The Money (((Masters)))

   

The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America
Source: http://www.themoneymasters.com

THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned “central” bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers.

The success of the central banking scheme developed into a far-reaching plan described by President Clinton’s mentor, Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley, “to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank….sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the levels of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”

Several short-lived attempts to impose the central banking scheme on the United States were defeated by the patriotic efforts of Presidents Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren and Lincoln. But with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, America was firmly lashed to the same yoke, so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses a yoke little better than slavery itself. That yoke inevitably grows heavier with ever-compounding interest, and totals over $20 trillion of debt owed by the American people today ($80,000 per American) ultimately to these bankers.

This vast accumulation of wealth concentrates immense power and despotic economic domination in the hands of the few central bankers “who are able to govern credit and its allotment, for this reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of the economy so that no one dare breathe against their will.”

Segments: The Problem; The Money Changers; Roman Empire; The Goldsmiths of Medieval England; Tally Sticks; The Bank of England; The Rise of the Rothschilds; The American Revolution; The Bank of North America; The Constitutional Convention; First Bank of the U.S.; Napoleon’s Rise to Power; Death of the First Bank of the U.S. / War of 1812; Waterloo; Second Bank of the U.S.; Andrew Jackson; Abe Lincoln and the Civil War; The Return of the Gold Standard; Free Silver; J.P. Morgan / 1907 Crash; Jekyll Island; Fed Act of 1913; J.P. Morgan / WWI; Roaring 20s / Great Depression; FDR / WWII / Fort Knox; World Central Bank; Conclusions.

View the documentary in its entirety directly below.

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
-Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
– Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
– Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“…The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”
-James Madison

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
-The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
-Abraham Lincoln

“The death of Lincoln was a disaster… There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots and the bankers went anew to grab the riches. I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America and use it to systematically corrupt civilization.”
-Otto von Bismark (1815-1898), German Chancellor, after the Lincoln assassination

“Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands.”
– Theodore Roosevelt

Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote:

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
-Woodrow Wilson

“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
-Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
-Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.”
-John Kenneth Galbraith (1908- ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975).
—————————————————–
The documentary above is outstanding, overall, and I am sincerely grateful to all those who contributed to its research. I only wish that more would have been said in the WWII segment concerning the successful economic reforms which took place under Adolf Hitler. I am naturally aware that this is an unpopular subject in the mainstream, of course; but by failing to adequately explore the issue of National Socialist Germany’s debt-free national revival, as well as the foundation of its stable currency against the gold standard, the primary causes of WWII are sure to remain misunderstood. Nevertheless, you can study the matter in greater detail HERE and HERE, and I hope that you will. Until Hitler’s economic revolution is understood, the establishment’s artificial excuses for that terrible war will continue to be used against us. I trust critical thinkers to review the information available here and elsewhere and make up their own minds. -W.

In Defense Of "Losers"

By Aedon Cassiel

Originally, I had planned for this essay to be a response to Jack Donovan’s still relatively recent essay, “Why I Am Not a White Nationalist.” However, I’ve decided that this essay would work better if thought of as an extended discussion of a couple of the topics raised by Donovan’s essay, rather than as another open letter response aimed at Donovan himself. In part, this means it will only address a fraction of the things Donovan actually said.

Beyond the Buddy System

For the most part, the subtext of these arguments was not really “why I disagree with the premises of ethnonationalism” so much as it was “why I don’t personally want to buddy up with everyone who identifies as a White Nationalist.” Since Donovan’s entire political philosophy now appears to be “cracking open a cold one with the boys in the woods,” it makes sense why he would implicitly muddle the distinction in this way between what one’s political philosophy is and who one would like to buddy up with.

I don’t have to be ‘buddied up’ with everyone I want to form political alliances with. Indeed, the inability to form and negotiate political alliances with people who aren’t pals and bros is a kind of weakness. And it is a kind of weakness that will be bred out of the world by evolution, because groups that are capable of this will inevitably dominate groups that can’t. If the United States government were to turn against the Wolves of Vinland and try to wipe it out of existence, how long do you think the Wolves would survive? I think it would be reasonable to bet they wouldn’t last a week. And why is that?

