How the Irish Became White, Part 3Michael O'Meara
Part 3 of 3
Apropos of Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York and London: Routledge, 1995)
Nativism, Ignatiev writes, ‘lost out not to the vision of a nonracial society, but to a society polarized between black and white’. In the process, the Irish allegedly ‘became white’. He is wrong on both counts.
‘Became white’: what could this possibly mean? Did the Irish become white in the way Northern Anglo-Protestants or Southerners were ‘white’? Was there some other category of white for them? Peter Quinn claims the more interesting question is: How did the Irish stay Irish? (Peter Quinn, Looking for Jimmy: A Search for Irish America .)
These questions, suggesting a certain cultural chasm between the whiteness of Kathleen Ni Houlihan and that of Uncle Sam, interest the whiteness historians not in the least, as they ideologically assume that whites are something of a homogenized monolith and that when the Hibernian ‘interlopers’ ‘became white’ they did so in a way that had little cultural significance, except racially – it was all a matter of black or white. The historians accordingly ignore or demote the significance of rival Gaelo-Catholic and Anglo-Protestant conceptions of Americanism (or whiteness) and thus the larger cultural/religious differences (that were actually quite small compared to non-white races and peoples) that have always separated whites of one national family from another – especially in America.
The anti-essentialists may claim whiteness has no cultural depth – Mick or Yank, same difference. But if the Irish became ‘white’, why did they continue to oppose the Saxons or see themselves as Celts? And why did no one tell the KKK in 1928 that Al Smith was ‘white’? The fact is that there was no ‘smooth, self-propelled passage into whiteness’ for the Irish, who refused to abandon their culture, religion, and identity in order to assimilate the Republic’s middle-class, highly Judaicized, Anglo-Protestant culture.
The Irish would eventually acculturate, but they never fully assimilated (for they were caught between two cultural worlds and were forced to forge a new identity from this cultural clash). Not coincidently, Gaelo-Americans and Anglo-Americans remained divided until the 1960s, even after the former had ‘made it’ – particularly over issues of racial integration and birth control. Then, after the Sixties and the final transition from ghetto to suburb, there was no more Irish America or WASP America – only the abominations of Transamerica. (John T. McGreevy, Catholicism and American Freedom: A History ; Everett H. Akam, Transnational America: Cultural Pluralist Thought in the Twentieth Century .)
From an arguably more explanatory perspective, US history can be seen as a history of intra-racial strife between different kinds of whites over religion, section, and class rather than as a strict interracial polarization between whites and blacks, as the whiteness historians (along with not a few white nationalists) contend. These historians also snub the fact that, from the beginning, America was a highly ‘segmented’ society – with few overarching standards and numerous divergent traditions – all of which further divided whites and retarded their ethnogenesis. (Robert H. Wiebe, The Segmented Society: An Historical Preface to the Meaning of America .) Given its fuzziness, the social construct of so-called whiteness cannot but slight the complexities that come with meaningful differences created by nature, history, and culture – differences that effectively resist the formlessness of a truly egalitarian world.
(As an aside, I might mention that the WASPs were not exactly ‘white Anglo-Saxon Protestants’ nor were they the caste-like ruling class Digby Baltzell made them out to be, but rather a motley bunch, with almost as many ‘savage Ulstermen’ and ‘boorish Palatinate Germans’ in their ranks as Anglo-Saxons – along with some Jews and even a few Catholics – and though they (the WASPs) were all ‘old money’, listed in the Social Register, and sent their sons to elite New England boarding schools, they were never exclusively Anglo-Saxon and never totally exclusionary toward other white ethnic groups, with the possible exception of Catholics. It was actually something of an ‘open admissions aristocracy’ (in the spirit of the country’s historic Protestant pluralism). The WASP as a social designation was also broader than what is called the ‘American East Coast Establishment’ – led by Wall Street international bankers – constituting the ‘ruling class’ in the Marxist sense. In a country, though, where class realities were not readily acknowledged and where status was confused with power, class realities often assumed ethnic form, with the ‘elites’ identified as WASP [actually, ‘Yankee’ or ‘American’] and the working class as Irish [later ‘ethnic’]. [Robert C. Christopher, Crashing the Gates: The De-WASPing of America’s Power Elite (1989)].)
