|
|
|
Sunic’s Homo americanus and the American psychological commonweal Heritage and Destiny is a quarterly magazine printed in England and promulgated by the rockface scalers of the England First Party and the British People’s Party. It produces some good work, and an example was sent me today by Tom Sunic: a review of his Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age by Peter Rushmore. In the course of the review Rushmore observes Sunic’s treatment of Christian Zionism:-
... the Holocaust:-
... and, quoting from the text of Homo americanus itself, American anti-semitism:-
But many who read Sunic’s quite compact book will find not his stance on Jewry in America to be the most interesting thing about it but the deconstructionism that he commends for the postmodern American personality itself. Rushmore merely notes:-
Well, what does that mean, really? Certainly, it’s easy to type the words. Just a few taps on the keyboard and it’s done. But to accomplish such a detachment in one’s own psychological being? To sever oneself from oneself? Still, Sunic does intend this message of inner deliverance to be uncompromising, I suspect. If so, of course, he belongs firmly in the long tradition of European thinkers who ascribe to individual Man the possibility to pick and choose what has been unconsciously absorbed. For example, Rushmore quotes him on the Christianity Question thus:-
“Postmodern America”, then, and Judeo-Christian monotheism. A tall order. Admittedly, the prospects are better than those of the political liberty-junkey aiming to deliver his or her oppressed self from white European males and Nature. At least acquired psychological trash can, in theory, be put out for collection, whereas Nature can only be denied - with all the pathological possibilities that implies. But Man is not born with the knowledge to turn such theory into fact, and does not know where to go to get it. And even if he did, he would find the stains on his psyche stubborn, indeed well-nigh impossible to remove as directed. It is a piece of bad advice. But it is bad advice at the foundation of all liberal and mainstream religious thought. The reality is that disabusing Americans of, as Rushmore quotes Alain de Benoist, “the Christian “self-chosenness” built into America’s founding myths” is a slow weaning process ... a work, most likely, of generations. And it would be all the better accomplished if there is something, a new and compelling concept of Americanism and even of faith, pushing to replace the old memes. Of such flaming meteors, needless to say, there is no sign in the political heavens. That leaves us with the only game in town: science. But on this, Rushmore says of Homo americanus:-
This is an attitude I have come across among New Rightists many times. It is a hatred of the material. Again, the underlying sentiment is strangely individualist: “there can be no brook to doing what I will”. The trouble is that this is flat wrong. There not only can be a brook, there is one. The NRer can choose to eat this Chocolate Sundae or that Lemon Parfait. But he can’t choose to lay down his life for his country, to love his child, to feel remorse at the loss of an old friend. All that is truly human is from the genes. And it determines. The fact that the degree of determination is simply unacceptable to NR intellectuals, as it is to liberals, merely commends them to a change of opinion. This does not mean that the NR philosophical organum has no worth. Living a life true to European culture is a fine thing, and culture is more easily understood among the masses than science. But science is giving us knowledge of what is, and I, for one, long to see an outgrowth from this new certainty towards our cultural heritage, explaining its sociobiological rightness, not its fancy and, frankly, in the 21st Century somewhat arch spiritual power. That, it seems to me, is the path by which these troublesome New Worlders who, to quote de Benoist again, “wanted to create a Promised Land which would become a universal republic”, can be brought to harness with their brothers across the water to the east. Peter Rushmore’s review, by the way, was published in number 29 (July-September 2007 issue) of Heritage and Destiny magazine. A sample copy of Heritage and Destiny requires the sending of £3.00 to BCM Box 7318, London, WC1N 3XX or $5 to PO Box 6501, Falls Church, VA 22046. Comments:2
Posted by GT on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:40 | # Sunic makes an ass out of himself by attributing the cohesiveness of powerful jews to a fringe, anti-Semitic rabble on the Internet. 3
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:02 | # =================== Huh? So *Gentiles* imposed the Jewish self-concept upon the Jews? And Jews constantly searching for anti-Semitic boogiemen merely wish to assimilate? And the subversion of Gentile culture is not a *fait accompli* - and that culture to which the Jew would “assimilate” himself is not, in fact, his own culture, already installed? Someone needs to get a clue and give us a break. 4
Posted by GT on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:42 | # NeoNietzsche wrote: “... and that culture to which the Jew would “assimilate” himself is not, in fact, his own culture, already installed?” Was that was another delusional, anti-Semitic statement? Why, I believe it was! Shame on you for targeting innocent, powerless jews with your anti-Semitic delusions of jewish cultural supremacy. Don’t you know that some delusions are more legitimate than others? Why, there ought to be a law … 5
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:33 | # Blaming American Jews for extraterrestrial powers and their purported conspiracy to subvert Gentile culture borders on delusion and only reflects the absence of dialogue. This sentence is incoherent. Jews do not, in fact, possess “extraterrestrial powers.” It doesn’t _border_ on delusion to believe that they do. It _is_ a delusion. Anyone who believes that Jews have “extraterrestrial powers” is delusional. On the other hand, it is a matter of historical fact, well documented by MacDonald and others, that Jews as a group have been hostile to traditional Gentile culture and have often worked hard to subvert it. That’s not a delusion, and it is miles away from the belief that Jews have extraterrestrial powers. Two beliefs share the same verb, but they have very little else in common. So what are they doing in the same sentence? Blaming EU bureaucrats for (a) their plan to castrate all white males and (b) their purported conspiracy to limit political dissent through speech codes borders on delusion and only reflects the absence of dialogue. (Tomislav Sunic) Belief (b) is Sunic’s own, minus the “purported.” He has written about it convincingly. Belief (a) is non-existent, but anyone who did believe it would be delusional. It appears in my bogus quotation only to make Sunic’s serious argument look ridiculous. And that’s exactly what “extraterrestrial powers” is doing in Sunic’s sentence: He is mixing up nuttiness and serious argument for the purpose of discrediting the latter. I have no idea why, but that’s what he is doing. Without the spectre of anti-Semitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear. Thus, anti-Semitism provides Jews with alibis to project themselves as victims of Gentile prejudice. There is a significant problem here. Anti-Semitism had almost disappeared by the 1950s. Yet much of the destructive Jewish behavior that non-delusional anti-Semites complain about began in the 1960s. If we had to select the single most common racialist complaint against Jews, it would likely be the 1965 immigration reform, which opened American borders to the Third World. That is, the sources for racialist opposition to Jews occurred and still occur during an era of low anti-Semitism. There was no Charles Coughlin on the radio in 1965. As I mentioned in another thread, the belief that “Jews are a threat to America” had become so rare by the 1950s that the AJC stopped polling for it. The question was no longer worth asking. The “spectre of anti-Semitism,” which had always been a small spectre in any case, had almost vanished. The obvious conclusion is that the decline in anti-Semitism served as a tacit invitation to more Jewish subversion. Philo-Semitism didn’t work. It only emboldened activist Jews. 6
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:59 | # GW, I hate to be the sort of person who plays copy editor on the internet, but in the piece above a small misspelling actually changes the meaning of your thought. You write, This is an attitude I have come across among New Rightists many times. It is a hatred of the material. Surely this must be wrong. The ideology so hated, I feel certain, is materialism. This is because it is as absurd and abhorrent a doctrine as libertarianism, although one reduces all existence to DNA and the other to dollars. Both are reductionistic to the point of absurdity. No human community exists independantly of its culture, and no human individual, however isolated, is indepedant of community. That culture and genes always form a co-evolutionary symbiosis, is very troubling to materialists. This is why I use, as often as I can, the term race-culture, and then further specify which race culture I mean and what level of resolution I’m talking about. If you pester a materialist about these matters, he will emit a distinctive sqawk, followed by noises about “epiphenomena”. If you inform him or her that his chosen metaphysic, naturalistic materialism, is in fact a metaphysic and not a product of the scientific method, the sqawking eventually becomes unmanageable and the conversation ends. If culture isn’t imporant, and EGI wins the day by its reliable calculations of kin altruism cranked out like ribbons from an adding machine, then why would any racialist have cause to complain about government in Britian, the US, or anywhere else? My government is overwhelmingly of whatever haplotyes or allele frequencies our scientists have determined make up our “local cluster”. So is yours. How comes it that they seek to destroy us? Given the tenets of EGI, if they do have a genetic stake in demographics, how do they not recognize this? It is pseudo-estrogens in the water, PCBS, flouride, pesticides, what? What material cause has interfered with the proper functioning of the gene machines we are? If EGI is a real interest, and not a theoretical artifact, we should see its robust expression in Europeans, in so far as Europeans are a product of evolution. We certainly see it in non-Europids. What physical force or chemical is interfering with proper signalling in our people? A material cause cries out for a material solution, no? Which leads us to the real larger issue: yours is a strongly worded post about a real subject from a definite point of view. I am happy to see it. The quality of MR’s front page has been very shaky lately. I think a strong POV is just the thing that is needed. Either this blog needs to become the Salterian Euro-GNXP with a solid antiliberal foundation that you desire or a more urgent, practical, British site of resistance that concentrates on creating a nucleus of thinkers and writers who strategize on how to expand the circle of sanity, one by one, in Britain. It is not merely that the commentariat here is too diverse to work together in concert and discover the next step; I also believe that the front page here is too diverse, irregular and frequently, irrelevant. MR is an unhappy jumble of English Nationalism, GNXP ambitions, and lofty but unpopular pan European goals which stand symbolized by the Botticelli painting and big red blotch that greet each vistor here upon their arrival. I will say that you do not have the bloggers or the commentariat to continue justifying your use of an Italian painting of a Greek Goddess in close proximity to a facsimile of Europe in toto, both East and West. You can make a start towards some truth in advertising by hoisting the St. George’s flag or some leonine heraldry. Then you should decide who you are and what you are doing, and exercise your prerogative as editor so that regular posts are made that stay on message and seek to inform and or indoctrinate readers to your particular take on the scheme of things. Once we know your biases, we may read with or against the grain of the blog, but if the blog has no grain at all, productive readings and exchanges dwindle while unproductive ones multiply. A poster on a recent thread compared activity here to “a Snipe Hunt”. Possibly MR is currently three blogs tripping over each other and getting into shouting matches because they’re all headed in different directions. You should either figure out which one you are and go for broke, or split the functions of this site in two, with one spinoff being a the Salterian/antiliberal site, educating our end of the Web about the science of race, along the lines of what Dinekes does, but with a sharper political edge, like GNXP. The other then may serve as a thinktank allied with the BNP, meeting real, on the ground needs of the British population and considering organizing local meetings, purchasing advertisments, etc. A “Free Republic” serving the goal of a non-Muslim Britain. I am principally pleased by the post above because it dispenses, for the most part, with cat’s paws and game playing. I hope that it represents a new turn for this blog, which despite being at cross purposes with itself, certainly will be of significant advantage to whatever part of the Whole to which it decides to lend its weight and momentum. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:53 | # But, wintermute, you make my case against the NR concentration upon culture for me quite persuasively. There is a name for the hatred of the material (“materialism” is used as a derogatory form, as you know, and would not fit my meaning). That name is intellectual vanity. I suppose it was understandable in the 1900s for philosophers to look down upon the nascent life sciences, and inevitable that the scientists’ exploration of the mind of Man would be seen as an intolerable encroachment. Similarly, the 20th Century NR philosopher whose longing was to place at the heart of the (forever putative) spiritual renewal of Western Man his own version of Zarathustrian glory would hardly welcome a contrary and horribly mathematical model of Man’s meagre possibilities. And at bottom, this IS the issue, this question of whether men can be made collectively free by philosophers. If modern neurology, cognitive psychology and genetics uncover different possibilities in Man, it does no honour to the philosopher to fire off poisoned darts in response ... one dart dipped in the vitriol of “determinism”, and another in “reductionism”. All that bespeaks is a desire to preserve an intellectual closed shop. My own view of Man, which you of all people should well understand, is that he is beset by mechanicity, absence and illusion. He includes, of course, you, me and the philosophers of the New Right - notwithstanding messers Guenon and Schuon’s highly developed penchant for metaphysic. Perhaps he might, through years of informed labour and self-knowledge, learn to extract himself fleetingly from the deadly embrace of culture as it animates in him. But ordinarily, no. En masse, of course not. So what “freedom” are we really talking about? The freedom to be aware of cultural influences that are harmful? Perhaps. The freedom to be able to do something about it himself. No. The freedom to be released by philosophers from said harmful influences into others contrived to be of less harm? My answer is discouraging. I think the intellectual traditions of philosophy can thoroughly mess with the lives of men, and always have. It is Nature in us which continually pressages a return to health and normality, and the study of Nature in us that will eventually lead upward to the explication of that in our culture which is, indeed, natural and great and good. We must endeavour to sweep away the philosophers’ objections to knowledge of the material in Man. It is our best and only real hope. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:14 | # I hardly know what to say about your criticism’s of our journalistic ability, other than I think you are being deliberately unfair. MR has always offered a wide palate of tastes, and will always do so. It is not a vehicle for a single point of view, but for free and intelligent discussion of anything and everything under the sun that touches on the life of European peoples, albeit from a survivalist perspective. It is for others, WM, to look to their own roles, which I shall not myself criticise. I am content with ours. 9
Posted by Eureka! on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:53 | # “He is mixing up nuttiness and serious argument for the purpose of discrediting the latter. I have no idea why, but that’s what he is doing.” It’s a fantastic technique, and very commonly used. For example, having a crazy skinhead figure making genuine complaints about racial dispossession in his old suburb in “Romper Stomper” or “American History X”, followed by his doing something nutty, horrible and unattractive. Or showing nationalist political parties on television only when there’s news which involves “white racism”, like the Cronulla riots. The subtle verbal montage of nutty with serious pairs the two assertions of fact. And, in the mind of the audience, as the former is most definitely not true (as it is absurd) the latter probably isn’t either. Like Sacha Baron Cohen as the anti-semitic “Borat”, “yes, we too blame Jews for 9-11, we also blame them for the extinction of the dinosaurs.” I will admit, I think Sacha let his guard down in that particular “interview”, his Jewishness is normally very well conceived by his characters however that particular excerpt reveals his sarcassm. We should name the technique, and make it and other like-techniques well known and recognisable, particularly those used in very effective propaganda. Once afforded the familiarity of other logical fallacies like “ad hominen”, attempts to expose the other’s intention to deceive may become as easy as name-calling (among ourselves anyway - the masses are a different matter but everything helps). In fact, and I may be ranting now, the “glossary of terms” post we had a while back (I can’t remember what it was actually called) might well be enriched by a new such volume of entries. We see the same methods used to spread the same lies everyday, and yet to make reference to them a description is still necessary. Foolish! Further, and now I’m definitely ranting, once extracted as simple formulae we can use the tools ourselves! Mocking anti-racist positions: “Saying that there’s no difference between humans and whales and that there’s no genetic difference between races borders on the clinically insane, and the people that hold these unnatural peoples, honestly, I think they need help…” Eureka! Fight fire with fire. I’ll give a fiver to whomever can name that behaviour or identify another. Just think, in time, one could even make a very funny comedy sketch with a Jewish character in it doing all his tricks. And it would be funny because its true. 10
Posted by Maguire on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:19 | # “Furthermore, American racialism, which boasts some intelligent writers, hardly squares with Biblical fundamentalism, which continues to be the trademark of most American traditionalists and racialists.” Before broadbrush statements like this are made or accepted, it behooves one to look into the intellectual wellsprings of the ‘Biblical Fundamentalists’ and the ‘American traditionalists’ here in 21st Century North America. Both streams are of extremely modern vintage and have -0- connection to any white thought of the past. Two pairs of men serve as the poster children for these overlapping streams. ‘Biblical Fundamentalists’. This means the judeo-centric (literally judeolotrous) theology of ‘Pre-millenial Dispensationalism’. This was a mid-late 19th Century perversion of Christianity headed up by English lawyer Charles Nelson Darby and subsequently American lawyer Cyrus I. Scofield. It was a true ‘Anglo-American’ creation promoted by the highest powers of the British Empire; Powers with sufficient influence to get Scofield’s talmudicized Study Bible published in 1913 under the imprimatur of the Oxford University Press in 1913. From the late Jerry Falwell in the east to John Hagee in Vanishing Texas to False Profit Hal Lindsey in Mexifornia, you will not find one ‘Christian Zionist’ leader who is not an adherent of this Noahide cult for Gentiles. ‘American Traditionalists’. Two men stand in the front rank of reinventers of ‘American Traditionalism’ on a philosemitic and anti-racist basis. These are William F. Buckley (formerly National Review, now the openly Jewish National Review) and Robert Welch (founding leader of the John Birch Society). (Note to GW: That both Buckley and Welch were self-described ‘Conservatives’ is the prime reason that noun is brand-polluted on this side of the pond for at least the next two generations.) Observe, these streams of thought are not methods of ‘Power’. They are methods of goy control employed to organize the base of the ‘Republican Party’. The ‘leadership elites’ are composed of different personnel drawn from different sources. Darby-Scofield theology and Buckley-Welch political philosophy are important for pro-white analysts to understand because they constitute the Jewish imposed mental programming of most of the politically oriented whites in the USA. “Maguire” 11
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:06 | # But many who read Sunic’s quite compact book will find not his stance on Jewry in America to be the most interesting thing about it If that Sunic quote is indicative, then it’s no mystery why; Jews would assimilate if it weren’t for anti-Semitism? Talk about superficial! Jews invented ethnocentrism (or at least, pioneered its codification. Separation is the raison d’etre of Judaism. Everything interesting whatsoever about Jews traces back to their particularism. These are the people who would assimilate completely, but for anti-Semitism? The Jew has spent an inordinate share of the last two millennia dreaming up ways to precipitate anti-Semitism and preserve his separation. The tendency to see the Jew as a victim of circumstance should be resisted - it’s so ubiquitous that in the vast majority of cases, it just doesn’t hold water. The obvious conclusion is that the decline in anti-Semitism served as a tacit invitation to more Jewish subversion. Philo-Semitism didn’t work. It only emboldened activist Jews. Indeed. Philo-Semitism seems the sort of thing that liberals should be embracing, along with all their other suicidal norms, but instead it’s a “conservative” thing. Eureka!, brilliant idea for a comedy skit. If I was packaging it for sheep I’d make him a goy anchorman, but I can already see myself howling in laughter at your Baron-Cohen caricature and his compulsions. As for the technique, its star has dimmed in the ‘Net sky. Now, in the two-way media at least, it’s a source of derision (when detected, of course). But of course, in the mass (one-way) media, it still has center stage. I call it “guilt by association.” Ever notice how “racism” is never the only thing “wrong” with anyone (white), ever? Racism (in whites) is always part of a suite. Other parts may include: 1) low social status 12
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:12 | # How could I forget stupidity and lack of education? Must’ve been distracted… 13
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:17 | # Not to mention the homosexual-as-“homophobe,” and sexual inadequacy. 14
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:35 | # Svi - Thought you had taken up permanent residence in Steve Sailer’s comments section! O/T We all know of course how Britain is a nation of diverse immigrants, well funnily enough… http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070801/sc_nm/britain_genetics_dc 15
Posted by Maguire on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:06 | # “My answer is discouraging. I think the intellectual traditions of philosophy can thoroughly mess with the lives of men, and always have.” I agree with this completely. The addicts of the thesis that Fine Old Literature will save us fail to recognize that Fine Words extracted from Old Literature, and divorced from the brutal tests of immediate - ahem ‘local’ - reality and tangible - i.e. ‘material’ - results were the Weapon of Mass Distraction used by the Jew to capture control of the white political and economic base. Very fine Words, but ever so carefully selected and edited to produce the desired mental effects. A classic instance of this was the frequent John Birch Society quotation of a famous passage by D’Israeli in “Coningsby”. This was to the effect that unseen powers standing next to thrones and and inside governments were the true rulers. This was shamelessly presented while also shamelessly censoring the preceding paragraph showing that Coningsby was describing a series of Court Jews he encountered throughout Europe who were manipulating foreign relations to their mutual satisfaction. ‘Court Jews’ of which CSA Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin was a living, breathing and contemporary exemplar. With the citation of the second paragraph and suppression of the first, the stage was set for diverting large masses up the blind alleys of Insider Conspiracies and even further into the quicksand of Rense type UFO-dom conspiracy. What is most depressing is to realize that in most instances these Fine Old Classics were merely the Hollywood Blockbusters of their era, and like the current ones were remade multiple times until they reached the definitive form complete with leading edge Special Effects. “It is Nature in us which continually pressages a return to health and normality, and the study of Nature in us that will eventually lead upward to the explication of that in our culture which is, indeed, natural and great and good.” Local. “We must endeavour to sweep away the philosophers’ objections to knowledge of the material in Man. It is our best and only real hope.” And equally vital, the other 50% of the white race known as Woman. 16
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:29 | # I think the intellectual traditions of philosophy can thoroughly mess with the lives of men, and always have. It is Nature in us which continually pressages a return to health and normality, and the study of Nature in us that will eventually lead upward to the explication of that in our culture which is, indeed, natural and great and good. I will only say this once. You should not, on account of your currectly constructed beliefs about ‘science’, think that you have left for the precincts of philosophy. Rather than philosopher’s ‘closing shop’ to you, you rather are trying to make an end run around them with falsely labelled goods. You have not proved metaphysical naturalism. Indeed, to my question, how have the mechanical processes within man ceased to function with regards to EGI, you repair immediately to discussion of philsophy - liberalism or antiliberalism, as the case may be, proving twice over that far from having left the field in any way, you are carrying two of its products and hawking them to all who will listen. I don’t know why I take truth in advertising so seriously, but there you go. And ‘reductionism’ is a real term from the natural sciences, not the New Right or Schuon or whomever you have decided to conflate into the Greater Malific ‘philosophy’. Reductionism is the unwarranted delimitation of causes, combined with a refusal to consider higher levels of causality than the monocause preferred by the reductionist. A genetic reductionist, like yourself, is happy to proffer evidence that genes influence human behavior, but is always unhappy to hear that behavior (culture) can regulate gene expression. There are thousands of papers on reductionism in science, and hundreds on the problem of reductionism in genetics. An excerpt from an interview with Brian Goodwin, a molecular biologist, about how reductionism results in sloppy thinking in biology and how it impedes scientific progress in biology:
Now, staying within biology, that’s just genetic reductionism. You might reflect here that as a group selectionist yourself, that you are currently on the outs with ‘science’ because selection at the level of the individual is what science currently promotes as its current ‘reality’. In other words, if you cannot defeat their reductionism, you and Salter have lost the day. Goodwin’s critique continues:
Did you get that? Reductionism impairs the understanding of the dynamics of whole organisms, Goodwin even implicates it - absolutely correctly - in the current crisis of ‘community’, which you know something about. What else is a political theory about the supremacy of the individual other than reductionism writ large? One you do not happen to like, I might add. Scientists are not different from other people - they also tend to look for their lost keys under the streetlamp, not because that’s where they lost them, but because that’s where the light is. Scientists stick to their hidebound notions unto death - as hilariously demonstrated by the school of Thomas Kuhn. It would do well for you to remember that, in just the past ten years, dogmatic statements of long standing regarding neurogenesis in the brain - textbook stuff, there - were proven wholly and totally wrong. Seems that the brain is growing new neurons all the time. And that new generation antidepressants, like Prozac, did not rely for their main mechanism of action on serotonin reuptake, but on enhancing neurogenesis instead. Do you get that? The whole field takes as axiomatic - “natural truth” - that there is no neurogenesis. Drugs are supplied to millions of people - with no idea how they work. The idea that scientists are not flying by the seat of their pants is just hoo-hah. They are clearly making it up as they go along. Here’s another doozy. Do you remember the term “Junk DNA” - scientist passed off, as an aspect of the ‘real world’ the idea that about half of our DNA is garbage. Well, even as a child I knew that wasn’t going to pan out, though I may have arrived at that conclusion by means Karl Popper might not have approved as strictly scientific. Now, it seems, I am right yet again. Two stories, in the past five years, show that this permanent aspect of the real earth - as opposed to the figment of philosopher’s imaginations - was in fact, a figment of some scientific dogmatists hubristic imagination run amuk. “I don’t know what these things do, they must be junk.” Interestingly, salvation for biology in this instance came from the upper registers of mathematics - more Plato than Pasteur - when certain mathematical regularites were discovered in the “Junk” that wasn’t supposed to be there. Biologists, who still haven’t any idea what the non-Junk is doing, have at least been big enough to admit that maybe, just maybe, something is occuring outside the realm of their knowledge.
Here is that statement unpacked:
Even Marx is very good about about how powerful communities keep propgandizing an ideology until it is regarded as ‘natural’ and not ‘cultural’. Progressives do this very well, where every action and nation are subject to its utterly false but naturalized ‘metric’. What are you doing in such low company, my friend? Arise from your semi-recumbent position! Finally, my purpose in the last paragraph of the post above was not to criticize journalistic talent here, which I respect, but to suggest that the talent here could support three blogs, all of which might be less rancorous and more efficient in getting their points across and attracting like minded individuals. I also, if you recall, began that by praising your post above as an example of “a strongly worded post about a real subject from a definite point of view”. Criticism in a technical sense, but surely constructive criticism. 17
Posted by Matra on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:25 | # Sunic seems to take the Prindle critique of New Englanders and extends it to European America in general. Reading some of his work I get the impression that he believes Puritanism is essentially Jewish and that it simply follows logically from the acceptance of Christianity - Catholicism included. Christians in accepting Jewish mythology have left the door open to Jewish influence and therefore their complaints about Jews make no sense. In not being able to see this the American “anti-semite” ends up attributing Jewish influence to extraterrestrial powers and conspiracies. Sunic, however, also rejects genetic science (GW “the only game in town”) as a basis for renewal. Based on his previous work that leads me to think “the only game in town” as far as Sunic is concerned is a return to polytheistic paganism. Although there are still signs of pagan thought after 2000 years of Christianity it wouldn’t be wise for us to pin our hopes on a pagan revival. Perhaps Dr Sunic can be convinced to respond to this thread and clear up any misconceptions, if there are any, of his work. 18
Posted by Tom Sunic on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:50 | # Thanks for good, albeit sharp comments regarding my analyses of anti-Semitism and American philo -Semitism in my book Homo americanus - whatever that may mean in Leftist or neocon political semiotics. 19
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:38 | # Sunic is a European and for that reason completely misunderstands American history. Matra is very to the point: Sunic takes some of the more negative aspects of New Englanders and extends them to “America” in general. I haven’t read his book, but it sounds like he is portraying every American as a capitalizing Babbit, which is ridiculously untrue - we Southerners have always been hopelessly incompetent with money. Compare Franklin to Jefferson. We’re having a discussion about this on OCD. As for Sunic’s criticism of American racialism, someone should remind him that we are amongst the few people in the entire world who have any considerable experience with this sort of thing, and that insofar as racialism exists at all, we were largely the pioneers of it. With few exceptions, nowhere else in the world has the ideal of a “white man’s country” been as celebrated as it has been in the United States, especially in the American South. This is certainly true of Sunic’s native Serbia which, to my knowledge, has never had anything resembling a racialist tradition. Sunic is probably right about the emphasis upon genetics over culture. But let us take this point seriously. Consider American culture as opposed to European culture. For centuries, “whiteness” was a defining aspect of the American ethnos. What of France, Germany, Italy, Serbia, etc? Race never played the role there that it does here. On the contrary, the closest thing most European nations have to a tradition of racialism is ethnic nationalism. This was the defining aspect of Nazism and went hand in hand with their contempt for the Czechs, Poles, and Russians which, from an American perspective, makes no sense. During the 1950s, over 90% of white Americans disapproved of black/white miscegenation. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that a majority of white Americans were willing to say they approved of this. Even Yankees found this extremely distasteful in a way that most Europeans never have. One last thing: about American racialism and Biblical fundamentalism. Sunic completely ignores the fact that racialism and Calvinism co-existed for three centuries in America and, in fact, the latter complemented the former in many ways. In New England, for example, Yankees imagined themselves as a New Israel in the wilderness with a special providential mission to bring civilization to North America. This enabled them to annihilate the indigenous Indian tribes of the region like the Pequot. What’s more, the American ideal of racial purity owes much to Puritanism, which also came to influence the South in a subtle way during the early republic. Another example of this: Apartheid South Africa. Calvinism and racialism also went hand in hand there. Predestination and genetic determinism are peas in a pod. Even today, the most racially conservative Americans are evangelical Christians. At the same time, Calvinism often cuts the other way, but in any case, the major problem with America is liberalism, not Christianity. 20
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:01 | # Mr. Sunic, Traditionally, Americans haven’t been “obsessed” with Jews. In fact, Southerners are amongst the most philo-semitic people in the world, and so are the Boers, who also combined racialism with Calvinism. I haven’t read your book, so perhaps I have been grossly misinformed from the comments here and in other threads; if that is the case, I apologize. Personally, I happen to be an American racialist and a hardcore atheist. Yet I have the “Jew thing” as well. The “Jew thing” is impossible to ignore in America for several reasons: 1.) As it happens, 50% to 60% of American social scientists and humanities professors are of Jewish ethnicity. Thus, in this country, what passes for racial discourse in the academic mainstream is overwhelmingly colored by the Jewish background of most commentators on race relations. 2.) The overwhelming preponderance of Jews in the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. I refer specifically to the Freedom Riders, of whom over 50% were Jewish, the number of Jews who worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the number of Jews who financed the NAACP and the SCLC, the sheer number of Jews in SNCC, often in leadership positions, and so forth. 3.) The legacy of Jewish social and natural scientists upon the concept of race in this country. I have in mind here Franz Boas, Otto Klineberg, Ashley Montagu, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, and others of their ilk. It is in no way inaccurate to say that the leading lights of American anti-racism have been overwhelmingly Jewish by ethnicity. 4.) The decisive role played by Jews like Horace Kallen and the New York Intellectuals in transforming America from the WASP country it was prior to the 1920s to the cosmopolitan, universalist America it became after the mid-1960s. This has been abundantly documented by Eric P. Kaufmann in his book The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. Perhaps you can explain to me why Jewish intellectuals and academics, in addition to the organized Jewish community itself, spends so much of its time tearing down racialism and demonizing Americans who take pride in their race. I’m at a loss to understand why this is so. After all, it was my ancestors who welcomed them into this country with open arms and rescued them from Hitler’s Third Reich during the Second World War. I’m by no means a Christian, so my resentments against American Jewry cannot be explained through recourse to monotheism. 21
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:32 | # While I am thinking about, I would argue that the conveyor belt of destructive ideologies has operated overwhelmingly in the other direction across history. Tens of millions of Europeans immigrated to America and brought their bad ideas with them, not the other way around. 1.) Liberalism, which became fashionable in Europe during the nineteenth century and was the dominant ideology of Victorian Britain, eventually crossed the Atlantic and took root here. It wasn’t until FDR that America began to adopt a free trade policy. 2.) Cultural anthropology, brought to America by Franz Boas, was racially egalitarian and was the dominant school of thought in 19C Germany. Hereditarianism later became influential in Germany through the influence of Darwin via Haeckel. 3.) Marxism, enough said. 4.) Fascism and Nazism, the influence of which has reduced American racialism to something of a bad joke since the 1960s. 5.) Postmodernism, another European philosophy of French and German origin, the influence of which completely informs the current anti-racist critique of racialism in America. 22
Posted by Tabula Rasa on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:47 | # It’s an odd argument that mimicking the world’s most ethnocentric religion has rendered us xenophiles. Jews prosper in this environment because the entire Jewish gestalt is perfectly suited to an environment of rampant materialism and growing chaos. Jews thrive in this environment; they love and propagate chaos. Chaos is probably “their element” like fish and water or birds and the air. In such an environment of progressive breakdown and disaggregation, the Jewish nomadic mentality is ideal. They form no attachments to anything around themselves and can quite dispassionately wreck somewhere and move on to the next place. Jews are therefore agents in Western decline, but they are not its cause. The cause of Western decline is the lack of a countervailing force or will-to-order. Where that is absent, where the only ideals are material, the “good life” and so on, then the purposeless will always be led around by the purposeful; whether they be Jews or Muslims or Chinese. Perhaps all these groups will be fighting over our collective corpse by the end. Death and decay can only be arrested by will. But our will has deserted us and all we have is fear.Why? That is the question. And it cannot be answered by looking into microscopes. 23
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:56 | #
This is just flat out a false statement. Whether it’s the Know-Nothings or the 1924 restictionists, the foundation for their resistance to mass immigration was ethnic nationalism. It had nothing to do with “whiteness”. Americans like Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard divided Europeans into separates races or sub-races or whatever you want to call it. The notion of a prevailing whiteness, if it even existed, was not evident in the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa or Rhodesia. These nations, at a stretch, saw their founders as Nordics, and more specifically as Anglo-Saxon commonwealths. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:24 | #
Jealousy. They’re jealous. Of you. Look, they’re a rival ethnic group (and race). A large portion of Ulster Catholic antipathy toward Prods can be characterized by the word jealousy. Ulster Prod antipathy toward Catholics can’t be so characterized because the Prods are in control there: it’s their society. Top dogs aren’t jealous of underdogs. They may disdain them but aren’t jealous of them, there being nothing, from their point of view, to be jealous of. You don’t feel jealousy toward those who aren’t in control. When you’re in control and they’re not, they’re your inferiors. If Ulster Catholics achieved a position of influence over Ulster don’t you think they’d use it to begin tearing down Prod hegemony and erasing every symbol that signified Prod hegemony? Of course they would. They’d go at it hammer and tongs. Jews are no different: they have no intention of “looking up to” Euro Christians in the West, because they’re not Euro Christians and they’ll be damned if they’re going to be made to feel inferior in that way, looking up to something not just alien to themselves, but which they dislike and consider inferior to boot. No, they’ll tear down Euro-Christianness first, brick by brick. As everyone knows, that’s exactly what they’ve been doing, even unto destroying the Euro Christian race they’re so mad, by throwing all their weight for the past one hundred years behind forced race-replacement, which is what they’ve done. What motivates Jews is no mystery. (I mention jealousy but their motivation consists of lots of elements apart from jealousy, pure tribal hatred among them — fear and loathing — and others.) To me, the mystery is why no response from Euros? Certainly a large number of Euro members of the élite mainstream see exactly that deliberate, planned-decades-in-advance race-replacement is being forced on all Eurosphere populations everywhere. They don’t speak up about it. There are many Enochs out there who aren’t speaking. Why? That for me is the mystery. If all who see it with crystal clarity spoke up there’d be nothing the Jews could do. They’d be shown up as a big paper tiger. In fact, a Euro challenge of that kind would turn a significant portion of today’s race-replacement-supporting Jews (which is to say, about 99.999999999999999999999999999% of Jews) into critics of forced race-replacement: it would precipitate Jewish infighting, race-replacers against non-race-replacers. The big mystery isn’t why the Jews are doing what they’re doing but why almost zero Euro élites oppose it.