It’s because the United States government is a larger entity than the Wolves. And the United States government is a larger entity than the Wolves because membership in it is based on shared dedication to common principles and goals as well as consent to the hierarchy of an overarching command structure—not whether or not everyone who joins the U.S. government wants to buddy up with each other. The U.S. government’s capacity for domination of fringe groups like the Wolves is, in and of itself, proof that political alliances built out of principle and extended hierarchy rather than “buddying up” will trump isolated, small–tribe “groups of buddies” every time.

In light of this, Donovan should ask himself why he’s in favor of forming groups of “buddy-based” tribes in the first place. Whatever answers he gives for why individuals should network together to form tribal groups will probably end up being the same exact reasons why those very tribal groups should network together to form larger political blocs.

I say this truly—I really do respect the inner core of the anarcho-primitivist instinct. If I had the choice to live in a thoroughly anarcho-primitivist world, I would be tempted to take it.

But in reality, the inevitable course of events is that tribes will either network into political blocs that grow to the scale of governments, or else they will be dominated by whatever other network of tribes manages to do so first. For a historical analysis of this aspect of the relationship between tribal warfare and the formation of ordered civilizations throughout history, Ian Morris’ War! What Is It Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots gets my highest possible recommendation. In short, this is the scenario that repeats on an endless cycle all over the world: individuals form into tribes, and these tribes either grow to the scale of governments that eventually rule over the other tribes—or else they end up dominated themselves because some other tribe built itself up to that level first. Like it or not, one’s tribe either “dominates” or grows to become “dominated.”

But as far as Jack Donovan personally goes, there isn’t much left for argument on this point to prove. Either a time will come within Donovan’s lifetime when his tribe needs a more extended network in order to protect itself against outside assaults from activist enemies ethnonationalists share in common—or there won’t. Either ethnonationalists will be organized enough to be able to usefully offer this kind of protection at that time—or they won’t. Either Donovan’s disavowal of the most crude “skinhead” types in the movement will help shift the Leftist bullseye off of his back, even if it doesn’t remove it completely—or it won’t.

Either way you go, these are all inconclusive predictions of the future; this is not a case where we can pontificate and produce “proof.” In the meantime, all any of us are doing is building our own personal projects while discussing them with our often separate, sometimes overlapping followings . . . and all of us, in our own ways, are ultimately trying to prepare for civilization to collapse. Should the collapse set in within our lifetimes, we’ll just have to see who makes it out given however the general situation will have changed by that time.

And on that point, there really isn’t anything left to be said. So this concludes the first point raised by Donovan’s essay that I thought there might be some value in discussing.

What if We Really are “Losers”?

The second point I thought there might be some value in discussing is Donovan’s suggestion that White Nationalism will fail because of White Nationalists. Throughout the essay, Donovan continually refers back to the most tired Left-liberal characterizations of what kinds of people “White Nationalists” supposedly are: men with “‘white pride’ tattooed on [their] chest[s]” who “theatrically claim to be proud of being white because it is usually the only thing they have going for them.” To be fair, this may very well describe Donovan’s personal encounters with self-professed “White Nationalists.” But to speak for myself, I’ve been involved with Counter-Currents for long enough to have accumulated a rather large pool of people I would call “White Nationalists,” and I’m quite certain I have literally never met a single one who had “white pride” tattooed either on their chests or otherwise.

In fact, most “White Nationalists” I know would look down on anyone who has any tattoos at all—Richard Spencer thinks tattoos are degenerate, for example. For this new generation, “white pride” isn’t something “white supremacists” boast about, it’s just what regular old milquetoast conservatives who read outlets like Breitbart or The Blaze try to ironically (and ineffectually) throw back in the face of liberals when the topic of black or Mexican pride comes up. The average “White Nationalists” of the younger generations today are likely educated enough to be familiar with findings from the field of biosocial criminology showing that genes do indeed have an influence on the propensity to criminal behavior, probably turned in the direction that led them towards ethnonationalism after liberal researcher Robert Putnam finally published his results showing the negative impacts of diversity brought by immigration on community trust, hate drugs and porn and promiscuity, desperately want to build wholesome families, and are genuinely afraid to reveal their views to their peers.

