Tag: history

When the lies fail

It appears (((Ben Shapiro))) has given up on his mythical propositional “America”:

We’re watching the end of America in real time.

That doesn’t mean that the country’s on the verge of actual implosion. But the idea of America required a common definition of being American: a love of country on the basis of its founding philosophy. That has now been undermined by the left.

Love of country doesn’t mean that you have to love everything about America, or that you can’t criticize America. But loving America means understanding that the country was founded on a unique basis -a uniquely good basis. That’s what the flag stands for. Not ethnic superiority or racial solidarity or police brutality but the notion of individual liberty and equal rights before God. But with the destruction of that central principle, the ties that bind us together are fraying. And the left loves that.

In fact, the two defining philosophical iterations of the modern left both make war with the ties that bind us together. In President Obama’s landmark second inaugural address, he openly said, “Being true to our founding documents…does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.” This is the kind of definition worshipped by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has single-handedly redefined the Constitution. He said, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

But this means that liberty has no real definition outside of “stuff I want to do.” And we all want to do different stuff, sometimes at the expense of other people’s liberty. Subjective definitions of liberty, rather than a common definition, means a conflict of all against all, or at least a conflict of a government controlled by some who are targeting everyone else. It means that our flag is no longer a common symbol for our shared definition of liberty. It’s just a rag that means different things to different people based on their subjective experiences and definitions of reality.

And that means we have nothing holding us together.

The only way to restore the ties that bind us is to rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty for which generations of Americans fought and died. But that won’t happen so long as the left insists that their feelings are more important than your rights.

It’s difficult for a revisionist lie to hold people together in lieu of the genetic, linguistic, religious, and cultural kinship upon which successful nations have historically rested. And if “only way to restore the ties that bind us is to rededicate ourselves to the notion of liberty”, well, to paraphrase Stefan Molyneux, that is not a strategy.

It’s just gaseous cuckservative rhetoric.

It’s also a bit ironic that (((Shapiro))) should complain about President Obama redefining liberty and Justice Kennedy redefining the U.S. Constitution, considering that he and his (((co-religionists))) have shamelessly attempted to redefine both “America” and “Christian values” for over 100 years.

This is why the eventual triumph of the Alt-Right over conservatism and its panoply of ahistorical myths is inevitable. Our beliefs are rooted in well-documented history and are entirely in line with both reality and current events. Theirs are rooted in revisionist lies and romantic bathos, and are hopelessly out of sync with what can be readily observed by anyone.

More (((American))) history

In response to my pointing out the self-serving historical revisionism of certain (((immigrants))), several people claimed that not only were there several Jews involved in the Revolutionary War, but that the war would not have been won without the financing of a Polish Jew by the name of Haym Solomon, who, I was informed, was “the primary financier” of the war.

Several of them cited a theme that I subsequently noticed on Twitter:

Mac ‏@Macdad25
Haym Solomon was instrumental in financing the US in the Revolutionary War. So thank a Jew today

Mordechai Lightstone‏@Motte
@Yair_Rosenberg is @bryanjfischer aware that Jews helped win the Revolutionary War, including Haym Solomon who helped finance it?

 Ina Gilmore ‏@inagilmore
Reading: Forgotten Patriot The Story of Haym Solomon by David Allen Lewis. Financed Revolutionary War with over 40 billion US 2005 dollars

The implied idea that this forgotten patriot merited mention with the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson due to his “instrumental”, and indeed, presumably single-handed financing of the war struck me as highly unlikely, although I supposed that since Messrs. (((Greenspan))), (((Bernanke))) and Ms (((Yellen))) have effectively destroyed 97 percent of the value of the current U.S. dollar, it was not entirely unthinkable that Mr. (((Haym))) might have been involved in whatever led to the phrase “not worth a Continental”. However, this notion was easily determined to be incorrect.

