For America and the Americans--for the American Republic, vouchsafed by better men--these are our days of shame. Our present, epitomized by last year's Presidential election, where the principal choices were Nader, Bush and Kerry--in the order, not of their finish in November, but in that which works rhetorically. Contrast the politics of the thirty second sound bite, employed by such pathetic men, with the wise guidance of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison--the statesmen under whose stewardship, we started our Constitutional association of free peoples--and the point will be obvious. The differences are those between analytic intelligence, intellectual integrity and true leadership, on the one hand, and men with no demonstrated analytic ability, willing to say or do almost anything in the pursuit of public office. Nothing demonstrates that contrast more dramatically, than the virtual absence of any expressed concern--beyond a few mindless, undefined slogans--for the preservation of the actual societies, which Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison, conceived to be their fellow countrymen.
We have previously addressed both the immigration question and attacks on cultural continuity, ethnic pride and patterns of personal identification--even intellectually dishonest efforts to discredit scientific studies of the real differences between recognizable and definable human races. It is not a matter of particular concern that others may debate the relative importance of nature and nurture; the relative merits of one people's cultural heritage versus another's; nor that some people prefer a more culturally diverse pattern of personal association than other people might desire.
No part of our intention in any of the essays, which have appeared at this web site, is to disparage any race, ethnicity, community or culture. It is no more necessary to put others with different ethnic backgrounds down, in seeking to preserve one's own heritage, as part of a distinct people, than it is necessary to deny the right of religious dissent in order to recognize that the Founding Fathers of America wished to encourage traditional religious values; or to demean the importance of either sex, in recognizing that sex roles are essential--not only for continuity, but for the proper functioning of human life--in every culture.
We make these distinctions at the outset, so that it may be perfectly clear just what it is that is shameful, and what is not.
There is abroad in this land a vague, hardly thought out notion--if it may even be called a "notion"--that America is a product of "freedom" in an undefined sense; that her peoples reflect the benefits of that undefined "freedom"; that all who come here, regardless of race or nation of origin, will be equally effected by the same freedom. This was not always the case, of course. Earlier generations of Americans were much more conscious of the personal, individual, roles of early settlers in bringing over specific, defined, values; and in developing and modifying those defined values on the anvil of experience. They understood the importance of specific forebears, of ancient lines of descent; of the quite different natures and proclivities, temperament and cultures, even of some of their fellow Americans. They also understood that the significance of freedom was not alone in the absence of restraint, but in what your society and its individual members chose to do with that "freedom"--and what lines they drew against encroachment.
The "Mother Country," original as to eleven of the founding States and successor as to the other two, was, itself, a quite diverse land, well before that decisive American victory at Yorktown, which gave Americans control over their own futures. Characteristics, drawn from recognizable traits found among many of the various elements in both England and Scotland, were deeply reflected in the ongoing cultural development of the individual communities in the States those people founded. Understanding such characteristics is vital to an understanding of why certain values are more important in America, to this day, than in almost any other land. Understanding the effects of selective emigration and immigration, as well as military casualties and contrasting birth rates, are keys to comprehending social changes both here and abroad. All of these considerations demonstrate the importance of lines of descent in the preservation of cultural achievements. This is true for both sociological and biological reasons. Nature and nurture are inherently interlocked.
Consider the prime English contribution to the concept of human freedom. Magna Carta was an absolute and ultimate repudiation of the egalitarian and utilitarian premises behind the mass movements on the Left, over the past two hundred and sixteen years, whether or not some of these may have also claimed to enhance human freedom. Magna Carta was the great Charter for the preservation of the property rights--including the essential right of inheritance--of those who had already obtained property by 1215. It also vouchsafed the commercial rights for a developing urban middle-class--a start to the market economy. And it established legitimate procedures for that propertied class--via the English Barons--to rise against the Government, whenever that Government infringed those rights of property.
Did this powerful, foundational, Charter reflect something inherent--and in its emphasis, at least, perhaps almost unique in some aspects of the English character? Certainly the concept of private property is significant, not only among humans, but among many other higher forms of life. Yet few humans, through the Centuries, have shown so consistent an emphasis on it, an on refining and documenting the varied facets of ownership--particularly as applied to private land-holdings, at least--as have the English. It may also be significant, that while most of the Continent remained largely Feudal, England developed a significant rural middle-class of free hold farmers (the Franklin), while yet retaining the great Estates of her feudal land owners.
