FROM JERUSALEM TO BERLIN TO MOSCOW

Posted by wintermute on August 05, 2007, 02:16 PM | #

From Golgotha to Stalingrad

That would make a very eye-catching title for Constantin’s autobiography. It certainly seems to sum up what he’s about.

A geopolitical axis that runs from Jerusalem to Berlin to Moscow would uphold
a spiritual legacy as well as form a security alliance of peoples that are
connected through the common bond of a shared culture, namely the Western
one.

Here is a good reason to pay attention to insane people, as Soren does. Often, they are simply mimicking, Budgie-like, thoughts or ideas of real importance.

Behind Constantin’s somewhat unglued nattering concerning a “Eurosiberian Empire” and a Jerusalem-Berlin-Moscow “axis” are real thoughts by a serious man who intends to aid our cause and not merely to parody it.

I direct interested readers to Michael O’Meara’s “Boreas Rising” from Volume 4, Issue 4 of the Occidental Quarterly, found here: http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no4/mo-boreas.html in which he discusses a “Paris-Berlin-Moscow” axis as a real counterweight to NATO and Anglo-American power.

There, a genuine thinker makes real arguments that may or may not be of use to us as a people and a civilization. You will find your time and attention better repaid by that article than by other articles you may find being profiled on the front page of Majority Rights.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 05, 2007, 02:43 PM | #

I don’t like his emphasis on Moscow.  He doesn’t say “Berlin, Rome, Vienna, Paris, London, Edinburgh, Zurich, Madrid” but “Berlin, Moscow.”  Isn’t he leaving out a lot?  He puts Moscow too high.  Yes of course Moscow is part of Europe but he puts it in a place it hasn’t earned, can’t justify, and doesn’t deserve.

Someone said CvH’s mother was American.  Was she of Russian descent, does anyone know?  (I am myself, partly, through my mother.)

“A geopolitical axis that runs from Jerusalem to Berlin to Moscow would uphold a spiritual legacy as well as form a security alliance of peoples that are connected through the common bond of a shared culture, namely the Western one. This alliance would provide a bulwark against the enemies of the West,”  (—from the CvH statement)

I for one am no longer so sure Jews are or want to be part of the West, or that they even intend to refrain from trying to dismantle the Western cultural heritage.  A year ago I would have said as CvH says.  No longer.  Jews are up to something non-Western.  I can’t tell exactly what they have in mind but they seem to be veering off on their own in search of their original Semitic Western-Asiatic identity and roots.  They’re showing more and more resentment of, disdain for, even hatred of, and insolence in regard to, Europeanness in all its manifestations — which means Westernness.  I think the Jews are planning to join the East, not the West.  Furthermore, with diaspora Jews worldwide not only supporting the race-replacement of Euros worldwide but supporting it with a passion, an insistence, a fanaticism bordering on the religious, how could it be otherwise than that the Jews are going through a process of final, ultimate rejection of Europe?

“While Moscow would be responsible for defending the eastern border of the empire against the yellow menace, Jerusalem would have the task of holding the Islamic world at bay by controlling the Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates, imposing civilization and order.”

This vision of CvH’s may not correspond to reality.  Again, it’s starting to be clear that Jews see Europeans (in the broad sense of Europeans proper plus the European diaspora peoples around the world) as undesirables roughly on the same level of undesirability as Arabs.  They don’t desire to belong to European Civilization or The West, but appear to plan on striking out on their own and re-connecting with their original Near-eastern roots —  actually, Middle-eastern, considering Abraham was from the Middle-east, not the Near-east.

There’s a mix of good and bad stuff in the rest of his piece.  One of the good things is his identifying America as part of the real Axis of Evil.  For its support of the imposition of race-replacement on its own population and around the Eurosphere, America now qualifies as one of the most evil countries that has ever existed since the dawn of civilisation, possibly the most evil.
______

Soren, what happened to the interviews?  No more are planned?  If you can, try to interview Carole Ward.

Posted by wintermute on August 05, 2007, 03:20 PM | #

I don’t like his emphasis on Moscow.

Really? Is there anything else about Constantin’s proposed Jerusalem to Siberia ‘Empire of the Spirit’ that you find odd or off-putting?

One of the good things is his identifying America as part of the real Axis of Evil.

This is also present, thought of course in a serious formulation, in O’Meara. Yockey was, I believe, the first to identify the primacy of the American threat to the continuance of life to the European peoples.

Though I think O’Meara’s work is of the first order, and though I also respect Tom Sunic for his writing on similar topics, I feel bound to point out that America is not a unipolar power. It is part of a spiritual unity, Yankee-Judea or Anglo-America just as you like.

Interested readers are directed to Christopher Hitchens’ best but least known work, “Blood, Class and Nostalgia” and Quigley’s “Anglo-American Establishment”.

The disease that we are was incubated in Albion’s innards and grown to term on this virgin continent, though we were not in any real sense “conceived in liberty”. The abortive conversations on the Prindle threads would have shown that, given time. The horror that GW sees in his American looking-glass is his very own face. I am glad that he pronounces as he does on the need for the individual psychological changes that are going to have to take place in Americans, but when that he has guarded that spark until it blazes, he will find himself ablaze, too.

People think my musings on the real unities and continuity of European cultures are too ‘spiritual’ or ‘airy’ or ‘inconsequential’. But they are as real and as practical as a diagnosis of cancer by an oncologist.

When Britain plunged the dagger into Germany’s heart fifty years ago, given that they are one body, why should any intelligent Englishman express suprise and even shock that his own nation is collapsing uncontrollably before his eyes? It is because both nations are the same. Normally, when a nation is ‘victorious’ in war, she shows signs of triumph, economic and cultural vitality, and similar phenomenon. Following the war, America and Britain entered uncontrollably downward spirals so steep that now, less than a century after their ‘victory’, they are now looking at PHYSICAL EXTINCTION.

How comes this surprising state? Once you understand the unity of Western European culture, then you will see that betrayal of any part of it will result in detriment to all. That is what it means to be an organism. People here itching to betray Spain, Italy, and Greece, will find the same fate awaits them as met previous generations who betrayed their own.

Venice arranges a sack of Constantinople, within a century or so, Asia Minor is full of Turks, not Greeks or Christians. Every area ceded by Europeans will be turned against them. This also includes Americans who plan to leave their own spiritual coterminance with “Old Europe” in the closet. They will also find themselves beset by strange symptoms. When you internalize the principle that, when you attack yourself, you are injured, only then can you make useful political deliberations. From the state of this board, it is plain that useful politcal deliberations for our race-culture are still a ways off.

Hope springs eternal.

Posted by Scimitar on August 05, 2007, 10:21 PM | #

Another scenario: From Jerusalem to Berlin to Moscow (the Holy Triangle of Occidental tradition and European power): Will our race live or die?

What?

Posted by Scimitar on August 05, 2007, 10:32 PM | #

During the 20C, Europe heaped up its own funeral pyre and set itself on fire through petty nationalism and class warfare. Fortunately, North America was spared this problem. The American tradition of racial nationalism muted ethnic and class differences in a way that did not happen in Europe.

Posted by Scimitar on August 05, 2007, 10:57 PM | #

Does anyone else see the irony in Big Von echoing Stokley Carmichael while decrying America as a threat to the white race? Big Von writes:

Russia, of course, has the legacy of the Soviet Union, the most powerful socialist empire that has yet existed. Since only a socialist system can safeguard the racial integrity of the future Eurosiberian empire (through the implementation of collective institutions that serve the folk as a whole rather than the individuals comprising it), it is important to build upon tried and tested socialist systems of the past.

The frickin’ Soviet Union which was, of course, the world epicenter of anti-racism for over fifty years. Something tells me that the whites of Sub-Saharan Africa would beg to differ with Big Von’s interpretation of their history. The Boers have had first hand experience withAnimals Neclacking and Communism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 05, 2007, 11:20 PM | #

“The frickin’ Soviet Union which was, of course, the world epicenter of anti-racism for over fifty years. Something tells me that the whites of Sub-Saharan Africa would beg to differ with Big Von’s interpretation of their history.”  (—Scimitar)

Right, but Big Von is running with a different Moscow crowd than those who staffed the Marxist World Anti-Racism Command-and-Control Center for seventy-odd years:  the difference between those men, who were plain bolsheviks, and Von’s crowd, who are national bolsheviks, is precisely that the latter acknowledge race while the former pretended not to. 

