The American Nation by Michael O'Meara

[kurwenal]

The American Nation
Philosophy; Posted on: 2006-08-12 18:38:08 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
by Michael O'Meara

Author's Note: The following was part of a larger series of articles that was written for an audience of French "revolutionary nationalists" whose image of America is almost categorically negative. Its ostensible aim was to highlight the positive in the heritage we White nationalists claim. But at a deeper level, it was also an effort to convince myself that America has not been a historical disaster for the White race. The negative interpretation opposed here can be found in "The Holocaust of America," appearing in the latest issue of The Occidental Quarterly (VI:1), and in the chapter "Anti-Europe" in my New Culture, New Right.

In the United States, the closest thing to Europe's "new revolutionary nationalism"--which designates liberalism's cosmopolitan plutocracy as Europe's chief enemy, resists the de-Europeanization of its capital, population, and territory, and identifies with a biocultural vision of Magna Europa rather than the 19th-century nation-state--is "White nationalism." Though a marginal force on the American political scene (theoretically deficient, fragmented into scores of tiny organizations, and with a greater presence in cyberspace than in the public sphere), it nevertheless wages the same fight as its European counterpart and, on the most decisive issue, race, is considerably more advanced. In this spirit, it takes its stand with the "Old America" that is the counterpart to Bush's "Old Europe." It considers its people part of Europe's biosphere, and opposes not just the present Hebraicized administration in Washington, but the anti-White impetus of "the American century."

Fundamental to White nationalism is the understanding that, historically, America was not a melting pot, but a settler nation: hence a European transplant. Its original settlers (all of whom were Protestant, but not exclusively Puritan or Calvinist) may have had an ambivalent attitude to the Europe they left behind, but they had no intention of shedding their European being for the sake of mixing with races and cultures unlike their own. Their identity as such was rooted in distinctly European life forms, which were opposed to those of the country's aboriginals and to its imported Black slaves. Specifically, this identity was an Anglo-Protestant one adapted to the nativist environment of colonial America. At the time of the revolution, 80 percent of the population was of Anglo-Protestant descent. Of the remaining 20 percent, most were Dutch, German, and Swede, all of whom were Protestant and easily assimilated into the original core population. Only one percent of its people, mainly of French Canadian and Irish origin, was Catholic. The country's institutions were accordingly reflective of the values and beliefs of its transplanted Anglo-Protestant settlers, just as the state's republican ideology and the producerist ideology of its popular classes were in harmony with its specific ethnic disposition.

At the time of revolution, the country's national identity was still an embryonic one. The loyalties of the revolutionary generation were more to the individual colonies that had become states, such as Virginia and Massachusetts, than to the federal republic established in 1789. But despite the absence of a strong state, informed by tradition and aristocracy, the American polity was not simply the cultureless, economic enterprise that certain nouveaux droitistes make it out to be and it was certainly not the "nation of nations," "the first universal nation," or "the proposition nation" that our virtualist-minded anti-White elites insist on.

Even in this early period there existed an American national identity, buttressed by several hundred years of history and by the development of specifically American institutions based on instincts of racial superiority and self-reliance; by conflicts with the British crown, which caused its people to see itself as a transplanted nation of Anglo-Protestant descent (though one with freedoms Englishmen had allegedly lost during the Norman Conquest); but above all by an ethnic or biocultural identity rooted in the northern European, specifically British (that is, Celtic, Norse, and Saxon) stocks of the country's settlers. America, thus, may have lacked Europe's ancient genealogy, cultural legacy, rooted territorial sense, and distinct ethnic consciousness, but its people spoke a European language, practiced a European religion, had a history informed by European symbols and themes, represented a fusion of European racial stocks, and felt their northern European identity to be the defining part of their individual and collective identity. Until quite recently, as Jared Taylor has pointed out, "America was a self-consciously European, majority-white nation."

Accordingly, the Americanized Englishmen who declared their political independence in the late 18th century did not simultaneously declare their autonomy from Europe's ethnoracial identity. The liberal ideals of the revolutionary generation, in any case, were soon superseded by a Romantic emphasis on the particularisms and "special inner characteristics" of its people -- a Romanticism that betrayed the new republic's rationalist or Enlightenment premises. To these Indian-fighters, slavers, borderland Celts, and Texas revolutionaries, whose physical proximity to non-Whites had a powerful effect in enhancing their racial identity, it was obvious that the world's non-White peoples lacked the innate capacity to share in "the free government, power, and prosperity of the United States."

