Monday, January 26, 2015

The U.S should remain majority white and Christian


"Give me your tired , your poor ,your huddled masses, yearning to break free" says the inscription at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty. An appealing sentimental advertisement for the open heartedness of the American people.

The problem is that is not quite what the founders envisioned and they were not bigots for doing so. It was based on a poem composed by a socialist Emma Lazarus.There were many caveats in the founding documents, one of which being the Preamble to the Constitution which states "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States ..."

Posterity can mean many things but most likely here it refers to kin or blood descendants. Now to be sure, the Founders were an eclectic and somewhat eccentric lot. Benjamin Franklin didn't care for Germans and preferred Jewish to Catholic immigrants. But in general they preferred Northern European and Protestant peoples. With exceptions for blacks who they were obligated to since they were brought over for the ignoble reason of slavery.

Now that the I word has come up. Samuel Huntington had helpfully pointed out the tortured logic of considering the founders of Plymouth and Jamestown as immigrants. They were not immigrants but settlers. Settlers create a new culture and civilization and imposes a political order to promote and protect the same. While immigrants are attracted to said order and wish to emulate it.

The early English settlers could be dismissed as immigrants only if they adopted the language and customs of the native tribes and abandoning their English ways and Christian religion.

Obviously this was not the case.

Full disclosure: I am a non white , non Christian from India who attended university in U.S and have fond memories of it.

I remember Indians there telling me that Americans are lazy and stupid and it is Indians who are the future. To this end, they cite all the Silicon Valley honchos, spelling bee champions, our over representation at NASA,as surgeons ,DARPA or whatever you can think of(but please not the military or police forces, those are for them redneck riffraff!)

Understandably while the average white American admires the Indians for their mental acumen, work ethic and low crime rate, they also get quickly tired of their condescending attitudes. Some of the more blunter sort asked very pointed questions such as "hey if you people are such hotshots, how come your country is such a shithole"

A very reasonable question. The answer is simple: India is a shithole. Why? because it is filled with Indians. And why is America not, because it is filled with Americans.

Now before the Indian hyper patriots jump on my back, please check my other posts where I basically pointed that we WERE the greatest country on earth. Note which word I capitalized there.

Our country is hellish because we are for the most part a fractured and broken people who are damaged physically, intellectually and psychologically.

When you immigrate to a country, you are basically making an admission that your motherland failed on a deep enough level that you feel the need to set up shop elsewhere and assume a new identity.

So its a tad hypocritical to keep singing praises of your old country (to assuage your guilt) to your new hosts fellow citizens. Let us rude and ungrateful to that as well.

Americans aren't perfect but they have created a society which is successful and attractive to most in the world, all things considered.

And that culture and ethic which created such a society is the reflection of Anglo Irish/Teutonic Protestant peoples who created and continue to define America.

And they are dwindling and with them the culture is gradually being lost and hence the election of cretins and crooks like Barack Obama.

Neither Mexicans, nor blacks who comprise now nearly 30% of the population are either uninterested or unable to take up the mantle of American exceptionalism.

While Chinese, Japanese and Indian Americans are too small a minority and too attached to their motherland to implement effective policy that will place American interests first.

We certainly wouldn't like our country to become 15% Chinese and 10% Sinhalese. See the ruckus when a relative drop in the bucket Bangladeshis started swarming our cities.

Each country has an identity. India is at its base Ganga Yamuna Hindu culture with the related Godavari/Krishna cultures as a strong backup. Sri Lanka is Sinhala Buddhist. Bangladesh is Bengali Muslim. Chinese is Han.

Of course there is a place for minorities in all but minorities they remain nonetheless with all the color and tension it may entail.

Ditto for Europe and its respective white native nationalisms.

I don't blame non white immigrants who swarm to U.S if the U.S government keeps it doors open. But here the U.S government is at odds with its people who want to shut the doors like it did in 1924 and 40 years prior.
Failing that, expect to see flare ups and ethnic tensions reach fever pitch. I already see it on centre and centre right message boards. It is only a matter of time before it translates into action.

That's not because white Americans are bigots and racist but because they are human. Let us realize being human does not entail infinite patience, compassion and tolerance which the Left demands of white Americans.