However disoriented in passing from their pre-modern peasant world to the great bustling metropolitan centers of the New World (New York City preeminently), the Irish didn’t take long to figure out the difference between whites and blacks, and which side was theirs. Given their history and identity, though, they spurned the Anglo-Saxonist notion of whiteness, and instead defined themselves as ‘Celts’ – a branch of the white race spiritually opposed to the profanities of the ‘sourfaced Saxons’ and their North American cousins. For however dispossessed and cut off from the main sources of American social advancement and power, the Irish treated middle class Protestant morality with the cynicism ‘it deserved’.
They also felt a certain Catholic disdain for Anglo-Protestants — heretics and gombeen men that they were. As the Australian historian, Patrick O’Farrell, writes: ‘The English raised up against themselves a people who were as convinced of their superiority in the spiritual realm as the English were in the temporal’. Given also their distrust of Protestant institutions and the Republican Party’s Social Darwinian theory of ‘free labor’ that prevented working people from organizing and making collective demands on industrialists, it would be clan and community that counted most with the Irish, not the American Dream of success (whose pursuit entailed sacrificing one’s identity).
Instead, the Irish would stand or fall together. ‘Unlike other immigrants’, Bill Williams observes, ‘the Irish had to succeed as a people, not just as individuals’. Later, with Father Coughlin and Senator McCarthy, the Irish (along with the Germans) would show that they were even ‘better’ Americans than the Anglo-Protestant elites of the New Deal coalition, eager collaborators with Jews, Communists, and degenerates. (Patrick O’Farrell, Ireland’s English Question: Anglo-Irish Relations 1534–1970 ; Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race ; William H. A. Williams, ‘Twas Only an Irishman’s Dream’: The Image of Ireland and the Irish in American Popular Songs Lyrics, 1800–1920 .)
If the Irish implicitly rejected aspects of America’s Anglo-Protestant heritage, especially those that demonized Catholicism or reduced human relations to the cash nexus, they nevertheless whole-heartedly embraced the liberty and opportunity of this thriving Protestant country – free of Carthaginian landlords and their oppression. Indeed, their nationalist dream of a liberated Ireland was modeled on the American Republic – itself born in struggle against English imperialism. (Wasn’t George Washington, ‘whose very name evoked images of the empire on its head’, the idol of the last Gaelic bards?)
The Irish were determined to be part of this ‘first new nation’ – determined to become American. But however fiercely (and naively) loyal to their new homeland (representing the foremost exemplar of modern liberal society, heir to the British Empire, with its Judeo-capitalist aversion to Catholicism and the other anti-liberal forces obstructing money’s meaningless reign (what Continentals refer to as ‘Anglo-Saxon Civilization’) — they would become American in their own way, negotiating their ‘acculturation’, so that by the early twentieth century, after the ‘new’ immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe helped Yankees discover a certain racial/cultural affinity with the former ape men, the Irish became increasingly acceptable to them. Even the Nordic supremacist, Madison Grant (whose ‘racialism’ was more Protestant than scientific), designated the Irish as ‘Nordic’, unlike earlier generations of Anglo-Americans. (Jonathan Spiro, Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant ; Joseph P. O’Grady, How the Irish Became American .)
Similarly, the image of the ‘wild, rowdy, and undisciplined’ Irish in much of nineteenth-century popular American songs and entertainment had become, by the advent of the new century, almost ‘conservative and old-fashioned’, having been gradually transformed into an image of ‘a grand people from a grand country . . . [that] had successfully established itself in America’. (Today, this image/caricature has again changed, as the cultural vanguard depicts them as ‘racist, reactionary Republicans’ – though Irish-America, like the insula sacra, no longer actually exists today, being now dead and in the grave with O’Leary – having succumbed to a horror greater than anything the English ever devised: the American way of life, whose Dionysian excesses demand the most extreme human sacrifices.) (E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior .)