The nature of the “movement” (such as it is) is changing rapidly, and part of the issue here may simply be that Jack Donovan has relatively more contact with the older breed of “White Nationalists” that most people in the new generation only know from cheesy stereotypes.
Either way, this finally brings me to the second point I want to discuss.

If White Nationalists were losers, just what would that prove?

Let’s grant it just for the sake of the argument: let’s assume 100% of people who identify as “White Nationalists” are “losers” in a broad sense.

Well, one could make a similar argument about welfare. According to your definition, you could say that most or all people who rely on welfare to survive are “losers,” in the sense that they would literally “lose” without welfare because they can’t stand on their own feet (or else they wouldn’t be on it in the first place). But what would liberals think about an argument that said that welfarism is dumb because people on welfare are “losers”? Certainly they would recognize it as a non sequitur: so maybe they are “losers”—does that mean we should let them starve in the streets? “Not so fast,” they’d respond.

Let’s step back for a moment.

Within any given race, all traits are distributed along bell curves.

On the one hand, this means it will always be true that keeping groups with different bell curves separate will lead to more social cohesion than mixing them willy nilly—as is validated by the literature on diversity and social cohesion that began with the previously mentioned research from liberal Robert Putnam.

On the other hand, it also entails that there will always be a minority of outliers in any given group who actually are more similar to the average member of a different group than they are to the average member of their own.

These minorities will always exist. But because of—you know—the very meaning of the word “average,” it follows that they will also always be in the minority. So even if not all admixture leads directly to reduced social cohesion, a totally segregated society would still always be more cohesive than a totally integrated society.

Now, suppose you live in an area like Palo Alto, California. The average rent in Palo Alto is almost $2,800 for a single bedroom apartment, and these expenses keep out anyone who can’t afford to pay. As it turns out, one’s IQ predicts one’s future wealth better than one’s wealth predicts one’s future IQ scores. This means if there are some groups with low average IQs and low wealth, then someone who lives in Palo Alto will have experiences almost exclusively with the outliers from that group—the few that are unlike most of the rest of them. A similar point would go for a black man whose only experiences with white men are in underground rap battle scenes: such an environment would inherently select for white men who are more extroverted, aggressive, and impulsive than the white male average; and this particular black man could end up as a result with an inaccurate idea of what most white men are really like as a result.

In other words, smart and successful whites who dismiss the “racism” of lower IQ whites who decry the negative effects of diversity because those whites aren’t as smart or successful as others might be rather like the tallest man in the room mocking everyone around him for drowning while the room they’re in begins to flood, dismissing them because he thinks they’re too short to have a valid opinion. It turns out that actually experiencing diversity also predicts one’s holding a negative view of it. Evidence like this suggests that it is much more often those who haven’t experienced as much diversity who imagine that its effects on a community are better than they really are, than it is those who haven’t lived around large members of other races who expect they would find the experience to be less enjoyable than they really would.

And IQ helps predict one’s experiences with diversity. When more successful whites enter diverse areas, they inevitably end up “gentrifying” them. And guess what happens when middle and upper class regions full of successful whites grow increasingly diverse? “White flight”. This deserves repetition for emphasis: do more successful, higher IQ whites stay or go when regions grow more diverse? As a matter of fact, they go. As regions grow more diverse, very large numbers of those whites who can leave in fact do. Thus, more successful whites never have to think about the idea of ethnonationalism, for exactly the same reason they never have to think about food stamps and other forms of welfare.

While it is absurd that this simultaneous condemnation of “gentrification” and “white flight” leaves successful whites damned if they do and damned if they don’t, whether they stay or they go (in other words, if they do just about anything other than give all their money away to blacks as one Baltimore professor insists or else just plain drop dead), there is truth to the fact that both these phenomena imply forms of “privilege”: successful whites rarely, if ever, have to experience any form of “diversity” that doesn’t entail skimming the cream of the crop off of outside groups while staying safely sequestered away from the rest. Less successful whites aren’t so lucky—as successful whites move away, they get left behind. Thus, it is actually less successful whites who end up acquainted with what multiculturalism actually is like, in the real world, for most people, most of the time. Should they be forced to live in increasingly stratified communities because someone thinks they aren’t intelligent enough to be worth caring about?

