|
|
|
The Children of the Rape of White America The New York Times reports that:
If the GI generation had been told this rape of America was what they were fighting for in WW II, they would have joined Hitler. Comments:2
Posted by empty13 on Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:33 | # Incidentally, the realization that they fought on the wrong side, and for their enemies, is likely an added reason for all them suicides of older white guys that were trumpeted in the news recently. 3
Posted by Count Dooku on Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:35 | # First, how many people here know veterans that feel this way? 4
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:19 | # The alienation between the GI generation and the Boomer generation, resulting largely from the GIs cutting their sons off from their ancestral lands and also turning the rearing of their childre over to alien cultures via media and academia, created the opportunity for the alien cultures to feed the fertility of the Boomer generation to the GI generation via real estate—skimming transaction fees and forms of economic rent off the top. The result is a bottom line that the GI generation—for all the rhetoric about it being “The Greatest Generation”—knows at some level that it is the worst generation going back thousands if not tens of thousands of years. Suicide is the only way many of these men have of dealing with the horror they’ve committed since they don’t even consciously see what they’ve done—no myths are being offered to them but Holocaustianity now that Christianity has been subsumed by it and even Christianity was not adequate as a mythology to explain the current disaster. As they approach death they see also their declining mental faculties offer no hope of them figuring out how things have gone awry. Few realize what they have done. The GIs just feel it and at some deep leve know it. 5
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:05 | # Certainly if Herr Hitler’s political heirs were running what is now left of the White World, MR’s raison d’etre would be non-existent. 6
Posted by A. Windaus on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:40 | # Al Ross: Most of us here would gladly swap MR for a better world for our people to live in. 7
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:28 | # No doubt, Mr Windhaus, especially with the benefit of perfect political hindsight. 8
Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:40 | # Adolf Hitler did more than any other man to destroy Jim Crow America. In 1934, W.E.B. DuBois left the NAACP after twenty-five years of agitating as the leading voice in America for civil rights reform. The NAACP had gotten nowhere. FDR wouldn’t even publically endorse a federal anti-lynching bill. DuBois was so despondent about the future of blacks that he reneged on his commitment to integration which precipated his falling out with Walter White. In a little over ten years, the world was turned upside down and this state of affairs totally changed. The majority of white Americans believed in racial equality by 1946; something that would have been unthinkable a decade before. What happened? Why the revolutionary change in American (and European) racial attitudes? Simply put, Nazism brought racialism into disrepute during Second World War and established the immorality of racial discrimination. DuBois himself would later point out that Hitler was a godsend for the Civil Rights Movement and that white supremacy would never have been overthrown had it not been for the Third Reich. 9
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:11 | # The baneful process of America’s Judaeofication was the main cause of the precipitous decline in US racial awareness. Most Americans, as feckless a bunch of apolaustic spendthrifts as ever bust a weight-scale, were even less engaged with foreign affairs than they are at present so blaming Hitlerian influences for self-inflicted damage is, perhaps, an indication of said process. If Americans had supported a party which dealt with the JQ in a similar way to that of Hitler the US would not now be disintegrating before our very eyes. Werner Sombart was correct, when, all those years ago, he described Americanism as ‘distilled Judeism’. 10
Posted by JB on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:48 | #
No. Most of them thought the jews were unjustly the target of nazi atrocities but none of them would have shrugged their shoulders at the idea of seeing their daughters having negro boyfriends and producing mixed children. In the 1950s the vast majority of whites didn’t consider blacks to be their equals and felt they did belong at the back of the bus. In those days the police would not have stopped whites from enforcing segregation with their fists. If desegregation has been left to the population to decide some states would still have racial segregation laws today. 11
Posted by Jeugenics on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:05 | # Just yesterday I re-read Henry Ford’s The International Jew, which contains excellent 1920s-era documentation of Jewish power in America up to that time as well as timeless analysis of Jewry’s methods. In it, he describes America as a “Jewish Dictatorship”; this was eighty years ago (!) 12
Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:58 | # America had a Jewish problem, but it was well on its way to being resolved before Hitler came along. During the 1920s, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton imposed quotas limiting Jewish admission. Such quotas had been implemented even earlier at Williams, Dartmouth, and Columbia. The number of Jews attending Ivy League universities was reduced significantly over the next twenty years. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 shutdown Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe. Many Jewish radicals like Emma Goldman had been deported during the Red Scare. During the 1930s, Jews were attacked all the time in the mainstream press. Never in American history had Jews been more unpopular. Millions of Americans supported the expulsion of Jews from the United States. The Jews were so unpopular that few Jewish refugees were allowed into America (the S.S. St. Louis was sent back to Europe). You can fairly point to Boas, but it was the Second World War and Hitler’s racism that made Boas a celebrity. Boas had been attacking racism for decades at Columbia, but didn’t become famous until his twlight years (his own university imposed quotas restricting Jewish numbers). Boas died in 1942. Jim Crow grew stronger and more elaborate during the early twentieth century. During the war, Ashley Montagu and Margaret Mead cashed in on the Third Reich and published bestseller anti-racist tracts. Hollywood was forbidden by the Hays Code to depict miscegenation in films in the twenties, thirties, and forties. I’m not aware of any Hollywood films that attacked racism until the postwar period, but there were many that depicted blacks in a derogatory way. The most popular radio show during the twenties and thirties featuring blacks was Amos ‘n’ Andy. It was Hitler and the Second World War that changed all of this. Hitler gave “racism” a bad name (the word didn’t exist until the mid-thirties). After the war, segregation was attacked and delegitimized as being like Nazism. Polls clearly show that American “anti-semitism” was vibrant until 1945 when the concentration camps were discovered. From that point on, criticism of the Jews was no longer publically acceptable and entered its long downward spiral. 1946 was the first year the majority of Americans believed blacks and whites were equally intelligent when polled. 13
Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:59 | # It wasn’t just racialism and criticism of Jews that fell into disrepute because of the Third Reich. Eugenics, which had thrived in early twentieth century America, also fell into disrepute during the late 1930s. The culprit again was association with Nazism. The Carnegie Foundation pulled the rug out from under the ERO and the revulsion against Nazism by many liberal geneticists led them to an all out attack on eugenics. J.B.S. Haldane comes to mind. He had supported eugenics during the twenties. America had problems prior to the Third Reich, but the critical difference is that they were then manageable. Blacks saw less action in combat in the Second World War than the First World War, and they played less of a role in the First World War than the Spanish-American War, where they played less of a role than they did in the Civil War. The U.S. federal government was resegregated under Wilson for the first time since the Lincoln administration in 1863. Jim Crow ruled unchallenged over the South and much of the West. There were anti-miscegenation laws in every Southern state. These anti-miscegenation laws gradually became more elaborate and carried heavier fines. The Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was harsher than the Nuremberg laws. Miscegenation went from being a misdemeanor to a felony. In many Southern states, Georgia comes to mind, it was illegal to even discuss miscegenation or integration. Southern representatives in Congress like Bilbo openly advocated the deportation of blacks to Africa and John Rankin attacked the Jews in the House of Representatives all the time (on one occasion, giving a Jewish representative from New York a fatal heart attack). Mexicans were deported en masse from the Southwest under Hoover and FDR. Even Germany’s most outspoken supporter in America, H.L. Mencken, recognized the damage the Nazis were doing, “by talking and acting in a completely lunatic manner, Hitler and his associates have thrown away the German case and given the enemies of their country enough ammunition to last for ten years.” Davenport, Laughlin, and Popenoe all recognized that association with Nazism was undermining eugenics in America. Madison Grant felt the same way about racialism and took pains to distance himself from the Third Reich before his death. 14
Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:04 | # JB, That was very true of the South. The South had strong anti-miscegenation laws which would not be struck down until Loving vs. Virginia in 1967. The North had no anti-miscegenation laws (with the exception of Indiana) and in many states racial discrimination and segregation were already illegal. The West had a Jim Crow regime of its own, but voluntarily dismantled it during the postwar period. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:42 | # Of course, my whole point in mentioning US GIs choosing to support Hitler if they could have seen the future is that the way the war went was spun against the people who fought and won it. This was the height of unenlightened self interest by organized Jewry, which led the spin control. 16
Posted by various trolls on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:29 | # Ah, the good old days, when whites could attack members of other ethnicities with impunity… You’re a jerk, Daedalus, although you’re a saint compared with most of the degenerates here. 17
Posted by various trolls comrade on Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:45 | # Isn’t it great Various Trolls now that non-whites can attack whites with impunity! That’s the way we like it! 18
Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:02 | # “Nazism brought racialism into disrepute during Second World War and established the immorality of racial discrimination.” No quarrel with Daedalus in general and with no intent to be tendentious, but the question has been asked before on this web site for evidence that this statement is correct. For example, what is the evidence that Nazism was race-based? I’ve always thought it was ethnicity-based, namely on the characteristics of Germanics (or Aryans) whether split off into Lombards, Franks, Saxons, Anglos, or the Nordics. I have never seen any kind of research, except the most tenuous, that shows that Nazism was literally based on race, unless you mean race in the old-fashioned sense, the Italian race, the Irish race, the Russian race, the American race, and so on. In fact, Nazism was pretty cruel at many point to the Slavic ethnicity. So where does this race thing come from? ===== Notwithstanding DuBois’ contention, which could easily have been fed to him as a sound bite for those days and then promoted as a witty insight, another line of reasoning exists and it goes like this: The harvesting of the cream of two generations of European American men in WWI and WWII removed a desperately needed level of leadership in public affairs that was filled while they were away at war by ideologists, bigots, and white-haters who seized the levers of power at higher education, media, and film, and promptly promoted ideas hostile to European Americans that were not rebutted because our natural leaders were done to death by murder at war. Our