Impact of Immigration on National Cohesion & Identity

The main effect of the massive immigration that continues apace is to fracture the psychological bond of nationality leaving citizenship a hollowed out pseudo-legalism. That is because the diversity that massive immigration brings is associated with not only rising violence such as with terrorism or civil war but also the general loss of social cohesion. This general loss of social cohesion is sometimes referred to as “Balkanization.” It is the idea that, with the introduction of vast and sundry immigration, what occurs is a Hobbesian warfare of all people groups against all people groups. At this point there is no longer any “National Identity” left but only “People Group Identities” of the varied people who are part of the internal empire’s rule. This occurrence leads to intense civil stress as all policy pursued by any National Government is going to be measured according to the differing standards of each interest group.

Then when one adds the reality of a welfare state  one finds that these balkanized special interest groups quickly learn that if they can manipulate the government, they can use its power to enrich themselves at the expense of the other groups. The “intense civil stress” mentioned above thus includes intense economic warfare as each people group struggle for a larger and larger share of the welfare state pie.

Clearly, then, unlimited immigration is pursued with a view of deconstructing the country that existed prior to the wave of unlimited immigration.

Of course, all this also gives the lie to the idea that “Diversity is our strength.”

The Revolt Against the New Liberal Man

The liberal project, born of the Renaissance and matured upon the blood of the Enlightenment always has had at its heart the desire to set free the individual from the situatedness of life in which people were conceived and birthed into. Liberalism taught its padawans that the greatest freedom was freedom from any identity that wasn’t freely chosen by the autonomous sovereign self. We can hear this theme in the cry of the  sans-culottes; “No God, No King.” Self chosen identity, quite apart from any outside imposed or inherited identity would not be allowed.

With this flight from all situatedness institutional identity markers that had been held for centuries as the cornerstones of the Christian faith were attacked. The liberal vision attacked the natural bonds of family, community, and nation, setting the atomistic self free to rearrange these bonds in any order the new liberal man might see fit. With the flowering of the liberal vision came the end to the trustee family, the end of localism, and regionalism, and the end of the sense of belonging to the land and to the people. All of these were exchanged for the right of the sovereign self to choose his/her own identities. For the new liberal man the glue that would hold new social orders together would be abstractions like “liberty,” “equality,” and “fraternity,” and not a people, a place, and a present informed by God’s Word as it shaped the generations prior. For the new liberal man there would be “liberty leading a generic people” but there would be no fathers who would be heroes, no space which would be Holy, and no concern about leaving an inheritance behind for our children. The liberal demand for equality eliminated father heroes, Holy Space, and inheritance left for those who belong uniquely to us.

Liberalism rearranged reality in order to create a society where the new liberal man was not burdened by any previous situatedness. The new liberal man was a self creating God who could leave behind “belongingness” to pursue the happiness needs of the sovereign self. The new liberal man was a rights-bearing individual who conveniently was absent of any duty-bearing obligations to a prior received situatedness. With every success of the new liberal man came the necessity to push the boundaries even further in terms of how the new liberal man could create his/her own rights and reality.

However, snapback always comes. The pendulum can only go so far before it begins to swing back and it is that swing-back that we are seeing among some of the young men and women of the West who are crying out for an older view that goes behind liberalism. The Trad-West crowd are awakening to understand that reality and social organization predates their arrival and they long for the situatedness for which the new liberal man had such disgust. The young Trad-West crowd are reaching back for a stability that comes with faith, family, and place. Many of the Trad-West crowd don’t understand that only Christianity can give what they desire. They are properly put off with the “Christianity” that has been in service of the new liberal man’s vision of liberty, equality, fraternity and so have an animus towards Christianity.  Part of the challenge for the Christian faith is to communicate that it is Christianity alone which teaches that human beings are not the sum of their autonomous choices. Only Christianity consistently forswears the liberal (and Pelagian) anthropology that insists that humans are defined through acts of individual choice and self-expression alone. Only Christianity teaches original sin, sin nature, and then tells how situatedness can be beautiful for the Redeemed community. Christianity teaches that all men were born into a set of beautiful “givens” and that man is responsible to honor and cultivate that situatedness ordained and bequeathed unto him by God Almighty. Christianity with its covenant theology provides a way to embrace kinship, and descent as norms without family, people, nation or race becoming idolized. Christianity teaches a particularity of people, place, and patrimony which ought to have placed an properly ordered affection that properly prioritizes our people, our place, and our patrimony. All of that is hated by the liberal vision that is constantly bleating about the dangers of “identity politics” or the dangers of “racism” or the dangers of “Kinism.”

The liberal order is ending, though it is kicking and screaming as it is being pushed off stage. Thankfully, we will never go back to some kind of caste system where we are locked into a place that we can never be rescued from because of our family line. However, just as clearly, we are moving away from the liberal vision where the atomistic sovereign self choose and creates his own destiny quite apart from obligations and responsibilities to the situatedness in which he was born. The absolutizing of freedom characteristic of the new liberal man has created a social order where people are isolated, lonely, and miserable. The absolutizing of freedom characteristic of the new liberal man has created a nostalgia for belongingness that is natural and not contrived. There exists now among many a desire to return to thick identities explained by the belongingness that is a consequence of family, place, patrimony, and most of all by the reality that it is God who places men in families.