As to race, the Irish needed no instruction from Americans, for their Gaelic racial consciousness had been forged in a thousand years fighting Vikings, Normans, Saxons, Lowlanders, and Britons (not to mention one another) – war, of course, being the preeminent shaper of destiny and identity. In any case the Irish were not going to be instructed, in matters of blood or anything else, by Protestant heretics.
The God-given supremacy of America’s New World project (steeped in the Hebraic heritage of Puritan New England, and the fundamentalist conviction that they should rule the earth) were at one time expressed in explicitly racial terms. But this was not always the case. Long before modern biology, the English colonists (in their ‘perennial attraction to things Jewish’) saw themselves as a chosen people, superior not only to those they encountered in the wilds of North America, but in the civilizational centers of Catholic Europe. Thus it was that the nineteenth-century Indian doomed by the scientific laws of evolution was the same Indian religiously condemned in the seventeenth-century as a savage incapable of Protestant redemption (which, of course, implies nothing about the justice of either judgment).
The American sense of superiority (its supremacism) has assumed different forms historically. It was initially expressed in civilizational, and especially Protestant religious terms, then, after the revolution, democratic/republican, then again, in the second half of the laissez-faire nineteenth century, Darwinian, and finally, today, military, financial, and hyperreal ideological ones. Supremacism is arguably inbuilt to the idea of America: for the country’s Anglo-Saxon liberal heritage dismissed everything unlike itself as inherently ‘inferior’ (‘the pharisaism which worships itself and is unable to perceive any goodness apart from itself’).
Supremacism (or ‘racism’) in this sense is an offshoot of the liberal idea of progress animating America’s national saga, with certain peoples and nations seen as representing a higher state of progress or evolution than others. In this vein, indifferent to the past and bound for a rootless (i.e., destiny-less) future, Herman Melville characterized America in preeminently Hebraic, hence globalist terms – the ‘Israel of our time’ – the ‘ark of liberties’ — the political messiah of the New World. America, in a word, would not be like the ‘nations’ of the Old World – but instead the ‘exception’, whose God-given mission (even in today’s godless world) elevates it above the non-chosen. (Alexander Dugin, The Fourth Political Theory ; Sacvan Bercovitch, The America Jeremiad .)
Since 1945, the older racial expressions of American supremacism have been conscientiously replaced by non-racial ones, whose color-blind market view of the world better fits the multicultural Reign of Quantity that is today America’s New World Order. Claiming ‘there is no alternative’ to it, this supremacist system, whose policies of exploitation and enslavement are promoted in the name of ‘development’, now terrorizes the planet with what Vladimir Putin calls its ‘bomb and rocket democracy’ – in which abstract democratic rights are empowered to subvert the rights of nations – just as, domestically, this system now threatens those whose ancestors, Saxon or Celt, created and settled the United States, for their North European stock no longer matches ‘the United Colors of Benetton’. Again Melville: ‘We are not a nation, so much as a world’ – a world beyond time and history, whose anti-traditional ‘empire of liberty’, born of what James Kurth calls the Protestant Deformation, resists all that is rooted and ordered, all that stands against its inherent leveling individualism and the manic sensate materialism of its capitalist Utopianism. (D. H. Lawrence, Studies in Classic American Literature .)
Since the WASPs’ anti-fascist crusade of 1937–45, American supremacism is no longer about Anglo-Saxon racial pride (or arrogance or white superiority of any kind), but about what it has always been about: the supremacy of its own self-interests – of its particular system, its Creed or grand récit, and, above all, its usurious capitalism, whose bureaucratic-economic empire, in supplanting earlier forms of self-rule, takes the lead in imposing its principles of equality, pluralism, and multiculturalism on the whole world. But however changed, American supremacism still confuses its particularism with universalism – only here legitimized by the Low Church ‘genetics’ of its redemptive ‘shock capitalism’.
