1/ Why were we never taught this? Why is the story of slavery told only through the lens of White guilt?
The question lingers in every classroom, every textbook, every sanctioned account of the past.
In schools, in media, and in the official rituals of modern memory, slavery is not presented as a universal affliction, but as a uniquely White crime.
It is not portrayed as something native to the human condition, but as something unique to European history and identity, something for which all future generations must atone.
But slavery is older than Christendom. It is older than the modern West. It is older than any nation now standing. It is not a deviation from human nature, but an expression of it. The Assyrians practiced it. The Egyptians institutionalized it. The Persians and Indians codified it. African kingdoms enriched themselves by it. Muslim caliphates sustained whole economies on it. Slavery has existed since time immemorial, among all peoples and all cultures, not as an aberration but as a constant. The only historical distinction that belongs to Whites is that they abolished it.
What is never taught, what is actively erased, is that Whites were not only perpetrators of slavery but also its victims. In the seventeenth century, Whites were kidnapped from English port towns and Irish villages, shackled in ships, and sold in the West Indies. In 1627, over eighty percent of the 25,000 slaves in Barbados were White. The term “Barbadoesed” entered the English language to describe the practice of seizing the poor and sending them to die on Caribbean plantations. They were not apprentices. They were not settlers. They were slaves, often worked to death before they could complete the fraudulent terms of indenture.
Michael Hoffman’s “They Were White and They Were Slaves” documents this in relentless detail. English workhouses were emptied. Children were taken from city streets. Convicts and petty thieves were sentenced to a life of servitude under the pretense of justice. Political dissidents such as Jacobites, Irish rebels, and Scottish Highlanders were deported not to exile, but to bondage. The voyage across the Atlantic was brutal. Many never survived it. Those who did were put to work in the cane fields under a regime every bit as harsh as that endured by African slaves in later decades. Courts colluded with landowners to deny them release. Contracts were extended, punishments intensified, and many were deliberately driven to escape in order to justify lifetime servitude.
Further east, the trade in White slaves took on a different form but no less cruelty. From the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, Muslim raiders, operating with the support of Ottoman authorities, descended on the coasts of Europe. Towns from Italy to Ireland were sacked. Ships were seized. Christian men were chained to the oars of galleys, women sold into harems, children taken and converted, destined for a life of service as janissaries in the armies of the Sultan. In “Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters”, Robert Davis estimates that more than one million Whites were enslaved by Barbary corsairs between 1500 and 1800.
This was not piracy in the modern sense. It was state-sponsored terror. It was strategic. It was religious. And it persisted for centuries. In North Africa, European slaves were castrated, tortured, starved, and beaten. Some were kept alive for ransom. Most were not. Giles Milton’s “White Gold” tells the story of Thomas Pellow, an eleven-year-old English boy who spent twenty-three years as the personal slave of the Sultan of Morocco. His ordeal was not unusual. It was part of a vast and forgotten system of human plunder that targeted Whites for profit and humiliation.
Yet we are never asked to remember this. It does not appear in films, textbooks, or school plays. It does not serve the narrative of permanent guilt. That narrative requires only one story: the transatlantic trade in African slaves, and the moral burden assigned to every White child because of it. Every other account, every other truth, must be buried.
But memory is not a weapon. It is a foundation. To erase this history is to sever a people from their past, to strip them of the right to remember what shaped them, and to make them vulnerable to moral extortion and permanent self-denial. This essay does not seek revenge. It does not seek apology. It seeks to remember what was deliberately forgotten. Because only in memory does justice begin.
2/ Slavery in the modern imagination conjures the image of the plantation. Cotton fields, overseers, and the Black slave in chains. This image is not inaccurate, but it is incomplete, and deliberately so. Behind it stands an older, more expansive architecture of bondage, one that bound Whites in systems no less dehumanizing and far more common than most are willing to admit.
