Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:07 | #

As all properly-taught students of Irish history are aware, there already exists a “Curse o’ Cromwell”, so we can simply borrow it from our Hibernian cousins.

Of course, Cromwell’s act of re-admitting the Jews enabled them to live as such in England (and not in crypto-Jewish, Marano guise as they had done in Spain) at a time when there was sufficient opposition to them on the part of the clergy and the mercantile classes to have prevented their residence if the government had been weak or ill-disposed towards them.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:18 | #

James,

These is one possible silver lining to the baby names story, which I read yesterday.  Our grandparent’s names are back in fashion, apparently.  The generation of Shanes and Wanes are seeking solidity, and I would like to think that this is not unconnected to a wider search for and retirement into the meaning of who we really are - a kind of rebellion against the prescribed celebration of diversity and all things vibrant.

Posted by Orion Blue on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:02 | #

I quite agree. This corrosive trumpet-blowing about the triumph of the cult of diversity, rather than inducing a sense of premature defeat could, in some ways at least, provoke a counter-response to all things ‘diverse’ and ‘vibrant’.

People will no knowingly be displaced and dispossessed, once they become aware of what is being done to them.

Posted by Edmund on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:22 | #

That which is the most frustrating about the situation today is its widespread nature.  Consider a century ago that the United States and Canada, both, were enormously nations of men and women descended of Western European immigrants.  American Indians were a strong presence, however, also a minority.  In fact, the only groups present in large numbers were those descended of African slaves, rightly emancipated from their bonds, still forming only a small minority, and Catholics from Ireland and, to a lesser measure, continental Europe.  Aside from their immediate class differences, this latter group would likely have melded over time with the existent European-American population.
One hundred years ago, as well, Great Britain was a racially homogeneous land, overwhelmingly Christian - be they Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholics or otherwise.  The British Empire stretched around the world spreading the knowledge and successful values of Western civilization.
Australia and New Zealand were bastions of this same culture, as were colonial satellites throughout the eastern and southern lands.
South Africa had also benefited for many, many years from the Dutch and English colonial people.  Rightly, for those who respect race as a gift of either God or nature (for in both theology and biology it is neither random nor disagreeable), the European people of South Africa segregated the races and drew up laws which gave a certain measure of equality and self-rule to both groups.  Only that the colonies themselves existed on lands once inhabited by, though never expressly claimed as any territory or state, was their apartheid colored as wrong or worse by outsiders and rabble-rousers.
Yet, the same was and remains conversely wrong in the homelands of Europe and the largely homogeneous nations of colonial origin in North America.  Closed immigration, quotas, and even racial segregation at home were assaulted in the campaign of “enlightenment” and “liberalism.”  Nazism attacked various dementors of the racial integrity of Europe, yet their extremism and their radical designs against many of their own among the nations of Europe doomed their movement from the start.  Communism was then thrust upon Europe by the same foreigners who constituted a central piece of the Nazis racial agenda.  When that system failed its initial masters, they rose to power and affluence in the West, toppling European cultural institutions, racial integrity, the values -the virtues of our people- that have always driven us to excel, to accept and improve upon our culture rooted in its traditions, its senses of honor, duty, and moral spirit, its faiths -Protestant and Catholic alike, to give us the plagued and entrenched society of today.
Americans battle foreigners a world away in order to instill what gifts of Western society yet remain and to protect the haughty and power of Israel and its race -who do not share our origins or our interests- from their bitter enemies.  Britons and other Europeans are under siege in their very cities from a host of Arabs, Persians, and Turks who suppress any perceived slight against their races, the 1400 years-dead troublemaker who gave birth to their fanaticisms, or the proclaimed pacifism and moderation of their sects.
Who can combat these trends that target our religion, our morality, our integrity, and encourage the dilution and perversion of our kind?  Not America.  Here, a godless tribe holds the reigns -never taking the highest offices for themselves- just those that make the decisions that benefit their kin.  They battle another force led by others of the same tribe who seek to focus on destroying the culture, the society in which they were reared, introducing buggery as a tolerable alternative to marriage and family-raising, atheism as a “rational” replacement for deism and faith, and diversity of race in place of diversity of ideas (for all ideas that may countermand their objectives are anti-Semitic, homophobic, intolerant rather than moral, just, or righteous- what we always called them for the centuries before this foreign race won the war of discourse).  So, here, it is neo-cons versus liberals; the former not conservatives at all and the latter so different from liberals in the classical and authentic sense of the word, it’s enough to make one cry.  With true liberals and conservatives of our race removed from the seats of authority, there is no champion in America to reclaim and resume the millennia of Western progress (again, in the true sense, and not the contemporary and repellent sense of the word) which our people have crafted.  Is there such a power to ever fight that good fight?