Conceiving of ‘man’ as a ‘naked animal’, without history, culture, or place, America’s world-destroying system today destroys everything impeding its one-world alienations – such as authority and sovereignty, and more specifically traditional Christianity, family-based communities, and those shared beliefs and identities that went into the country’s founding. What at one time was a racially expressed supremacism (i.e., ‘white supremacy’) – bearing the mantle of ‘Anglo-Saxonism’ or ‘Americanism’ or ‘Manifest Destiny’ – has since been transformed into an anti-racist supremacism, buttressed by democratic and human rights opposing everything, high and low, impeding the endless, senseless circulations of capital sustaining its world-market empire. (Colin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600–2000 ; Carla Pestana, Protestant Empire: Religion and the Making of the British Atlantic World ; William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order .)
In contrast to the supremacists of ‘Calvin’s gang’, with their secularized evangelism, economic individualism, and cult of progress, Ireland’s pre-modern exiles – ensconced in urban villages spiritually centered on the Catholic church, and, civilly, on the parallel societies (schools, hospitals, charities, benevolent associations, saving banks, newspapers, etc.) constituting their counter-hegemony to the purely instrumentalist and relativist forces of the WASPs’ pluralistic Gesellschaft – created in its stead a working-class America in which family, parish, union, and flag, rather than wealth and self-realization, were the high marks of American citizenship. The religious, class, and ethnic character of Irish America (with the exception, of course, of the ‘lace curtain’) actually developed largely in opposition to the Anglo-Protestant culture of New England – rejecting the haughty Yankees, with their Paddy stereotype and profane manias (abolitionism among others).
For Protestants, whose country it originally was, Irish Catholicism (inherently authoritarian and subversive) posed an imminent threat to their republic and liberties. The Irish (who had been in America since its inception) threw the argument back at the Protestants, offering a counter-narrative emphasizing a communal rather than an egoistic understanding of liberty (‘the common good over individual rights’) that made character and virtue more important than wealth and respectability. (Lawrence McCaffrey, The Irish Catholic Diaspora in America ; Denis Clark, Erin’s Heirs: Irish Bonds of Community ; Mary Doyle Curran, The Parish and the Hill .)
A ‘creeping fascism’ — resistant to the state’s social-engineering schemes, contemptuous of liberal reformers, and actively hostile to the liberal, i.e., WASP and Jew, intelligentsia — Twentieth-century Irish America horrified ‘Marxist’ Jews like Ignatiev, as much as they did the Big State progressives, who took the helm under Franklin Roosevelt. For this ethnic, urban America shared the Catholic corporatist traditions of interwar Europe: of de Valera’s Free State, Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, and other Continental, largely Catholic and Orthodox peoples rejecting the secular Anglo-Saxon model of liberal capitalist ‘civilization’ and its blood-thirsty system of ‘state supported usury’. (See the 2011 edition of F. P. Yockey’s Proclamation of London.)
Thus it was that after 1945, the Authoritarian Personality, the Slaughter of the Cities, and suburbanization were introduced by American planners to break up and disperse the urban Catholic communities opposing the Judeo-WASP designs of the New Deal/War Deal state (whose coalition of interests had converged in opposition to America First). (E. Michael Jones, The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing .)
Mexicans today do the hard labor the Irish once did, and they too are forming communities outside the American mainstream, which in time will significantly alter its course.
The story of Irish America, in this sense, is the story of America itself, as each new demographic wave of immigrants sweeps away the previous one – in the frantic, leveling spirit distinct to the country’s ‘New World’ ideology.
In the second volume of Democracy in America, Tocqueville observed that the ever bustling character of the new republic meant that ‘the tie that unites one generation to another is relaxed or broken [and that] every man there readily loses all trace of the ideas of his forefathers or takes no care about them’. Hence, the larger narrative of America’s perpetual self-destruction and re-invention, driven by something in its founding that subordinated the Yankees’ Judeo-Calvinist identity to the caprices of a deracinating and deculturating Mammon, whose culmination today privileges the presentist, history-less, pleasure-oriented character foremost in the American Negro, now the official model of our postmodern, post-European world.