That said, it is beyond dispute that Big Von is one confused dude.  He has potential, yes.  But he’s got a way to go yet ...

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 05, 2007, 11:28 PM | #

This CvH is a dissimulator, a redirect agent, who is throwing out disinfo and agitprop in an attempt to confuse people more honest than himself. There are many people like that, so you don’t have to worry about this latest example.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 05, 2007, 11:57 PM | #

Soren, what’s your take on this speech?  Are CvH’s critics misinterpreting him?  As I said in another thread, he sounded much better in the spontaneous interview you did with him than he sounds in his formal writings — way better.  (Or better yet:  CvH, if you’re reading this thread, how about setting us straight, if we’re mistaken?)

Posted by wintermute on August 05, 2007, 11:58 PM | #

During the 20C, Europe heaped up its own funeral pyre and set itself on fire through petty nationalism and class warfare. Fortunately, North America was spared this problem.

North America was perhaps “spared” this problem in your estimation, but it visited its industrial and military might against Europe twice, and is now paying a terrible price for its actions.

I think it is unjust to say Europe “set itself on fire” when the fuel and the bombers all were stamped “Made in the U.S.A.”

Even Winston Churchill regretted that the United States had ever joined in on the first World War.

“Suddenly a nation of one hundred and twenty millions unfurls her standard on what is already the stronger side; suddenly the most numerous democracy in the world, long posing as a judge, is hurled, nay, hurls itself into the conflict.”

He was not alone. His political opponent James Ramsay MacDonald, one of the leaders of the British Labour Party, expressed similar thoughts. MacDonald, who had been trying to get England out of the war since the beginning, expressed concern that America’s appearance on the battlefield would frustate ongoing peace attempts. In England and in France talking about peace became little less than high treason. Who wanted peace now? With America on her side the allies were sure of the final humiliation of the enemy.

Years later, in August 1936, Churchill, then an ordinary Conservative member of the British parliament, gave an interview on this matter to mr. William Griffin, editor of the New York Enquirer, who stayed in London at that time. “America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War”, Churchill was quoted.

In the interview Churchill explained that the fighting parties at that time - Spring 1917 - were ready for peace. The 1916 disasters of Jutland, Verdun and Somme had taken most, if not all, of the fighting spirit out of Germany, Britain and France. There had been already several peace-proposals from German and Austrian sides and there were attempts at mediation going on by neutral Danish, Swedish and even American negotiators.

Churchill: “Peace at that moment would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.”

But because the United States suddenly wanted their share of the war all peace-talk became useless.

“Hurls itself into the conflict” and “Europe heaped up its own funeral pyre and set itself on fire” are worlds apart.

Posted by wintermute on August 06, 2007, 12:34 AM | #

“Hurls itself into the conflict” and “Europe heaped up its own funeral pyre and set itself on fire” are worlds apart.

More on this topic from Harry Elmer Barnes, The World War of 1914-1918, written in 1939.

It was generally believed in 1917 and thereafter that the intervention of the United States in the World War on the side of the Allies saved human civilization. It was lauded as one of the most noble and fortunate episodes in the history of man on the planet. Today, there is a great deal of skepticism about any such judgment. There is a tendency now to see in American intervention one of the major calamities in modern history—a calamity for the Allies and the United States as well as for the Central Powers.

Let us assume the worst possible result of American neutrality in 1917-18. If we had not gone into the war the worst imaginable result would have been a German victory. But no sane person can very well conceive that the world would be any worse off today if the Germans had won under the Hohenzollerns.

We used to picture the horrors of a Germany and a Europe dominated by the Crown Prince and his followers. But, compared to Hitler, Mussolini and Company, the Crown Prince and his crowd now appear to be cultivated gentlemen, urbane democrats, and sincere pacifists. A more warlike world than the present could hardly have been created as a result of German victory, and certainly the economic situation in Europe since 1918 would have been far better under a Europe dominated by monarchist Germany.

But there is hardly a remote possibility that Germany would have won the war, even if the United States had not come in on the side of the Allies. Germany was eager to negotiate a fair peace arrangement at the time when Roy Howard’s “knock-out victory” interview with British war-secretary Lloyd George put an end to all prospect of successful negotiations. We now know that the Lloyd George outburst was directly caused by his assurance that the United States was surely coming in on the side of the Allies. Had Wilson remained strictly neutral, there is little doubt that sincere peace negotiations would have been actively carried on by the summer of 1916.

There is every reason to believe that the result of American neutrality throughout the European conflict would have been the “peace without victory,” which Woodrow Wilson described in his most statesmanlike pronouncement during the period of the World War. We would have had a negotiated peace treaty made by relative equals. This would not have been a perfect document but it would certainly have been far superior to the Treaty of Versailles.

Had we remained resolutely neutral from the beginning, the negotiated peace would probably have saved the world from the last two terrible years of war. Whenever it came, it would have rendered unnecessary the brutal blockade of Germany for months after the World War, a blockade which starved to death hundreds of thousands of German women and children. This blockade was the one great authentic atrocity of the World War period. In all probability, the neutrality of the United States would also have made impossible the rise of Mussolini and Hitler—products of post-war disintegration —and the coming of a second world war.

For the record, the starvation blockade killed about 750,000 Germans. And for what? What did America gain for her triumph? A concentration of power in the hands of the federal government and a fulfillment of the dreams of Wilson’s puppeteers: Warburg, Baruch and Untermeyer.

Churchill again:

“America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.”

Posted by wintermute on August 06, 2007, 12:41 AM | #

(Or better yet:  CvH, if you’re reading this thread, how about setting us straight, if we’re mistaken?)

Or not. Will the presence of CvH ennoble or improve the atmosphere here, or will it merely add to the general fun-house atmosphere of false alternatives for Western Man?

I think it is enough that Soren has reprinted the speech and that it is featured on the front page. Surely that is enough high camp for this blog. It is enough that we watch the movie about the clown. Actually inviting the clown strikes me as a mistake.

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 06, 2007, 01:24 AM | #

He is not a clown (unless he is REALLY stupid). That’s being far too generous. He is a conscious redirect agent who is deliberately channeling discontent up a dead end. I mean, just read this chain of reasoning, for example:

“It is quite clear that Christians worship an alien god. Since Christianity is the majority religion in Europe, it is then no surprise that Europeans are essentially alienated from their own spiritual heritage….

Nevertheless, Europe has prospered not because OR
despite of Christianity but WITH it. Christian Europe has been the REAL Europe.

...This is why, for both spiritual and cultural reasons, it is important that modern Israel be accepted as part of the future Eurosiberian empire. A geopolitical axis that runs from Jerusalem to Berlin to Moscow would uphold a spiritual legacy as well as form a security alliance of peoples that are
connected through the common bond of a shared culture, namely the Western one.”

According to Van Hoffmeister, European Christians are worshipping an alien God, which has utterly “alienated” them from their true heritage. So what does Van Hoffmeister (truly, WHAT kind of a pseudonym is THAT?) advise we do? Instead of redressing the alienation of Europe, he flips to a brand new claim that the REAL EUROPE is precisely this state of alienation. He is essentially arguing in FAVOUR of alienation for Europeans.

He then draws the policy implication that Europe should be politically united with Israel, with which he claims we “share” a common “Western” culture (plus a whole swathe of the Earth’s landmass - this guy’s a straight down the line one worlder), even though he previously suggested that by worshipping a Jewish God we have alienated ourselves from our true heritage. So, according to Von Hoffmeister, we must remain permanently alienated from our true selves, join a security alliance with the source of our alienation - absurdly on the grounds that we share a “common culture” with it - and thus forge a transnational government.