Are they really just too dumb to deserve cohesive communities to live in?

A Reply To Jack Donovan

                         By Greg Johnson

Dear Jack,

I just read your new essay, “Why I am Not a White Nationalist,” and it really deserves a reply. I appreciate your kind words about me, and I think of this as a continuation of our cordial and collegial conversations on White Nationalism. I have decided to make this an “open letter,” since a public statement deserves a public reply, and there is nothing here that I would not say in public anyway.

I have always held that our movement should follow what I call the Fight Club rule: everyone gets to determine his own level of involvement and explicitness, and the rest of us have to respect whatever course is chosen. I want as many people as possible to feel as comfortable as possible contributing to our movement — or not — in any way they please. So regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I will respect your decision. But it is also my role as a White Nationalist to try to persuade people to expand their comfort zones, perhaps all the way into the ambit of explicit White Nationalism.

I have, however, long maintained that you are a valuable ally precisely because you never claimed to be a White Nationalist, but you still stuck up publicly for White Nationalists, wrote for our publications, and spoke at our events. Having people who are not White Nationalists openly associate with us gives us social validation and builds bridges to the mainstream. But these good deeds were, of course, punished with a great deal of grief — not from the SPLC, the ADL, or Antifa, mind you — but from the very people you were helping.

As I read it, the valid core of your critique is simply this: White Nationalists were among the first people to enthusiastically read, review, and promote your work. But there are a lot of losers, assholes, and freaks in the White Nationalist world in particular, and in white America more generally. So you don’t exactly feel at home here. I get it. The best and the worst people I have ever met are White Nationalists. I try not to let the assholes get me down. I tell myself that this will all pass and that the only thing that matters is whether our race exists on this planet 200 years from now.

Moreover, your writings on masculinity, modernity, and tribalism have now found a much wider audience than White Nationalists and white Americans. Naturally, you prefer to communicate, associate, and identify with people who are receptive to you and your ideas. That is your mission as a writer. Again, I get it. We just have different missions. I identify as a White Nationalist because, perhaps somewhat grandiosely, my mission is to save the white race.

So you wrote this essay to clarify your position. It is an exercise in brand and label management, like my essays contrasting the New Right and the Old Right (here, here, here, and here). I understand it, and I am completely fine with it. But along the way, you make some comments that I would like to dispute.

First, I disagree with your characterization of America. It is fashionable on the Right and Left to deride America as a country that passed from barbarism to decadence without an intervening stage of civilization. Americans, you say, are not a people. We are just a collection of deracinated Euro-mutts with no culture but the junk we buy and sell.

I challenge you, though, to walk through the American galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York or the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., or to take a walking tour of the great architecture of those cities, from colonial to neoclassical to art deco, or to read the greats of 19th-century American literature like Melville and Whitman, and then to tell me that these are not the products of a confident, coherent high culture sprung from Europe — and the British Isles in particular — but mutated and refined in the New World into something unique and truly magnificent.

America was not, as you put it, always a “culture of inclusion.” White Nationalism is not “un-American.” White Nationalism and White Supremacism were encoded in our immigration and nationalization laws up until 1965.

There really is an American culture and an American ethnic identity. It was weakened by its own Anglo individualism, commercialism, and rootlessness, then infected and sickened by a hostile Jewish elite, and is now caked with filth and decadence. But it is still there, within you and me and all Americans. We just need to scrape away the ignorance and inauthenticity that blind us to who we really are. Once we do that, a lot of the infighting that you rightly deplore within the American White Nationalist scene will abate. Because the various forms of ideological factionalism that pit us against each other are not alternatives to rootlessness, but symptoms of it.

Second, you characterize White Nationalism as something that makes sense only to deracinated Euro-mutts who have no ethnic identity. But I have argued that there is no such thing as generic white people, even in the colonies. Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders are different peoples. They may have similar origins and blended European stocks, but they have evolved distinct ethnic identities.

Thus, White Nationalism is not just something for the colonies. White Nationalism means separate homogeneous homelands for all white peoples who long for sovereignty. It means Germany for the Germans, France for the French, Australia for the Australians, and America for the Americans. It might even mean Brittany for the Bretons, Flanders for the Flemish, and Dixie for the Southrons.