It is certainly significant that, by the time of settlement in North America, two quite distinct elements had evolved among the English population (besides others not so significant to our history), the Cavaliers and Roundheads (Puritans). Although the acquisition and retention of private land was important to both groups, it was obviously more important to the Cavaliers. These came from landed backgrounds, yet often as the second or third sons, cut off from the inheritance of real property by the laws of primogeniture; a condition they came here to rectify. The Puritans, by contrast, were far more preoccupied with religion--and with the ideology of religion, as contrasted to mere social identification with a particular persuasion, which is a recognizable phenomenon among some others. These came here to found communities based upon that religious ideology. It was no coincidence that over two centuries later, at the time of a great and terrible war among the American States, the heirs of the Cavaliers, on the one hand, and those of the Puritans, on the other, still displayed the characteristics that had divided their ancestors.
In Scotland, where much of the land was held in the name of individual Clans, there was a great emphasis on Clan loyalty, and on related aspects of personal and family identification; qualities also still observed today in many Americans of Scottish ancestry. The influence of Scots, whose families had earlier been adherents to the dynastic claims of the Stuarts, were quite pronounced in the former Confederate States of America, and were certainly reflected in their patriotic music. Writers have sometimes suggested that the Southern leadership had a predisposition for what may now be seen as the "noble lost cause," a reference not only to 1861-1865, but to the 1746 disaster at Culloden. We do not, however, believe that there was a penchant to lose. The penchant was to risk everything for your own people--a willingness to sacrifice personal interests of the moment, for the enduring quest of a people.
We do not mean to ignore significant Dutch and even Danish influence, in New York and Delaware, respectively. Certainly the French Huguenots contributed significant characteristics to the character of Virginia and the Carolinas. The point is that these settlers brought with them definite personality characteristics, in part derived from their ancestry, which had an enormous influence on how America developed. This is important--essential--to understanding both our History, and what is required to assure any measure of continuity in our future.
The particular form of--the priorities and emphasis found in--our written Constitution, even as the specific grievances that had been set forth in the Declaration of Independence, reflected the unique personalities of our settlers. Thus, while others have sometimes employed similar language since, few nations have ever been more completely premised upon individual responsibility--inherent in the true settler mentality--as opposed to the far greater dependence upon an institutionalized collective, so evident in other lands.
While original American stocks may no longer represent a majority of the population, their idiosyncrasies had a very powerful and often determining influence on those who followed from other lands. We were not an isolated world apart. Word both of the challenges and possibilities, here, reached every part of Europe, and drew a highly selective immigration. Those who came, during the 19th Century, tended to be representative of that portion of the total population of their native lands, which had the most traits in common with the original settlers. Those who wanted the security of institutionalized collectives, rather than the freedom to achieve, tended to stay at home. And so long as there remained a frontier to be settled, we continued to draw heavily upon those who wanted their own land--a corner of the world, unique to themselves and their families.
So far, we outline only a proud heritage, an ongoing dynamic reflecting those who came and achieved in a pioneer, settler culture, with values not only consistent with those of Magna Carta but, in many cases, perceiving Magna Carta as the defining charter of Conservative English values. Up through the early days of the Twentieth Century, Americans both of the old stocks and those that came afterward, while each honoring a somewhat different lineage, celebrated alike the America of the Founding Fathers.
With the essential closing of the Frontier, after the admission of New Mexico and Arizona in 1912, there was no longer anything to offset the trend towards a more urbanized immigration, clearly in progress even before the War among the several States in the 1860s. Americans, suddenly more congested, were forced to consider who they were, and where their true interests lay. In the process, we came to reexamine an easy immigration policy, adapted in the days when we were sparsely populated, in its effect, both on the culture and job markets. The result? In the early 1920s, America adopted a National Origins based immigration policy, both limiting the total flow, and providing quotas for each land of origin related to their respective contributions to the existing population. The idea, in a major sense, was to retain the existing character of the populations. While that goal was really not obtainable--it being impossible to duplicate the selective factors in the earlier immigration--the concept was a rational and constructive step in the intended direction. It at least recognized--and respected--the unique character of every nation.
We qualify the benefits from the policy, not because we did not believe in it. We most definitely did, and strongly wish it could be reestablished--with somewhat reduced quotas, reflecting the vast expansion in the populations of many of our States, and the considerable congestion in urban areas. But the quality of immigration from the lands of origin has itself been tempered, not only by the previous selectivity, which had earlier drawn off many of their more adventurous and self-reliant individuals; and not simply by the closing of the frontier as a magnet. The initiation of the American Welfare State has operated as a magnet in a precisely opposite direction. The Welfare State appeals to the exact antithesis to the type of emigrant drawn by the Wilderness and Open Frontier. We draw, now increasingly, those who seek not an opportunity to become landed, but greater material security in an already wealthy land. The shift has enormous consequences with respect to efforts to preserve traditional American values.