As is my custom once my B.S. detector is triggered, I looked into the documented facts of the matter. I learned the truth is that Haym Solomon was, in fact, a legitimate Revolutionary War hero. He was a spy, he was captured by the British twice, he risked his life for the colonial cause, and as the agent to the French consul as well as the paymaster for the French forces in North America, he was able to broker the sale of bills of exchange from France and Holland and help Robert Morris raise money for the war.

In all, he raised $650,000, a not-insubstantial sum, which amounts to $16,644,272.43 in 2015 dollars. (1913 to 2015 data is the CPI. Inflation data from 1665 to 1912 is from a historical study by  Robert Sahr at Oregon State University.)

However, it is also worth mentioning that $650,000 was 1/1327th of the total $862,688,500 that the Journal of the American Revolution estimates was spent by the Continental Congress and various other revolutionary parties on the Revolutionary War. To say that Mr. Haym’s contribution to the winning effort is exaggerated by the revisionists is to put it mildly. And note that most of the significant efforts to honor that contribution were made more than 150 years later, well after the revisionists had begun rewriting American history.

  • In 1939, Warner Brothers released Sons of Liberty, a short film starring Claude Rains as Salomon.
  • In 1941, the writer Howard Fast wrote a book Haym Salomon, Son of Liberty.
  • In 1941, the Heald Square Monument, a sculpture designed by Lorado Taft was erected at Wacker Drive and Wabash Avenue in downtown Chicago. Taft began the work but died in 1936. It was completed by his associate, Leonard Crunelle. The monument depicts George Washington flanked by Salomon and Robert Morris and grasping hands with both men.
  • In 1943, the United States liberty ship SS Haym Salomon was named in his honor
  • In 1946, a memorial statue was erected to Salomon at Hollenbeck Park in Los Angeles. The statue was rededicated in 2008 at Pan-Pacific Park in the Fairfax District, where it can be found on the corner of Gardner and Third Street.

In summary, Haym Soloman’s legitimately heroic contributions to the American Revolution have been coopted, exaggerated, and weaponized as rhetoric in order to further the false historical revisionism of the deceitful, self-serving (((proponents))) of “the melting pot”, “the nation of immigrants”, and “Judeo-Christian values”. And those exaggerated contributions are now cited by various opponents of the Alt-Right in a futile effort to obscure the historical fact of America having been founded as a very real White and Christian nation, both material and distinct from the current multi-ethnic imperial state known as the USA.

These revisionist efforts are somewhat ironic, because Solomon’s domestic political efforts tend to support the Alt-Right’s perspective on history, identity politics, and the predictable effects of non-native interference in politics.

  • In 1783, Salomon was among the prominent Jews involved in the successful effort to have the Pennsylvania Council of Censors remove the religious test oath required for office-holding under the State Constitution.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Furthermore, of the 376,000 Continental soldiers and militia members who fought in the Revolutionary War, less than 100 were Jews. It is also interesting to note that only 7,000 blacks fought for the revolutionaries, versus 20,000 blacks who fought for the British.

Assimilationist liars

I’ve recently chronicled how various assimilationists, from (((Israel Zangwill))) to (((Ben Shapiro))), (((Ekaterina Jung))), and (((Andrew Klavan))) have either concocted or attempted to pass off self-serving revisionist lies about American history in order to retroactively write their (((tribe))) into it so they can claim to be “every bit as American” as the Posterity whose rights the U.S. Constitution was written to protect.

Considering that the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to safeguard the rights of that Posterity, their actions in doing so are not only dishonest, but are literally anti-American. They are more cuckoo than the cuckservatives in this regard, in both senses of the term.

