|
|
|
I miei complimenti, Italia! Italy on penalties! The only national side who have suffered more than England in the penalty shoot-out finally nails five in a row, and lifts the World Cup. Not a great game. In fact, if I say that England would not have been disgraced in this company you will know what I mean. France the better side for the last seventy-five minutes. But any moral claim that arises from that was thrown away by Zidane’s violent conduct and red card. What’s the betting it was a racial slur that made him do it? And if it was, will we hear about it? Anyway, a team of Europeans has won the World Cup in Europe, and that’s not a bad result at all. Comments:2
Posted by Salopian on Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:34 | # There is a precedent for this sort of thing, in the case of Argentine defender Leandro Desabato. Desabato was/is a centre-half for Buenos Aries side Quilmes, who faced Sao Paolo in the Copa Liberatores, where he was up against Grafite, a black striker of the “physical” nature type familiar to football followers. So physical, that Grafite was sent off for violent conduct in the Sao Paolo v Quilmes match. However, Desabato had a nasty surprise upon leaving the pitch: http://www.rediff.com/sports/2005/apr/16arg.htm (Anyone konw whether he has been summonsed back to Brazil yet?) 3
Posted by Top on Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:18 | # “Footie message boards are already saying that Zidane was “right” in what he did. “ Why do whites and especially Brits find it so important to teach non-whites to respond to racism (real and imagined) with immediate violence? Is it any wonder that when whites lose their grip on power (ex. South Africa) that the immediate response is a campaign of violence against them? I am sure all the girls who get gang-raped in Europe appreciate the fact that all the goody moralists in Europe taught Asians and Africans that violence is the answer to their perceived slights. I am so sick of the Euro-weanie moralists and their calls to violence when it comes to keeping the white masses in check. And yes, sometime racism is a real problem, but why the immediate calls for violence? After-all Africans and Asians NEVER see racism where there is none - RIGHT???? They are ALWAYS correct in their assesment and perception of their relations with whites - RIGHT??? Teaching them to respond with violence is a great idea then!!! Three cheers for the new age Euro moralists!! Such geniuses they are! 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:15 | # I agree, Top. In effect, non-Europeans have been told that they can respond to any negative racial connotation with whatever violence they like, because the sin of racism has no equal. There’s something extremely sick about this, as if the evil little activist shitbags who promote kulturkampf anti-racism are using the aliens’ violence as a direct weapon. The mystery is why ordinary whites should be so cowed by this anti-racist garbage. They actually go along with the delusion of justified alien violence. Maybe it’s some sort of cultural Stockholm Syndrome. Anyway, the ref did the right thing tonight, and I hope Zidane never escapes from the shame. As for Materazzi, I hope he enjoys his winners medal. Does he play for one of the four clubs threatened with demotion in tomorrow’s court judgement? 5
Posted by Matra on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:10 | #
Perhaps it was a religious slur.
Last I heard Materazzi plays for Inter Milan. They weren’t one of the four teams named in the match fixing scandal. Salopian, Excellent remarks about deracination and club football. 6
Posted by Matra on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:16 | # Incidentally, Jean-Marie Le Pen will be happy about the “French” losing. On Wednesday when they beat Portugal (thanks to the thespian abilities of Thierry Henry) many of those celebrating on the Champs Elysees were waving Algerian and other foreign flags. One of the French players said the team represents the face of France! A starting eleven of eight blacks and North Africans and only three whites is representative of France? 7
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:57 | # I was going to write on this but my internet connection was down and GW beat me to it - if France had won, the race-replacers would have rejoiced and claimed some kind of “victory” for mass immigration. 8
Posted by Calvin on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:14 | # “I’m betting that it was a racist slur” Sure! Based on no evidence but never mind. The young white girl who was recently disfigured by a Somalian refugee was pronounced post-facto guilty of racism based on no evidence other than the hearsay splutterings of a couple of teachers. These teachers claim that a racist attack took place against the Somalian Slasher witnessed by no fewer than 100 pupils. They are trying to tell me that teachers were told about a racist attack witnessed by 100 pupils and took no action. Fine! When do we start sacking these teachers? I bet Zidane will claim that it was a racial slur. If there are no witnesses, and there aren’t, the Italian should sue Zidane for both assault and defamation of character if he trys to play the ethnic get out of jail free card. 9
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:19 | # “I hope Zidane never escapes from the shame.” It’s academic GW - he’s about to retire anyway, and he tends to avoid the limelight. I can’t stress how disappointed I am. For the entire tournament, I was cheering for Zidane, who is a fantastic player to watch. But my respect for him evaporated with that stupid headbutt. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:37 | # Well, West Ham was the club where the beautiful game was first translated into the old First Divison game of the late 1950’s. Alan Pardew, the present manager, is a believer in encouraging British talent, though what he means by that, to judge from West Ham’s current self-publicity, is not English. It is strange and worrying to my mind that the eponymous club football supporter has accepted the deracination of the game. Maybe the intense club rivalry and the absolute necessity of success has desensitised him to what is going on. Maybe he has managed to adjust his self-identity, focussing more on the club than specific players. Maybe he is so digitally double that the painfully gauche anti-racist sentiments that pervade the game actually impress him. In any event, it is wise to always bear in mind that the pendulum swings, and what anti-racist shitbags think are permanent attitudinal “corrections” will, in time, prove wonderfully