You think you live in a free country. The United States is some unique and historically transcendent place, where out of nothing arose a great and powerful country without precedent or parallel. Your rights and liberties are more precious to you than any other people on earth and no government is more respectful of those innate possessions than your own. In terms of politics, the United States of America has never experienced the dark episodes of wicked and oppressive governance that have plagued other nations. It can’t, because it is exceptional. Your government is elected, so it would be impossible for it to do anything so terrible and destructive to its own constituents as, say, forcibly and permanently displacing them in the name of utopian goals. We have nothing to learn from the past except that we are better than it. We are a proposition nation of ideas, not one of heritage and history.
This is the whig mindset that leads many otherwise smart people to reject concepts like occupation government or the White genocide meme at face value. Detractors frame these as conspiracy theories, which mentally associates them with all sorts of crankery. Admittedly, the Alt-Right takes a bit of poetic license in describing these phenomena at times, but rhetoric aside, they express important truths.
The first of these truths is that of hostile governance—most Americans do disapprove of Congress, but does that indicate its malevolence? This is a relative question of course, for if one believes the government acts against his interests, then that government is seen as adversarial at best and a mortal enemy at worst. And if this government is so egregiously against the majority of the population, despite its claims to be an instrument and representation of the people, then it follows that some anti-majoritarian clique must be occupying it rather than rightfully possessing it. Occupation government is quite simply rule by a hostile elite pursuing interests contrary to those governed. And hostile elites pursuing interests contrary to those of their charges have been around for a long time.
This then carries over to the second “conspiracy.” I prefer the term White minoritization, though I understand where promoters of the White genocide meme are coming from. If every year you went into a forest, cut down an evergreen tree, and planted two oak saplings, is that deforestation? Is it evergreen genocide? Well no, right? Won’t the forest be bigger (and better) in the future? This is the root of the tension over the meme—replacement masks destruction. There are more trees in the forest than ever before, but is it in the best interest of an evergreen forest to be replaced with an oak one? Possibly for the owner of the land, but certainly not for the evergreen trees. They get wiped out. The owner has his own agenda regarding the kind of forest he wants, one totally different from what would be in the Darwinian interest of the evergreens.
That’s a good analogy, in my opinion, of what’s happening. Most population growth in the United States has come from the planting of new trees, from non-white immigration. There is no campaign of extermination, just the promotion of conditions which render it unnecessary. As the White population shrinks in proportion to the growing non-white population, it can’t quite be called genocide in the ovens-and-concentration-camps sense, but in the long run it will of course lead to the ousting of Whites from their geographic niches. This is a consequence of policy, and therefore it can be rightly said that the US government works against the White interests of self-preservation and posterity. For us to become a minority—an experience we are constantly told is horrible and oppressive—is not in our interest. We want to thrive and avoid such harms. Such interests are inherent to a people or any living being, so for the government to oppose them implicates it as run by a hostile elite.
It is an observable phenomenon that ever since the 1965 Immigration Act, or (((Hart-Celler Act))), undid 200 years of eurocentric immigration policies, the US government has continued to support a variety of measures which in practice (if not explicitly in declaration) make the country less White each year. The United States was nearly 90% “non-Hispanic White” in 1960; now we’re down to almost 60%. Those who advocated for the abolition of our national origins-based immigration system said it wouldn’t change the ethnic composition of the United States. Now their successors say that change was a good thing. And their successors will say the United States has literally always been a non-majoritarian diversity cornucopia. If these people have their way, there will come a day when the average “American” thinks the country has always been 25-25-25-25, White/Black/Latino/Asian.
Whenever you hear politicians or business leaders praise the values and virtues of diversity—which always means less White people—they are declaring their support for this process. When they talk about the morals and goodness and industriousness of immigrants, they are referring to a class of people who are overwhelmingly non-white and whose numbers are growing. The ruling caste loves this. Some, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have the nerve to give speeches literally celebrating the end of the White majority. Others like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush are more nuanced, simply saying immigrants have “better families” than we do. This is a hostile elite. They are planting a new forest, not stewarding the existing one. We must ask why.