In colonial America, servitude was not merely a stage of life or a contractual hardship. For many, it was a sentence. The term “indentured servant” has survived, but the brutality it concealed has not. These were not apprentices learning a trade. They were prisoners, often seized without consent, sold for profit, and treated with contempt by those who knew they would never answer for their crimes. In “White Cargo,” the depth of this exploitation is laid bare. Children as young as eight were bound to labor. Men were branded like livestock. Women were raped with impunity. The law offered no recourse. A runaway could be whipped, shackled, or simply have years added to their term. Few survived the seven years on paper, let alone the endless extensions imposed in practice.
The story did not end with labor. Many of these so-called servants were convicts, deported en masse by the English crown. Others were Irish, caught in the aftermath of Cromwell’s campaigns or the Jacobite rebellions. Still others were swept from the streets of London, sold by “spirits” and press gangs, or traded away by their families for survival. In “Colonists in Bondage: White Servitude and Convict Labor in America, 1607–1776,” Abbott Emerson Smith outlines the sheer scale of this system. Between 1607 and 1776, tens of thousands of Whites were forcibly relocated to serve the needs of empire, stripped of rights, kinship, and future. The legal distinction between servitude and slavery existed mostly on paper. In reality, it was a distinction of vocabulary, not condition.
This was not a marginal phenomenon. It was a transatlantic enterprise, tied into English economic life and colonial expansion. The plantations of Virginia and the sugar mills of Barbados operated on the same logic that would later apply to African slavery: reduce the laborer to a cost, extract everything of value, and replace the body when it breaks. In the early stages, that body was almost always White.
Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire constructed its own system, less bureaucratic but equally ruthless. In “The Forgotten Slave Trade,” Simon Webb reveals the organized abduction of European Christians by Muslim powers, not as random raiding but as imperial policy. Corsairs, operating under the protection of local rulers, prowled the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts, taking entire villages captive. The devshirme system institutionalized the theft of children from the Balkans, converting them to Islam and raising them as janissaries. They became weapons of the state, torn from their families and trained to kill their own.
White slavery was not incidental. It was systemic. It was profitable. And it endured for centuries in silence. In North Africa, eunuch guards patrolled royal harems. Galley slaves rotted in the stench of their own waste, chained to benches until death. In England and the colonies, young boys died in coal mines, and women bore children only to see them sold into new terms of bondage. In both East and West, White bodies were consumed for labor, for war, and for breeding. The moral grammar of the modern world has no place for this history because it disrupts the carefully managed ledger of grievance and guilt.
But a ledger that omits half its entries is not a record of justice. It is a tool of control. And control, not truth, is the purpose of the modern slavery narrative.
3/ The past is not neutral, and in the modern world, history is used as a weapon, aimed primarily at Whites, the very people who conceived and codified the discipline of history itself. It is not recorded for the sake of truth, but shaped and deployed in the service of power. What is remembered and what is forgotten are never accidents. In the case of slavery, this is especially clear. The memory of Black slavery has become sacred, repeated in schools, museums, films, and national rituals. The memory of White slavery is treated as obscene. It is denied, suppressed, and buried. A handful of books may exist for those who search them out, but this history is not taught en masse to the public, not featured in major media, and not acknowledged by the institutions that claim to speak for history.
This is not a question of historical value but of political utility. In today’s moral economy, victimhood is currency. It grants access to influence, authority, and exemption. Groups that present themselves as historically wronged can claim compensation—material, cultural, and psychological—from those designated as historical oppressors. The narrative of Black victimization and White guilt is not sustained by truth, but by its usefulness in sustaining the ideological order.
Yet this narrative collapses when subjected to history. As Simon Webb shows in “The Forgotten Slave Trade,” White Europeans were enslaved by Muslims in far greater numbers, over a longer span of time, and with fewer surviving descendants to remember them. The Ottoman and Barbary systems of slavery were not only larger than acknowledged, they were more sadistic in method and longer tolerated by the global community. The Arab slave trade itself predates the transatlantic trade by centuries and outlasted it by decades. Slavery persisted in Muslim lands well into the twentieth century. And in sub-Saharan Africa, it never fully disappeared.