Many in the first generation of each wave of Jewish immigration are respectful of the host society and would never dream of tearing it down. The ones who devote their lives to tearing it down are the second and, especially, third generation Jews. In a way that’s a compliment because they’re saying they fundamentally like it here: they feel it’s their society as much as it is the Euros’, and why should they subordinate themselves to Euros? No, they’ll tear down the Euros and build something more congenial to Jews. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:29 | # I hadn’t seen Tabula Rasa’s comment before posting mine. His main point is one of the points I was trying to make. He makes it better. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:34 | #
“Enochs” = Enoch Powells, that is, men who see as clearly as he saw but are keeping quiet and just watching it all happen. 27
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:43 | #
That’s ridiculous. It is directly contradicted well over a dozen naturalization laws of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, not to mention by literally hundreds of state and local statutes that specifically used the word “white,” not “Anglo-Saxon,” into the mid-twentieth century.
That’s an interesting theory. “Whiteness” was the criterion of American naturalization law, not being “Anglo-Saxon.” If the latter had been the case, there never would have been mass European immigration to the United States in the first place. The Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians and so forth were all eligible to come here because they were regarded as being “white” whereas all sorts of other races were excluded until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. About the “Know Nothings.” Their major objection to Irish immigration was the fact that the Irish were Catholics. They feared that the Irish would conspire with the Pope to destroy American liberty. What’s more, the hysteria that Irish immigration created in New England wasn’t shared by much of the rest of the country, in particular the Democratic South, which was pro-immigration. Yancey, for example, denounced the crude anti-Catholic bigotry of the Know Nothings, most of whom would later join the Republican Party and go on to become Wide Awakes. Once again, during the 1920s, the anti-Catholic animus of Protestant nationalists was the major motivating factor behind immigration reform, not racial hostility to European immigrants. It is simply a myth that non-Anglo-Saxons suffered from widespread discrimination in the United States. Even Grant and his fellow Nordicists were racialists, not narrowminded ethnic chauvinists of the Hitler and Mussolini variety. Theodore Roosevelt (of Dutch ancestry), one of the most influential figures of the early twentieth century, comes to mind. He famously glorified the racial nationalism of the American frontier: how it molded diverse European ethnicities into “white men.” As you know, Roosevelt was elected president of the United States, which is hard to explain for a country supposedly based on narrow ethnic nationalism of the sort you seem to be endorsing here. Amongst the Founders/famous figures of the Revolution, John Jay, John Randolph, and Paul Revere were Huguenots. Pennsylvania and New Jersey were incredibly ethnically diverse. In the South, Louisiana and the Alabama and Mississippi Gulf Coast had been settled by Frenchmen. South Carolina boasted a large population of Huguenots. The Scot-Irish had settled the Southern backcountry. Maryland had a large population of Catholics. Texas and Missouri, of course, large German populations. O’Sullivan of “Manifest Destiny” fame was an Irishman who, as it happens, lived during the presidency of Martin van Buren, a non-Anglo-Saxon. Amazing for a country supposedly based on ethnic nationalism, how all these non-Anglos went on to play such prominent roles in American life.
Correction: Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were Nordicists, not ethnic chauvinists, who admired the Nordic type of Northwestern Europe, which for centuries had been more or less a synonym for “white” in America. If Grant had been an ethnic nationalist, he would have favored the immigration of English Atlanto-Meds to the U.S. over Nordic Scandinavians. That wasn’t the case at all.
Actually, the term “white” was more frequently used than any other for centuries to describe the ideal American racial/ethnic type. It is entirely true than the Anglo-Saxons have played a special role in the history of this country, but it is completely wrong to confuse Americanism with, say, English nationalism. No, the American ideal was Anglo-conformity: “white” Europeans becoming WASPs through the “assimilation” of American speech, customs, and mores. To my knowledge, in all of American history, we have never had an immigration law that restricted immigration to “Nordics” or “Anglo-Saxons.” Even the Immigration Act of 1924 was not a law of this sort. Southern and Eastern Europeans were still eligible to immigrate to the United States, but in reduced numbers; immigration from Northwestern Europe was simply privileged over that from other sources, which is in no way objectionable. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:05 | # Welcome back, Svi. I’ve missed your humour and topicality. 29
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:16 | #
If S. and E. Europeans were so well accepted and considered universally as white then why the reduction in numbers? If we’re all white together boys, then why a priviledged position for N. W. Europeans? From KMac: The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:
[Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922] No mention of universal “whiteness” here, that’s because the notion simply did not exist. The talk, particularly in the US extended at best to Nords, Alpines and Meds, yet men like General George Patton clearly saw himself as a descendant of Anglo-Saxons. Canada, OZ, NZ, and Rhodesia clearly saw themselves as Anglo-Saxon/British people. One Irishman (Protestant?) is cited as playing a significant role in post-revolutionary America and you cite it as amazing. In antebellum society, the Irish were considered “low-browed, savage, groveling, bestial, lazy, wild, simian, and sensual,” terms almost identical to those describing blacks. You have to decide. Either the Nordic ideal equated to whiteness in the US or all Europeans were considered white. Which is it? On any level of genetic assessment are you really saying Pennsylvania and New Jersey were incredibly ethnically diverse? English, some Dutch, and what some French, that’s what you call incredibly ethnically diverse?
Flat out untrue. That’s exactly what the 1924 restriction was all about. The fact that a full restriction to Nords, was not accomplished, in no way proves it was not desired? 30
Posted by Matra on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:26 | # Fred Scrooby:
Though I agree in general with the broad point you are making Ulster’s not a good example. The Protestants have not been in control of NI since (at least) 1972 when Red Tory Ted Heath ended devolution and replaced it with direct rule from London. Sort of like an American president abolishing Alabama’s legislature, sending in federal troops, then putting all racial issues in the state under the control of a cabinet minister and a new department of bureaucrats. Scimitar:
There may have also been an ethnic component. Historically the English and Scottish and their descendants in the New World had a low opinion of so-called native Irish. Sometimes it spilled over to Scotch-Irish Protestants though mostly just in New England. Scimitar:
But the numbers of them were restricted. Prior to the 1920s most of the immigrants came from those countries so what caused the anti-immigration backlash in the first place? It couldn’t have been non-white immigration. Politicians at the time referred specifically to America’s Anglo-Saxon heritage. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:34 | # WM, I am looking at your prolixatious comment while I still have a few moments this evening. For starters, did you know that Brian Goodwin appeals to the authority of Stephen Jay Gould on his personal page at Edge.org? Goodwin is not a Jew, btw. He is a professor of biology at a college in England specialising entirely in sustainability studies. He teaches on “Holistic Science”. He is an innovator - even a revolutionary - in his adopted field, and seemingly a lone voice. His meaning, shared with Gould, is that evolution has “no purpose, no progress, no sense of direction.” I don’t know where you dug this guy up from, but do you think you could find someone with a little more mainstream credibility? 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:35 | # Matra thanks for that correction: I didn’t know Red Ted had done that. But I’m glad my point about jealousy motivating the Jews came across nonetheless. 33
Posted by Matra on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:43 | # From Max Dimont’s The Jews In America (I picked it up for $1 at a second hand shop recently):
(I’m surprised a Jew would write something like that. The book was published in 1978). It was only when the immigrants were no longer majority Anglo-Saxon/Nordic that Americans got serious about immigration control. 34
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:04 | # Madison Grant:
35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:15 | # Matra that excerpt from Max Dimont is indeed a jaw-dropper coming from the pen of a Jew. (It would be nothing remarkable coming from the pen of a Euro.) May God bless Mr. Dimont for writing it! Thank you for posting it. 36
Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:15 | # ==================== Traditionally, Americans haven’t been “obsessed” with Jews. In fact, Southerners are amongst the most philo-semitic people in the world, and so are the Boers, who also combined racialism with Calvinism. I haven’t read your book, so perhaps I have been grossly misinformed from the comments here and in other threads; if that is the case, I apologize. Personally, I happen to be an American racialist and a hardcore atheist. Yet I have the “Jew thing” as well. The “Jew thing” is impossible to ignore in America for several reasons: ... As another “hardcore atheist,” I affirm the “several reasons” listed by ‘Scimitar” - and add reference to the treacherous role played by elite Jewry in conducting the catastrophic foreign policy of what I refer to as “Greater Judea”. The disaster of the First World War, in which they involved us for Zion, was made the foundation of the Second - and the Second World War, in which they involved us for the Soviet, arranged the contestants of the Third. One is embarrassed at having to mention the present Neo-con adventure in Iraq as too obvious a pretext for serious concern with mendacious Jewish influence on “American” foreign policy. 37
Posted by triad60 on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:43 | # Maguire How much have you read of Michael Hoffman and triad60 38
Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 02:34 | # Svigor, I’ve given up on Sailer’s comments (and his blog) after the last one got censored in the Harry Potter thread. You had said something about Harry being “somewhat Jewish looking”, and I had responded (paraphrasing) that he’s more of a proto-Jew, someone with dark hair who acts in the role of the Jew. They’re hardly going to make “Hyman Podhoretz and the Quest to Stamp out the Last Racially Aware Goyim”, are they, casting Haley Joel Osment in the lead role? Then I checked with imdb, LMAO!!! “(Osment) Was wanted by Steven Spielberg to play Harry Potter when Spielberg was considered to direct Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001).” My thought processes were “Hmmm, child revolutionary (perhaps Jewish) leads battle within English public school setting against Germanics hostile to miscegenation? Who to cast… Corey Feldman? Nope, too old, too funny, not innocent enough. Haley Joel Osment? Bingo! But of course, correct theories would never have predictive power, would they. (And this is something Sailer is supposedly very keen about, if you read his blog.) ************* As to your “guilt by association”, yes, this is used ALL THE TIME. You make the villain represent the ideas and people you want your audience to hate. It’s similar to caricature. The goal is that the mass of people can’t think at all about certain subjects without hating, without fearing, without ridiculing, without arguing, without laughing, anything but embracing. This technique probably predates the play, heralding back to oral stories. The main difference is that the Jew (or the native conman) uses it to subvert his audience, the host nation may use this technique to foster beneficial values (although it’s often enough just to point out the bad consequences of the action in that case). Really, study in the methods of propaganda should be mandatory for any of our children. 39
Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:09 | # Tom Sunic: I’d hesitate to call the obsession with Semitic gods to be “self imposed”. That would ignore the role of Saul of Tarsus, who sold this primitive form of Marxism to the Romans. And of Charlemagne for that matter. 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:33 | #
I think the reply Triad60 means is this one by me. I’d like to say I think this man Hoffman is worth reading. If some of his stuff is tinfoil hat stuff — which some is — it doesn’t take that away. 41
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:34 | # Scimitar, What’s more, the hysteria that Irish immigration created in New England wasn’t shared by much of the rest of the country, in particular the Democratic South, which was pro-immigration. Shocking. Democrats pandering for ethnic votes. Theodore Roosevelt (of Dutch ancestry) Out of four grandparents, three had surnames originating in the British Isles. Amongst the Founders/famous figures of the Revolution, John Jay, John Randolph, and Paul Revere were Huguenots. No. Jay was half Dutch. Randolph is obviously not “a Huguenot”, and I don’t even know that anyone has claimed he had any such ancestry. Revere’s mother was from Boston (i.e., most likely of English ancestry). England itself experienced Huguenot immigration. Does this invalidate English ethnic nationalism? (Note: I’m not saying American ethnic nationalism was English ethnic nationalism; it wasn’t, especially after Independence. But I believe an American ethnic nationalism did develop, and it was not broadly-interpreted “white” nationalism.) Maryland had a large population of Catholics. “Large”? Maybe compared to the near-zero Catholic populations in the other colonies. According to Wikipedia (and this accords with everything else I’ve read on the topic), “at the time of the American Revolution, Catholics formed less than 1% of the population of the thirteen colonies.” O’Sullivan of “Manifest Destiny” fame was an Irishman Half-English. Martin van Buren, a non-Anglo-Saxon And what about the previous seven presidents? Anyway, the Dutch are extremely closely related to the English and Van Buren’s forebears settled in North America almost as early as the English. Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were Nordicists, not ethnic chauvinists, who admired the Nordic type of Northwestern Europe, which for centuries had been more or less a synonym for “white” in America. Exactly. And when “whites” of less compatible backgrounds immigrated in significant numbers, how did the natives react? To my knowledge, in all of American history, we have never had an immigration law that restricted immigration to “Nordics” or “Anglo-Saxons.” Even the Immigration Act of 1924 was not a law of this sort. Southern and Eastern Europeans were still eligible to immigrate to the United States, but in reduced numbers; immigration from Northwestern Europe was simply privileged over that from other sources, which is in no way objectionable. As Desmond has pointed out, if all “whites” were considered interchangeable there would not have been a backlash to southern and eastern European immigration and restriction would not have occurred. Nor were people like Grant and Laughlin content their job was done after 1924. Some context, from David Hackett Fischer:
According to Grant:
(And of course even these German immigrants had their detractors.) See also, e.g.:
I believe the precise estimate I’ve seen based on analysis of surnames is that U.S. white population was 90% British in 1790. As for the views of Southerners:
42
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:49 | #
I have already addressed this. Southern and Eastern Europeans were not Protestants and were considered less Nordic than Northwestern Europeans. This is not to say they weren’t considered “white.” If that had been the case, then the Jim Crow laws would have applied to them and they would never have been eligible to naturalize as U.S. citizens in the first place. During the nineteenth century, the Anglo-Saxons were touted as being the “whitest” of the Europeans because of their fair skin. The Irish, Germans, Scandinavians and so forth were considered “white,” but less so than the Anglo-Saxons. The Immigration Act of 1924 did nothing but privilege immigration from Northwestern Europe over other sources. It absolutely did not eliminate European immigration from non-Nordic sources. Southern and Eastern Europeans have always been eligible to immigrate to the United States and naturalize as American citizens.
Actually, I have that quote posted on my website and I am quite familiar with it. Vaile is saying nothing here other than the Anglo-Saxons built America and enjoy a privileged place within it. He is not saying at all that non-Anglo-Saxons cannot be Americans, only that immigration should not disrupt the traditional ethnic balance of the country.
Are you familiar with the Jim Crow laws? Apparently not.
Once again, if you look at the actual federal and state statutes, as well as the local ordinances, the term “white” is used far more frequently than “Anglo-Saxon” or “Nordic.” In fact, the latter two are almost never used. BTW, I am still ignorant of your nationality. Are you an American?
That’s utterly false. To compare the treatment of the Irish to the negro is, to put it mildly, ludicrous. Name for me a single law in the history of the United States that ever discriminated against the Irish as Irish. Southerners were pro-Irish. During the Great Famine, Southerners organized a relief effort to alleviate the famine in Ireland. Refugees from Ireland were also warmly received in the South. The Irish established communities throughout Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia and fought bravely for the Confederacy during our Civil War. See David Gleeson’s The Irish in the South, 1815-1877 for the most thorough account of the subject. Irish immigrants in the North were allied to Southerners in the Democratic Party. During Reconstruction, Irish rioted throughout the South against forced integration, and during the Civil War famously in the New York City Draft Riots. John L. O’Sullivan wasn’t just any Irish-American either. He coined the concept “Manifest Destiny” which justified the conquest of the American West during the 19C. He was a close friend of Nathaniel Hawthorne. From Gleeson’s book:
The term “Nordic” was infrequently used in America until the early twentieth century. The term “white” was always by far the most common and dates back to the mid-seventeenth century. In the minds of most Americans, “Nordic” and “white” were used interchangeably as synonyms to reference people of Northwestern European ancestry. This isn’t to say that non-Nordic Europeans were considered “nonwhite,” only that they were less white than, say, the English or the Danes.
The Mid-Atlantic colonies, Pennsylvania and New Jersey in particular, were ethnically diverse at the time of the American Revolution. Both colonies had large populations of Germans, Scots, Irish, Danes, Swedes. New York, of course, had the most Dutchmen. Were these colonies ethnically diverse? Yes, they were. German and English are closely related, but distinct languages. Dutch also. Since when has it ever been the case that non-Anglos cannot become Americans? I’m not aware of that view ever being predominant in the United States.
Poles, Italians, Czechs, Hungarians and so forth were still eligible to immigrate to the U.S. under the Immigration Act of 1924. Once again, you can’t point out to me a single immigration law in all of American history that restricted immigration to Anglo-Saxons or Nordics. The criterion that mattered was “whiteness” from 1790 until 1952. You are also forgetting that many of the states which supported the Immigration Act of 1924, in particular, the states of the Mountain West and Great Plains had been colonized by Germans and Scandinavians. 43
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:51 | #
I love stuff like this. I love people defending themselves and their group. That people were talking like this as recently as 1905 reassures me as to the potential future prospects for restoration of society’s former sanity, goodness, normalness, health, and strength. 44
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:53 | # (I was quoting there from “required’s” comment, three above.) 45
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:57 | # The definition of an American, according to Harry Laughlin (unpublished):
46
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:07 | #
Is that so? Let’s run through some quotes I just happened to post on my website today from the Antebellum era, Southerners and Northerners alike:
47
Posted by Thomas on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:08 | # A bit off topic, but there was and still is a movement/party, Lega Nord, in Italy who want to have the northern Italians break away and from the southern Italians. I have spent some time in Italy for work and I have heard from Italians, something to the effect of, “everything south of Naples (or sometimes Rome) is Africa” etc, Sicilians sometimes referred to as “SDD” small dark and dirty, etc…Looking back into history, there is a very strong Nordic admixture in Italy and there has been since before historical times even. As a side note, the men who seemed to have been most successful at ruling the Italians with ability were Nordics/Normans, Roger the Norman comes to mind and the Italians seemed to prosper best under them. Great site and thanks for the opportunity to ramble a bit. Now flame away if necessary. 48
Posted by Matra on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:10 | #
Anglo-Saxon is usually used in an inclusive way to include those Europeans who submerged their identity into that of the greater English-speaking society. The term is imprecise to begin with but it is better than “Anglo-Celtic/Saxon/Nordic plus a few Huguenots”. I’ve never heard of Scandinavians, Dutch, and Germans whose native tongue is English being rejected. Despite the “wogs begin at Calais” saying the British have always seen the French as white, unlike some other Europeans, and have never objected to a small number of them integrating into Anglo-Saxon nations. Huguenots, whether in England, Protestant Ireland or the New World always submerged their identity into that of the Anglo-Saxon community. It wasn’t like Quebec. Scots-Irish is another imprecise term as many have English (and Huguenot) ancestors and they intermarried with those of exclusively English descent without any difficulties. They were both a part of a greater British Isles Protestant identity. BTW Tomislav Sunic is Croatian. 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:19 | # I’m Slavic, southern German, and Hebrew. That in no way keeps me from applauding what Congressman Vaile said in that 1924 Congressional Record. On the contrary, I applaud it with every ounce of strength in my body. I adore it. 50
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:23 | # To quantify the “incredibly ethnically diverse” American founding population, here are the numbers according to Laughlin (Immigration and Conquest, p. 56; percentage of population, based on the 1790 census): France: .6 51
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:28 | # Scimitar, As you’ve already admitted, “white” in early America was synonymous with “northwestern European”. Quote Americans saying “white” all you like, but unless you can prove otherwise, they were referring to themselves, their ancestors and descendants, and compatible immigrants. They were not talking about Sicilians, Greeks, or Romanians. 52
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:37 | # Continuing with the quotes above:
53
Posted by wintermute on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:38 | # It is beyond me why masses of intelligent white Americans turn delirious when reading passages from the Bible. (European anti -Semites are not much better either). Why not get high on Homer? As long one searches for one’s identity by mimicking the Other, the Other will look down upon him as a lesser being. Mr. Sunic - The Other agrees with you. From Simone Weil, “The Iliad or The Poem of Force”
54
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:45 | # Anglo-Saxon is usually used in an inclusive way to include those Europeans who submerged their identity into that of the greater English-speaking society. [. . .] Huguenots, whether in England, Protestant Ireland or the New World always submerged their identity into that of the Anglo-Saxon community. Matra is of course correct. “Huguenot” John Jay: 55
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:51 | #
Boy, in his army career Sherman certainly did all he could to act contrary to the spirit and letter of that opinion of his (an opinion I bet he kept private while he was “marching through Georgia ...”). 56
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:58 | # Scimitar, You are showing that non-whites were widely considered incompatible and undesirable by white Americans. No one disputes this. You have not shown that white Americans considered all Europeans interchangeable or equally desirable as immigrants. In fact, you have acknowledged this was not the case. I do not dispute that Americans have historically been “racially aware” with respect to negroes and Amerinds. I do dispute that they were utopian, pan-Europeanists with no ethnic identity beyond “white”. 57
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:02 | #
As the gallery can plainly see, the notion that “whiteness” was of no importance to Americans is plainly false. On the contrary, Northerners and Southerners alike were unanimous in their belief that America was a “white man’s country” and desired to keep it that way. As I have shown on my blog, Ulrich B. Phillips famously argued that the preservation of America as a “white man’s country” was the central theme of Southern history. See also the quotes from Lincoln and Wade about welcoming white men from the world over to settle in the great American West. That’s exactly what happened. The United States has a strong tradition of racial nationalism that dates back to the mid-seventeenth century. “Whiteness” was an important marker of the American ethnos until the mid-twentieth century. European immigrants could become “American” by jettisoning their ethnic identities to become “white men.” The ideal immigrant was the Nordic racial type, but other Europeans were always welcomed here. You argue that Italians, Greeks, Romanians etc. were not considered “white.” Once again, if that was the case, then they never would have been eligible to immigrate here in the first place, and would have been excluded under our naturalization laws. These populations might have been considered “less Nordic” than Danes, but that didn’t disquality them from immigrating to America. This tradition of racial nationalism has served Americans well over the centuries. Fortunately for us, North America didn’t become a seething cauldron of ethnic bigotry and hatred, and Americans were largely spared the bloody history of Europe during the 20C. I say largely because there was one exception to this - the American Civil War, the most destructive conflict in our history, but that was largely about political differences within the Union. What is known today as “White Nationalism” is an idea as old as America. During the 19C, it was popularly known as “free soilism” - keeping the Western territories racially pure for the white laborer. See the quote from Wilmot above. 58
Posted by Maguire on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:24 | # Triad60, “How much have you read of Michael Hoffman” I’ve read three of his books; “They Were White And They Were Slaves”; “Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare”; and “Judaism’s Strange Gods.” The first and last remain very worthwhile since they were structured as academic efforts. The second, “Secret Societies”, is best described as literary LSD. It’s becoming a bit dated, as are the influence networks it partly documents. Very much a part of late 1980s early 1990s culture. It’s still a very interesting read. The “Cryptocracy” however is no longer as cryptic as it once was. “and do you follow his blog or bi-monthly newsletters?” I read his blog every few months. I don’t subscribe to his newsletters. “identify the Edomite problem.” To publicize it in the late 1980s & 1990s, perhaps. “Maguire” 59
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:27 | #
1.) Desmond disputed this above: that “whiteness” was ever an important theme in American history. He argued otherwise. 2.) You argued above, “But I believe an American ethnic nationalism did develop, and it was not broadly-interpreted “white” nationalism.)” ^^ This isn’t true. “Whiteness” was the very basis of American nationalism, as we can see.
I have argued that our immigration laws were based on the criterion of “whiteness.” This excluded some populations, but allowed others to immigrate here. First, non-Anglo-Saxons have always been able to immigrate to the United States and naturalize as citizens. Obviously, that was because the American ethnos was defined racially, not in the narrow sense of having an English bloodline. Second, non-Nordics have always been eligible to immigrate here as well. The Nordic may have been preferred to the non-Nordic, but the non-Nordic was never excluded on those grounds.
Yes. I would add that this wasn’t the case in Europe. Racial identity, or the sense of being “white,” was never of any importance to most Europeans. The American tradition of racial nationalism and European ethnic nationalism are two entirely different things. The former is incredibly more expansive than the latter.
“White” encompassed all European populations, even if Americans regarded some Europeans as being “whiter” or “more Nordic” than others. Again, if that was not the case, then Russians, Sicilians, Spaniards, Croats, Poles, Romanians etc. would not have been allowed to immigrate here in the first place. I agree with you that there is such a thing as an American ethnos. The Americans were 1.) white in race, 2.) English in speech, 3.) Christian in religion, and 4.) republicans in political ideology . . . at least until the mid-twentieth century. That’s what it meant to be an “American.” 60
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:38 | # Matra,
Sure, I agree that there was an ethnic element to the American nativist movement of the 1850s, but it is still true that ethnic resentments were never their primary concern. They were motivated above all else by the fear that Irish Catholics would take orders from the Vatican and subvert the American Republic.
1.) The immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were overwhelmingly non-Protestants. They also tended to reject temperance which the major political crusade of the 1920s. 2.) They were immigrating in such large numbers that it was feared at the time they wouldn’t assimilate. The American model is racial nationalism + Anglo-conformity. European immigrants were expected to assimilate and become WASPs. 61
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:59 | # You argue that Italians, Greeks, Romanians etc. were not considered “white.” Not what I said. Southern Italians, Greeks, and Romanians are examples of groups that were basically absent from the U.S. prior to 1890. It would have been pointless for white Americans to distinguish themselves from these groups. You acknowledge that immigrants were expected to assimilate to American norms (“Anglo-Conformity”). You acknowledge immigrants from northwestern Europe were preferred. These are the main points I wish to stress. America had its own race and culture. You make too much of the fact that immigration from southern and eastern Europe wasn’t entirely eliminated by the 1924 Act. The key point is that such immigration was drastically reduced. Despite widespread liberalism, the country united in attempting to stop the shift in America’s ethnic balance. The Act gave a token quota to the Japanese; does this invalidate your “white nationalist” theory? What is known today as “White Nationalism” is an idea as old as America. Some modern “White Nationalists” hold views compatible with traditional American racialism. Some do not. The latter include those who identify with Germany or Ireland before America and those who cheer when Americans are killed in Iraq, as well as various “Pan-Aryan” types. 62
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:30 | #
Yancey on the Know Nothings: “Article 8 of the Philadelphia Platform, which called for the exclusion of all Catholics from public office, evoked almost as much of an outcry from Yancey as issues of sovereignty. Admitting that his religious education (largely influenced by Beman) taught him to view that faith as “anti-republican”,” Yancey argued that proscriptions like this never destroyed or even weakened religious groups. He reminded readers that those very sorts of prejudices drove many of their ancestors from Europe and toward America - Quakers, Puritans, Huguenots - who together built “a glorious temple to religious and political equality.” Nothing could prove more anti-American, “more European - in accordance with the antecedents of Kingcraft and despotism,” than religious tests and proscriptions. Therefore he concluded that this new party was “eminently federal, and Anti-American,” poised to attack both freedom of conscience for individuals and “the great States Rights creed.” Walther, 186
Of Dutch ancestry, and famously proud of it, and equally famous for holding Americans in contempt who looked down on non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants. TR positively glorified the ethnic heterogeneity of America and the American tradition of racial nationalism which molded new immigrants into “white men.” He wrote extensively about this and devoted much of his life to recapturing the ideal of the backwoodsman, as with his Rough Riders regiment in the Spanish-American War, or how he fancied himself a rancher.
