Two complex, yet major, European events in early May drew attention to the tragic, but ongoing, decline of Western peoples: The first, a British election, where three major parties, accounting for 88.5% of the total vote (the balance split among 11 other parties), carefully avoided Britain's greatest social problem (incongruous immigration); perhaps intimidated, lest someone suggest they actually identified with a native British posterity, and call them nasty names. The second, European agonizing over what is now labeled the "Greek Bailout," which demonstrated the unnecessary economic trauma in trying to merge different peoples, with different cultures, in a common entity. There is, clearly, a common factor in these phenomena.
In May, 2001, we challenged European Union efforts to homogenize the distinct cultures of Europe; observing that a nation could enjoy the benefits of a free trade association--even monetary union--without calling upon its people to compromise traditional ethnic values, a sense of unique identity (ethnicity), or their social or moral preferences. British silence over changes altering the very warp & woof of British society, reflects a deliberate & determined effort to avoid analysis of the radical effect from introducing very different peoples into the same communities. Persistence of such avoidance may doom communities across the whole of Britain to a gathering social chaos.
The European monetary crisis reflected not only very different attitudes among the respective nations on questions of acceptable levels of debt, but also towards a planned interdependence, no more necessary to monetary union, than bank bailouts in America, to the preservation of a Federal Union. The planned interdependence has now led to a "solution" that endangers the very economic pursuits that once provided a major rationalization for the EU, itself. Both the British and Continental phenomena reflect a European pursuit of the same compulsion driven denial of reality, which we have seen so often in contemporary America. Yet consider the pathology of ethnic decline & fall from a slightly different vantage point.
There is clearly a point where any society will break down, if it becomes too confused in its self-perception, its own identity. In his Decline & Fall Of The Roman Empire, Gibbon describes how far the original working class Roman had been replaced, even in Rome itself, by ex-slaves & a vast cosmopolitan migration, drawn from throughout what had been the Roman world. This was a major factor in leaving geographic Rome, virtually indefensible against the oncoming Barbarians. To those who suggest that America is not being similarly undermined, consider what would happen in California, if we got into a foreign war in which Mexico was on the other side, and the crowds that recently terrorized large cities, protesting efforts to stop illegal immigration, returned to the streets?
Loss, or confusion, of identity can take many forms; but if the identity, lost, had true value, the consequences have catastrophic implications. In the Roman case, the sense of a proud, disciplined history--of the achievements of specific forebears--inspired the creation of a formidable empire. A confusion of the actual "Roman" identity was inextricably linked to the destruction of that empire. In point of fact, the empire achievers were only a small minority, well before the final chapter, with rapidly declining influence in a now cosmopolitan population.
Does the growing ethnic diversity of America--as for that matter, Britain--pose parallel problems--even without the threat of foreign invasion? To anyone paying attention to some of the public demands, originating among self-appointed spokesmen for groups identified as "Hispanic, Non-Cubans," with respect to immigration issues, it should be obvious how far down the path to absolute chaos, we have already travelled.
A "rose by any other name would smell as sweet"; but there is significance, none-the-less, in chosen names. Calling England, "England," reflects the Anglo-Saxon part of her history. The name is derived from the Angle tribe, who with others migrated into what had been Roman Britain at the approximate time of the fall of Rome. While the descendants of the Angles, Saxons, Danes, Celts and others in the south of Britain were later conquered by the Normans--basically Vikings who had settled in Normandy, across the Channel in France--the Anglo-Saxon character of the country survived, with the small new upper class, finally abandoning the French, they had adopted in Normandy, for an earlier form of modern English.
"England" means land of the Angles, as "Scotland" means land of the Scots. America is not a name dictated by the elements, nor emblazoned in the clouds over her. Rather, adapted from the name of a European explorer--the term "American," as member of a new ethnicity, was adopted by the European settlers, who had risen against the Mother country to achieve the freedom of their respective States, to represent a sense of common purpose--a purpose shortly reflected in their written Constitution, as discussed in depth in our May Feature. The confusion in Academia is demonstrated by the penchant to lump American Indian tribes together under the nomenclature "Native American"; a clear insult to proud peoples, who often laid down their lives, fighting to preserve their own unique nations in the lands of their fathers.