transient. Nothing will speed that more than the realisation that bringing in cheap, ready-developed Africans - and continental Europeans - to do the work that would, in a healthy society, be done by youngsters coming through the system is fatal for the national team. Football is not alone in this type of thing, of course. I see something very similar at work in the training of serious musicians, whereby the London conservatoires encourage talent from anywhere in the world, in the process drastically reducing the places available for young native English musicians. Serious music, like football, is a global industry - albeit a financially weak one. The assumptions that underlie the conservatoire’s “duty” to open its doors to aliens are more defensible, being built not on parsimony but on the measure of excellence at an equal stage of development. But what goes unexamined is the duty to kind that should overide all else - and the fact that the denied English students can’t get a top-grade musical education in the countries from whence the favoured arrive. 11
Posted by john on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:54 | # Having so many Africans in the Frech side is anti white racism. Surely they could have mustered up a few more French players. I heard that in Australia they went round the pubs looking for kickers, why couldn’t the Frogs do the same? 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:11 | #
The Frogs could do the same, John—but they have too many assholes like Katrina Browne in their country running and influencing things. No, this bimbo isn’t a Frog, she’s a WASP, but this is the phenomenon you see all over the West, running every country straight down the tubes. (She’s a WASP but then again we don’t know the ethnicities of all the individuals in the “chain of command” responsible for hyping WASP degenerates such as she, responsible for seeking them out, giving them a platform for their insanity, and building them up, instead of ignoring them totally: I’d bet there’s a substantial non-WASP element permeating that hidden “chain of command” ...) 13
Posted by On Holliday on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:17 | # Speaking of Zidane, according to the great Sailer, ZZ can be “could easily be mistaken for a German”: Sailer uses the following pictorial evidence: Zidane is on the left. The fellow on the right – who shows no trace of African features whatsoever – may be an Italian. Point is, remember Sailer not only endorses “citizenism” but has also endorsed miscegenation as a cure for the “race problem” in his essays on race. There may well be a correlation between an inability to make ethnic distinctions and a disinterest in preserving the ethnic groups in question. After all, why worry about Germans if you got a bunch of Berbers like Zidane in North Africa? 14
Posted by Top on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:15 | # “if France had won, the race-replacers would have rejoiced and claimed some kind of “victory” for mass immigration. “ Of course… just like they did in 1998 when France won with a similiar team. It was “proof” that multi-culturalism is superior to an old-fashioned Euro culture. Trying to then argue that: (a) The starting French team is not very diverse - just mostly West African (even though lefties often define anything non-white ‘diverse’, ex. city of Gary, Indiana - I could talk about the misuses of ‘the word diversity’ at great length) is a tough task in certain circles. The limo liberals are the worst offenders as always. When I argue with them they don’t see blacks as real people, but instead see them as some exotic pets to be used to elevate their moral position against ‘ordinary’ whites. But neo-cons are almost as bad, expect they aren’t as obnoxious about their ‘love’ of the darkies. Anyway, I hated Zidane ever since he came out as a public spokesman against Le Pen when Le Pen made the run-off in the national election, and threatened he (and other minority players) would not play for national team if Le Pen won. I am getting so sick of Arabs, blacks, and other non-Euros telling us constantly how much they will punish us if we don’t do what they want us to do. God forbid the French would actually do something that was good for them and not for their Arabic and African demi-gods. Le Pen may actually reduce immigration!! The horror!!! Good thing the french have patriotic North Africans like Zidane to tell them what NOT to do. 15
Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:26 | # Hello folks, I’m back. I am so glad Italy won and you should be too - I believe France is to Europe this century what Germany was to it in the previous one: The pivotal state. Next year they have a key election coming up where Le Pen actually has a chance. If he wins, a Russia-France axis will form and the rest of Europe will end up revolving around it. Mark my words. Had France’s noirs taken the World Cup that would have cost Le Pen at least five points. At least. Europeans are soccer crazy. The French racial engineers (multiculturalists) would have found a second reason, besides ethnic restaurants, to justify their destruction: Sports prowess. Not that their justifications mean much when the French majority has been and continues to be against immigration, legal or illegal (same as here). It’s just that the regime propaganda would have gone into overdrive and our French comrades would have been forced to puke their croissants that much more often. I’ll be out of action for a bit as I gear up to respond to Daedalus’ monster-sized response in the JQ debate that jumped out of here and onto the phora. The debate is here for those interested in following it. 16
Posted by Matra on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:15 | # There are numerous rumours about what Materazzi said. The Italian has publicly denied calling Zidane “a dirty terrorist” as the muckraking anti-racist group SOS claimed. There’s also a rumour that he called Zidane’s father a ‘harki’. They were the Algerians who fought with the French against the FLN in the Algerian war 1954-62. Today they are seen as traitors and collaborators who fought against their own people. I find it funny that that is considered a great insult at a time when we in the West are encouraged to be ‘harkis’ in our own countries. 17