Third Worldism as the Religion of the Ruling Caste
The US government opposes the existence of a White majoritarian society, and it makes little effort to hide this. System sycophants can of course protest that this is not the case at all—that the government is just promoting equality and diversity, and that opponents of equality and diversity (and immigration, legal or illegal) are racists and bigots—but the result is still less White people. That’s what actually matters, the result. And if you care about that, you are treated like a two-headed person at best, or a terrorist at worst. If you want to save Tibet from population replacement by the Chinese though, then that’s very upright and good of you.
Framed in terms of genocide, replacement sounds conspiratorial because there is slim official acknowledgement of the desired impact for these policies to have on the European American population. Very, very few people in power go on the record explicitly calling for there to be less White people, and when they do it gets little coverage for obvious reasons. That Whites are becoming a minority is acknowledged as a fact and lauded as progress, but it is not overtly called for. President Barack Obama hasn’t said he wants to see less White people around; it is only noted that there will be less of them and that such an outcome would be good. But if we talk of demographic change in terms of holy diversity and sacrosanct equality, our greatest qualities as a nation of immigrants that is open to anyone who wants to come here and make a better life (especially those from the global south who outnumber Europeans by billions), suddenly things sound very different.
And familiar. Did any bells go off? If you’ve ever been through higher education, watched basic cable, joined the armed forces, had a white collar job, worked for a large corporation in any capacity, read an op-ed in major newspaper, or really interacted with any mainline institution in the United States, you’ve almost certainly been trained to celebrate diversity. Trained by those in power that to embrace and adhere to this belief system is the path to moral enlightenment and social mobility. This does not sound like a call for genocide at all but rather a religious vocation, a cause to be taken up.
Pursuing diversity is a righteous goal that only nasty and brutish people of rude inclinations oppose, such as rednecks, blue-collar Whites, or other lower-middle class people of European descent. The eloquent and charismatic Obama is a champion of diversity, is he not? Who in their right mind is opposed to there being less White people? And diversity is good for the economy too! You can actually sell Homo oeconomicus his own slaughter, for the last man has no ambitions beyond compliance.
Language has both the power to enlighten and obfuscate, but no matter what we call this, it means Whites becoming a minority. Academically this radical racial shift is referred to as the third demographic transition—the demographic cliff nearly all White countries have plunged off as their fertility rates sink below replacement levels (2.1 children per woman). At the same time, the share of foreign-born and non-European peoples in White countries is hitting record levels. What can be the end result of this if not a world where Europe and the Anglo countries become non-white, while Africa remains African and Asia remains Asian? This is an issue no government wants to formally address and something they won’t have a conservation about with their constituents. But it matters to these governments, as they’ve enacted policies that promote the third demographic transition. Therefore they must be held accountable for the consequences.
Maybe this still sounds crazy to you. What kind of government would go out of its way to replace its own native-born people with outsiders, and for what purpose? I would say any government that is motivated to and not prevented from doing so. In our case the motivation is the ideology of third worldism—the belief that people of color and their interests are morally superior to those of Whites. And there is no prevention, because outside of the government, all of its personnel feeders in the business, media, and academia spaces are on board with third worldism as well. Diversity is their credo, and celebrating diversity is their equivalent of going to church. The leader of a religious service is sometimes called the “celebrant,” by the way.
Third worldism became the dominant paradigm of the left, replacing class during the overlapping decolonization and Cold War eras. White political control over the colored world was seen as morally wrong, and it wasn’t long before White political control over the (currently) White world became morally wrong as well. This baseline of anti-Whiteness evolved from the Puritanism of old New England and from cultural marxism—the postwar brand of marxism associated with the ((((Frankfurt School)))—which won the battle for control of the institutions (the left dominates schools, media, pop culture, etc.) while capitalism/democracy/neoliberalism won on the map (collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR). In other words, liberal democracy won a political battle while marxism won a metapolitical war. Some on the right were cognizant of this during the 1980s and 90s, bemoaning the “culture war,” but they were completely routed because they gave battle on the left’s terms. And the left’s terms were that any sort of White ethnocentrism was wrong, while non-white ethnocentrism was righteous.
What we call “the left” as a shorthand has hegemonic influence. Its cultural marxist paradigms about race, religion, gender, sexuality, hierarchy, justice, and morality are totally ascendant as a result of decades of accelerating “progress.” It is impossible to name a single culture war issue which the mainline right and nominal adversary of the left—movement conservatism—hasn’t folded on. It can’t furnish a principled opposition to it, because it isn’t opposed to it on principle.