What Tocqueville called the "Anglo-Americans" had not the slightest intention of extending their liberties to Indians or negroes, nor even to those White men whose (Catholic) religion and (Irish clannish) temperament seemed to disqualify them for republican government. America's founding liberal principles were, in fact, little more than the ideological gloss of the country's Anglo-Protestant life forms. Despite the Calvinist conceit of believing itself "chosen," America's political principles had universal import only in the most vacuous theoretical sense. For example, the Puritan vision of America was less a call to world reform than an affirmation of its uniqueness and superiority. And though the principles of American republicanism have since been re-interpreted to justify the present de-Europeanization, this was neither the intention of the Founders nor that of the country's settlers, for their republic was preeminently a Herrenvolk democracy -- germane not to humanity as a whole, but to the "historical humanity" that was White America. In this vein, the U.S. Constitution, which contemporary liberals have re-interpreted for the sake of their multiracial utopia, defended the institution of slavery and posited that a Black's worth was only 67 percent of a White. The first Congress (1790) voted that only Whites could be naturalized as citizens.

White immigrants were assimilated into the founding stock only after they (or their children) shed the cultural-linguistic identities that separated them from native Whites. As late as the Kennedy Administration (1960), the nationally-conscious Irish, the first immigrant group, were still not fully assimilated. The so-called "melting pot" (a 20th-century concept invented by a cosmopolitan "Englishman," Israel Zangwill) was similarly selective, accepting only White immigrants as possible Americans (though it did mistakenly think that Jews from European countries were European). Moreover, this racially defined identity was the legacy of both the popular classes and the country's ruling elites. For example, Thomas Jefferson, who in a fit of Enlightenment enthusiasm included the phase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, never--not for a moment--thought of extending equal rights to negroes in America; Abraham Lincoln, the two-faced Whig pioneer of the liberal leviathan, wanted to repatriate Blacks to Africa; and the great liberal crusader, Woodrow Wilson, was an ardent segregationist who thought his cherished "democracy" inappropriate to all but Whites. Until the postwar period, White Americans of virtually every class and denomination saw themselves not as an amalgam of humanity, but as an American nativist variant of Europe's white Christian nations. The racial vision of America which White nationalists today defend against the anti-European regimes in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv was actually the prevailing vision of most Americans for most of the country's history.

The racially selective character of America's republican, and especially egalitarian, rhetoric, was indisputably evident in the country's enslavement of negroes, its extermination and/or ethnic cleansing of the aboriginal population, its territorial expansion at the expense of mestizo Mexico, and its effort to prevent Chinese and Japanese immigration. Its racial identity was so deeply rooted in the emerging national consciousness that it gave Anglo-Americans the confidence to assimilate different White ethnicities.

In the latter half of the 19th century, as European immigration and intermarriage demoted the prevalence of the British elements and the reigning spirit of American Anglo-Saxonism diminished the immigrants' attachment to their past, American identity gradually extended beyond its original Anglo-Protestant core to become a European-American Christian identity. Race as such remained primary, for only on the basis of the immigrants' racial compatibility with Anglo-Americans were they able to assimilate. The later advent of Black nationalism, as Walker Connor argues, testifies to the fact that American nationalism has always been a White nationalism. By the same token, the state's new-found multicultural ideology inadvertently acknowledges that the historical forms of American identity are incompatible with non-European races and cultures.

From the time of the revolution until the beginning of the Civil Rights revolution (1956), American nationality was articulated almost exclusively in terms of three mutually reinforcing influences: an Anglo-European racial identity, Protestantism, and republicanism. The latter, it needs stressing, owed less to 18th-century liberalism than to the character of Anglo-American society, whose small proprietors and farmers defined themselves in terms of self-sufficiency, relative equality, and self-rule.