Michael Hoffman, in “They Were White and They Were Slaves,” makes the point even sharper. He documents how elite English and American voices, even during the height of Black slavery, reserved their worst treatment for Whites. The Irish were targeted for removal, not because they were foreign, but because they were expendable. English poor were cleared off the land, rounded up, and shipped abroad with the approval of aristocrats and industrialists who saw them as surplus. The rhetoric of “servitude” masked a reality of generational bondage. The law did not protect them. The system did not recognize them. And in many cases, their conditions were worse than those of Black slaves, who had market value and familial continuity. A White child in a mine or plantation was worth less than a mule. If he died, another could be taken in his place.
Despite this, the moral indictment remains singular. Only Whites are held responsible for slavery, as if they alone had practiced it. Only Blacks are granted permanent recognition as its victims, as if no others suffered. The asymmetry is not historical. It is strategic. It allows for a system in which collective guilt can be weaponized against one people, while collective innocence can be conferred upon another.
This inversion reaches beyond history. It distorts the present. In public discourse, even to mention White slavery is treated as subversive. To acknowledge it is to question the premise upon which modern guilt politics rests. That is why it must be buried. That is why remembrance is punished. Not because it is false, but because it is dangerous.
In truth, no other civilization in history ever abolished slavery. It was not guilt that compelled Whites to end the practice, but strength in its moral, cultural, and political forms, rooted in the deeper instincts of a people who valued order over cruelty and principle over profit. The British Navy hunted slavers across oceans. The Americans sent Marines to the shores of Tripoli. European powers, despite their internal divisions, imposed abolition on lands that had never questioned the legitimacy of slavery and would not have ended it on their own. This was not an act of moral collapse. It was an expression of civilizational will. And that, perhaps more than anything, is why it must be erased.
4/ A people cannot be shamed into submission unless they first forget who they are. To sever the thread of memory is to dismantle the foundations of pride, belonging, and resistance. In its place comes a moral mythology, one in which strength is treated as sin and the right to suffer belongs to others alone. This is not merely a distortion of the past but a political strategy in the present. It does not require overt censorship to succeed. It depends instead on consensus: on what textbooks exclude, on what films refuse to portray, on what silence allows to harden into belief.
When Whites are taught to remember only their power but never their pain, they are left without a moral vocabulary to explain themselves, much less defend themselves. They cannot speak of justice, because justice requires innocence. They cannot appeal to history, because their history has been reduced to a list of crimes. In this narrative, they are not the builders of civilization but its original sin. Everything they create is suspect. Everything they inherit must be surrendered. Their role is no longer to preserve but to atone.
Yet the reality of the past resists such simplification. The history of Whites is not a singular story of conquest. It is also a story of servitude, exile, and violation. It is the story of men and women who died in fields not as owners but as laborers, who perished in coal shafts and cane rows, who were sold across oceans, pressed into galleys, castrated in foreign courts, or reduced to breeding stock in lands not their own. These were convicts, peasants, orphans, political prisoners, broken not by war but by policy, and not remembered because their suffering cannot be used. Their very identity makes them inadmissible to modern accounts of pain. They were White, and thus invisible.
The forgetting of this past is not accidental. It is cultivated. Through omission and repetition, through inversion and shame, the civilization that once abolished slavery through moral effort and violent sacrifice is now portrayed as the engine of its invention. Those who broke the chains are remembered only as those who profited. The moral order is not expanded but reversed.