Why cannot the Left--why cannot, a now corrupted Academia, which once studied the infinite variation of the human species--accord to unique peoples the right to be unique? Why cannot we deal with each other with actual respect, as opposed to a compulsive need to pretend that we are all alike--as alike as peas in a pod, or matches in a box, none of which are really all alike, either.
There is absolutely no rational reason, why Nations no longer recognize that each people is unique; that a combination of factors, unique at any moment in time to a given population, will effect behavior; that that determinant is not something necessarily good or bad; merely something that must be recognized, just as one recognizes that Clydesdales & Thoroughbreds are both very nice horses, but have functionally very distinguishing traits. More to the point, there is no rational reason why any people should be apologetic for wanting to retain their own unique culture & demographics in the land of their fathers. What an absurd situation--with no Dean Swift around to send Gulliver to an island to burlesque it--that anyone would feel a compulsion to either deny such a sentiment, apologize for it, or insult a neighbor who holds it.
Yet more to the point: Who, but compulsion driven egalitarians & internationalists, really insults anyone by reasoned discussion of ethnic differences. There is a common misconception--one resulting from a contrived egalitarian hue & cry, that even to broach the subject is offensive to all non-White minorities. But that very notion is absurd. Was Reggie White's address to the Wisconsin Legislature, which celebrated some of the commonly perceived characteristics of recognized groups, a decade back, reason for anyone to take offense? (We are not referring, here, to the umbrage taken by radical Homosexuals to the great Green Bay Packer's Christian outreach; what he considered his Christian duty, in trying to save them from themselves.)
Understanding what is unique to any group, type or subset of a community, is by very definition, a constructive step towards better understanding such subset; and better understanding has ever been a foundation for better relations. Nor is the present neurotic ("politically correct") avoidance of the subject, either a compliment or benefit to any group. It is hardly an improvement over the good natured ethnic humor, with which peoples used to relieve the tensions of diverse groups living in close proximity; that is, before self-anointed thought Police began to excoriate even attempts at ethnic humor.
Clearly, there is great insult in assuming that anyone, under discussion, cannot handle the fact that some people prefer patterns of association & community, with which they and their families are most familiar? To ascribe such an irrational hyper-sensitivity against normal human preferences, is anything but complimentary. Most of us get over an expectation of being the center of attention, association or concern, for everyone we meet, before we even learn how to read. That is about the same time we realize that our own freedom, to not only like or dislike, but to determine degrees of liking, is consistent with according a corresponding acceptance of such freedom to others.
This is far from the merely academic; no mere lament for a psychologically simpler, more "normal" era. Would a British Tory Party have lost credibility as defender of traditional British values, if they had called for severe restrictions on immigration into Great Britain (already sustaining a population far beyond what she can feed internally), in order to maintain her traditional character (and space)? We would suggest that failure to face so important an issue, has completely destroyed Tory credibility with respect to long accepted norms. Their only justification, now, is purely materialistic. What people have ever sustained their character & culture with nothing beyond material pursuit?
A compulsion not to recognize that an ethnic England is very different from an England part Anglo & equal or almost equal part a wide assortment of diverse peoples--where given present migration & reproductive rates, she is certainly headed--flows directly from an Egalitarian mantra that dominates much of Academia & a sycophantic Media today. Whether that Egalitarianism is largely of Marxist, Fabian or other origin; whether it has a non-neurotic element, in addition to the obvious compulsive ones; are questions we can discuss, debate & analyze, ad nauseam. What is essential, here, is that regardless of the motivation, a denial of reality helps no one; can by no stretch be reckoned altruistic. Rather, it is an insult to anyone comfortable with being themselves; anyone happy to be unique.
All meaningful human achievement or failure, ultimately depends upon individual personality. But that personality is molded by heredity as well as nurture--bloodlines, as well as the affinities of inclination. We come in very different forms. Why not accord to others the respect that each of us really hopes to have in return: A respect for the right to be unique; to be oneself.