Pretty good article. I think you'd get a lot out of deeper study into the ethnic enclaves that founded this country, and how they later changed it to better fit their unique ethnic consciousness. The book "American Nations" by Colin Woodward is a good book on his arena, but he's kind of a libtard. Sectionalism Archive in his "Yankee in King Davis Court" mentions something I think you'd find interesting too.
Davis specifically said the civil war was caused by the South largely being settled by Norman Cavaliers and Scottish Jacobites with the North mostly being settled by Anglo Roundheads. Something you said about the Irish and Italians not totally fitting in, it made me think about this.
Why did the Irish eventually meld? Where did the Italians mostly set up shop? What of the Slavs, and how do they relate to this land that's different to Anglos? What of the Scots, like myself, who have been here from the start? The French and Spanish?
I often think of the industrial era Germans, some of whom brought over "Uber-liberalism" and other outdated liberal notions from that era.
America has at least 4 or five foundational ethnos within our nation, maybe more. We are like Great Britain in that sense.
Celts eventually molded into the fabric of America via interbreeding & because Celts really aren't very genetically dissimilar from Germanics anyway. This is compounded by the fact that English is an almost 50/50 mixture of Anglo-Saxon & native Briton. America actually has an even higher portion of Scots/Irish because the founding stock Americans came from areas closer to Wales & Scotland. The biggest hindrance to Irish assimilation was really Catholicism, which faded with importance over time.
The Italians are much further removed are actually still heavily focused around NYC (Ellis Island) to this day.
That Davis quote is genetically inaccurate, but is true in spirit. It is true that the South was originally populated by people from northern England (near Scotland) while the North mainly came from further south, but this is more of a cultural phenomenon than truly separate genetics. Southerners often identified more with the ruling aristocracy than the general peasantry of England, hence the talk of Cavaliers & Gallantry in the South.
Slavs barely exist in America, even today. It's a minor ethnic group that never saw significant amounts of immigration, virtually none before the latter half of the 1900's. Like the Greeks, you can track them via the hotspots of Orthodox churches.
I agree with your last statement, America has an almost identical founding ethnos as Britain. The only exception is the heavy Scandi/German influx around the MidWest. They brought some odd ideals from Prussia, which was centralizing around their socialist state at the time, but I think this was fairly minor. Especially because they didn't congregate into enclaves like other ethnic groups, their concentration in the MidWest is due to the virtually nonexistent population when they first settled. Same reason Mormons are so prevalent in Utah.
To elaborate on that theme of geographic settlement in America, it’s easier to say that the South was settled by westerners than northerners. The lowland, coastal South received most of its white settlers from Wales, Cornwall, and southwestern England in general. The classic southern accent is basically just a derived Cornish accent. Also Georgia received a lot of London poor as a philanthropic colony (an experiment which badly failed, and Georgia had to transition out of it into something more like the Virginian model). This settlement was characterized by a large body of poor white indentured settlers, led by a small body of the most elite gentlemen to move to America.
By contrast, the inland, upland South, and later Appalachia and the Ozarks, were settled by Anglo-Scotsmen from the Anglo-Scottish frontier and Ulster. Their legacy has heavily impacted American culture and our ideas of westward expansion; we get country music and cowboy culture from the Ulstermen and Border Reivers.
Up north, the Mid-Atlantic states were settled by Midlands-dwellers, especially Quakers, with a large amount of Germanic settlers from Sweden, the Netherlands, and lowland Germany to supplement their population.
New England was settled almost exclusively by Puritans from East Anglia and its surrounding counties in southeast England. They weren’t quite as elite as the southern Cavaliers, but their population displayed a surprising degree of all-around eliteness and impressive status. Poor people weren’t really moving to New England until the Irish arrived in the 19th century.
Also, not relevant to America, but I'd be interested in hearing your views on Canadian nationalism, national socialism, and their own national genesis. Would be a good read, even if you didn't have much to say.
