“The author devotes only a single sentence out of his 2,100 words to how this all came about. He fails to mention any real historical basis for anything, almost as if to imply the ideology just fell out of the air one day like manna, unexplained and unexplainable. Considering this is a broad analytical piece, that is surprising.
“His single sentence to provide any historical background is: ‘[Multicultoacracy rose] out of deep Protestant and Quaker roots’, which makes no sense. Quakers have never been at the helm of opinion-shaping in the USA. And ‘Protestants’, generally, created racialist states where-ever they went: The USA, South-Africa, Australia. The Roman Catholic Church, as a self-consciously universalist entity, seems a more likely entity to blame. Sure enough, the rise of proto-Multicultacracy in the USA clearly correlates with the waves of Jews and Roman-Catholics through Ellis-Island. (Still, it is far too lazy to just wave the hand ‘It’s because of the Jews [and/or the Roman Church]’.)
“This ‘Blame the Protestants’ idea has been popular in recent years among Jewish conservative intellectuals (especially the celebrated Paul Gottfried). It has been picked up by many persons even of Protestant background, who want to seem respectable. The absurdity of the notion, again, is clear in the historical record: Nationalism in the USA was strongest when Protestantism was strongest; it is weakest today when Protestantism is at its lowest ebb in 400+ years of white settlement of North America. (Although I will leave it at that, why this illogical argument appeals to Jewish conservatives should be obvious).
“But, then, how did the current racio-political climate come about?”
i don’t have an answer to what must be the question of the century (at least for whites). but i kinda|sorta grasp one piece of the puzzle … i think.
there are three elements here:
2) that non-whites are used as pawns in a status game going on between whites (see steve sailer);
and, 3) whites — especially in places like the united states — are so outbred that they don’t have strong enough ethnocentric sentiments to protect themselves from “invasions” by outside groups.
the first two points have been discussed at length by kevin mac donald, steve sailer, and all over the hbd|altright blogosphere.
i talked about the opposite situation of point #3 in my post on egypt. i suggested that a “civil society” like that found in the united states (at least in the past) will not be possible in egypt because the people there are too inbred, just like the afghanis and iraqis that steve sailer and parapundit wrote about ever so long ago.
the afghanis and iraqis and egyptians — and all the other groups that inbreed locally and regularly — are clannish or tribal because of the way they inbreed. they keep their brides and their wealth in the extended family. in the clan.
democracy (for what it’s worth) will never work in such a society because those people do not feel like a united group (because they aren’t a united group!). they can’t stand the extended family next door. their sentiments are directed towards those to whom they are most related.
like i said somewhere else, imagine how you feel toward your kids. then imagine how you feel toward your cousins. then ADD those feelings together and you might get some understanding how people in the middle east, for instance, feel towards their kids, because their kids are BOTH their kids AND their cousins. (i’m sure the calculation doesn’t work exactly like that, but you get my point.) imagine how you feel towards your brother or sister, then (again) imagine how you feel toward your cousins. then (again) ADD those feelings together to understand how middle easterners feel about their siblings.
then we have europeans.
europeans do not, for the most part, inbreed. and we have NOT been inbreeding for a very, very long time (thanks to the holy roman catholic church and quite a few of the protestant churches).
so, our sentiments are more inclusive than other peoples’ (muslims, for instance) because we’re not so clannish. we can build rather large societies based upon trust — ’cause we actually trust our neighbors more — ’cause we are more related to them than peoples in other parts of the world are related to their neighbors.
then you get the united states.
great idea for anglo-saxons to establish a new nation for themselves in a new land (unless you’re an american indian). bad idea to mix it up with (relatively) unrelated peoples from other parts of europe (even b. franklin was worried about all the germans in the states.) because: 1) you start to get too many groups of people with conflicting interests since they’re not related; and 2) once they started to inter-breed (not that there’s anything wrong with that!) the already loose genetic ties became even looser and, therefore, the sentiments tying the people together also loosened even more.
and we’ve been loosening them ever since. every generation.
i mean, how will “an american” who is 1/4 dutch, 1/4 german, 1/4 french and 1/4 irish possibly feel allied to a bunch of anglo-saxons? odds are they won’t. not really. not when the chips are down.
the problem with the united states is that it didn’t remain an anglo-saxon nation. and ever since it started to be settled by other europeans as well, americans haven’t had time to develop (genetically) into a “race of americans,” the members of which would’ve instinctively felt united. we haven’t had time to get everyone being “1/4 everything.” the whole process got interrupted by the immigration act of 1965.
very loose genetic ties + a strong tendancy for altruistic punishment (+ some ideological sabotage from Those Who Must Not Be Named) = our current multicultacratic hell.
i don’t know how to solve it. but certainly adding more immigrants from latin america, the middle east, south asia, africa and the far east AIN’T gonna do it.
see also: How PC Came to Be @mangan’s
(note: comments do not require an email.)