Consider, for a moment, the French. I know, I know, I can’t stand them either, so I’ll keep this consideration limited. Specifically, think of their government. France was ruled for roughly a thousand years by kings. Starting in 1789, they attempted to create a republic, but being French, ended up with an authoritarian empire. In between the fall of the ancien regime and the rise of Napoleon, proto-libtard assfucks like Robespierre sent thousands upon thousands of innocent Frenchmen to their deaths and attempted to destroy the Catholic Church and replace it with the worship of “Reason.” Presently, the frogs have an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic republic. What’s my point? Through the entire journey over the course of a millennium, they remained French. They spoke French, they stayed Catholic, they kept the same bad manners and kept not bathing. No matter what the laws were or who made them, the French were and at least for now still are the French.
What about America? If we’re honest, we have not had a republic for nearly a century. When Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve, he effectively turned control of the country over to an international banking cartel. As Mayer Rothschild said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws.” Maybe we’re an oligarchy, maybe a kleptocracy, or a plutocracy. Yet despite this, and despite wave after wave of immigration from the 1850s through the 1920s, the American people retained their culture. How did they accomplish this? There are several factors. First, actual Americans had the financial and political power, and getting a share meant immigrants had to buy in. Secondly, Americans believed America was great and had confidence in their culture. Third, Americans had the birthrate to maintain a country. Fourth, certain groups who actively work against America were not present in large numbers. Lastly, as the old saying goes, there is a lot of rot in a country. It took a long time to get from the Federal Reserve to the point where healthy immigration restrictions were removed in 1965, and quite a stretch from that point to the damage to the racial and cultural composition of the country which we see now.
Immigration in the past was very different than it is now, though there are similarities. As far as differences, in the past it wasn’t easy for the immigrants. Some people like to whine about how hard their ancestors had it. Let me be clear: if your ancestors felt uncomfortable because Americans didn’t like people acting unAmerican in America, good. And fuck ‘em if they complained. There was pressure to succeed and assimilate or get the fuck out. Most people don’t realize that roughly half of all immigrants from Italy to the United States went back, and Ireland allowed the descendants of those who left during the Potato Famine a generous right of return. Americans insisted on American culture.
And yet, despite all of this, we still celebrate St. Patrick’s Day (also known as Amateur Drunks Day) and watch movies about the mafia. Despite all the pressure on immigrants to assimilate, and despite the total lack of any sort of welfare state, despite government crackdowns on immigrant criminal scumbags like Sacco and Vanzetti (who were absolutely guilty), we still hear shit about “Irish Pride” and “Sons of Italy.” Here, immigration in the past is very much like immigration now. The idea that immigrants from cultures completely foreign to the West, coming in massive numbers to a generous welfare state that enables them to outbreed the Americans paying for it, with constant, easy access to the Old Countries, are ever going to assimilate or actually “become American” is insane. Even if we used the strategy Alfred the Great used on the Vikings and forced immigrants to speak English and interbreed with the native population, we wouldn’t have enough Americans to pull it off. Rather than absorbing, America would be absorbed.
Now consider America as of July 3rd, 1776. Were the people very different culturally than they were the next day? No. How about after the treaty of Paris? Probably not. Washington Irving’s opinions to the contrary considered, Americans were Americans.
Let me ask the question, then: do we need Democracy to be American?
Americans were at once pious and impudent, prone to government intrusion but scornful of such intrusion, freedom-loving and slave-owning. Above all, Americans jealously guarded their Natural Rights. So long as those rights are protected and vigorously defended, does it matter if that defense comes from a king, or must it be a republic? Is our court system any less corrupt, less overreaching, or less arbitrary than a king? Do all people need to vote? These are questions that must be asked and answered. We are coming to a point where we have to decide, once and for all, who is American, what that means, and how Americans will be governed. As a Virginian once put it, “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The Republic got converged. Whither next, my fellow Americans?