If you keep professing to believe in equality, how could you oppose it? Everything is ultimately the same (equal). Gay marriage, for example, is now a conservative value because to privilege heterosexual monogamy and the nuclear family would be inegalitarian. Not matrimony, but sodomy is a sacrament of the established church. Transgenderism, the current cause célèbre of the left, is not far from being adopted on the mainline right. Mestizos are lauded as “natural conservatives” by mainline Republicans despite their voting Democrat by a large majority. Conservatives want the illegal population of 11-30 million mostly mestizo migrants to be made into full citizens with voting rights even though they will vote Democrat. Because after all, it would be wrong to side against brown people.
Liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians in this country adopt so many of the same core values in the end, it is a wonder anyone bothers to distinguish them. And all are typically third worldists—all love appealing to diversity and expressions of equality. Yet we still get nominally distinct political parties—like any elite, ours have their own internal disputes that lead to factionalism. Economic policies, trade agreements, and levels of military spending are something to bicker over, but what binds them together is their commitment to the civil religion of third worldism. Both left-neoliberals (Democrats) and right-neoliberals (Republicans) hate nationalism, as we are going to see increasingly made more explicit on both sides of the Atlantic.
In the United States, the third worldist paradigm is perhaps best highlighted by the cliches that “Diversity is Our Greatest Strength,” the “white privilege” meme, and the insistence that “All Lives Matter” is a colorblind and therefore racist statement. Yes, if you believe All Lives Matter, rather than specifically those of a single grievance-mongering tribe (Black Lives Matter), you are a racist. This might sound odd, but keep in mind that much of academia, subscribing to theories of anti-whiteness, believes that non-white people cannot be “racist” because they “lack privilege and power.” So from this set of ideas, it is obvious that a White person trying to be inclusive towards all people by dropping racial markers in proclamations of equality and social justice is in fact an evil racist.
Because it was never about equality. It was about the primacy of color, third worldism. Someone who refuses to acknowledge this is a heretic all the same as someone who actively rejects it. And it is our true strength as Americans that we are are an ethnically diverse (less White) country. Once we have a colored majority, the evil spectre of racism (White political power) will finally be extinguished. This is essentially what our leaders tell us.
For third worldists, racist is a marker used to identify diversity heretics, White skeptics. A racist is someone who rejects third worldism. Always keep this in mind and pay attention to who is saying it to whom.
The Influence of Idea Systems on Society
The ideas a society organizes itself around matter as much as its genes and environmental conditions. In the past, they often merged with religion or were wholly contained inside it, though contemporaries don’t like to think of their “beliefs” as religious. Self-identifying progressives (third worldists in practice), for example, are disproportionately atheist relative to the rest of the US population, and would scoff at the idea of there being a progressive “religion.” But their deeply held ideology is far from being the first post-theist ism to claim an organizing role in society (and one which ironically functions as a 1:1 substitute for religion).
It was not always believed that the purpose of our society was to uplift people of color and sexual minorities. Certainly the Founding Fathers did not believe that. Nor did the Puritans who landed on Plymouth Rock. Nor did the English aristocrats who settled the tidewater South. Nor did the Scots-Irish who headed out into the frontier to homestead on Indian hunting grounds. Well, maybe some of the Quakers of the Delaware Valley did. Undoubtedly, the German, Irish, Scandinavian, Slavic, and Italian immigrants to the United States brought varying levels of ethnocentrism with them and did not see non-Europeans as objects of moral reverence. For most of our history, we did not assume that having in-group interests was wrong.
How people view cosmic order and their own role in society, as well as the roles of others, highlights the importance of ideas—be they divine or manufactured. Ideas are what mark entire eras off from one another: e.g. Classical, Medieval, Early Modern, Modern, Interwar, and Postwar. And often we can associate religions (Pagan, Catholic, and Protestant) or ideologies (rationalism, fascism, cultural marxism) with these eras. We can expect a society then, where people have certain ideas, to reflect those ideas in practice and not just in theory.