natural leaders’ absence from the home front can supply the missing links in understanding the change of public opinion that appears to have taken place after WWII. I hope we can stop being so hard on our fathers and grandfathers. ===== A couple of examples of film-hatred were the two 1947 films that claimed to be fighting anti-Semitism, but in reality were simply hate propaganda against European Americans at home (Gentleman’s Agreement) and European American soldiers returning home (Crossfire). These films demonstrated a firm grasp of both passive-aggressive hate propaganda (Gentleman’s Agreement) and aggressive hate propaganda (Crossfire). ===== On a personal note, I was a high school student and an undergraduate student at university during the late 1940s and early 1950s, and I can testify that the word “holocaust” and an emphasis on extraordinary suffering by European Jews was simply not present then. It wasn’t until the late 1960s that these arguments started to come up in public discourse. Until that time there was plenty of white-bashing in film, etc., but it wasn’t of today’s character at all. 19
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:43 | # The two films mentioned by Bo Sears were, of course , directed by foreign-born Jews. Turkish-born Elia Kazan helmed Gentleman’s Agreement with screenplay by New York Jew, Moss Hart. Crossfire was directed by Ukranian Jew, Edward Dmytryk. It would be interesting,if purely academic, to learn if US-born Jews hate the hosts more than the foreign - born ones do. 20
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:34 | # I have that one (Gentleman’s Agreement) listed in the timeline thread over at The Civic Platform forum. In the aftermath of the war, Hollywood reversed itself and became more outspoken about “anti-semitism,” but this was not the case prior to the war. Miscegenation in Hollywood films was forbidden until 1957. I believe the first such film was Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner starring Sidney Poitier in 1967. Most of the major civil rights legislation had been passed by then. Television didn’t become widespread until the 1950s. In 1950, only 1 out of 10 Americans had a television. Polls show that the majority of white Americans subscribed to racial equality as early as 1946; so television cannot be responsible for the fundamental shift in American racial attitudes. 21
Posted by JB on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:39 | # Daedalus:
under Eisenhower too Daedalus:
Madison Grant had to fight the boasians before anyone had heard of Hitler: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-immigration.html
Daedalus:
americans were overwhelmingly against going to war against Germany, it was only after Pearl Harbour that their minds changed and their anger was mostly directed at the Japanese. The nazi regime by itself didn’t give racism a bad name, it was its defeat, the Nuremberg trials and the holocaust propaganda of the following years. Daedalus:
I’d like to know the source that supports that assertion. The medium that published the poll results could very well have published fake results to promote the idea of equality. Daedalus:
surely you must have noticed that egalitarianism, collectivism and other communism related -isms didn’t fell into disrepute and never tainted leftist causes even though the USSR and other communist regimes were 10 times as murderous and oppressive than the Third Reich. Was it the nazis that turned this double standard into the default ‘respectable’ opinion among american politicians, public figures and the american population in general ? Think about it Was it Milosevic’s or the Serbs’ fault if the western media portrayed them as bloodthirsty genocidal neo-nazi maniacs ? I’m not suggesting Milosevic’s government was like Hitler’s government I’m saying that if the media can turn a foreign politician into a ‘new Hitler’ as easily as they did with S.M. then it’s not the individual’s or the government’s actual actions that will determine whether or not they’ll be portrayed as the bad guy(s) it’s the biases of those who run the media that will decide who’s going to be vilified, lied about and attacked with cluster bombs of morality and what events will either be covered ad nauseam or be created to support the message. Was it Trent Lott’s fault if the media went after him like a bunch of rabid dogs after he made a mildly positive comment about Strom Thurmond ? Was it Jorg Haider’s fault if his election provoked that world wide condemnation by our corrupt political class and our rotten thinking class ? If any politician today said the truth about South Africa, apartheid and the black rule what do you think would happen to them and whose fault would it be ? If two angry white men decided to give illegals living in their neighborhood a beating would it be their fault if the media decided to use their actions as a propaganda tool against whites by covering this event non-stop while covering up all the crimes committed by illegals throughout the US and never showing the white victims of mexican murders, rapes and assaults on their TV broadcasts and their pages ? If say three dumb white men killed a black man in Jasper Texas by dragging him behind their truck would it be their fault if the media decided to use this event to hammer their anti-white message all day long and while ignoring the killing of a white man in similar circumstances at the hands of blacks and all the statistics about black criminality ? 22
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:29 | #
Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race got favorable reviews in the New York Times and was a bestseller in the United States. It’s true that Jewish representatives in Congress opposed the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, but the more important point is that they were defeated and Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe was radically curtailed thereafter. President Calvin Coolidge was one of Grant’s more famous readers. Boas and his followers got nowhere until anti-racism was popularized in the war against Nazism. Jews were hardly all powerful in the twenties and thirties. In fact, their influence was actually rolled back somewhat, especially in the universities where the new quotas significantly reduced their numbers. Grant himself in the thirties knew that Nazism was undermining racialism and warned American racialists not to cozy up to close to the Third Reich.