Posted by Top on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:30 | # “Next year they have a key election coming up where Le Pen actually has a chance. “ That I doubt. Unless the Muslims start a civil war of some sorts (which is possible) then all nationalists will be shut out for now. I did some research on French national elections on Yahoo just now, and majority of the articles are devoted to analyzing the second place finish of the ‘fascist’ Le Pen in 2002. And of course just about every article tried to come up with a way to shut him out in the future. Many of the authors can’t wait for Le Pen to die. It was also interesting how many of the authors were jewish - you would think jewish propaganda engineers would side with the french against the muslim masses - but no, the ghost of (german) Hitler still rules their universe, even when it comes to 2002 French elections. Between leftist fantasies, Muslim demands, black whining, conservatice betrayals, jewish delusions, and NWO propaganda, the French voters really only have one sane choice. The worst part is that FN is slowly changing its policies to attract more voters and may become just another ‘conservative’ party - all bark, no bite. I did find one encouraging part in all this reading… French young people are the least likely to think of Le Pen as ‘extreme’. That makes sense in some way because it will be the young French people who will have to live with Mohammed as their neigbor and competitor - and relative! : ( It will be the young French who will know the true meaning of ‘diversity’. When all the traitor liberals and ‘conservatives’ die off, the old politics of WW2 will be dead. The German threat will seem like distant dream when walking through the ghetto is an everyday reality. When the psychological impact of WW2 has finally run its course, then and only then, can there be a new beginning. We will have the dawn of new racial reality, and people like Le Pen will not seem extreme because blacks and browns will fill that role. It will be at this point that we can start forming new goverments. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:57 | # I think that’s a realistic and sobering assessment, Top. We share the assumption that when the “traitor liberals and ‘conservatives’” die off, it will drain the MultiCult of all white enthusiasm, and our racial consciousness will rise freely in a kind of isostatic recovery. But you typed the telling words, “the young French people who will have to live with Mohammed as their neigbor and competitor - and relative!” I hope and believe that this sentiment will increasingly penetrate those of the older generation - my generation - who are not MultiCultists and whose hearts are still true. They can conclude, like me, that it is their greatest duty to take upon themselves the heavy lifting of opposing our suicide - and get on with it now, before they quit the scene. That’s exactly why I’m doing what I do here. When we, who are no longer young, know and understand that it is our children we must fight for, there is no need to fear and no reason to delay. 19
Posted by Steve Edwards on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:08 | # Le Pen is a fairly moderate guy, in many ways. You should actually read his interviews with the press - there is nothing particuarly unreasonable about what he says - so why the hysteria? Top is right about WWII - we have to wear it like a crown of thorns (and my metaphor is quite deliberate). There was no excuse for getting involved. None. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:21 | # Erm? Were the Slav untermenschen not a worthwhile cause, then? I grow very tired of the tendency of the Nazi apologism that has such a strong hold in American WN, particularly. I understand that liberalism and the triumphant West were and are very dangerous, and that the National Socialist ideal of Germanic self-love and self-interest was, in its fundamentals, healthy. But to leave matters there, in such starkly contrasting terms, is wilfully blind. The nature of self-love is preferential not supremacist, and Nazism had to be opposed for its murderous supremacism. 21
Posted by Steve Edwards on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:05 | # “Erm? Were the Slav untermenschen not a worthwhile cause, then?” You have no quarrel from me as to the nature of Hitler’s regime - that is not what I am arguing against. What I am arguing is the question of foreign policy - I do not believe Britain (with US approval and support) should have declared war on Nazi Germany. As with Saddam and Khomeini, I see no reason why we were obliged to choose a winner between Stalin and Hitler - that does not mean I remotely sympathise with, or retrospectively advocate support for, Hitler, but simply that I am indifferent between two bloodthirsty tyrants. It was clear that Hitler’s primary designs were on the East, and Stalin’s on the West, thus making them the perfect couple. If Britain and America were sensible, they could have kept either side afloat vis-a-vis the other at their respective ends, just to make sure one tyrant did not prevail absolutely. But that didn’t happen as the US administration was infiltrated by Soviet dupes, so the Brits lost their Empire, Communism conquered half the earth, and we got the New World Order. 23
Posted by Steve Edwards on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:31 | # Then don’t start what you can’t finish - if you have no capacity (or intention) to guarantee Poland’s borders, you have no right to fight a world war over it. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:38 | # Patton wasn’t feeling weary, GW—he was straining to advance right the way across all of Europe and push the Red Army back out of the picture. He told the Undersecretary of State I think it was to “Tell the Red Army where its border is and give them a deadline for getting back across it or we’ll push them back across,” or words to that effect. Europe was Patton’s to do with as he wished. He was held back by the communists in D.C. who within months of the German surrender had him bumped off in a “road accident,” so scared were they that he might thwart their plans for Germany and for all of Eastern Europe. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:48 | # You can see the head butt here, by the way. You see the two men walking side-by-side then Zidane jogging to get ahead of the Italian a few paces, turning around once in position in front of him, and butting him in the chest. (Link via iSteve.com) 26