The result: the Irish who overran the WASPs were overrun by the ‘new immigrants’ from Eastern and Southern Europe, and they in turn are today being overrun by the Third World tide – because America’s market society and its Low Church oligarchs care nothing about the country’s ethno-cultural identity – only its global system of usurious capitalism.
The ongoing destruction of the nation’s flesh and blood (archive of its spirit) has long imbued Americans with those ‘negative’ freedoms corrosive of organic attachments, as ‘all fixed, fast-frozen relations’ were swept away in the swirling consumerist paradise that is their Synagogue of Satan. Such a liberation has since stripped American life of the significance of family, community, church, tradition, authority – in the name of progress – all the while closing off any possibility of a meaningful transmission from one generation to the next, and thus to any possibility of reproducing the people as a ‘people’ – or even ‘reproducing the species’.
This identity-destroying, nation-dissolving, destiny-denying project will not go on much longer, for the empire of consummate meaninglessness has entered its late Winter phase (especially evident in the disorders inherent in its unraveling nomos). Collapse is in the cards, however they are dealt. (Guillaume Corvus [Faye], La Convergence des catastrophes ; Robert A. Hall, The Coming Collapse of the American Republic .)
The big question today (besides the possibility of America’s muddling disposition, in its decline, to provoke World War III) is: what will follow? Will it be the miscegenation, Brazilization, and/or extinction of European life in a ‘third-worldized’ America run by international usurers led by the Rothchilds and Rockefellers, or – fantasy that it may be, given the absence of a Celtic-Saxon or White Nationalist consciousness – will it be a revolution that overthrows the ‘universal nation’, forges an elite of blood and spirit, and founds a breakaway White Republic, free of the utterly perverse and inherently ethnocidal United States?
This is part of a larger work in progress. The author would like to thank John Schneider for his helpful suggestions on several earlier drafts.
Meet the Hunburgers
Prioritizing Prestige Over Accomplishment: Britain from 1950 to 1956
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
The Honorable Cause: A Review
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 1: Política y Metapolítica
Michael – very interesting essay. Much food for thought. I’ve often argued over at Majority Rights that we are moving into a post-American, post-Atlanticist world and that Europeans must overcome our addiction to all things American – especially in the British Isles.
For European man to survive let alone prosper ‘Americanism’ and its pathologies of ‘individualism’ and the like must perish or we will finally submit to the ‘spaceless universalism’ that Schmitt identified as being at the core of the American ideology – individualistic liberalism – and all that brings in political, cultural, economic etc., terms.
My own preference is for a revivification of the Aristotelian tradition in moral thought and politics. After all is not much of what you described within the ‘Irish in America’ historical experience a form of socio-cultural and economic communitarianism which echos the notion of Aristotelian philia – a dispassionate virtuous love including loyalty to friends, family and community – that is ultimately grounded in virtue, equality and familiarity with those that one loves?
Nailed it. This was truly excellent!
“Then, after the Sixties and the final transition from ghetto to suburb, there was no more Irish America or WASP America – only the abominations of Transamerica.”
This is where I’ve really been stuck in trying to map out the moves toward American ethnogenesis and the “assimilation” of the ethnic Europeans. Honestly, at a certain point (probably starting in at least the 50’s actually) everything became so consumerist and empty that cultural identities were stripped from all White Americans. My stumbling block has been in trying to explain how this (the abominations of Transamerica) was quite different from the processes of ethnogenesis and assimilation that were taking place before even though it did indeed make a lot of people “the same.”. All we have left is a cultural vacuum.
“The result: the Irish who overran the WASPs were overrun by the ‘new immigrants’ from Eastern and Southern Europe, and they in turn are today being overrun by the Third World tide – because America’s market society and its Low Church oligarchs care nothing about the country’s ethno-cultural identity – only its global system of usurious capitalism.”