More from Hoffmeister:

“While Anglo-American terrorism and aggression directed against all peoples, and specifically against Europeans, continues unabated today, it is important to remember and recognize that Israel, Germany and Russia were some of the principal opponents of imperialism in the 20th century.”

And that seals it. I have never read so much b******* in my entire existence. This is not a circus anymore. It’s enemy action behind lines.

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 06, 2007, 01:46 AM | #

Some choice quotes from Von Dissimulater (on second thoughts, maybe he is neither a clown nor a disinfo agent, but simply a lunatic who requires urgent attention from the relevant authorities):

“We need to break the wall of silence. Martyrs crucified are perplexed: one day dead in war for peace, the next worshipped but insulted.”

“What we see is a tapestry of terror, complete with
copulating comedians and frightened fighters…”

“Another scenario: From Jerusalem to Berlin to Moscow (the Holy Triangle of Occidental tradition and European power)”

“The skulls on the hill, the bones in the streets, a reflection of a pale past that, while not without glory, admonishes us now to beware of the enemy on the Right and to heed the friend on the Left.”

“Fundamentalist Islam is an agent of globalization. Hence, Muslim fundamentalists are imperialists in their own right.”

“Racism is sacred. Diversity is the strength of humanity. Supremacy is the strength of our race. To rule with a few the many is the destiny of the ones that choose themselves. A chosen people chooses to be chosen.”

In Australia it is called “wank”. In the US, it is oftentimes referred to as “baloney”. In Britain, I believe they prefer the more delicate term “tosh”. Wherever you were brought up, this “speech” of Constantine Von Hoffmeister’s is the most concentrated litany of UTTER GARBAGE I have ever read on the internet, and that’s saying quite a lot. It should ONLY be reproduced on these pages as an shining example of dishonest propaganda, chronic untreated mental illness, or perhaps both.

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 06, 2007, 01:57 AM | #

Here, “Von Hoffmeister” writes adoring poems to Kim Jong Il:

http://www.korea-dpr.com/cgi-bin/simpleforum.cgi?fid=01&page=28

Posted by wintermute on August 06, 2007, 02:32 AM | #

Bears repeating:

KIM IL SUNG’S DIRECTION

by Constantin von Hoffmeister

the Great Leader knew with enlightened fury
to crush the enemy with the fists of the folk
to traverse the path towards long day bliss
when illuminates a place of peace
collective combat a bond cements
revolution from below and from the heart
the legacy of the Great Leader
through pen and sword put forth
the long day lasting love extended
through unity bound people parade
& past the facts of instructive columns
all bow before the Great Leader’s gift
to give is to receive
the leader and his nation
the tower and the field
as arrows point to the lodestar ablaze
a single beam the cosmic will
& destiny decreed
one nation decides to live!

Posted by Scimitar on August 06, 2007, 03:21 AM | #

North America was perhaps “spared” this problem in your estimation, but it visited its industrial and military might against Europe twice, and is now paying a terrible price for its actions.

In both cases, the United States was drawn into conflicts started by Europeans, well into the hostilities, long after Canada, and against the will of most Americans. It makes no sense to talk of “Europe” during the world wars. “Europe” was busily tearing itself apart over nationalistic grievances. If ethnic bigotry and class hatred hadn’t been such a problem in Europe, tens of millions of Europeans wouldn’t have slaughtered themselves in the 20C.

American civilization has its flaws, but it is not without its virtues: by downplaying ethnicity and social class, while emphasizing racial sameness, America was spared the sordid history of Europe from 1914-1991. You can’t look at Ireland vs. Ulster or Croatia vs. Serbia or Germany vs. Poland or Flemings vs. Walloons or Balts vs. Russians and not be impressed with how these waring nationalities came to live together in peace in North America.

I think it is unjust to say Europe “set itself on fire” when the fuel and the bombers all were stamped “Made in the U.S.A.”

If Europe had not been partitioned between warring linguistically defined nation-states captured by fanatical, chest-beating, bellicose nationalists, neither WW1 or WW2 (or the Napoleonic Wars) would ever have happened. The logic of nationalism could only have produced animosity and war in that context.

Even Winston Churchill regretted that the United States had ever joined in on the first World War.

A Europe of Churchills, Mussolinis, and Hitlers - extending this analogy - Calvins, Luthers, Zwinglis, Loyolas - could only have ended one way.

I don’t think we really disagree on this issue. As you have said many times yourself, you like to take the broader view. I share this outlook. But this is what mystifies me: what could possibly be more narrowminded, more self-absorbed, more inconsiderate of the welfare of other Europeans than fascism?

Posted by Scimitar on August 06, 2007, 03:42 AM | #

And that seals it. I have never read so much b******* in my entire existence. This is not a circus anymore. It’s enemy action behind lines.

I almost spit out my water when I heard that one. Russia was not an imperialist power? Can someone please pass the memo to Big Von?

http://www.wall-maps.com/Classroom/HISTORY/World/ExpansionOfRussianEmpire187.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_wall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Afghanistan

The Soviets stuck their noses into the internal affairs of nations on five continents.

Germany wasn’t an imperialist power?

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/map/lc/image/eur72160.gif

Posted by Scimitar on August 06, 2007, 03:44 AM | #

Note: Can someone please delete the images above? The blog seems to have automatically put tags around my links.

Posted by PF on August 06, 2007, 03:46 AM | #

When Britain plunged the dagger into Germany’s heart fifty years ago, given that they are one body, why should any intelligent Englishman express suprise and even shock that his own nation is collapsing uncontrollably before his eyes? It is because both nations are the same.

I appreciate your opinion as always WM, but have to disagree here.

Without trying to sound too obnoxious (it comes easy to me), I invite you to come and live amongst Germans, and live amongst Englishmen, and tell me if they are the same nation.

If GW ever went to Dessau, he would encounter this: a thousand closed doors, closed minds, closed hearts. A few nice people yes, but all exceptions. If a Dessauer goes to Sconthorpe or whatever, he also finds himself in a strange land. I wish you would actually try living amongst the people you philosophize about to see if your theories fit in with their reality and view of the world. Do you know Europe? Do you care how Europeans view themselves, or do you think your vision suprecedes their own?

Posted by PF on August 06, 2007, 05:13 AM | #

The skulls on the hill,
the bones in the streets, a reflection of a pale past that, while not without glory, admonishes us now to beware of the enemy on the Right and to heed the friend on the Left.

A couple more hits of acid, and Hoffmeister’s essays are going to get really interesting. This could be just the beginning of something wonderful. Keep us posted, Soren.

Posted by Morbus on August 06, 2007, 07:30 AM | #

Well, the thesis in this speech is very complicated, but at the very least I can agree with a much simpler conclusion:  That the “multicultural global empire” idea that underlies the curent cultures of the US, UK, Canada and their satellites, is the most dangerous and destructive enemy that White civilization has ever known.

The British are still stuck in their fantasies of the Empire before their defeats of the past 150 years, so much so that the UK floods in about 600,000 non-Whites every year, pushing its native Whites out and crushing the very meaning of being “English.”  The USA is doing the same thing, as is Canada, and also New Zealand.  All of these countries, stupidly overwhelmingly and crushing their White populations under the mantra of “diversity.” 

To the extent that these stupid ideas from the US and UK spill into other White nations—especially the Continental nations like Denmark and Germany, which have traditionally been much more protective of their native White populations and insistent on keeping them the majority—then the USA and United Kingdom are a threat to White civilization in general. 

The sad fact, is that one or more White countries are likely going to have to self-destruct, before the rest of the White countries wake up out of their idiotic PC-driven self-destructive slumber.  The UK, USA, Canada and New Zealand are all well on the way to such a self-destruction, which means that the heartland of our civilization in the future is likely to be in Central Europe, i.e. from Denmark down through Germany and Switzerland, where despite their own addle-headedness sometimes, they’ve been more successful at preserving their White Germanic heritage.  I think I’ll maybe finally snap up those German tapes I’ve been putting off for so long now, sooner rather than later.