Liberalism, with its insistence that it would not be satisfied until the last King was strangled with the entrails of the last Priest dealt itself its own death blow as it sought to tear up the very roots of human identity. Liberalism was the vision of rending every natural (and Biblical) source of human belonging into a thousand pieces in favor of unnatural and so disordered affections. Liberalism pitted freedom and order against one another and gave us a freedom that was the worst bondage of all — the bondage of that absence of natural belonging.

The modern Church in the West seems to miss much of this. There is, among the modern clergy, a knee-jerk reaction against all that would stand for ordered affections as being distinctly Christian. The contemporary Church in the West is a liberal Church at its core as seen by its disassociating itself with books like “Who Is My Neighbor,” which demonstrates that Christianity has never been in favor of the new liberal man. The modern church — even in its most conservative expression — cringes at the notion that men owe a special allegiance to their own people, place, and patrimony that they don’t owe to the stranger and the alien. And this even after it has been insisted that love for one’s own people does not mean hatred for those who are not one’s own people. The “situatedness” that we are advocating for is essential for what it means to be human. As such we are no longer making mea culpas for advocating a social order that God has ordained and we are no longer acting ashamed because we are no longer adherents to a Christianity that is more Rousseau than it is Jesus Christ.

Doug Wilson, R. Scott Clark, Michael Shover and Me

In the video above Doug Wilson does a classic presuppositional take down of R. Scott Clark as Wilson dissects an interview that R. Scott Clark did w/ the Babylon Bee on the subject of Christian Nationalism.

It is clear that Doug desires a Christian nation contra the idiot R. Scott Clark on the subject. And on that point Wilson undresses Clark and publicly humiliates him for all with eyes to see.

So two cheers for Doug on this score.

However, we can’t toss that third cheer for Doug up in the air because even though Doug desires a Christian nation he does not desire Christian Nationalism which is the only way one can get to a Christian nation. Doug is championing some form of Christian multiculturalism/multi-racialism for a nation and for that we have no respect and so must lift a Bronx cheer for Doug on that score.

Now, when I make that point above Rev. Michael Shover publicly made the following comment I’d like to respond to;

Rev. Shover writes,

I think one of the main issues of concern that Doug and others have about talking about an ethno-nationalist state in multicultural America, is how one would effectively accomplish that? Round people up and kick them out of the country? And who is going to determine that? And who is going to stay, and who is going to go? And the concern is that black Americans have ancestors that have been here longer than some white Americans ancestors. The whole situation is indeed very messy and we cant just say we need ethno-nationalism, as if that is going to solve any problems. It very well could and would create new and possibly worse problems. The toothpaste is out of the tube. You cant put it back in. And I think that when people who dont know you hear you talk about these things, they think you want to round up the blacks and asians and Indians and Mexicans and forcibly remove them from America. I think that is what people think you are saying.

1.) First we have to insist that there is no genuine nationalism except for ethno-nationalism. All other Nationalism are propositional in some sense and so are not genuinely Nationalisms.

2.) I quite agree that the toothpaste is now out of the tube and can’t be put back in. The toothpaste continues to squeezed out of the tube as the borders are virtually non-existent. The Politicians are even saying that we are looking at 4-5 million more illegals in the next 2 years. If the politicians are admitting that it is likely four or five times that many. All of that is on top of the 20-30 million illegals that are already living in this country. Clearly the toothpaste is out of the tube and is never going to be put back in.

3.) Keep in mind that my argument has always been that in order to function as a Christian Nationalist state we don’t need 100% racial/ethnic purity. Along with other Kinists I have argued that if we had the percentage that we had before the 1965 Immigration Act we would be fine.

4.) However, we will never now get to that point as the charts and stats are telling us. By the year 2100, per recent stats I have been looking at, my youngest grandchild (who will be 78 at that time) will be living in a country that is 42% white. My grandchildren will be a minority in the land that their father’s built.

As a side note, this is going to be very bad news for blacks as this new coming nation is not going to feel it incumbent to uniquely provide a safety net that privileges them. If the projected numbers are correct they will statistically be far less than both Hispanics and Whites and not much ahead of Asians.

5.) That is why, I advocate for the break-up of America in order to reach a Christian Nationalist state. This country is already balkanized beyond repair and the only hope now for Christians of European descent is to have some small nation to call their own as gerrymandered from the former United States of America.

6.) Actually, the break-up of the US is something that all people should hope for given the inevitability of totalitarian top down tyranny that is coming our way if something like a break-up doesn’t happen. These Davos people are dead serious with their New World Order Great Reset.

One more observation on this subject. Part of the immigration problem probably could be solved in terms of the saturation levels of people from Mexico and Central American countries coming here if we would but turn off the spigot of government benefits and largesse for these people. It is likely that at least a healthy percentage would then return to their homes if they were receiving handouts upon arriving here.