Though the corporate capitalism and New Class managerialism today stifling this self-sufficiency grew out of the country's liberal postulates, this was only one (however consequential) of its manifestations, for Anglo-Protestant culture also nurtured a conservative, traditionalist, and authoritarian dimension opposed to much of what presently passes for "Americanism," (just as the feminist, homophile, and ethnomasochistic beliefs of today's mainstream Protestant dominations would have shocked earlier generations of Protestants). The Reformation heresies that prompted America's Low Church settlers to accept the Bible's inerrancy and uphold a literal interpretation of scripture also compelled them to spurn the behavioral, moral, and social principles of a purely materialistic society of individualist gratification. Though this type of Protestantism engendered (or expressed) that "spirit of independence, self-reliance, and freedom" which accompanied the rise of capitalism in northern Europe and today encourages the cosmopolitan nihilism of the existing order, at the same time its original impetus rejected an indifferent, massifying capitalism destructive of community and morality. In this spirit, it upheld hierarchy, authority, and tradition; opposed modern feudalism (corporate capitalism) and its verso, mob democracy (communism); privileged the centrality of family, community, and mutuality; and cultivated behaviors and social structures supportive of a communally-responsible, rather than an atomized, individuality.

In a conscious effort to re-engineer the character of the American people, the ruling Judeo-oligarchy has re-christened the republican component of traditional American identity the "American Creed" and has made it the sole legitimate basis of American nationality--as if being an American were merely a matter of subscribing to a certain liberal beliefs. Divested of its racial-cultural grounding, and the political responsibilities it once entailed, the liberal, cosmopolitan, and globalist implications of this so-called creed is now used to legitimize the multiracial pluralism that presently assaults the nation's European heritage. For at least the last two generations, the country's elites have waged a merciless war on the ethnonational interests of America's Whites, who are treated with "mingled scorn and apprehension" for hampering the country's transformation into an economically-efficient Brazil.

But if America for racial nationalists is preeminently a European country, it is--admittedly--also something less than Europe. As a settler nation, America was founded and remains, to use Georges Dumézil's term, a country of the "Third Function." Lacking the warrior and priestly functions of its motherland and centered on the productive/reproductive activities of the lowest order, the American people traditionally emersed themselves in economic and mundane activities devoid of high cultural possibility. It would be exaggerated, though, to claim, as certain Europeans have, that this emphasis on economics (with its accompanying values of hard work, self reliance, and technical efficiency) made Americans somehow un-European. A middle-class country of the Third Function, America materialistically thrived in the technoeconomic realm. This may have left its culturally-impoverished society of self-made men something less than Europe--but hardly un-European.

While the country's economic and materialist passions rendered its people vulnerable to the machinations of plutocrats and monopolists, bankers and corporate barons, and, above all, Jewish peddlers and illusionists, this, alas, has been the fate of White people worldwide. In America's defense it should be emphasized that until the postwar era, when the state and the dominant institutions fell into the hands of corporate managers, social engineers, and alien interests, its popular history was very much a history of struggle against economic powers, as these powers endeavored to subordinate the nation to those systemic imperatives threatening the economic self-sufficiency and biocultural identity of its large middle class. This is evident in the history of Jacksonian producerism, the nativism of the 1840s and '50s, the Confederate insurgency of the 1860s, the struggle against Chinese immigration in California in the 1870s, the populist revolt of Midwestern and Southern farmers in the 1880s and '90s, the bitter labor wars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the rise of the Second Klan in the 1920s, Father Coughlin's Social Justice movement in the 1930s, etc.

Though lacking an established church and an aristocracy (the First and Second Functions), even here the European racial spirit influenced the formation of the American nation. The yeoman farmers making up the ranks of the Minute Men who bloodied Britain's imperial troops at Lexington and Concord, the gentlemen warriors like Nathanael Greene, Anthony Wayne, and George Washington who led the revolutionary armies, the Anglo-Celtic frontiersmen and colonists of the Texas Revolution who triumph over much larger Mexican forces, the gallant Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson of the Confederacy, even George Patton of World War Two fame--all these figures stand in the tradition of European arms and are tributes not just to America, but to the warrior spirit of their ancestral homeland. Moreover, whatever high culture Americans have known has been European. Disneyland may be the contemporary emblem of America's culture industry, but its relationship to American life is as contrived as is Hollywood's. The composers, philosophers, and great artists animating the higher reaches of American life have always been European. The few great men of literary stature America has produced -- Edgar Allen Poe, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Henry James, Jack London, William Faulkner--belong to Europe's Pantheon and are recognized as such. Only an intellectual sleight of hand can justify the argument that the American people are not an organic (however culturally hybrid) expression of Europe's life-world.