Posted by Morbus on August 06, 2007, 08:41 AM | #

“Without trying to sound too obnoxious (it comes easy to me), I invite you to come and live amongst Germans, and live amongst Englishmen, and tell me if they are the same nation.”

PF, I agree that the two countries are not the same, but the common Teutonic linkage has been lost in our modern PC-driven age, with catastrophic effects for Britain in particular.  The Anglo-Saxons originally came, after all, from the Schleswig-Holstein neck and the Saxon regions of what are now Germany, and ethnically, genetically (as confirmed by chromosomal and mitochondrial analysis) and linguistically—where we both speak a Germanic tongue with a heavy overlay of Latin vocabulary—the English and German people are very close relatives.

As someone born in England myself and of English stock on both sides, I’ve come to understand that this disconnection from our own Teutonic heritage is killing the UK and other Anglosphere nations, and damaging other White civilizations as well.

I don’t agree that Britain “plunged the knife into Germany’s heart” in WWII—Germany and the UK to an extent, took each other out as imperialistic nations, but there were many other factors dooming the UK in particular and, whereas Germany continues to thrive in the midst of the occasional sputter, Britain is dying before our very eyes.  In fact, considering Germany’s rapid recovery and their still-remarkable resilience even in the midst of our PC-driven age (still > 97% White and now with an immigration policy that all but forbids Turks and other non-Whites from entering, while deporting those already there), Germany is a White nation that survived the fratricide of the 20th century and will survive the current crisis, by far the most dangerous in our history. 

Nations can survive wars, famines, depressions and a host of other crises, but no nation has ever survived a wholesale racial replacement, which is happening in Britain yet largely sparing the Continent, due to differences in the collective psyche and very different policies.

My own homeland will not survive this current crisis, and within two-three decades the demise of Britain will be upon us, I am afraid.  Militarily speaking, it wasn’t just the World Wars—the UK was defeated by other enemies such as Afghanistan, Egypt in the Suez, Yemen, Iraq earlier in the century and even White adversaries such as Cyprus and the Irish on the path to decolonization. 

But it was the fratricide of the World Wars that constituted the fatal blow—for the UK ironically, not for its German cousin.  And while the economic and demographic damage to Britain from the World Wars were horrific, it’s the psychological damage and confusion about its identity that is dismembering and devouring the British nation.

Britain’s worst blunder was entering WWI, which was nothing more than a set of turf battles on the Continent like those in centuries before which posed no interest—let alone a threat—to Britain. 

Germany never had any interest in attacking or even impeding Britain, which had been a longtime and reliable ally for centuries before—in either World War, but especially the first one.  The Kaiser never had any Napoleonic ambitions and, without Britain blundering into it, the war would likely have been rapid, petering out within a year with some kind of multi-nation Congress and treaty like those which concluded e.g. the War of the Spanish Succession.  Russia would have escaped the Communist scourge, and the Socialist idiocy that infected us later would have been contained, while Europe itself would have learned the destructive power of the new military technology to their collective interests, and been far more cautious about such endeavors in the future.  Kaiser Wilhelm would have gotten his Polish/Czech/Slovak corridor in Eastern Europe as a buffer between it and Russia (with territory drawn from the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires together, along nationalistic lines like those which had created Italy and Germany themselves in the late 1800’s), but through a Congress rather than the bloody mess that WWI and Versailles became.

Most of all, Britain would have remained an imperial master through Asia and Africa without actually corrupting the islands back home, wealthy and confident—without the destructive drain of billions of pounds from the Exchequer as happened by 1918, the bankruptcy and the killing and wounding of millions of Britons.  Germany was by far the most dangerous military force in both wars by any metric applied (kill ratios, efficiency of combat per dollar spent), and Britain was outmatched and horribly demolished by the German machine, with casualties that even today are almost unspeakable.  But the German military had no intention of turning their guns on their English cousins in the first place.  Britain could have stayed out and spared itself the nightmare that has been taking shape since 1945.

Instead, the UK had the horrible experience of the ruin, bankruptcy and devastation from the World Wars, then being defeated and expelled from many of its imperial domains in a way never anticipated, the loss of confidence with the sudden decolonization and the economic crises from the 1950’s—all of which led the disastrous identity crisis that is killing the UK today. 

Britain and the British Empire were very different entities, but elite British thought now thinks they were the same, and this notion is what’s killing us.

Rather than a country that knows what it is, an Anglo-Saxon realm with affiliations with neighboring Celtic peoples—a nation that had imperial domains elsewhere but was distinctively White at home—Britain now believes that the lands of the former Empire, in which non-Whites outnumber Whites about 30:1, is tantamount to the UK itself. 

This catastrophic misidentification, borne of failure and defeat, is bringing about a radical change in England that has not been seen since the 5th-century A.D., with the original German invasions by the Angles and Saxons.  Even worse, this virus of the mind has infected other former imperial domains such as NZ and Canada, and even the USA for its own reasons. 

I can’t bear to go back home to Norwich anymore, it’s no longer a White nation and the shrinking number of Englishmen who remain drown themselves in frustration and alcohol, no longer sure of their very identities.  In a particularly ironic twist, about the only happy and productive Britons I’ve met are those who’ve emigrated and have gone to a place where they’ve reconnected with their Germanic heritage—especially the ones in e.g. Niedersachsen in Germany.  They speak German now but all they’ve done is rekindled the Anglo-Saxon heart they’ve always had—submerged by political correctness and multiculturalism in Britain itself.  And it is in Niedersachsen that their heritage—cultural, genetic and religious—is surviving in a way that it would be crushed back home in the Isles.

Posted by Robert ap Richard on August 06, 2007, 08:48 AM | #

Morbus:
“The sad fact, is that one or more White countries are likely going to have to self-destruct, before the rest of the White countries wake up out of their idiotic PC-driven self-destructive slumber.”

Unfortunately it will have to become worse than that.  Practically all of the White countries must be destroyed before Whites “wake up.”  South Africa is nearly completely destroyed and no one except the fleeing Whites have even noticed.  Despite hundreds of book and thousands of articles, most Whites still don’t know what’s going on around them.  Most people never get a clue until something directly affects them, and even then most will get the causes wrong. 

The White masses need leadership now, at every level.  The few, the remnant—the bold, true believers and patriots—are their only hope.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 08:51 AM | #

But this is what mystifies me: what could possibly be more narrowminded, more self-absorbed, more inconsiderate of the welfare of other Europeans than fascism?

That would be the only ultimate alternative: Communism (crypto-anarchism) - which is not recognized as such in its melioristic variants because the toad is being slowly boiled - and its perpetuation in its militant form has been strategically concealed or glossed over.

The illusory alternative, federation and coalition, cannot durably maintain its internal cohesion or its defense against external threats.  The history of the ancient Roman republic/Italic coalition is a textbook exercise, foremost among others, in the demonstration of this principle.  This illustrates the repetitive political history of mankind because - as I endlessly preach (to the evidently uncomprehending stares of those innocent of schooling in, or reflection upon, the logic and history of political economy) - there is and can be no formulation of national or international law that satisfies the rightly-understood-interests of an overwhelming and thus stable majority of mankind.  This is particularly true of so-called “international law” - regarding which issue I had an extended exchange with Fade/Scimitar over at The Phora, years ago, without apparent success.  The notion that Europe’s only salvation lay in German Imperial domination of Europe, according to the classic historical pattern expressing the logic of political economy is, evidently, emotionally inadmissible.

Failing the introduction of that formula for national and international RUI - which presently exists only in pretense and in ignorance of its absence - my point remains unchallenged by logic and evidence.

Posted by Morbus on August 06, 2007, 09:02 AM | #

BTW I put off commenting on the original speech itself but—an axis of Moscow, Berlin and Jerusalem?  Anti-imperialist (especially considering the USSR)?  C’mon.  Never heard of this von Hoffmeister fellow before but this is ridiculous.  The UK is indeed dying and prior British imperialism (and the way it ended) has a lot to do with it, but for contingent factors that have nothing to do with the strange contortions in this guy’s speech.