Posted by Don Reynolds on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:45 | #

Why not curse and blame William the Conqueror, since he was the first to allow Jews into England in the first place?

The now common word Holocaust was not invented for the Nazis of WWII, it was originally a word used to describe the slaughter of the Jews in England centuries ago.

In 1217, the Jews of England were required to wear yellow badges to identify them in public. Lemmie see, the Nazis required Jews in occupied countries to wear yellow badges too, in the shape of the star of david.

Of course, he would never admit it, and it is too late to ask him now, but maybe Hitler got his solution for the Jewish problem from English history.

One of my favorite British Jews was David Ricardo, whose contributions to economic science will never be fully appreciated. (Yes, he converted to Quaker.)

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:30 | #

Why not curse and blame William the Conqueror, since he was the first to allow Jews into England in the first place?

It is reasonable to argue that the experience with Jews during this early period was relatively benign.  It had been, after all, just a few centuries since Jews had allied with the Goths during their destruction of Roman tyranny and the rise of Christianity.

However, as the relationship progressed, it became fairly apparent that the relationship was lop-sided—hence the expulsions from various parts of Christendom began.

It’s cute to portray Edwardian England as the origin “The Holocaust” but not too many people are going to swallow that horseshit… try again.

David Ricardo, like many Jewish economists (he converted to Unitarians not Quakers), did have to deal somewhat with reality so you should expect them to come up with some reasonable constructs from time to time—especially when it is to their advantage to do so.  I too do respect Ricardo’s conception of rent, just as I do the ostensible support of Henry George’s single tax on land value among NY Jews during the competition between Marx and George for prominence, and more recently Milton Friedman’s support for economic rent tax as “the least distorting” of tax bases.

However, in all these cases their support was more a placeholder than an effective position of advocacy.

Indeed, it was Ricardo’s refusal to place appropriate priority on tax reform that made his opposition to agricultural tariffs necessary and led to the law of comparative advantages being so stupendously over-rated that now the US is being reduced to a third world economy and its human capital destroyed.

Likewise the support for Henry George led not to the widespread adoption of his ideas but to Henry George’s death just prior to his bid for Mayor of NYC and the spread not only of Marx’s ideas worldwide but the tragic conversion of George’s ideas into a “progressive” income tax coupled with the takeover of currency by the Federal Reserve—a nightmare from which the US may never awake.

Finally Milton Friedman—rather than placing appropriate emphasis on “the least distorting” tax base—left that comment relegated to a foot-note in his career and produced—instead—the withholding system for the income tax.

By their fruits ye shall know them…

In the case of Ricardo and NYC Georgists, it is reasonable to argue that Jews were not in a position to collect economic rent and hence were quite rationally self-interested in exposing the corruption of rent-seeking.

The case of Friedman is more interesting:  His rise to prominence came just after WW II during a time when Jews were quite a bit more circumspect about the collection of economic rent that had occurred during the Wiemar period by Jews exploiting hyperinflation—and also the public choice version of economic rent within communist centralization of political control (as opposed to centralization of wealth of capitalism by rent-seeking by private parties) that may have led to the Ukrainian Holodomor just prior to and possibly triggering Hitler’s election to Chancellor.