These lies include the following concepts:

  • The melting pot
  • A proposition nation
  • A nation of immigrants
  • Judeo-Christian values

Like any effective lie, each is constructed  around a fragment of truth, in this case, the section of the Declaration of Independence which declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

However, it is also self-evident that a secular atheist Jew, such as (((Ekaterina Jung))), who does not believe in a Creator, cannot credibly appeal to the Declaration in order to claim to be an American. And it is documentarily evident that, like the U.S. Constitution, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the writings of John Jay, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founding Fathers, and the Alt-Right nationalist position, the Declaration of Independence itself is directly opposed to the revisionist interpretation, as the document also refers to:

  • the connection between [the United Colonies] and the State of Great Britain
  • the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages
  • large Armies of foreign Mercenaries
  • the present King of Great Britain
  • the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners
  • the free System of English Laws
  • our Brittish brethren

To cite one phrase of a document in contradiction to the central theme of the entire document, which is that the People of the United Colonies are an English people, unique and distinct from foreigners, Indians, and the English people loyal to the King of Britain, is an outrageous attempt at deceit that relies entirely on the historical ignorance of the audience. To say that anyone can become an American because “all men are created equal” is a shameless lie. One might as readily cite it as evidence to claim it means anyone can become Chinese.

Now, I was aware of this deception because I am half-American, born in Boston, descended in my paternal line from an American revolutionary who died at Valley Forge, and steeped in the history of the American revolution. My family even celebrated Independence Day 1976 in Lexington, Massachusetts. But what I did not know, not being Jewish, is that Jews have also been victimized by the same sort of revisionist Talmudry to which Americans have been subjected by their assimilationist co-religionists.

In Cuckservative, John Red Eagle and I made the connection between Churchianity and the concept of Tikkun Olam, the Jewish mandate to “heal the world”. But, as one of the Jewish readers here helpfully brings to our attention, it turns out that “heal the world” is just another assimilationist lie, no more historically legitimate than the anti-American lies already mentioned.

“The central mitzvah or commandment for our era is the mitzvah of Tikkun Olam.   It is the defining mission of Jews to strive for the repair of the world by making society more just, fair, egalitarian, and sensitive. Judaism demands that we repair the world by striving for social justice.  It is the mission of Jews in the Divine Plan for the universe to repair the world by repairing man, by improving and advancing mankind.”

The above paragraph is a fair representation of what has become the defining raison d’etre of Judaism as conveyed by non-Orthodox liberal Jewish organizations and synagogues in America.  It is not a direct citation from any of them, but is an accurate paraphrase of what has become the canon of non-Orthodox Jewish liberalism in our time.

It is the “modernized” and contemporary “reinterpretation” of “Jewish ethics” as defined and inculcated by much of the Reform and Conservative movements.  It is also the “theology” of Jewish radical leftist groups operating at the fringes of the Jewish community, including the “Renewal/ALEPH” movement, the “Eco-Judaism” groups, the “Tikkun community” of people and groups that are satellites to the magazine by that same name published by tikkun-activist Michael Lerner, and what remains of the “Reconstructionists.”  Lerner, it should be added, discovers “repair of the world” even in LSD consumption.

What are we to make of “Tikkun Olam” proclamations?

The most important thing that must be understood about the Tikkun Olam catechism in the United States is that each and every sentence in the above proclamation is false.

First of all, there is no such thing as a mitzvah or commandment of “Tikkun Olam.”   Jews are nowhere commanded to “repair the world.”  In all the authoritative or traditional compilations of the commandments of Judaism, none list “Tikkun Olam”.  The expression itself does not appear anywhere in the Torah or in the entire Bible.

Those assimilationist liberals who insist that the entire “ethics of the Prophets” can be reduced to the pursuit of “Tikkun Olam” have to explain why none of the Books of the Prophets use the term.  “Tikkun Olam” is used sporadically in the Talmud, but as a technical term for resolution of certain judicial problems that arise before rabbinic courts.

The only place the expression appears in Jewish prayer is in the “Aleinu” and there it clearly has nothing at all to do with social justice.  In the “Aleinu,” Tikkun Olam is explicitly explained in the prayer text itself as the quest to eliminate pagan superstition and to see God’s rule of the universe implemented. It is a theological concept, not a social, political or environmental one.

It is in the interest of Americans and Jews alike, and in the interest of anyone who values either history or the truth, to continue to expose these “assimilationist liberals” for the liars that they are, and to reject their self-serving, ahistorical, revisionist falsehoods. This post also demonstrates why a broad-spectrum Alt-Right is more effective, and informed, than a narrow-gauge, white American-only Alt-Right.