It’s a shame for the USA b/c like Scimitar said, the United States represented a potential White nation that could have avoided the nationalism that rent Europe asunder from the early 19th century.  But then the same post-imperial identity crisis that is destroying Britain, also infected the United States after WWII, and esp. after 1965.  Unbelievable that what was once the strongest White nation, will have a White minority by 2030.  I’ve been in the USA for decades since my family moved and one can no longer recognize this place, just as Britain, Canada and NZ have become a pale shadow of what they once were.

Posted by Morbus on August 06, 2007, 09:08 AM | #

Robert,

I fear you may be correct, my friend.  After having lived and/or traveled in the USA, UK, NZ and Canada on multiple occasions, I no longer harbor any hope for them—their self-destruction is assured within the next two to three decades. 

I do hold out some hope for at least some places on the Continent, as they have (to my surprise) reasserted their White identities in a way I have never experienced, but here too the picture is patchy, with a Central European core and substantial variation elsewhere.

I don’t know how the map of the world will look in 20 years, but it will be quite different.  I do suspect that as the UK and USA perish there will be increasing numbers of embittered emigrants seeking to go… somewhere.  And it won’t be an issue to learn a new language or get property or the other practical hassles.  I just hope, there will be *somewhere* for us to go to in 20 years.  Maybe Germany, maybe Denmark or Finland or… who knows.  But I just hope that somewhere will retain its heritage so that, as the first wave of White nations collapses, there’ll be a geographical core where we can reconstitute and regain our strength.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 09:27 AM | #

After having lived and/or traveled in the USA, UK, NZ and Canada on multiple occasions, I no longer harbor any hope for them—their self-destruction is assured within the next two to three decades.

Precisely what Golitsyn attributed to Soviet strategic deception/disinformation planning by way of prediction of developments in the West to be exploited.

The powers-that-be ever more flagrantly lie about the Golitsyn/Angleton/CIA counter-intel episode - as they must.  See The Good Shepherd for the most recent piece of rankly inverted reconstruction of the Nosenko/Golitsyn drama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn

Posted by second class citizen on August 06, 2007, 10:48 AM | #

Morbus,

I think you are being unnecessarily on the glum side. And I don’t think allowing ourselves to be herded back into reservations is a good idea either. Whoever did the work of creating that racial state does not deserve to give up the living space of their children for someone running away from the front lines. Aid, arms, training maybe. But not a permanent bed and a plot of land.

Until we have the freedom to be in control of our own countries properly, (e.g. Europe, North America, Australia, NZ), we should bed down in diaspora, perhaps even emigrating further afield.

According to PC doctrine, racial borders are wrong, every other people is entitled to emigrate to our countries, even our homeland in Europe. By that reasoning, it is only fair that we are entitled then to live everywhere on earth as well. And we can safely maintain that party line until the last Turk is out of Germany, the last Paki is out of England, and there is encouragement rather than hand wringing in the press about it.

There is very little preventing us from forming parallel societies of our own wherever we are. The nation is not the state. Nothing is preventing us from utilizing every tool at our disposal to prevent our daughters from miscegenating, from propaganda to schooling to control of peer group to corporal punishment to shunning. Currently we use none of those.

The same goes for many other activities that are part and partial to building successful communities. Currently we do none of them (as a race), we are completely de-racinated. Anything a step away from that is a positive.

There is a lot of things we as a race do right. We are above world average intelligence. We are very effective at making war and the tools of war. We have on the order of a billion people, which gives us some safety in numbers. With the right schooling, I’m sure we can be highly ethnocentric again.

There are two keys to our success here. All of them are applicable on a personal level.

The first is to stop expecting a messiah or a state to save us. Our whole struggle is built on the correct attitudes. For without the correct attitudes and desires, we can’t expect correct actions. And the responsibility for the correct attitude rests with the parent, i.e. each of us. It was a failing of our parents to trust the state to our upbringing, but at least now we know what the problem is. Fooled me twice, shame on me.

The second is to get over the idea that nothing worthwhile is useful unless we live to see the results of our actions. It is more important that preservation of the race happen than that it happens in our lifetime (preferably after a mercifully brief montage, ending happily with scenes lifted from Triumph of the Will).

Posted by Billy on August 06, 2007, 11:39 AM | #

The best way to think about this essay by Constantin von Hoffmeister is to realize that he writes in the great tradition of prophetic visions, much like the Book of Revelations. None of his sayings should be taken as literal truth, they are a kind of poetic truth to which he alone possesses the key to understanding.

In that sense, he is similar to the various heurmeneutics in play today. In another sense and for example, he simply makes Berlin stand for what he wants it to stand for. He’s not really predicting or analyzing, he’s prophesying as the old saints did. But it is interesting to see how posters find his declamations to be too removed from the earth, or even somehow sinister.

Now if you want some really hot prophesying that is no less divorced from the planet but is fun to listen to, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXQPnX2YwG0&mode=related&search=

Posted by PF on August 06, 2007, 12:48 PM | #

Responding to Morbus:

In a particularly ironic twist, about the only happy and productive Britons I’ve met are those who’ve emigrated and have gone to a place where they’ve reconnected with their Germanic heritage—especially the ones in e.g. Niedersachsen in Germany.  They speak German now but all they’ve done is rekindled the Anglo-Saxon heart they’ve always had—submerged by political correctness and multiculturalism in Britain itself.  And it is in Niedersachsen that their heritage—cultural, genetic and religious—is surviving in a way that it would be crushed back home in the Isles.

I appreciate what you’re saying and understand well the shared roots of these cultures. I enjoyed reading the essay, and the only quip I have with it is this:

Whites in Anglosphere countries can lose territory (for example, Norwich) and be involved in wars (inevitable) with the new colonizers, without themselves ceasing to exist. America, for example, from my decade spent living there, cannot hold its entire territory for white interests. There will never be a critical mass of intelligent, mobilized, power-hungry whites capable of reconquering and administering that entire territory, within the foreseeable future. Instead there are browns, Jewish elites, judaified white cowards, white trash, and a bunch of human garbage strewn across the landscape.

But the ‘real’ whites, will survive and will band together in some way, in some place, with great diminishment of power and great loss of territory. This will be extremely hard to deal with- but there you have it, thats what slavery is like, and thats what we have asked for: to be enslaved.

For those who survive that, the war begins in earnest on that very day when their own territory is declared, and until that day, we have a perpetual downward sliding which seems like it will never end—but it will end, in some places resulting in our replacement, in a few places not.

It’s more difficult to be a white in the Anglosphere countries, but that doesn’t mean death is certain. Those who stay the course through these years will be burdened with more stress, less quality of life, more exhaustion, but they have the consolation that when its over, they still have their identities, they will be fully retribalized, and they will truly stand in a life-or-death struggle with their colonizers. The Anglos are going to be sifted like wheat, and what remains will have to be the best.

Its a dangerous period of history, but those who can make it through stand a chance of a brighter future, because if they make it they will belong to an elite group, and their tribalism will make them a proud nation like Jews, in my opinion, which is what we want.

Thats just my opinion though, and I’m not the most qualified to remark on these things here on this board.

Posted by PF on August 06, 2007, 02:30 PM | #

Second class citizen wrote:

The second is to get over the idea that nothing worthwhile is useful unless we live to see the results of our actions. It is more important that preservation of the race happen than that it happens in our lifetime

I think thats an important sentiment, in contrast to the “the movement must succeed now or we are all doomed” mentality. There is a such thing as historical momentum, and some things just cant be forced (even though they could theoretically be forced by a sufficient succession of power plays).

Addressing NeoNietzsche:

That would be the only ultimate alternative: Communism (crypto-anarchism) - which is not recognized as such in its melioristic variants because the toad is being slowly boiled - and its perpetuation in its militant form has been strategically concealed or glossed over.

There is obviously a lot of thinking-behind-the-thinking in your posts, which is why I ask for explanations.

Are Communism and Crypto-Anarchism the true ultimate alternative? Do you think so? Why? What is its militant form and by whom has it been glossed over? All answers much appreciated.