The polling data from the period clearly indicates the transformation of American racial attitudes occurred immediately before and during the war. A good example of this would the Joe Louis/Max Schmeling fights. In 1936, in their first fight which Schmeling won, Americans cheered for Schmeling as a white man. In 1938, in the rematch in which Louis defeated Schmeling, Americans cheered for Louis, an American Negro, because Schmeling was perceived as a German Nazi. This was indicative of a broader shift that was then taking place at the time. In 1938, the derogatory racial stereotypes of blacks began to disappear in the American media, and during the war blacks were portrayed in a much more sympathetic light. American hostility towards the Jews peaked in 1944 and collapsed in 1945 after the concentration camps were discovered.
The polling data comes from the Roper Organization and the National Opinion Research Center. In 1939, a Roper poll found that 70% of white Americans believed that blacks were less intelligent than whites. In 1946, the NORC polled white Americans again and 53% said that blacks and whites were equally intelligent. In 1956, 78% of whites said that blacks and whites were equally intelligent.
Communism did fall into disrepute. The leadership of the Communist Party USA was prosecuted under the Smith Act in the late forties. President Truman issued Executive Order 9835 which established loyalty boards to weed communists out of the U.S. federal government. The NAACP, CORE, and Urban League, along with the unions, purged communists from their organizations. Communism was highly disreputable in the early years of the Cold War and being a communist could ruin your career. 23
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:45 | #
Don’t insult our intelligence. As your own parenthetical reminds us, Marxists gave “racism” a name, and they imbued that name with a pejorative connotation from the outset. Later, a propaganda campaign cast the Nazis in opposition to the American nation and associated the Nazis with “racism”. 24
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 06:54 | # “1946 was the first year the majority of Americans believed blacks and whites were equally intelligent when polled.” Of course, at the time, only perhaps 15% of white Americans had a sufficient basis for making a judgment based on their own observations. It should not be surprising that media mendacity had a significant effect on opinion. 25
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:10 | # “being a Communist could ruin your career”. Not as much as being an anti-Communist, as Senator McCarthy found to his cost. 26
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:13 | #
McCarthy was slapped down because, unlike Nixon, he went over the top on his anti-communist crusade. Eisenhower, Marshall, and Acheson were all committed anti-communists. 27
Posted by Daedalus on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:29 | #
The role of the media is overstated. The different regions of America dealt with race in strikingly different ways. The South was absolutely committed to preserving white supremacy and the attacks on segregation in the press reinvigorated Southern racialism. Southerners were more committed to Jim Crow in 1960 than they were in 1940. The West had a milder Jim Crow regime in most states, but voluntarily dismantled segregation from 1945 to 1965. The Midwest and New England had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and outlawed racial segregation decades before the Second World War. The minority of Americans who continued to insist on the racial inferiority of blacks were virtually all Southerners by the ‘60s. This reflects regional differences in culture more than anything else. 28
Posted by On Holliday on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:45 | # “The role of the media is overstated.” How then was the racialism = Hitler = genocide = unAmerican meme spread then? At least partially, if not predominantly, through the news and entertainment media. Whatever the strength of southern racialism in 1960 - and if it was stronger in 1960 than in 1940, and if the Midwest and New England moved to the left before WWII, one could hardly blame all that on Hitler - it didn’t survive the media broadcasts of Bull Connor, etc. The American consensus on race, even in the South, collapsed. If what you say about regional differences and the timing of these changes are true, again, one can hardly put it on the doorstep of Hitler (Europe may be a different story). This is not apologia for Adolf, whose dedication to German expansionism and hegemony did great and permanent damage to the West. It just seems that for America, racialism was incidental, and not fundamental, to national identity - or it would not have collapsed like a house of cards (either because of the media *or* Adolf..). 29
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:04 | # American “national identity” is embodied in the phrase “ourselves and our posterity” as written by the founders. The problem is racialism and nationalism are incidental to the identity of northern Europeans. Their identity is formed by their indoctrination more than other ethnicities. This is why allowing more clanish ethnicities to determine their culture is biologicically toxic for them. 30
Posted by On Holliday on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:50 | # “American “national identity” is embodied in the phrase “ourselves and our posterity” as written by the founders.” Point taken, but in that case, the problem started with Lincoln, not Hitler. Once an African could be a ‘citizen’, the meaning of ‘citizenship’ became worthless as a measure of identity. Yes, “Jim Crow” delayed the inevitable, but once, in theory, the descendant of a Washington was legally equivalent to a descendant of one of Washington’s slaves, “posterity” lost much meaning. Hardly Adolf’s fault. 31
