America was founded on #WhiteIdentity (see 1790 Naturalisation Act), because the founders knew it would be difficult enough forging a nation from different European peoples (incl. Ashkenazi Jews) of the same race, & that trying to include other races was a no-no.
So why is the #ADL going against the wisdom of the Founders in promoting non-White, i.e. non-European, immigration to America & to the #WhiteWest in general?
They are not just promoting it, but demonising anyone who opposes it as a RACIST.
The answer to my question lies in a misconceived, #NeverAgain, response to the evils of Nazism & the Holocaust. A response which the ADL is especially active in promoting.
Many demonise the ADL, if not Jews in general, for their #AntiWhite stance, but not I, who understands it as a consequence of Jewish trauma at the hands of the Nazis.
Ashkenazi Jews are themselves White, i.e. of European heritage, so it is self-destructive of them too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
America's founders understood that it would be difficult enough cultivating a nation of different European peoples (incl. Ashkenazi Jews) of the same race, & impossible to include other races. Thus, in the 1790 Naturalisation Act, citizenship was restricted to Whites.
In previous tweets, I've referred to the "forging" of a nation, which was a mistake. Genuine nationhood can only be cultivated, not forged. America went wrong, most decisively through the Civil War, in seeking to forge a SINGLE, multi-racial nation, which is impossible.
What America should have done in 1776 was to form a confederation of different nations, facilitating their creation & peaceful co-existence. As it was, America just became a bigger, more powerful, clone of Great Britain.
I tweeted this almost a year ago & had since forgotten about it, but is worth retweeting, since it goes to the heart of what is rotten, not just in the state of Denmark, but in ALL states.
It is by demonising, manipulating & exploiting human tribalism that society's elites rule.
Why do the academics we look to as authorities on understanding society, the state & civilisation fail to recognise this?
Academics are privileged clients and employees of the state. That’s why.
It is of existential importance that academics themselves recognise this.
Who are these elites?
First & foremost, academics & those who passed through their hands at university & now have high-status & influential positions in society. To name just one of countless examples: #DavidAaronovitch, an eminent journalist who works for @thetimes & #TheBBC.
#RichardDawkins refuses to apply his expertise in evolutionary biology to understanding evolved human nature & the kind of societies it has given rise to, I presume because, like all academics, he is under massive pressure from colleagues in the social sciences not to do so.
The social sciences are modern, secular heirs & in some ways counterparts of the medieval clergy, more interested in controlling society than in understanding it, for which purpose they have created a modern, secular replacement for #OriginalSin, in the form of racial prejudice.
Human beings are inherently prejudiced about everyone & everything, making it an ideal replacement for original sin, redemption from which demands that one submit to state authority & ideology of post-racial #multiculturalism, DIVERSITY, Inclusion & #AntiRacism.
@j_dunkley I enjoyed watching your interview with @DrBrianKeating in the early hours of this morning, having woken up in my tent camped just outside Wareham in Dorset, using my phone as a hotspot, & thanks in no small part to physicists like yourself!
The natural sciences have progressed by leaps & bounds over the past few centuries. What has been discovered in my lifetime is mind-boggling. But alas, the social sciences are still trapped in a pre-Darwinian dark age, with a medieval understanding of society & the state.
This is why, unable to use DM, I'm tweeting you. You natural scientists know your stuff, & like the rest of us, trust social scientists to know theirs - only they don't.
The historian A J Toynbee observed that ALL successful civilisations ultimately commit suicide.
Historian A J Toynbee observed that ALL civilisations are either destroyed by a rival or ultimately commit suicide, which is what our own civilisation is currently doing.
Excuse me going on about this, but it is rather important, esp. in view of academic denial.
Academic authority is profoundly important, because presumed to be authoritative, as often it is, as in the case of #ClimateChange. But while some academic disciplines are on the ball, others are not, esp. those charged with understanding society, the state & civilisation.
That Western civilisation is committing suicide has been clear to me, & not a few others, ever since its growth-dependent, grossly materialistic, mercenary, rapacious, driven, & thus inherently unsustainable, economy was put into super-global & turbo mode in the 1980s.
I've known that Western civilisation is committing suicide ever since realising that instead of facing up to the existential need for a #SustainabilityRevolution, it was sticking with a mercenary, rapacious, DRIVEN & thus inherently unsustainable global economy.
We were warned in the 1970's & opted definitively for #CivilisationalSuicide when the economy was put into super-global & turbo mode in the 1980s.
There was nothing I could do, but look on in horror, & try to understand this madness, which I now do. But no one's interested.
How can anyone - esp. if they have young children or grandchildren - not be interested in the civilisation their future depends on committing suicide?
Simon & Garfunkel had the answer in their song, The Boxer:
🎶A man hears what he wants
to hear & disregards the rest🎶