Third worldism, as an idea system, shapes the West. It reigns politically and metapolitically. You can find it anywhere from affirmative action policies in the multinational corporate and academic world, to refugee resettlement programs in the American Midwest, to California’s “sanctuary cities,” to the H1B1 visa programs that directly recreate 19th century coolie labor (importing Chinese and Indian migrant workers), to permitting gang-rapes of British girls by Pakistani men out of fear of being labelled racist for investigating them, to the attitude France takes towards mass migration from its former colonies in the Afro-Islamic world. (States like Algeria were granted independence as European-excluding nation-states while France adopted a sort of ethno-pluralism and multiculturalism veneered with linguistic supremacy).
In any conflict between Whites and non-whites, we are obligated to lose, anywhere on earth. Especially on immigration, housing, and freedom of association, all of which are necessary to maintaining a European-majority society. We are told to tolerate the harmful demographic effects of mass immigration such as terrorism and crime, the building of (non-white) public housing in (White) suburbs, and “anti-discrimination” measures that target Whites, because otherwise we are racists.
And of course, we are told that diversity is inherently good, to the point where people are often incapable of defending it when pressed. Name benefits of it other than food and music? The better question would be why you are even asking that question. It’s a dangerous one. It divides people!
But how could the government have the audacity to do this—morally disenfranchise an entire population as heretical and bigoted inferiors, and then attempt to replace them over time for ideological reasons?
How could our elites hold quasi-religious attitudes so vastly distinct from and antagonistic towards the majority group?
How did third worldists come to rule White people?
And how are they able to get away with it?
The best way to explain the fundamental struggle of our times, I think, may be through historical allegory, because sometimes the facts of the matter are just not enough to sway people.
The Ulster Plantation
If you’re Irish, British, interested in the ethnography of Appalachia, or well-versed in European history, you have probably heard of something called the Ulster plantation, which is a pretty good example of what I am talking about. Ulster is the northernmost region of Ireland, and unlike the rest of the island, most of it remains part of the British state. Northern Ireland is Britain today because of 17th century policies giving confiscated Irish land directly to British (English and Scottish) colonists and undertakers, following the violent conquest of the island. In other words, it was a part of Ireland not merely ruled by British people, but one which they sought to make British through colonization and mass migration. It is thus entirely possible for a hostile government to impose its will over a people and territory with the intention of subjugating them through state-sponsored demographic change, especially when its religion or ideology is institutionally privileged and backed by a monopoly of violence.
Plantation, quite simply, has been done before with fairly good success, and without being labeled a conspiracy. Elite Protestants cooperated to displace Catholics in Northern Ireland. Now, plantation was a kind of conspiracy, as it involved a clique of dedicated men working together to achieve a goal that was broadly opposed. In the original Latin, the word conspire simply means “to breathe together,” which has mutated to the current negative connotation of plotting (against), and to the frequently misused label of “conspiracy theory,” used to shut down criticism of the hostile elite’s actions. That it was not done in secret doesn’t make it any less sinister, but suffice to say the label of conspiracy theory for claims that Whites in the West are being demographically displaced is hugely inaccurate.
What follows will be a brief overview of the history of the Ulster plantation, given in the hope of providing context to our present disaster. The planning, execution, and legacy of plantation, I think, should dispel any notions that the European nationalist narrative of what is happening to the United States is a crank conspiracy theory. This stuff has been done before, and no one alive then would have called you crazy for thinking it was happening. What makes our situation different is that our elite mainly speak in euphemisms about what they are doing, and their victims have been taught to support it and to suppress their own ethno-centrism.
I must insist though that this not be treated as a rigorously balanced and nuanced narrative of Irish history, because it is neither my goal to write an academic history here nor am I allotting the space necessary to perfectly capture it (moreover, is such a thing as balanced Irish history possible?). You can find that elsewhere, and while I think more people should study Irish history as an example of what we want to avoid happening to ourselves I am indeed a polemicist. My intention is to draw attention to the phenomenon of state-sponsored demographic change—plantation—that combines the pen and the sword, and how it is driven by ideology.
The planting of Ulster, or the Ulster plantation, is an odd euphemism. In American history, when we think of plantations we imagine vast agricultural holdings worked by African slaves (and White debtor-slaves) to produce cash crops for export. But the original English usage of the word plantation was much closer to the Roman colonia, a settlement of transplanted soldiers and their families in a conquered province. It was about planting metropolitan people in a colonial territory to better integrate it and bring it under state control. By changing the identity—ethnic and religious—of a territory to conform to the dominant identity, in theory colonizing removes one of the biggest pretexts for rebellion. Resettlement makes the territory easier to govern as the population should be more loyal. It also satisfies a righteous moral duty one might feel, perhaps to God, to Progress, or to Civilization itself.