Posted by JB on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:34 | # Holliday:
Lincoln was a white supremacist according to Donald W. Livingston. He was supposedly in favor of sending africans back to africa 32
Posted by WJG on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:43 | # Daedalus, Your repeated exhortations that Hitler and Nazism hurt American racialism is very weak. If you qualified your statement such that nationalism (racial nationalism is unecessarily redundant) in Germany was used as an “excuse” by our master’s to delegitamize American Nationalism then you’d have a point. On Holliday has already clearly argued this. The real question is was National Socialism in Germany in the best interest of Whites? I think it was. That our people (as well as Britain’s and France’s) were convinced to fight against our own EGI shows whose thumb we are under not that Nazism was “bad” for Whites. Using your same logic MR would be “bad” for Whites if the same Jewish propoganda machine (Academia, News, Law, etc.) turned all its talents to its destruction. Do you think for a minute that MR could not be eviscerated in the minds of the lemmings if our Master’s saw fit? One of MR’s best covers is the more marginal elements of WN which gives MR some cover though the irony is that many MRers like to refer to these elements in disparaging terms like “knuckledraggers”. If there were no Shaun Walker’s for the Establishment to go after it could well be Guessedworker watching his backside in the Big House. All you are making clear is how respectable you are. Triangulation (e.g. “I’m not like one of those bad Nazis”) is the domain of the kept. 33
Posted by On Holliday on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:58 | # I am aware of Lincoln’s (ostensible) racialism, and interest in colonization. Nevertheless, his regime was, ultimately, responsible for African-“American” citizenship. If you prefer, I could have said “abolitionists” or “radical Republicans” instead of Lincoln. The point being, however, that the 1860s, rather than the 1940s, may have been the critical point. 34
Posted by JB on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:58 | # Daedalus:
but the commies were never associated with mass murder and genocide in the same manner the nazis were. Today compared to having had nazi or “far-right” allegiances in the past having had communist allegiances is a mild socio-political embarassment. Former nazis or “neo-nazis” i.e. Jorg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, are treated like the plague compared to former or neo commies. Pierre Trudeau was Castro’s buddy but his relation with the communist dictator never tainted him. It would have been a very different story if Trudeau had a friendship with say powerless old nazis living in Spain. had Napolitano been an ex-nazi it would have been a big deal in the western media: Ex-communist elected as Italian president Giorgio Napolitano in 1975 In America communists can claim to have been persecuted by McCarthy and had there been an anti-nazi ‘witchhunt’ instead of an anti-communist ‘witchhunt’ lead by McCarthy he would have been considered one of the good guys. And very few historians and public figures talk about the moral absurdity of the Anglo-American axis allying itself with the USSR to “liberate” Europe and put the leaders of the Third Reich on trial for war crimes and genocide.
35
Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:06 | # I still haven’t seen an answer to my question about this quotation: “Nazism brought racialism into disrepute during Second World War and established the immorality of racial discrimination.” What is the evidence that Nazism was race-based, instead of extreme ethnocentrism? Nazism allied with the Japanese which is not a race-based thing to do, and it never attacked any nation of color that I know about rising to the level, certainly, of the conflict within the European family of nations. Even the Egyptians and other northern African nations invaded by Nazi armies are still classified as Caucasian racially. Or is there a consensus that racism and racialism has come to mean, and perhaps always meant any kind of discrimination between groups? For example, Jewish hatred toward Palestinians appears not to be racism inasmuch as they are both members of the Semitic ethnicity, or would even that hostility have been called racism 65 years ago? 36
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:46 | # JB, Lincolon, like most 19th century US Presidents prior to the Civil War was a white separatist rather than a white supremacist. The institution of slavery was something that Thomas Jefferson declared untennable in the same breath that he declared Africans and Europeans could not live under the same government. This separation of sovereignty is not compatible with supremacy. One of the key propaganda points of modern day vectorists is declaring there is no such thing as white separatism. You just played into their hands. 37
Posted by On Holliday on Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:48 | # Bo, On the other hand, we are told that the group historically persecuted by anti-Semitism is only a religion, with no racial or biological characteristics. Inconsistent, isn’t it? 38
