- "But “America,” as we have already seen, is not a mere geographical expression; it is a nation, whose foundations were laid over three hundred years ago by Anglo-Saxon Nordics, and whose nationhood is due almost exclusively to people of North European stock — not only the old colonists and their descendants but also many millions of North Europeans who have entered the country since colonial times and who have for the most part been thoroughly assimilated. Despite the recent influx of alien elements, therefore, the American people is still predominantly a blend of closely related North European strains, and the fabric of American life is fundamentally their creation."
--- Lothrop Stoddard
________________________
I read the article quickly but I did read it. If you have read anything I have written you will know that I do not have any problem with a given culture or society desiring to maintain its integrity. You will quickly gather that I define 'integrity' rather widely but I will say directly that it certainly includes the body. If there is one thing or anything that is fundamental to a person's sovereignty it is their own body.
Therefor --- and you will already have noticed that I am moving toward a direct statement --- I have no problem with most of the assertions and perspectives that motivated the assertions of Grant and Stoddard. Immediately, you see, I place myself in, and I will certainly be seen as having entered, a very touchy domain. But instead of recoiling away from accepting responsibility for what I consider to be fair, sovereign and necessary definitions, I would go in the opposite direction. I recognize that the article that you posted is essentially one whose intention is to *expose racism*. Fair enough. I understand those arguments. But what I think about them is that they are usually emotional arguments, sentimental arguments, and pseudo-moralistic arguments. When those emotionalized arguments are brought out they usually work, and because they are effective, they are brought out again and again. They will work as long as people choose to buckle-under to them, as it were.
The post that I composed just previous to this one contains a set of assertions and perspectives which, in my mind, are still valid. Yet I would not merely sweep away all of the problematic aspects of those assertions nor even the dangers which are inevitable in them.
I think that you have avoided discussing the specificities because --- and I understand this --- it is a difficult and troubling set of elements and your instinctive reaction is something akin to abhorance. It is safer that you toss up an article which, I gather, you suppose is an argument against the position I incline to. I understand this. It is simply inconceivable in our American Present, and in any Present I can think of, to have an open concersation about race, the body and the physical aspect, the ramifications of a race-blended culture, the loss of identity, the 'mongerlization' of a given stock, and all the topics related to the subject. It is a thought-exercise (to imagine such a conversation occurring at a national level) which results in the clear understanding that the conversation is absolutely forbidden. It is, I suggest, a radical effort to overcome the queasiness one feels in approaching the topic and in laying it out to be examined.
In my view this should clue you and everyone in to what is hidden and submerged in it.
What I will say additionally cannot be of much help to coming to any decisions here. I have mentioned a couple of times recently having been influenced by the work of E. Michael Jones. He is a hard-to categorize Catholic-oriented philosopher and commentator who dedicates his efforts to looking into the collusion between elite factions and business in the creation of the 'America' of the postwar. It is startling material. I was quite impressed by this interview in which Jones develops many of his basic ideas:
The Slaughter of Cities.
I noticed that in the article Sanger presents the WASP perspective, then developing, of 'slavery through motherhood'. And I contrast that to the Catholic value-assertion that family and motherhood is the basis of Christian community. Jones talsk a good deal about the progressive WASP elite who internalized the 'motherhood is slavery' ideology and opened the doors to family planning, widespread access to birthcontrol, and indeed they practiced it on themselves and thereofr reduced their own demographic fertility. At that point, of course, the Catholic restrictions on birth control, and large Catholic families, obviously became a threat. And so (again, according to Jones) there developed an anti-Catholic posture and, also according to Jones, an effort to break up the strong ethnic Catholic neighborhoods.
These are all elements of *social engineering* which are part of America's postwar history and yet are not well-understood nor publicised. And what is implied, directly, is the collusion between intelligence agencies, elite groups, and business interests in the 'construction of the American present'.
At first blush I saw Jones (a sort of self-conditioning kicked in) as another conspiricist of which there are so many. But the more that I looked into him, the more that I began to see his points are cogent and his research valid and grounded. Naturally, I am interested in the issue of 'social and cultural degeneration', and I have to be focused on the moral implications of many of the choices made by the American policy planners as a result of their astounding success after winning WW2 and dominating, substantially, the planet. What I like about Jones is his critical position but yet one grounded in Catholic-Christian principles.
It has to be stated that he denies race-categories as very important and does not stress them. He rather sees the 3 principle antagoisms as between Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Yet Jones is circulated among the Alternative Right.
Here is a video which quotes Jones in places, it is by Granville Thorndyke who always comes up with interesting video-montages. Thorndyke focuses in on a certain perspective and then 'illustrates' it, as it were, with visual and other material. Sometimes his presentations abort (no pun intended) but other times they succeed nicely.