Third, I was a bit disappointed — not mad, just disappointed — to see you unironically repeating the Leftist and libertarian canard that “only inbred rednecks identify as ‘White Supremacists,’” and “white pride” is for losers who have nothing else going for them but their skin color. The false premise here is that we only have the right to feel proud of our own achievements, not the achievements of others. So if I feel proud to belong to the race that produced Plato, Shakespeare, Goethe, and Wagner, that’s obviously a sign of an inferiority complex.

In fact, however, we do have the right to things that we do not earn. They are called gifts. We did not earn our genes. They were given to us. We did not earn our cultural heritage. It was given to us. We do not earn the pride we feel in our families. It is their gift to us. But the best of us do not simply rest on the laurels of others or consume the capital of civilization. Instead, we take our heritage as a challenge to pursue individual excellence and contribute something to the common store of civilization. And wasn’t this precisely the attitude of our forbears — including the Germanic pagans you revere — toward their received heritage?

Fourth, I agree with your feelings of disdain for the present fallen state of white Americans, but I differ with your chosen path. As a White Nationalist, I regard the fate of white people as my problem and my responsibility. I want to save them from a political system that dishonors and degrades us, and has set us on the road to extinction. My goal is not just to save our biological stock, but to liberate our people from today’s corrupting and inauthentic junk culture, and to put us back in touch with both American folk culture and Western high culture.

You have chosen a different path, which you describe as follows.

What happens to “white people” is not my problem or my responsibility. I want to be surrounded with people who share not only my vague common ancestry, but my values and beliefs. Anyone who read Becoming a Barbarian knows I don’t care about “the politics of the Empire.” I want to leave it all behind. I just want to hang out in the woods with my friends and build something beautiful — I want to build a new culture. I want to invest in the people I know personally and my family and the people I am oathed to — my tribe, The Wolves of Vinland.

I’m not a White Nationalist, I’m a Wolves Nationalist.

From my perspective, tribal community-building exercises like the Wolves of Vinland are a useful part of White Nationalist metapolitics. But not all communities are equally conducive to political change. Frankly, if I ran the present corrupt system, I would be delighted to see dissidents turn their backs on their people and hang out in the woods with their friends. But in all candor, we too are turning our backs on some of our people. Our aim is to save all of them, but some of them would prefer to die than think or exercise the slightest act of moral courage. Thus it is inescapable that White Nationalists will eventually become a new people. We are the white people with a future. But to realize that destiny, White Nationalists need to choose our model of community carefully. Personally, I think we should aim to become a market-dominant, culture-creating minority like the Jews, to maximize our access to education, high culture, wealth, power, and influence.

My goal is to save white civilization. Yours is to replace it with a new and vital barbarism that is somehow not racialist. I don’t think your path is sustainable for two reasons. First, if our multiracial civilization collapsed into barbarism, it would fragment on racial lines, and at that point White Nationalism would in effect be thrust upon you. Second, if American civilization collapsed, it would not be barbarians who started the world anew. It would be other civilizations that would march in and seize control of the ruins.

You wish to turn away from white America and choose your own tribe. But is a tribe something that you can really choose? From my perspective, choice does not exist in this matter. You are born to a tribe. You and are I are white Americans. Unfortunately, that includes an unhealthy dose of libertarian individualism and devil-take-the-hindmost meritocracy that blinds us to our tribal nature and weakens the community from which we spring. To my eyes, the Wolves seem like a paganized version of the perennial American Calvinist impulse to shake off the losers and build a purified new community on the frontier. It is just another gated community. But a tribe you choose is not a real tribe, although — paradoxically — a penchant for this kind of thing is very much a genuine part of our tribe. You are an American despite yourself, Jack.

White Nationalism emerges when whites realize that we share a common destiny and that it is impossible to drop out of a system that wants to destroy us.

In closing, I want to emphasize that I am pledged to respect whatever decision you make on this matter. Naturally, I would like you to become a White Nationalist. But I was perfectly content when you were just an ally, and at the very least, I hope I may have persuaded you to think a bit better of us.