Posted by jlh on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:15 | # Daedalus’ fact-laden account underplays the role of newspaper, radio, film and book media cheerleading a military establishment that pushed the race-egalitarian line as a propaganda device for war against the Nazis. Roosevelt and Morgenthau wanted it that way. That many of the biggest boosters of getting the U.S. into the European war were Jews is no secret. Add to this our government and the non-profit foundations providing funding to educational elites determined to reeducate everybody for a one-world mindset. See the Reese Commission report. Another big factor is the way the civil rights era strife was portrayed on television in the ‘60s. I agree with daedalus’ critics that media spin on many of these events was used to create the desired result, but I think it’s true that the Nazi issue was a godsend to those who wanted to undermine white racial solidarity, which has always been rather shaky to begin with. Opinion began to change almost immediately after the war, and the fact that the brass desegregated the armed services during Truman’s administration supports my claim that the military was in the lead on this stuff. I agree with those who indicate that Hitler, the Nazis, events in 1930s-‘40s Europe, the American civil rights strife of the ‘60s, etc., all could have been viewed very differently had the propaganda machine been operating on behalf of white America, rather than with its destruction in mind. 39
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:14 | #
I never said otherwise. In fact, I am documenting all of this in extensive detail elsewhere. Two examples: Ashley Montagu’s Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (1942) and Ruth Benedict’s The Races of Mankind (1943) were bestsellers published during the war. Why? The fight against Nazism discredited racialism and popularized anti-racism. This is indisputable. In 1939, a Roper poll found that 70% of whites believed blacks were less intelligent. In 1942, it was 48%. In 1946, 53% of whites, a majority of white Americans, said blacks were equally intelligent for the first time in American history. In 1956, ten years later, 78% of whites were willing to say that blacks were equally intelligent. We can rule a few things out. It wasn’t the Civil Rights Movement that changed American racial attitudes. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down segregation in education in Brown in 1954. Indeed, we have 78% of whites believing in racial equality by 1956; the first opening scene of the Civil Rights Movement in the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Instead, the change was imposed from the top down. The federal government move toward integration created the Civil Rights Movement. Also, in 1950, only 10% of Americans owned a television. Television wouldn’t become widespread until the mid-1950s. American racial attitudes had changed dramatically by then.
Blacks got nowhere under FDR. The sole act of FDR’s presidency to advance civil rights was his creation of the FEPC in 1941. The FEPC remained a powerless institution until the end of the war without any real enforcement powers. Truman was the first president to embrace civil rights reform when established a committee for that purpose in 1946.
The biggest boosters of getting the U.S. into the war were the British. In fact, British intelligence really was engaged in something of a “conspiracy” to accomplish just that in 1940 and 1941.
The intelligentsia, along with much of the American elite, was won over to civil rights reform during the war.
The majority of whites had already swung decisively behind the Civil Rights Movement before the Montgomery Bus Boycott. In fact, the majority of whites supported Brown in 1954. The change in pubic attitude with regards to race was one of the critical factors that led the Supreme Court into embracing desegregation. The show that went on from 1955 until 1965 was merely the rest of the country imposing integration on a recalcitrant South.
There was a change in how blacks were portrayed in the media. The change began in 1938 and was accomplished by 1942. Before 1938, blacks were portrayed in a generally unsympathetic light, in radio, film, in print, as they had been in previous decades. After 1938, in the print media, the accomplishments of blacks were emphasized. The obvious question: why the sudden change? Why had the media portrayed nonwhites so negatively before 1938 only to totally reverse itself from 1938 until 1942; inducing the shift in American racial attitudes that followed? The answer, of course, is the rise of Nazism in Europe and the Second World War. The worst aspects of Nazi racism were emphasized and contrasted to Western values of “freedom” and “equality.” Simultaneously, as the Nazis began to give “racism” a bad name, whites started to reevaluate the Jim Crow laws in their midst. “Racism” was blamed for causing the war, and after the war, racialism was proscribed as beyond the pale, and the same was true of eugenics and anti-semitism. Before 1938, it was perfectly acceptable in America to be a racialist, eugenicist, or an anti-semite. By 1945, this was not the case. It is obvious that the war is what changed this.
The military wasn’t pleased with desegregation. Truman officially desegregated the military in 1948, but it wasn’t fully integrated until 1956 because of resistance amongst the military elite. The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 accelerated the process. 40
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:29 | #
The communists were associated with genocide and mass murder during the fifties. Communists were persecuted at every level of American society and being tagged with the label “communist” could ruin your career. If you are asking why this isn’t the case today, the answer is the change in American culture that was induced by the antiwar movement during Vietnam. Many of the Boomers who would later go on to hold influential positions in academia and the press became anti-anti-communists during this period.
McCarthy fell into disrepute, not because of his attack on communism (Nixon made a name for himself in the Alger Hiss affair and served as Eisenhower’s vice president), but because he started attacking major political figures in America like George Marshall and Dean Acheson who were definitely not communists. Eisenhower was an anti-communist and he despised McCarthy.