UPDATE: Lies have ALREADY appeared about this post on Twitter. They are truly People of the Lie.

Blue Meanie ‏@BlueMeanie4
@voxday displays general cluelessness and paranoia re. Jews #Zionism #AltRight

“Judeo-Christian” is anti-Christian

“Judeo-Christian” is another false construct, not even as old as “the melting pot” or “a nation of immigrants”. From Wikipedia:

History of the term
The term is used, as “Judeo Christian”, at least as far back as in a letter from Alexander M’Caul dated October 17, 1821. The term in this case referred to Jewish converts to Christianity. The term is used similarly by Joseph Wolff in 1829, referring to a style of church that would keep with some Jewish traditions in order to convert Jews.

Use of the German term judenchristlich (“Jewish-Christian”), in a decidedly negative sense, can be found in the late writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who emphasized what he saw as neglected aspects of continuity between the Jewish world view and that of Christianity. The expression appears in The Antichrist, published in 1895 and written several years earlier; a fuller development of Nietzsche’s argument can be found in a prior work, On the Genealogy of Morality.

Promoting the concept of United States as a Judeo-Christian nation first became a political program in the 1940s, in response to the growth of anti-Semitism in America. The rise of Nazi anti-semitism in the 1930s led concerned Protestants, Catholics, and Jews to take steps to increase understanding and tolerance.

In this effort, precursors of the National Conference of Christians and Jews created teams consisting of a priest, a rabbi, and a minister, to run programs across the country, and fashion a more pluralistic America, no longer defined as a Christian land, but “one nurtured by three ennobling traditions: Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism….The phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’ entered the contemporary lexicon as the standard liberal term for the idea that Western values rest on a religious consensus that included Jews.”

Anyone who is using the term “Judeo-Christian” is referencing, consciously or not, left-wing anti-Christian agitprop. There are no historical “Judeo-Christian” values; to the extent there is overlap they are Christian values.

Note that “Judeo-Christian” in its post-1940s revisionist usage is a part of the same program as the 1965 Hart-Celler Act. It was adopted specifically to redefine America and destroy the historical fact of America having been founded as a de facto Christian nation.

It is also worth noting that despite Islam being related to both Christianity and Judaism in precisely the same manner, we do not hear much talk of “Judeo-Islam” or “Islamo-Christianity”, much less take seriously the idea that Americans must defer to Muslims or grant them any special status on those grounds.

To claim “Judeo-Christian” is nothing more than recognizing Christianity’s roots in the Old Testament is akin to claiming that “Communism” just means people sharing with other members of their community. Moreover, to claim that Christianity is “Judaic” in that sense is to erase the other tribes of Israel; it would be 12 times more accurate to say “Hebreo-Christian”, “Israeli-Christian” or “Jacobite-Christian”.

(((Ben Shapiro))) attacks the Alt-Right

The Littlest Chickenhawk is quick to sense the way the wind is blowing. And in case it wasn’t already abundantly clear, he wanted to stress whose side he isn’t on:

As one of the leading antagonists of the so-called alt-right, I’m often asked to define the movement. Like all movements, the alt-right actually has several strains – they’re an agglomeration of self-appointed radical culture warriors, disenchanted paleoconservatives, and open anti-Semites and white supremacists. They’re united by a distaste for what they consider to be “political correctness,” although they universally seem to mistake “PC” for “not being a complete ass.” And they consider any resistance to actual racism and anti-Semitism to be “cuck” cowardice and social justice warrior whining.