To sustain this illusion, the historical record must be selectively revised. The Quakers, praised as moral pioneers, are rarely remembered for freeing only their Black slaves while retaining their White ones. Charles Dickens, who gave voice to the suffering of Britain’s abandoned children, is remembered not for that but for a supposed indifference to distant injustice. Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” is honored for her outrage at slavery in the South, but her silence on the White servants in her own Northern household is never mentioned. Reform bills to protect young chimney sweeps failed in Parliament after the abolition of the African trade, not because no one knew, but because their suffering held no symbolic value.
These are not minor distortions. They are essential to maintaining a political order in which history becomes a weapon and memory becomes a tool of domination. They allow one people to inherit eternal grievance and another to inherit eternal guilt. They allow those who erase to pretend they are restoring. And they ensure that Whites have no ground left from which to speak, no past they are permitted to claim, no dead they are allowed to mourn.
But a people who cannot mourn their dead cannot speak in their name. And a people who cannot speak cannot defend themselves. And a people who cannot defend themselves cannot endure.
To remember is not to claim victimhood. It is not to replace one mythology with another. It is to restore what has been denied: the right to speak truth without shame, to recall suffering without permission, and to stand not as an accused but as a people. The abolition of slavery was not a universal moral awakening. It was the act of nations, of law, of European men who did what other civilizations refused to do. It was Whites who passed the laws, manned the ships, fought the battles, and imposed abolition across the world. The British Navy destroyed the corsairs. The Americans faced them on the shores of Tripoli. These same peoples, now condemned as moral pariahs, once carried abolition to the very edges of the Islamic world. That is not a legacy of guilt. It is a legacy of greatness.
And that is what must be remembered.
Not because we seek pity. Not because we demand reparation.
But because memory is the first act of defiance. Because history belongs to us, too. Because what was taken will be reclaimed.
Not in apology. In honor.
Not in shame. In blood.
A friend asked how he could support my work. If you've found value in what I write, here are two ways to back it:
Quaker radicalism didn’t emerge in a vacuum. To understand their self-effacing universalism and obsessive moralism, especially their modern anti-White orientation, you must trace it back to the earliest religious and ethnocultural foundations of the American experiment.
David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed is indispensable here. He identifies four major British folkways that shaped early settlement patterns. Among them, the “Peaceable Kingdom” of the Delaware Valley, settled primarily by English Quakers and German Pietists, is the most telling. These were not the Calvinist frontiersmen of the backcountry or the Cavalier planters of the Tidewater South. They were radical Protestant utopians, driven by an inner light, a belief in human perfectibility, and a deep hostility to hierarchy, coercion, and blood loyalty. They rejected inherited social orders in favor of abstract moral conscience.
From the outset, this made the Quakers ideologically predisposed toward egalitarianism, not just in spirit, but in law, culture, and politics. They opposed slavery, but also discipline, war, and anything resembling natural rank. Their idea of peace was not the peace of order, but the peace of surrender. Their need for moral purity turned inward, and then gradually outward, projecting itself as a crusade against all distinctions. What began as pacifism became cultural disarmament. What began as religious dissent became pathological altruism.
This is why modern Quaker descendants, and those shaped by their ethos, have become icons of social justice fanaticism. Not because they consciously hate Whites, but because their tradition teaches them to dissolve boundaries, to blur identity, and to elevate abstract humanity over particular loyalty. They are compelled to bear witness, even when that means celebrating the erasure of their own kind. The homemade cake comes with a lecture on open borders. The smiling pacifist conceals a moral zealot. They are not rebels. They are believers, firm in a creed that sees identity as guilt and history as something to be corrected, not remembered.
What we call wokeness is simply the Quaker impulse without God, repurposed for the managerial state. The inner light becomes institutional guilt. The cake remains, but the country dissolves.
In this sense, contemporary Western liberalism is not a departure from Christianity, but its afterlife. It is Christian theology without Christ, universalism without transcendence, repentance without redemption. It preserves the moral absolutism, the zeal for the outcast, and the sacrificial posture of the Cross, but empties it of divinity. What remains is not faith, but an ethic: a restless, moralizing, borderless creed that cannot forgive, cannot forget, and cannot stop until the last distinction is erased.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Professor Tenney Frank confirmed what Livy, Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus, Juvenal, and countless others knew millennia ago.