And half-Irish.
What about them? I’m not aware of any of them endorsing this notion that only Anglo-Saxons could be Americans. How could Martin van Buren become POTUS in a nation narrowly based on Anglo-Saxon bloodlines?
About Maryland: “By owning and governing a colony, Lord Baltimore sought to gain additional wealth and to provide refuge for his fellow Catholics. Harassed in England by the Protestant majority, some Catholics contemplated emigration to an American colony. As a Catholic sympathizer, King Charles I favored Lord Baltimore’s plan to demonstrate that a policy of religious toleration could permit Protestants and Catholics to live together in harmony. Tending to his estates and political interest, Lord Baltimore remained in England and entrusted the governorship of Maryland to his younger brother, Leonard Calvert. In 1634 the new governor led two ships laden with colonists, both Protestant and Catholic, across the Atlantic to Chesapeake Bay. On a tributary of the Potomoc River, Calvert established the first settlement and colonial capital at St. Mary’s City.” Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin Books, 2001), 137
John Jay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay
Paul Revere: http://www.mwsite.org/papers/mwrevere.html
About Randolph. I have always heard he was Huguenot ancestry, although I can’t remember the exact source where I read that. Maybe I confused him with Alexander Hamilton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton
. . . or John Laurens: http://www.rootsweb.com/~galauren/history.htm
. . . or Francis Marion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion
. . . or Henry David Thoreau: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau
Continuing with this theme, what about some other famous 19C Americans? Let’s start with Senator Pierre Soulé of Louisiana: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Soulé
What about General P.G.T. Beauregard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.G.T._Beauregard
How about John C. Calhoun, of Scot-Irish background?
. . . or one of the greatest of all Southerners, Stonewall Jackson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson
And the President of the Confederacy himself, Jefferson Davis, who was of Welsh ancestry: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-1737
63
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:34 | # Again, if that was not the case, then Russians, Sicilians, Spaniards, Croats, Poles, Romanians etc. would not have been allowed to immigrate here in the first place. Chinese, Japanese, mestizos and other non-whites have been allowed to immigrate at various points in U.S. history. The motive for allowing such immigration has generally been cheap labor, and the desire for cheap labor also seems to have been the driving force in allowing southern and eastern European immigration. Southern and eastern Europeans are distinguished from most early non-white immigrants in that they were allowed to naturalize. But “white” is open to interpretation:
And:
64
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:10 | # Roosevelt was 3/4 non-Dutch. John Jay was Dutch on his mother’s side and part-Dutch on his father’s side; continuing your quote from Wikipedia:
Moreover, he was rather assimilated:
John Laurens’ mother was “Eleanor Ball, the daughter of another wealthy rice planter and slave owner” (Wikipedia); i.e., she was probably of British ancestry. “David Henry Thoreau was born in Concord, Massachusetts to John Thoreau and Cynthia Dunbar. His paternal grandfather was of French origin and born in Jersey.” That is, Theoreau was 1/4 French and about 3/4 British, if the pedigrees I looked at on rootsweb are accurate. Are you seeing a pattern? Huguenots intermarried freely with the British and Dutch in North America, and were assimilated. As for the rest of your examples, no one denies that British immigration to North America included English-speaking, Protestant Welsh and Scotch-Irish. 65
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:33 | #
In both cases, restrictions were placed on Asian immigration: in the case of the Chinese, through the Chinese Exclusion Act (which wasn’t repealed until WW2); in the case of the Japanese, through TR’s Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan. If I recall correctly, the Immigration Act of 1917 restricted immigration from much of the rest of Asia. Both the Japanese and Chinese had to fight legal battles in court to naturalize as American citizens. The American Indians received citizenship through three laws passed by Congress in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Did the millions of Italians who settled in the United States ever face such obstacles? Name me a single law which specifically excluded, say, Greeks or Sicilians or Russians. What’s more, there were anti-miscegenation laws in the West especially that specifically outlawed intermarriage between “whites” with Asians and Indians. Show me an anti-miscegenation law - from any state - that outlawed intermarriage between Anglo-Saxons and Italians. I would be knocked on my feet. The links you post above are interesting, but they confirm my point: “whiteness” was the basis of American naturalization law, not being “Anglo-Saxon” or “Nordic,” and it was the statutes I referred to above that the Court was interpreting. “Nordic” is a term of much more recent vintage. Also, in the Alabama case, “whiteness” was the basis of our anti-miscegenation law, as I recall telling you above. If Italians were considered “nonwhite,” then all the various Jim Crow laws would have been enforced against them as they traveled throughout the South. That generally didn’t happen. Again, as your own link shows, the Sicilians were considered “white,” but less white than Anglo-Saxons, which is what I said above. Re: Roosevelt. Are you aware of his views about European immigration? Please recount for us his position on that issue. Re: the Huguenots. Laurens, Hamilton, Thoreau, Jay, Revere etc. all had French blood. Did anyone at the time consider them less of an American because of that? Re: the Scot-Irish, Irish, Scots, and Welsh. Certainly, there was a non-Anglo-Saxon, Celtic element in their background. Actually, the Irish and Welsh aren’t Anglo-Saxons at all. So what? That stock has produced many fine Americans, probably our best fighting men. Full Disclosure: by ancestry, I am 1/2 Southerner and 1/2 Austrian. I have no Southern or Eastern European ancestry that I am aware of. I have blue eyes and brown hair. My surname is “Griffin.” What does that make me? Welsh? English, what? A Teuton-Celt? :p
Well, if you put it that way, I agree. The point I was stressing is that Americanism isn’t a tradition of narrow ethnic nationalism like, say, English or German nationalism. It is more expansive: European racial stock assimilating WASP norms.
The Immigration Act of 1924 accomplished its purpose: to privilege immigration from “traditional sources” over Southern and Eastern European immigration, and to maintain America’s traditional ethnodemographic makeup which was being changed by mass immigration. If you want to call that keeping this country Nordic, fine. You must admit though that the architects of the Immigration Act of 1924 though were thinking in far broader terms than Anglo-Saxonism.
Yes, I agree. Those confused people are ridiculous in much the same way that liberals are. Ever since the mid-twentieth century, the American ethnos has become disembowled - liberals rejecting racialism, racialists rejecting liberalism, racialists and liberals rejecting Christianity, etc. I have written about that in several threads here. Pace Sunic, American racialists have been smashed between the pillars of two European ideologies: on the one hand, racially egalitarian cultural anthropology; on the other, the influence of Nazism. The last thing we need is more great European ideas of that sort. Success for us lies with rehabilitating the American racialist tradition and reacquainting our people with their own rich heritage which, I might add, in terms of racialism is without parallel. 66
Posted by John on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:13 | # “Eureka! Fight fire with fire. I’ll give a fiver to who(m)ever (subject of the clause, therefore “whoever” (nominative case)) can name that behaviour or identify another.” Poisoning the well. 67
Posted by Eureka! on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:17 | # Svigor, It’d be great if we were wll versed in the arts of deception and propaganda, to the point where individual techniques can be readily identified, labelled and discredited as deceitful and not true. My belief is that for any given set of media there can only be so many methods of succesful disinformation available. Repeated usage of such methods would allow (and most probably has allowed) patterns to be discovered. Maybe this explains the large Jewish presence in the field of psychology. Working out what makes us tick. Maybe we can almost reverse engineer the sort of propaganda tools used everyday in the MSM. Thoughts and rambings.. 68
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:02 | # Re: Roosevelt. Are you aware of his views about European immigration? Please recount for us his position on that issue. Sure:
More:
More:
Roosevelt may have been too liberal on immigration for my tastes, but he was unquestionably concerned about the influx of poor southern and eastern Europeans of doubtful assimilability. Re: the Huguenots. Laurens, Hamilton, Thoreau, Jay, Revere etc. all had French blood. Did anyone at the time consider them less of an American because of that? Do the English consider Brunel un-English? Again, I draw your attention to the numbers I posted above. In 1790, 90% of Americans had British surnames. Less than 1% had French surnames. Actually, the Irish and Welsh aren’t Anglo-Saxons at all. Few Catholic Irish arrived in America prior to the potato famine. The Scotch-Irish are an entirely different (Protestant, English-speaking) ethnicity. The Welsh never to my knowledge existed in America as a distinct ethnic group (having always assimilated into the larger culture). Don’t conflate the latter two groups with the former (Cantrell likes to do that). Full Disclosure: by ancestry, I am 1/2 Southerner and 1/2 Austrian. I have no Southern or Eastern European ancestry that I am aware of. I have blue eyes and brown hair. My surname is “Griffin.” What does that make me? Welsh? English, what? A Teuton-Celt? :p Hopefully American (see Harry Laughlin’s definition above), though I do seem to recall you had an anti-American phase during which you dreamed of moving to Europe and studying Carl Schmitt. Having a possibly Welsh surname doesn’t make you Welsh. I would guess you are more English than anything on your dad’s side, but obviously that’s something for you to find out. The point I was stressing is that Americanism isn’t a tradition of narrow ethnic nationalism like, say, English or German nationalism. It is more expansive: European racial stock assimilating WASP norms. Okay, but remember that intra-European immigration and assimilation has occurred as well (Poles to France, Walloons to Sweden, etc.). Immigration is in no way integral to the American identity as I define it. Yes, large numbers of southern and eastern Europeans were allowed to immigrate the U.S. Should they have been allowed to immigrate? Were they allowed to immigrate due to some sweeping racialist vision? I don’t think so. If you want to call that keeping this country Nordic, fine. You must admit though that the architects of the Immigration Act of 1924 though were thinking in far broader terms than Anglo-Saxonism. The English are themselves a mélange of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, indigenous Britons, Vikings, and Normans, with average ancestry proportions varying in different regions. I don’t think “Anglo-Saxonists” were ever too opposed to assimilating culturally and genetically compatible groups. Besides England, the “traditional”, “Nordic” sources of American immigration are largely the sources that went into peopling England in the first place (Scotland and Wales; the Netherlands; Germany, though some regions are less racially compatible than others; and Scandinavia). In other words, American “Nordicism” and “Anglo-Saxonism” are largely consistent with each other. The last thing we need is more great European ideas of that sort. Success for us lies with rehabilitating the American racialist tradition and reacquainting our people with their own rich heritage which, I might add, in terms of racialism is without parallel. I agree entirely. 69
Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:41 | # The links you post above are interesting, but they confirm my point: “whiteness” was the basis of American naturalization law, not being “Anglo-Saxon” or “Nordic,” and it was the statutes I referred to above that the Court was interpreting. But what is “white”? We know what it’s not. But is there any reason to think the framers of 1790 Naturalization Act intended “free white persons” to include millions of destitute laborers from eastern and southern Europe? As you say, the word “Nordic” didn’t exist when the law was written; besides, the legislators had no way of foreseeing the social and technological changes that would allow that sort of mass, non-traditional immigration. As noted in the decision I cite above:
No, the decision shows nearly the opposite: Sicilians were not automatically considered white. I’m not all that interested in the “white/nonwhite” question, though. Southern and eastern Europeans were sufficiently distinct from native Americans to engender increased ethnic hostility relative to most earlier immigrants.
70
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:24 | #
You should have put that the Southern way( * ): “I’m half-Austrian by birth, and half-Southern by the grace of God.” ( * U.S. Southerners will say, “I’m American by birth, and Southern by the grace of God.”) 71
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:49 | # Scimitar: “During the 1950s, over 90% of white Americans disapproved of black/white miscegenation. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that a majority of white Americans were willing to say they approved of this. Even Yankees found this extremely distasteful in a way that most Europeans never have.” - That of course, is not correct. Sweden is maybe the worst country in Europe today concerning the anti-native policies. It has been ruled after the WWII mostly by social democrats. Still, before the WWII, the social democrats had a strict Swedish ethnic and racial policy. Social democrats published books, where the Swedish ethnicity was defined to be used in politics. Miscegenation in all forms was disapproved by almost all the people, regardless of their political view. Same here in Finland. E.g. Finnish school books taught clear racial categories, where blacks were described as childlike idiots, incapable to create a civilisation. In wartime, when there was immigration to Finland, strict Finnish ethnic criteria were used in deciding who can enter. In Belgium people had the same kind of ethnic/racial views, as told by Herge, the creator of Tintin comics. His Tintin in Africa -comic book was the reflection of those views (Recently in news in England, some people want to ban it). Etc. It must be understood about European ethnic nationalism; when it often placed strict borders between European ethnicities, it resisted more strongly marriages between races. Mixed race marriages were absolutely impossible. 72
Posted by GT on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:03 | # Maguire has attempted to introduce contemporary material concerning where the white American sheeple have been getting their mental programming, but to no avail. Once again a thread with potential is buried under reams of erudite, obscurantist musings on the 19th Century and earlier which have little relevance to the problems we face in the 21st. It appears that some of MR’s commentariat have constructed a fascinating little world for themselves. Unfortunately it bears a closer resemblance to the parallel universes occasionally featured on Star Trek episodes than the one we inhabit. I am compelled to throw a few monkey wrenches into the works. The fact is that the “Modernity” (or “Renaissance”) disliked by this group was the single biggest force in reviving study of “The Classics.” The surviving non-Christian “Classic” manuscripts from the Greco-Roman world are few. None are older than AD 900 – AD 1000, same as the oldest existing Talmud. To my knowledge the only exceptions are recent papyri unearthed in archeological digs and read with CAT scans and similar technology. The general origins of “The Classics” are from Constantinople during the Crusades. In quantity and age they pale in comparison to the surviving Christian Biblical manuscripts. Considering the variation that exists between the more numerous and frequently older Biblical manuscripts, I shudder to think about what must have happened to “The Classics.” Believing that we actually possess accurate original texts of most or even many of “The Classics” takes more faith than I can generate. It’s very likely that some were redacted, some were edited down, others were amended, and some are probably outright forgeries from the Middle Ages. Germanic and Nordic folklore plus the Bible played much greater roles in forming modern Europe than “The Classics,” and the only Bible version of significance for western and central Europe prior to the 16th Century was the Latin Vulgate used by the Catholic Church. “The Classics” retained greatest influence in precisely those areas most peripheral to the modern West – the territories of the eastern Byzantine Empire and of the Greek Orthodox Church. Now, let us return to the chapter on 21st Century … 73
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:09 | # Thank you, GT. Here’s a question:- Since Americanism in the postmodern age is a force for evil throughout the European world - America included, of course - and since the cultural, political and religious foundations of Americanism are formative not only of public values but of the acquired particulars of the American personality, at what level is Dr Sunic’s commendation to American patriots to free themselves from Americanism to be understood? At a merely political and institutional level, or somewhere in the soul of each American? 74
Posted by GT on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:57 | # The American is a European in search of a soul, GW. The European soul of our forebears has been lost. Nothing has replaced it. To the extent that we have a soul it is jewish. That is why, I think, some here are enamored with “The Classics” or in the case of my Southern brethren, the real and imagined history of the antebellum South. That we haven’t a soul is why I emphasize technical, as well as local economic, institutional, political, and yes, military solutions. 75
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:43 | # I’m highly suspicious of the notion that 1.) there is something called “Americanism” and it is synonymous with materialism and 2.) this is something novel which has been introduced into Europe through American influence. This strikes me as a stereotype. Let’s run through European history. I would specifically enjoin the gallery to cast their gaze back to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Does anyone remember how the Spanish conquered Latin America; how the Spanish plundered Mexico and Peru of an incalculable amount of gold and silver, decimated the native populations there, or how their efforts were plagued by English piracy, which was supported by the state, who wanted their own cut? What about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade - bringing millions of Africans to the New World, and organizing entire New World colonies like Barbados, St. Domingo, or Jamaica as purely economic enterprises? In fact, I seem to recall Europeans discovering the New World . . . looking for an alternative trade route to the East Indies. Take a closer look at European behavior in the New World. The Dutch, for example, were almost exclusively traders. The French were in Canada after furs. The English fought several wars against the Dutch over trade. And what of China? It was literally carved up by Europeans for it could be economically exploited. Then you have all sorts of incidents in Africa like the Boer War (after diamonds) or King Leopold (after red rubber). It is certainly true that Americans are too materialistic, but it is simply a self-serving myth that the greed, materialism, chasing after Mammon were introduced into Europe by Americans after the Second World War. Indeed, it takes an incredible ignorance of history to believe that. 76
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:55 | # To: the Finn In 1957, the USIA did a survey of European attitudes re: American race relations. Here are the results:
The bad press that the U.S. was getting abroad and the criticism of American race relations in the U.N., especially in Western Europe amongst the NATO allies, prompted the Eisenhower administration to push the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress - the first major piece of federal civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. Here is Eisenhower himself speaking about the subject: “If we hope to strengthen freedom in the world we must be ever mindful of how our own conduct reacts elsewhere. No nation has ever been so floodlighted in world opinion as the United States is today. Everything we do is carefully scrutinized by other peoples throughout the world. . . In other areas of human rights - freedom from discrimination in voting, in public education, in access to jobs, and in other respects - the world is likewise watching our conduct. The image of America abroad is not approved when school children . . . are deproved of their opportunity for an education. . . By moving steadily toward the goal of greater freedom under law, for our own people, we shall be better prepared to work for the cause of freedom under law throughout the world.” 77
Posted by GT on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:17 | # A suggestion, then back to work ... Looking for a soul? In my opinion we should replace the “Classics” with Germanic and Nordic folklore. These were infinitely more influential in forming Northwestern European identity than the “Classics” from the Greco-Roman Empire. For well over a thousand years after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire the cultural influences among the Germans and Nordics were their own tribal ‘literature’ and the Bible as presented by the Latin Vulgate version and announced by the local Catholic priesthoods. It was the Renaissance which revived Western interest in older pre-Christian “classics” from Greece and Rome. As previously mentioned there’s an embarrassing little detail Classicists leave out of their sales pitches: the original manuscripts are few in number and no older than the first largely complete Talmud circa AD 1000. These are embarrassingly few in number compared to the surviving New and Old Testament manuscripts. It’s sobering to consider the inconsistencies between the several thousand manuscript fragments that are the sources of the Bible. When contemplating the problem of original sources for the ancient “Classics;” however, belief in their “inerrancy” becomes an act of religious faith greater than that required for the King James Bible. Yes, we have *some* of the original “Classics.” Others undoubtedly became corrupted over the millennia as scribal errors crept in during the many cycles of hand recopying. Yet other manuscripts were censored by the simple process of discarding inconvenient parts. Young American men should get high on Northwestern European folklore, Nikola Tesla, and the practice field. 78
Posted by wintermute on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:41 | # Germanic and Nordic folklore plus the Bible played much greater roles in forming modern Europe than “The Classics,” and the only Bible version of significance for western and central Europe prior to the 16th Century was the Latin Vulgate used by the Catholic Church. Given a choice, would you rather see the Botticelli painting here at MR replaced by a St. George’s flag or some leonine heraldry? Once again a thread with potential is buried under reams of erudite, obscurantist musings on the 19th Century and earlier which have little relevance to the problems we face in the 21st. The two quotes from GT, above, echo the comments with which I began this thread: decide who you are as a blog, start culling the commentariat, stay on message and when all this is done, keep your better commnetors on topic, or if they stray into something interesting, break it off and make a new topic of it. For the record, Scimitar’s discussion with required is an interesting one, and both sides are informed, intelligent, and polite. In addition, the discusssion is perfectly relevant - in many places on this blog besides the discussion of Mr. Sunic’s works and the promising opportunity readers here had to discuss those concerns - with the author! However, since MR is three or more blogs more or less existing simulataneously, and since discussion seems to take place overwhelmingly on just a few blog items, the three or four blogs that exist here trip all over themselves in an attempt to express their concerns. Not only might these be better managed - why shouldn’t Scimitar and required duke it out on their own thread for everyone’s edification? - this would also allow those of us who have read or who are interested in Mr. Sunic’s book to discuss those questions here. The Prindle summaries by Reis were also subject to the same pressures which lowered the tone of discussion and increased the non-responsiveness of posts (“the Snipe hunt”). The issues raised there, which are both numerous and of overwhelming importance to the commentariat, are not being responded to at the frontpage level of this blog. I make an exception for this post by GW on Sunic and Antiamericanism, which is on topic and is responsive to overwhelming reader interest, but now this thread, too, has been overwhelmed by a backlog of questions that have never been ironed out or properly given a hearing. I see a number of questions that desperately need to be addressed, and I predict that if they are not addressed in an orderly way, then they will continue to be half-addressed in a disorderly way, with much sniping, many digressions, and few conclusions on which we might agree and therefore be able to operate in the real world. FWIW, the meta-strands I see at this blog are 1)Salterian - more honored in the breach than the observance 2)Antiliberalism - which is oft mentioned but not placed on a firm footing whereby it might be used against liberalism in the real world 3)English chauvinism bordering on solipsism, which might at least be used in a more positive way to shore up a BNP style blog 4)A vague but unpopular pan-Europeanism, symbolized by the heraldry in the upper left, but vociferously denied by mainly long-timers here, who belong more properly in category 3. Finally, there is the question of the Anglo-America, hinted at by GW, made plain on the first Prindle thread, and above, wrestled to the ground by Scimitar and required, albeit in a very preliminary manner. Organization here being what it is, that discussion has eclipsed a discussion already in progress, and a very important one, too. I suppose this is as good a time as any to reprint my first post made to Majority Rights, made in December of 2004.
79
Posted by triad60 on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:11 | # Fred Scooby - I did not think ill of your comments on M Hoffman- triad60 80
Posted by triad60 on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:19 | # Maguire Thanks for your response to my ??? on M. Hoffman. I do not know if you have read any better books about You seem pretty sober in your assessments ( religion, Thanks triad60 81
Posted by Tabula Rasa on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:27 | # It is certainly true that Americans are too materialistic, but it is simply a self-serving myth that the greed, materialism, chasing after Mammon were introduced into Europe by Americans after the Second World War. Indeed, it takes an incredible ignorance of history to believe that. Unfortunately, you are quite correct when you say this. You did leave off some important other examples in your post, notably the economic warfare conducted by England during the Hundred Years War (economic warfare being one of England’s preferred methods), the Condottieri phenomenon (one of my favourites and far better than any American soap opera), and the real biggy for medieval Europe namely the infamous history of the Venetian Republic symbolised by, but by no means limited to, the sack of Constantinople. For money. This coming from the repository of the body of one of the four Evangelists (and quite a few other sacred relics, mostly, like St Mark’s body, stolen). Indeed, given how St Mark was invoked in all Venice’s intrigues, and that St Mark represented the warrior aspect of Christ (symbol:Lion) one has to wonder whether this financial rapine did not have divine sanction. Rome itself was treated to more than one sack during the Middle Ages, which given its status as the Omphalos of the West is hardly a good sign. It’s no accident, I am afraid, that Latin Christianity was more Judaised than its Hellenic predecessor, or that Protestantism continued the trend and was more Judaised still until one can now hardly tell the difference. One of the defining features of the West has been its materialism and, as I said earlier in this thread, the Jewish mentality is ideally suited to a materialist environment. As the great Rene Guenon pointed out, the sun sets in the West, so it is fitting that we as almost certainly the last civilisation should also be its most materialistic and least spiritual. Perhaps we’ll get lucky and there’ll be pole shift. 82
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:29 | # To Scimitar: The essential question is; who was sending “information” to Europeans about the treatment of blacks in America. People parroted the information they received. The most of the Europeans didn’t have any practical experience in their own countries of blacks. It was an abstract matter. Still, even though the times were in 1957 changing to the worse (liberalism/leftism) and the war’s end result had reduced the power of nationalism, the results would have been different if people would have been asked e.g.: Do you support/approve of miscegenation? Would it be wise for/Should White Americans (to) miscegenate? 83
Posted by wintermute on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:29 | # Perhaps we’ll get lucky and there’ll be pole shift. Tabula, you are lucky and there is a pole shift already underway. During the past century, the pole moved about 700 miles and its rate of acceleration is now increasing. It’s now moving about 25 miles a year, and will be in Sibera within 50 years. From the New York Times story, “Will Compasses Point South?” from July 2004:
A computer simulation image of the magnetic chaos that would occur during to a reversal:
So, compasses will be briefly useless and then point south, while the Aurora will move to the equitorial regions. Migratory birds will probably take heavy casualties. However, if you’ve been feeling glum because you thought no polar shift was around the corner, cheer up because it actually began long before you were born (I’m guessing). No news yet from NASA or the New York Times about the Hollow Earth, but then that’s just the sort of information they’d be keeping from us, no? 84
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:36 | # WM, Your ethnic interests are transparently German, and pre-1945 German at that. All that you bring to discussions such as this present one is laid at the feet of those interests. I’m not criticising that. I think I understand particularism. But your devotion to redeeming National Socialism is so toweringly dominant it presents a formidable challenge, at the very least, to your capacity to be a useful team player. Like the Jew you disparage, you strive ceaselessly to condition our thinking, to render us more amenable to your great and sacred purpose, and convince us that it is our purpose too. Were it not ironic - and few things are more redeeming to the English mind than irony - it would be unforgivably poor taste. But let’s be charitable. Let us conclude that it is the narrowness of your particularism which causes you to commend narrowness to this gathering of minds. Let us put aside all thought of a malign motive behind your critique. Let none of us contemplate the existence at the back of your mind of a design to shuffle us off to Burnley to rail at Moslems with Nick and Co, while you and Friedrich advance one more step towards the longed-for redemption of the little Despatch Rider. Forgive this objectively impartial criticism of the life of a man. I prefer not to be attacked at all if possible. But if I must be attacked I prefer it to be in plain sight. 85
Posted by Maguire on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:11 | # “Antiliberalism - which is oft mentioned but not placed on a firm footing whereby it might be used against liberalism in the real world” What I started to say, and will finish saying tommorow, is directly relevant to the issue of ‘Antiliberalism’ in the USA. And I hope to shed some light on why antiliberalism has been so ineffective for 60 years that ‘Liberalism’ actually makes its greatest advances in the USA during what are advertised as ‘Conservative’ regimes. Indeed, it’s one of the most relevant posts to ‘Antiliberalism’ and what’s really going on today - August 2007 - in the USA that will have appeared on M-R. “Germanic and Nordic folklore plus the Bible played much greater roles in forming modern Europe than “The Classics,” and the only Bible version of significance for western and central Europe prior to the 16th Century was the Latin Vulgate used by the Catholic Church.” The more common accusation is that Americans are ignorant of their own history. However, this thread has at least proved that Europeans can substitute emotional fancies for historical reality just as readily as the Great Unwashed supposedly do on the Western side of the Atlantic. It should not have been necessary for a pair of ‘Americans’ to make GT’s point about ‘European’ history. 86
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:50 | # @a Finn During the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, many European news agencies had their own correspondents in the South, in particular the British, French, and Italians. I’m sure the wire services were also relied upon. If you have any information about European race laws, I would find that highly interesting, and would like to archive the data. I know the Third Reich passed an anti-miscegenation law modeled on the Virginia Racial Integrity Act, but Germany appears to be an exception to the rule. My investigations haven’t turned up many parallels between European and American racial attitudes. The U.S. is more like Latin America which had more complex racial hierarchies, but racial hierarchies nonetheless. The nation that most resembles the United States is South Africa, also a colonial nation, which did have a racial regime for many years. Also, I have recently become aware of a Jim Crow style regime in the Belgian Congo. I will have more to say on that in a few days. The British practiced something resembling white supremacy in their empire but, as a rule of thumb, racial attitudes seem to have been much weaker at home than abroad, even in the U.K. I’m looking for evidence that a sense of the overwhelming importance of “whiteness” (W.J. Cash’s “proto-Dorian convention”) has ever been important in most European countries. The closest thing to this in Europe seems to be Sparta (which Cash explictly draws an analogy to) and to a lesser extent “volk nationalism” which is similiar, but really isn’t the same thing. In the United States, race became the central organizing concept of society, and the result was an incredible sense of racial solidarity and in-group egalitarianism that muted ethnic and class conflict. This peculiarly American cultural trait informs what is known as “White Nationalism” which I find doesn’t resonate as well abroad. 87
Posted by Maguire on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:06 | # “It’s no accident, I am afraid, that Latin Christianity was more Judaised than its Hellenic predecessor, or that Protestantism continued the trend and was more Judaised still until one can now hardly tell the difference.” That analysis focuses on NT quotes of the OT and how they appear in the Septuagint and Masoretic. When one extends the comparison to the two editions directly, it becomes obvious one is dealing with two essentially different books. And almost needless to add here, the Jewish Masoretic version is infinitely more judeo-centric (and also less pious) than is the Septuagint. For 1,600 years European ‘Christianity’ had no difficulty understanding that the ‘Church’ was spiritual Israel and that the OT prophecies about ‘Israel’ applied to the Church, and did not apply at all to the Jews. And so far from being philosemitic, the New Testament is an extremely antisemitic, or rather Anti-Jewish, book The introduction of the Jewish Masoretic into common usage was a significant first step in preparing white western man for subjugation to open Jewish rule. And it’s fair to point out this monstrous swindle occurred at precisely the time “The Classics” that are claimed to be our salvation were coming back into academic vogue after a 1,000 year interregnum. Maguire 88
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:23 | # Scimitar: “My investigations haven’t turned up many parallels between European and American racial attitudes.” - It is not surprising that there are not straight parallels, because the most of the European countries had not any significant racial minorities. Clear racialism develops mostly in those countries that have some practical connection to racial minorities. Ethnic nationalisms emphasis is on other ethnicities, because it is the question that must be dealt with in practice (E.g. can Russians be allowed to move to Finland). But in the background is of course even stronger resistance against e.g. blacks, if that threat ever materializes. Gypsies in Finland could be compared to blacks in many respects, and they were not accepted to be spouses (If they would have been available. They were not because they followed their own non-mixing rules). Also they were restricted out of inner circles of society. Most of my information about this matter have come from tv and radio history programs, but I have read some texts also. They have been mostly in Finnish. I look into it, ask some questions here, and I can translate texts when I find something. This is not something I have concentrated on, so these information have accrued randomly. 89
Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:14 | # To: Maguire, GT, all…
Thank God someone has cleared this up! I am getting quite sick of the disparaging of my religion as a Jewish fantasy when Jesus Christ himself was the biggest “self-hating” and “anti-semitic” Jew/man/God to ever walk the face of the Earth! His was condemning the usury of the Jews millenniums before Ezra Pound, Hitler, William Pierce and Dr. Duke ever thought about doing it. Neither the Bible nor Christianity are philo-semitic or a source for deracination when interpreted correctly. (That is, Calvinistically and Reformed) GT also brings up a good point that it is a much larger leap of faith to trust the “classics” then it is to trust the real classic that has had the largest imprint on American society bar none, that is, the Holy Bible in the form of the Textus Receptus. Maguire takes it a step further in pointing out that there is near unanimity regarding the importance of the text.