I don't touch on Canadian nationalism, outside of White nationalism, because I fail to see Canada as anything other than Anerica's hat. Nothing against Canada or her people, I just have no idea what cultural & historical factors they faced to set them apart. Even visiting they just seem like New Englanders lol
I mentioned Slavs earlier partly because I've read a good amount of them settled in Canada, obviously earlier so did French.
The only parts of Canada I've been through are the North East. I have an interest in the geography and history of cape breton and Nova Scotia, but Canada hasn't ever interested me much. I know they have somewhat of a history with NS, but I've never looked into because like you I've always viewed Canada as the beaver hat of America and little more.
Your ideology given this piece intrigues me. National Socialism, but in a small government sort of way. I suppose at that point you'd just drop the Socialism part. Not to be a Conservatard, but Socialism=Big Government isn't too much of a stretch. How do you see it?
Socialism originally referred simply to "public ownership of the means of production." Grandiose ideas like equality or even welfare came much later, mostly with Marxism from which we get the modern definition of socialism. NS gets its 'Socialism' from this, because the people are the state (Volkstaat) & the state has authority over the MoP.
Funnily enough, I support basically the same framework that Germany (& its contemporaries) had. That is, little intervention in the market beyond guiding lines & ensuring the 'market' doesn't overpower the government. When needed, the private sector can be nationalized to an extent for some purpose or another, which is already common today in the military industrial complex & fully during wartime.
Essentially, the state gets the final word. If faceless corporations overstep, especially if they are "transnational," they need to be brought back under control or dissolved. Only a handful of companies/industries have ever achieved this much power & influence, so it would be of minimal impact to the bulk of individuals.
I should also point out that corporations are not people, so at a certain point standing against a corporation is less like limiting individual freedom & more like regulating another sort of government.
I sympathize. I don't think I'd have any problems with libertarians if they weren't so keen on muh free market. I also can't help but think that their libertarianism comes from a place of cowardice.
Pretty good article. I think you'd get a lot out of deeper study into the ethnic enclaves that founded this country, and how they later changed it to better fit their unique ethnic consciousness. The book "American Nations" by Colin Woodward is a good book on his arena, but he's kind of a libtard. Sectionalism Archive in his "Yankee in King Davis Court" mentions something I think you'd find interesting too.
Davis specifically said the civil war was caused by the South largely being settled by Norman Cavaliers and Scottish Jacobites with the North mostly being settled by Anglo Roundheads. Something you said about the Irish and Italians not totally fitting in, it made me think about this.
Why did the Irish eventually meld? Where did the Italians mostly set up shop? What of the Slavs, and how do they relate to this land that's different to Anglos? What of the Scots, like myself, who have been here from the start? The French and Spanish?
I often think of the industrial era Germans, some of whom brought over "Uber-liberalism" and other outdated liberal notions from that era.
America has at least 4 or five foundational ethnos within our nation, maybe more. We are like Great Britain in that sense.
Celts eventually molded into the fabric of America via interbreeding & because Celts really aren't very genetically dissimilar from Germanics anyway. This is compounded by the fact that English is an almost 50/50 mixture of Anglo-Saxon & native Briton. America actually has an even higher portion of Scots/Irish because the founding stock Americans came from areas closer to Wales & Scotland. The biggest hindrance to Irish assimilation was really Catholicism, which faded with importance over time.
The Italians are much further removed are actually still heavily focused around NYC (Ellis Island) to this day.
That Davis quote is genetically inaccurate, but is true in spirit. It is true that the South was originally populated by people from northern England (near Scotland) while the North mainly came from further south, but this is more of a cultural phenomenon than truly separate genetics. Southerners often identified more with the ruling aristocracy than the general peasantry of England, hence the talk of Cavaliers & Gallantry in the South.
Slavs barely exist in America, even today. It's a minor ethnic group that never saw significant amounts of immigration, virtually none before the latter half of the 1900's. Like the Greeks, you can track them via the hotspots of Orthodox churches.