Posted by wintermute on August 06, 2007, 03:49 PM | #

In both cases, the United States was drawn into conflicts started by Europeans

The United States “was drawn” is not a well formed sentence. The passive voice, used often by politicians, always leaves out an actor who might be found morally wanting. In the sentence, “mistakes were made”, we are not informed by whom the mistakes were made. The implication of the sentence is that mistakes made themselves. This is contrary to human experience and history as we know it.

That “the United States was drawn” into “conflicts started by Europeans”, the implication that you are making is that the United States, or its government, is inexorably drawn, like a plant towards light, into conflicts that will be disastrous for it or for the parties on whose behalf it is intervening. As currently stated, I cannot agree with your thesis.

The “United States being drawn” like a slug by a puddle of sugar water, tells us nothing about, say, the Lusitania, much less the architecture of power around the Wilson administration.

http://www.freepress.org/columns.php?strFunc=display&strID=1123&strYear=2005&strAuthor=7

As was US intervention in World War I. In 1915, as part of a blockade against Great Britain, the Germans downed the passenger ship Lusitania, on its way from New York to London. More than a thousand people died, many of them Americans.

President Woodrow Wilson screamed that Germany had violated international law. As Hearst had done to the Spaniards, Wilson portrayed “the Huns” as merciless, bloodthirsty barbarians.

The Germans argued that the Lusitania had been carrying weapons, and that they were within their rights to sink her. A substantial majority of Americans angrily opposed US intervention, saying only bankers would profit and that war would divert us from the real issues of unionization, poverty and Robber Baron domination of American industry.

In the face of an anti-imperial majority, Wilson withdrew troops he had sent into Mexico, then ran as a “peace candidate” in 1916 on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War”.

But in April 1917, reviving bloody images of the Lusitania, Wilson dragged the US into the slaughter. More than 100,000 Americans died. Under cover of war, federal marshals burned and blew up offices of the Socialist Party and radical unions like the Industrial Workers of the World. Wilson shredded the Bill of Rights and jailed, deported or killed thousands of organizers. Eugene V. Debs, the beloved leader of the American labor movement, was thrown in federal prison. The ideological left was crushed.

Wilson did tip the military balance for Britain and France. But his high-minded rhetoric about a League of Nations and a balanced peace fell into chaos. The Allies demanded reparations which helped feed the Nazi movement and an even greater slaughter in World War II. Wilson suffered a stroke and left the country in shambles.

And guess what! Deep sea divers recently found the Lusitania, its sunken hull laden with illegal armaments. As the Germans had claimed, the ship was violating international law. Like McKinley, Wilson had duped America into a catastrophic intervention based on a “faulty intelligence.”

Hardly seems the passive inevitability that you portray it as, when you get up close.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 04:40 PM | #

Are Communism and Crypto-Anarchism the true ultimate alternative?

What is the alternative to order other than chaos?  Libertarianism, consistently applied, permits politico-economic collusion and consequent class-war, resulting in Communist and crypto-Communist regimes.  This has taken different state forms - militant (Bolshevik/“totalitarian” police state) or meliorist (Fabian/Utopian/Liberal/Welfare Socialist) - but it all serves the egalitarian homogenization and disintegration of society, leading to civil and class war, anarchy and consequent chaos - the inevitable “alternative” to “fascism” (meaning authority and order where legal formulations cannot consistently and completely dictate behavior and induce compliance).  The application of any ideology other than fascism represents merely one variant of anarchism/disorder leading to the advent of another. 

What is its militant form…

Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist police statism.  This is so-called “totalitarianism” - which is simply a means to an end and not an end in itself.  Communism is not, as we have been endlessly instructed by meliorist propagandists, essentially totalitarian, police-state, one-world socialist government.  Communism is the eschatological belief in ultimate global statelessness, absent the exterminated “bourgeoisie,” (i.e., aristocracy/authority in all forms) and the advent of “mysterious material forces of production” that will effortlessly see to the provision of mankind, administered “from each according to his ability - to each according to his need”.  If you will trouble yourself to actually read Gorbachev’s Perestroika, you will find that the intellectual framework of his remarks remains Cold War Marxist-Leninist and thus that the supposed liberalization reflected therein is mere pretense.

...and by whom has it been glossed over?

Virtually everyone - out of ignorance or ideological/emotional investment in the putative “collapse” of Communism.  What a relief for the pinko Left that the megacidal regime of their early sympathies, that ultimately threatened to exterminate civilized existence on the planet, finally saw the light of liberal ways.  And it’s OK, for everyone else, that we got rid of the Nazis and Fascists, since we didn’t really need them to deal with the Communist menace, which we have supposedly “bankrupted” and shamed into changing its ways by our “liberal-democratic,” “end-of-history” supposed example of having solved all essential socio-political problems. (Though no one can define what that supposed solution is - and whatever it is it proved disastrous in application in supposedly post-Soviet Russia.)

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 04:45 PM | #

Hardly seems the passive inevitability that you portray it as, when you get up close.

Everybody here know the story of the “House-Grey Memorandum”?

Posted by wintermute on August 06, 2007, 04:51 PM | #

Do you care how Europeans view themselves, or do you think your vision suprecedes their own?

In all honesty, PF, I would say that both of your statements are equally true. I would modify the second statement, “my vision supercedes theirs” to account for the growth of the idea of Europe as a unity, as propounded by Percy Shelley, Freidrich Nietzche, Kathleen Raine, Ezra Pound, Adolf Hitler, Oswald Mosely, Francis Yockey, etc. You trivialize my thesis and seek to bring it into disrepute by presenting it as something that I cooked up, rather than learned, and further seek to distance yourself from this thesis by implying that I made it up and intend to impose it on Europeans (understood as a people separate from myself), rather than acknowledging, as you should, that this is an idea that the best of Europeans have arrived at, and presented, in varying ways. I am but a student, and my purpose is to remind Europe of their own best men and women, and of their destiny. For you to characterize my thesis as “do you think your vision suprecedes their own?” is to falsely represent my thesis as being original to me. Also, by raising the spectre of a passive population who will be imposed upon, you imply that this idea is neither native to Europe nor is it welcome there, neither of which is the case. Let’s try your statement out, in light of this new context:

“Do you think Hitler’s vision supercedes their own?”

Well, I think his vision was very attractive to many Europeans, so it is hardly fair to draw up lines with Hitler on one side and every single European on the other.

“Do you think Nietzche’s vision supercedes their own?”

Certainly. “You should not strive to be a Good German but a Good European”. Why was that so important to Nietzche, PF? Why did he get so exercised about it? Why does he show so much genuine love and affection for French Culture and Italy? Why does he quote Stendahl as saying “Nowhere does the plant, man, grow more vigorously than in Italy”. Is he some sort of crypto-Italian who has lost sight of his EGI? GW says my ethnic interests are plainly German, which is true only in part. I agree with Nietzche and Stendahl regarding Italy. Do I retain my former transparency?

Do you think Pound’s vision supercedes their own?”

Here I would again point to the false distinction you are emphasizing, with Pound on the one hand, and every European on the other. The Italians obviously didn’t mind him using their radio stations to broadcast a message of Pan-Europeanism. Given the frosty Nordic vibe and defensive Anglo-Saxonism at this site, I think Pound’s vision is especially useful. He was at pains to remind the English, “Italy is where Shakespeare learned to sing.” What does that mean?

Now, you know I have strong feelings on this topic and could probably go on all day. This is plainly not the last time we are going to be discussing this idea. Let me leave you with some helpful advice.

I think that you are a young man who carries around an awful lot of wholly unneccesary negativity. You talk about crossing a border and being greeted by closed doors and closed hearts. I have lived in London, Germany, Prague and, most recently, Syracuse, though I hasten to add that the rest of Europa is hardly unknown to me. Now, I was living and travelling as an American, a fact that I can hardly hide. I suppose I could have tried to pass myself off as Canadian, but the thought never occured to me. My travels have all taken place between 1980 and the current day, so it is fair to say that Anti-Americanism has been primed that whole time. And yet, I met with closed hearts and closed doors nowhere. How did that happen?