Responding to Pope Doug’s “Aside to the Actual Kinist Out There”

Pope Doug wrote a subsection titled;

An Aside to the Actual Kinists Out There

Since we are talking a lot about you guys, I thought it might be appropriate to take you aside for a minute. You all like to think of yourselves as the shock troops of the resistance, as an elite corps of hard-headed race realists. You are in fact the soft underbelly of the resistance.

Bret responds,

What marvelous providence that you have decided to take us aside because we’ve been meaning to take you aside also. This works out to be very convenient.

It is true that we like to think of ourselves as the last heroes of the West. It is glorious to contemplate that we are the descendants of Charles Martel at Tours and/or John Sobieski’s plumed knights fighting the Turks at Vienna as opposed to some armchair general who has been more full of himself than blood sausage for quite some time now.

But on to why we wanted to take you aside. We aren’t taking counsel from you Mr. Pope. We aren’t fooled by your mastery of the false dichotomy or the subtle contradictions. We aren’t impressed with your attempted impersonations of Ambrose Bierce, Chesterton, Mencken, or any other of your literary heroes. We see through your lifelong three card monte game. We know a grifter when we see one.

Frankly, we would rather be the soft underbelly of the resistance then a fifth columnist termite who honestly believes he is doing the Lord’s work. We are hopeful that even the soft underbelly of the resistance will be enough to resist your fifth columnist work. We admit that is not asking much but every little bit for the Kingdom helps. Soft underbellies of the world unite!

Pope Doug continues,

You are not the lost golden apples of the Hesperides in the true West. You are the crabbed fruit of the West, lying on the ground in one of our lower-IQ orchards, most of which fruit the ants have already carried off.

Bret responds,

Yeah, well, your Mother wore combat boots.

Take that!

Pope Doug,

If anyone on the right suddenly starts talking about the Jooozzz, and is sounding suspiciously like Ilhan Omar, the chances are outstanding that it is one of you guys.

Bret Responds,

Has Ilhan Omar along with the Kinists been channeling John Calvin again?

“…now, when, through nearly fifteen centuries, they (Jews) have been scattered and banished from their country, having no polity, by what pretext can they fancy, from the prophecy of Jacob, that a Redeemer will come to them? Truly, as I would not willingly glory over their calamity; so, unless they, being subdued by it, open their eyes, I freely pronounce that they are worthy to perish a thousand times without remedy.” 

John Calvin
(Commentary on Genesis 49:10)

“Primo meretur eorum perdita obstinatio et indomabilis, ut immensa miseriarum congerie sine fine et modo oppressi omnes exhilarent suis malis, nemo autem eorum misereatur.”

“First of all, their (Jew) depraved and indomitable obstinacy merits that none of them be pitied, as they all delight in their evils while being oppressed by a great mass of miseries without end or measure.”

John Calvin

Don’t you just hate it when Kinists start sounding like John Calvin?

Pope Doug writes,

The tweets in question in this case can sound so brave right after two in the morning, and also after two beers, right before you publish them, but when your opponents find those tweets and are consequently saying ohboyohboyohboyohboy to themselves, they are not doing this because they just plopped their lame arguments onto the sturdy slab of an oak table called the adamantine right. No, they actually found a two-dollar card table of the wobbly right, the kind that collapses as soon as they put any kind of weight on it. That’s why the ohboyohboyohboy reaction.

Bret responds,

Face it Doug… you’ve become a scaramouche. You’re more concerned about your reputation and your career than you are in speaking painful truths to the real enemies of Christendom.

“Anyway the wind blows
Doesn’t really matter 
To Doug…”

Listen Dude, if you ever had a spell on the White Boy Summer crowd it is gone. You are now like Merlin who has been imprisoned by the spell of Viviane. Your enchantment is lost on Gen. Y and most of Gen. Z. You will now live out the rest of your life serving as General to those who refused to fight the people who needed to be resisted the most.

Thank you for your earlier service. At one time many of us hoped that you would be the one who had the requisite midi-chlorian to lead but alas that has not been the case.

It used to be Called Freedom of Association

“We would all agree that the traveler is and should be free not to buy. He can pass a motel he doesn’t like in town, if he doesn’t like the color, or he doesn’t like the name. He can stop and go in and when he sees the owner he can decide he doesn’t like him because he doesn’t like his mustache, or his accent, or his prices, or his race, or his customers. He can turn around and walk out for any reason, or for no reason at all. Why not? He’s a free man. So is the owner of the property. And if the traveler is free not to buy because he doesn’t like the owner’s mustache, accent, prices, race, other customers, or for any or no reason, the owner of the property ought to have the same freedom. That’s simple justice. The wonder is that it can be questioned.”

C. Farris Bryant
Florida Governor — 1961-1965

This is the argument for Freedom of Association that Americans no longer embrace. It is the simplest of logic and yet Freedom of Association is now seen as “bigoted.”