In 1953, the National Origins policy was reaffirmed in the McCarren-Walter Immigration Act, driven through Congress by a bi-partisan Conservative majority, over the opposition of both the Administration and the organized Left. However, by 1965, the dogmatic indoctrination in the denial of human differences, explicit in the academic mindset described in "Myths & Myth Makers In American 'Higher' Education," linked below, had taken its toll on both the sense and courage of Federal lawmakers. In that year, contemporaneous with the folly of "Medicare" and the intrusion of so called "Fair Housing," Congress abolished any preference for the lands of origin of the established population, and set in motion another drastic change in the patterns and qualities of immigration.
The Left has not justified this shift in reason, rather in a version of the "Big Lie:" An out right denial that there are meaningful differences between peoples. Incredibly, even though every observant individual will see enough, even in a very short life, to understand that equality or perfect symmetry among human kind does not exist; many have been brainwashed into an intellectual fog, which leaves them unwilling to even rely on their own observations. Experience derived opinions are dismissed as examples of the sort of prejudice, every fair minded person must fight against. Others, not so easily given to self-doubt, have simply been intimidated into the "Politically Correct" world of the make believe. The tools employed have been many, from the urbane sophistry of those Myth Makers, to the hissing opprobrium of Leftist demagogues, labeling any dissenter as a "racist," "nativist" or "fear driven bigot."
The fact--and it is a fact--that those communities, with the highest percentage of descent from early stocks, still reflect their original American values most clearly, is not likely to be even mentioned in Media or Academic discussions of the changing ethnicity of America. Almost a century of comparative intelligence and aptitude testing, demonstrating profound average hereditary differences in human types is totally ignored, as are the specifics of centuries and even millennia of comparative history. Those embracing the dogma of the "Myth Makers," do not employ scientific method; do not seek to test their assumptions empirically and reject those that can not be verified. Rather, they rely on the endless iteration of the same ex cathedra pronouncements. And they have used overt lies and slander, coupled with the intimidation of dissent, to completely alter the public perception of itself and all its components.
As an achievement in the art of propaganda, it is impressive. Yet the price has been the total loss of perspective on issues that ultimately will determine our survival or extinction as a people or peoples. One recalls the Nazi era, when the German Nations were swept into a terrible War by the skilled use of propaganda, as the world watched in amazement that educated and intelligent nations, could be so easily persuaded to surrender both heritage and freedom--indeed, to sacrifice everything--for a despotic leader. There was and is no easy answer to that dilemma; but there are other parallels to the Nazi era.
The words employed have been different, as have the chosen targets. But the method employed, to disparage American traditionalists, is the same as Hitler used to ostracize the Jews from German society; only here, the rooted American, in the ethnic mainstream, has even been induced to ostracize his own lineage. No one has yet loaded the United Daughters of the Confederacy, or those folk in Maine (protesting the sudden placement of Somalis in their Yankee community), into Box Cars; but one has to be blind, indeed, not to recognize the ostracizing, hate filled, rant being hurled at any native born American who dares to honor his unique identity. Yet every year, even as under Hitler, fewer and fewer dare to protest. To call the process shameful, is to grossly understate. But the shame involved has many facets.
There is the shame of fools and the shame of cowards; ultimately the shame of total confusion, born in the confluence of fear and folly. Staggering around in that fog of total confusion, there is the loss of fundamental values, including duty, honor and integrity. Without duty, honor and integrity, the preservation of a nation rapidly become impossible.
All civilizations start with the family, depend upon the family structure. The Fifth Commandment--the concept inherent in the Fifth Commandment--is essential to the continuity of any people, their values and achievements. A tribe, race or nation, ultimately is an extension of the family. In the normal course of human affairs, loyalty to one's nation is inextricably bound up with one's sense of familial duty. So too is one's honor. One of the most outrageous "achievements" of the Communist and Nazi experiments in totalitarian despotism, was to break the loyalty of children to their parents. In that achievement, they undermined anything that could offset or challenge their monolithic value structures.
Integrity--the stuff of the Ninth Commandment, and the fundament of all trust, public or private--depends not only on intellectual honesty as an abstraction, not only on avoidance of deception, but on the positive pursuit of truth. We would suggest that every intelligent person has within the ambit of their own experience sufficient data to absolutely demonstrate the fallacies involved in those "Myths," referred to earlier. Indeed, that was largely the theme of our June, 2005 essay. Why, then, have so few stood up to actively reject them--or, at least, to demand better evidence of their validity?