I agree with your last statement, America has an almost identical founding ethnos as Britain. The only exception is the heavy Scandi/German influx around the MidWest. They brought some odd ideals from Prussia, which was centralizing around their socialist state at the time, but I think this was fairly minor. Especially because they didn't congregate into enclaves like other ethnic groups, their concentration in the MidWest is due to the virtually nonexistent population when they first settled. Same reason Mormons are so prevalent in Utah.
To elaborate on that theme of geographic settlement in America, it’s easier to say that the South was settled by westerners than northerners. The lowland, coastal South received most of its white settlers from Wales, Cornwall, and southwestern England in general. The classic southern accent is basically just a derived Cornish accent. Also Georgia received a lot of London poor as a philanthropic colony (an experiment which badly failed, and Georgia had to transition out of it into something more like the Virginian model). This settlement was characterized by a large body of poor white indentured settlers, led by a small body of the most elite gentlemen to move to America.
By contrast, the inland, upland South, and later Appalachia and the Ozarks, were settled by Anglo-Scotsmen from the Anglo-Scottish frontier and Ulster. Their legacy has heavily impacted American culture and our ideas of westward expansion; we get country music and cowboy culture from the Ulstermen and Border Reivers.
Up north, the Mid-Atlantic states were settled by Midlands-dwellers, especially Quakers, with a large amount of Germanic settlers from Sweden, the Netherlands, and lowland Germany to supplement their population.
New England was settled almost exclusively by Puritans from East Anglia and its surrounding counties in southeast England. They weren’t quite as elite as the southern Cavaliers, but their population displayed a surprising degree of all-around eliteness and impressive status. Poor people weren’t really moving to New England until the Irish arrived in the 19th century.
Also, not relevant to America, but I'd be interested in hearing your views on Canadian nationalism, national socialism, and their own national genesis. Would be a good read, even if you didn't have much to say.
I don't touch on Canadian nationalism, outside of White nationalism, because I fail to see Canada as anything other than Anerica's hat. Nothing against Canada or her people, I just have no idea what cultural & historical factors they faced to set them apart. Even visiting they just seem like New Englanders lol
I mentioned Slavs earlier partly because I've read a good amount of them settled in Canada, obviously earlier so did French.
The only parts of Canada I've been through are the North East. I have an interest in the geography and history of cape breton and Nova Scotia, but Canada hasn't ever interested me much. I know they have somewhat of a history with NS, but I've never looked into because like you I've always viewed Canada as the beaver hat of America and little more.
Views on the Svenskameri?
Your ideology given this piece intrigues me. National Socialism, but in a small government sort of way. I suppose at that point you'd just drop the Socialism part. Not to be a Conservatard, but Socialism=Big Government isn't too much of a stretch. How do you see it?
Socialism originally referred simply to "public ownership of the means of production." Grandiose ideas like equality or even welfare came much later, mostly with Marxism from which we get the modern definition of socialism. NS gets its 'Socialism' from this, because the people are the state (Volkstaat) & the state has authority over the MoP.
Funnily enough, I support basically the same framework that Germany (& its contemporaries) had. That is, little intervention in the market beyond guiding lines & ensuring the 'market' doesn't overpower the government. When needed, the private sector can be nationalized to an extent for some purpose or another, which is already common today in the military industrial complex & fully during wartime.
Essentially, the state gets the final word. If faceless corporations overstep, especially if they are "transnational," they need to be brought back under control or dissolved. Only a handful of companies/industries have ever achieved this much power & influence, so it would be of minimal impact to the bulk of individuals.
I should also point out that corporations are not people, so at a certain point standing against a corporation is less like limiting individual freedom & more like regulating another sort of government.
This was a really good read. Well done.
I sympathize. I don't think I'd have any problems with libertarians if they weren't so keen on muh free market. I also can't help but think that their libertarianism comes from a place of cowardice.
Facts
Also jews
You drew that flag?
Maybe? It was deep on my camera roll from years ago, probably a shitpost from some discord server lol.