Posted by Hammerfall on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:42 | #

Ed, thanks for that.  You have a lot of insight and it was a very smart post.
The key points you made:
-the white race has been taken out of political control by jews who are called members of the white race even though they aren’t
-both sides of politics in the US are dominated by jewish decision makers
-fags, interracial crap, and antireligious war is being caused by jewish liberals
-US military in the middle east is fighting for israel due to jewish neocons
(on a side note: the main thing that osama bin laden and the iran said the most was they did what they did or are doing what they are doing because of the US support for israel but when the big news channels like cnn and bbc looked at those stories that was hardly ever mentioned or discussed….. how stupid. who controls the news???)
-europe is full of ragheads and they riot whenever something upsets them and they are a threat so that the govs cant do what they need to for the ppl
-“the war of discourse” you mean that we dont say things like moral, just, and righteous but we now say stuff like antisemitic, homophobe, and intollerant.
theres a few good points. i dunno if theres a way to turn it around but someones gotta try

Posted by Brandon on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 08:00 | #

““I think it appropriate to preface the title of all messages about the aftermath of Disraeli’s imperialism”

An excellent way to phrase it.  I’ve long suspected that the suicidal, self-destructive malaise afflicting the US, Canada and Britain today is a direct product of the “globalist imperialism” that Disraeli in particular so arrogantly and irritatingly embraced.  Empires are fun for a few haughty elites in the imperial country, but they’re tremendously destructive to the masses of native populations in the home countries—and when Empires decline and fall, these days at least, they transform into the abomination of “multiracial globalism” we have today. 

It’s always stricken me how brutal and destructive the British Empire was to the White working and middle classes in Britain, whom the aristocrats viewed with contempt and even hatred.  The working class White stiffs were viewed as expendable pawns for the Empire.  No different today—even though the Empire has disappeared, the hard-working White stiffs are still little more than cannon fodder for the globalist British elite.  And they’re to be worked to exhaustion, then tossed aside and conveniently replaced in a couple generations with more pliable “wogs” who don’t speak up so much for their rights, and don’t have this annoying focus on things like common ethnic bonds and a European heritage.

No wonder so many White Britons and Canadians seem to be ditching those places today.  Who wants to be post-imperialist (globalist) cannon-fodder anymore?  I met a pleasant, well-educated chap in Bradford, England a while back who was practicing German in a park, en route to moving to work in Switzerland.  He said something telling—to the effect that, he wanted to look at his grandchildren decades down the road, and see something of himself in them.  He was a Saxon who wanted his grandkids and greatgrandkids to be Saxons, which is reasonable enough—who wants his heritage to basically disappear, drowned out in a wave of Third-World onslaughts, within a couple generations? 

This is supposed to be “enlightened”?  Yet this is exactly what the “sophisticated” culture in the US, Britain and Canada are pushing for—a non-White majority and the dilution, and eventual disappearance of traces of a White, European heritage.  A recent report noted that among Caribbean Blacks in the United Kingdom, almost 40% had children with Whites, with the children identifying as Black.  (Increasing numbers of Whites there have no kids at all.)  As this Caribbean and African subpopulation rapidly expands, more and more White Saxon and Celtic fathers are having to watch in dismay as their daughters (and occasionally sons) give birth to Black grandkids, which happens even further with later generations and progressively dilutes out any traces of a Saxon/Celtic heritage.

Old-fashioned Mendelian genetics at work.  So this fine chap in Bradford was making a decision for his heritage and his future that’s pretty consistent with very ancient biological laws of human behavior.  I guess Switzerland wasn’t quite so overtaken with the mass migration madness that he’d been seeing across the Channel, ergo there’s a greater probability that his genetic heritage would survive in an Alpine enclave than back home.  Genetic integrity requires a degree of segregation.  Anyone know other, reasonably reliable (relatively—nothing’s perfect these days) places like that, to protect the inheritance of our blood and heritage from the modern hordes?  Considering the stats in Arizona these days (young school-age population over 50% non-White), I’m certainly not raising my kids here.

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:22 | #

I dont totally agree about the cannon fodder thing. That doesnt really apply other than the Napoleonic wars and WW1. The British Army was tiny through most of the expansion of the Empire, only needing small numbers of volunteers.