There is no other ancient book that compares, and no other book that has had a comparable effect. The influence of the Jew should not go unnoticed (or unpunished) in this discussion. They have destroyed us from within and that is all there is to it. This is what they did to Spain before they moved next door to Portugal. From there it was up to the “New Jerusalem” in Amsterdam where they fomented wars of attrition in Spanish colonies and became huge shareholders in the Dutch East India Co. Then onward to England, the newest and boldest thassolocracy on the block! Destroy D’Israeli and put glorious keeper of the flame in debt and in the pocket further of Jew financiers. Then across the Atlantic to America Emma Goldman and company. Sensing resistance from the left and the inability to fully penetrate the labor unions, they instead lingered in the halls of the National Review and destroyed what was left of American Conservatism. Now we have Pipes, Feith, Liebowitz (Libby), Pearle et al brandishing American hegemony in the name of Israel before their kin completely destroy the dollar and move on to the next green pasture of White productivity. America is Yankee-Judea and Sunic should direct his criticisms of “American” culture at the cunning Talmudists that run the show. (Literally. Hollywood and D.C.) 90
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:41 | # Between 1886 and 1910, [S]outhern lynch mobs murdered 27 Sicilians. Lynch mobs kill; they don’t “murder”. Why are we supposed to think these Sicilians were innocent? 92
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:45 | # 93
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:14 | #
The point is moot because they do not differ, they are birds of a feather, both fundamental principles of evolution. It is tribes or ethnies or whatever, as Darwin pointed out a century and a half ago, that conflict, compete and conquer. It is proximity that promotes that conflict. The Cracker culture, as McWhiney dubs it, was bound to compete for survival with the surrounding ethny because they had evolved into a virtually unique people. Natural competition was inevitable with black (or black Crackers as Sowell defines them) Ameri-Indians (Cherokee and Mexican mestizos) and first and foremost Yankees, another ethnic group distinct from their original Southern brethren. The only distinction from the European theatre is the players are different. Examine the last election in the UK. In England the big issue is race. Blacks and sub-cons pushing out/race-replacing whites. In Wales the BNP did well in areas of mass foreign immigration as well. Only in the Welsh case, the mass of foreign immigrants taking Welsh jobs were…Poles. The difference? Proximity. The so called advance racialism of the South was just another story of ethnic competition by another name. 94
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:45 | # I ordered Mr. Sunic’s book this evening off Amazon and will read it for myself before saying anything further about it. I will post my own review on OCD in a week or so. 95
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:48 | # Something like 1,000 - 1,500 whites were lynched in the South through Jim Crow. 96
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 09:07 | # A response to Desmond and some thoughts on America’s founding myths: I would argue that “tribalism” and “xenophobia” are natural. The “us vs. them” dynamic, “sacrificing for the group” and the “need to belong,” is the basic template and seems to be hardwired into the human brain. The expression of this feeling, however, is mediated by culture and can often take various forms. “Us” can be defined narrowly as the family unit, the family and immediate kin, more broadly, as an ethnic group, or even as an entire race. The fixation point can become any number of things: a religious cult, a dynasty, a class, a nation, a professional organization, an ideological cult, etc. At the same time, “us” can be defined in several ways simultaneously. The human animal has all sorts of competing loyalties. “Us” derives its meaning from what does not belong - the “other.” The sense of the overwhelming importance of whiteness, the feeling that “white people need to stick together,” or the “Proto-Doric convention” as W.J. Cash calls it, is not natural at all. Rather, it is a historically specific meme that is completely absent from the vast majority of European societies. And even amongst that minority, only in a few select cases, maybe only one or two, has that meme become utterly ascendant - the foundation of an entire culture. Racial nationalism is hardly specific to the American South. It is a common American tradition that evolved out of the violence and the struggle for mastery between European colonials, his negro slaves, and the Indian aboriginies. The American West, for example, had Jim Crow laws until the aftermath of the Second World War. The Midwest had a Jim Crow regime until after the Civil War. Even the Yankees of New England had segregation and anti-miscegenation laws at one point. Massachusetts passed one of the first laws of that genre. The difference is that New England annihilated its Indian population, rid itself of slavery, and then the negro. The region was also transformed by European immigration. As a consequence of this, New England became more homogeneous and egalitarian, full of people who didn’t have to struggle to win the land; its tradition of racialism atrophied. Another contributing factor was the ideology of the American Revolution, so popular in Boston. In other words, New England became more like Canada. A similiar process happened in the Midwest after 1865. The Midwest was once very racist - Illinois and Ohio adopted laws that prohibited free negro settlement altogether. Sherman, as noted above, was a racist. This changed largely because of European immigration. The South went off in another direction. Like other Americans, Southerners shared the common tradition of racial nationalism, but the South was unique in that the menace of the negro was always present - the horror of slave rebellion, becoming another Haiti. Planters, the yeomanry, and crackers shared a common interest in preserving their racial dominance. A sort of racial egalitarianism based upon “whiteness” evolved between them and became the glue that held Southern society together. To quote Yancey, our “master idea” is that “every white man is the equal of every other. The second idea is that the negro is inferior.” During the Antebellum era, this was most commonly expressed in the slave patrols in which every able white man participated in. Racialism became ritualistic in a way that it did not elsewhere - something of a rite of passage. The result was a society in which racial identity became incredibly salient. As Cash notes:
What came to be known to history as the “Ku Klux Klan” was, in essence, nothing more than a postbellum version of the slave patrols. Was this simply a form of Southern nationalism - a sort of ethnic nationalism - like the European variety? No, that wasn’t the case. If you may recall, the Confederacy was based upon a radical version of state’s rights. Each state was completely sovereign. Southerners went into the war as South Carolinians, Virginians, Texans, Alabamians, and so forth. It wasn’t until after the Civil War, reflecting upon the war experience and overthrowing Reconstruction, that a strong sense of Southern ethnic nationalism developed based on the myth of the Lost Cause. As noted above, racial nationalism was a common American tradition, not specific to the South. Desmond insists that this phenomena belongs to the same genus as the various European nationalisms. I disagree. The focal point is different; it is race, not ethnicity. It is far more expansive - often too expansive for the European to grasp; at the same time, European ethnonationalism can smack the American as too narrow. The celebration of “whiteness” allowed Americans to mute ethnic and class conflict through racial sameness in a way that did not happen in Europe.
Non-American examples of this sort of racial nationalism do exist. A good example would be the British colony of Barbados in the West Indies. There also a racial caste system based upon “whiteness” developed. South Carolina was founded by colonists from Barbados. The other Lower South states were colonized by South Carolinians. I have already mentioned South Africa and the Belgian Congo as two other examples. Unfortunately, I have never read anything by Tomislav Sunic, so I find myself in the dark as to what exactly he is arguing for. If I was familiar with his writings, I would have more to say, but for now can only offer my own perspective. Much of Europe was wrecked during the 20C by what George Fitzhugh would once have decried as class conscious mudsills. Hitler and Mussolini saved Germany and Italy respectively from it, but unfortunately Czar Alexander and his family were consumed by that whirlwind, not to mention much of Eastern Europe. This suggests to me that the American celebration of “whiteness” never had much currency in that region and is something else entirely. 97
Posted by triad60 on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:06 | # Maguire, Daniel, All Your discussion of scripture errancy is great - thanks for Please check out Roger Hathaway’s site http://www.divinepageant.com In looking at other folks thoughts, I’ve tried to find some 1) Christ was born to confront the emerging Babylonian-Edomite 2) Confronting the usurious moneylenders cost Christ his life. 3) Chasing after material things is a waste of our life 4) “Got to get our selves back to The Garden” ( CSNY) I’ve said enough. There are many equally good thoughts. Peace to all triad60 98
Posted by Maguire on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:07 | # Triad60, Daniel et al I didn’t discuss Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. I was talking about text sources used for Old Testament translations. There are two generally used, these being the Greek Septuagint and the much newer Talmudic Masoretic. FYI, the few fragments of genuine ancient Hebrew O.T. that were finally discovered at Qumran preserve a third variation, despite Talmudic claims to the contrary. Maguire 99
Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:00 | # Maguire: Oh I see. It was late last night and I completely misread you. You have sufficiently cleared your viewpoint up now. I will need to do some research before I address the idea that the underlying text of the KJV is “jewier” than the Eastern Orthodox. As you indicate, it might not matter much anyway (the underlying text) due to the widespread illiteracy of the times. Although the pernicious influence of Cyrus S. and co. are certainly a worthy line of investigation especially since literacy was widespread in America at the time of the publication of his “Bible.” 100
Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:24 | # Additionally, my basic point was that there is certainly *thousands* more copies of texts and fragments of text, that are fare more antiquated, and far more in agreement of the Bible than there are of other ancient documents as I was echoing GT. Secondarily, I would like to again state that Jews had infiltrated Western man form early on, including the Catholic church and their influence can not be overstated. I consider the Protestant Reformation an attempt at correcting the Judaification of the underlying text which is the heart of the matter. What does it really say? and Is it true?
Tesla yes, but what good will folklore do for us? The Poetic Edda, gratifying as literature, does nothing for us. Those that would charge Christianity with being ineffectual because it is untrue fail to realize the same is true of any other fairy tale they would charge us with elevating to the position of the sacred. What can we rally around spiritually that is true? I think GW and Scimitar’s materialism (mind as an emergent property, love and altruism solely the result of genetic processes, et cetera) fail to save the day. Bono certainly isn’t going to save us either, or any other “innovative” pop-music for that matter. On top of that, Jews control the music industry as well so nothing of worth will slip past the censors anyway. Hasn’t it been proved that almost any piece of culture we had/have is capable of being co-opted by Jews and their shabbas Goy and diverted to do their dastardly deeds? 101
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:25 | #
I’m not sure why Tesla is singled out but his memory, together with that of Steinmetz, is certainly dear to those who love the stories of the American Heroic Age of Electrical Engineering: these two giants were the twin heros of that age. (Neither was American: Tesla was Austrian (Bosnian) and Steinmetz, a hunchbacked dwarf, was a Prussian from Breslau. Both were great geniuses.) 102
Posted by wintermute on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:41 | # What can we rally around spiritually that is true? [. . .] Hasn’t it been proved that almost any piece of culture we had/have is capable of being co-opted by Jews and their shabbas Goy and diverted to do their dastardly deeds? No. From Ralph Waldo Emerson’s 1841 essay, “Intellect”:
103
Posted by Maguire on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:17 | # Daniel, “there is certainly *thousands* more copies of texts and fragments of text” Yes. “that are fare more antiquated” Yes. “and far more in agreement of the Bible” This question is why Bible translation committees always take many years to finish their deliberations. See here: Unfortunately offline now but preserved for posterity. Just keep hitting ok on the server password window and it’ll come through. One of the most objective studies of the sources and processes used for compiling “Bibles” I’ve ever read. You’ll never look at the KJV the same way again after reading it. “than there are of other ancient documents as I was echoing GT.” Most assuredly. Nor have these few sources been subjected to anything approaching the critical scrutiny that has been given to the “Bible”. This is where faith-based Classicism comes in. Still, the KJV is a critical document in the formation of “America”. It was far more accessible to whites than Jerome’s Vulgate was to Europeans prior to the printing press. Alexis De Toqueville reported in “Democracy In America” that Shakespeare’s plays and the KJV were very widely distributed, and commonly found even in the rudest of forest hovels on the frontier. This is why I ascribe so much importance to the question of how the KJV came to be, and particularly to the novel use of the Talmudic Masoretic text for the KJV’s O.T. portion. Another interesting question is why the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV. It was originally included and contains much material unfavorable to Hellenic and Roman era Jews. However, the KJV alone did not produce a general philosemitism in Americans. Jews were legally disenfranchised in most states well into the 19th Century. US Grant and Samuel Clemmons offer a window into most 19th Century Americans’ outlook on ‘Jews’. The earliest exceptions are found in the ‘progressive’ multi-racial areas of the Antebellum South. Here negro supporting workfare plantation owners were in intimate commercial intercourse with International Jewry in the City of London and elsewhere. The slave state of Delaware was the first to remove its legal disabilities on Jews. Maguire 104
Posted by danielj on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:47 | # I have to admit I’m sort of stunned into silence. I have never really thought about the doctrine of innerrancy before and must confess that I need some time to gather my thoughts. I have had a realization equivalent with the ones that I had during my conversion to the Reformed faith from philo-semitic modern Christianity. Thanks for the info Maguire, now I need a few weeks to read and mull over some things. Signing off for now, 105
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 03:26 | #
Yikes, I forgot to translate that into PC-speak! I’d better do it quick before Morris Disease and the Anything-but-Southern Carpetbagger Poverty-Pimp Lawless Left-of-Center nails us for being a hate-site! So, change that to: “Steinmetz, a differently-backed, height-gifted person” (persyn is actually the preferred spelling, in order to get away from any built-in masculine/Patriarchal biases; perdaughter also is used and is acceptable, for both sexes ...) 106
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:21 | # Scimitar: “During the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, many European news agencies had their own correspondents in the South, in particular the British, French, and Italians. I’m sure the wire services were also relied upon. “ - When you answer the question; Who owns Reuters, Associated Press, United Press International etc., big news companies, and combine with them the liberal journalists of Usa and Europe, you arrive to the answer. Still, especially reporters from smaller countries didn’t run the “Suffering negro” -circus, although we too had annoying percentage of liberal reporters. The dirty secret of European leftists who hate Americans is that they are dependent on American media’s lead, thinking and fashions. 60’s being the the main example. I found something concerning the ethnic/racial policies of Sweden etc. Notice here that the parliament voted to finance the eugenics institute (click both pages): http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/images/1631.html Eugenists’ “science” was rubbish, but what matters is that it produced the desired effects. Still the science should be made sound. It is too transparent, that noble and lofty looking people have been selected to represent Swedes and base and bad looking people other ethnicities. Same artificial divide in fairy tale descriptions in the texts. I sort out as an example the pictures that are meant to represent Finns; I number them in reading order: 1. Typical Swedish so called horse face 2. Swedish alcoholic type 3. Sometimes the type resembling that can be seen 4. Never, maybe he is Sami, strange. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=1638&printable=1&detailed=0 1. Funny. I would like to say it is Finnish type. I remember one person who resembled him. Very rare. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=1637&printable=1&detailed=0 1. That type is common, in various variations 2. Very rare type 3. Old woman, could be from Sweden or Finland, not common http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=1644&printable=1&detailed=0 Although I don’t want mixed marriages between Sami and Finns, the pictures of “Sami” did not represent them. It seems that the ugliest, even mutated Sami or non-Sami faces were selected. Main page: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/25.html Here is in very short form/version with PC additives the Herge commentary about Belgians before WWII. He has commented it more and with less PC (As told in Finnish radio, Yle’s channel): “Tintin in the Congo has often been criticized as having racist and colonialist views, as well as several scenes of violence against animals. Hergé has later claimed that he was only portraying the naïve views of the time.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintin_in_the_Congo Short commentary with my addition about the situation in Sweden before the WWII: “The first stage (1938 to 1948) spans the period just before and after World War II. Before the war, Jews from Nazi Germany sought asylum in Sweden. Although a few were accepted, the majority were rejected due to anti-semitism and discriminatory racial ideology prevalent in Sweden at that time. Afraid of the rise in anti-semitism, leaders of the Jewish community in Sweden supported a restrictive asylum policy. The most important reason (I add, Nazi influence in their decision is exaggerated) that many Jews were rejected was due to the fact that the Swedish government strove to avoid conflict with Nazi Germany.” http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=406 Addition: One of the Founding fathers, who decided the American independence vote, had Finnish roots: 107
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:24 | #
Exactly. This stuff is coming from America. That includes the ideology of race-replacement. It’s not being independently invented in each European country. Look for its source among those pumping it out here in The Great Satan. Attack it at its source. Strike at it at the root, and the branches on the other side of the Atlantic will die. 108
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:12 | # Is there conclusive proof that the State Department, using the US Occupation Army as a bargaining chip, is actually behind these race-replacement policies in Europe (certainly, the US has been in support of EU integration from the start)? Or would the real momentum be coming through more unofficial channels such as the Trilateral Commission, or the CFR/Roundtable axis? 109
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:28 | # Steve, I don’t have conclusive proof, no. But I’m not blind. I have two functioning eyes, and after thinking about this stuff a lot since roughly the year 2000 I know how to put two and two together. But I’m sure conclusive proof won’t be long in coming, now that people are starting to figure out exactly what to look for — starting to realize exactly what must be out there in terms of evidence. 110
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:46 | # I agree that your hypothesis is the most likely - that DC is behind the disastrous developments in Europe* - but I would like to find a way to validate it. *Some interesting material already exists linking Wall Street interests to the 1917 Bolshevik Coup (Antony Sutton researched this thoroughly), and former Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has shown how the EU was devised as a full-blown federal state behind closed doors in the mid-80s (it was hatched by the Trilateral Commission working in league with the Soviets). 111
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:54 | #
112
Posted by GT on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:05 | # “Young American men should get high on Northwestern European folklore, Nikola Tesla, and the practice field.” (—GT) “I’m not sure why Tesla is singled out, …” (-Scrooby) Hands-on physicists, electrical and mechanical engineers, technicians, and various tradesmen are required to design, build, and service the power generators, distribution systems, and manufacturing equipment necessary to sustain our microcommunities. All must be technically “well-rounded;” for example, electrical engineers with more than vague knowledge of mechanical principles, electronic technicians with basic machine shop and welding skills, auto mechanics and welders capable of wiring homes, etc. eBartering microcommunities require physically fit, technically well-rounded young men prepared to assume leadership roles from the ground up. 113
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:38 | # Maguire wrote: The introduction of the Jewish Masoretic into common usage was a significant first step in preparing white western man for subjugation to open Jewish rule. And it’s fair to point out this monstrous swindle occurred at precisely the time “The Classics” that are claimed to be our salvation were coming back into academic vogue after a 1,000 year interregnum. Maguire’s cranky account of how Jews and their Roman collaborators hijacked Christian translations of Jewish scriptures confirms part of Sunic’s thesis. The Septuagint - the Old Testament in Greek, translated for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt - is a Jewish translation of Jewish scriptures. The Masoretic text is a Jewish edition of the same Jewish scriptures. Yet Maguire thinks that the former is somehow less Jewish than the latter. He also thinks that the sinister Masoretic text has corrupted Christianity, which would become less Jewish if only the Greek Septuagint once again become the basis of the Christian Old Testament. To summarize Maguire’s theory is to refute it. In fact, a Hebrew edition of a Hebrew text is a better basis for the Christian Old Testament than an ancient translation of a Hebrew text into Greek. That’s what Jerome concluded. That’s also what most modern editors of the Old Testament have concluded. There is nothing sinister (no “monstrous swindle”) in that reasonable decision. Christian translators thought it better not to translate a translation. No one, in my opinion, should attack Christians as Christians. Christianity is our historical religion, for better or worse. But if you are a Christian, you have to accept that almost all of your central religious text was written by Jews. No version of the Hebrew Bible is any less Jewish than another. The impossible ambition to discover a non-Jewish version (or a less Jewish version) of the Hebrew Bible testifies to the kind of unhealthy fixation on Jews that Sunic is describing. Jews have done us much harm, but corrupting the text of our Old Testament isn’t among their sins. 114
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:44 | # Maguire wrote: The idea of “The Classics” exercising any influence in Europe between the 5th Century AD and the printing press belongs in the same world where Alice discourses with the Red Queen while running against the moving road. As Wintermute has pointed out, though apparently no one was paying attention, Boethius’ _Consolation_ was a massively influential and widely circulated text. You can’t understand the intellectual life of medieval Latin West without it. That’s not an exaggeration. To take another example among many, Ovid’s _Metamorphoses_ had a substantial effect on European literature. Since Ovid provided a compendium of classical mythology, medieval writers had a solid relationship with, and detailed knowledge of, Greco-Roman myth. They moralized classical myth as Christian allegories. They integrated classical myth into their own stories as learned allusions. They based the structure of their own narratives on classical models. This is also a matter of uncontested fact, well known to anyone familiar with the subject. That classical texts were comparatively rare in the Middle Ages only increased the cultural significance of those that were available. 115
Posted by wintermute on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:00 | # As Wintermute has pointed out, though apparently no one was paying attention, Boethius’ _Consolation_ was a massively influential and widely circulated text. You can’t understand the intellectual life of medieval Latin West without it. That’s not an exaggeration. The Consolation is often referred to as “the book that saved the mind of the West”. Even Wikipedia calls it “the single most important and influential work in the West in Medieval and Renaissance Christianity.” C.S. Lewis on Boethius: ““To acquire a taste for it is almost to become naturalised in the Middle Ages.” As I’ve said above, Boethius is now understood as the means by which the Greco-Roman concept ‘providence’ was mapped onto the Nordo-Germanic web of all destinies, “the Wyrd”. Translation of Boethius, for those at this site anxious to keep their Anglo-Saxonness clean, were made by Alfred the Great into Old English in the 9th century, by Chaucer in the 14th, and again by Queen Elizabeth in the 16th century. Dante, another medieval figure who we might expect people here interested in Western history and culture to know, quotes it constantly. The idea of “The Classics” exercising any influence in Europe between the 5th Century AD and the printing press belongs in the same world where Alice discourses with the Red Queen while running against the moving road. Here we can compare Maguire’s historical acumen against history itself, unless he wishes to argue that copies of the Divine Comedy have all been corrupted and rewritten. Here is Dante’s first Canto of the Paradiso:
Here is an odd thing: the supreme poet of Christendom, writing in (the last time I checked) the 13th century, and therefore long prior to printing presses, is praying to a god whose worship is supposed to be long gone, while he it at the very foot of Paradise itself. Why no prayer to Jesus? And, if “the Classics’ are as inconsequential as Maguire claims, then why pray to Apollo at all? Would that not tend to expose oneself to comment in the Magisterium? Of course, the English have been enjoying Alfred’s translation of Boethius for four centuries at this point, and as has already been pointed out, Dante himself makes frequent allusions to Boethius. They classics seem to have had a very busy afterlife, prior to Maguire’s claimed birthdate with the origin of movable type. But this is not an isolated incident. The second Canto of the Paradiso has barely begun when:
Who is Minerva? Who are the muses? Will his audience understand these strange references to a foreign religion, or is this some private fancy of the poet? Soon thereafter, Dante is comparing his journey to some fellow named Jason. And, let’s not forget his guide through the underworld, Virgil. Who is he? Dante is so full of these ‘esoteric’ references, we might be permitted to call him a Mason avant la lettre, if not an occultist outright. All of this is not to mention the Ptolemaic system of the orders of the planets, whereby Dante ascends to the heavens. These continued directly into the mainstream of European tradition, often via astrology, and are extensively used by Shakespeare and other Elizabethans. Their medicine - mostly herbalism and the theory of the humours - also descend from Galen, whose temperaments are derived from the classical elements: earth, air, water, fire. These derive from Empedocles via Aristotle. Dante created nine circles of Hell to mirror the nine orders of angels. From whence do these derive? Are they a Christian invention? No, not at all. The orders of the angels derive from a very interesting author, now called the Pseudo-Dionysus, who purported to be Paul’s first convert in Athens. His three books, (The Divine Names, Mystical Theology, Celestial Hierarchy) are the bedrock and foundation for Christian mysticism and angelology. His work was examined, and found praiseworthy, by another medieval luminary, Thomas Aquinas. Sometime after the discovery of print, it was discovered that Dionysus was not who he pretended to be. Rather he turned out to be an unknown author, of very late provenance, who had smuggled the work of the late Neoplatonism Proclus into the Christian camp, flying the false flag of “Dionysus the Areopagite”. There are modern scholars who have argued that Proclus himself authored the texts, though even those who deny this are forced to admit that long passages in his writing is simply copied directly out of the works of Proclus, and that even where Proclus ideas are not present, Procus’ ideas certainly are. When did Jesus mention the nine orders of angels? Oh, that’s right: never. That angels and their orders are a pagan splice into the Christian genome is proved by the rapidity and disgust with which Protestents sought to abandon the whole schema. Catholic and Medieval civilization are quite another thing. They are getting Platonism coming and going. In the case of Aquinas, this is especially amusing, as the Aristotle he thinks he is replying to in the Book of Causes (an Arabic text attributed to ‘Aristotle’) is actually Proclus, while the foundational text attributed to one of Paul’s earliest converts, is also Proclus. If western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, they are mostly footnoting the work of Proclus, the last successor of the Platonic Academy. Do you begin to see how ‘the classics’ can transmit themselves, even without widespread literacy? How was the inner life of Europeans altered by the notion of a Great Chain of Being, a primary Platonic idea presented to Christians as the nine orders of Angels? Did anyone look up to the sky and not see the spheres, each guarded by a planet, which surrounded the earth? Did anyone do medical diagnosis without recourse to humour theory or treatment without ancient herbalism? What does it mean that Britons have been imbibing Platonism neat from the time of Alfred the Great, more than a thousand years ago? Did the common Englishman take anything from the poetry of Chaucer, which is very completely wound up with the ideas and strategies of Boethius? How about the influence of the Wyrd on Nordo-Germanic consciousness? And what about that odd duck Dante, praying to Apollo in the 13th century, or following Virgil into the underworld? Or the influence of Pseudo-DIonysus on all subsequent Christian mystics? How can all this be going on, when “the Classics” are deader than a doornail? Epic poems about underworld journeys, called nekyia after the 11th chapter of the Odyssey, occur in Virgil, Dante, Milton, and Pound, each one self consciously building on, and commenting on, his predeccesor. I do not think that the continuity of European inner life could have a more powerful real world counterpart or illustration. When one adds that the great mystics were, almost to a person, either indebted to the ancients indirectly through Pseduo-Dionysus or directly, through authors like Plotinus, then you begin to get a real picture of just how wide spread and influential “the Classics” are - and how foundational. It is even a bit of a misnomer to claim that “Christianity” is the historical religion of the West, when you start looking at how the sausage of our common religion was actually manufactured, and what sorts of beast were slaughtered to fill its skin. Think of the Rhineland mystics - Suso, Tauler, Eckhardt. All are dependant for their revolutionary ideas on exposure to late Neoplatonism, either directly via Plotinus or indirectly, via Pseduo Dionysus. You can ‘zoom in’ on any great flowering in the European tradition and find a similar kind of influence at the root of it. Kathleen Raine compared late Neoplatonism to a ‘hidden spring’ whose movements could be tracked by the sudden outpouring of creative activity left in the wake of one of its unpredictable upwellings in European society, most notably the Renaissance and English Romanticism. So keen was her sight on this issue that she successfully predicted that evidence would later be discovered linking William Blake to Thomas Taylor the Platonist, which decades later certainly did surface. How was she able to make such an amazing prophecy? Outside of Dante, who are the major minds or influences of the Medieval period? Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Abelard, Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Scotus. We’ve already had a peek at the Rhineland mystics, though lines of development for any group of Christian mystics are going to be quite similar. Christian mystics for the most part, are the children and grandchildren of Orpheus, not Abraham. As for Aquinas and Boethius and Dante, we have discussed all of these. Do you require instruction regarding Augustine, Anselm, Abelard, or Bonaventure? I leave off Scotus because he is understood by moderns as a Neoplatonist proper. http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-9/epilogue.htm
C.S. Lewis’ protagonist in The Last Battle, Professor Digory Kirke, exclaims, “It’s all in Plato, all in Plato! Dear me, what do they teach them in the schools nowadays?” I can do no better than to reprint Lewis’ question. What do they teach them in schools nowadays? I observe in parting, to Maguire, that in this realm, one must run merely to keep one’s place. I trust you did not take the Red Queen’s advice to be mere fantasy simply because it occurs in a fantastical work. 116
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:31 | #
I have to disagree with you here. The U.S. and Western Europe went off in two different directions after the Second World War. From 1945 to 1965, the U.S. was at the peak of its world power and influence. The mood of the country was one of overwhelming, soaring cultural confidence. It was widely believed that Americans could do anything at the time. Americans had beat the Great Depression and conquered the Axis. It was precisely this mentality of overconfident utopianism that inspired everything from the Civil Rights Movement, to the Space Race, to LBJ’s Great Society, to Nixon’s War on Drugs. The nation that elected JFK was hopelessly naive, idealistic, youthful. Think back to the Eisenhower years of the 1950s. Many Americans are nostalgic about that period of history as our Golden Age. In stark contrast, much of Western Europe was in ruins. For the first time since the fifteenth century, Western Europe had ceased to be the center of the world, and was occupied by non-European powers. Millions were dead. Historic cities had been obliterated. In the heart of Europe, Germans went hungry. The question on the mind of the European intelligentsia at that time was: why? With some justification, they blamed “racism” and “nationalism” and, as is often the case in history, overreacted. This would happen about 25 years later in the U.S. The postwar period in Western Europe was a time of deep soul searching and pessimism. Europeans came to believe there was something deeply wrong with their civilization. Nowhere was this more true than in France. It was from France that what is now known as “postmodernism” emerged. Go back and read Sartre; his sympathies for the radical third wordlists. Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, the Soviet Union pillored the U.S. in the third world and at the U.N. on the grounds of “racism”; how America was like Nazi Germany because of Jim Crow. The NAACP famously made an appeal there during the Truman years. This was especially problematic for Truman and Eisenhower because the Western European NATO allies often joined in the criticism and demanded that the U.S. jettison Jim Crow in order to maintain the “leadership role.” It was for this reason that the U.S. State Department started pushing desegregation in the federal courts, most famously in Brown, but also in several previous decisions. The overwhelming priority of the U.S. at the time was maintaining the so-called “leadership role” in NATO and fighting world communism. Jim Crow got in the way of that. So, for example, in the aftermath of the debacle at Little Rock in 1957, the U.S. got extremely bad press in Europe. See the USIA poll posted above. In Sweden, for instance, something like 90% of the population strongly disapproved of American treatment of the negro. This pressure from abroad - as Eisenhower mentions, being flooded in the spotlight of world opinion - prompted the Civil Rights Act of 1957 in the United States. Again, in the late 1950s/early 1960s, we see two different worlds in the Western Europe and the United States. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t browbeat Americans over the head as “racists,” as “civil rights activists” have done in recent years. On the contrary, MLK directed his appeals to the utopianism, the optimism of his times. He encouraged Americans to live up to their highest ideals. That’s why he became so popular. The only thing most people remember about him is a few lines from his famous “I Have a Dream Speech.” It was only later, in the 1970s and 1980s, that postmodernism (and the Western self-hatred so typical of it) crossed the Atlantic and became popular in America’s universities, amongst the aging baby boomers who had rebelled against the Vietnam War. The all-consuming Western self-hatred, the radical anti-racism that we are familiar with, crossed the Atlantic from Europe to America, not the other way around. In fact, the United States has never completely bought into this in the way that, say, Germany has. Even in 2007, the United States is still very much a modernist nation. See the unbelievable wave of patriotard nationalism that crested over the country back in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. had its own “crisis of confidence” in the Vietnam years but recovered somewhat under Reagan. America’s triumph in the Cold War generated another wave of optimism and utopianism under Clinton in the 1990s. If you are looking for the origins of this sort of thing, look at Fanon, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Claude Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze and the rest of their ilk. Even the Frankfurt School originated, where else, in Europe. You mention the eugenics movement in Scandinavia above. As it happens, I am very much interested in the history of eugenics, and agree with much of what you say. Did you know that the United States was the world’s leader in eugenics for about thirty years? In fact, the European movement, even in Germany, owes much of its inspiration to American ideas. Another example would be Nordicism which caught on in Germany after it had been popularized by Grant and others. There have been several recent books that explore the roots of eugenics in considerable detail. One last thing: a Swede, Gunnar Myrdal, wrote the most influential book in the history of American race relations, An American Dilemma. This influence of this book over the Warren Court which handed down Brown cannot be overestimated. 117