In friendship,
Greg

Theodore Roosevelt on Euro-American Racial Identity

From Roosevelt's The Winning of the West, vol. 1 (written 1889-96):

It is of vital importance to remember that the English and Spanish conquests in America differed from each other very much as did the original conquests which gave rise to the English and the Spanish nations. The English had exterminated or assimilated the Celts of Britain, and they substantially repeated the process with the Indians of America; although of course in America there was very little,instead of very much, assimilation. The Germanic strain is dominant in the blood of the average Englishman, exactly as the English strain is dominant in the blood of the average American. Twice a portion of the race has shifted its home, in each case undergoing a marked change,due both to outside influence and to internal development; but in the main retaining, especially in the last instance, the general race characteristics.

It was quite otherwise in the countries conquered by Cortes, Pizarro,and their successors. Instead of killing or driving off the natives as the English did, the Spaniards simply sat down in the midst of a much more numerous aboriginal population. ...Though the ordinary Spaniard of to-day speaks a Romance dialect, he is mainly of Celto-Iberian blood; and though most Mexicans and Peruvians speak Spanish, yet the great majority of them trace their descent back to the subjects of Montezuma and the Incas.

....The English-speaking peoples now hold more and better land than any other American nationality or set of nationalities. They have in their veins less aboriginal American blood than any of their neighbors. Yet it is noteworthy that the latter have tacitly allowed them to arrogate to themselves the title of "Americans," whereby to designate their distinctive and individual nationality.... [Not directly related to the USA, but worth noting Roosevelt's prophetic observation about South Africa:"It is not likely, but it is at least within the bounds of possibility, that in the course of centuries the whites of South Africa will suffer a fate akin to that which befell the Greek colonists in the Tauric Chersonese, and be swallowed up in the overwhelming mass of black barbarism."]

....Moreover, it is well always to remember that at the day when we began our career asa nation we already differed from our kinsmen of Britain in blood as well as in name; the word American already had more than a merely geographical signification. Americans belong to the English race only in the sense in which Englishmen belong to the German. The fact that no change of language has accompanied the second wandering of our people, from Britain to America, as it accompanied their first, from Germany to Britain, is due to the further fact that when the second wandering took place the race possessed a fixed literary language,and, thanks to the ease of communication, was kept in touch with the parent stock. The change of blood was probably as great in one case as in the other. The modern Englishman is descended from a Low-Dutch stock, which, when it went to Britain, received into itself an enormous infusion of Celtic, a much smaller infusion of Norse and Danish, and also a certain infusion of Norman-French blood. When this new English stock came to America it mingled with and absorbed into itself immigrants from many European lands, and the process has gone on ever since. It is to be noted that, of the new blood thus acquired,the greatest proportion has come from Dutch and German sources, and the next greatest from Irish, while the Scandinavian element comes third, and the only other of much consequence is French Huguenot. Thus it appears that no new element of importance has been added to the blood. Additions have been made to the elemental race-strains in much the same proportion as these were originally combined.

Some latter-day writers deplore the enormous immigration to our shores as making us a heterogeneous instead of a homogeneous people; but as a matter of fact we are less heterogeneous at the present day than we were at the outbreak of the Revolution. Our blood was as much mixed a century ago as it is now. No State now has a smaller proportion of English blood than New York or Pennsylvania had in 1775. Even in New England, where the English stock was purest, there was a certain French and Irish mixture; in Virginia there were Germans in addition.In the other colonies, taken as a whole, it is not probable that much over half of the blood was English; Dutch, French, German, and Gaelic communities abounded.

But all were being rapidly fused into one people. As the Celt of Cornwall and the Saxon of Wessex are now alike Englishmen, so in 1775Hollander and Huguenot, whether in New York or South Carolina, had become Americans, undistinguishable from the New Englanders and Virginians, the descendants of the men who followed Cromwell or charged behind Rupert. When the great western movement began we were already a people by ourselves. Moreover, the immense immigration from Europe that has taken place since, had little or no effect on the way in which we extended our boundaries; it only began to be important about the time that we acquired our present limits. These limits would in all probability be what they now are even if we had not received a single European colonist since the Revolution.

SOURCE.