Rome’s decline began with racial replacement; everything else was merely its consequence.
Rome fell because it ceased to be Roman.
Civilization is shaped by many forces, yet its foundation is ALWAYS biological. It is the living soil from which culture rises, the inherited substance made visible in the world.
Change the people, and you change the culture; change the culture, and the civilization that rests upon it is transformed.
Is the Harare of today the same city that once stood as Salisbury, the capital of Rhodesia?
What is the underlying factor behind its collapse? Demography.
The city has been remade because those who now inhabit it are not the people who built it, nor the people who carried it through its years of strength and prosperity.
1/ In his most famous work, Politics, Aristotle shows that democracy and tyranny express the same governing principle. Both rule by flattery and elevate the weakest. Democracy relies upon on women and slaves; tyranny survives through the importation of foreigners.
2/ Aristotle writes that women and slaves “delight in being flattered” because they stand outside deliberative authority within the city. Their position is defined by obedience rather than command, participation rather than authorship of order. Drawn to rulers who substitute indulgence for rule, they respond to authority that reassures rather than directs. Where command withdraws, favor takes its place.
When authority no longer gives form to appetite, political influence ceases to follow judgment shaped by rule and experience. It gathers instead around those most responsive to praise and permission. Power thus shifts toward men who govern by accommodation, not because they impose order, but because they affirm desire. In such conditions, rule no longer elevates those capable of command, but those most easily mobilized by favor, and the character of public life adjusts itself accordingly.
3/ This inversion reaches the city at its root because authority is detached from ancestry and from the ordered succession through which rule is sustained over time. Those least capable of judgment are raised into power, while those formed within ancestral peoples shaped for command are restrained or rendered politically ineffective. Authority no longer follows inherited capacity refined through habituation, but drifts toward dispositions that are compliant and dependent.
Public life ceases to preserve the qualities required for durable rule and instead favors traits compatible with immediate control. The city no longer renews the lineages from which rulers must arise, nor does it transmit the habits necessary for command across generations. Weakness advances into authority, strength becomes a liability, and power maintains itself by suppressing the kind of men capable of replacing it. What presents itself as stability is in fact the managed exhaustion of the city’s ruling potential.
1/ “Man in his highest and noblest capacities is Nature, and bears in himself her awful character. His dreadfulness is the fertile soil from which alone all greatness has grown.” —Nietzsche
Let us consider the ancient Greeks and the excellence of their biopolitical order.
2/ The world of the ancient Hellenes, the Greeks, did not emerge ex nihilo from a vacuum. It was a continuation of what had come before, developing from older Indo-European traditions and merging with the early peoples of Europe, among whom kinship and ritual shaped the first structure of life. The Greeks then gave this inheritance a conscious form, turning what had been custom into reflection and creating a world in which descent and law became the foundations of order.
Alfred North Whitehead wrote that Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, and in a wider sense Western civilization, “civilization” being the key term here, begins with the Greeks. It was among them that the European mind first sought to bring life into accord with nature and to discern within existence the principles that govern man and the world.
Their political life, like that of all pre-modern peoples, was never abstract. It was the organized expression of necessity, shaped by the demands of survival and the discipline of inheritance. Power was understood as the means to preserve life, and life itself was secured through the unbroken continuity of descent.
The polis, the city-state, was born from the family, as the family was born from the necessity of reproduction and protection. Aristotle records that the household arose from the union of man and woman and expanded through the relation of parent to child and master to servant until it became the village and finally the city. The political community was therefore the natural enlargement of the household, an extension of biological and moral kinship.