Making Ulster British and Protestant rather than Irish and Catholic was thus in the government’s rational self-interest. Making America diverse (non-white) must be in someone’s interest as well. Governments don’t enact policies for the hell of it.
The Ulster plantation had the long term success of Anglicizing the most Gaelic part of Ireland, and secured the loyalty of the province. To give the most recent example of this, Northern Ireland today remains so wedded to Britain that its more Protestant counties voted in tandem with England and Wales to leave the European Union while the Catholic-leaning ones voted to remain, leading to a majority leave vote. The metropolitan policy prevailed in the North, just as it prevailed in last century’s referendum on which Irish counties wanted to join an independent Catholic-majority Ireland.
The Making of Northern Ireland
The Ulster plantation was a place, an event, and a process that lasted decades. I have to start somewhere, so it shall be the Nine Years’ War (1594-1603). In short, the Gaelic chiefs of Ulster, led by Hugh O’Neill revolted against England following the Tudor conquest of Ireland, which itself followed centuries of sporadic warfare between the Gaels and the Normans. The Irish defeat led to total English control of all Ireland and the imposition of English feudalism—ending the patchwork of English landlords, towns and castles surrounded by Gaelic chiefdoms—which sharply curtailed the Gaelic elite’s sovereignty and landholdings. Unable to accept this new order, in 1607 the chiefs and their retainers due to both local rivalries and Crown intrigue exiled themselves from Ireland to mainly Spain and France, in what is known to historiography as the Flight of the Earls. This was followed by another failed (and punished) Gaelic chiefs’ rebellion under Cahir O’Doherty. Ireland was thus devoid of native elite and leadership, as its ancient families were living abroad in the courts of Catholic Europe hoping to find backers for their claims, imprisoned, or dead. And with their lands no longer directly held, there was now a power vacuum to be filled.
Under English law, the Gaelic chiefdoms were forfeited and much of the land in Ulster passed directly to King James I of England (who was also King of Scotland and began the process of their unification). James was neither Irish nor Catholic, and it is safe to consider the (Protestant and English) Crown that reigned over Ireland and its appendages (such as the nobility and the Church of England) a hostile elite relative to the Gaelic-speaking Catholics (who were Ireland’s majority until the Great Famine). Within the context of modern Europe, this is common sense—Protestants and Catholics had little tolerance for one another and were often violently opposed. Plantation occurred in the same century as the Continent’s savage Thirty Years’ War after all. Notably, James was not particularly fond of the Gaelic Scots either, considering them almost as savage as the English regarded the Irish. But the Irish were doubly objectionable to England, as both Gaels and Catholics, both barbarian and papist.
Thus Ulster came under the possession of a foreign hostile elite both in terms of sovereignty (ruled by the king of England) and local land ownership (directly owned by the king of England). But the feudal system didn’t really allow for the Crown to personally hold such vast tracts of land indefinitely, nor was it advantageous for the king to be the absentee landlord of Ulster, having much more important duties as the ruler of all England, Scotland, and Ireland. And as Ulster’s local aristocracy had been destroyed, a new one had to be created for feudalism to work. This presented an opportunity to restructure sovereignty in Ulster, tabula rasa style.
Thus, it was decided to parcel Ulster out in the form of land grants to English and Scottish people drawn from James’s supporters and soldiers, speculators, undertakers who were obliged to bring over British tenants, the (Anglican) Church, investors in London, Trinity College Dublin (Anglican), and others, while a measly tenth of the land would be granted to obedient local Irish nobles. In doing so, the hostile elite in London created a hostile sub-elite of sorts in Ulster, and affected demographics by planting English and Scottish settlers to displace the native Irish. This would create both horizontal and vertical loyalty in the long-run.
In 1610, James set plantation into motion, which would have consequences lasting to the present day, namely a Protestant majority in Northern Ireland that identifies as British and wants to remain separate from Ireland. James’s government had in its official proclamations wanted the native Irish expelled from land grants not held by Anglican church or Irish collaborators. Nominally, the Scottish and English landlords were obliged to evict the Irish within two years, replace them with British tenants, and fortify their holdings with castles in three years. Most of Ulster would then be ethnically “British” in less than a generation, creating a union of James’s two favored kingdoms, England and Scotland, in the third, Ireland.
