the collapse of Western civilization, not degeneration – nothing.

    Everything and everyone will degenerate into chaos, horrific conflict, complete loss of civility and plain catastrophe when the human bucket will spill over.

    Even if you think whites (as in Northern-European descent) should step up the pace of mating with each other and procreate the living lights out of themselves to prevent racial extinction…what exactly do you propose to do with the other billions that are growing at neck-breaking speed?

    TALK OVERPOPULATION. A lot and often.
    Propose real solution. Oh yeah – and make them humane, if at all possible. Front end business as in “various forms of birth control”.

    Speaking of ignoring reality…let us NOT.

    • This is THE most important topic of the century. In fact, THE ONLY ONE.

      I agree with the first part; the second denies cause/effect relationships, namely that we got to a state of overpopulation through bad decision-making, whether sins of commission or omission. Thus the problem returns to politics, and the instability of individualist Enlightenment™ and democratic ideals.

    • EX says:

      Its wrong to go about overpopulation in the global/universal sense as it applies to specific territories and demographies. Whether overpopulation, or just an oversized demography is the root of the problem (possibly not) matters not, as not even half of the problems wont be undone by getting rid of overpopulators.

  9. AMK says:

    So what do you recommend? Nationalism? Nat Soc?

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>