Realize that before 1965 ,immigration to U.S was a rare privilege for which non whites were ever grateful and it was supposed to be a privilege NOT A RIGHT and we can avoid a lot of future ugliness.

17 comments:

  1. The use of the word posterity in the preamble is in my view a kind of unwarranted philosophical farsightedness on behalf of the writers,but at that time it was a product of ethnic selectivity as you have pointed out later.I am saying this because you have proceeded to explain beautifully the differences between settlers and immigrants later on.The word posterity has clearly spelt out this difference between settlers and immigrants in another racist style :)
    "The answer is simple: India is a shithole. Why? because it is filled with Indians...." - zionist agendas revealed again YSV :) ?
    "Now before the Indian hyper patriots jump on my back..." - And why would they not :)? They are now convinced that you are a hasbara :)
    "Our country is hellish because we are for the most part a fractured and broken people" - nearly a millenium of humiliation and what else can we be?Here I can understand your aversion to the Bhakti movement of medieval era.
    "While Chinese, Japanese and Indian Americans are too small..." - This is the reason the minority community specially of the recent immigrant type is not a very healthy thing for a democracy,ie,if they are given all the rights pf the original settler community .The major part of India throughout the medieval ages has been ruled by people who weren't very indigenised in their culture and background.That has only stalled the progress of the nation.Contrast this with the Vijaynagar empire of South India,which has ensured that even today the southern states are like the bastions of Hindu culture.Anyway as you are from south India I would like to have your opinion on my observation.
    "Each country has an identity. " -This is why the concept of secularism as practised in India hasn't been very healthy,infact it has not given any real solace to the minority communities of India.On the other hand,minority communities in countries which do not blow the trumpet of secularism are far better.
    'India is at its base Ganga Yamuna Hindu culture..." - Democracy is the dance of the majority and not totality.So the majority cultural base has to be taken care of,as you have aptly pointed out.
    " it was supposed to be a privilege NOT A RIGHT .." - As far as I know,USA has learnt it the hard way and are tightening up the norms of permanent citizenship,work permit etc.However here also you are in a better position to elaborate on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I know, U.S is still open to qualified professionals to work and apply citizenship.
      What most Americans object is the millions of Mexican illegals in their midst. Many of these(not most) are illiterate, crime prone and don't speak English or even Spanish (they speak pre Colombian dialects)
      And druglords use their presence to bolster their business. While ethnic Hispanic activists are happy to have them over just as political pawns.

      There is a lot of resentment over the Mexican American war where Mexico lost a lot of territory to U.S including Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada ,California to name a few.

      I remember in California I saw cars with bumpers that said "Fuck you, this is still Mexico"

      That said it is not just gangsters and racists who want these illegals.

      Business owners don't mind illegals because they keep labor prices low. Democrat politicians see them as voters since they often go on welfare to get free stuff as is the Democrat playbook.
      The Catholic Church is sympathetic to what it sees as Catholics trying to make a living in a Protestant country.

      In the end, Americans don't mind immigration in manageable numbers as long as they are law abiding.
      BTW the trend of immigrants being mostly of European origin ended maybe more than a decade ago. In 2012 , more Nigerians migrated to U.S than Englishmen.

      Delete
  2. america is 200+ year old country which follows merit based society.

    In India there was anti-brahman movement and invasion and destruction of universities.

    did America have any anti-intellectual movement.

    see periyar anti brahman movement.

    Does america really care for bs like India after Independence like reservation, religion based reservation .

    positions are based on merit instead of reservation in usa unlike India.

    India is in a state of turmoil because of non pluralistic religion.

    america ridicules the followers of arab religion which made the actor irrfan khan to drop his surname khan and does not want to associate himself with religion of peace.

    you cant write multiple thesis on america and brown nose them after they complete 3000+ years.

    today America is superior because it follows the vedas rather rigveda concept of The Rigveda says "Let knowledge come to us from all sides". And US has implemented this concept neatly. The number of intellectuals of foreign origin who settle in US to pursue research says it all.

    American majority is a christian majority

    you can call America greatest country ever after a period of 3000+ years of its formation.