This didn’t materialize consistently at all. While the Gaelic chiefs had been exiled, many natives forcibly displaced, hundreds of Irish footsoldiers deported to Sweden, and others turned to banditry in the hills and bogs, the Irish were not wholesale expelled from Ulster. The narrative that they were, relying only on the intent of the Crown and not what happened in practice, is patently false, though there was still a great metapolitical loss in addition to political and territorial. Most of the Ulster Irish were retained as tenants of the new hostile elite, but they had lost their leadership caste, indigenous legal system, and the primacy of native language and religion in their own homeland. The peasantry were no longer kinsmen of their chiefs and ruled by their ancestral clans, but thralls of foreign hostile overlords and local collaborators.
Fast forward a few decades and ethno-religious war returned once more to Ireland. From 1639-1653, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms took place in England, Scotland, and Ireland, ending with the removal of the Stuart dynasty from the throne and the ascension of a Puritan republican government headed by one Oliver Cromwell. In Ireland, roughly four factions fought one another at some point or another during the wars, all products of the convoluted system of English rule. Representing Catholic Ireland were the so-called Confederates, a merger of the Old English (descended from pre-Stuart English Catholic settlers) and the Gaelic Irish, while their primary enemies were Cromwell’s parliamentarians, Irish Protestants, and Scottish covenanters (Presbyterians in Scotland and Ulster). In the lands of the Ulster plantation, the Irish and British sides massacred one another and committed reprisals. It burned a lasting fear of the colonized Irish into the minds of the Ulster planters.
You may have noticed that the Irish Protestants, Cromwell’s (English) parliamentarians, and the Scottish covenanters are disaggregated in these wars, despite their natural affinity as non-Catholic British people. That is because diversity was not their greatest strength. Planting both the English and Scots in Ulster had not yet successfully integrated the province into Britain at that time. The Ulster Scots sided with the Scots against the English parliamentarians (who were Puritans rather than Presbyterians), and against the Catholic Irish. They all fought one another.
As you might have guessed, the English parliamentarian faction won and Cromwell executed Charles Stuart. All three kingdoms were merged into one parliament. Ireland was finally pacified in 1653, and a tenth of the population is estimated to have died. Over 30,000 Irish soldiers went into exile, again in mostly France and Spain. And around 12,000 were deported to the English Caribbean as slaves. The war radically altered direct landholding in Ireland, and as a result of Cromwellian policies almost 90% of the land was owned by non-Catholics by 1660 while before the wars it had been mostly held by Catholics (not all of Ireland had been planted like Ulster was).
The parliamentarians could not pay their veterans in cash, so they created a land bank from the Irish conquest. Only the western province of Connacht was set aside for natives, like an Indian reservation. Hence the saying, “to hell or Connacht.” In fact, today it is mostly along the west coast that one can still find monoglot Gaelic speaking communities. Because the island was poor and remote relative to England, most soldiers did not want Irish land grants and often sold them to wealthier Protestant landlords in Ireland, further enriching the established hostile elite that governed the island.
Later in the 17th century, the infamous Penal Laws would be passed, severely limiting the autonomy and religious freedom of Catholics, as well their ability to participate in cultural, economic, and political life. This came after the almost total destruction of their indigenous aristocracy. It left the Irish at the mercy of a conquering hostile elite, who stripped them of their ancient land and made efforts to eradicate their culture. The Ulster plantation brought all of these currents together into one program, one with a lasting legacy.
So to recap, the British government—collectivized at the time as the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in personal union under the Stuart dynasty, and later the Cromwellian protectorship—after costly rebellions in conquered Ireland sought to decouple the Irish from Ulster (and Ulster from Ireland) by settling it with Protestants from Britain. This plantation had the long-term result of creating a “Northern Irish” identity built around loyalty to the British government, Protestantism and anti-papism, and of retaining most of the province of Ulster as an integral part of the British state (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Most Protestants there identify as British and not as Irish.