And to think that this is considered normal. It’s used as a justification for yet more immigration! At any rate, a work on the World Wars era “great” migration of Blacks to northern cities, and the subsequent “white flight” of Eastern and Southern Euros to the suburbs should be on someone’s agenda. Something akin to “How the Poles and the Italians Became White” a la O’Meara. One can only imagine the interesting things that could be dug up and brought to light about the U.S. wars against the Central Powers, the industrial North recruitment of low-skill Black workers, and the subsequent clashes with White ethnics. An entire school of American history could be created around this stuff.
I certainly hope O’Meara’s turning all of this into a book. I would purchase it immediately…and have others read it as well.
Of course love cannot be universal – it is always particular to specific people and place(s). If someone says they love everyone equally in the world they either don’t know what love is or are a disingenuous piece of work.
And the implicit social ontology of liberalism is radically deflationary of the communal and any notion of collective well-being. It’s a form of radical ontological reductionism at work in the political sphere – individuals and only individuals are ‘real’ social phenomena.
The polis is superior to the household and village because, “the whole must of necessity be prior to the part…” The balance being the individual (parts) and the community (the whole) badly needs to be rebalanced via Aristotelian philosophical anthropology
A key concept is a society with markets in it but not a ‘market society’ – and also one that could be written but any communitarian old or modern – for example Michael Sandel’s latest book is about this very topic.
Aristotle, Heidegger et al., are right in that they maintain the profoundly and irreducibly social nature of the individual – yes individuals do have a biological inheritance but we are also ‘thrown’ into a complex web of social and cultural phenomena that deeply shapes what and who we are. Bio-cultural man is a good phrase, and happens to be true.
The ontological premise of all modern liberal theory is the pre-social ‘Robinson Crusoe’ fiction – the mythology of fully formed subjects that exist in some asocial vacuum. It’s fucking bullshit. The whole or the social are ontological prior to the part or the individual – or at least of equal importance (I’ll leave a discussion about ‘downward causality’ for another time). No serious liberal can or will acknowledge this. Not Locke, not Hobbes, not Hayek , not Nozick – not any of them.
So when I hear calls for even more forms of ‘individualism’ from ‘conservatives’ as a ‘solution’ to the profoundly dangerous problems on the horizon within our global, liberal, ‘free-market’, ever more cosmopolitan world-order it makes me want to scream with the banality and stupidity of the suggestion.
Aristotle was not some sort of utopian socialist – that would be a bizarre characterisation indeed; but he was a communitarian. Social-capital, social-cohesion and social-solidarity are themselves rather plastic phenomena that can take many possible forms. Some healthy and sustainable, others more toxic and less healthy. What is a nation unless it’s a collective ‘imaginative community’ that exists over space and time? But people can’t actually live on mere ideas alone. Solidarity cannot just be based upon cheap words. It must be grounded in real-world forms of reciprocity which builds, amplifies and reinforces a cultural sensibility and moral ethos of in-group loyalty as foundational to the social order.
It’s extremely deflationary to always have to cover the same ground in the world of ‘WN’.
“Oh my God some mentioned a ‘bad’ c-word like community or even mentioned the collective word” instead let’s have more of the good c-word – unfettered, maximally globalist, maximally ‘free’ capitalism – yes that will really ‘solve’ all of our problems.
Only the most ideologically deluded, brain-dead dullard could possible hold such a simple-minded fairy tale to be true (unless it the ‘conservative’ in “I deserve all my stuff so don’t dare take any of it” mode – that is another Lockean liberal without any conception of pleonexia or indeed his indebtedness to the whole (and the intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’ that the whole represents).
Radical fungibility in all things (including people) is not the basis of any community that hopes to last for any serious length of time.
Sorry I got a bit off-topic there – rant over!
Counter-Currents is the official home of racial communitarianism on the North American Right.