Many of the most public members of the alt-right are leftovers from Gamergate, the scandal that rocked the gaming community in which leftist reviewers saw fit to stifle and savage any video game (or science fiction and fantasy book) that didn’t hew to radical leftist tropes. As a way of trolling such leftists, many anti-SJW bloggers began using deliberately offensive language, then celebrating themselves for violating taboo. This has carried over to support for Donald Trump – many of these same people think that Trump’s unfortunate habit of saying terrible things is just high politics’ version of their own trolling, that he’s standing up to the regime of political correctness. He isn’t. He’s just a jerk. And so are they, for following along. The conflation between tweeting hook-nosed Jew cartoons at Jews and fighting against the scourge of political correctness, which prevents honest discussions of serious issues, actually damages the cause of political incorrectness….

Their philosophy, however, is totally foreign to conservatism. It supposedly champions Western civilization, but in pretending to do so, it tears away at its most foundational principles in favor of a white tribalism that provides an ugly counterpart to the left’s racial divisiveness.

Shorter (((Ben))): The Alt Right is mean, see how mean they are to me, and they’re NOT conservative either!

It’s true, we are mean and we aren’t conservative. It’s funny how they ALWAYS talk first about Milo, given that Milo is not Alt-Right and makes it very clear that while he is favorably inclined towards us, he is not actually Alt-Right himself. Of course, it’s probably difficult to talk reasonably about us at the same time that you’re running from debate with us.

Now, it is obvious that our philosophy differs from conservatism, although it is not as totally foreign to it as (((Ben))) is to America. We don’t hide the fact that the Alt-Right is an ALTERNATIVE to conservatism. It’s right there in the name. But we do not “supposedly” champion Western civilization, we actually do champion it, and more importantly, it falls to us to do so because conservatives, cuckservatives, and non-Westerners such as (((Ben))) have been lying about Western civilization’s foundational principles for over 100 years.

Western civilization rests upon three pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the rule of law. A non-Christian, non-European lawyer such as (((Ben))) can neither speak for the West nor is likely inclined to defend it, indeed, (((Ben))) is simply following in the tradition of his tribal compatriots (((Emma Lazarus))) and (((Israel Zangwill))) in attempting to redefine the white Christian foundations of both America and the West on behalf of his own tribal interests.

White tribalism in America is not only necessary, it is the inevitable consequence of the success two invading tribes had in overturning the immigration standards in 1965. Not only did those who pushed the Hart-Celler Act lie to the American people about their intentions, as well as the obvious consequences of that 1965 revolution, they have subsequently attempted to hide their destructive actions behind an utterly false 20th century mythology concerning “the melting pot”, “a proposition nation”, and “a nation of immigrants”. For more details concerning the complete falsehood of this 20th century mythology, read Cuckservative, by John Red Eagle and me.

And understand this. If you believe that any of those concepts are foundational American principles, you are a confirmed historical ignoramus. Here is a hint: cite the earliest significant reference to any of those phrases with relation to the United States of America.

1864: “a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
1908: “the melting pot”
1958: “a nation of immigrants”

The creedal mythology is obviously false, particularly in light of 120 years of naturalization laws, exclusion laws, and Supreme Court decisions that are entirely in line with the Preamble to the Constitution’s reference to posterity and the understanding that America was, and is, a white nation. How does one identify a “foundational principle”, not only of America, but Western Civilization, from a concept articulated and popularized by John F. Kennedy in 1958?

Earlier today, (((Cathy Young))) also attacked the Alt-Right on Twitter, in response to one of my tweets.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
#AltRightMeans Knowing American history and that both “the melting pot” and “a proposition nation” are lies.

Cathy Young ‏@CathyYoung63
#AltRightMeans agreeing w/the far-left that “all men are created equal” is not the real America but “whites only” is

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
#AltRightMeans understanding that the Preamble to the Constitution and 120 years of laws trump the Declaration of Independence.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
@CathyYoung63 Since you believe all men are created equal, do you agree Palestinians and Arabs have the right to settle freely in Israel?

I know this will probably come as a complete surprise to all of you, but (((Cathy)))’s response was: *crickets*



She doesn’t appear to understand that if all men are created Americans, then it necessarily follows that all Arabs are Jews.

UPDATE: (((Ben)))’s response, unsurprisingly, is to cry Holocaust.

Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro
From @voxday, demonstrating the full toxicity of the alt-right movement, complete with anti-Semitism.


Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Not anti-Semitic. Pro-American. You don’t understand the difference. Proud Israelis such as (((Martin van Creveld))) do. #AltRight

Consider the obvious alternative

I think it was extremely foolish for Andrew Stroehlein to criticize the use of human masks and pigs’ heads to dissuade immigrants from seeking to invade Hungary:

Hungarian politician Gyorgy Schopflin, of the nation’s ruling Fidesz party, made the incendiary comments in response to criticism of his country’s attitude towards refugees by a prominent human rights campaigner.

Human Rights Watch director Andrew Stroehlein slammed Hungary’s use of eerie masks fashioned from vegetables to ward off migrants at the border in a tweet on Friday.

Hungarian officials have placed the masks across the nation’s vast border fence in an attempt to impede the movement of refugees seeking passage to countries in Western Europe. While it appeared to work for a time, many refugees still attempt the dangerous journey.

Mr Stroehlein tweeted: “Refugees are fleeing war & torture, Hungary. Your root vegetable heads will not deter them.”

Mr Schopflin replied: “Might do so. Human images are haram. But agree, pig’s head would deter more effectively.”

After all, if the masks and pigs’ heads don’t work, the Vlad Dracula method is historically known for its efficacy in this regard.

America was never “a nation of immigrants”

Consider the words of one Founding Father, Alexander Hamilton, on the subject of the intrinsic dangers of immigration:

Resuming the subject of our last paper we proceed to trace still farther, the consequences that must result from a too unqualified admission of foreigners, to an equal participation in our civil, and political rights.

The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.

The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another.

As it happens, the ruination of the United States is the result of the “contributions” of two groups of immigrants, Irish and Jewish.

For those who talk about how immigrants assimilate within a generation or two, it would be wise to note the generational status of the three men chiefly responsible for that ruination, Philip Hart, Emanuel Celler, and Edward Kennedy.

Philip Hart – Third-generation Irish immigrant
Emanuel Celler – Third-generation Jewish immigrant
Edward Kennedy – Fourth-generation Irish immigrant

It is clear that even to the fourth generation, immigrants are prone to maintaining their primary loyalty to their ethnic group, if not their nation of origin, rather than to the nation to which they have nominally grafted themselves. They are guided by the principle of “what is good for the Irish” or “what is good for the Jews” rather than “what is good for the Americans” or even “what is good for the USA”.

No immigrant, or child, grandchild, or great-grandchild of immigrants, should have been permitted to vote or hold any office. Had the USA instituted such a policy, it might still be America instead of a multi-ethnic, white-minority idiocracy on the verge of crumbling into violent conflict and ethnic partition, as the ignorant public entertains itself by pretending to believe that Hamilton was either black or Hispanic.

There is no such thing as a HYPHEN-AMERICAN. What comes before the hyphen indicates identity. What comes after the hyphen indicates residence.

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.

The Communist perspective on fascism

Keep illuminating article entitled “Divided They Fell” from International Socialism in mind when you observe the modern anti-fascists in action:

The Communist Party organisation began to change fundamentally in the mid-1920s. Concomitant with the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, Stalinisation of the KPD began under the leadership of Ernst Thälmann. Freedom of discussion and internal democracy were replaced piece by piece by a mood of unquestioning discipline and authoritarian leadership. Oppositional currents were discouraged from speaking openly and eventually forced out of the party. No longer held politically accountable to the membership, in 1929 Thälmann and Stalin agreed upon an ultra-left course against the SPD, concluding that the Social Democrats represented a form of “social fascism”. This disastrous line would eventually prove fatal for both the Social Democrats and the Communists.