My last visit took place several years ago, though during the current Gulf War. I can’t imagine that Anti-American sentiment could be running any higher. But that isn’t what people talked to me about. British expatriates in Sicily immediately understood, how I don’t know, that I would be sympathetic to their plight - by which I mean the plight which is examined here at Majorityrights.com. I listened with a sympathetic ear. You will be happy to know that one of the ex-Londoners was travelling with his German wife, perhaps a sign that will give you some hope.

I have never been recieved in Europe (including the UK) in a less than friendly manner, because I bring to Europe nothing but love. I love these people, these lands, this civilization: us. You don’t have to tell people that for them to know it. Likewise, if you carry suspicion and mistrust, you will find that greets you everywhere you go. This is like Yoda’s cave:

“What will I find in there?”

“Only what you take with you.”

Or Milton, “Whichway I fly is Hell, myself am Hell”.

It may be the case that the message I am peddling is significantly in advance of the actual birth of European man. I can certainly allow that. But I injure no-one with my speech, and am content to be in advance of the change in identity that I would like to see. It’s not ever going to arrive if people don’t work for it or speak about it.

However, I cannot agree that this is “my vision” or that “Europeans” are a wholly separate group of people who are either none of my concern, or whom I should regard as ‘foreigners’. They are the older, and more primary part, of what I am, and what you are, too. The differnence between us at the current time is that this thought brings me inexpressible joy, and it makes you angry and unhappy. I earnestly desire for you to share my happiness. You are no help to yourself or others, nosing around in nihilistic scrapbooks and sniping at anything positive because you have been wounded. You spoke to me recently about living in craters. I think there is a lot of usable fuel for you in that image, but you are having difficulty extracting and refining it.

Heading off the possibility of that scenario is obviously our first order of business. Wouldn’t you agree with that?

I close with Pound: ““Europe is an organic body, its life continues, its life has components and nearly every damn thing that has made your lives worth living up to this moment, has had its origins right here in Europe.”

Posted by Scimitar on August 06, 2007, 04:51 PM | #

As I said above, the Great War is a good example of Europeans heaping up their own funeral pyre and setting themselves on fire. One thinks here of how they gingerly marched off to war; how exciting it was in the first few days. The root cause of that conflict, as was also the case in the Second World War, was fratricidal petty nationalism - the ambition of European states to dominate other European states. The war had been long in coming before the first shot was fired. The system of hostile alliances could only have produced that result in the end. If there had been no petty nationalism in Europe at that time, there would have been no war.

About U.S. intervention in the First World War. First, let me make it clear that I believe our participation in that conflict was a mistake. The majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with that bloodbath and Wilson was only re-elected president by promising to keep us out of it. This became the predominant view after the war. For about twenty years, internationalism was discredited in America. The U.S. rejected the Versailles Treaty and signed a separate peace with the Germans in the end. The British and French were left to stir in their own juice.

Every so often, Europeans like to knock each other out like this and turn their continent into a battlefield. It is something of a tradition for them. In the 19C, it was the Franco-Prussian War, the Austro-Prussian War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Crimean War. Before that you had the Wars of Religion in the 15C and 16C. If I recall correctly, the Thirty Years War took out about 25% of Germany’s population.

I cannot agree with the view that Germany was completely innocent in this. If you review the history of U.S.-German foreign relations in the early 20C, you will find that Germany’s decision to wage unrestricted submarine warfare occasioned a conflict that had been building for decades. During TR’s presidency, for example, Germany was deterred from violating the Monroe Doctrine and invading Venezuala only through pressure from the United States. It was that incident which produced the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which in turn led to a series of American interventions throughout the Caribbean and Latin American designed to prevent Europeans from using debt collection as an excuse to involve themselves in America’s backyard.

There was a widespread fear amongst American policymakers at the time that Germany would invade and occupy a Caribbean nation, which would later become a base for hostilities against the United States. This scenario was explicitly presupposed by War Plan Black.

During the Mexican Revolution, Germany once again stuck its nose into the Western Hemisphere through its support for Huerta:

http://www.wibemedia.com/mexico-germany.html

The victory of the United States over Spain in 1898 was the principal spur to intensified German interest in Mexico after 1900. No longer seeing the region as an area ripe just for economic imperialism, Berlin also viewed it as a potential counterweight to the growing power of the United States. But how to use Mexico? Germany was entranced by its potential to be used as an anti-American instrument, yet it feared provoking reactions from the United States that would damage German interests in Mexico. As a result of these conflicting concerns, German policy toward Mexico constantly wavered in uncertainty, eventually culminating almost 20 years later in the spectacular failure of the Zimmermann Telegram.1

This pattern appeared as early as 1902-1903, when Germany launched efforts aimed at challenging the Monroe Doctrine’s prohibition against European interference in Latin America. In addition to joining a British-Italian blockade of Venezuela and sinking a Haitian ship, the Germans made quiet inquiries into buying Baja California for use in naval operations. President Theodore Roosevelt’s strong reaction to the European intrusions, however, brought a quick reversal of Berlin’s policy, and it temporarily retreated to a less provocative posture.2

In 1904-1905 Germany edged back toward its anti-American policy. After the visit of the German Far Eastern Naval Squadron to Mexican waters, the Diaz government floated proposals that German naval officers help train the Mexican navy. Kaiser Wilhelm II killed the idea, but he approved of another idea broached by Diaz that would also have proved antagonistic toward the United States. In this case, Diaz requested the use of German military instructors for the training of the Mexican army. Wilhelm II somehow believed Washington would welcome such a move, but the German Foreign Office realized this would only anger the Americans, and the kaiser’s agreement was withdrawn.3

By 1907 German policy had reached the point that it promoted diametrically opposed goals. One one hand, Berlin pressured Diaz to renew his request for German military instructors, despite the danger of damaging relations with Washington. At the same time, Germany tried to manipulate the United States into a German-American alliance, playing on rumors that Japanese troops were training in Mexico in preparation for a Japanese-American war. The Germans even went so far as to suggest their troops land in Mexico to help ferret out the phantom Japanese army, but Roosevelt refused, knowing his acquiesence in the introduction of foreign troops into Mexico would irreparably breach the Monroe Doctrine.4

As for the Diaz regime, Germany’s interest in Mexico was welcomed as a check on British, French, and most importantly American influence. Diaz successfully resisted, however, German attempts to gain control over Mexican finances through the use of loans.5 His was a balancing act of playing off the Great Powers against each other, a feature of Mexican foreign policy that persisted until the end of World War I.

The final straw, of course, was the Zimmerman Telegram, which proposed a Mexican-German military alliance and the return of the U.S. Southwest to Mexico, to say nothing of German naval aggression in the Atlantic, which could only have elicted American hostility. It is not surprising at all that an American president would have went to war after such a provocation.

One last thing: it is important to note that the U.S. and Britain were, if not enemies, then certainly not allies in the 19C. The U.S. and Britain almost came to blows several times and actually did so on one occasion in the War of 1812. German intrigue in the Western Hemisphere was the cause of Anglo-American rapprochement.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 05:08 PM | #

If there had been no petty nationalism in Europe at that time, there would have been no war.

“Petty nationalism” was the alternative to Revolution and Communism.

Absent this cohesive alternative, the European states would have been aflame with civil and class war no less destructive than the World War.

The most constructive development, according to the historical pattern and the logic of political economy, would have been a quick German victory and empire, as the result of “petty” (German) “nationalism”.

Posted by wintermute on August 06, 2007, 05:34 PM | #

To the extent that these stupid ideas from the US and UK spill into other White nations—especially the Continental nations like Denmark and Germany, which have traditionally been much more protective of their native White populations and insistent on keeping them the majority—then the USA and United Kingdom are a threat to White civilization in general. 

Yes. The dual-unity of Anglo America can be examined at length in “Albion’s Seed” by David Fischer, “The Anglo-American Establishment” by Quigley and “Blood, Class, and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies” by Christopher Hitchens.

What has gone wrong in Anglo-America has its roots in the Low Church tradition and English Civil War. On the American side, this grew into cultural Puritanism, the “city on the hill” which is also the conquering tribes of Israel, “I am my brother’s keeper/ I am my brother’s jailer” and much else besides.