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:52 | # Hello chaps. I’ve been away for a while. I am in Britain for a few days on holiday and I thought I’d check on what’s been going on here. A bit disappointed not be involved at the moment. Unfortunately, I am returning to the Far East in a few days. I see that the topic turns to WWII again. Steve, Your fundamental instincts are sound but you are wrong on this one. If the US hadn’t got involved, Hitler would have eventually swallowed Britain. Hitler broke every promise, every vow not to “take more territory”. Poland was that straw that broke the camel’s back. Anyone with a bit of good sense could see where this was going. As a matter of fact, Hitler’s armies conquered all of Europe and Britain is all that stood between Hitler and the total conquest of Europe. Hitler would have taken Britain easily without American support. We did not even have sufficient rifles to fend off a Nazi invasion in 1940. But that is half the story. If the US hadn’t intervened, Stalin’s armies would have marched all the way to Belgium - eventually. It would not have been merely Eastern Europe but also all of Western Europe that would have been under Soviet rule. The Russians had turned the tide against the Germans - largely on their own (a result of superior numbers and greater resources - especially oil, being brought to bear). Remember that there was no Western invasion of Europe by the Allies until the summer of 1944 (and even that got bogged down initially). By that time, the Russians were well on the way to winning the war. American intervention meant that Soviet expansion was limited to East Germany but the West remained free of Soviet occupation. The people who fought the Nazis (such as members of GW’s and my own family) were patriots true to their calling. They did what was asked of them and they did what I would do were I in their shoes (but if only I also had their courage). There is too much talk of NWO. There is no NWO. There is western decline and decadence. This is not a result of Soviet rule in the East (where multiculturalism is unheard of). Every generation faces its own problems. That generation’s problem was dealing with totalitarianism of the Nazi/Soviet variety. Our task is to deal with a different kind of totalitarianism. I can only hope that we have half the courage and tenacity that generation possessed. 27
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:00 | # Patton wasn’t feeling weary, GW—he was straining to advance right the way across all of Europe and push the Red Army back out of the picture. He told the Undersecretary of State I think it was to “Tell the Red Army where its border is and give them a deadline for getting back across it or we’ll push them back across,” or words to that effect. Europe was Patton’s to do with as he wished. He was held back by the communists in D.C. who within months of the German surrender had him bumped off in a “road accident,” so scared were they that he might thwart their plans for Germany and for all of Eastern Europe. Patton was a great general but an extremely imprudent man given to fits of aggression. He enjoyed war for the heck of it. Most people aren’t like that - especially combat soldiers. American soldiers had had enough of the war by then (as indeed the British). No one wanted any more war. And in any case, having spun the Soviets as allies of the US and Britain, how do you sell an invasion of Russia to the public? It would have soured our victory and made us look crooked. And of course, we would have faced the same problem that Hitler’s army (and earlier Napoleon’s army) faced when invading Russia, which is: how do you keep the supply lines running for thousands of miles? It was this that destroyed all hope of a German victory in the East. And we would have had the same problem. Fighting the Russians in 1945 was not on. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:04 | # Hey, Phil! Welcome home. Don’t waste the whole of your leave on MR reprobates. Well, maybe a day or two. 29
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:19 | # Thanks GW. A comment or two wouldn’t make up for the time I’ve been AWOL but I thought I’d do some blogging with not a lot to do this afternoon. Hope all is well here. 30
Posted by On Holliday on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:25 | # Another alternative was for the British to accept the alliance that Hitler was begging them to accept from the mid-30s on. Here’s this scenario: The US, Britain and France - will all their troops on the ground in Europe, join Germany to attack and defeat the USSR. In this scenario: The attack on the USSR would have been as much a US, UK, and French as a German project. Therefore, Germany would not have been in a position to displace the Slavs, etc. Hitler would have been hemmed in, being part of a multi-national coalition. The aim would have been to smash communism, establish pro-western governments in the nations of the USSR, and establish a Nationalist World Order, where the peoples and nations of Europe live in peace, unthreatened by each other or by immigration. Adolf may have been unhappy about that, but that would have been the choice given to him. Yes, take Austria, the Sudetenland and the Polish corrider, and that’s it. Smash the USSR, let the Slavs have their own nations, and have a balance of power in Europe. A greater Germany, a nationalist Russia, the British Empire allied with the USA, an intact France, Fascist Italy, Spain, etc etc Now you say, Adolf may have rejected that, in favor of German hegemony. Maybe, but was the offer made? The only offer made to Germany - as what one can glean from Irving’s research - was a return of the African colonies in return for a limit on armaments. But with the Soviet threat, that was not realistic. There could have been no long-term peace in Europe, even given a more rational policy in the West, with Stalin and the USSR. The whole key to this scenario is enmeshing Hitler in an entangling alliance which, while allowing for the destruction of the Soviet threat, creates a strong barrier of military forces in Europe to constrain German expansion. If Hitler was allied with the USA, France, and the UK, in addition to Italy, and if those nations had strong forces alongside the Germans and in France itself, things would have been different. Of course, this all assumes leaders with a long-term view and the understanding of the dangers of the USSR. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:36 | # JW, the political complexion of the Britain of the 1930’s made it absolutely impossible for any such notion to be taken seriously. 32