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:04 | #
Scroob, Boas, Montagu, the Frankfurt School, Gunnar Myrdal, Sartre, and so forth were Europeans. Boas and the Columbia School of Anthropology carried on a famous quarrel with the “Americans” at Harvard, namely, Hooton and his students like Carleton S. Coon, not to mention other “Americans” like Madison Grant. The notion that “culture” as opposed to “race” was a more salient factor in explaining human behavior comes from, where else, Germany. The Germans have been exaggerating the importance of “Kultur” since the days of Fichte and Herder. What is known as “cultural anthropology” originated in Germany during the 19C. The German school was racially egalitarian whereas hereditarianism (see Jefferson, Morton, Nott, etc.) predominanted in the United States. Cultural anthropology was brought to the United States by European immigrants in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. As it happens, during the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, a reverse process happened in Germany. The Germans came under the influence of Anglo-American eugenics and racial theory (what had previously been decried as “materialism”). Darwinism was popularized in Germany by Haeckel. Actually, it is the United States that has always been more influenced by Western Europe, not the other way around. Tens of millions of Europeans immigrated to the United States and settled here. They brought all sorts of ideas with them. Where should we start? Postmodernism, Nazism, Fascism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Austrian economics, Marxism . . . where? 118
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:15 | # I should qualify the post above. It would be more accurate to say that Der ewige Jude causes mischief wherever he resides. Most of the destructive “Europeans” and “Americans” we are talking about are really nothing of the sort: Boas, Marcuse, Montagu, Claude Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Freud, Rand, Adorno, Horkheimer, Levinson, Morgenthau, Spingarn, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, etc. 119
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:21 | # Scimitar, I disagree slightly with the view of leftist development in Europe you have, but I have to answer it later. It is not because you haven’t read, you just weren’t near enough and the books concentrate on the most visible aspects. It is was not the reality on the ground here, nor does it explain the root causes. I comment other things shortly also later. 120
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:32 | # I wrote: “.... books concentrate on the most visible aspects.” More accurately: .... books often concentrate on the most visible “intellectual” aspects. 121
Posted by GT on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:10 | # Rnl, I’m a bit “crankier” than Maguire. Ovid’s Metamorphoses is based on three eleventh-century manuscripts. It stretches reasoning to equate the cultural significance of “The Classics” in western Europe between the 5th Century AD and the printing press to a medium of exchange. Does an overabundance of “The Classics” explain their present insignificance? Wintermute, the Alfredian Boethius is a translation of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy. To my knowledge there are two surviving manuscripts: one from the tenth-century and another from the twelfth-century. As a tradesman of low IQ, informal education, and poor character I haven’t time or ability to refute each and every objection raised by MR’s collection of Greeks and Masons. I will say, however, that despite my limitations it appears my original statement, below, has withstood this latest barrage of obscurantist apologetics: “The surviving non-Christian “Classic” manuscripts from the Greco-Roman world are few. None are older than AD 900 – AD 1000, same as the oldest existing Talmud. To my knowledge the only exceptions are recent papyri unearthed in archeological digs and read with CAT scans and similar technology. The general origins of “The Classics” are from Constantinople during the Crusades. In quantity and age they pale in comparison to the surviving Christian Biblical manuscripts. “Considering the variation that exists between the more numerous and frequently older Biblical manuscripts, I shudder to think about what must have happened to “The Classics.” Believing that we actually possess accurate original texts of most or even many of “The Classics” takes more faith than I can generate. It’s very likely that some were redacted, some were edited down, others were amended, and some are probably outright forgeries from the Middle Ages. “Germanic and Nordic folklore plus the Bible played much greater roles in forming modern Europe than “The Classics,” and the only Bible version of significance for western and central Europe prior to the 16th Century was the Latin Vulgate used by the Catholic Church. “The Classics” retained greatest influence in precisely those areas most peripheral to the modern West – the territories of the eastern Byzantine Empire and of the Greek Orthodox Church.” Again, I recommend that our young men get high on Northwestern European folklore, Nikola Tesla, and the practice field. Following Maguire’s response, I think we should return to the 21st Century and continue our work on practical matters. 122
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:14 | # GT wrote: As a tradesman of low IQ, informal education, and poor character I haven’t time or ability to refute each and every objection raised by MR’s collection of Greeks and Masons. If you don’t know much about a subject, then you shouldn’t comment on it. Ovid was a major classical writer for medieval authors. They used the Metamorphoses as a handbook for Greco-Roman mythology. They alluded to it. They wrote commentaries on it. They translated it. They parodied it. They allegorized it. Chaucer knew Ovid backward and forward, better than a Christian fundamentalist knows his Bible. No one familiar with medieval literature would dispute any of this. There’s no reason why you should be familiar with medieval literature. I’m sure there are many subjects you know well that I know next to nothing about. But don’t express dogmatic opinions if you don’t know anything about the subject of your dogmatism. Ovid in the Middle Ages That’s one link. I could provide an avalanche of published documentation, just as an astronomer could provide an avalanche of documentation proving that the sun is hot. The fact you are disputing is indisputable. Neither you nor Maguire has ever opened a copy of the Summa Theologica. I know that because I know that no one who had read even a single page of the Summa Theologica would write the nonsense you two continue to write. Again, there’s no crime in not knowing anything about the powerful influence the classics exerted on medieval intellectual life. But you shouldn’t continue to talk about what you don’t know. 123
Posted by danielj on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:32 | # I haven’t opened a single volume of the Summa Theologica… It is no shame… 124
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:58 | # Until a few seconds ago Id never even heard of the Summa Theologica… 125
Posted by Robert ap Richard on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:51 | # WM echoed, “What do they teach them in schools nowadays?” Relatively speaking, nichts. Good god, how on earth do you gentlemen know these interesting things, and so well? I imagine that you must have long beards and give lectures in the town square! I’m tempted to drop everything, move to your city, and hustle up students for you, just to be able to hear more. Do you have any idea how ignorant are 99.99% of all Whites of their own culture and history, and how fascinated they would be to learn, if only it were given to them as do for this tiny audience here? What a difference it would make, the roots of our very own culture, rich beyond comparison, rediscovered. The energy unleashed would be unstoppable. 126
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:43 | #
Exactly. It’s not for nothing the post-modern school systems have conspired to keep it from them. Our overlords are not stupid. They’re a lot of things, but not that. 127
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:00 | #
Even Grant aknowledged that Darwin/Galton were the originators of modern eugenics. Charles Davenport was a strict follower of Gregor Mendel after the re-discovery of the Austrian’s work in genetics. American ideas??? 128
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:15 | # That’s not true. “Eugenics” was known in America during the 19C as “stirpiculture.” 129
Posted by Steve Edwards on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:37 | # It is outrageous enough that the very building blocks of intellectual competence - logic, grammar, rhetoric - simply aren’t taught in our schools. I had to leave school and start over from scratch. The obvious reason is that the elites DON’T WAN’T a population that can think for itself. That this is criminal neglect doesn’t appear to worry them. I see no argument why the elites (all politicians along with complicit academics, think-tankers and journalists) should not be charged en masse with the crime of high treason; the deliberate process of decivilisation alone should be an indictable offence. 130
Posted by GT on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 04:14 | # Rnl: “If you don’t know much about a subject, then you shouldn’t comment on it. Ovid was a major classical writer for medieval authors. They used the Metamorphoses as a handbook for Greco-Roman mythology. They alluded to it. They wrote commentaries on it. They translated it. They parodied it. They allegorized it. Chaucer knew Ovid backward and forward, better than a Christian fundamentalist knows his Bible. No one familiar with medieval literature would dispute any of this.” You’re absolutely right, Rnl. Informally educated tradesmen of low IQ and character should not discuss something that is beyond their ability. They should not be bothered by the fact that Ovid’s Metamorphoses was compiled from three eleventh century manuscripts that were, themselves, based upon fragmentary and repeatedly hand-copied text. The veracity of the Metamorphesis and the Alfredian Boethius must be left to experts in the field. Therefore, I have nothing more to say on the matter at this time. Now, having conceded character, wit, and knowledge to MR’s obscurantists both professional and retired can we return to the 21st where Maguire can be poo-poohed, ridiculed, dismissed and shunned by thick-skinned intellectual warriors who are more adept at strategizing opposition to the jews? 131
Posted by Maguire on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 05:46 | # “I observe in parting, to Maguire, that in this realm, one must run merely to keep one’s place. I trust you did not take the Red Queen’s advice to be mere fantasy simply because it occurs in a fantastical work.” Absolutely Not. For instance, in this very thread another has seriously put forth the proposition that in post-Roman Europe until the Renaissance a work’s influence is best judged as an inverse function of the number of surviving manuscript examples. It’s that sort of recurrent logic that led me to seek wisdom and understanding in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice In Wonderland” in the first place. Everything became clear to me then. For instance, I understood the Classical Greco-Roman pantheon’s importance to Europe expanded enourmously precisely because pagan temples ceased to be built and maintained begining in the 4th Century AD. Christianity on the other hand was clearly of minor footnote importance precisely because tens of thousands of cathedrals, churches, chapels, monasteries, convents and roadside shrines began to be built all over Europe. The nadir of the Roman Catholic Church’s influence was probably reached with the dedication of Notre Dame in Paris. 132
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:41 | # “stirpiculture” Plato put forth a virtually identical programme, which means 1) it’s still an idea of European origin and 2)making the argument that Plato directly influenced Nazi eugenics, is difficult to say the least. 133
Posted by GT on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:26 | # “GT, please don’t smear trademen or low IQ persons with your own dishonesty.” -WM Wintermute, please don’t feign concern for the integrity of low IQ tradesmen beyond their ability to provide exceptional service at the lowest possible price. It demeans you. I’ve conceded. Rnl and you are absolutely correct. However, until I’m able to comprehend Rnl’s logic further discussion would be non-productive. Don’t you agree? Of course you’re free to “poo-pooh,” “ignore,” and feel morally & intellectually superior to this dishonest tradesman of low IQ in the interim, if you like. One favor to ask of you, sir. Can we move forward to the 21st century? 134
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:13 | #
There was nothing particularly novel about the notion of breeding human beings to increase the frequency of desirable characteristics. It had been floated several times throughout European history. You mention Plato above. Thomas Campanella’s City of the Sun would be an example. The difference is that the Oneida perfectionists actually acted on the idea and implemented a positive eugenics program. Note: Slaveowners had been breeding negroes for generations. There was nothing new about this: http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/05/31/eugenics-is-over-right/
135
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:48 | # Therefore, I have nothing more to say on the matter at this time. Good. I’ll be far away from a computer for the next several days so I won’t be returning to this thread for a while either. Ovid’s Metamorphoses was compiled from three eleventh century manuscripts You’re misinterpreting your data. _Beowulf_ exists in a single medieval manuscript. That doesn’t mean that there was only one manuscript of _Beowulf_ or that only one person ever read the poem. It means that only one manuscript survived, a very well read manuscript, badly decayed in the most popular section of the poem. Almost all of Anglo-Saxon poetry exists in single copies. From that we should not infer that only one copy of _Beowulf_ ever existed or that only one copy of any given Old English poem ever existed. The circulation of Ovid is not reflected in the number of surviving medieval copies of Ovid’s poetry. We know the _Metamorphoses_ circulated widely because it was quoted regularly - very regularly. In the twelfth century Arnulf of Orleans wrote a philosophical commentary on the poem, which (to state the obvious, which is unfortunately necessary) presupposes (a) that he had a copy; and (b) he knew that other scholars had access to copies and would be interested in reading a neo-Platonic commentary on the text. We also know Ovid was read widely because Ovid was part of the standard school curriculum. Learning “grammar” in the Middle Ages included reading Virgil and Ovid, among other Latin authors. C.S. Lewis writes that “there are perhaps no sources so necessary for a student of medieval literature to know as the Bible, Virgil, and Ovid.” If you read Latin, you had some experience of Ovid. If you were a poet, you read Ovid often. If you were a poet who didn’t read Latin, you read Ovid in a translation, just as Latinless poets would do today. If you were a lazy poet who read Latin, you could read selections from Ovid in one of the many collections of sententious sayings from classical authors. Chaucer, who did read Latin but also read Ovid in an Italian translation, depicts himself (or his narrator) reading the _Metamophoses_ in the opening of one of his dream-visions, _The Book of the Duchess_, where he tells the Ovidian story of Ceyx and Alcione. His _Legend of Good Women_ is based on Ovid’s _Heroides_. His _Manciple’s Tale_ is based on Ovid’s story of Apollo and the raven in the _Metamorphoses_. He alludes to Ovid’s treatments of Greco-Roman mythology frequently. He thought of himself as an English Ovid and assumed his readers were familiar with his Ovidian allusions, as many of them certainly were. That’s one of the effects of having a limited number of classical texts available. You read them often. Chaucer’s Clerk has twenty books “of Aristotle and his philosophie,” which he impoverished himself to accumulate. That was a large personal library. In a world where a large personal library is, by our standards, so small, the books you do possess become all the more valuable. They are objects of intense study. You lend them to friends. You learn them very well. You can quote long passages from memory. They become an important part of your mental landscape. *** “The material from secular Roman authors alone quoted in the _Summa theologica_ [i.e. in a text where one might not expect to find secular authors] is remarkable: it includes Cicero, Juvenal, Ovid, Terence, Seneca, Boethius, Macrobius, Caesar, Livy, Sallust, Valerius Maximus, Varro, Vegetius, and Virgil. It is an immensely rich set of memories, but it can be paralleled in any number of medieval works. The point to realize is that Thomas’s experience was consciously made up from them all, a mighty chorus of voices able to be summoned at will from the tablets of his memory.” Mary Carruthers, _The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture_ (Cambridge, 1990), 67. 136
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:57 | # Maguire wrote: Christianity on the other hand was clearly of minor footnote importance ... No one is suggesting that, but if someone does, he is wrong. If you want to argue that the Christian Bible is a crucial text for the Latin West in the Middle Ages, you would only be stating the obvious. No one, hopefully, would disagree. You didn’t, however, state the obvious. You chose instead to state the absurd: The idea of “The Classics” exercising any influence in Europe between the 5th Century AD and the printing press belongs in the same world where Alice discourses with the Red Queen while running against the moving road. You continue to pretend that you know something about this subject, and it is extremely clear that you don’t. It’s fine when we have strongly differing opinions about facts; it’s not acceptable to pontificate on subjects you don’t understand. I don’t know anything about Chinese pottery. That means I shouldn’t ever express dogmatic opinions about Chinese pottery. You should follow the same rule. 137
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:54 | #
The Spartans and who knows how many ancient tribes acted on the idea as well. 138
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:23 | # First part. My answers start with -, Scimitar answers are between ” ” (whole paragraphs). “The U.S. and Western Europe went off in two different directions after the Second World War. From 1945 to 1965, the U.S. was at the peak of its world power and influence. The mood of the country was one of overwhelming, soaring cultural confidence.” - The seeds of ruin were already growing in/among that overconfidence and naivety, like in Europe. “In stark contrast, much of Western Europe was in ruins. For the first time since the fifteenth century, Western Europe had ceased to be the center of the world, and was occupied by non-European powers. Millions were dead. Historic cities had been obliterated. In the heart of Europe, Germans went hungry. The question on the mind of the European intelligentsia at that time was: why? With some justification, they blamed “racism” and “nationalism” and, as is often the case in history, overreacted. This would happen about 25 years later in the U.S.” - PC-nonsense. First, wars don’t ruin minds in general, they strenghten them. I use Finland as an example. Those people who returned from the Finnish wars were self- confident determined and tough. They rebuild the country quickly, made many children, and build a good economy. There were large networks, my relatives included, who hid arms and ammunition in case there is new war with Soviet Union. Secret co-operation was arranged between Finns and US military. 50 and 60 were, like in the Usa, “golden” times of rapid development. But there were many “small” problems. Because of maintaining artificial good relations with Soviet Union, war events, the preceding Finnish culture and history was not talked much publicly and in education, and in that atmosphere by parents in the homes to children. This last was the single biggest mistake/deficiency. Finnish culture should have been taught to the children by parents in the same way than in previous generations, somewhat less publicly, but with the same strength. 60 and 70 “revolutionaries” talked often about their tough, silent fathers. This reminds me of the importance of independent and autonomous culture of the people, that can withstand any change in the surrounding society and government. Second problem was that when maintaining artificial good relations with the Soviet Union, Soviets and other radicals views were given more publicity in the media. International propaganda resembling this from the Usa and some European countries were also increasing. Large percentage of Finns have been leftists of various hues, but the most of them have been ethnic nationalists and patriots. E.g. after the war social democrats, the biggest leftist party, eliminated communists from important workplaces and labor unions by exclusionary practices and informing them to the authorities. Still, the reducing of the former ethnic nationalism and patriotism, and at the same time increasing the Soviet etc. views had a cumulative effect over time. The problem was that the Soviets and other radicals used fairly skillfully the former leftist rhetoric, approriated it, and gave it new international socialist content. It has existed before, but now, without adequately expressed counterforce it gained ground. Third problem was the increasing trade and consequent political relations between Soviet Union and Finland. As a part of creating and upholding good relations with Soviets, many entrepreneurers and people from the right parroted some of the socialist/communist rhetoric. At the time it seemed to all, leftists and rightist, like a good aid without side effects. It was easy to parrot about international unity of mankind etc., when there was no foreigners in Finland and no intention to let them in. It is important to note, that all this didn’t sink the boat. On the surface it seemed to sail quite well. But there grew a purposeless, cultureless, aimless and ambivalently leftist youth, who has learned to imititate all the fashions coming from America without thinking. It was their surrogate to culture. It is the worst generation there ever was. Former fashions has been fairly harmless, but they degenerated morality, and therefore tilled the ground. The tipping point was the sixties culture fashion coming from America. Leftist “revolutionaries” were resisted and they didn’t form a large percentage of people, but in essence they educated one generation and especially the future elites. This was exacerbated by the fact that they were given support by many people who thought that this was somehow part of normal, but more lively, and maybe more effective leftist politics. So, people came from all over Finland with their requests, doctors needing better resources, prison guards needing better facilities, social workers suggesting changes to organizations and practices, etc. They were welcomed by the “revolutionaries” with open arms, and their needs and wishes were incorporated to “revolutionaries’ ” programs. From the “revolutionaries’ ” point of view, this had the effect of mixing their thoughts more into the mainstream and lessening it’s resistance. The generation, who has fought in the war, opposed, but was partly too understanding, at least initially, because “revolutionaries” advocated among other things “peace”. It didn’t sound so bad to those who have been in the war. And the many of the revolutionaries were their children. To “revolutionaries”, Soviet bombs and arms were “Peace arms and bombs”. “Revolution” withered, but it left it’s core thoughts to culture, which has corroded the people, nation and culture ever since. Those who have been revolutionaries, whatever they are now, including capitalists, have often held onto their universal egalitarian etc. dreams and used them in their actions and spread them as much as they could. This have been more destructive than the “revolution” itself. Radical “intellectuals” often advertised today in the media had close to zero effect. The masses were moved to tipping point by American media’s fashions, and those arranging the “revolution” concentrated to all kinds of practical matters, not to obscure theoretical ideas. “The postwar period in Western Europe was a time of deep soul searching and pessimism. Europeans came to believe there was something deeply wrong with their civilization.” - Not at all, referring to the previous answer. That was of course the product that radicals and jews were trying to sell to the resisting and cold masses. That was partly true in postwar Germany, were Americans and American jews installed radical leftist politicians, education and media, who have in essence destroyed German minds. But it was imposed from outside, it was not inherent. (E.g. Two points. Until 1955 a newspaper or broadcast media could be operated in Germany only if one had been licensed by the victors to do so. To be licensed, openly anti-national and anti-Fascist leanings were imperative (i.e. international communists and socialists) C. von Schrenck-Notzing, Charakterwäsche, Die Politiker der amerikanischen Umerziehung in Deutschland, Ullstein, Berlin 1993; G. Franz-Willing, Umerziehung, Nation Europa, Coburg 1991. And their power has continued ever since. According to M. Behrens and R. von Rimscha, Politische Korrekheit in Deutschland. eine Gefahr fur die Demokratie, Bouvier, Bonn 1995; 48% of leading opinion makers describe themselves as leftist to leftist radical, 19% as liberal, and only 10% as Christian-socialist to conservative.) “Nowhere was this more true than in France. It was from France that what is now known as “postmodernism” emerged. Go back and read Sartre; his sympathies for the radical third wordlists.” - Yes, the sick Jean Paul Sartre, according to whom revolutionaries gain their lost innocence through bloodshed and third worlders have the right to massacre Westerners. These kind of people were not the major factors in Europe’s problems, but they were worsening little spices. Together with more important things they sometimes acquired some real damaging influence. “Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, the Soviet Union pillored the U.S. in the third world and at the U.N. on the grounds of “racism”; how America was like Nazi Germany because of Jim Crow. The NAACP famously made an appeal there during the Truman years. This was especially problematic for Truman and Eisenhower because the Western European NATO allies often joined in the criticism and demanded that the U.S. jettison Jim Crow in order to maintain the “leadership role.” It was for this reason that the U.S. State Department started pushing desegregation in the federal courts, most famously in Brown, but also in several previous decisions.” - I have lived in almost ethnically pure nation, you have not. If American media sends messages of horrible Jim Crow, and in Finland people thought it really was Americans’ media, why not repeat what Americans seem to be thinking and wanting to say. It was an abstact question here and didn’t mean anything, because Finns had no experience about blacks etc., and were not going to let them in. First small number of refugees were accepted from Chile in the middle of the seventies, at the time of ongoing “revolution”. The biggest Finnish medias had single correspondents in Washington, and they were not making those Jim Crow stories by themselves. They were relying on American media on those stories. Who were the owners of American media and who have an inclination to do such Jim Crow stories? It was sheer madness to ask Finns of those times anything about Jim Crow, and let alone to listen to them. “The overwhelming priority of the U.S. at the time was maintaining the so-called “leadership role” in NATO and fighting world communism. Jim Crow got in the way of that. So, for example, in the aftermath of the debacle at Little Rock in 1957, the U.S. got extremely bad press in Europe. See the USIA poll posted above. In Sweden, for instance, something like 90% of the population strongly disapproved of American treatment of the negro. This pressure from abroad - as Eisenhower mentions, being flooded in the spotlight of world opinion - prompted the Civil Rights Act of 1957 in the United States.” - You should have said to Swedes: “Well, if our support and secret protection is not good enough for you, we inform the Soviets that they can take you”, and watch the ensuing change of minds. Soviets never changed their core politics because of outside populations, or they lied and created illusions. You say that Usa was at the height of their power and confidence, but still they asked outside nations what to do. Contradiction. Because of the reasons I described previously, it was at that time dangerous to throw all kinds of mass media egalitarian propaganda to many European countries. Continued….. 139
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:26 | # Continuation, second part. “Again, in the late 1950s/early 1960s, we see two different worlds in the Western Europe and the United States. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t browbeat Americans over the head as “racists,” as “civil rights activists” have done in recent years.” - No, but he was a communist/socialist and his rhetoric was attenuated to gain more widespread acceptance. He would have said “racists” if he could have. Many jews and blacks did. “It was only later, in the 1970s and 1980s, that postmodernism (and the Western self-hatred so typical of it) crossed the Atlantic and became popular in America’s universities, amongst the aging baby boomers who had rebelled against the Vietnam War.” - It was only in the sixties and seventies that “revolution”, initiated by American mass media, mass movement and their fashions, entered Europe. It was the tipping point, fire to the dry woods. “The all-consuming Western self-hatred, the radical anti-racism that we are familiar with, crossed the Atlantic from Europe to America, not the other way around. In fact, the United States has never completely bought into this in the way that, say, Germany has.” - Well, e.g. the Americans’ “re-education” of Germans after the war has come to haunt you. “Even in 2007, the United States is still very much a modernist nation. See the unbelievable wave of patriotard nationalism that crested over the country back in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.” - We both know how empty that nationalism is, if it cannot stop and reverse the immigration and form real, permanent European-American communities. That “nationalism” before the Iraq war was stoked most influentially by neocon and other jews. “If you are looking for the origins of this sort of thing, look at Fanon, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Claude Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze and the rest of their ilk. Even the Frankfurt School originated, where else, in Europe.” and then you write: “I should qualify the post above. It would be more accurate to say that Der ewige Jude causes mischief wherever he resides. Most of the destructive “Europeans” and “Americans” we are talking about are really nothing of the sort: Boas, Marcuse, Montagu, Claude Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Freud, Rand, Adorno, Horkheimer, Levinson, Morgenthau, Spingarn, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, etc.” - So they are either jewish or largely non essentials to the development in Europe. E.g. jewish Frankfurt school became influential after it had fled Europe’s “racism” to Usa, and gained access to American jewish and liberal mass media. “You mention the eugenics movement in Scandinavia above. As it happens, I am very much interested in the history of eugenics, and agree with much of what you say. Did you know that the United States was the world’s leader in eugenics for about thirty years? In fact, the European movement, even in Germany, owes much of its inspiration to American ideas. Another example would be Nordicism which caught on in Germany after it had been popularized by Grant and others. There have been several recent books that explore the roots of eugenics in considerable detail. “ - It is natural, because Americans’ had racial minorities, Europeans’ mostly had not. “One last thing: a Swede, Gunnar Myrdal, wrote the most influential book in the history of American race relations, An American Dilemma. This influence of this book over the Warren Court which handed down Brown cannot be overestimated.” - Americans made a very important decision based on Swedish radical’s book from close to ethnically pure nation. They had existed long time in both sides of the Atlantic. Why you suddenly made that decision? It would not have been made, say, 20 years earlier. Radicals exist always, the surrounding society and system that handles them is important. “Boas, Montagu, the Frankfurt School, Gunnar Myrdal, Sartre, and so forth were Europeans. Boas and the Columbia School of Anthropology carried on a famous quarrel with the “Americans” at Harvard, namely, Hooton and his students like Carleton S. Coon, not to mention other “Americans” like Madison Grant. The notion that “culture” as opposed to “race” was a more salient factor in explaining human behavior comes from, where else, Germany. The Germans have been exaggerating the importance of “Kultur” since the days of Fichte and Herder. What is known as “cultural anthropology” originated in Germany during the 19C. The German school was racially egalitarian whereas hereditarianism (see Jefferson, Morton, Nott, etc.) predominanted in the United States. Cultural anthropology was brought to the United States by European immigrants in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. As it happens, during the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, a reverse process happened in Germany. The Germans came under the influence of Anglo-American eugenics and racial theory (what had previously been decried as “materialism”). Darwinism was popularized in Germany by Haeckel.” - Yes, the jews and radicals again in Europe, but in the Usa too. When there was flowering of all kinds of ethnic nationalisms and racial nationalism in Europe, Americans threw themselves to war to defeat racial nationalist Germany at the side of racial egalitarians, the Soviets. That started the current degenerating process in Europe. Also, if you had let the Germans fight against the soviets in peace, Soviets would have been either defeated, there would have been a draw or the possible victory of Soviets’ would likely have been quite useless. Let alone if you have helped the Germans to fight against the Soviets. You would have saved many, many American lives. Although I don’t believe in the official holocaust fairy tale, staying out of the war or let alone helping the Germans, you would have been able to pressure the Germans to send the jews where ever you would have wanted them, e.g. to Palestine, and thus reduced the mortalities from hunger and disease at the end of the war. National socialism has many problems, but European nations would have applied their own ethnic nationalisms, whatever the position of national socialists. Thus e.g. Finns would have had a different political system in all cases. “Actually, it is the United States that has always been more influenced by Western Europe, not the other way around. Tens of millions of Europeans immigrated to the United States and settled here. They brought all sorts of ideas with them. Where should we start? Postmodernism, Nazism, Fascism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Austrian economics, Marxism . . . where? - Americans are Europeans’ children in good and bad, and children are influenced more by their parents than the other way around, although you include those politics created by jews and those that wouldn’t have existed without their influence. You gave me one sided account, maybe hoping to externalize all the bad things outside America. I gave you the other side to give balance. Reality is that both of our continents have often been intertwined in bad influences. The only enduring politics follow from healing the inside and helping our racial brothers heal in other countries too. 140
Posted by ff on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:27 | # Finn, Addition: One of the Founding fathers, who decided the American independence vote, had Finnish roots: What point are you trying to make here? The Wikipedia entry claims:
The claim is that one of Morton’s great grandparents was born in Finland and had a Finnish name, the implication being that Morton was about 1/8 Finnish. Yet, when we look at the linked source for this claim, we find that the great grandfather’s name is said to be “Mårten Mårtensson” (not “Martti Marttinen”), which suggests to me he may have been an ethnic Swede. About the supposed “Marttinen” connection, I find this:
The “Marttinen” claim appears to be the result of sloppy research and wishful thinking. Ostrobothnia, where the more plausible candidate originates, was apparently settled by Swedes and is majority Swedish-speaking down to the present. The settlers of New Sweden included some ethnic Finns. In fact, it seems the colony came to include a large proportion of Finns from Värmland (many of them criminals). But, in 1790, only 0.26% of Americans had Swedish surnames. Presumably, the number of Finns was even less. I think it’s fair to say Finns did not play a major role in settling North America or founding the United States. You’re welcome to search out historical minutiae about Finns. But, if you’re going make claims like the above, (1) make sure they’re accurate, and (2) keep them in perspective. I’m used to this sort of behavior from “Italian-Americans”, but I haven’t seen it from Finns before. “Italian-American” groups try to “claim” two signers of the Declaration of Independence—William Paca, for whom there is no absolutely no evidence of Italian ancestry<sup>*</sup>, and Ceasar Rodney, who apparently had one great grandparent from Treviso—along with Robert Taliaffero, an early immigrant to Virginia whose grandfather was from Venice and had settled in London 60 years before Robert was born. It’s informative that after decades of searching for some link with early America, the best southern Italians can do is cite two individuals of fractional Northern Italian ancestry and an Englishman with an “Italian-looking” surname. * See here, for example. Also, see this hilarious thread, which features an Italian ranting about “anglophile authors” with “flimsy evidence” while making clear his own “evidence” consists of nothing more than the spelling of Paca’s surname. (Anyone who has actually done genealogical research in England in this time period knows that spellings change and rare surnames exist.) Also entertaining are the Italian of Bohemian descent who claims to be related to Paca based on a family story, as well as the Albanian who “claims” Paca while saying:
141
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:52 | # “The claim is that one of Morton’s great grandparents was born in Finland and had a Finnish name, the implication being that Morton was about 1/8 Finnish. Yet, when we look at the linked source for this claim, we find that the great grandfather’s name is said to be “Mårten Mårtensson” (not “Martti Marttinen”), which suggests to me he may have been an ethnic Swede.” - That in itself doesn’t mean anything. 3/4 of Finns with Swedish names are in reality ethnic Finns. They took those names mostly to make business with officials easier. Sometimes the new Swedish names were formed from previous Finnish names, sometimes they were names of occupation, sometimes they were completely new names, etc. I bumped into that site accidentally. I thought it was nice detail. I don’t care which way turns out to be right. 142
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:57 | # Scimitar, A view of Julian Huxley’s liberalism, as described by Elazar Barkan, illuminates the impact of proximity, which is essentially the only difference that attributes Huxley’s distain for the “Other”, “be they the races of the Empire, the lower classes in England, or blacks in the American South.”