Perhaps more to the point, the growth of the American republic ought to be seen as one of the great feats of modern history, for, from its origins as a small outpost on the outer edge of Western Civilization, it grew, in a remarkably short period, into a great power. Given the prominence of its Third Function, much of course was lost in this process, for America lacked the depths of its motherland, retained a weak grasp of history and tradition, and never developed a political class capable of sustaining its political ideals. Yet beyond the shallow, often philistine character this cultural paucity imparted to American life, the European settlement of North America represented an unprecedented manifestation of Nietzsche's will to power--an untamed life force--that transformed a vast wilderness into a flourishing extension of the European life-world.

Against those transatlantic critics whose grand pronouncements are based on their familiarity with Los Angeles or New York (both of which have ceased to be American cities), it needs stressing that no White nationalist fails to honor Europe or to distinguish himself from its heirs. His opposition to the New Class, war-mongering, and Zionist hegemonism of the country's deracinated elites stems, in fact, from his commitment to Europe's biocultural heritage. This heritage, as such, informs virtually every significant facet of the country's racial nationalism, whose broad historical contours will be examined in the next part of this series.

[Strengthandhonour]

kurwenal, I recommend that you read the rules&info and the FAQ. Stirpes is a forum for pro-European nationalists, not for "white" nationalists or American politics.
"We are alien to concepts like Pan-Europeanism, Aryanism, White Nationalism, or any other such constructs which may imply a loss of our individual national identities in favour of an homogeneous pro-European pseudo-identity or, worse, of an amorphous Internationalism based on pseudo-racial delusions. We are simply Europeans and Nationalists, regardless of distinctions in political ideologies and religions."

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by kurwenal

The American Nation

Little can be expected from a text which starts with a huge deception in its title. America is not a nation. For a nation to be there must be a long process of ethnogenesis followed by a degree of ethnic homogeneity.

Nothing even remotely similar takes place in America. Not even among the peoples of diverse [and more often than not confused] European origins.

Therefore, not even from the multiculturalist construct of "whiteism" is America a nation. Let alone in the reality, where an American is a Black, an American is a White, an American is an Indian, or anything in between those and many others.

by Michael O'Meara

Him again?

Author's Note: The following was part of a larger series of articles that was written for an audience of French "revolutionary nationalists" whose image of America is almost categorically negative. Its ostensible aim was to highlight the positive in the heritage we White nationalists claim.

This sounds similar to all those programmes to convince people that immigrants are acceptable and even good for us.

Congratulations! You have just become elligible for an affirmative action programme and integration grant!

But at a deeper level, it was also an effort to convince myself that America has not been a historical disaster for the White race.

Nah.. just a disgrace for Humanity.

In the United States, the closest thing to Europe's "new revolutionary nationalism" [...] is "White nationalism."

Or, in other words and being honest and realistic, there is nothing remotely close to Europe's National Revolutionaries in America.

Though a marginal force on the American political scene (theoretically deficient, fragmented into scores of tiny organizations, and with a greater presence in cyberspace than in the public sphere)

Americans..
For us the internet is a means. For you cyberspace is the goal.

it nevertheless wages the same fight as its European counterpart

Deceitful as the title of the text. European Nationalists fight for their preservation, for the preservation of their identities and for what is rightfully theirs.

American White supremacists do not fight for anything just but only project their irrational hatred on to others over the cyberspace.

There is nothing rightful in their claims as America is a Mestizo continent. Nothing wrong with that if it stays there.

Get real. The struggle of the European Nationalist people of any sign has much more in common with, say, the struggle of Native Americans (Amerindians) than with the internet rants of American, Australian or other White Nationalists.

on the most decisive issue, race, is considerably more advanced. In this spirit, it takes its stand with the "Old America" that is the counterpart to Bush's "Old Europe." It considers its people part of Europe's biosphere

Fine. And you will find in France numerous second generation non Europeans who also consider themselves Europeans or, as you put it, part of Europe's biosphere. So what?

and opposes not just the present Hebraicized administration in Washington, but the anti-White impetus of "the American century."