Long after Britain became ethnically de-nationalized in the postwar era as a multicultural state, the Northern Irish remained staunchly attached to a tribal identity that no longer mattered to their metropolitan cousins, that of the British Protestant. This identity, clashing with that of the Irish Catholic, most recently flared up in the 1970s-1990s in a conflict over those most timeless of issues, land and politics. And naturally, ‘the Troubles’ were resolved in favor of the ruling majority and Northern Ireland remains part of Britain.
To reiterate, plantation was so successful that the values of the mother country at the time of plantation have better survived in the colony than the metropolis. The Ulstermen are more British than the British themselves, in a sense. This in a land where settlers had a long history of “going native,” whether Danish, , Norman, or pre-Reformation Scots and Englishmen.
The agency of plantation rested in the hands of a staunchly anti-Catholic and anti-Gaelic hostile alien elite who acted almost 400 years ago to make sure the lands they conquered in Ulster would become non-Catholic and non-Gaelic, thereby joining them permanently to their patrimony in Britain and making them easier to govern. The split between Anglicans and Presbyterians was ultimately overcome in conflict against Catholics. And for all its ‘Troubles,’ Northern Ireland has certainly been easier for the British to govern than all Ireland. Britain finally ceded those Irish provinces after centuries of conflict and wars that at times decimated the Irish population by the double digits, as well as costing British blood and treasure.
Due to sheer Protestant numbers in Northern Ireland, the power of the British state and military, and the weakness of the Irish Republic and its renunciation of claims to the North, there is credibly speaking no threat at all of Ulster being violently overtaken by the Catholic Irish and separated from Britain. None. Even the threat of terrorism has been almost entirely defused, and terrorism to be sure is a small price to pay for avoiding open warfare. The Ulster plantation, even with its ups and downs that I have omitted, continues to be a success and a lasting legacy of the anti-Irish elite who ruled the province beginning in the 1610s.
The Judeo-Saxon Plantation of America
So how does this relate to the United States? Well, as I wrote earlier, the United States is governed by a hostile elite and functions as an anti-white entity pursuing policies that will minoritize the White population within our lifetimes. White children are already a minority and Whites overall will become a minority in the 2040s. If nothing changes, this almost certainly ensures that the electorate will be White-minority in less than a century, making it impossible for any sort of pro-White government to be elected. We’re being planted by third world settlers and their Judeo-Saxon undertakers. WASP elites and overseas Israelis—and people who have assimilated to their worldview—are the greatest champions of liberalism, anti-racism, diversity, mass immigration, and globalism; and they form the priestly caste of third worldism. Are Hillary Clinton and (((George Soros))) not ideological, political, and economic bedfellows?
There is an ethno-religious component to the American plantation, just as there was in Ulster. Much of the government and most of our institutions are in the hands of this elite brahmin caste who follow the syncretic civil religion of third worldism, which is of Jewish-Calvinist origins. They are analogous to the British planters of Ulster who ascribed to Protestant supremacy, except far worse. Their attachment to moral preening, compulsion towards social signaling, attitude of victim-glorifying righteousness, love of commerce, neurotic fear of the folk, and contempt for dissidents echoes throughout our media, academia, and political culture with a fiery zeal towards purging the people and cultures which are deemed to produce “authoritarian personalities” and “racist” heresies.
It is from their hatred for the goyish provincial folk dwelling outside of the coastal strongholds of New York-Washington and California, the populist and isolationist Amerikaners, that this hostile Judeo-Saxon elite supports White minoritization. It is morally good for them to ensure we are replaced, just like Gaelic Catholics were something to be replaced by English and Scottish people living in the towns and pales of settlement in Ireland and Ulster. They passed the (((Hart-Celler Act))) in 1965, converting the United States into a plantation. An immigration policy open to the world means the country will soon resemble the world, not a national community but one of anomie.
The Ascendancy hates and fears us, even though we pay its taxes, serve in its armies, and run and sustain its managerial state. We are to be broken electorally, politically, morally, socially, biologically, economically, and culturally as a force in the United States to prevent another Irish rebellion or Holocaust. It has been decided in practice that a multicultural and alienated Anglophone Brazil is preferable to the risk of White nationalism. And in such a society, Judeo-Saxons could retain their upper caste position more easily, since folkish Whites—the only existential threat to their power—would be a minority.