Of course the Navy had the press gang but again that was not most of the time.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:00 | #

The real problem with imperialism, and the immediate way it attacks the people of the imperial country, is by putting the people of the country into competition with foreign labor—competition that ultimately returns to the homeland.

Guys like Disraeli, the Rothschilds, the slave-trading Maranos, etc. are all about collecting economic rent via lowered wages.  They will do anything to avoid taxation of their economic rent and are insightful enough to use the threat of such taxation against the existing elite during their rise to rentiers in a newly invaded territory.

The British Empire was essentially a way to keep wages low despite the fact that the American West (and Canada, Australia and New Zealand) offered higher returns on self-employed labor than the rentiers could compete with—and this was forcing rentiers to turn to technologists to save them via the development and deployment of industrial technologies.  The indigenous elite of the UK didn’t object to this so much—despite how much has been made of the conflict between the landed gentry and industrialists—but if there is one thing that the Semitic culture likes less than a dominant Yeoman class, as was emerging in the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, it is handing over real power to technologists.  If you don’t need large populations, who are you going to lord it over?

Posted by Faldo on Sun, 24 Dec 2006 07:32 | #

‘The British Army was tiny through most of the expansion of the Empire, only needing small numbers of volunteers.’

Yeah, I had once read this before too—there were definitely some wars in which cannon fodder was profligately used to “protect” the Empire (Australians at Gallipoli, as my cousin there still bitterly points out), but overall you didn’t see that sort of a mass drafting of young British men in most cases.

In fact, I read in one of those newer histories of the Empire that well over half the land in the empire was basically uninhabited and unchallenged—the northern reaches of Canada for example, interior of Australia.  And in fact, contrary to what I’d once thought, most of India actually was never within the British Empire, before or after the Raj—only eastern India really (which did indeed have a nasty time of it), the rest of India was either fully independent or it was more a matter of tributary princes and states who ran their own statelets, though they would more or less cooperate with the Raj’s economic system.  The figure of ‘25% of the world’s land surface and population within the British Empire’ is way exaggerated, a big fraction of British policy in India, Africa and Malaya consisted of these sorts of tributary state arrangements with independent states (this was before modern countries had sprung up)—in areas not under direct British rule, the operating goal was keeping the ports open for trade.

So in general the Empire didn’t have to mass-recruit soldiers especially outside of Europe, the way they did against Napoleon (or in the American Revolution, when the UK was also fighting against the French and Spanish).  There were exceptions I guess, like in Britain’s serial disasters and defeats against Afghanistan after the 1830’s, some meddling in South America in the early 19th century that apparently didn’t go too well.  But for the most part, seems like a good portion of the Empire really wasn’t within the Empire, like in India it was a bunch of independent princes who more or less played ball.  Saves expenses on all those distant wars, I guess.

Still, I think the original post might have been using the cannon-fodder analogy metaphorically.  There were of course many wars in which poor and working-class British whites were used as cannon-fodder on the battlefield, but there’s also the fact that even those not sent to war were basically used up as “industrial cannon fodder” back home, forced to service the elites while not deriving squat for benefit from the Empire themselves—in fact, being injured by its impact on wages and fair working conditions like what James was mentioning in his last post. 

And frankly I’d more or less opine that white working-class Brits today really are something like industrial cannon fodder again, with the situation made even worse by the mass importation of cheap Third World Commonwealth labor and the effective race-replacement of the Anglo-Saxons and Celts in Britain.  I’ve always been suspicious about the Commonwealth’s true aims, and I’ll bet that wage suppression, and a steady supply and stream of cheap, manipulable “coolie” labor to Britain (and other otherwise higher-wage white Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia) has a lot to do with the maintenance of this anachronism.  Those stats above (on Caribbean black intermarriage rates with British whites) are shocking but consistent with what I’ve noticed.  Social panache in modern Britain today, for British women at least, seems to correlate proportionally with either 1) being childless and single permanently, Sex in the City-style, or 2) shunning ones fellow whites entirely and having “rainbow” kids with Caribbeans or South Asians.  Sad that Britain is thusly slitting its own throat in the process.