At this web site, we have posted numerous essays dealing with the deleterious effects that flow from a general acceptance of flawed premises in American life. Here we are limiting our focus, primarily, to questions pertaining to immigration and settlement. In some particulars, this will overlap matter covered in Chapters XI and XV of the Debate Handbook, below. As to others, it may be seen as an Addendum.
The failure to challenge the underlying assumptions of what is basically a totalitarian egalitarian mindset--one which denies all the qualities, which make each people unique--has led to a total distortion of the debate over immigration into America. Almost no one will even discuss the natural as opposed to purely cultural relationship of ethnicity to societal proclivities. The distortion of the "nature/nurture" debate, in general, is perhaps clearer here than in any other area of public discourse. While most Americans favor stricter curbs on immigration, only a very few will publicly advocate a restoration of the National Origins quota system. While some have advocated a moratorium on almost all immigration, until we can better assimilate those already here, almost no one has really tackled the question of whether all peoples are equally assimilatable--or what would be the likely characteristics or time frames of certain possible fusions.
Anyone who understands human psychology, will also understand something very sad in all of this. Those avoiding the subject of the real differences between peoples do not avoid that subject out of a genuine respect for other peoples. If you genuinely respect the unique qualities of another, you do not 'walk on eggs' rather than mention those qualities. The "politically correct" mindset may be based upon guilt or fear, depending on the personality of the adherent. It most certainly is not based upon respect. And this underlying lack of respect has spilled over, very obviously, even on many who themselves despise the very concept of "politically correct" discourse.
Consider the focus and rhetoric of those leading the fight to protect our Southern border. We would never suggest that it is wrong to condemn illegal immigration. Borders have meaning, and those who violate a Nation's borders should face the consequences. There is no debate on that. Yet almost invariably, the same individuals--and please understand that we consider them allies in a common cause--will focus on the hidden costs in the presence of illegal and "undocumented" persons of Mexican or Central American ethnicity in American communities. The impression is that it is merely the illegality of their presence, which causes the problem; that if the very same individuals had been more patient, and come in legally, under the existing "non-discriminatory" immigration policy, there would be no problem, whatsoever. Is this really the case?
From what we can gather from generations of news reports on Mexican justice--on corruption in Mexican law enforcement--it is not likely that a poor Mestizo peasant, landless and scarcely educated, will have a very clear concept of the sanctity of another land's immigration laws. He may certainly have learned the lesson that he needs to fear offending the Police; but that will be based upon a dread of harsh consequences, not an abstract love for justice.
The difference in the mindset of the Mexican who sneaks across the border, and the Mexican who complies with the now friendly "red tape," is more likely to relate to level of education than any anti-social attitude. Each, however, is likely to reflect a culture very different than the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic mainstream, to which earlier generations of European immigrants tended--if sometimes imperfectly--to assimilate. To the extent that either culture reflects the personality traits of those who now represent it, assimilation may be neither likely nor desirable.
We can only speculate as to the reasons so many, who will actually assail the cultural characteristics of the border jumper, will take such pains to point out that they applaud "legal immigration" from any land, which seeks to assimilate into American life. Yet considering the ideological climate in the complex of Media and Academia, ours is an "educated" speculation; indeed, in many cases, an observation based upon the clear implications of specific comments. And those bring us back to the fear or guilt driven compulsion to accept egalitarian dogma.
The truth is that the Mexican Mestizo displays many admirable qualities. He has a good work ethic. Many exhibit exceptional courage and excellent concentration. (Mexican and Central American boxers have provided some of the most compelling demonstrations of raw courage and total concentration, which that sport has witnessed in recent decades. We have the highest respect for some of those fighters, as well as for Mexicans in other fields.) Nothing in this, makes Mexicans interchangeable with Americans. Respect begets respect. But genuine respect never requires make believe. The insult is never in acknowledging or commenting upon the differences between peoples. The insult is in imagining that you insult others by acknowledging those differences. Any Conservative who does not understand this, needs to think about it, before he engages in debate on ethnic or racial questions. Remember, those "Myth Makers," referred to, were promoting World Government, not tolerance or truth.