The theory of social fascism dictated that Nazis and Social Democrats were essentially two sides of the same coin. The primary enemy of the Communists was supposedly the Social Democrats, who protected capitalism from a workers’ revolution by deceiving the class with pseudo-socialist rhetoric. The worst of them all were the left wing Social Democrats, whose rhetoric was particularly deceptive. According to the theory, it was impossible to fight side by side with the SPD against the Nazis under such conditions. Indeed, the KPD declared that defeating the social fascists was the “prerequisite to smashing fascism”. By 1932 the KPD began engaging in isolated attempts to initiate broader anti-fascist fronts, most importantly the Antifascischistsche Aktion, but these were formulated as “united fronts from below”—ie without the leadership of the SPD. Turning the logic of the united front on its head, SPD supporters were expected to give up their party allegiance before joining, as opposed to the united front being a first practical step towards the Communist Party. Throughout this period the leaderships of both the SPD and the KPD never came to a formal agreement regarding the fight against Nazism.

Another fatal consequence of the KPD’s ultra-leftism was that the term “fascism” was used irresponsibly to describe any and all opponents to the right of the party. The SPD-led government that ruled Germany until 1930 was considered “social fascist”. When Brüning formed a new right-wing government by decree without a parliamentary majority in 1930, the KPD declared that fascism had taken power. This went hand in hand with a deadly underestimation of the Nazi danger. Thus Thälmann could declare in 1932: “Nothing could be more fatal for us than to opportunistically overestimate the danger posed by Hitler-fascism”.The KPD’s seeming inability to distinguish between democratic, authoritarian and fascist expressions of capitalist rule proved to be its undoing. An organisation that continually vilified bourgeois democratic governments as fascist was unable to understand the true meaning of Hitler’s ascension to power on 30 January 1933, the day the KPD infamously (and ominously) declared: “After Hitler, we will take over!”

To this day, “fascism” still means nothing but “any and all opponents to the right of the speaker”. Note that SPD refers to the Socialist Party which established the Weimar Republic and is currently the junior partner in Germany’s governing coalition, and the KPD is the Communist Party.

Viva Catalunya

The Catalan Republic votes to secede from Spain

In the aftermath of last month’s Brexit vote, there was an outpouring of concern in Europe that the British decision would embolden similar separatist movements across the continent. Earlier Wednesday, this is precisely what happened when Catalan nationalists voted to approve a plan to secede from Spain, defying the nation’s Constitutional Court and challenging acting Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who is currently in political limbo as he struggles to form a government.

The decision was approved by 72 regional MPs out of 135. Ten MPs from the CSP group linked to Podemos, Partido Popular and Ciudadanos walked out of the assembly and the Socialists did not vote. A recent poll shows that 48% of the Catalan population currently supports independence compared with 43% against it.

The vote, symbolic as it may be, was one of defiance toward Madrid as Spain’s Constitutional Court had in recent days prohibited the regional parliament in Barcelona from voting on it. As Ansa reports, the resolution was presented by the pro-secessionist groups Junts Pel Si and CUP. The anti-secessionist parties – PP, Ciudadanos and PSC – have spoken out against the ”illegality” of the decision. PP parliamentary chief Xavier Garcia Albiol has said that the act is tantamount to a ”coup” against the government in Madrid and warned that there will be a price to pay for it. The head of the Socialist party, Pedro Sanchez, said there can be no democracy without common rules, while Albert Rivera, the Catalan-born leader of liberals Ciudadanos, described it as a attack on Spanish democracy. They both have rejected supporting Rajoy’s candidacy to become premier again.

Catalan regional president and pro-secessionist Carles Puidgemont instead says that the position taken by the regional MPs is ”legitimate” and has in recent months confirmed that the goal is to achieve an independent ”Catalan Republic” by the end of 2017.

Isn’t the double-talk from the anti-secessionists all too predictable? Democracy is about the will of the people, not “common rules”. And to call a representative vote that clearly has the support of the majority is not “an attack on Spanish democracy”, it is, rather, a democratic attack on Spanish imperialism.

One hopes that the conquered States of America who are only part of the USA due to military invasion and occupation will one day be permitted their own self-determination too. After all, they’ve been occupied by the USA for considerably less time than Catalonia has been occupied by Spain.