The city carried forward what the family had begun, ensuring the passage of life and estate, the keeping of ancestral law, and the remembrance of those from whom its order had descended. The citizen was not a faceless entry in a meaningless voter register but a living participant in the common life of the polis. The Greek word idiotes, from which “idiot” derives, referred to one who lived only for himself and took no part in the affairs of the city. The true citizen was his opposite, bearing the blood of the founders and sharing in the duties that sustained their order. The civic life of Greece rested on this continuity of ancestry, without which there could be neither culture nor state.
Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges later made explicit what the ancients themselves took for granted. In “The Ancient City,” he explained that the earliest political institutions were born from the religion of the household. The hearth, the ancestral tomb, and the domestic cult were the first sources of authority. When many households gathered beneath a common altar, the city arose as a sacred extension of family life. Aristotle described the process by which the polis grows naturally out of the household, and Fustel showed that this natural process was also a religious one, for it united the living with their forebears in an unbroken order of memory and obligation.
3/ The principle of descent defined citizenship at every level, and it was the ancient Greeks who, like in so many other things, first codified what we now take for granted in the Western conception of the citizen. Herodotus, in his “Histories,” described the Hellenes as men “of the same blood and speech, who share the same temples and sacrifices, and the same customs.” In this understanding, ancestry and worship, language and custom formed a single unity. To be a citizen was to belong to a people bound by descent and by rite. The polis was not an artificial creation imposed upon men but an organic expression of inherited being.
Athens and Sparta embodied dual sides of this Greek Welthanschauung in distinct form.
During the Athenian Golden Age, the great statesman Pericles expanded participation in public life while restricting citizenship to those born of two Athenian parents. Equality was confined to those who already belonged by birth. The freedom of the city depended upon cohesion, and cohesion required the preservation of ancestral descent.
Civic order rested on ancestral patrimony rather than residence or belief. This law reflected the Athenian understanding that their democracy, unlike the modern system of mass enfranchisement, could exist only within the bounds of a shared people. At its height, less than a tenth of the male population held the honor of citizenship. Generosity within the polis required a clear sense of who that people were, and correspondingly, who they were not. Foreign skill and commerce were welcomed, though always with caution, yet the political life of the city remained an inheritance guarded by those of Athenian blood. In this balance between openness and exclusivity, the Athenians preserved both the integrity of their laws and the continuity of their kind.
Sparta gave this principle a harder outline. The laws attributed to the Dorian lawgiver Lycurgus forged a people shaped by martial discipline and selective breeding. The Spartiates were citizens by birth and warriors by vocation, their lives ordered toward service to the state. They were forbidden from commerce, manual labor, and the pursuit of luxury, for such pursuits were thought to corrupt character and weaken resolve.
Their existence was one of perpetual preparation, devoted to strength and the defense of the common good. Education began in infancy, when the weak were set aside, and continued through a regimen that bound each man to the polis through the discipline of the agoge. The women were trained for strength and composure, for the bearing of healthy offspring was regarded as a sacred duty. Every institution, from the household to the army, for the army was the body of citizens, served the same end: the preservation of vigor and constancy of spirit. Through this unity of purpose, a small and austere people maintained their independence against powers greater in number and wealth.
Religion gave visible form to the same foundation. Each city revered its ancestral gods, whose worship was bound to the life of the people. The civic altars rose from the hearths of the household, and the festivals that gathered the citizens were acts of remembrance joining the living with the dead. The Olympic Games expressed this same spirit on a broader scale, uniting the Hellenes in celebration of shared descent while excluding the foreigner. To compete in any of the four great Panhellenic games was to be recognized as Greek by blood. The exclusion was not an act of hostility but of reverence and delineation, for the festival renewed the sacred kinship of those who shared a common origin and destiny.
This same bond of origin guided the Greek resistance to Persia. When the invasion came, the consciousness of shared blood and faith gave the Hellenes a unity stronger than empire. The stand of the Spartan king Leonidas at Thermopylae and the Athenian-led victories at Salamis and Plataea preserved more than territory or power. They defended a way of life founded upon descent and courage. Herodotus saw in these deeds the triumph of men who knew themselves as a distinct people and refused to vanish into the anonymity of empire.
1/ America was conceived and carried out as an ethnonational project.
It was a Republic built by Europeans for their posterity, the continuation of their people and their civilization on new soil.
Not an idea, but a people made sovereign.
Let us discuss.
2/ The absurd notion that “America is an idea” is one that we hear often. It is peddled by the self-hating and the resentful alike, repeated by those too narrow of mind or too governed by ethnic interest to confront the plain historical record.
It has become a creed for the deracinated within and the alien now among them, a false consolation for those who refuse to see that nations are born of blood and soil, and of the will of a people conscious of who they are and of their destiny.
The line of attack usually proceeds along familiar lines.
It is said that America is a political and moral project founded on abstract principles such as liberty, equality, individual rights, and self-government. From this premise, it is concluded that anyone who professes belief in these ideas may become fully “American,” irrespective of ancestral identity.
This argument, of course, is not historical but philosophical in character. It is what may be called Creedal Universalism, the most pervasive of the myths that sustain the “idea” interpretation.
Creedal Universalism presents America as a proposition, an abstraction, divorced from the people who created it. It asserts that the Republic should be defined by principle rather than lineage, that allegiance to an ideal replaces the bonds of kinship and heritage.
It is an a priori doctrine, that is, derived from theory rather than experience, born from the Enlightenment’s rational philosophy rather than from the lived reality of a people.
In this view, America’s founders become apostles of a universal creed, and their nation only the first vessel of a global moral enterprise.
It is a moral argument, not a historical one, for it speaks of what America should mean rather than what it was, and still is.
Its purpose is plain: to detach American identity, born European and forged White (ethnogenesis), from its ancestry, and to make belonging a matter of sentiment rather than birthright.
3/ The second and nearly as common claim may be called the Immigrant Nation Mythology: “we are a nation of immigrants.”
It is not philosophical but narrative, appealing to emotion rather than reason, and built upon a shallow reading of history; a confusion of the immigrant with the settler, of arrival with creation.
Here the story is told that America has always been a “nation of immigrants,” that its true purpose was to transcend the limits of race and origin, and to serve as a universal refuge for all mankind.
The Founders are recast as imperfect apostles of diversity, men whose racial prejudice is acknowledged only to magnify the supposed nobility of their universal vision. Thus the narrative preserves its own contradiction: the Founders are denounced as racists, yet credited with conceiving a nation meant for everyone.
Settlement and conquest are presented not as the work of a people creating a continuation of European civilization upon new soil, but as moral failings to be redeemed through inclusion, a sin to be eternally atoned for. The Republic’s European foundation is treated as a temporary stage in a broader human drama, a prelude to the arrival of all peoples.
What began as a historical reality, the transplantation of Europe itself across the Atlantic, is retold as a myth of perpetual arrival in which immigration becomes a sacred rite of renewal.
This view gained strength after 1965, when the old demographic order was dismantled and diversity was enthroned as the new civic faith.
The absolute degeneracy of the modern West captured in a single scene.
An Afghan invader, scheduled for deportation months ago, sexually assaults a young Irish girl while living in luxury at public expense.
The so-called “refugee center” where he is housed is in truth a commandeered hotel in the heart of Dublin, packed with over two thousand foreign men of fighting age, fed, clothed, and sheltered by the very people they are displacing.
The state imports these men, parades their “diversity” as virtue, and compels the native population to fund its own subjugation through colonization and slow demographic extinction.
The parasite contributes nothing, produces nothing, yet is held up as a symbol of progress while the native Irish are told that resistance is not only hateful but illegal.
Outside, the people finally rise, and the police, funded by those they oppress, form a cordon around the invader’s quarters, defending not Ireland but the treachery committed against it.