Wandering American

@restoreorderusa @0x49fa98 The best way to bridge the divide between paleos and evangelicals is to bring more attention to how civil rights law forces them to accommodate LGBT nonsense against their will.

Matt Walsh argues that social conservatism should be the dividing line on the right. Given the left's assault on healthy values, I get where he's coming from. But issues like immigration, crime, and anti-white discrimination are far more important in the grand scheme of things.

Watergate was fake. WMD’s were fake. J6 was fake. Charlottesville was fake. Almost every Boomer benchmark of reality is fake.

@sunnyright They aren't covering it up. "Asian" has a very different connotation in the UK than in the US, they primarily think of subcontinentals when they hear it.

"Asian" A bunch of Japanese guys, were they? Perhaps some South Koreans?

@ScottAdamsSays @andybrohard Patriot RIP

@andybrohard Both can be true. But also consider that when you pay someone to identify racist organizations, they find more than if you don't pay them. And that is what has been happening with SPLC. So it might be a measurement incentive issue too.

Trump has made America less racist spectator.us/racist-inciden…

@MadelaineLucyH Quite fascinating to watch the British Left pretend that the UK has the same immigration history as the US. Just utterly colonized by the Yankee.

Cities like London have ALWAYS attracted migrants. Always. With Pepys it was the Dutch, later it was the Huguenots, then it was the Irish, then the Germans, then it was Jewish people, then Poles, and most recently, Arabs. Acting like London is 'suddenly' diverse is stupid.

Mytho American West

It’s totally wild that geologically the Scottish Highlands and the Appalachian mountains are part of the same Pangea-era mountain chain. And then when the first Scots arrived in early America, they flooded directly into Appalachia in large numbers, as if they knew.

@Boutuispeak @foxxyscleo Typically in the US, the only people who truly identify as American are those with deep roots in the country, going back at least over a century. Most Mexicans are immigrants or the children of immigrants, and so usually identify with their ancestral homeland over the US.

@foxxyscleo Then why do Americans keep on calling Mexicans born in America Mexicans when their nationality is clearly American

the “americans are stupid” lowkey never stuck cause we seem to be the only ppl to know the difference between race, nationality, and ethnicity

@pelagiusreborn "Why don't men find Sabrina Carpenter hot?" They certainly do now

This turned me on

@greggnunziata Uh....

This is, let's not be delicate, anti American gutter racism.

@jonharris1989 We desperately need Protestants at the helm.

It wasn’t long ago. The most popular-level conservative Christian and conservative political voices:

Some notes on race, man, culture, and immigration. I don’t want to this to be a full essay, but a basic breakdown of my thoughts on the above topics and offer some historic perspective and distinction. So I can refer to it later as necessary. One of the prevailing views of concepts like race is that it is a wholly genetic reference point; gene clusters are made up of materials (physical things), and therefore this view—I’ll call it racialism—is a materialist conception of man. Man is a machine. It is true that the political implications of this model are heavily scrutinized by the mainstream of sociopolitical commentary. The mainstream denies the significance of genetically-based racial lines as it pertains to things like culture and politics. This roughly overlaps with what can referred as the postwar political consensus of post-60’s social theory. Now the problem is that if you aren’t a fan of Propositional forms of nationhood, and think ethnic distinctions are important, you are by default said to be a racialist. But if you deny the genetic-based racialism as defined above, you are said to be a race-denier, or a compromiser with Propositionalism or Civic Nationalism or something. I deny both of these positions however and am interested in using Oswald Spengler as a useful foil because he encapsulates some of my instincts here. Spengler (one of the leaders of the Conservative Revolution in Weimar German) is someone who was critical of some of the Nazi tendencies to emphasize the materialist view of race, which he argues was not the traditional European view of race going back over a thousand years. For Spengler, and other German idealists before him, civilization and race were caught up together in a meta-complex. The reason for this is because man was a composite of body (material) and soul (spiritual). The entire racialist enterprise post-19th century was for Spengler (and others) and derivative of the materialist revolution. Once materialism took hold, two views took shape: culture (because it was immaterial) was either capable of being separated from race itself (the more English view, now common in postwar conservatism) or it was caused by genetics/race (the racialist view). Such a material revolution culminated into the racialism of some theorists of Nazism on one side, and the individualism of some theorists of Liberalism on the other. But if we reject materialism and its derivative racialism, we can embrace what I see as the more traditional Germanic-French metaphysical view of man (see my Tweet on “what is a nation?' here: x.com/contramordor/s…). Here, we find that man himself (as an individual) is actually derived from a People, a Spirit, that preexisted him and whose existence and experience in the world produced a Culture. Under this view, which is an implication of the old Christian doctrine known as Traducianism (see Gregory of Nyssa), man inherits not only his physical features (genes), but also his mental and spiritual features as well. The soul is inherited and it is a carve out of the greater Spirit of the people from which he came. This is the view that is supported in the “shared memory” metaphysics of theorists like Carl Jung and others. Under this view, (Jung has stated this in numerous lectures), race is about commonality of lineage, but built on a complex of Soul and Body. It is not the post-darwinian materialism, but is rather an organic composite of memory, experience, historical struggle, landscape and geography, stories, and, in a proportionate way, bodily characteristics. Things like “blood” under this older view have a predominant spiritual reference to it, because it preceded the materialism of the 19th century. Under this Metaphysical view of man and his civilization, separating race and culture makes no sense; culture is passed on through generations, the soul is inherited and all the memories and aesthetic instincts and social norms come along with that inheritance; and materialistic genes are only a small component of this situation. A culture-based immigration policy, therefore, overlaps in profound ways with a standard of national origins: peoples from nations within our civilization are more symbiotic with our own heritage than peoples from outside our civilization. Culture and race are so caught up together as to make it absurd to take up a generalized preference for certain cultures without there being a racial pattern that arises. Now, what is interesting as well is how this older model maps on to new areas of biology such as Epigenetics. While I’m not someone who puts much weight on biology and modern forms of science for my political thinking, I was fascinated to learn that there are strains in science that are supporting this older metaphysical view of man. As one author put it, “Although this is often confused in the popular press with the debunked theories of Lamarck and the USSR’s Lysenko, this branch of biology called ‘epigenetics’ does not replace the laws of Mendelian genetics, but shows that genetics is not the only mechanism by which characteristics can be passed along. Indeed, the original exponent of epigenetics, who coined the word in 1942, was the eminent British geneticist C. H. Waddington. What epigenetics seems to indicate is that the experiences of one generation can affect the character of subsequent generations. If this is correct, then it implies that these common experiences, or ‘history’, can shape the collective psyche of a group and be passed along. Such traits are also reinforced through generations by being maintained as collective memories in myths, legends, religions and customs.” I was shocked by how consistent this was with Teddy Roosevelt's words here, in which he emphasized that memory, history, experience, and geography is what created a new American race: "The frontier conditions made a new race. The stern struggle with the wilderness and with wild men welded together the descendants of many European stocks into one people—the American. Out of the crucible of the wilderness came a new ethnic type, hardy, self-reliant, democratic in instinct, and with a continent for its inheritance." One doesn't have to lean absolutely on genetics to digest this. "Stock" itself presupposes the joint metaphysical view of a lineage. Without belaboring the point: my view of Man and his ethnos is that he is a complex of body and soul, post-Darwinian genetic materialism (racialism) is rejected, and so is civic nationalism. We are a People. Not a collection of individuals that forms a people, but rather individuals are derivative of the pre-existing People, a preexisting metaphysical Spirit. Race is a concept that infers variety (we don’t all come from the race of Charlemagne) and unity (we all come from the race of Adam). Nations are organic and real-world reflections of this truth.

@shadihamid Liberal pluralism requires a baseline of shared thought and cultural mores in order to make diversity work. When the country was established, its population was 82% British derived and 98% Protestant. As it's grown in ethnic-cultural diversity, political issues have multiplied.

Can you answer the question of which values are "good" and which are "bad"? Who decides that, exactly? In a pluralistic democracy, citizens will disagree on foundational questions of the good life and the meaning of America. That's as it should be. We don't all have to agree.

@HomericWigger @Mrgman32 The sources are the 2020 census, the National Origins Formula sanctioned by the Johnson-Reed Act and the founding documents of the United States (written by Anglos). That being said, this conversation isn't worth continuing. Have a lovely day.

@oakeshottboy @Mrgman32 But I did on several occasions. Your main source of contention was an influencer's bait post from 3 years ago and a Google AI hallucination which I then refuted with the same AI providing the opposite answer. I stand by my claim, you're a retarded zoomer

If German ancestry wasn't exaggerated:

@HomericWigger @Mrgman32 ... rebute these claims, and you responded by calling me retarded. Lol

@HomericWigger @Mrgman32 You didn't prove any claim wrong, you've said more White Americans identify as German than English (false) and that America historically is a German project (also false). I pointed to recent census data and past ethnography, as well as American history to...

@HomericWigger @Mrgman32 Again, which language are we speaking? What language was the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution written in? What about the Federalist Papers? Which language is the source of the most common surnames among whites in America?

@HomericWigger @Mrgman32 That's because of the growth of Spanish speakers who don't speak English well or at all. But of course, you know this. The AI summary was posted because the census page was glitching, the same census that reported high English identification among whites, which you rejected.

@HomericWigger @Mrgman32 It's not just about raw number of arrivals, the English population grew through high birth rates before Germans started to follow them here. Germans played a major role in shaping American history and culture, but it was ultimately an Anglo project. What language do we speak?

@oakeshottboy @Mrgman32 Except it is by both. Historically more Germans arrived than English. At present more Americans identify as German than English. I will not pretend to lump unrelated ethnic groups together as "broadly british" while simultaneously excluding doing the opposite for Germans