The fear that whites felt in the South, fear of insurrection, fear of an ever burgeoning population of “others” that may displace then, ultimately cemented by the Nat Turner revolt, differs little from Huxley’s anxieties. Further, the Manumission Law, private emancipation, on the books in Virginia from 1782 to 1806, reveals cracks in the theory of an enduring Southern racialism, that arguably, did not really solidify until after 1830. The fear of the “other”, is uniform, it is the proximity to the other that differs. 143
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:31 | # As we bid what is to be hoped a temporary farewell to wintermute, perhaps Oliver Goldsmith can provide a fitting and irony-free valediction : ” And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew, 144
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:12 | #
We have been discussing this matter on my blog as well. I have been compiling a list. Here is the latest version: I would say that I am being reasonable. We’re talking about meme swapping or how the two continents have influenced each other, right? Guilty, to the charge of: 1.) McDonald’s, Walmart, Coca-Cola. ^^ The above have their origins in North America. Innocent, to the charge of: 1.) Nazism/Neo-Nazism. . . . compiling this list is becoming a bit tedious. 21.) The Frankfurt School/Critical Theory. I’m sure there is more. My list has more than doubled over the past few days. 145
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:57 | # What’s wrong with Scimitar’s list is no matter who first “thought up” anti-racism, no matter who first “thought up” race-replacment, no matter who first “thought up” multiculti, no matter whether that person was in Europe or America the post-WW-II world in which all these theories have been imposed as realities on the Eurosphere was created by the United States. Who cares if race-replacement was first “thought up” by some nutcase in Austria-Hungary in the 1790s or some asshole in England in the 1640s or some weirdo in Holland in the 1850s or some jackass in Poland in the 1920s, or whatever the claim of “priority” is. What matters is the United States acted on that and imposed actual, real-time, living, breathing forced race-replacement on itself and the rest of the Eurosphere in WW-II’s aftermath. If what Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy did was first thought up by someone else we’re not too concerned about that other person who “thought it up,” we’re concerned about Dahmer and Bundy putting it into practice. The multiculti and race-replacement that are killing the West today are an American export no matter who originally “thought them up.” Incidentally, can we do a balance sheet like that for Jews? What have they given us that’s been good since, let’s say, the era of the French and American Revolutions, i.e., since their emergence in large numbers into the Euro world a little over two centuries ago, and what that’s been bad? Atonal music, for example, which is bad, was a Jewish creation. Jewish-produced Hollywood films until the tenure of Jack Valenti were good. (Jack Valenti, who was bad, was just a front man for Hollywood Jews who wanted the film codes changed so they could start churning out crap which they thought would make them more money in the era of competition from television.) Bolshevism of course was Jewish and was bad. My point is, 1) what would a balance sheet for the Jews look like, and 2) the po-mo “whites are evil, are the cancer of history, and have to be eradicated or at least cut down to size and put in their place by non-whites” propaganda being taught to white college students by their Jewish professors ever since Susan Sontag and before, comes from Jews and is an attack not on whites, since Jews are white and are not attacking themselves in this matter, but on Euros: it’s simply a tribal attack by a tribe on another tribe it views as an enemy, and has no more basis than that. Go to Africa and see how one tribe attacks another, trying its best to wipe it out. The “whites are the cancer of history” propaganda is simply one of those tribal attacks you see going on in Africa, and has no more basis than one of those, but instead of the Hutu tribe attacking the Watusi tribe and trying to wipe it out, it’s the Jewish tribe attacking the Eurochristian tribe and trying to wipe it out. That’s it. Nothing else is going on with that. (What makes Euros the enemy in Jews’ eyes is their historic Christianity; if they were Jewish instead of Christian the Jews wouldn’t see them as the enemy, something that may or may not seem obvious though it’s obvious to me.) Eurochristians shouldn’t allow themselves to be attacked with impunity the way the Jews are doing, but should at the very least counterattack. One way of counterattacking would be to compile a balance sheet showing a significant amount of unflattering crap the Jews have been responsible for since their first emergence in large numbers into the Euro world starting about two-and-a-half centuries ago. Let that list percolate through the university milieu a while and see if it shuts up the academic Jews who are constantly on the attack with “whites [left-wing-Jewish code for Eurochristians, not Jews] are the cancer of history.” At the bottom of the list should be appended an old Euro proverb: “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” ... in Yiddish translation ... 146
Posted by second class citizen on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:58 | # “Informally educated tradesmen of low IQ and character should not discuss something that is beyond their ability.” GT, if you are going to pretend to have low IQ, the very least you can do is insert some spelling and grammatical errors in your posts and stop using big words like “e-bartering microcommunities”. 147
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:20 | # On closer inspection, the theory that the Europe has “degenerated” because of American influence falls apart. It is a classic example of Anti-Americanism. The degeneracy theory was already popular in Jefferson’s day and he spent several decades of his life debunking this nonsense. The complaints are transparently ridiculous: 1.) The Frankfurt School/Critical Theory. This is the complaint most frequently made: a handful of radical Jews left Europe and took refuge in North America to escape from Nazism. Later, after the war is over, they go back home to Germany. These people are counted as “Americans” when they were nothing of the sort. They were European Jews and always thought of themselves as such. No thought is given to the fact that these people came from Europe to North America. How many Jews are we talking about in total? Enough to fill the inside of a small classroom. What incredible lack of perspective. Europe exported MILLIONS OF JEWS here and they never went home. How do you suppose that affected our society? 2.) “Imposed on the Eurosphere by the United States” False. Nothing of the sort occurred. It is a legend. How did America impose anti-racism on the Soviet Union or its satellites? How did we impose all of these things on Sweden - the most liberal country in Europe according to the USIA poll? How, pray tell, are we responsible for the anti-racist, Marxist scum in the IRA? If you look at the USIA poll, an incredible fact will strike you. In 1957, at the time of the Little Rock incident, the most racist country in Europe was, believe it or not, West Germany - the one nation most influenced by the postwar military occupation. The most liberal was Sweden - which was neutral in the war - and which was never occupied by the United States. Explain that for us. The degeneracy theory is refuted by Japan. In the aftermath of WW2, Japan was occupied by the U.S. military. The Japanese accepted their loss in the war and sought to imitate their conquerers. Japan became a demilitarized constitutional democracy. Yet Japan didn’t start wallowing in self-hating, anti-racist nihilism. In contrast, France which has never admired American culture and which has never seen America as a model to imitate ultimately did. 3.) The list above. As I have shown, virtually all the ideas that Europeans complain so much about originated - where else - in Europe. They were exported here, in our direction, not the other way around. Even today, just as before the Second World War, we find that communism, socialism, and social democracy enjoy a certain respectibility in Europe that is unknown here in the United States. When Hitler came to power in Germany, communism had incredible appeal there. In the aftermath of WW2, the communists came close to taking over in Italy and France. 4.) The American Civil Rights Movement. Why did the Truman administration, and not FDR, wholeheartedly embrace civil rights reform? Because of changes in the postwar international system and America’s role within it. As I tried to explain to a Finn above, the executive branch of the U.S. federal government started supporting desegregation out of Cold War concerns. The Soviet Union and its European satarps were making much of American racism in the U.N. and third world. This was creating incredible problems for the State Department which was charged with the task of containing communism in postwar Europe. “Racism” got in the way of that. Why? Because America’s European allies - having embraced anti-racism after WW2, in disgust with the Third Reich - put pressure on the U.S. government to abolish “racial discrimination” (get with the program) for the U.S. could continue to play the so-called “leadership role” in the NATO military alliance. America was backward on the race issue by European standards. It wasn’t until a generation after WW2 that anti-racism completely triumphed in the United States. There was a protracted fight over the matter - Little Rock, Oxford, Birmingham, Selma. The notion that Sweden was racially corrupted by the anti-racism of a Mississippi or a South Carolina is, quite frankly, absurd. Have you ever read MLK’s fan mail? Do you know where most of it came from? Where else, from Europe. 148
Posted by .... on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:40 | # Scimitar’s list primarily concerns Jewish ideas and programs - not European or American. It’s predictable that the earliest vectors are geographically European and their later - and thus more virulent - manifestations are mostly geographically American. 149
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:04 | # If not from the United States, where did the self-hating, militant, anti-racist, anti-Western breed nihilism of postwar Western Europe come from? I have long found myself impressed with the following two examples:
150
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:43 | # Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Mao, and Kim Il Sung were all the direct of the U.S. intervening in the German war against the Bolsheviks on the side of the latter. Their advent was the fault of the U.S. which should have stuck its nose out of Continental Europe’s business. 151
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:48 | # Lots of assholes went to Paris and to lots of other places and became “communists” there. That interests no one. What is of interest is how did these same assholes come to control entire countries and invade third countries. The U.S.‘s foreign policy had a hand in bringing all that shit about — in elevating these assholes. Had Roosevelt not stuck his nose in the affairs of Continental Europe Ho Chi Minh would have rertired a pastry chef in some Paris hotel after failing utterly to foment revolution in Indochina. 152
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:31 | #
Both Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot were French speakers who became communists in Paris. The former had become a communist long before the Second World War. It is utterly absurd to blame postwar French intellectual culture on the United States. I posted a new thread about this at OCD. Sartre and his clique of third worldists hated the United States and considered Americans “bourgeois” and their “enemy.” They were not the product of American influence at all. No, they were great admirers of the anti-racist Soviet Union. This is really nothing more than standard fare, tiresome Anti-Americanism - everything wrong with Europe traces back to America, even when the facts show the opposite to be true. The United States supported the French effort to reestablish control over their little Indochina colony. That’s how we got drawn into Vietnam in the first place. We also fought the Korean War and attempted to overthrow Kim Il Sung’s communist regime. You make it sound as if Communist Vietnam, Cambodia, and North Korea were some how allies of the United States. What next? Is America to blame for Castro and Che as well? As I pointed out above, the degeneracy theory (an old legend from the eighteenth century) is refuted by American influence in East Asia. Tell me something. Why aren’t Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan suffering from the problems of Europe? If anything, American influence has been greater there than it has been in most European countries, especially France. The truth is that East Asia doesn’t have this disease is because it is internal to Europe.
That was sort of hard to do when Hitler and his fascist allies declared war on the United States. Oh, but wait. I know what you are going to say: Italy had no choice but to attack Albania and Ethiopia; Germany had no choice but to attack Greece and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the latter posed an ENORMOUS threat, and it was understandable that the Germans removed it in self-defense; Japan had no choice but to invade Indochina and the Philippines.
I find it highly interesting. The radical, anti-white, self-loathing, anti-Western version of anti-racism can be traced back to 1.) communism and 2.) postmodernism. The confluence of the two into a single noxious brew happened in postwar France. It was from there that this disease spread to the rest of the world.
??? For over fifty years, the overriding goal of U.S. foreign policy was the containment of communism. Actually, there were two Cold Wars between the U.S. and USSR. From Wilson to FDR, the U.S. federal government didn’t recognize the Soviet Union. It makes utterly no sense to blame America for communism. Coca-Cola, Walmart, McDonald’s, yes. Castro and Che Guevera, no. Communism has always been a European problem. They created communism (Marx and Engels), supported communism (Lenin and Stalin), made apologies for communism (Sartre), and tried to spread communism throughout the world (Internationale). Communism was already an enormous problem in Germany before Hitler even came to power there. This theory you propose is interesting, Scroob. It was necessary for some reason for Hitler to conquer all of Europe . . . to save Europe from itself, from its own degeneracy, which is somehow our fault. 153
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:32 | # How did Pol Pot take over Cambodia? With the backing of Hanoi, Moscow and Peking. How did Hanoi take Saigon? With the backing of Peking and Moscow. How did Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il Sung install themselves? With the backing of Peking and Moscow. How did Mao defeat the Nationalist Chinese? With the backing of Stalin. What kept the German General Staff from sorting Stalin out and getting rid of the Red Menace in the east so that none of the above could’ve taken place? Franklin Roosevelt. Who made it that the world came to hear of Ho Chi Minh instead of his “fame” being strictly limited to the pastry kitchen chez Maxim in Paris? Franklin Roosevelt. The United States is the most evil country in the history of civilization, the reason being race-replacement: forcing it on America’s population and the rest of the Eurosphere. Nothing can make amends for that crime. Nothing. 154
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:34 | # You’re talking about a race that was four hundred thousand years, seven hundred thousand, a million years in the making, that D.C. is destroying right now before your eyes. You think something can make amends for that crime? What can? What? 155
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:21 | # Roosevelt and Stalin Discuss the Future of French Rule in Indochina, Teheran Conference, November 28, 1943, from Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Volume II: Since 1914, 4th edition, edited by Thomas G. Paterson and Dennis Merrill (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), p. 189.
It’s interesting that FDR was bent on destroying the French racialists. The mythical ‘free French’ were commies afterall. 156
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:54 | # Fred forgot to add: Who funnelled well over a $100 billion in loans, war supplies and technological transfers to Stalin? 157
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:42 | # My comments after the dots: Scimitar wrote: Guilty to the charge of: 1.) McDonald’s, Walmart, Coca-Cola. Global capitalism and liberalism in other words Innocent, to the charge of: 1.) Nazism. From Europeans; national socialism is the first time ethnicity and race was put to the center stage. In America race had been important pillar of society, but not at the center stage. If I skip many problems about national socialism, it’s problem with ethnicity and race was that it installed it from top down, not from communities to the top, like it should have. But race and ethnicity at the center stage had to start somewhere. Also, Soviet racial egalitarians were a murderous threat. “I’m sure there is more. My list has more than doubled over the past few days.” - I’m sure you would repeat the same than here. Finns crushed communists and socialists (who were mostly ethnic nationalists) in civil war. Two of my relatives were lured with lies and deceptions by agitators “To earn riches” etc. in the Soviet Union. They were murdered. Same happened to many other Finns. 3 million Finns fought life and death all out war against 180 million communist Soviet Union. You didn’t mention Europe’s 1) ethnic nationalism and 2) nationalism. You didn’t mention America’s crushing of ethnic nationalism all over Europe at the side of racial egalitarians, Soviet Union, which started the current ongoing liberalism, multiculturalism, international leftism and immigration. You didn’t mention that Usa is a world center of global capitalism, liberalism, “fashionable” leftism etc., and emits them with all of it’s power to all over the world. (See e.g. John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Ebury Press, 2006). To talk of these in terms of guilty/not-guilty is inappropriate, because neither of us is using or advocating these. What is appropriate is to acknowledge our entwined problems, and do that which has the most effect to solve them. Closing eyes at home makes this impossible. 158
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:35 | #
French racialists? You’re joking, right? Even before the Second World War, negroes and Arabs from Francophone Africa sat in the French parliament. They were considered an integral part of the so-called “Union Française.” Léopold Senghor of Senegal even had a French wife. There was no “fall” of racialism in France. There had never been a “rise.” About Yalta. Yes, FDR was of the view that the French had “milked” Vietnam for all it was worth. His visit to Gabon during WW2 didn’t impress him with the merits of French colonialism either. You’re leaving out two crucial details though: 1.) FDR died in 1945 before the end of the war, and so his policy was never implemented. With the death of FDR, Truman became president, and later with the Truman Doctrine the Cold War started. The containment of communism became the overriding priority of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. supported the French effort to restore their rule in Indochina. The U.S. would spend the next decade trying to prop up the flagging French Empire, which is how we were drawn into the muck of Vietnam in the first place. By 1954, the U.S. was paying for 80 percent of French expenses in Vietnam. So much for “destroying French racialists.” Nothing of the sort happened. The CIA did attempt, however, to prevent the French Communist Party from taking over in postwar France (something Sartre and his ilk bitterly resented). My take on the matter is that it was an enormous waste of American resources . . . and lives. As noted above, propping up French colonial ambitions is how we became embroiled in Vietnam in the first place. 159
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:57 | #
To my knowledge, Moscow isn’t anywhere near North America. In fact, I seem to recall that city being in Europe.
Certainly not because of lack of American effort to prevent that from happening. There was this incident called the Vietnam War. The U.S. spent over thirty years trying to fight Communism in Southeast Asia.
Stalin, another American. Tito would be another. And Castro and Che, both Americans, and allies of the United States. Dont’ forget “we will bury you” Khrushchev either and the ANC scum the Soviet Union was backing in South Africa.
FDR found himself in a difficult situation. See, Germany had formed a hostile military alliance with America’s major enemy in the Tripartite Pact. I’m referring of course to Japan here. Guess what happened next? Germany and Italy declared war on the United States after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Thus, I would say it is understandable that the U.S. government wasn’t exactly pro-German enough for your tastes. As for Hitler’s invasion of the USSR, it wasn’t inspired by anti-communism at all. That was nothing more than a pretext. His views about the matter are made plain in the Table Talk where he discusses his intentions in his own words. It was nothing more than a crude land grab.
Ho Chi Minh became a radical communist in France over a decade before FDR became POTUS. He also started a Vietnamese rebellion against the Japanese after their occupation of French Indochina. After the war, Truman was president, backed the French attempt to reinstall themselves in Indochina, and got the U.S. embroiled there for the first time in American history.
That’s hilarious. No, it is hysterically untrue, delusional even. We are to blame for communism, postmodernism, fascism . . . all sorts of ideas that Europeans themselves created and implemented in their own societies which, in fact, they exported here, not the other way around. During the Civil Rights Movement, as I pointed out above, Martin Luther King, Jr. was despised in the American South, and was held in suspicion in the North until Birmingham (Kennedy didn’t embrace King until after Birmingham). In Europe, he was a rock star like Gandhi and Mandela. He was so popular, especially in the Soviet Union and Scandinavia, that his movement became a problem for the U.S. State Department, which began to support desegregation as a consequence. 160
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:41 | #
Not pro-American enough for my tastes. Which is irrelevant now, since the race-replacement world the United States created and forced down the throats of the entire Eurosphere in WW-II’s aftermath has done away with the United States. D.C. spouts off constantly about what it calls “failed states.” The U.S. is a failed state. It spouts constantly about “rogue nations.” The U.S. is the world’s leading rogue nation. It spouts off constantly about the “Axis of Evil.” The U.S. is the evilest nation that ever existed in world history. Rather than allowing ourselves to be mired in bitterness and regret over what the Demented States of Moronica has done, we need to get on with the task, now lying before us, of constructing what will replace it, an entity in which never again will there be the possibility that a communist/capitalist/Eurohating-Jewish alliance such as we’ve seen since WW-II’s outbreak be able to literally destroy entire traditional nations and their races through the mailed-fisted imposition of liberal insanity, PC, and forced race-replacement. 161
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:49 | # My comments start with -. “How did America impose anti-racism on the Soviet Union or its satellites?” - To the Soviet Union, no. It was jewish business. Over 300 of the 384 comissars were jews. To the Soviet satellites, yes. Usa fought against Germany. Usa made it spread it’s forces too thin, to too many war theaters. Usa gave all kinds of war material and other support to Soviet Union and other opponents of Germans. This enabled Soviet Union to conquer half of Europe and sicken the rest. “How did we impose all of these things on Sweden - the most liberal country in Europe according to the USIA poll?” - Sweden can be thought as nation with weak immune system. Before the war it was strenghtening with ethnic nationalism, racialism and eugenics. Leftists advocated these, but without enough time to grow deep roots and traditions, leftism in wrong environment could mutate to dangerous form. The war result broke the good development too soon. The bad influences were: 1) Swedes feared immensely the Soviets. To give you an example; During war some voluntary Swedes came to Finland to fight. Over 100 of them had been in training some time and Viljam Pylkäs was training them one day. Suddenly Finnish scout comes and informs that 110-115 Soviets are coming. Swedes start to scream and run in panic to all directions, except towards Soviets. Pylkäs and other man gather all the clips and ammunitions. Pylkäs orders the man to fill those clips that are empty or become empty. Soviets come and battle ensues. Pylkäs shoots frenzied, accurate murderous short sets of fire. When it is over, 83 Soviets lay dead, the rest of them escaped. The escaped Swedes had to be sent to Sweden. This kind of fear was prevalent in their society. They knew that if Soviet Union conquers them, it is the end of Swedes, literally. Controlled fear might be good servant, but fear is evil master and gives wrong counsel. This made them subordinate in mental level too much to Soviets after the war. Finns played more political games, despite the pressure and threat being much harder on the Finns. 2) Soviets immense victory increased their political, economical and military power immensely. On the other hand this increased all kinds of real pressures to Swedes. On the other hand it seemed to prove the superiority of international communism. 3) Swedes were hopelessly naive, because they had always lived in homogenous country and they didn’t understand the consequences of their new policies. Also, long time after the war it seemed, despite starting immigration, that their policies are good (Most of the Swedes lived in all Swede areas. Talking, writing, doing etc. socialist idioticies did not seem to have negative consequences). 4) At the same time other Western countries started to move to the same direction. Reinforcing effect. 5) Swedish leftist policies before the war had many similarities to Soviet leftism, despite their crucial differences; E.g. use of certain words, some goals, similar work laws, etc. This created false security and false feel continuity. The full price started to become due, when after the war new generation had been growing all their life in that new sick environment and started to influence society politically. “How, pray tell, are we responsible for the anti-racist, Marxist scum in the IRA?” - Much less in the case of IRA, but some parallel influences can be seen with Sweden. If you look at the USIA poll, an incredible fact will strike you. In 1957, at the time of the Little Rock incident, the most racist country in Europe was, believe it or not, West Germany - the one nation most influenced by the postwar military occupation. The most liberal was Sweden - which was neutral in the war - and which was never occupied by the United States. Explain that for us. - Germany was occupied by Usa. They had installed mostly communists and socialists to power. As much as these wanted to drown Usa to hate propaganda, they had to moderate themselves when writing about conquerors. Instead they concentrated on other leftist propaganda. Germans had not forgot the powerful former racial lessons. Also they were bitter about the war’s results and aftermath. In 1957 there had not been time to grow fully brainwashed generation, whose brains would have been washed all their life to adulthood. This came in the end of sixties. “The degeneracy theory is refuted by Japan. In the aftermath of WW2, Japan was occupied by the U.S. military. The Japanese accepted their loss in the war and sought to imitate their conquerers. Japan became a demilitarized constitutional democracy. Yet Japan didn’t start wallowing in self-hating, anti-racist nihilism.” - Japan suffered in war, but it’s infrastucture and traditional social networks were fairly intact. Most of those who gained power after the war were people with traditional views. The kaiser remained in non-political position despite being the former leader of the country. Americans didn’t install the same kind of re-education program than in Germany, nor they could have, because of large language and cultural differences. Also because of the previous reasons they could not observe Japanese to the same extent than Germans. Japan had not same kind of reinforcing surroundings than Europeans. Most of the countries surrounding it were non-leftist. Those which turned to communism, though dangerous, were fairly turned inward. Americans were in the most of the cases happy to just observe that Japan don’t try to militarize. Despite these, they have had their own communist/socialist problems and have started to increase the immigration. “As I have shown, virtually all the ideas that Europeans complain so much about originated - where else - in Europe. They were exported here, in our direction, not the other way around.” - In itself it doesn’t matter where something originates. Capitalism originated in babylonia, but it’s not Iraq with global capitalism we have to worry about. It is the Western and Asian countries. My friend, we had been fighting almost 200 years against the communist and socialist satans with our hands bleeding. We were finally beating them to death, but you started to fight for the satans and giving them help. After the war the satans have repaid you by raping you ever since. Under twenty years after the war you had the same disease than we. I am sad to say your disease will get worse and your prognosis is threatening. “Even today, just as before the Second World War, we find that communism, socialism, and social democracy enjoy a certain respectibility in Europe that is unknown here in the United States.” - Communism and socialism are often the most dangerous when they don’t say their names. When curing a disease with antiobiotics course and the course is stopped prematurely, the disease will become stronger than before the course. This has happened both in Europe and Usa. Immigration is one of the symptoms. “.... the executive branch of the U.S. federal government started supporting desegregation out of Cold War concerns. The Soviet Union and its European satarps were making much of American racism in the U.N. and third world. This was creating incredible problems for the State Department which was charged with the task of containing communism in postwar Europe. “Racism” got in the way of that. Why? Because America’s European allies - having embraced anti-racism after WW2, in disgust with the Third Reich - put pressure on the U.S. government to abolish “racial discrimination” (get with the program) for the U.S. could continue to play the so-called “leadership role” in the NATO military alliance.” - I explained already how empty and meaningless those “anti-racisms” and “disgusts with the Third Reich” were. But, let’s see, European countries are sick because of socialism and communism, and in their delirium they repeat the slogans of the sicknesses. Usa listens to this and wants to stop the spread of the diseases. Usa already has symptons of the diseases, and it has a bright idea: “We have to infect more of these diseases to ourselves!” “They created communism (Marx and Engels), supported communism (Lenin and Stalin), made apologies for communism (Sartre)....” - Jew, idiot, mongrel, Georgian and madman. “It was necessary for some reason for Hitler to conquer all of Europe . . . to save Europe from itself, from its own degeneracy, which is somehow our fault. Tell me something. Why aren’t Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan suffering from the problems of Europe? If anything, American influence has been greater there than it has been in most European countries, especially France. The truth is that East Asia doesn’t have this disease is because it is internal to Europe.” - No, our problems began with the jews. They are not the only influence, but they are the ones who time after time created the tipping points. Once the disease memes have been created and established in the populations, they become self-generating and self-spreading with or without jews, like you will notice. Taiwan, South-Korea and Japan don’t have jews. Although the diseases have spread there, they been have milder. Not so in China (Soviet Union’s neighbor) and Kamputsea. “Their advent was the fault of the U.S. which should have stuck its nose out of Continental Europe’s business.” - No, their advent was not Usa’s fault. I explained this already. “That was sort of hard to do when Hitler and his fascist allies declared war on the United States. Oh, but wait. I know what you are going to say: Italy had no choice but to attack Albania and Ethiopia; Germany had no choice but to attack Greece and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the latter posed an ENORMOUS threat, and it was understandable that the Germans removed it in self-defense; Japan had no choice but to invade Indochina and the Philippines.” - Usa was already in practice in war against Germany. But I don’t try make things more beautiful. National socialism was bad tasting and toxic medicine, although in those countries Germany conquered, people normally could go on living comparatively normally. Italy was sidekick. Japan was a separate case. I have not heard about any German attack to the United States. Think about the situation if Usa would have said to Germany; We help you to destroy communism, and then set some rational conditions. 162
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:17 | # Look at this:
Now look at this:
Looks like Keegan knew a thing or two, doesn’t it ... 163
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:24 | # “As for Hitler’s invasion of the USSR, it wasn’t inspired by anti-communism at all. That was nothing more than a pretext. His views about the matter are made plain in the Table Talk where he discusses his intentions in his own words. It was nothing more than a crude land grab.” - That is just keeping eyes on the prize. Hitler had to destroy the communist power. He could not have let it grow in another area. His practical war efforts show that. By the way, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, researchers have found out that Stalin had ready plans to murder all the Finns in concentration camps and replace them with the Soviets. Just like the Finns suspected. 164
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:38 | # @ a Finn Global Capitalism/Multinational Corporations. Those are three U.S. multinational corporations that I dislike. Europeans have their own multinational corporations. The multinational corporation wasn’t introduced to Europe by the United States. In the Belgian Congo, for example, Belgian corporations were making a killing exploiting the mineral wealth of Katanga long before WW2. The corporation has been a feature of European life ever since the High Middle Ages. European corporations were involved in the slave trade, colonizing the New World, setting up shop in India, etc. Capitalism. “Capitalism” is a theory of economics that was formulated by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Jean-Baptiste Say - none of whom were Americans. Actually, Smith and his colleagues were merely diagnosing a phenomena that had already long been in existence in Europe. The roots of capitalism trace back to Early Modern Britain and the Netherlands. “Global capitalism” was established by these two nations. Liberalism. “Liberalism” is a political theory based on radical individualism. John Locke is widely recognized as its founder. See also John Stuart Mill, Hobbes, Humboldt, Condorcet, Kant, Hume, and Smith who made various contributions to liberal political theory. Hollywood. I was being incredible generous in the spirit of fairness. Hollywood wasn’t established by Anglo-Americans at all. It was created by European Jews who had recently immigrated to the United States. Racism/Nordicism/ White Nationalism. See Issac’s The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. The Greeks and Romans were aware of racial differences, but attributed them to the environment. This theory was initially popular in the American colonies (it was brought here from Europe). The racial characteristics of the negro were a mystery and Americans spent centuries speculating about them. By the late eighteenth century, what we would recognize as modern racialism had developed in the United States: racial differences are natural, hereditary, immutable like the differences between other species; there are hierarchies of races with whites on top. This doctrine was exported back across the Atlantic. Pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only major American school of philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce Mormons. Yes, the Mormons are one of the few Christian sects indigenous to the United States. To my knowledge, Mormonism has no appeal in Europe. That reminds me. Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses also got their start here. Are they influential in Europe? NASCAR. NASCAR is popular here in the American South. I’m not sure of its appeal in Europe. Don’t you have Formula One? Re: National Socialism/Neo-Nazism. Race had long played a central role in American history. The very borders of the United States have been influenced by racialism. In the aftermath of the Mexican War, when the U.S. Army was in control of that country, there was a movement to annex all of Mexico. It fell flat. Why? Because the Mexicans are nonwhites. We annexed the territories that were sparsely populated with mestizos. Hawaii was annexed, but didn’t become a state until the 1950s because Hawaiians were nonwhite. In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, Cuba was given its independence. Why? Because Americans weren’t interested in annexing a nonwhite population. Also, Puerto Rico. That said, I don’t think any reasonable person would deny that National Socialism was an indigenous European creation, and that National Socialism and Neo-Nazism were exported to North America. After 1965, Neo-Nazi groups like George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party turned American racialism into something of a joke. It has yet to recover from this. Re: Fascism. Fascism is also indisputably a European creation. It’s founder Benito Mussolini was an Italian. Re: Marxism/Communism. Communism has never had much appeal in the United States. Again, it is indisputable that Communism originated in Europe. Jews and Gentiles were involved in this process. Marx and Engels, Stalin and Lenin, etc. Re: Christianity. Yes, Christianity got its start in the Levant. It is indisputable that Christianity was brought to North America from Europe. Re: Postmodernism. It is indisputable that “postmodernism” originated in postwar France and only later came to the United States. Re: Existentialism. Heidegger, Sartre, Husserl, Nietzsche, Camus, Kierkegaard - all Europeans, not Americans. Again, it is indisputable that existentialism got started in Europe. Re: Utilitarianism. Yes. Utilitarianism has its origins in Britain. It was introduced to the United States from there. Re: PC. Political Correctness, or Cultural Marxism, comes from the Italian Maxist Antonio Gramsci. PC was brought to the United States by communists and their sympathizers. Re: Austrian economics. Well, that one is sort of a give away. Brought to North America from Europe, mostly by Viennese Jews. Re: Objectivism. Ayn Rand, or Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, was a Russian Jewess who immigrated to North America at age 21. Re: Feminism. An interesting timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women’s_suffrage ^^ As the gallery can see, the USA was a latecomer in the women’s rights movement. Australia/New Zealand and Scandinavia were the trailblazers in this. Re: Socialism. Agreed. From France. Re: Social Democracy, Humanism, and Anti-Racism. Got their start in Europe. Agreed. Humanism dates back to the Renaissance and later Immanuel Kant. “Anti-Racism” is a movement that got started amongst communist anti-fascist resistance groups in continental Europe. “Social Democracy” is a milder form of Marxism. Re: abolitionism. Yes, the modern abolitionist movement got started amongst the Quakers in Britain. Re: anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. Proudhon and Bakunin. See the Spanish Civil War for the greatest hurrah of “anarcho-syndicalism.“During the early twentieth century, “anarchism” was becoming a problem in the United States. A European anarchist shot and killed President William McKinley. Several immigration acts were passed which specifically excluded “anarchists” and those suffering from “insanity” and other “psychopathic” delusions from immigrating to the U.S. In the two decades before the October Revoluton, “anarchism” was the spectre that had Americans worried. See the Italian anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti. Re: Psychoanalysis. Freud and Jung, neither were Americans. Re: Frankfurt School/Critical Theory. European Jews, briefly stayed in America, most went back to Europe. Re: Multiculturalism. Horace Kallen, European Jewish immigrant. Re: Skinhead movement. I believe it got started in England. See the Combat 18 forum for more on that. Re: Romanticism. Also indisputably European. Crossed the Atlantic in the 19C, Walter Scott books influenced Southern secessionists. Re: Nihilism. Nietzsche and Turgenev. Re: Libertarianism. John Stuart Mill, formulated the libertarian non-aggression/harm principle. Re: Cultural Anthropology. Got started in Germany during the nineteenth century under the influence of Fichte and Herder. German anthropology was racially egalitarian during this period. Brought to North America by the German Jewish immigrant Franz Boas. See also Lowie, Kroeber, and Herskovits. Re: the avant-garde/art decadence movement. Another give away. Got started in late nineteenth century France. Crossed the Atlantic in the early twentieth century. Re: Expressionism, Impressionism, and Post-Impressionism. All European schools of art. Condemned by the Third Reich as degenerate art. Re: Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. Both came from mid-twentieth century France, crossed the Atlantic. Re: Historicism. See Hegel, Nietzsche, Foucault, etc. Completely undermined the European sense of the superiority of their own civilization. You raise several issues. You claim the United States crushed European nationalist movements. This isn’t true. - Irish Nationalism. Long supported by the United States, suppressed by the British until the early 20C. - British Empire. Propped up by the United States in WW1 and WW2. - Spanish Nationalism. Franco was left alone. - French Nationalism. The U.S. and France were allies in WW1 and WW2. In fact, it was the U.S. that put de Gaulle in power in France, and it was the U.S. that supported the French effort to hold onto their rattled Empire. - Italian Nationalism. The U.S. helped put ex-fascists back in control of Italy after WW2, CIA subverted the Italian communists. - Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway. Owe their independence largely to the United States. - German nationalism. The U.S. supported the unification of Germany under Bismarck and supported Germany in the Franco-Prussian War. - Czechs and Poles. Owe their existence as independence states to Versailles. The U.S. opposed the Soviet Union’s attempt to crush the Czechs in the Prague Spring. - Croats. U.S. supported their secession from Yugoslavia. - Serbs. Supported by the Allies in WW2. Have legitimate complaints against the U.S. The bombing of Serbia was a disgrace. - Hungarians. U.S. supported the Hungarian Revolution. - Albanians. Wildly pro-American for obvious reasons. - Greece. U.S. opposed the Greek communists there and assisted nationalist movements. - Balts. U.S. supported their secession from the USSR. - Ukraine. U.S. has long supported Ukrainian nationalism.