    Indians are not allowed to learn the mathematical language of Sanskrit because yes your love for the non pluralistic religion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. anon said "you cant write multiple thesis on america and brown nose them after they complete 3000+ years."

    you can write multiple thesis on america and brown nose them after they complete 3000+ years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know if you are the same anonymous who has difficulty posting long posts for whatever reason. All can advise on this matter is - don't bother.

    For the life of me I have no idea what the heck you are trying to say. And what little I do understand is not worth responding to as it is juvenile and reeks of ignorance.

    I cant respond to gibberish.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anglo-Saxons made unprecedented growth in terms of population, territory, power and sphere of influence in 19th and 20th centuries. Now their great days are over and decline is staring at them.

    But why should anyone feel sorry for them? In their heyday, they plundered, conquered, exterminated, enslaved and segregated their unfortunate victims - like many conquers. And history also offers plenty of examples where conquerors decays and finally fall victims to fresh waves of conquerors.

    White racists in 1900 boasted about their right to dominate the world in the name of Darwin and Kipling. But today, there are no more white racists, only white nationalists and nativists!

    Just look at the irony - descendants of those same white men who stole land from Red Indians and locked them up in Reservations are now speaking about rights of native peoples! Now they dont want world domination but only want to convert Europe, North America and Australia into safe havens for white peoples.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not saying that one should feel sorry for them. Notice I have little sympathy when some nativists bitch and whine about free trade and free markets. That is the survival of the fittest. I am talking about identity and they have a right to restrict immigration to preserve their identity.

      Just FYI the term "Red Indians" is offensive, even white racists don't use it anymore. THe proper term in Native Americans and to specific tribes like Cherokee, Iroquis, Navajo, Blackfoot etc.

      All countries are founded on conquest, so I don't neither condemn Americans for it nor hold them to a higher standard.

      And extermination is a very strong world. A hunter gatherer population is likely to be very low compared to settled agricultural community like the white founding populations.

      If they want safe havens for a limited and well defined territories then let them have it. I don't see the issue in this.

      Delete
    2. I will make sure that I wont use word 'Red Indian' in future. Thanks for the correction.

      USA will not be able to restrict immigration to preserve their identity as long as they attempt to control the earth. How could American power be universal while at same time it restricts immigration and promote WASP identity at home in exclusivist fashion? To put it in a nutshell, WASP identity of USA is doomed unless USA gives up all pretensions about controlling the world.

      And I guess there is an even more serious reason why US authorities will not be able to restrict migration to save identity ---- population of USA is greying rapidly and they need migrants from Mexico to keep their economy going - Do correct me if I am wrong.

      Delete
    3. Wow I am a more than a year late in answering Sagar's query but better late than never. You are perceptive when you say that U.S.A should stop interfering in others business if it wishes to control immigration as the two are interconnected.

      I believe that it is a win win situation for those Americans who are increasingly nativist(this is not restricted to whites, blacks are just as racist if not more against immigrants and even Indian Americans resent losing their jobs to Indians).

      The population of USA had morphed from a republic to an empire around the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Before that there were the equivalent of American East India companys such as the United Fruit company which would run roughshod over Panama and a corporator called William Walker basically took over Nicaragua and declared himself a potentate. THe confederate states envisioned a sort of slave empire in the Caribbean and parts of south america in case of their victory. They obviously failed thank god but some of their mercantalism and crony capitalism was bolstered by an expansionist U.S which started entertaining crank notions of Anglo racial supremacy over mostly Iberian South and Central Americans. Teddy Roosevelt was the queen Victoria to these mercantilists and this empire building and racial supremacist ideas were excarbated by Woodrow Wilson who broke a campaign promise by getting U.S involved in WWI.

      The only people who are against this idea of U.S can be found in libertarian parts of the right(represented by Ted Cruz and Rand Paul) and some fringe elements of the left such as Bernie Sanders.
      Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump represent the worst excesses of both the elites who are the bastard children of the adulterous affair of corporation and governments as well as the working classes who are into quick fixes ,quacks and charlatans.