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:38 | # If Hitler was allied with the USA, France, and the UK, in addition to Italy, and if those nations had strong forces alongside the Germans and in France itself, things would have been different. This is ahistorical because the US was firmly isolationist until Pearl Harbour (merchant shipping help to Britain notwithstanding). The US was allied with no one until Hitler foolishly made FDR’s job a heck of a lot easier by himself declaring war on the United States. Had he not done that, FDR would have had trouble selling the war in Europe to the American public who would have preferred US involvement to remain limited to the Pacific. And in any case, allying with Hitler and Mussolini was akin to becoming party to the ambitions of two absolute madmen. No one in Britain would have wanted that. No one in France would have wanted that. Everyone wanted peace - and for a time at all costs. People in Britain wanted peace as did people in France (as did people in Germany). When Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, he even took the majority of Germans by surprise. Most Germans had assumed that with German victories all over Europe, the war was over. Little did they know what was to follow. 33
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:39 | # JW, the political complexion of the Britain of the 1930’s made it absolutely impossible for any such notion to be taken seriously. Precisely, one only needs to read Chamberlain’s comments about “peace in our time” to understand the public mood. 34
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:55 | # JW, the political complexion of the Britain of the 1930’s made it absolutely impossible for any such notion to be taken seriously. Not entirely true GW. There was the Link, the Nordic League [members included Major-General John Fuller, 5th Duke of Wellington, William Joyce, A. K. Chesterton, E. H. Cole, Margaret Bothamley, Lord Brocket, Duke of Hamilton, T. Victor Lowe, Lt. Colonel Graham Seton-Hutchinson, Lady Douglas-Hamilton and Serrocold Skeels.] and other organisations both pro-German and anti-Jewish. Did not Conservative MP Archibald Ramsay rail against the Jews and Isaac Leslie Hore-Belisha, Chamberlain’s Secretary of State for War in 1937. Archibald Ramsay, Peeblesshire and South Midlothian Advertiser (13th January, 1939):
From Wiki:
35
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:05 | # Your fundamental instincts are sound but you are wrong on this one. If the US hadn’t got involved, Hitler would have eventually swallowed Britain. Propaganda. 36
Posted by On Holliday on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:10 | # I was speaking theoretically. If nationalists were in power in the countries mentioned. Certainly, for example, FDR would not ally himself with Hitler against his beloved Uncle Joe. Imagine though Mosely in charge in the UK, Charles Lindbergh US President, someone like Laval in charge of France..in the mid-late 1930s. A related issue is the defeat of Germany by the USSR was by no means fated if Germany were fighting a one-front war and that the USSR got no assistance whatsoever from the West. Imagine further if the Germans actually adopted a sane policy vis-a-vis anti-communist Russians and Ukrainians, instead of having Koch striding around with a whip stating “if I find a Slav fit to sit at my table, I must kill him.” Under these circimstances, the best Stalin could hope for was a stalemate or even a negotiated peace in which territory was ceded to Germany. It was a combination of the two fronts as well as a lack of political sense by the Germans that helped contribute to the loss. Even then, it was a near thing for Stalin, in the summer of 1941, and a year later as well. Only after Stalingrad was it clear that the Germans were on the defensive, even with all the negatives they were dealing with, some self-inflicted. 37
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:22 | # Propaganda. I suppose those brave RAF pilots fighting to the death against the onslaught of the Luftwaffe were hallucinating? Anyway, Hitler’s botched invasion of Russia eventually resulted in this being shelved. 38
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:26 | # Only after Stalingrad was it clear that the Germans were on the defensive, even with all the negatives they were dealing with, some self-inflicted. Almost all self-inflicted. 40
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:35 | # Ben, Operation Sealion is a historical fact. Do you deny it? The Germans underestimated the ability of British pilots and as a result the Luftwaffe could not win the air war over Britain. The whole point of those air raids was to win air-superiority which would have then created the groundwork for an invasion. But they couldn’t win the air war. And so the invasion was postponed. It didn’t happen eventually because the Russian invasion draw all the strength of the Wehrmacht. 41
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:53 | # How do you account for the halt order at Dunkirk? Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill (1948)
42
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:04 | # Desmond, Why was the Luftwaffe carrying out air raids over Britain? Hitler made many disastrous mistakes in the war (actually almost every German military blunder in WWII could be traced to Hitler - who often ignored the counsel of his Generals). I do not put them down to good intentions. 43
Posted by Amalek on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:28 | # Nobody in the know on either side took Sealion very seriously after May or June 1940—certainly not Churchill. It suited both sides to keep their people and the enemy on their toes in the summer of 1940 by pretending that ‘He’s coming! He’s coming!’. The Luftwaffe might have believed it had a chance of obtaining air superiority during the summer (a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for invasion) but its main objective was to defang Fighter Command before retarding Britain’s capacity to rearm by means of a big blitz. Its switch from attacking airfields to industrial and transport concentrations after Adlertag was on the cards from Dunkirk, not merely an acknowledgment that it had been bested in the summer—and despite Dowding’s victory, the Luftwaffe did succeed in damaging the British war effort quite seriously in 1940-41. Anyone who has studied the extraordinary preparations for D-Day must realise, like Liddell Hart, that a hastily improvised move en masse across the treacherous shipping lanes of the English Channel, confronted by the Royal Navy, would have had little hope of establishing bridgeheads. The seas might have been thick with corpses in field grey who had been earmarked for Barbarossa. Moreover, by autumn 1940 the British Army had already replenished its personnel and materiel considerably, and we now know that schemes inland, intended to prevent the Wehrmacht getting beyond a line along the North Downs, were extraordinarily elaborate—anti-tank defences, special undercover forces, submerged fortifications, etc—far more so than the French had put up. If the Germans had started Sealion in, say, September 1940 and got off the beaches, they would have had to fight every inch of the way to London, and there is no reason to think they would have been able to tap any Vichy-like spirit. They might have been tied down for years by a ‘British ulcer’, trying to bring the home islands under control: a UK government could be supplied by sea from the Americas and Ireland. Itching to get on with the real war, in the East, Hitler understandably back-burnered the whole idea. He wanted to thrash out a carve-up of spheres of influence between the British Empire, which he admired for the wrong reasons, and his own empire in the making; and as long as Britain had no power to interfere seriously with his continental conquests, he was content to let it stew, muttering vaguely about ruining ‘England’s last hope’ by toppling Stalin. Apart from the sideshow in North Africa and the empty gesture of the Dieppe Raid, Britain did give Hitler a free hand after the Fall of France and his devilish designs came to pass without our hindrance. In placing itself under American plutocratic hegemony to slay the Teutonic dragon, Churchill did what he said he had not kissed hands to do: he presided over the fall of the Empah. It ‘and its Commonwealth’ did not last for a thousand years, any more than the Reich, and it was not after all ‘their finest hour’—just making the second best of a bad job. Why Guessedworker comes over all globalist whenever the Evil Nazis are mentioned is one of the minor mysteries of his Weltanschauung. He is no Cold Warrior or dupe of the scaremongers of ‘Islamofascism’, but he cannot be persuaded that a middle European power seeking territory to the east was never a serious enough threat to us and ours to merit bankrupting and socialising ourselves. Well, I daresay we all have our blind spots. 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:29 | # Hitler’s admiration of the British Empire, his desire to respect our command of the seas and, as is sometimes said, his love of the wider Germanic family of which the English are a part, was strictly realkrieg. None of these soft-hearted things held back the occupation forces fron atrocious behaviour in the Germanic and Nordic lands which Germany was able to subdue. The problem with Sealion was always the Royal Navy. Hitler could never launch his barges until the RN was substantially countered - for which air superiority was the key. Both Hitler’s much vaunted admiration for the English and his disinterest in Sealion, therefore, was never put to that test which it would have been, had the LW won the Battle of Britain. 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:35 | # General Franz Halder, diary (July, 1940) 13th July: The Führer is is greatly puzzled by Britain’s persisting unwillingness to make peace. He sees the answer (as we do) in Britain’s hope on Russia, and therefore counts on having to compel her by main force to agree to peace. Again, how do you explain the halt order at Dunkirk? 46
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:38 | # The Luftwaffe might have believed it had a chance of obtaining air superiority during the summer (a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for invasion) but its main objective was to defang Fighter Command before retarding Britain’s capacity to rearm by means of a big blitz. Amalek, that is truly appalling history on your part. If you don’t know that the German’s never even realised we were bombing refineries in the first Oil Plan because our performance was so abysmal, you really don’t know very much at all. It wasn’t air power but naval power that Hitler feared. Otherwise, your points in respect of the Hitler’s keen desire to wage war in the East are well taken. On your final remark, I answer that history is perpetually in danger of being re-written. We fought from honourable motives and I am wholly faithful to the honour of the British fighting man. There is no mystery beyond that. 47
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:41 | # I would add that the first 4-engine heavy bomber, the Stirling, did not enter service until August 1940, and then it was a failure due to its low ceiling of operations. The Lancaster only entered service from mid-1942. 48
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:50 | # An interesting publication vis-avis Dieppe:
49
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:55 | # The Führer is is greatly puzzled by Britain’s persisting unwillingness to make peace. He sees the answer (as we do) in Britain’s hope on Russia, and therefore counts on having to compel her by main force to agree to peace. There is little point in trying to understand history if one regards Hitler as a reliable man of his word. Peace with Hitler today, war tomorrow. Had Hitler won in Russia, why would he have chosen not to impose Nazi rule over Britain? Out of sheer magnanimity? On Dunkirk, I am willing to consider that Hitler was deluding himself that Britain would make peace with Germany. As I have said before, Hitler committed many mistakes during the war and almost every German military blunder was due to his intervention. 50
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:34 | # There is little point in trying to understand history if one regards Hitler as a reliable man of his word. Peace with Hitler today, war tomorrow. Quite a bit of revisionism there. It suffices to remind that it was Britain that declared war on Germany. If his intentions, vis-a-vis GB, were disingenuous, then why did he not destroy the British Army at Dunkirk? Do you believe in ‘miracles’? 51
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:53 | # Do you believe in ‘miracles’?
52
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:06 | # Quite a bit of revisionism there. It suffices to remind that it was Britain that declared war on Germany. In all other cases (including the United States), it was Hitler who declared war (or attacked withour provocation). Its a bit rich to say that we declared war on Germany when it was the British Government’s official position that a German attack on Poland would mean war with Germany. 53
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:42 | # Do you believe in ‘miracles’? Apparently you do. Guderian’s Panzers were close enough to watch the evacuation,
however, at that very point in time, they were over-extended. Its a bit rich to say that we declared war on Germany when it was the British Government’s official position that a German attack on Poland would mean war with Germany. Even Churchill pondered the rashness and suddeness of the decision.
Who twisted Chamberlain’s arm to declare over Poland? Possibly Isaac Leslie Hore-Belisha, Chamberlain’s Secretary of State for War knew the answer. 54
Posted by Salopian on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:50 | # Typical eh? Thread starts off about football and gets onto the subject of Hitler. I’ve just been reminded of something. There was a book on WW2 published recently, I read the review in the Sunday Times. From the review, the opinions in the book (e.g. eulogising Chamberlain, contempt for Churchill) sounded to the letter like WJP’s. Does anyone know what I am talking about? Andrew Roberts reviewed the book if it is any help. 55
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:52 | # Desmond, I tend not to see Jews under every chair. When Chamberlain appeased Hitler, no one noticed the Jew working with him until Poland was invaded and we declared war. Why is that? 56
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:53 | # Even Churchill pondered the rashness and suddeness of the decision If Churchill had it his way, the war would have started a lot sooner than 1939. 57
Posted by Salopian on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:00 | # Found it - “Blood Sweat and Arrogance”: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23111-2118923,00.html 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:03 | # Typical eh? Thread starts off about football and gets onto the subject of Hitler. Yeah, but the Germans got third place. 59
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:09 | # Yeah, but the Germans got third place. And the English??? 60
Posted by On Holliday on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:17 | # “In all other cases (including the United States), it was Hitler who declared war” Roosevelt had ordered the American navy to harass the Germans at sea, hoping to provoke an attack. American “neutrality” was a joke. Churchill - the key to me was his second bout as PM, in the early 50s. There was a chance to do something about non-white immigration then, but instead Churchill was obsessed with “neo-Nazis” in Germany - read about the so-called “Naumann affair” in Coogan’s “Dreamer of the Day.” I do not wish to offend our English friends here, but I think Churchill was unhealthily obsessed with Germany. By the 1950’s Jamaica was a bigger threat to the UK than Germany - and I mean that literally (i.e., immigration). My view is that all the western leaders of the WWII era were jerks. They *all* made errors, for which we are paying today. I see no “good guys” or “bad guys” except for Stalin being the obvious bad guy (and note that Stalin’s own daughter, I believe, labeled her father as “Asiatic”, so we can not put in him, the Georgian Bolshevik the category of western leaders). 61
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:17 | # LOL!! That’s because we couldn’t get any American help this time. 62
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:19 | # Sorry that comment was in response to Desmond poking fun at us about the English not making the semi-finals. 63
Posted by Phil Peterson on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:25 | # Roosevelt had ordered the American navy to harass the Germans at sea, hoping to provoke an attack. American “neutrality” was a joke. True, but knowing the political situation in the United States, it made sense not to immediately declare war on the US. Had he not done that, it is an interesting question as to what FDR could have done to drag the US into Europe. It would have been very difficult. By the way, did you know that Hitler was convinced that America could not defeat Germany because it was a “mongrel nation” (in the eyes of the Nazis)? He thought the Russians could not win because the Russian semi-savages were too inferior to win against the German army. I lay the ultimate responsibility of the disaster at his feet. His mistakes, his fanaticism, his irrationalty cost every nation dearly. Too much is made of Churchill’s non-response to non-white immigration. Back then it was inconceivable that a situation such as the one we have today would arise. The generation that fought WWII was nationalistic to the bone. It took a few generations of corruption (starting principally with the 60s) to make the climate completely favourable to non-white mass immigration. 64
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:35 | # “Too much is made of Churchill’s non-response to non-White immigration”. And it was not only Churchill who suffered from a failure of prescience. The late great Enoch Powell served as Minister of Health during a time of extensive recruitment of hospital staff from the New Commonwealth. Welcome back, Phil. 66
Posted by On Holliday on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:48 | # “By the way, did you know that Hitler was convinced that America could not defeat Germany because it was a “mongrel nation” (in the eyes of the Nazis)? He thought the Russians could not win because the Russian semi-savages were too inferior to win against the German army. I lay the ultimate responsibility of the disaster at his feet. His mistakes, his fanaticism, his irrationalty cost every nation dearly.” Who’s defending Adolf? I wish people would be equally critical of the Allied side of the equation. With power comes responsibility, and we expect “great leaders” to have the foresight to avoid mainfestly avoidable catastrophes. Perhaps if the great Winnie had the same foresight with respect to immigration than he had with respect to German militarism, one could generate a modicum of respect for the man. After all, some rank Winnie as among the top, if not the top, personage of the 20th century. Very well, if there were in the 1950s no objective safeguards against colored immigration - save the “nationalism” of the generation - a great leader, a man of world historical importance would have recognized the danger. Instead he was worried about “neo-Nazis.” One could imagine Churchill being mugged by a Jamaican on the streets of London, and blaming the attack on German “nazis.” 67
Posted by Phil Peterson on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:18 | # One could imagine Churchill being mugged by a Jamaican on the streets of London, and blaming the attack on German “nazis.” 68
Posted by Phil Peterson on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:20 | # With power comes responsibility, and we expect “great leaders” to have the foresight to avoid mainfestly avoidable catastrophes. Indeed. FDR should have learnt how to keep his troublesome wife out of politics. She was an earlier version of the hyper-active Hillary Clinton. 69