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 04:17 | #

Im not disagreeing with the general thrust of the argument. Just that when it comes to actual cannon fodder!

In fact when it comes to fighting, white forces seem to be able to defeat non-white forces of geometrically larger magnitude. Spanish in South America, Brits vs Zulus, whites in Rhodesia etc

Posted by Razib Speaks on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:27 | #

“As a friend of mine noted, two groups are fixated on my race and skin color: white racists and those who believe I am a “sell out” or a traitor to my own interests because as a person-of-color I must agree with ‘progressive’ precepts…. The fixation on my race-mixing ways and dark complexion is rooted in fact, I’m an enthusiastic race-mixer as well as being very dark of color for the white European norm….But it does strike me as strange sometimes that white nationalists and anti-racists are the two groups who hurl at me the same insults in fact, if not intent…. I can’t believe Ed is so ignorant that he doesn’t know this, instead, he chooses to consciously be coarser in his classification of my identity and simply lump me into the broad amorphous swath of benighted colored folk…. For the record, I regularly get satirical insults that are racist in content if not intent. That’s fine, I’m just saying it’s creepy…. As to the last point, what is “my culture”? Is my culture defined by the blood in my veins, or the choices I make as an American?... Insofar as I identify as brown I accept the reality as it is, and I accept how people might perceive me. So is life. I am a man who lives within a brown skin, and so I assume people perceive me…. This has no resonance with me since my family is of Muslim background, but looking at my skin, my hair and the gentle lines of my lush South Asian face I can see where one may might mistake me….Now, as to racism and stereotyping, there is the good and the bad. When I was in 8th grade I was at dance in a rural area of Oregon. The girl I was dancing with had short blond hair and she was slim (about 5’4). We were slow dancing and I was up close to her. I was a skinny and shrimpy thing and I was a bit nervous about asking her, but hey, I’d been making eyes at her and she hadn’t looked away, so I went for it. And boom, she was in my arms. But about 10 minutes into it I felt a punch to the back, and the next thing that happened I was under some drunk asshole who was screaming “N*igger!!! N*igger!!!!” at me. My buddy piled on top of the guy even though he was smaller and younger, and the redneck’s friends started jumping in. I had one other back up, and he dove into the action too. We were getting hammered, but the goal wasn’t to win, it was to keep going until someone broke it up. And sure enough, one of the chaperones, a bigass cowboy started beating the crap out of us all and it was over. There were some other slurs about me dancing with a white girl, etc. etc. My adrenaline was all up. One of my buds had a pretty sensitive nose and of course he was bleeding all over the place. We got the hell out of there before the authorities got into it and we got into the paper or something stupid like that (my violent brown parents would have beat me, you see!). The drunk cowboys, all underage pretty obviously (I think they were 10th, or 11th, grade) also took off real quickly before they were hit with an MIP. That was probably the most intense experience with racism I had, though I’ve had my fair share of “SSSAAANNNDDDD N*IIIGGGEEEERRRR!!!!! yelled at me by rednecks in trucks as they drove past. A few times I would be playing basketball with friends and they’d get pissed at me and call me a “sand n*igger!” or something like that in anger. Not pretty stuff. Not very latent…. I simply don’t envy white people with their skin privilege because I don’t envy most people, I like who I am, it is who I am. I like my level of intelligence, I relish my interests and I cherish my friends…. I guess I just don’t care much, I’m not very sensitive to other people’s opinions, I’m pretty self-absorbed. ...Pulling out the “race card,” I was born in one of the poorest countries in the world. I’ve seen abject poverty, individuals suffering from severe malnutrition. I count my blessings, and when I’m overwhelmed with my bourgeois apprehensions I do remember that my stomach is full, there is a roof over my head and there are people who love me in the world…. Re: the racial incidents above, I don’t want people to freak out about them. I use them to show that I am aware that bigotry exists, but note that I lived in a very conservative (that conservatives are more outwardly racist is a stereotype that is true) area…”

Posted by cognitive elitism on Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:08 | #

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061227/od_nm/india_chess1_dc

We need hundreds of thousands of such highly intelligent, skilled immigrants per year.