As for assimilation? An assimilation of a Mexican and an American community would likely produce a result, which neither community would want to claim, or desire. Nation and ethnicity are not games of musical chairs. There is room on this earth for a distinct and unique Mexican nation. And a primary duty of the United States Government, is to make absolutely certain there is room for a continuation of the complex of ongoing cultures, which reflect the natures of the rooted peoples of the America we have known. There ought never, however, to be a place for the apologetic Americanism, which is afraid to defend its ongoing right to preserve its own. Of course, all attacks upon our borders and ethnic identity, do not arise on the ideological Left.
It is a pathetic commentary on those elements in the business community, which welcome the supply of cheap labor, however it comes here, that they do not even consider the long term consequences of fundamental changes in the demographics and ethnicity of America. Consider the remarks above on the earlier English character, as reflected in Magna Carta and other phenomena; on the greater preoccupation with inherited property rights--across a wider spectrum of the population--than was found among many other peoples. Is it rational to ignore the potential social and political inclinations of definable population groups, when there is a wealth of evidence of a relationship between heredity and personality? Was the origin of Magna Carta in the actions of English--or Norman Barons, if you prefer, refining what was English--pure coincidence?
Mexico has a complex history, and many patriotic Mexicans. But is there anything in the history of Mexico, or that of any of her ethnic components, equivalent to the Magna Carta? If there is, it is a fairly safe assumption that it did not originate with the class of Mexicans who come here now, in pursuit of low paying jobs. There is no indication, either in their patterns of behavior, job skills or the performance of their children in American public schools, that they are equivalent to those Mexican landowners who joined the Texan cause at the Alamo. Nor do their cultural traits really suggest those of the European immigrants of the 19th and early 20th Centuries.
Do those business interests, which seek to contain cost by encouraging and hiring new arrivals in preference to the native born, ever bother to familiarize themselves with the results of comparative aptitude tests (scholastic and other) of the new and recent migrants? It is a safe bet that they do not have them over for a home cooked meal, or sponsor their membership in a country club. We do not chide the managerial class because it recognizes that there are classes of persons, and has preferences, in its own social associations. The shame is that, ostrich like, it has its collective head in the sand over what it is doing to the people, who made its present lucrative situation possible.
Certainly, a hard working Mexican, with an I.Q. between 87 and 93, may do well enough in performing menial tasks in construction or large scale agricultural ventures, where others assign those tasks. Moreover, if registered to vote, he might even vote as his employer "suggests" in his first and second elections. But what about the next election, or the election after that? The poor Southern Whites fought alongside the great plantation owners, to preserve a common heritage. But it was a heritage steeped in Magna Carta. The bulk of the Southern Negroes remained loyal to the South, throughout the same War, and for a long time afterward; as Booker T. Washington, the great Southern Negro educator, recited in the address, linked below. But what has happened, since, in the face of a persistent racial agitation, over the past sixty years?
It is the height of folly to pretend that people are interchangeable--that you can, by altering any people's social environment, alter their personality, their nature. Every Socialist experiment proves dramatically that they are not, and that you cannot make them such. While the business managers see temporary advantage in a vast new supply of cheap labor, they show no willingness to even bother with analysis of the long term consequences of a fundamental change in the character of our populations. They also show no sense of social responsibility for the American Negro, who has been with us for centuries, and whose position in the job market is being further undermined by this new flood of competition into many of the job categories, formerly occupied.
There really are no nice words to describe those who would undermine their society, their way of life, for momentary profit. Nor is there anything altruistic in the world of pretense and make believe, which imagines that people are interchangeable. It is part of the great folly that has hypnotized the West since the middle of the last century. It is shameful that so few will even deign to put it to the test of reason.
Again, the insult is not in observing and commenting upon human differences. The insult is in imagining or assuming that it is an insult to acknowledge the observable differences between peoples. The late Reggie White did not insult anyone in his celebration of racial & ethnic characteristics, in his kind hearted address to the Wisconsin Legislature. The disciples of Montagu, Allport & Cousins insult us all.
The ultimate shame is in the failure of a people to make it a priority to determine what is true and what is not; to allow the continuation of policies, which may destroy the achievements of scores of generations, rather than risk addressing what is seen as controversial: Even where the totality of their individual experiences, demonstrates that an accepted new dogma is absolutely wrong. Even where every study of identical twins, raised apart, clearly demonstrates that genes, not the actual or immediate cultural environment, determine cultural propensities.
The men who built America honored God and the Natural Laws of His Creation. Truth was their priority. The Socialist world rejects that priority to embrace dogma, which implies that truth is subjective; that Man can recreate himself by recreating his cultural environment; that we are all only so much plastic for the Collective to improve: A repudiation of Nature--and Nature's God.
But, however oft repeated, a lie is still a lie!