Posted by On Holliday on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:37 | # It seems to me that link from Phil tells us that Churchill et al knew as far back as the 40s that coloreds in Britain were a problem and that the indigenous population were too keen on fraternizing with the coloreds. This seems to belie the claim that Churchill et al could not have foreseen the disaster to come. Phil wrote this: ...to explain why the British leadership couldn’t foresee how the “nationalistic to the bone” war generation would eventually lead to a capitulation to colored immigration. Yet, in the link he provides, we read of these “to the bone nationalists”: “Their officers—who were almost all White—were again shocked by the loose behaviour of the British women, who actually seemed to single out the downtrodden Blacks for their sympathies. The women were however not the only ones blamed. Once, when American military police tried to arrest Negro troops, British civilians intervened shouting, ‘They don’t like the Blacks,’ and ‘Why don’t they leave them alone?” Indeed. And the British leadership were aware of the lack of racial awareness of these “nationalists” and they *still* didn’t stop the colored immigration when they had the chance. The link therefore proves that Churchill knew the danger and still did nothing. After all, the “Naumann affair” was such a danger, and there was the increasingly closer ties between the USA and West Germany. *That* was *of course* the danger, not the influx of coloreds into a nation where the population - as claimed by the link - lacked the inner aversion to aliens needed to stem the tide. English patriots - if they were to come to power - should tear down statues of that clown. Speaking of which - wasn’t his mother part Amerindian? I think that is definite. I heard some claims about some Jewish ancestry as well. 70
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:41 | # So the old story about British girls and American made knickers is true after all. One ‘Yank’ and they’re down! 71
Posted by On Holliday on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:09 | # http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=726 To be fair, there is no solid evidence for Amerind ancestry: 72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:50 | #
This same phenomenon is seen of course in the fauna native to the Galapagos Islands, and other isolated islands mainly in sub-polar regions I believe, where people can walk right up to nesting sea birds and so on. It’s what got the dodo exterminated in the 1600s and will guarantee to the English race the same fate if current failed élites aren’t given the boot and new ones like GW, Griffin, and Laban installed. 73
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:12 | # Which reminds us, Fred, of the significance of the almost complete absence of Jews from Britain from 1290 until the Regicide. 74
Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:59 | # And the British leadership were aware of the lack of racial awareness of these “nationalists” and they *still* didn’t stop the colored immigration when they had the chance. Women with a strong racial sense are always fewer than men with a strong racial sense - this is true of any era. 75
Posted by Phil Peterson on Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:02 | # Indeed. And the British leadership were aware of the lack of racial awareness of these “nationalists” and they *still* didn’t stop the colored immigration when they had the chance. Enoch Powell could not have had 74 percent of the electorate agree with him in opinion polls in 1968 if the English as a whole had no sense of who they were. This was weakening very rapidly but it did exist - back then. 76
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:56 | # If you ask the right question you would find that it exists now. Only the liberal elite is stupid. 77
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:37 | # Zidane explains the head-butt without going into details:
78
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:27 | # If what Zidane says is true and the same form of words was directed at a Scotsman or an American Southerner of Scotch-Irish heritage, the Italian would have fared a lot worse. 79
Posted by Steve Edwards on Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:47 | # Dead right, Al. Materazzi should try his routine in a Glasgow pub some day. I’ll pay to see that one! 80
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:13 | # Zinedine Zidane’s mother has called for ... well, let’s just say it’s a more drastic form of chastisement of Marco Materazzi than the head-butt meted out by her son and leave it at that, shall we? ... I was led to Rondi Adamson’s blog by this log entry over at The Ambler, in which we read how Adamson is so concerned about Jews getting blamed for everything these days, she wonders how long before they’ll get blamed for the head-butt:
To which The Ambler replies with dry sarcasm,
Then he lobs this mortar shell in her direction:
Let’s just say when The Ambler is irritated with someone he can be very ... what’s the word I’m looking for? ... he can be very frank ... 81
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:03 | # Colby Cosh’s thoughts on the head-butt. Where Cosh writes,
82
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 23 Jul 2006 06:02 | #
Well, I finally read the article discussing this woman’s apologetics. She may be an Episcopalian, and her ancestry may be overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon. But the slavetrading ancestors for whose acts she purports to atone—the DeWolfs—were Jews. Post a comment:
Next entry: Victim support
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Salopian on Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:18 | #
Except for “Argentine” (fucking Paraguayan more like it) Mestizo Camoranesi. I suppose his name (and looks to be fair) imply some Italian blood in him.
BBC Sport: “One Italian player who does not join in the celebrations immediately is Mauro Camoranesi”... ...I bet he didn’t.
Already mentioned Zidane btw GW.
Lip-reading, Materazzi apparently said something along the lines of “black(‘s?) whore”.
Footie message boards are already saying that Zidane was “right” in what he did.
I think Italy’s win will be under something of a cloud, France moral winners, more anti-racist bollocks next season, at places like Arsenal, who haven’t had a first team regular who was white and British since Ray Parlour.
As a football fan the WC has actually been a refreshing change from the deracinated and utterly ruined club football, where the hype, number of blacks and foreigners and sheer expense make it unwatchable to me.
France excepted, the national sides generally did mean something, the contrasting performance of different racial types is interesting to the race realist.
The final was horrible because of the undoubted politics behind it (the establishment desperately wanted a France win), but there was some great old-school Euro battles like Germany v Italy.. ..a hell of a lot better than the Babel of the Champions League.