The U.S. took over this role from Britain after WW2 which had taken it over from the Dutch before them.
You claim that Europe has been degenerating because of American influence. The list above shows otherwise. Almost all of these destructive ideas originated on your continent. They were exported here to North America. 165
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:53 | #
If Hitler was so interested in destroying communist power, why did he ally himself with the Soviet Union to carve up Eastern Europe? Hitler’s views are made plainly clear in Mein Kampf, the Zweites Buch, and the Table Talk. I have read those sources for myself. His goal was to conquer much of Eastern Europe and annex that territory to the Reich. He wanted the Ukraine in particular. This area was to become a German sphere of influence that could be colonized like the American Wild West or India. His actual policies on the ground in Poland and Ukraine remove any doubt about that.
Where was Hitler for the Finns, Balts, or Poles in 1939? I don’t have any doubt that Hitler wanted to get rid of Communism in the USSR, or that Stalin was suspicious of Germany and was building up his military forces. Stalin wasn’t a fool. He knew Hitler would attack at some point. That said, it is undeniable that pure territorial greed was the driving motive behind his Eastern policy, as we can see in Poland in 1939 and later during the war in the Ukraine. 166
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:09 | #
That’s a myth. There is utterly no evidence for that. Europe developed an immigration problem by importing guest workers to work in its postwar economy. Repeating this legend doesn’t make it true. Take France for example. Nonwhites like Ho and Pol Pot were already coming to France long before WW2. In fact, Francophone Africa had negroes and Arabs that sat in the French parliament itself before WW2.
Yeah, I know. Racialists like Castro, Che, Ho Chi Minh, Brezhnev, and the like have been saying that for about fifty years now.
That’s a rather odd view. The U.S. was a racialist nation for three centuries. Was Ireland, Poland, or Sweden?
You’re losing me here. It was Britain and France, along with Israel, that attacked Nasser’s Egypt during the Suez Crisis. Jew-controlled Dwight Eisenhower forced them to withdraw and was wildly applauded for that in the Arab world. In fact, Eisenhower made Anthony Eden cry, who wanted to kill Nasser, but that’s another amusing story I will save for a later day. Israel was founded by socialists and won its independence with arms supplied by Czechoslovakia. The first nation to recognize Israel? The USSR. And who was it that opposed the creation of Israel? The U.S. State Department led by Jew-controlled George Marshall. :p 167
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:20 | #
Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of porn magazines he’d read — they gave him ideas. Therefore he’s off the hook. The blame for what he did lies with those porn magazines he read. 168
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:35 | #
That’s right. The world epicenter of anti-racism for 70 years was the USSR, a European country, not the USA. In fact, the Wilson administration supported the Whites in that conflict and directly intervened with military force to help prevent the Bolshevik takeover. I forgot to mention that above as another example of the implacable U.S. hostility to European nationalist movements.
No, the U.S. Army was never in control of any of these states. They were overrun by the Red Army. In the areas where the U.S. Army did occupy, Communism was kept out. In Yugoslavia, Tito came to power on his own accord and exported Communism to Albania and Bulgaria. The conflict between Nazi Germany and the USSR was initiated by the former state for its own reasons. The USSR defeated Nazi Germany largely on its own. . . which had underestimated Soviet industrial and military power. It was only in 1944 that the Allies landed in Normandy. You complain that the U.S. gave material aid to the Soviet Union and through some creative reasoning is thus responsible for Communism in Eastern Europe. That’s false. As noted above, in Yugoslavia, it was the resistance of the partisans to the occupation that made them popular. In Czechoslovakia, also. Communism is a European idea. What if Europeans had never thought up Communism or were never attracted to Communism? There never would have been a problem with Communism in Europe: no Soviet Union; no Tito; no Paris Commune; no Hoxha. Don’t blame us for your own bad ideas. We got involved in your Second World War because Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on us. Our policy before that had been material aid to friendly states and keeping U-Boats out of the Western Atlantic.
I mentioned above that it was the Swede Gunnar Myrdal who wrote The American Dilemma, the most influential book in the history of American race relations. Obviously, Sweden had a problem with naive anti-racism before WW2, and in fact in no small part contributed to its rise over here.
I advance it as a hypothesis only that Europeans are capable of creating their own destructive ideas and falling under the influence of them. The infatuation of the Irish with Marxism and Anti-Racism being a textbook example.
No, Communism was outlawed in West Germany along with National Socialism. It was East Germany where Communism was institutionalized.
That’s an interesting theory. It wasn’t until the sixties that the Germans gave up racialism and became guilt-ridden nihilists - in other words, after the occupation was over and after its sovereignty had been restored. The Holocaust wasn’t invented until the late 1960s/early 1970s, more specifically, in the aftermath of the Six Day War when Israel needed a reason to justify its occupation of the territories. In any case, we have established as an empirical fact that the Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians were far out in the front of the European pack in embracing anti-racism. The laggard in this regard was West Germany, which was most influenced by America. Sweden, which wasn’t occupied by anyone in WW2, led the way. This refutes the argument that American influence is responsible for this trend.
Japan was more heavily firebombed, suffered more from aerial bombardment than even Germany. Japanese homes were made of wood and went up in flames. Two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, unlike Germany.
In postwar Japan, the divine emperor was reduced to the status of a figurehead. The Japanese Army and Navy, which had long dominated the government, was emasculated, and secular civilians were put in control of a constitutional democracy. The changes in Japan were even more revolutionary than those in Germany.
This is false. There were war crimes trials in Japan as well. Tojo and his clique were put on trial and executed or thrown in prison. Japanese militarists were removed from power in much the same way that Denazification had been implemented in Germany.
Unlike the French, the Japanese wholeheartedly embraced their conquerers, and even romanticized them. It was as if the authority of the Emperor had been transferred to MacArthur. That didn’t happen in Germany or elsewhere in Europe, especially in France, as noted above. The Japanese set about modeling their society on the United States and trying to compete with America in business. You’re right. Germany ended up the way it did because it was surrounded by other liberal countries like Sweden and France.
Exactly the opposite happened in Germany. West Germany was rearmed and brought into NATO.
No, it matters quite a lot. Coca Cola originated in the American South and is consumed more here than anywhere else. Walmart and McDonald’s originated here. They are more widespread in America than they are abroad. When Europeans complain about Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Walmart and the like, I can sympathize, as these are legitimate American creations. In much the same way, Communism originated in Europe and has long had appeal there. Even today, Communists are mainstream in France; Social Democrats in Germany, as well as Socialists and Communists. Americans are absolutely not responsible for your Communism problem anymore than you are responsible for our tendency to consume fast food and soft drinks. What if Communism had taken the same course in Europe that it did in North America? What if Communism had simply never been popular there. . . just as it was never popular here?
Again, Communism/Socialism/Social Democracy is not popular on this side of the Atlantic. This is perhaps one disease we never caught. Fortunately, we seem to be immune to it. If Europe had really been so influenced by America, as you say, then Communism would never have been popular there.
Which doesn’t make any sense. If that had been the case, and anti-racism had not been so influential in Europe in the late 40s/50s/early 1960s, the State Department wouldn’t have had any reason to push desegregation. This isn’t true. Europeans were highly critical of the U.S. at the U.N. because of “racism” and “segregation.” Martin Luther King, Jr. was wildly popular there too.
So, Europe was degenerating for its own reasons, and not because of U.S. influence after WW2?
By “practically in a war against Germany,” I suppose you mean firing on U-Boats in the Atlantic Ocean, in the Western Hemisphere, off the East Coast of North America. Germany’s naval activity in the Western Hemisphere would have aroused the ire of any American president whatsoever. The U.S. almost went to war with the USSR under Kennedy over the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Has it occurred to you that maybe Europeans resented the German occupation and were glad to have their independence back? Do you suppose there may have been a reaction against National Socialism, and by extension racial theory and imperialism, due in large part to German foreign policy?
What if there had never been any Communism? What if Communism had never been popular in Europe? It wasn’t popular here in the United States.. The Communist Party USA was always a fringe group, a joke, composed largely of European Jews. It had no appeal and wasn’t a problem. 169
Posted by Matra on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:43 | # You can’t blame Europe or the US solely for what has happened. I’ve now read Sunic’s book and though it’s a good read and he makes the case that the US forced leftist Jewish ideas on Germany, I think he makes too much of it. Scimitar makes some good points but some strange ones as well:
These countries not only did not consider non-whites to be their countrymen they did not even include whites of other ethnic backgrounds, so they were far more exclusive than the more liberal, universalist American identity which eventually came to include everyone. Common race alone is rather thin, it isn’t enough to define a people, except maybe when all else is lost; a nation requires an ethnic and cultural base that has meaning to the ordinary person. I’m quite confident that the average Pole, Swede, and Irishman of even today is less likely to accept non-whites as full-fledged members of their nations than are North Americans.
But it was only Jews and Americans who created an ideology out of it. Before the internet libertarianism was virtually unheard of anywhere outside the US. Even today the vast majority of Europeans and, even, Canadians have no idea what it is. Radical individualism and freedom from the state is very American. 170
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:53 | #
Unlike some Europeans, I don’t blame Europeans for America’s degeneracy. No matter how many bad ideas have come from Europe, and on balance, more have come from there than from here (see above), it is completely our fault for embracing them. Europeans dislike Hollywood movies, Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Walmart, etc. Okay, I dislike these things too, and understand their resentments. The solution is to maintain your own virtue and avoid developing bad habits. If you don’t like American films, place quotas upon them, as the French did after WW2, or ban them altogether like the North Koreans and Iranians, or just don’t watch them. 171
Posted by Matra on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:06 | # DJ:It’s interesting that FDR was bent on destroying the French racialists FDR was bent on destroying both the French and British empires. FDR’s son Elliott was an aide to his father two of the “Big Three” conferences during the war. In his book he wrote of the meeting with Churchill in August 1941:
At Casablanca 1943:
FDR’s reference to the 18th century was probably influenced by the US war of independence which many Americans saw as a colonial struggle not unlike those of the 20th century. JFK made that point in bringing France’s war in Algeria to the public’s attention at the UN. The US had won its independence from the British so surely the US, especially during the Cold War, couldn’t ignore supposedly similar independence movements in the 1940s and 50s? Such was the logic from many a white American. (Not that the US alone was to blame for the collapse of the European empires. Obviously WW2 made them weak in the first place). 172
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:38 | #
I ordered Sunic’s book a few days ago. It hasn’t arrived yet from Amazon. I ordered it along with a few other books which seem to be holding it up. About the U.S. forcing leftist Jewish ideas on Germany. The “Frankfurt School” like “Austrian economics” or the “avant-garde” is sort of a giveaway. Frankfurt is a nice German city. These people were German Jews who only briefly lived here in the United States, never considered them Americans, and identified with Jewry and Europe completely. In a response to a Finn which I never posted, I noted that Red scum like Bertolt Brecht also went back there after the war. I have yet to read Sunic’s book, but I wonder: does he take into consideration the MILLIONS OF JEWS that Europe exported to North America? What about the European Jews who penetrated our universities and changed our society for the worse? It was German Jews like Boas and Lowie and Germans like Kroeber who started the whole cultural anthropology movement in America. Who opposed them? The real Americans, the natives like Madison Grant, Charles Davenport, Carleton S. Coon, and Hooton. Surely, our society was 1000x more influenced by Europe than the other way around.
There was no liberal, universalist America until the 1950s, or really until the culmination of the Civil Rights Movement with the Voting Rights Act and Immigration Act of 1965. From 1790 until 1952, “whiteness” was a criterion of U.S. immigration law. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that the majority of white Americans approved of miscegenation. Actually, I take that back. Even Ted Kennedy promised in 1965 that the Immigration Act of 1965 would not radically change the demographic makeup of the country. MLK and Bob Moses were under no illusions that Mississippi or Alabama was “liberal” or “universalist.” My friends from South Carolina would be highly amused at the notion that they are more “liberal” than Europeans. Over in Europe, in the Netherlands and Spain, homosexuals can marry each other and adopt children. Prostitution is legal. You can smoke marijuana or commit physician assisted suicide. There are laws against things like “denying the Holocaust” or “inciting racial hatred.” In the U.K., the charge of “Islamophobia” is taken deadly seriously; over here it is laughed at. In the United States, abortion is a divisive issue. There are mainstream debates about things which are simply accepted by almost everyone in Europe, except maybe for the Poles or Irish. It is really bizarre if you ask me: this idea that Europe, which is deeply Anti-American, in fact models itself on the United States. The French want to be like us? Over in France, they have elections where there are run offs between conservatives and socialists like Ségolène Royal. You have Social Democrats like Schroeder. Outright communists were in control of much of Europe until recently. People like that could never get elected over here in “liberal, universalist” America. Racial homogeneity is no indicator of strong racial attitudes. Actually, it tends to be the other way around. Wherever you look, the most liberal whites live in the most homogeneous areas, and the most racialized in the most diverse areas. Look at Canada, your country. It was the terminus of what was known in America as the “Underground Railroad.” That was over 150 years ago.
That’s Romanticism. My life is hardly meaningless because I don’t dress up like an inebriated Medieval peasant and dance around to a fiddle. I suspect you don’t either. In fact, I am willing to wager that no one here does.
I would love to see polling data like that. We have it here in abundance in the U.S. because such things have always been controversial. In Sweden, Poland, and Ireland, the theory of racial equality seems to be universally accepted. 173
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:01 | #
That’s true. FDR disliked imperialism. His hostility to German, Italian, and Japanese imperialism extended to the French and British versions as well. One of his better accomplishments was putting an end to U.S. imperialism in Latin America with the Good Neighbor Policy. I’m not an imperialist myself. I don’t want my country involved in “entangling alliances” like NATO, or American troops everywhere from Germany to Kosovo to Iraq to Okinawa.
FDR died before the end of WW2. His successors propped up the Western imperialists. I mentioned the French in Vietnam above who were almost completely subsidized by the U.S.
The French fought for eight years to hang onto Algeria with half a million soldiers; the largest force ever committed by France to over an overseas venture (actually, Algeria wasn’t really a colony, it was considered part of France itself). The only reason the French left Algeria is because they lost. de Gaulle pulled them out of there - in spite of several assassination attempts and an outright rebellion by the pied noirs.
The U.S. had nothing to do with the collapse of the European empires in Africa. The first colony to gain its independence was Ghana under Nkrumah in 1957. That was long after WW2. The hassle of dealing with indigenous nationalist movements was the major problem. Belgium, for instance, wasn’t interested in hanging onto the Congo at the expense of it becoming another Algeria. 174
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:05 | #
That’s because it does not exist. It’s fictional. South Africa is a perfect example (and the Southern US, however, we’ll leave that alone for the moment). For the better part of a century, after the openning of SA’s mines, blacks from all over the African continent were encouraged to migrate to SA in the interest of keeping labour costs down. Where was the racial homogeneity? White elites were quite willing to bring blacks into the pool of labour and compete directly with whites to ensure the best possible cost of labour. However, once trade unionism was introduced in the late 19th century by British miners, elites offered a sweetheart deal;
Thus a yeoman white working class was created as a buffer to workers solidarity. When the African Miners Union struck in 1946, the Smuts government introduced apartheid, and anti-miscegenation laws. Apartheid, in the end only served the white/Jewish elite. If whites elites really had the interest of their fellow countrymen at heart, a separate white nation would have been formed. Instead they chose to construct a system that ensured cheap labour and ultimately worked against white labour when demands to end apartheid grew. 175
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:55 | # As for Matra’s comment quoting passages from the book of Roosevelt’s son: if Churchill had had half a brain, immediately upon hearing Roosevelt’s wacko Marxoid ideas at that 1941 conference he’d have realized what a mentally-defective Red he was dealing with, would’ve walked out and entered into secret negotiations the next day with von Ribbentrop aimed at quickly concluding a negotiated peace between the Third Reich and the British Empire, a peace as unfavorable as possible to the United States from the point of view of trade and in every other way. It couldn’t be clearer that Roosevelt was a dangerous comsymp and unprincipled Stalin-groupie from start to finish. Roosevelt joins Stalin in being one of the most evil men of the XXth Century.
This is what’s happening with Israel today: she’s keeping the Palestinians in close proximity instead of distancing herself from them, presumably out of cheap labor needs. Israel is being run in an extremely odd way. 176
Posted by Matra on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:07 | # Matra:
Scimitar:
That’s not what I meant and I doubt many Europeans reading it took it the way you did. I meant folkways - habits, accent, historical points of reference, things that make your ethnic group/nation different from the rest of the world, etc. A North American is far more likely than a European to accept an outsider as one of their own. I don’t base that on polling data but on personal experiences and observations. North American identity - particularly outside the South - has been universalised, especially in the suburbs. It’s not easy for an immigrant to become a part of the Irish or Polish nations because these places are not as homogenised as North America (well, not yet), and often the particularities of their local and regional cultures cannot be accessed through mass media. You need to live it and usually you need to be one of them. (I suspect it is the same in rural Alabama but it isn’t in Anaheim or Westchester). Remember most of those foreigners in Europe, particularly Muslims, are not integrated into the host society. Don’t confuse elite opinion with that of the man on the street. Unfortunately, at present that man on the street doesn’t make identity the main priority when voting. Somewhat on topic. Yesterday I watched thousands of mostly white (I’m guessing suburban) Oklahomans give fist pumps and cheer on Tiger Woods against a white American golfer (and a white South African). 177
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:52 | # Part one. My answers start with -. “Global Capitalism/Multinational Corporations. Those are three U.S. multinational corporations that I dislike. Europeans have their own multinational corporations. The multinational corporation wasn’t introduced to Europe by the United States.” - I didn’t say that anything about introduction. I was talking about global capitalist power. Today Usa has the most of it, partly because it’s rapacious internationalist ideology. That doesn’t take away the problems with European global corporations. The situation is the same when one man is surrounded by a group of hostile men; always strike the strongest, meanest and the leader first. “Capitalism. “Capitalism” is a theory of economics that was formulated by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Jean-Baptiste” - I talked about practice. First fairly modern capitalism emerged in Babylonia. Banks; shared stock companies; witnessed and signed contracts and deals, enforced by state (with death penalty if necessary); bankcrupty laws; bank accounts; payments through banks or with bank notes; standardized measures in businesses etc. - It was in essence radical capitalism. “Hollywood. It was created by European Jews who had recently immigrated to the United States.” - If jews are European, the somalis in the Usa are European Americans. Jews are a tribe of their own, everywhere. “Racism/Nordicism/ White Nationalism. See Issac’s The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. The Greeks and Romans were aware of racial differences, but attributed them to the environment. Racial chacteristics of the negro were a mystery and Americans spent centuries speculating about them.” Although my sources about Greek and Roman racism are not as thorough I would like, I question that by referring mainly to the jews. Moses was tribalist (about=racialist) with his “Don’t accept them even from the tenth generation” for tribal non-relatives and “From the third generation you can accept them” for tribal close relatives, brothers, as he calls them (The fifth book of Moses, 23:3-9). Still, when reasoning these they use most often cultural (environmental) explanations. It is understandable, because genes and heriditary laws were not known, people in general have to be talked in a way they understood, and cultural reasons were important, of course, too. This does not reduce it’s tribalism one bit. Is the same true concerning Greeks and Romans; reasoning mostly environmental/cultural, but the practice tribal/genetical? I have read that many Greeks follow also in modern times expressly tribalist=genetical non-mixing rules. Americans, who had negroes living with them, spend centuries speculating about negroes, before inventing racialism. Beginning from the nineteenth century, Europe was turning towards racialism/ethnic nationalism, despite very few or none outside ethicities/ races amongst them. This was disrupted by WWII. It would be reasonable to assess the comparisons from this base. Americans racialist influence was favorable and much appreciated. But you forgot to mention Charles Darwin and Arthur de Gobineau, Europeans who were essential in the development of racialism. “Pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only major American school of philosophy.” - Pragmatism has been used everywhere in one form or another. “Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses also got their start here. Are they influential in Europe?” Some Jehovah witnesses exist in Finland. They are despised by nearly all, because of many reasons (Their beliefs and doctrines, customs, avoiding military, annoying way of mongering their religion, etc.). Some Mormons exist in Finland. Everybody likes them. They seem to be very White, which is excellent. They dress in style, their clothes are always shiningly clean and their behaviour is impeccable. Too many Americans in Finland seem to be half negroes. Some of them say they are White. I hope American racialist don’t fall into this inflation of Whiteness, although the definition is and should be larger than in Europe’s ethnic nationalism. I have heard that Mormons are slowly increasing their followers numbers here, which is good. Some Mormons have given me their religion’s book. “Don’t you have Formula One?” - Who cares. “Neo-Nazi groups like George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party turned American racialism into something of a joke. It has yet to recover from this.” - A couple of neo-nazis exist here also, but are inconsequential. “Again, it is indisputable that Communism originated in Europe. Jews and Gentiles were involved in this process. Marx and Engels, Stalin and Lenin, etc.” - Engels is an Englishman. Stalin is from Caucasus, Georgia. It is not in Europe. Lenin is a mongrel, consisting of Caucasian, Mongol, jewish, Russian, Swedish etc. heritage. Marx is a jew. “Originated in Europe” in general has some merit to it in good and bad, but I am starting to believe that you are putting too much weight in it because of your natural American pan-European outlook. Practical reality here is somewhat different, with our varying cultures, ethnicities, borders, languages, customs and today’s races. Mexico and Mexicans originated in North America. “Yes, Christianity got its start in the Levant. It is indisputable that Christianity was brought to North America from Europe.” - On other points you say the origin is important, now you say it is important that it was brought from Europe to United States. Which is it? Jesus was tribalist, so a good base for ethnic nationalism and racialism. See e.g. Jesus’ heritage list, Matthew 1:1-17, which shows that Jesus followed tribal non-mixing rules, and his thoughts about tribal outsiders, Matthew 15:22-28. Those of his orders, which are incompatible with reality, were just practice for the heaven, and Jesus made them temporarily possible. He cancelled them before his death, Luke, 22:35-36. Also, people are one, but only after death in Jesus’ name. —————— If you want to inflate the communists and socialists with the tools they use and not put them under one header, why not use the same inflation regarding United States. So sixties culture can be divided to decadent comics, decadent books, drug culture, infatuation with pseudo meditation religions, immoral sexual practices, new forms of political leftism, feminism etc. etc. “PC. Political Correctness, or Cultural Marxism, comes from the Italian Maxist Antonio Gramsci.” No, practice was the first. It was used the first time in Soviet Union, installed by Leon Trotsky. “Well, that one is sort of a give away. Brought to North America from Europe, mostly by Viennese Jews.” - So do you consider jews to be Europeans or not? If yes, you obviously have no problem of them belonging to your racial organizations. “Objectivism. Ayn Rand, or Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, was a Russian Jewess who immigrated to North America at age 21.” - I have nothing to add. “Feminism. An interesting timeline:” - You have confused immoral and destructive radical feminism with women rights movements, which advocated modesty, good motherhood qualities, good manners, abstaining from alcohol, good morality, learning useful skills, etc. “Socialism. Agreed. From France.” - Why France has produced so much communist and socialist theories and movements, it is the question. “Social Democracy” - Give me the pre WWII ethnic nationalist variety among larger whole and it’s ok. “Humanism dates back to the Renaissance and later Immanuel Kant.” - it is nothing but misinterpretation of Christianity, and one version of socialism and communism. “Anti-Racism is a movement that got started amongst communist anti-fascist resistance groups in….” - It was first used in practice by Leon Trotsky, who made it into laws in Soviet Union. Trotsky invented the name “racism”. “Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. Proudhon and Bakunin.” - Like I said, from France and Russia. Russia is culturally only partly European. Time and time again the core has been non-European. “Psychoanalysis. Freud and Jung, neither were Americans.” - And Freud was not European. Jung is good. He repaired much of the damage Freud created. “Frankfurt School/Critical Theory. European Jews, briefly stayed in America, most went back to Europe.” - Yes they were part of the jewish “re-education” we need less than drug resistant bubonic plague. And American jewish media put it into practice. Re: Multiculturalism. Horace Kallen, European Jewish immigrant. - Are jews Europeans to you? “Re: Romanticism. Also indisputably European.” - And proudly so “Libertarianism. John Stuart Mill, formulated the libertarian non-aggression/harm principle.” - You didn’t answer the Ron Paul question. “Cultural Anthropology. Got started in Germany during the nineteenth century under the influence of Fichte and Herder. German anthropology was racially egalitarian during this period. Brought to North America by the German Jewish immigrant Franz Boas.” - Certain parts of Germany’s science, economy, cuture etc. were heavily judaized. It caused strong reaction against it, and it had strong influence to rising nationalism and ethnic nationalism. See e.g. Eugen Duhring, The Jewish Question, A racial, moral and cultural question with world historical answer, 1881. Houston Steward Chamberlain, Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhundrets, 1899. Paul de Lagarde, Deutsche Schriften, 1876-81; excerpt: “Every foreign object causes in another living being uncomfortableness, disease, often purulence and death. [....] The foreign object could be a jewel, but it’s effect would be the same if in it’s place would be a piece of rotten wood. [....] Jews as jews are in every European state just advancers of rottening. [....] The law of Moses and the bitter overconfidence originating from it keeps them foreign race in our midst: but absolutely we cannot tolerate a nation within a nation. Heinrich von Treitschke, Deutsche Gesichte im 19. Jahrhundert, Verlag Hirzel, Leipzig, 1879-94. Theodor Fritsch, Antisemiten-catechismus, 1887. “Historicism. Completely undermined the European sense of the superiority of their own civilization. - These are the kind of sweeping comments that undermine your comments. First, historicism in itself is one fairly neutral scientific way of observing things, but it has problems from scientific point of view, because it didn’t, at least originally, recognize universal laws. But the damage comes when communists and socialist use it, e.g.: “The term has developed different and divergent, though loosely related, meanings. Elements of historicism appear in the writings of the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, influential in 19th-century Europe, as well as in those of Karl Marx, whom he heavily influenced. The term is also associated with the empirical social sciences and the work of Franz Boas.” So if historicism completely undermined Europeans’ sense of superiority, how do you explain the subsequent birth and move to power in almost every country ethnic nationalists, who believed in the superiority of their civilization. It was taught in schools. It was official policy in every related matter. It was the belief of average citizens. Continued…. 178
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:53 | # Continuation, part two. “You raise several issues. You claim the United States crushed European nationalist movements.” - No, I said Usa’s actions led to the withering of them, although Usa was member of coalition with “anti-racist” Soviet Union crushing German nationalists. Usa created tipping points. It’s actions led to the huge Victory of “anti-racist” Soviet Union. E.g. Patrick Buchanan, an American politician, has criticized this. Americans influenced Europeans at the worst possible time in wrong way. It is just a historical fact and we cannot change it. England was equal partner in this mistake trying to protect it’s dying and decaying empire. But we can learn from it. Like we can learn from Europeans mistakes in general. If victory was so good and sweet, why Usa and England has gone evenly straight to hell after it. After declaring war when Germany invaded Poland, England had to defence against German invaders. Now after “winning” this war, it lost it’s empire it tried to protect and cannot keep anybody out. Greeks had a name to this; Pyrrhic victory. I don’t criticize Americans helping England in itself or England defending itself, of course. Think about what would have happened if England and Usa would have joined Germany and others in crushing communism. Hitler tried several times to form this alliance. You could have set moderating conditions to Germany and thus control and reduce it’s bad sides, which were real. This would mean after the war: - Ethnic and racial nationalism reigns supreme everywhere. Flourishing of European peoples and their cultures. - Lands cannot be conquered indiscriminately, Like Soviet Union did. People cannot be slaughtered, like Soviet Union did. All peoples would have to have protected lands. - Communism and socialism are dead as a practical force. - Jews are in Palestine/Israel. - No immigration. No multiculturalism. No political correctness. No current moral evils and degeneracy. No dispossession of Whites everywhere. No affirmative action. Etc. What a wonderful world it would be. “Spanish Nationalism. Franco was left alone.” - Usa didn’t care. Franco was stiff stagnant dictator, lacking dynamism. “French Nationalism. The U.S. and France were allies in WW1 and WW2. In fact, it was the U.S. that put de Gaulle in power in France, and it was the U.S. that supported the French effort to hold onto their rattled Empire.” - Gaulle cared about his empire, not the French. He started the immigration from North Africa and other places. “Italian Nationalism. The U.S. helped put ex-fascists back in control of Italy after WW2, CIA subverted the Italian communists.” - Certainly better than the communists. “Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway. Owe their independence largely to the United States.” - Whatever bad sides there was in Hitler, he was German nationalist and he at the same time admired the British empire, wanting to install system somewhat resembling that. This means that he didn’t want to assimilate Danes, Norwegians etc. He would have left them in their own lands to live in their own way and Germany would have been the central power in Europe. This can be seen in the case of Norway. It was conquered, but hardly anybody resisted except communists. This was because Norwegians were left to live like they always had lived. After the war it has been tried to explain away, in vain. “German nationalism. The U.S. supported the unification of Germany under Bismarck and supported Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.” - This is good. “Czechs and Poles. Owe their existence as independence states to Versailles. The U.S. opposed the Soviet Union’s attempt to crush the Czechs in the Prague Spring. - Poles and Czechs were conquered Soviet Unions communist satellites with all the subsequent consequences. They gained their freedom only when Soviet Union started to decay. “Croats. U.S. supported their secession from Yugoslavia.” - Yes, this is good, anything to separate them from the muslims. “Serbs. Supported by the Allies in WW2. Have legitimate complaints against the U.S. The bombing of Serbia was a disgrace.” - Yes. “Hungarians. U.S. supported the Hungarian Revolution.” - After they had been conquered by the Soviet Union after the war. Even Finnish communists, excluding pro-Soviets, supported Hungarian revolution. - Greece. U.S. opposed the Greek communists there and assisted nationalist movements. - This is good. “Balts. U.S. supported their secession from the USSR.” - After Soviet Union had conquered them with all the subsequent slaughter, deportations, concentration camp deaths, betraying the guerilla fighters, who have been promised support by Usa, etc. “Ukraine. U.S. has long supported Ukrainian nationalism.” - Usa has just tried to monger it’s version of liberalism, including jew George Soros with his Open society institute. “- You didn’t mention that Usa is a world center of global capitalism, liberalism, “fashionable” leftism etc., and emits them with all of it’s power to all over the world. (See e.g. John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Ebury Press, 2006). “The U.S. took over this role from Britain after WW2 which had taken it over from the Dutch before them.” - If we would live in those times, we would resist Dutch and English, especially if they would try to internationalize and mix peoples, dissolve borders, outsource etc. Now we have to work especially against Usa’s globalism. I suspect that you, as a nationalist, don’t love it either. “You claim that Europe has been degenerating because of American influence. The list above shows otherwise. Almost all of these destructive ideas originated on your continent. They were exported here to North America.” - No, I did not. I said we have been been sick because of it nearly 200 years and fought against with bloody hands, sometimes brother against brother. When we were healing and had an critical opportunity to cure it permanently, Americans sided with the disease. Because of it we are both sick and heading towards destruction. If responsibility has to be assigned it means that especially some sick Europeans, many jews, and American WWII government with it’s stringpullers are black sinners, who fell into the hell. 179
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:50 | #
European nationalism was strongly influenced by the Romantic movement of the 19C. The Romantics glorified the primitive; lionized the Middle Ages out of disillusionment with Modern Europe and the Enlightenment. During the 19C, “culture” was democratized by the Romantics and was given a new meaning. More accurately, it was inverted. Previously, “culture” was synonymous with “men of refinement” or urbane elites. To have “culture” was to be unlike the the peasant, the rube, the folkish parochial; to be broadminded, cosmopolitan, enlightened, learned. The Romantic movement was less influential in North America than it was in Western Europe. Americans clung more to the Roman ideal of civilization whereas Europeans, especially the Germans, revolted against civilization led by Rousseau, Herder, and Fichte.