This is eerily similar, in my view, to the British domination of Ireland and the Ulster plantation. Hostile elites usurped Ulster from its native ruling caste and then planted it with foreign settlers, who came to constitute a majority that still consider themselves British. We may soon be dealing with a similar outcome, as our third-worldist Judeo-Saxon elites plant us with people who in no time at all will very much consider themselves loyal third-worldists, adopt the English language, participate in the system of governance, loyally work the land and the cubicle for their masters, and ensure the world’s most powerful Empire remains firmly in their hands for perhaps centuries to come. They will wave the flag and come to redefine what it means to be an American. And we will be made to watch from the bogs, played off against one another as collaborators are given scraps and dissenters are cast out. Weimerica will be a country of strangers in a strange land, and we will be the most alienated of all.
We have our own Penal Laws to follow as well. Freedom of association among folkish Whites is illegal through anti-discrimination and disparate impact legislation, and one can be denied most forms of formal and profitable employment for refusing to swear the oath of diversity. We don’t need test acts or popery acts because these are enforced through custom by civil society. Racists, or those who reject third worldism, are hated indigenous tenants of the American plantation.
The story of the Ulster plantation and the integration of Northern Ireland into Britain is not just a grievance to be blindly nursed by Irish ethno-nationalists against Britain or memed by Irish-American ethnic snowflakes while a larger specter haunts all of Greater Europe. It is a case study and cautionary tale of what happens if we lose within the next few decades. You really only get one lifetime to turn these sorts of things around, and when you lose, you lose hard. Plantation took decades in Ulster but has lasted centuries.
Quite frankly, it will be a brutally difficult and herculean task to ever become sovereign again as a people if America is successfully planted. State-sponsored demographic change by a hostile elite is not new and it has a proven track record of doing irreparable damage. It is a multi-pronged assault of both soft power and implied hard power, and represents the dominant role the left plays in America’s metapolitics. If diversity is our greatest strength, then who is that we? “Less White people” is not our greatest strength as White people, not any more than the Protestant Ascendancy was the greatest strength of the Catholic Irish. It is the creed of the invader and his settlers. Anyone who takes their side is a traitor and a collaborator, and deserves whatever he gets when the spring finally snaps in the shopping mall with a gay disco in the basement that we call America.
We did not conquer a continent for this.
Quite simply, the elite running this “country” want new serfs. They don’t like us. Arguably they never did. Whether gazing out from a Norman castle, a great Southern manor house, or a Manhattan penthouse, they’ve preferred that their labor force have no Faustian spirit, no quarrelsome demands for autonomy, and no unity. Their intermingling with the Jews hasn’t helped our position any more than it did in the Middle Ages or the colonial era. They brought the Negro here. They now bring the H1B1 and the illegal, making a mockery of the statutes of the “Constitution” they tell us to revere. They feel safer with this labor, and it saves them money. One could view all American history as a struggle between the European peasant and the paranoid aristocrat, who having joined forces with the Jewish financier now seeks to create a utopian plantation. One where diversity miraculously maintains stability and eradicates the threat of national awakening.
When we are told our society is just a “nation of immigrants” or the product of waves of immigration, and that those narratives are the reason why we cannot criticize immigration, we are being sold an institutional justification for what the elites are doing, by the elites themselves. And these elites by the way, never try to “deconstruct” blackness, Asian identity, or Hispanic identity. No, it is only Whiteness which is a problem (and which also apparently doesn’t really exist since various European immigrant groups to the United States were at different times not welcomed as equals in this country). Are we to believe that because in the 1890s WASPs did not like Italians or Irish people that White people have never really existed and do not exist in the current year? Are we to believe that we do not exist? Because if we do believe that, well that would be really convenient now wouldn’t it? It would be convenient for the largest potential opposition group to White demographic destruction to believe it didn’t actually exist in the first place. It would be extremely beneficial for them to be atomized and alienated from one another so they never form a front against the Judeo-Saxon planters and their third world helots.
We will never forget what has been perpetrated against us. We will never forget the world’s most powerful Empire. We will never forget our valor and our splendor. We will never forget the conquest of a continent, the building of a new Rome, or landing on our own moon. We will never forget our Destiny. We will keep you up at night, watching the countryside from your windows and nervously petitioning the Leviathan for a bigger garrison. We will hold fast and defeat you, because you will ultimately leave us no choice.