So the question is how do we get a sizeable portion of whites over the race destroying “individualism?”
A couple of good points were made by Mister Gorilla and Kilroy on the Nuevo Germania article.
“I live in an area centred around a town of around 1000 people, and many Odinist families from bigger cities are settling in this area. That way we can gradually “take over” the community by becoming its cultural leaders. The infrastructure already exists, so there aren’t any financial worries or any of the other problems that go with these Nueva Germania type projects. There is also employment around, though not as much as there would be in a city.”1.
“The Catholic Worker movement provides another interesting model, combining urban centres with rural farm communes that serve as retreats. On the whole they were very influential and effective in disseminating their message through art and literature.”
Kilroy also alluded to Whitakers “practical politics” method of just talking to neighbors in your community.
People are more influenced (per hour of listening) by face-to-face conversations than by electronic media.
As Mister Gorilla points out, if we begin to congregate in pre-existing rural market towns we can jaw bone our way to local cultural dominance.
You can jaw bone with Whitaker practical politics in a large city like Chicago, but your insignificant numbers will not allow you to take over.
I’d like to see a group set up a community, complete with either a non-denominational church or some sort of spiritual center.
The key reformation doctrine of said local community church would be that the on going genocide against our race is a grave sin. Supporting it is also a major sin. Rampant individualism is the sin of pride or ego.
Once we’ve established ourselves in a small community and are on the school board etc. we can begin to have our youth fan out on bicycles in white dress shirts, ties and dark pants to evangelize the surviving whites in the nearest city suburbs.
Is this a plan?
Of course our teenagers would gradually dominate the regional community college.
Couple of typos in my comments ‘written by’ not ‘written but’ and so on. Apologies – it’s quite late over on this side of the pond.
It can be difficult to argue against the liberal/Anglo ideals which through innovation/capitalist spirit have brought to us such amazing advancements in science, technology, abundance of essential needs etc.
Now apart from curing a few diseases, one could ask ‘How much more progress do we really need?’ How much more comfort can a person have in materialist considerations ( using an upper-middle class westerner as the base line.) It would then seem, that the only meme forcing us to retain this individualist ethos is the idea of ‘limited resources’ augmented by the flood of unproductive 3rd worlders.
If ever there’s a time where a form of communitarianism could work without the Orwellian/Stalinist kind of control… it is right now.
Part 1 was excellent but O’Meara took this essay in a different direction than I expected. We need more analysis of the ‘Social Question’. By that I mean an analysis of religion, class, and ethnicity among white peoples. The Jews/Marxists have attempted this but their results are limited by their inability to be truly objective. They’re too obsessed with deconstructing and psychologizing. They’re too busy projecting their own twisted fantasies. The products of Jewish intellect reflect reality like a funhouse mirror and in this regard Ignatiev does not disappoint. But again, it seemed as though O’Meara was only dancing around a few of these issues when he should have clobbered them like a kid playing whack-a-mole. (Carnival analogies are underrated.)
If we have world-historical goals then we should study world-historical questions critically. For example, if our enemies have overcome us politically despite popular opposition, what does that imply about certain political methods? If our worldview corresponds to reality, and self-evidently so, then why have our intellectuals been totally marginalized in academia? If ‘white-flight’ happens spontaneously everywhere non-whites settle, then what does this imply about white racial attitudes? These questions have answers. Those answers give us a blueprint on how to think, how to organize, and how to fight. Much of the brainpower in the WN movement is running the hamster-wheel when it should be studying the structure of the cage.
This is why the first part of O’Meara’s essay is so good. He points out that, much to the chagrin of our Protean parasites, the Irish did not unite with negroes and chinese coolies. The Irish killed them. Ignatiev & Co. construct long rationalizations for why this happens because their worldview is fundamentally out of touch with objective reality. Ours is not. O’Meara has the genetic privilege of being able to understand reality, Ignatiev’s [mis]interpretation of that reality, and a synthetic third perspective. We need this kind of thinking multiplied a thousand-fold.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment