Tag: decline and fall

A prescription for Africa

Peter Grant provides his thoughts on aiding Africa:

Based on my extensive experience of Africa, I suggest there are two – and only two – ways in which Western aid should be focused in the short term.  The first is education.  Teach people the basics of how to think, how to use their brains – and do so in a way that is tailored to their current levels of intelligence.  Don’t expect a teenager with an IQ of 70 to function at the same level as someone with an IQ of 100.  He must be taught things he can do – and at which he can succeed – that are commensurate with where he’s at right now.  That way, he won’t get discouraged and abandon his studies.  He can be set tasks that grow progressively more complex and more difficult, but not at a level he can’t master.  His children will go further, and his children’s children further still . . . but he won’t.  He can’t.  That’s the brutal reality of the situation.

The second way in which aid can be useful is in providing basic infrastructure that is operable, and maintainable, and sustainable, by people in the IQ range we’ve discussed.  Examples:

  • It’s pointless giving them a complex engine-powered pump to bring up water from a well if they aren’t capable of maintaining it.  Rather give them a hand-operated pump, one they can understand, and which they can repair themselves if it breaks down.  It’s more and harder work to use it, but it’s also more practicable for them.  When it comes to health care, providing mosquito nets and clean water and hygiene education is far more important than providing anti-AIDS drug cocktails.  Sure, without the latter, people will die;  but without the former, many more people will die. Invest limited resources where they’ll do the most good for the greatest number.  Yes, that means some people will be condemned to die.  That’s economic and cultural reality in Africa.  Live with it.
  • I’ve seen several entrepreneurs in Africa take discarded Western high technology, ‘dumb it down’, and use it with great success.  Example:  pedal-powered washing machines (which we’ve discussed here before).  Old, broken-down automatic washing machines are connected to good old-fashioned bicycles mounted on frames, using drive belts made from locally-produced leather or cloth.  Result;  the pedalers earn a living, local women can wash their clothes much faster and more conveniently than taking them down to the local river (where they’re frequently preyed on by crocodiles), and the entrepreneur who put the whole idea together becomes a Big Man in the local economy – and is able to use his profits for other useful economic ideas.  Moral of the story:  find individuals with that sort of entrepreneurial drive, and help them.  That aid will ‘trickle down’ into the local community and benefit everyone.
  • The corollary to the above is that aid must not – repeat, must not – be given to government officials and bureaucrats who’ll siphon it off into their own pockets.  Corruption, nepotism and dishonesty are not just rife in Africa – they’re a way of life.  Tragically, too many agencies and large aid organizations (all of which should know better) are willing to let dishonest governments and bureaucrats handle aid money, so as not to offend local sensibilities or be seen as ‘neo-colonial’ in their attitudes.  Worse, some of them openly bribe governments and bureaucrats, figuring that it’s better to do that in order to ensure that at least some of the aid they provide reaches those for whom it’s intended.  Often that proportion is ten per cent or less – the rest lines venal pockets further up the food chain.
  • Finally, aid must be distributed in a way that is accountable.  Money and supplies must be accounted for when they arrive, while being sent to their final destination, and upon delivery.  The way they’re used must be monitored, and any discrepancy must result in disciplinary action – i.e. the withholding of further aid from the miscreant(s) involved.  There can be no blind acceptance of someone’s bona fides unless their actions match their words.  There can be no resigned, shoulder-shrugging acceptance of ‘shrinkage’ without a major effort to minimize losses.  If that isn’t done, the venality of Africa will soon ensure that most (if not all) of the aid sent is diverted into fat-cat pockets.  (How do you think Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire, managed to embezzle between $4 billion and $15 billion during his time in power?  It sure wasn’t his salary!)

There is a third way in which aid might be profitably spent – but it’ll never fly, because it’s 100% politically incorrect.  That way would be to hire mercenaries – probably former servicemen from Western armies and their allies – to pacify an area, ensuring that aid workers can operate safely and without coercion.  They can raise and train a local militia if responsible individuals can be found, but that’s unlikely at first.  It’ll be more important for them to proactively attack local thugs and gangs.  That’ll be an object lesson to everybody – “Get with the program, or get dead!”  In an environment where life is so cheap, and atrocities are everyday occurrences, that’s probably the only way in which this could work.  However, the reaction to that by liberals and progressives would be so outraged that, as I said, this idea will never fly.

While I agree with Peter’s diagnosis, I don’t agree with his prescription. Education will not change one single damn thing in Africa because it cannot. The intelligence gap between Europe and Africa is genetic and only several centuries of ruthless eugenics will raise the average intelligence of the latter continent. In fact, despite more people being more educated than ever before, the dysgenic social structure of both the European nations and the USA has already reduced their average intelligence levels; the gap is being reduced, but by lowering the average intelligence levels in Europe and the USA.

That is why we are seeing the Western countries gradually start resembling the better third-world countries. Over time, they will start to resemble Africa, and similar behavioral patterns will begin to exert themselves. The only good news, if it can be described as that, is that the Western warlords of the future will likely be considerably smarter than their African counterparts, so perhaps there will be the occasional Singapore that can serve as the core of a new high-IQ civilization.

And since  the current population explosion in Africa is almost certainly dysgenic, I expect that the average intelligence will actually decline in Africa and the situation will get even worse there, with widespread cannibalism and other practices even more depraved and demonic than mutu beginning to appear.

The more I look at the global situation, the more I am convinced that those in the 1980s who thought Japan and China would dominate the world were correct, they were simply about 100 years early. The fall of the Soviet Union was not the triumph of Western liberal democracy, it was its last chance, but instead of taking that chance, the liberal democracies slashed their own throats. Yes, Japan and China are both economic disasters, but they are still smart, homogeneous nations and they will bounce right back from the next economic crash. Most of the nations of the West are not, and therefore they will not be able to do so.

That, I think, is why China is biding its time. It has no need to defeat the USA. It need only wait and let the USA finish destroying itself.

Debunking Snopes

A number of people have referred to the Snopes “debunking” of the Hiroshima-Detroit comparison, failing to realize that a) it doesn’t address blacks at all, and, b) I wrote my post in the first place because the supposed debunking was so feeble.

Here is an accurate summary of the Snopes argument.

1. The picture is not of modern-day Hiroshima.


the next image in the set supposedly depicts modern-day Hiroshima — except that it doesn’t. It’s actually a snapshot taken from the Landmark Tower Sky Garden in Yokohama, Japan

That’s true of the pictures to which Snopes was referring. It’s not true of the pictures I used, which one can see is clearly of past and present Hiroshima. Furthermore, Hiroshima is in very good shape today, as Snopes itself admits. One down.


2. The picture of modern Detroit is only of one building.

the thing to note about the use of this image to portray Detroit as a locus of Hiroshima-like devastation is that all we actually see is one long-abandoned, crumbling building. It doesn’t make the case.

That one picture doesn’t conclusively prove the case, but it correctly demonstrates the actual case intended. Detroit’s population is now 36.7 percent of its 1950s peak and is now 83 percent black. 95 percent of the whites who resided there in 1950 have left. The city filed for bankruptcy in 2013. “aerial photos reveal the tiny urban island that is left – a clutter of high-rises surrounded by empty housing plots now covered in grass.” Two down.

3. The picture of Navin Field is from the 1930s, not the 1940s.

Lastly, we’re shown a photo supposedly depicting Detroit in its mid-1940s heyday — except that it was taken in the mid-1930s

So what? That only makes it that much more clear how advanced Detroit was, and how far Detroit has fallen since. This is petty pedantry, as the relevant point is still demonstrated. Three down.

4. It was the Democrats fault, but it wasn’t only their fault.

Did Democrats and Democratic policies play some role in the fall of Detroit? Surely they did. Every Detroit mayor since 1962 has been a Democrat, after all. But Republicans held the seat for the 12 years prior to that, from 1950 through 1961. The Packard plant whose hollowed-out remains were displayed above closed its doors during that time. Whatever blame is to be allotted to politicians must be shared by both Democrats and Republicans on the national level, as well.


Here is a tip: when you admit that the case being made is correct, even in part, it is not a debunking. Four down. There is not one single effective point that was made in this so-called “debunking”.

The ironic thing about those responding to my modified Detroit-Hiroshima comparison with “Snopes says” is that I rebutted the cuckservative “Democrat policies” explanation for the difference between the two cities more effectively than Snopes did by pointing out that if Democrats are responsible for the decline of Detroit, Hiroshima should be even worse, because it was ruled by Socialists for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

Are there other factors that have contributed to the decline of Detroit beyond the fact that 478,112 blacks moved into the city between 1900 and 1960? Certainly. But that doesn’t change the fact that if a city has a choice between being hit by an atomic bomb or acquiring 774,485 new black residents, the available evidence strongly indicates that the former will prove vastly preferable to the latter in the long term.

Are blacks worse than atomic bombs?

I was drawn to look into this for myself after Snopes tried to dismiss a meme that was going around comparing Hiroshima to Detroit on the basis of some rather spurious grounds, so I thought I’d have a look at the evidence myself.

Now, some have argued that because Detroit’s core downtown is still intact, this proves that the decay of the city surrounding it is irrelevant. But a city is more than its downtown, as the comparative population figures demonstrate the same contrast that the pictures do.

Detroit population 
1950: 1.8 million
2016: 680,000


Hiroshima population
1945: 260,000
2015: 1.2 million

Note that this is the most favorable possible comparison for Detroit, as the 1945 Hiroshima population is post-bombing and is based upon the smallest reported casualty count. Moreover, Detroit filed for bankruptcy in 2013, which was the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in US history.

The claim that the pictures are misleading is a dishonest and knowingly deceitful response. The fact that the downtown still exists merely indicates the destructive process is not yet entirely complete, as that downtown is now “a tiny urban island” in a grass-covered, depopulated sea.

In 1950, Detroit was America’s fifth largest city and one of the most prosperous on the back of its booming motor industry. It prompted the construction of skyscrapers on the banks of the river and the development of vast suburban housing projects in the surrounding areas.

But almost 55 years on, a dwindling motor industry and a dramatic fall in blue collar jobs has caused people to leave the Michigan city, abandoning their homes and businesses. These aerial photos reveal the tiny urban island that is left – a clutter of high-rises surrounded by empty housing plots now covered in grass. There are vast areas of open spaces dotted with crumbling industrial buildings and barely-standing Victorian homes until you reach the upmarket suburbs.

The fact that these facts may be uncomfortable or make you feel bad is irrelevant. The evidence is very clear that a black population in excess of an as-yet-undetermined percentage of the overall population renders the continuation of Western civilization impossible. This has been observed everywhere from Capetown to Detroit, and the comparison with Hiroshima only underlines the cultural, economic, and physical devastation that an excessively black population is likely to wreak on a society.

The cuckservative response is that it is Democrat rule, or socialist governing principles, not blacks, who are responsible. This omits two important facts. One, blacks vote for Democrats more solidly than any other group. Two, for most of the post-war years for which I’ve been able to find the relevant data, Hiroshima has been governed by members of the Japan Social Democratic Party, “a political party that advocates the establishment of a socialist Japan.”

What should be done about it? I don’t know. But since my people were forcibly put on reservations, I’m not terribly inclined to pay much attention to any appeals to equality or the rhetorical hysterics of dyscivilizationists protesting that nothing can, or should, be done to avert the collapse of civilization throughout the West.

Mailvox: the reluctant revolutionary

From a reader deep in the belly of the Beast:

I am a teacher at a public school in [REDACTED].  During our first professional day this year our faculty was introduced to a new administrative mandate from the state bureaucracy.  At the conclusion of the presentation we were permitted to comment.  I asked the presenter if she thought the educational bureaucracy was insane, evil, or both.  My comment elicited a few chuckles from my colleagues.  She responded that she thought the new procedures would make her a more accountable teacher.  I rejoined that it would make of me a revolutionary.  Once again my colleagues chuckled.  Teachers are some of the worst sheeple on the planet.

I later approached a colleague who is a close ideological ally.  “Well, [REDACTED], which is it?”  As is frequently the case with him, he was quick to hit the mark.  “If they’re insane, it makes logical sense to accommodate them.  If they are evil, then we are morally obliged to fight them.”  Spot on.  He is good like that.

I tried to suppress my thoughts for the rest of the week, but the realization wouldn’t let go.  I had become a reluctant revolutionary.  Or rather, to be more accurate, the state had made me a revolutionary.  The idea sickens me.  I didn’t ask for this.  I have never aspired to this sort of vocation or anything like it.  It’s one of the last things I would ever wish upon myself.  But here I stand.

The comment you posted this morning from the German president about something being wrong with the people brought to me another sudden realization. Leaders as a class have never studied the antecedents of revolution.  If they had, they would keep on their desks a handy checklist and refer to it often.  But they truly are clueless. Revolutions are not a form of spontaneous combustion.  I am reminded of the final words of Madame Ceausescu as she was put up against the wall:  “You can’t do this; I treated you like my children.”  Clueless to the bitter end.

Or, as Aristotle put it, some people cannot be convinced by information. Never forget that. They genuinely believe they are our masters. I expect events will eventually convince them otherwise.

The decline of white America

Is the decline of America because America is, by definition, white:

Surveys by the Public Religion Research institute show that nearly 40 percent of Americans say that newcomers from other countries threaten traditional American customs and values. Thirty one percent of white people say that “the idea of America where most people are not white bothers me.”

This discomfort with growing diversity is generally most evident among Americans who are older and more conservative. To understand it, it helps to understand where they’re coming from. The census data show that roughly half of white Americans lived in a county where 9 out of 10 people were white in 1980. Today, just over a quarter do. Raising our threshold to 98 percent white, as in the maps above, shows that 15 percent of white Americans lived in these near-exclusively white areas in 1980, while less than one percent do today.

Of course, these thresholds are somewhat arbitrary. A county that goes from 98.1 percent white in 1980 to 97.6 percent white in 2010 is not necessarily experiencing a demographic revolution. But the sharp drop in the aggregate number of these nearly all-white counties makes for a useful marker of demographic change.

This 30-year timespan is within living memory for many of the people expressing unease with racial changes. They can look back on a time when literally everyone around them looked like them, and compare it to the present day, where people are becoming more and more different from each other — at least at the level of skin color.

What is so brutally dishonest about this coverage by the mainstream media is that it completely ignores all the other reasons Americans might not be enthusiastic about seeing their country invaded and their nation destroyed, for one or more of the following reasons:

  • Reduced average intelligence
  • Fewer jobs
  • Lower wages
  • Less political representation
  • Reduced political influence
  • Less community engagement
  • Increased pollution and environmental damage
  • More expensive housing
  • More crowded roads
  • Uglier people
  • Differing standards of home and yard maintenance
  • Increased difficulty in communicating
  • More support for government intervention in their lives
  • The increased likelihood of war and ethnic cleansing
To boil all that down to racism and a desire to see people who look like you is not merely disingenuous, it is completely dishonest.
Never forget that homogeneous nations come out of heterogeneous empires.

The end of Jewish rule

Identity politics finally catches up to a 44-year practitioner of it.

A Somali activist has unseated one of the Minnesota Legislature’s longest-serving members in a Democratic primary.

Ilhan Omar defeated 22-term Rep. Phyllis Kahn in Tuesday’s DFL nominating contest. Omar’s victory in the heavily Democratic Minneapolis district makes it likely she’ll be the first Somali-American lawmaker in the nation after the November election.

The district spans the University of Minnesota and is home to a large population of immigrants from Somalia and other East African countries. Omar argued the district needs a fresher face that better represents the diversity and needs of the area.

Omar is a political activist and former aide to the Minneapolis City Council.

Kahn has spent 44 years in the Legislature.

This is a microcosm of what is gradually taking shape in the United States. It’s also why the Learned Elders of Wye have been actively trying to figure out where to jump ship next, as their ability to influence US politics rapidly wanes. Apparently Jewish strategists never thought through the obvious long-term consequences of their 60’s-era “diversity is good for the Jews” strategy in the United States, most likely because it was originally formulated in highly altruistic, highly homogeneous Europe, where it was an effective strategy right up until it really wasn’t.

However, now that low-altruism minorities are approaching 50 percent of the US electorate, identity politics are permanently replacing ideological politics, and a Jew like Khan is never going to be elected in any district where Somalis, or Arabs, or Indians, or Chinese are the majority. And they’re also increasingly unlikely to be elected in black-, white-, or Hispanic-dominated districts.

Further complicating matters is the fact that the rise of Donald Trump and American nationalism means the “hello, fellow white people” schtick is not to work much longer, particularly now that the inordinately Jewish “conservative media” has unmasked itself as globalist rather than pro-American, and viciously opposed to any America First nationalist ideology.

So, setting up Pedro, Peng, Pasha and Prodosh to fight Paul for the benefit of Peter has, over time, put Peter in a no-win situation. If Pedro and company win, Peter is permanently excluded from power and may even be actively persecuted by the rainbow coalition he helped build. And if a newly self-interested Paul wins, he’s no longer likely to listen to Peter or pay any attention to Peter’s interests.

This leaves Peter with three options. Try to shut down democracy, accept the gradual decline of power, wealth, and influence, or leave.

This isn’t a matter for debate, nor will crying Holocaust or engaging in philo-semitic virtue-signaling make any difference here here. It’s simple demographic math combined with an observation of historical group voting patterns. US whites are willing to vote outside their identity. US non-whites strongly prefer to do as the Jews do and vote their identity.

It’s interesting, is it not, that the vaunted Askenazi IQ advantage appears to be failing them even as the average US IQ declines significantly. It tends to strongly suggest that whatever the historical basis of Jewish success in the United States was, it was not superior average intelligence.

To return to the Minnesota district, it would be fascinating if Omar unexpectedly loses the election, as a defeat would indicate that even hard-core liberal whites are starting to prefer identity politics to ideology.

UPDATE: Further evidence that identity politics are on the rise; the Asians are beginning to flex their political muscle.

24-year-old Fue Lee, who was born in a refugee camp in Thailand and currently works in the office of Secretary of State Steve Simon. He defeated 10-term incumbent Rep. Joe Mullery, DFL-Minneapolis. Both upsets came in heavily DFL districts, which means they are virtually assured of victory in November. Their victories illustrated the ascendance of minority populations in the DFL, as new immigrants and African-Americans demand a higher profile and a seat at the table of the party they call home.

As I’ve said before, Republicans must become the White Party – or if you prefer, the American Party – if they are to survive. White Democrats and Jews are all but finished, outside of the places where they are the majority.

Globalists caused US decline

Pat Buchanan rightly condemns the globalists for their foolish abuse of American power that has led to a decline of that power:

“Isolationists must not prevail in this new debate over foreign policy,” warns Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The consequences of a lasting American retreat from the world would be dire.”

To make his case against the “Isolationist Temptation,” Haass creates a caricature, a cartoon, of America First patriots, then thunders that we cannot become “a giant gated community.”

Understandably, Haass is upset. For the CFR has lost the country.

Why? It colluded in the blunders that have bled and near bankrupted America and that cost this country its unrivaled global preeminence at the end of the Cold War.

No, it was not “isolationists” who failed America. None came near to power. The guilty parties are the CFR crowd and their neocon collaborators, and liberal interventionists who set off to play empire after the Cold War and create a New World Order with themselves as Masters of the Universe.

The USA will retreat from the world whether Americans want to or not, whether the globalists want them to or not, because America has been invaded, parasited, and financially raped, and its military has been methodically misused, since 1965.

The US government is no longer by, of, or for the American people. And that is why it can no longer harness American power. The globalists broke the nation, and in doing so, broke its power.

Let them go their wicked ways

An eloquent reminder of why women should neither vote nor speak in church. Particularly self-declared “lifestyle theologians”.

Evangelicals are endorsing Trump by and large because he promises to return our nation to the “good old days.” Trump promises to bring back steel and coal, to return our country to an immigrant-free land, and, with gusto, he promises to make America the world super power it used to be. His campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” has deeply resonated with leaders across the spectrum.

But our generation doesn’t quite know what that means. Don’t forget, we grew up during war times. On September 11th, 2001, I was in eighth grade. When the war in Iraq started, I was in high school. Graduation came and many of my high school friends enlisted. I can still remember my friend, Kyle, telling me he had enlisted and feeling this overwhelming sense that we were far too young for all of this. These are the days in which we have grown up. We haven’t known the days of peace and tranquility that older generations reminisce about and desire to return to. It’s not that we don’t think things should change, it’s just that we don’t know a different way.

But war was not the only thing the separated the “good old days” from today in many leaders’ minds. There were many “benefits” of that by-gone era for those supporting a traditionalist view. Women were in the home raising the children without complaint, the Christian feminist movement hadn’t yet touched the churches and immensely inconvenienced pastors who had not had to grapple with these issues in a long time, and the notion of being politically correct wasn’t as demanding on conference speakers, writers, and preachers as it is today. When some Evangelicals look back, they see more tranquil days simply because these things were absent. But when millennials look back, we see how far our society has come. Evangelicals have warned us against the allure of progressivism, but I’m here to say that we actually like the progress. We actually like that women are on their way to equal pay, we like that you can’t make a racist comment as a public figure and go unnoticed, and we like that there are more female theologians and teachers and professors than ever before in American history. So when you try to pull us back to the “good old days,” you’ll miss us.

She’s right. National greatness doesn’t appeal to these millennials because they have no idea what it is. They love their degradation and their evil. They crawl like animals and believe themselves superior to those who came before them and walked upright. They genuinely believe that a descent into a crime-ridden third-world hellhole that can’t even teach children how to read, let alone put a man on the Moon, is “how far our society has come”.

Let them go. They worship feminism, globalism, and progressivism, not Jesus Christ. Follow the Divine example and abandon them to the Hell of their own choosing. We don’t need them. We don’t need numbers. All we need is 12 God-fearing men.

You will be hard pressed to find a millennial nationalist outside of the Republican intern pool. Perhaps it is that international travel is more available to our generation, or that we are living in more diverse communities that celebrate that diversity, but we don’t think America is the only great country, and we certainly don’t think that America is a Christian country.

Evangelical leaders are not just supporting nationalism, but are elevating nationalism to a Christian virtue. Many point back to the founding fathers as Christian leaders in our nation and impress upon us that we must support the constitution and protect our country because it is a Christian thing to do. We have deeply muddied the language between serving our God and serving our country. Forget the martyrs of the faith around the world, posters show us that soldiers make the “ultimate sacrifice.” As Christian millennials, we just can’t buy this. We look over our shoulders at our nation’s history and wince a little. We don’t have a lot of national pride because we are waking up to the immense on-going racism that exists in our nation’s systems, the horrors of early American history, and the tragedies around the world that happen because every country has nationalists. So when you equate nationalism with Christian virtue, we’re out.

Then you’re out and good riddance too. It’s not so much that nationalism is a Christian virtue as anti-nationalism being a Satanic one; globalism is overtly anti-Christian Neo-Babelism. Foolish millennials like these belong to neither the nation nor the church and should be kicked out of both without hesitation or regret. Evangelicals aren’t losing a generation, rather, Satan is running out of Baby Boomers and is in the process of reloading.

Although it may be tempting, there is no need to tell stupid young women like this to go to Hell. They are already well on their way.

The prophecy of HP Lovecraft

The Chateau offers up an insightful and prophetic essay by HP Lovecraft on “Americanism” and how it would be used to justify the immigration that has destroyed the American nation:

It is easy to sentimentalise on the subject of “the American spirit”—what it is, may be, or should be. Exponents of various novel political and social theories are particularly given to this practice, nearly always concluding that “true Americanism” is nothing more or less than a national application of their respective individual doctrines.

Slightly less superficial observers hit upon the abstract principle of “Liberty” as the keynote of Americanism, interpreting this justly esteemed principle as anything from Bolshevism to the right to drink 2.75 per cent. beer. “Opportunity” is another favourite byword, and one which is certainly not without real significance. The synonymousness of “America” and “opportunity” has been inculcated into many a young head of the present generation by Emerson via Montgomery’s “Leading Facts of American History.” But it is worthy of note that nearly all would-be definers of “Americanism” fail through their prejudiced unwillingness to trace the quality to its European source. They cannot bring themselves to see that abiogenesis is as rare in the realm of ideas as it is in the kingdom of organic life; and consequently waste their efforts in trying to treat America as if it were an isolated phenomenon without ancestry.

“Americanism” is expanded Anglo-Saxonism. It is the spirit of England, transplanted to a soil of vast extent and diversity, and nourished for a time under pioneer conditions calculated to increase its democratic aspects without impairing its fundamental virtues. It is the spirit of truth, honour, justice, morality, moderation, individualism, conservative liberty, magnanimity, toleration, enterprise, industriousness, and progress—which is England—plus the element of equality and opportunity caused by pioneer settlement. It is the expression of the world’s highest race under the most favourable social, political, and geographical conditions. Those who endeavour to belittle the importance of our British ancestry, are invited to consider the other nations of this continent. All these are equally “American” in every particular, differing only in race-stock and heritage; yet of them all, none save British Canada will even bear comparison with us. We are great because we are a part of the great Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere; a section detached only after a century and a half of heavy colonisation and English rule, which gave to our land the ineradicable stamp of British civilisation.

Most dangerous and fallacious of the several misconceptions of Americanism is that of the so-called “melting-pot” of races and traditions. It is true that this country has received a vast influx of non-English immigrants who come hither to enjoy without hardship the liberties which our British ancestors carved out in toil and bloodshed. It is also true that such of them as belong to the Teutonic and Celtic races are capable of assimilation to our English type and of becoming valuable acquisitions to the population. But, from this it does not follow that a mixture of really alien blood or ideas has accomplished or can accomplish anything but harm….

The main struggle which awaits Americanism is not with reaction, but with radicalism. Our age is one of restless and unintelligent iconoclasm, and abounds with shrewd sophists who use the name “Americanism” to cover attacks on that institution itself. Such familiar terms and phrases as “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom of speech” are being distorted to cover the wildest forms of anarchy, whilst our old representative institutions are being attacked as “un-American” by foreign immigrants who are incapable both of understanding them or of devising anything better.

One of the ways we can be certain that our perspective is not only historically sound, but more reflective of reality and predictive of the future is to read the voices of the past whose outlook has subsequently proved correct. HP Lovecraft was absolutely right, the foreign immigrants who came to the United States after 1919 were incapable of understanding the Rights of Englishmen and have proven utterly incapable of devising anything better.

Indeed, through their ahistorical inventions of “the melting pot” and “the proposition nation” and “equality” and “diversity is our strength”, they have completely and utterly destroyed that expanded Anglo-Saxonism that briefly made America the greatest, most powerful, and wealthiest nation on Earth.

“America” is not only white, it is, as Lovecraft said, an “expanded Anglo-Saxonism”. While other peoples may respect it, admire it, envy it, and seek to emulate it, they have observably been collectively incapable of understanding, adopting, or even preserving it. Through their various redefinitions of “Americanism”, America was destroyed.

The United States today is entirely post-American, in much the same way that Europe is post-Christian. The forms remain, but the substance is no longer there. America’s hallowed terms and phrases are even emptier than Europe’s abandoned churches.