That would depend upon what sort of “outsiders” you are referring to. Expanding upon the Roman theme, Americans have traditionally welcomed “white” immigrants to the United States who could assimilate, add value to our nation, and become like us over a few generations. We also owned negroes as slaves; the Roman economy was also based upon slavery. Once again, North America was less influenced by the Romantic movement of the 19C. That single fact explains quite a lot of the differences that divide Americans and Europeans. Europeans glorify the things like “favorite beers” and peasants dressing up and dancing around to a fiddle that I mentioned above. They call that folk nationalism. It doesn’t resonate as well here in the U.S. In 2004, I visited Canada to meet a girl I was acquainted with there from my old forum. In Winnipeg, there is this festival, I am not sure you are familiar with it, but it is called “Folklorama” or something like that. All around Winnipeg each ethnic group put on its own little show. I went to several of these. These people would dress up in peasant outfits and dance around to folkish music. You could sample the cuisine and alcoholic drinks of each nation; purchase cultural items and so forth. I had a great time; enjoyed myself thoroughly. They took great interest in the fact that I was from Alabama, especially my accent. It was something they were unfamiliar with. I had never seen anything like that before in the United States. It left an impression upon me. I found myself thinking: what we call “racialism” in the U.S. and “volkishness” are not the same thing.
I’m well aware of that. There was no “universal” America though before the 1950s. Americanism had a racial, religious, and cultural component. There was a long, bitter, protracted struggle that went on from about 1945 to 1968 in which the racial element of Americanism was expunged from our national identity. It is known in the United States as the “Civil Rights Movement.” As I have pointed out in previous threads, I am only half-American myself, although I was raised here. My mother is Austrian. My grandparents live in Austria. I often traveled to Europe as a teenager. What I remember most about that experience was how Europeans have nothing resembling our sense of racial consciousness which, growing up in Alabama in the 1980s and 1990s, still existed in my area. It is completely foreign to them. There was no sense in Europe of being “white.” There was complete ignorance of the racial differences between whites and the negro.
Southerners tend to frown on ethnic bigotry. We are renowned for our hospitality to outsiders. The Know-Nothing movement of the mid-19C, for example, had little popularity in the South. The European immigrant was usually seen as something of a novelty here and was welcomed. The Irish who settled throughout the South even became exaggerated Southerners and rioted against forced integration during Reconstruction. If the European immigrant is female, this often makes her more desirable than natives. What matters in the South, even today, is whiteness. Southerners greatly resent Hispanic immigration because Mexicans are not perceived as being white. In contrast, immigrants from the North or from Europe are rarely stir up the same sort of hostility. This happens to be the major reason Southerners are so often blind to the Jewish Question. Jews are seen as being “white” and as major contributors to Christianity. This, along with the welcoming attitude towards the European immigrant, explains why Southerners (not unlike the Boers) are amongst the most pro-Jewish populations on earth.
Even amongst European commoners, there is no sense of “being white” like there is in the United States, nor is there a similiar awareness of the existence of racial differences. There is probably some xenophobia, but it is not the racialized version that I am familiar with. Having lived in the South almost my entire life, and having traveled to Europe frequently, I can assure you that Southerners are nowhere near as “liberal” or “universalist” as Europeans are. Europeans are overwhelmingly more likely to be anti-racists. I happen to be back in Alabama for personal reasons at the moment. Just last night I was at a friend’s house and was introduced to some new people, younger locals, I was unfamiliar with. We had a long conversation which eventually turned to race, about a dozen of us, as often happens here. These people whom I had never met before were in complete agreement with my racial views. In Alabama, I can openly talk about things like “Mexicans need to go back to Mexico” or “such and such is a disgusting ni***r lover,” or “whites should stop sucking up to the negro.” You can’t do that elsewhere.
That’s sports. You shouldn’t read that much into it. Even I will be attending the Iron Bowl this fall, and anyone here can see my racial views. I might be a racialist, but Auburn vs. Alabama is still Auburn vs. Alabama and so is SEC football. 180
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:04 | #
That’s because the South, between 1850-1910, was virtually devoid of immigrants, European or otherwise. The highwater mark of foreign born, in the South, was 4% and that largely was centred in DC, Baltimore and New Orleans. If there was this great “white solidarity” in the South, why were the Confederacy’s leaders willing to sacrifice the South’s independence and hundreds of thousands of fellow Southerners for the sake of what, 10-20% of the population that actually owned slaves?
Appropos to a question raised just last night. “Why do white men like to watch blacks play football?” It’s quite the anomally, that a racialist supports the caste system in college and pro football in America that openly discriminates against the recruitment and development of white athletes at the colloege and pro level. 181
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:09 | #
There were lots of immigrants in the Southern cities like New Orleans, Savannah, Baltimore, Memphis, and Charleston. Much of Texas and Missouri were settled by Germans. South Carolina had plenty of Huguenots. Louisiana, of course, was a French colony. Florida and the Alabama and Mississippi Gulf Coast were possessions of Spain and only later became part of the United States. Cities like “Mobile” and “Biloxi” and “St. Louis” and “New Orleans” and “Natchez” were not exactly founded by Anglos. The Southern backcountry was settled by the Scot-Irish. Today, the South is being flooded not only by immigrants from Latin America, but also by whites from the American North and Europe. Insofar as ethnic resentments exist though, they are directed almost entirely towards “illegal aliens,” almost all of whom are Hispanics. Throughout the 19C, the South was represented by the Democratic Party and was pro-immigrant. Indeed, the South was pro-immigrant well into the 20C.
The Confederacy wouldn’t have maintained its independence even if every negro slave in the entire South had been armed. Davis was justifiably criticized by Rhett and others on that point. Arming negroes was an absurd idea. It was a pipe dream. Look at the sheer amount of them that fled into the Union lines. We later found out what happens when negroes are armed during Reconstruction. The first Klan had to put them down. I’m also intrigued, but in no way surprised, that you would cite one “Levine” to prove that the Civil War was about slavery. You have a knack for peddling odd theories like that, whether it is Christianity or the idea that “whiteness” has never been important in American history. Let’s examine it a little more closely. 1.) Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, was one of the biggest planters in Georgia. He opposed the secession of Georgia from the Union. 2.) Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, one of the bigger Mississippi planters - he was a Washington insider in the Directory behind the Buchanan administration. He loved the Union and was in no way a leader of the secession movement in the South. In fact, he was moved to tears after he was recalled to Mississippi after its secession. He was the one in favor of arming the slaves. The inverse was actually true. The New Orleans urban imperialists, the faction in the South most bent on expanding slavery to new territories, were pro-Union. The most radical fire-eaters, the South Carolinian ultras like Rhett, were either lukewarm or outright hostile to the idea of territorial expansion. Calhoun had opposed the annexation of Mexico over a decade earlier. The people most opposed to arming slaves were non-slaveholding whites.
Probably because football has long been a part of our culture as well. That was true before the SEC was integrated. I’m not such a petty racist ideologue that I can’t enjoy a football game with a few friends.
Yes, as you were telling us earlier, “whiteness” has never been of any importance to American history. See the quotes I provided you with above.
Russia is more or less racially homogenous. During the 20C, it was known as the “Soviet Union.” No thanks.
A racially homogeneous “white nation” is an oxymoron. “Whites” who live in racially homogeneous nations rarely have anything resembling racial consciousness or a sense of solidarity with othr “whites.” In contrast, a multiracial state in which a division of labor is based on racial lines promotes in-group racial egalitarianism like no other system. That’s why “White Nationalists” tend to be Southerners or other colonials while Europeans tend to subscribe to fascism or other forms of petty nationalism. 182
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:09 | #
Well put, and of course one hundred percent correct. 183
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:51 | # My comments start with -. “The world epicenter of anti-racism for 70 years was the USSR, a European country, not the USA. In fact, the Wilson administration supported the Whites in that conflict and directly intervened with military force to help prevent the Bolshevik takeover.” - Let’s see, Finns have country beside them that have foreign Asiatic culture and different people. There was jewish bolshevik revolution and Soviet Union was created. It was always deadly threat to Finland and we fought all out life and death war against it. 20 million Europeans were mercilessly murdered in “peacetime” there, including tens of thousands of Finns. More millions were murdered in other European countries it controlled. If you try to sell this to me as what European is, I have this to say:“I despise Europe. I don’t want anything to do with it. I hate the concept of Europeannes. It is not my connection and they are not my kin in any way.” If Soviet Union has any relation to Europeans, it is same as aggressive spreading cancer’s relation to body. It is deadly hostile mutation. Fortunately there are many European things that are healthily European. But the European concept has it’s limits. At it’s worst it is just an artificial, non-existent concept. “No, the U.S. Army was never in control of any of these states. They were overrun by the Red Army. In the areas where the U.S. Army did occupy, Communism was kept out.” - No it was not. Communism and socialism infiltrated those areas from top to bottom, from side to side, often not saying their names. Immigration and PC and affirmative action are examples of it’s manifestations. “The USSR defeated Nazi Germany largely on its own. . . which had underestimated Soviet industrial and military power. It was only in 1944 that the Allies landed in Normandy.” - Add constant bombing etc (bombs, soldiers, bombers, fighter planes, flyers etc.), support to communists and other guerillas everywhere, support to Soviet Union, which e.g. saved it during Leningrad’s siege (crucial), preventing Germany’s supplies etc. Enough to create tipping points. “Communism is a European idea. What if Europeans had never thought up Communism or were never attracted to Communism? There never would have been a problem with Communism in Europe: no Soviet Union; no Tito; no Paris Commune; no Hoxha. Don’t blame us for your own bad ideas.” - If blaming is wanted, I blame those directly responsible for making destructive decisions in Europe and Usa, not blanket accusations of Usa, Us citizens, Europe and Europeans. Do you blame Europeans in blanket way? Comparing numbers etc., Finns have fought relatively more against communism/socialism and sacrificed more in that fight. Do you blame all the Finns in blanket way? By the way if you blame Finnish communist and socialists, it is warmly welcomed by me. The more the better. If you can do anything against them, I appreciate it even more. I thank you beforehand. The problem with this, “What if Europeans never thought up communism or were never attracted to it” is this: Communism and socialism in different forms are the most powerful memes there ever was. They attach themselves to most crucial needs of humans. They are the most deceptive and lying memes there is. They are direct by product of intelligence, our needs, life and sufficiently advanced societies, and they will born sooner or later, in some form or another, and start automatically evolution to more destructive forms (Because they are more efficient). It is like cancer and if there is life, there is cancer. Hostile jews help the creation of it and it’s mutations to more malignancy. Only way to prevent this cancer totally is not to live. This meme has also been created independently in ancient China and Middle East and probably elsewhere too. Only way to deal with this is to fight against it with all our might everywhere, in co-operation with large numbers of people, with great intelligence, with great craftiness, with developing powerful contrary memes, with enticing and crucial good things and with merciless ruthlessness when necessary. My friend, you are as “responsible” as me. You have the necessary intelligence, you are part of advanced civilization and you have the same basic needs than I do. On the basic level you are just as susceptible to falling ill, developing cancer, than I. Powerful counter memes protect both of us, maybe together with some genetic inclinations. It can be seen that your country is getting sicker because of mutated deceptive variations and faster than my country. Immigration, PC, affirmative action, self hatred etc. are part of it. Capitalism or right wing politics does not protect you from it. Global capitalism is part of communist/socialist cancer memes, doing their work. Americans were sick from the beginning and it is written into your constitution, even if the founding fathers didn’t mean it exactly: All men are created equal etc. “We got involved in your Second World War because Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on us. Our policy before that had been material aid to friendly states and keeping U-Boats out of the Western Atlantic.” - That material aid was part of the reason for war declaration. “I mentioned above that it was the Swede Gunnar Myrdal who wrote The American Dilemma, the most influential book in the history of American race relations. Obviously, Sweden had a problem with naive anti-racism before WW2, and in fact in no small part contributed to its rise over here.” - Sweden was very susceptible and had many radicals. E.g. experiencing war would had relieved their susceptibility somewhat. Before the WWII they had many powerful countermemes, which unfortunately didn’t have enough time to establish themselves. “I advance it as a hypothesis only that Europeans are capable of creating their own destructive ideas and falling under the influence of them. The infatuation of the Irish with Marxism and Anti-Racism being a textbook example. “ - Your country is self-destructing faster than mine, and we are both here because of this self-destruction. Your competition with Swedes is close, but I would bet that you self-destruct sooner than Sweden. Unless there are profound changes, of course. E.g. better free speech meme is giving you some protection, but even it is now threatened. “No, Communism was outlawed in West Germany along with National Socialism. It was East Germany where Communism was institutionalized.” - You cling to the name. Cancer memes loves it and it helps the cancers immensely. West Germany has worse cancer than East Germany. East Germany gained some immunity during communism and luckily there was not much immigration during it. “That’s an interesting theory. It wasn’t until the sixties that the Germans gave up racialism and became guilt-ridden nihilists - in other words, after the occupation was over and after its sovereignty had been restored.” - No racialists were, those that were left, were weary from decades of propaganda. At the same time new brainwashed generation became to influential age, and wearied them more. When there was resistance to brainwashing etc., it was of course compelled to non-racial, non-ethnic channels. They were forbidden subjects. “The Holocaust wasn’t invented until the late 1960s/early 1970s, more specifically, in the aftermath of the Six Day War when Israel needed a reason to justify its occupation of the territories.” - Yes, nutrients to the cancer. “In any case, we have established as an empirical fact that the Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians were far out in the front of the European pack in embracing anti-racism. The laggard in this regard was West Germany, which was most influenced by America. Sweden, which wasn’t occupied by anyone in WW2, led the way. This refutes the argument that American influence is responsible for this trend.” - The question in 1957 was not about anti-racism in their own countries (If they could have answered honestly and known enough about it). It was an abstract and meaningless question about distant nation. Also, it just means that Germans were not told about Jim Crow so much and in too negative way (Conquerors don’t want too much critique. Those in “power” knew it. All the medias were controlled). Still, former strong racial memes, war and the deprivations of occupation might have given them some protection over Swedes. “Japan was more heavily firebombed, suffered more from aerial bombardment than even Germany. Japanese homes were made of wood and went up in flames. Two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, unlike Germany.” - Atomic bombs in essence take almost whole cities out, they don’t leave crippled systems behind. My sources have told me that the worst firebombing in WWII was in Germany, e.g. in Dresden. The killing of people anywhere doesn’t automatically tell anything, if people know already what to do and then take the vacant positions from the dead. You “craftily” avoided my other questions. Still the Japanese hierarchy-traditionality memes give them some protection. They had racial policies like in Germany, that protected too. Still, especially starting in the sixties they had violence, politicized strikes, moral degeneracy efforts and other leftist problems. Muslims and South Americans have been problem in Japan for years. Africans are increasing too, although their absolute numbers are small. Japanese have taken mostly Koreans and Chinese, and even they are not integrated. “In postwar Japan, the divine emperor was reduced to the status of a figurehead. The Japanese Army and Navy, which had long dominated the government, was emasculated, and secular civilians were put in control of a constitutional democracy. The changes in Japan were even more revolutionary than those in Germany.” - If Hitler would have been alive, he would have been executed. Many national socialist leaders were executed. In Japan there was never such restrictions, secret prisons, torture, threats, manhunts, manipulation, propaganda etc. than in Germany, nor could have. Army don’t make people. “Americans didn’t install the same kind of re-education program than in Germany, nor they could have, because of large language and cultural differences. This is false. There were war crimes trials in Japan as well. Tojo and his clique were put on trial and executed or thrown in prison. Japanese militarists were removed from power in much the same way that Denazification had been implemented in Germany.” - You ducked my point altogether. Executions and trials are not the same thing as e.g. cultural and language differences “Unlike the French, the Japanese wholeheartedly embraced their conquerers, and even romanticized them. It was as if the authority of the Emperor had been transferred to MacArthur. That didn’t happen in Germany or elsewhere in Europe, especially in France, as noted above. The Japanese set about modeling their society on the United States and trying to compete with America in business.” - It is Japanese peculiarity. They devote themselves energetically to something, like when being a fan of some musician, they learn his language. Still, it is skin deep. When Japaneses’ and outsiders’ interests are opposite the underlying truth is revealed. “You’re right. Germany ended up the way it did because it was surrounded by other liberal countries like Sweden and France.” - Sweden, who pre- WWII had ethnic nationalist, racialist and eugenics policies. I don’t of course say surrounding countries emit necessarily decisive effect, but they have effect. “Exactly the opposite happened in Germany. West Germany was rearmed and brought into NATO.” - German army has very strict anti-nationalist-racialist etc. laws, and they are observed very accurately. Couple of years ago they found some racialism, and there was huge public oppression. “No, it matters quite a lot. Coca Cola originated in the American South and is consumed more here than anywhere else. Walmart and McDonald’s originated here. They are more widespread in America than they are abroad. When Europeans complain about Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Walmart and the like, I can sympathize, as these are legitimate American creations.” - With the same method we should see more capitalism in Babylonia (current Iraq), but, oops, we do not. The Usa has the most of it. “In much the same way, Communism originated in Europe and has long had appeal there. Even today, Communists are mainstream in France; Social Democrats in Germany, as well as Socialists and Communists.” Well, you say that communism originated in Europe, so any country will do. I take ex-communist Soviet satellites. They have much less PC than you, they have much less immigration than you, they have less global capitalism than you, they don’t have affirmative action at all like you, they don’t have minority slums like you, they don’t have busing like you still have in milder form than before, they don’t have integrated schools like you have, etc. You are much more communist than they and communism has much more appeal in America. Don’t let the names fool you, the communist/socialist memes like it. My friend, Americans are communist to the core. ”Martin Luther King, Jr. was wildly popular there too (In Europe).” - First, please show me the polls. But Martin Luther King could not be in real sense popular in e.g. country like Finland. It is like asking, if space alien Funny-funny, who lives in Andromeda galaxy, is popular in Usa. The real popularity is decided, when Funny-funny lives in the Usa, and is a real, concrete reality. Otherwise it is meaningless talk, which is highly likely based on meaningless things. “Has it occurred to you that maybe Europeans resented the German occupation and were glad to have their independence back?” - Yes, occupation is always resented and indepence appreciated. Still, those occupied countries would have long, long time been independent, if Germany had won, although Germany probably would still be central power. “Do you suppose there may have been a reaction against National Socialism, and by extension racial theory and imperialism, due in large part to German foreign policy?” - That does not explain it. Norway and Sweden are very similar countries. Norway was occupied by Germany, Sweden was not occupied by anybody. Sweden has much more all the cancer meme problems, although Norway has problems too. 184
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:06 | #
The D.C. communists and agents of Moscow didn’t allow Patton to advance eastward to the Russian border, which he could easily have done and badly wanted, but ordered him to halt where he was and wait till the Red Army came into Germany from the east. The reason the U.S. Army “wasn’t in control of these states” was Roosevelt’s communists (who were kept on by Truman) wanted the Red Army to control them instead, and had General Patton assassinated when they feared he might thwart their plans for dividing Europe up in ways greatly advantageous to Stalin and disadvantageous to everyone else including us. The assassination was disguised as a motor vehicle crash; in fact it was a strafing of his staff car witnessed by a number of soldiers.
What year did they land in North Africa? When did they land in the Italian boot? And what was the importance of the Russian Pacific port of Vladivostok? 185
Posted by Anonymous species-hater on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:13 | # The USSR defeated Nazi Germany largely on its own In a one-on-one matchup between Germany and the USSR, with no lend-lease, no warmongering England tying up ~80 divisions (50 in France, 10 in Scandanavia, 4-8 in N.Africa, a dozen or so in Yugoslavia, others in air defense units) the USSR probably would have disintegrated in 1942 or 1943… there is no way the USSR could’ve withstood the full might of Nazi Germany. 186
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:56 | # Arming negroes was an absurd idea. It was a pipe dream. Don’t rely on Levine. The pipe dream was also supported by Robert E. Lee.
No doubt Lee’s desire to preserve the welfare of his people was also petty. It was not really about arming black slaves, it was about who should conduct the emancipation of the black race, Lee et al, with the best interest of his people in mind, or the Northern enemy. There were lots of immigrants in the Southern cities… How many is lots? Peanuts compared to the North Atlantic, Midwestern and Western states like California. Over 1/3 of the population in 7 of 11 western states wers foreign born by 1870. The South saw nothing like that influx of immigrants. http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/3067941?n=421&res=3&imagesize=1200 I’m not such a petty racist ideologue that I can’t enjoy a football game with a few friends. I see. The boys at Caste Football, who argue that great white athletes are being discriminated against by the South’s beloved game of football, and its sytem of development, to the advantage of blacks, are petty racist while, you, dear sir, are definitely a racist of consequence. You have a knack for peddling odd theories like that, whether it is Christianity or the idea that “whiteness” has never been important in American history. Odd theories like evolution and the role Christianity in the evolution of Europe and ultimately its adaptiveness? Racial consciousness is not a pre-requisite to homogeneity. Where did you ever get that idea? Homogeneous means “all of the same or similar kind or nature; “a close-knit homogeneous group”. The Soviet Union was not homogeneous. The reason the evil empire broke apart is because it discovered, as all multi-national empires discover, that ethnocentrism is the default mode for humanity. It appears that you cling to this false theory of whiteness that allegedly emanated from the South because of a fear of being excluded because of your ethnicity. However, the truth about the “unalloyed” nature of the US population in 1850, does not prohibit moving forward with a strategy of white racial consciousness. US demographics have forever changed with the Germans now being the largest US ethnic group. Build on that rather than trying to distort the demographics of the past to support future white racialism. 187
Posted by second class citizen on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:01 | # Scimitar:“We got involved in your Second World War because Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on us. Our policy before that had been material aid to friendly states and keeping U-Boats out of the Western Atlantic.” War supplies are fungible. “Getting involved in” the second world war started much earlier than the declaration, beginning with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement (September 2, 1940 Scrooby is spot on about President Rosenvelt. He truly was one of the most evil men of the twentieth century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo 188
Posted by PF on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:35 | # Bravo Finn!! Excellent rebuttal! Addressing Scimitar:
I think that bit of theory needs to be cleaned up. Nordics, like Englishmen for example, know that they are white-skinned. Its just they never came up with the idea of emphasizing this aspect of ethnic identity as the ‘catch-all’ for kinship determination. Simply put, being white doesn’t make you English, but you have to be white to be English. English is a subset of ‘white’. Just as the era of real internationalism was dawning, it became illegal to discuss race- thats why Europeans appear to have no knowledge of it. They arent stupid. They know they are white. In eras when they were allowed to strategize about their interests, their greatest enemies were fellow whites. In the present era when their enemies are non-whites, they are not allowed to strategize. 189
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:53 | # Thank you Fred Scrooby, PF, and Anonymous species hater for your important comments. Quantitative comment by Anonymous species hater sums up the situation well, although there was of course additional influences. And, I thank my good opponent Scimitar. I will comment in a couple of threads and then I have to start using more of my extra time to reading and writing in Finnish. There are many things in Finland that need to be addressed. But I will be back and I might write something here now and then. 190
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:36 | #
Don’t stay away long. Post a comment:
Next entry: The “Fjordman” Project
|
|
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 GT on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:30 | #
“American anti-Semitic delusions only provide legitimacy to American Jews in their constant search for a real or surreal anti-Semitic boogieman around the corner. Without the spectre of anti-Semitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear.”
1. Sunic’s claim that jews pursue surreal boogiemen is anti-Semitic.
2. If Homo Americanus’ anti-Semitic delusions legitimize jewish behavior, then why don’t jewish delusions legitimize our behavior? Answer: They have power and we don’t.
3. How does Sunic justify jewish delusions and paranoia in nations where truth is no defense? He can’t.
Sunic’s attempt to blame Homo Americanus for jewish behavior is evidence of carelessness or is an attempt to con us.