      It is one of these - a mentally unstable and hysterical paranoid woman with delusions of competence and a sense of obscene self entitlement and a vodka,steaks and casino peddler with a fragile ego who coddles white nationalists, anti semites, Russian and Chinese autocrats just to grab power ,wealth and influence. Oh wait the same can be said Hilary too and what I said about Hilary about applies to Donald. ugh..either way one of these is going to have their finger on the red button. May god help us all.

      Delete
    4. @YSV

      What do you think about Progressive Era policies like the antitrust law? Are they ultimately good or bad for the economy? Like the telecom deregulation under Bill Clinton created the current situation of monopolies like AT&T right?

      Delete
    5. The progressive era anti trust laws were based on a combination of genuine malfeasance by some corporations, jealous competitors seeking to squash a rival not to mention a poor understanding of economics but that was excused due to the aggressive nationalism fostered by the Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt.

      Standard Oil had the Progressives all worked up since they were dominated the market when this new commodity for obvious reasons was much sought after. The reason for this was that Standard Oil offered the best prices for the average consumer and he did this by using railroads and this in turn contributed to the railway industries and back in those days President of Railways were considered industry titans. This lasted well until the 1950s to some extant, Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged features a railway titan. Of course this is considered laughable today. Not due to progressive actions obviously by various other factors such as the availability of the automobile for the middle and lower middle class person which was bolstered by the Interstate Highway under Eisenhower.

      Of course affordable plane travel put an end to the railway world once and for all. Nowadays its curious that despite the progressive ahem railing against the railways, the current progressive have a great fondness for railways . Witness the various projects for high speed rail despite zero interest from commuters. And those few in service are heavily subsidized.

      AT&T was doing such a poor job serving its clients that its own CEO said, “AT&T is so big, that when you give it a kick in the behind today, it takes two years before the head says, ‘Ouch!’”

      The problem was that FCC set prices to foster economic competition. But the problem was these prices were often quite arbitrary. And coupled with subsidy and mutual backscratching AT&T and the FCC ensured that the American consumer would be served poorly.

      However it was the Cold War era and it was felt that national security maybe compromised with "too much competition" so the first anti trust lawsuit against AT&T in 1949 was squashed. However the Dept of Justice started a suit against AT&T under Nixon and it dragged until 1982 when it was decided that AT&T would hang on to its long distance operations but it local (mostly Bell) services would be independent of the overbearing mother.
      Now keep in mind these "baby Bells" started out as new companies but as pretty much all the infrastructure was ready ,available and paid for they hit the ground running and paved the way for wireless communications.

      Bill Clinton held on to two terms by basically staying out of the way of the Republican Congress(whose agenda of growth and domestic security he basically coopted) -the pragmatic though amoral man that he was in fierce opposition to his more ideological life partner (though not bed partner).

      Now the problem is after 2001 the baby Bells merged and bought out Mother AT&T and now call themselves AT&T and behave in pretty much the same way. Same goes for the other telecom behemoth Verizon. Getting a connection with affordable rates is an arduous process involving 1 to 2 year contract. I have travelled widely and U.S and Canada have the most irritatingly, inflexible and unimaginative cell phone service.

      Time for another smashing.

      Delete
    6. Wow thanks for this detailed reply YSV!

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great article. But I have a doubt about the "we WERE the greatest country on earth" part. Was it really a country? Wasn't it more of a collection of different kingdoms?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Roshan. I was thinking of pan Indian empires such as the Mauryas and to a lesser extant Satavahanas and Guptas.

      During the tripartite struggle, the Rashtrakutas of Karnata, Pala of Vanga and Gujjar Pratihara of Madhyadesha were in their own powerful and wealthy who left behind a rich artistic and literary legacy.

      True India was never united politically a coherent nation state, but the proper term is Indic civilization rather than India as a country

      Delete
  9. The far right is gaining popularity in Europe day by day. Far-right parties are gaining support. The situation in Greece is alarmingly similar to that in post-WW1 Germany, if I'm not wrong. There are several conspiracy theorists who believe that the Jews are responsible for immigration from the ME and Africa to destroy the white people. What are your views on this matter, YSV?

    ReplyDelete