Few historians are sympathetic to Nazism. Few historians are even sympathetic to racialism. The U.S. allied itself with Britain and entered the war to prevent a British defeat. 41
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:58 | #
How so? It’s not like this is my unique interpretation of the decline of American racialism. Virtually every major historian of twentieth century race relations says the same thing: it was the Third Reich that brought racialism, eugenics, and anti-semitism into disrepute. This is a non-controversial point amongst scholars of the subject supported by overwhelming evidence.
It’s important to keep in mind that the U.S. wasn’t the only country affected. Indeed, of all Western nations, the U.S. was probably the least affected because of its distance from Europe, prosperity, and the fact the U.S. had not been a major battlefield or made any real sacrifices in the war. It wasn’t until 1965 that the deed was done; about a generation after the complete triumph of anti-racism in Europe (most of MLK’s fan mail came from there). Racialism was discredited by Nazism across the entire West.
My impression is this: you know, things weren’t so bad in Jim Crow America, and we never needed the Nazis to save us. Whites were absolutely dominant in our society. Things were getting better for us right up until the war. It was the United States, not the Third Reich, that pioneered anti-miscegenation and eugenic sterilization laws. Hitler was an absolute godsend for anti-racists in this country. If it had not been for the miracle that Hitler provided for them, a world war against racism and all the pictures of the concentration camps, they never would have triumphed here, or anywhere else for that matter. W.E.B DuBois said so himself.
I’m not picking on th worst elements in the WN movement. Needless to say, if I am right, and the Third Reich played the leading role in discrediting racialism in the West, it hardly helps matters to have so many people who claim to be on our side doing everything possible to remind their fellow citizens of that association. The best policy is to ignore the subject and focus on contemporary issues. In a certain sense, the Third Reich was the best thing to ever happen to the Jews. It gave them 1.) their trump card of atrocity propaganda (the Holocaust), 2.) it completely discredited anti-semitism in the West (leading to the removal of the quotas at our universities), and 3.) was the justification for giving them what ultimately became Israel as well. Now, wherever someone so much as meekly suggests that race exists, not that whites should dominate over blacks, but merely that race exists, they are hit with the “Nazi” label and marginalized. This is ultimately why Jim Crow was dismantled in America. Before the Second World War, white supremacists could not be attacked as “racists” or “Nazis.” After the Second World War, this was the tactic of choice, and has remained so ever since.
I haven’t criticized the Third Reich. I have merely explained that the war against the Third Reich was critical in discrediting racialism in the West. That’s an indisputable fact, not a policy prescription. The war became one for “democracy” and against “racism.” Personally, I don’t have much against Hitler’s domestic race policies. He sterilized the Afro-Germans. He brought down the Jews from power. Those were good things. I approve of them. His foreign policy, however, was reckless and brought disaster upon the entire world. The same was true of the British and French. It’s unfortunate that things turned out the way they ultimately did. Suppose there had not been a war. Racialism would not have been brought into disrepute. Jim Crow would have survived in America and expanded. The British would have upheld white supremacy Africa and Asia. The French would have maintained their empire. Germany, without its aggressive foreign policy ambitions, would have survived in tact and unmolested. The Soviet Union would have lingered on in stagnation, as it did during the 1920s. The world would be an infinitely better place for whites than it is today. 42
Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:22 | #
That association came about during the war. It wasn’t simply the media either. GIs who fought in Europe were changed by the war experience. Many had lost buddies and brothers. Parents lost their children. Such sacrifices were infinitely more important, personal, and decisive in transforming American racial attitudes. As for the media, it is not like the media sprung into existence in the late 1930s/early 1940s. Radio had been around since the twenties and film had been around earlier. The print media had long existed. In fact, the media had previously played an important role sustaining racialism. The most popular radio show depicting blacks was Amos ‘N’ Andy. The small newspapers of Jim Crow America were thoroughly racialist; on many occasions, they incited lynch mobs. Hollywood depicted blacks in a negative light throughout the twenties and thirties. In the print media, blacks were portrayed in a negative light right up until 1938. The U.S. media reacted to events unfolding in Europe.
The Second World War set in motion the chain of events that culminated at Selma in 1965. It was during the war that the U.S. Supreme Court began to move against racialism. The white primary was struck down in Smith v. Allwright in 1944. In the aftermath of the war, the Western state legislatures dismantled their Jim Crow laws; isolating the South. Public opinion swung against racialism making Brown possible. Brown would have been impossible in 1939 with 70% of whites convinced that blacks were a congentially less intelligent inferior race. Would there have been a Montgomery, Albany, Oxford, Birmingham, or Selma had it not been for the Second World War. Almost certainly not. It was the federal government that created the civil rights movement. The support of the federal government for civil rights reform, in turn, was brought about by the change of American racial attitudes during the war. That, in turn, was caused by the revulsion against Nazism and the war experience. It was reinforced by pressure from America’s NATO allies in Europe which were committed to anti-racism after the war - because of the Third Reich.