Present? Do I need to remind you that America is hebraicized at its foundations, and that White Americans have been instrumental to their encumbering since the times of the first colonies?

Fundamental to White nationalism is the understanding that, historically, America was not a melting pot, but a settler nation: hence a European transplant.

Just as much as the population of a prison is a transplant of a given society.

Its original settlers (all of whom were Protestant, but not exclusively Puritan or Calvinist)

Not exclusively, right. But mostly. In other words, Neo-Judaic at its foundations as I've said above.

may have had an ambivalent attitude to the Europe they left behind, but they had no intention of shedding their European being for the sake of mixing with races and cultures unlike their own.

The problem with these white-nutionalist texts is that the authors know how to bore the audience to death, telling nothing while pretending to be saying something, and going over and again on all these old and uninteresting stories..

Their identity as such was rooted in distinctly European life forms, which were opposed to those of the country's aboriginals and to its imported Black slaves.

Let us leave it in just low life forms, shall we?

Specifically, this identity was an Anglo-Protestant one adapted to the nativist environment of colonial America.

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. In fact the roots of White Nationalism. Or, rather, the transformed into White Nationalism since it is a losing option and now they think that they need all the descendents of those Irish, Germans, Italians, and others who they once denigrated and treated like scum. Not that they changed a losing option (WASP) for a winning one though. White Power is just the new losing option.

Etc., ad nauseam.

Realize that whatever long hours took this individual to write this apologetical piece of nonesense, it can be exposed in just a matter of minutes and over a few lines. Imagine what it could be done with it in hours.

But only in three words, and quoting the signature of one member of Stirpes, I'll tell you one huge difference between European Nationalists and American White Supremacists:

HERITAGE!
NO HATRED!

[Savage]

The North American nations are the Indian nations.




..or the Indian tribes, what remains of them. Sioux, Apaches, Navahos, Cheyennes, Lakota,...you name it, John Wayne

Their moral right to their land is the same as the claim on land in Europe, based on heritage and hundreds and thousands of years with holding the land, perhaps cultivating it, according to the owners own will.

The white USAmercains claim on the land are not based on heritage as in Europe. European nations claims are actually based on the same principe as the native american inheritants claim, on heritage, not on race.

So the white USAmericans struggle, and claim, are very different from European. Before I talk with a white USAmerican, I shall be assured that the one respects the original inhabitants of north America, the indians.

And USAmericans are considered scum, almost all over the world, referering to their infantile arrogance on other cultures, it would be more correct to say on cultures.

A blessing to the USA is the stream of illegal Mexicans, wanting to live in the same country as USAmericans. These "mex" are also considered of "less value" by white americans. I am sorry again uncle sam, I prefer these "mex", real people, that also general upholds good things as respect for traditions, care for their families, and will to work hard and even risk their lives and freedom to be a part of the "American dream", and to bring their beloved ones bread.

Of course there are asocial elements between the mex, indians, as it is among the ruling white trash. Anyway, I am on the indians and the mex side. Of course they should be treated with respect, and not "from up to down", as today among many white USAmericans. This is a childdisease, that white USA will have to deal with and overcome.

" We shall overcome..."

In short, USA have at certain levels extremly little to contribute with, it is generally spiritual a vacuum, in fact one of the poores and sparsest developed nations on the planet, compare it with Sierra Lone, Yemen, Burma and Haiti.

[Savage]

For white USAmericans, I know they have a difficult task. The formular used in Europe does however not serve their interests, it serves the original owners of the land, the indian tribes..

So white USAmericans must find a new way, new formulars for establishing a "nation" suited to their actual situation. And it is primary their own problem.

A nation are not primary the borders drawn up on the boyrooms in USA, often by "christian-" cowboy-"vikings" on methamph. The primary content of a Nation is invisible, and cannot be created, but creates itself during time.

The surfacial version of a "nation" is a hollow shell, without both the invisible content that signifies a nation, and the outer elements of history that weaves it together.

But I understand white americans search for their roots, and as there are plenty decent white americans, I also sympathize with their dilemma, and hope there shall be crystallized out a new formular that can grow to a nation for white USAmericans. Mex are white in my book. And the indians should have special rights as the original owners of the land. The asiatic and the africans has been there since USA was born, and have to a large degree contributed to build the country.

Sure, white man in USA, you got a problem....