I never said that the Third Reich was totally responsible or the only cause of the change. That certainly was not the case. Rather, it was the catalyst. That brings up another point. Why were the Midwest and New England committed to racial egalitarianism in 1939? That had not been the case in 1859 when blacks were excluded from every state of the old Northwest save Wisconsin: Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa. These states changed their laws during the Civil War and its immediate aftermath. So, what happened in the aftermath of the Second World War was not unprecedented. In fact, it was the third time a major war had resulted in the liberalization of American racial attitudes. The American Revolution inspired the abolition of slavery in New England. The Civil War inspired the abolition of slavery in the country and the attempt to impose integration nationwide in Reconstruction amendments and civil rights acts. The fact that such a thing had happened before, for much the same reasons, is only further evidence that the war is what changed American racial attitudes.
I’m not blaming the Third Reich for everything. Indeed, if the West had not been so committed to liberalism, it would not have reacted in the way that it did. The juggling act of the founders, trying to reconcile racialism with liberalism, was incoherent from the beginning.
Yes. No. Racialism was fundamental to the American national identity. At the same time, the commitment of Americans to civic nationalism was equally fundamental. The war against Nazism exposed the contradiction between the two, delegitimized the former, and elevated the status of the latter, as had also happened during the American Revolution and Civil War. 43
Posted by jlh on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:02 | # Daedalus, a lot of what you document on the thread you linked to indicates a top-down pressure to change on a white population that still retained pro-white racialist attitudes. A lot of the changes to society were mandated by executive orders and court decisions that did not reflect the will of the people. As you state, this was accomplished by government elites won over to the civil rights cause during the ‘40s. How do you explain the change in the hearts and minds of the American people in regard to race relations? It’s true that the Nazis and the wartime experience inspired the formulation, “How can we be asked to fight racial (or ethnic) discrimination abroad when we still have it at home?” But as you have documented, people’s attitudes lagged behind official, imposed, top-down change. What do you see as the psychological mechanism at play here, if not propaganda, for the ultimate acceptance of this stuff by the country at large? Your argument culminates in a claim that war (Revolutionary, Civil War, WWII) is the motivator for the liberalization. Isn’t this another way of saying that all of this has been forced on us by fear of more strife, more unrest, more violence? 44
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:27 | # “Two examples: Ashley Montagu’s Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (1942) and Ruth Benedict’s The Races of Mankind (1943) were bestsellers published during the war. Why? The fight against Nazism discredited racialism and popularized anti-racism.” The fight against Nazism. Not Nazism itself. 45
Posted by JB on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:55 | # Daedalus:
why can’t we blame Stalin for giving communism and equality a really bad name and tainting the Allies leaders’ grand moral postures ? Following your logic I could say that it was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait that gave him and the Baath party a bad name. He must have been a nice guy before when he was working for the CIA in the 1960s and when he reigned from his coup to 1990 because there was no media blitzkrieg to portray him as a threat to World Peace. If he hadn’t invaded a neighboring haven of freedom and democracy and had his soldiers kill all those little babies at the hospital he might have kept his good reputation and his throne. Events happen they are also dramatized and edited by society’s epitemological filters, the media. Daedalus:
more than 20 years after the facts. I read that the Hearst papers reported the bad news from the USSR before the war but it didn’t seem to have shocked enough people to make them shake their head in disbelief when the Allies’ leaders shook Stalin’s hands Daedalus:
perhaps but there was no need to ally themselves with the regime that had the blood of millions on its hands to prevent a british defeat. There could have been a cease fire at some point. Daedalus:
hit by whom ? Was Trent Lott hit by an outraged public or by an outraged media ? The answer is obvious. 46
Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 03:39 | # “If he hadn’t invaded a neighboring haven of freedom and democracy and had his soldiers kill all those little babies at the hospital he might have kept his good reputation and his throne.” For more information on the criminal corruption of public process by Congressman Tom Lantos in the context of Gulf War I, go to: http://resistingdefamation.org/sub/g1.htm Scroll down the examples of artful anecdotes until you come to the headline, “Congressman Tom Lantos.” 47
Posted by ADP on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:47 | # I certainly do like you Daedalus. Your argumentation is strong, if not flawless, and you have not missed a point, a beat, or even a subtlety. Thanks man, I like it. Educate these monkeys. I would love to join, and I usually would, but tonight, no, I have other things to deal with. Post a comment:
Next entry: FDR and Fascism
|
|
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 empty13 on Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:28 | #
Well, my dad, who was a navigator on a propaganda plane in WWII, always said that we fought on the wrong side in that conflict…