In the Sceptere’d Isle proper, this metastasized into “British Israelism” and an obsession, in the nineteenth century, with “National Israel”. The sermons of Charles H. Spurgeon are especially instructive in this regard. Both nations are infected by, and re-infect each other, with variations on the theme, we are the rightful possessor of all things. This is why British Imperial nostalgia, when it is pressed into service as a worldview or positive plan of action, is more tragic than it is comic. Both nations regard themselves inwardly as the proper heirs of the promises made by YHVH to the Israelites. Critics like GW and Tomislav Sunic, who see the behavior clearly in Americans - and which they see rightly - are not aware of the root of the behvior, nor of how that root put forth a second trunk in Britain.

Whoever did the work of creating that racial state does not deserve to give up the living space of their children for someone running away from the front lines. Aid, arms, training maybe. But not a permanent bed and a plot of land.

I am currently “on the ground” here in the South and the Southwest. While I am optimistic about the long term prospects of our race and civlization, I am not a fool. My beloved Central Texas will be subsumed into Latin American Civilization, along with Florida. The Southwest will also be absorbed, along with Southern California. The Deep South will follow the fate of White Nations in Africa, and any displacement of Africans there will be made by Mexicans, not Americans. Whites have it within them to regroup as a racial organism in North America, but they won’t get the southern half, broadly speaking, of what is now “The United States” back, ever. No force on Earth could accomplish that, now. I should also add that Vancouver will be a permanent toehold for China on the North American continent. Everything we accomplish will be accomplished within those parameters.

That doesn’t mean I don’t complain vociferously when the local car lot starts putting up Mexican flags. And when I say that much of Texas and the Southwest are going to be assimilated to Latin American norms, I also mean that many “whites” will elect to secede from our current civilization (Western Europe) and will be quite happy and at home in their new civilzation, Latin America. Latin America has a long tradition of white enclaves and white overclasses. The Bush family would be the model here. They are all born slavers who are drooling with anticipation of not having free labor to talk back to them. They, and their prospective civilization, deserve each other. I intend to stay put as long as possible, but I do not propose to be one of those useful idiot Rhodesians who remained behind to keep the infrastructure and technology working for the animals that took over their habitat. 

As someone born in England myself and of English stock on both sides, I’ve come to understand that this disconnection from our own Teutonic heritage is killing the UK and other Anglosphere nations, and damaging other White civilizations as well.

Bingo.

But it was the fratricide of the World Wars that constituted the fatal blow—for the UK ironically, not for its German cousin.  And while the economic and demographic damage to Britain from the World Wars were horrific, it’s the psychological damage and confusion about its identity that is dismembering and devouring the British nation.

I’d love to see you expand on this point, Morbus, and I invite bloggers here to blog on it, as well. How comes it that the victorious nation is, just seventy years on, facing wholesale physical extermination? Wouldn’t a historical observer expect the vanquished to suffer more from the desire for dismemberment and non-existence?

In a particularly ironic twist, about the only happy and productive Britons I’ve met are those who’ve emigrated and have gone to a place where they’ve reconnected with their Germanic heritage—especially the ones in e.g. Niedersachsen in Germany.  They speak German now but all they’ve done is rekindled the Anglo-Saxon heart they’ve always had—submerged by political correctness and multiculturalism in Britain itself.  And it is in Niedersachsen that their heritage—cultural, genetic and religious—is surviving in a way that it would be crushed back home in the Isles.

Though it amounts to heresy on this board, your statement above is the perfect summation of just about everything I would want to say to GW and PF. It’s also very well written and well thought out.  I do hope that you are not just passing through and will elect to stay and post further. I think we all have a lot to learn from you.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 05:56 PM | #

But behind the scenes, Wilson was secretly plotting America’s entry into the War, mainly through the machinations of Wilson’s major advisor, [crypto-Marxist] Colonel Edward Mandell House. House had already committed America to a participation in the war: “The House-Grey memorandum… pledged American intervention on the side of the Allies if Germany would not come promptly to the peace table [and agree to intolerable terms intended to make them abandon the talks and so provide a pretext for American intervention, NN]. This agreement was approved by Wilson eight months before the 1916 election.”

http://threeworldwars.com/world-war-1/ww1-2.htm

================================================

The Memorandum of Sir Edward Grey

Confidential 22 February 1916

Colonel House told me that President Wilson was ready, on hearing from France and England that the moment was opportune, to propose that a Conference should be summoned to put an end to the war.

Should the Allies accept this proposal, and should Germany refuse it, the United States would probably enter the war against Germany.

Colonel House expressed the opinion that, if such a Conference met, it would secure peace on terms not unfavourable to the Allies [a euphemism, NN]; and, if it failed [as intended, NN] to secure peace, the United States would leave the Conference as a belligerent on the side of the Allies, if Germany was unreasonable.

Colonel House expressed an opinion decidedly favourable to the restoration of Belgium, the transfer of Alsace and Lorraine to France, and the acquisition by Russia of an outlet to the sea, though he thought that the loss of territory incurred by Germany in one place would have to be compensated to her by concessions to her in other places outside Europe.

If the Allies delayed accepting the offer of President Wilson, and if, later on, the course of the war was so unfavourable to them that the intervention of the United States would not be effective, the United States would probably disinterest themselves in Europe and look to their own protection in their own way.

I said that I felt the statement, coming from the President of the United States, to be a matter of such importance that I must inform the Prime Minister and my colleagues; but that I could say nothing until it had received their consideration.

The British Government could, under no circumstances accept or make any proposal except in consultation and agreement with the Allies…

(initialled ‘E.G.’ by Sir Edward Grey) Foreign Office

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Grey_Memorandum

[Note that the Wiki entry flatly lies (surprise!) about Wilson’s involvement (which involved much consulation with House on the point and Wilson’s concise understanding of the nature of the undertaking as a fraud:

“A marked departure from the official U.S. policy of neutrality, House’s agreement with Grey was not cleared in advance by Wilson, who was almost certain to object to House’s actions.”]

Posted by wintermute on August 06, 2007, 05:59 PM | #

“Petty nationalism” was the alternative to Revolution and Communism.

Hitler’s Halt Order and ceaseless praise of the British hardly constitute petty nationalism.

Rudolf Hess and his act of ‘lunatic benevolence’ - Churchill’s words - are not petty nationalism.

The various non-German SS-Divisions - French, Ukrainian, Estonian, etc.  - fought bravely and died valiantly in the struggle against Communism. Any of these men might have been inducted into auxiliaries of the army, but they were made SS men. This is not ‘petty nationalism’, either.

The outrageouly lenient occupation of France and Hitler’s extravagent praise of the Italians in his writings, could also be entered into evidence.

The only petty nationalism in evidene was the English. As for America, it was not then a nation and is not now. It was a mass of human meat animated by the interests of Jewry and Capital, both of which are aggressively transnational agencies. So you might accuse the Americans of ‘anti-nationalism’ conceivably. Britain’s insane persistence in the error of regarding herself as the only actor or interested party in human history has resulted not only in world-historical disaster, but ruin at home. Nor is she ready quite yet, to abadon these delusions of grandiosity - and solipsism. America suffers from them also, but as I am always pointing out, Anglo-America is so intimately related that they can be profitably collapsed for certain mental tasks, the same way we speak of a “cardiovascular system”, when we mean the heart and lungs, which are ostenibly “separate” organs.

I know it’s tiresome, but I think it’s important to note that nothing we are discussing here is new - here is Ezra Pound’s broadcast from March of 1942:

Nothing can save you, save a purge. Nothing can save you, save an affirmation that you are English.

Whore Belisha is NOT. Isaccs is not. No Sassoon is an Englishman, racially. No Rothschild is English, no Strakosch is English, no Roosevelt is English, no Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Khan, Baruch, Schiff, Sieff, or Solomon was ever yet born Anglo-Saxon.

And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you have murdered your empire, and it is this filth that elects your politicians.

You have lost your tradition. You have not even learned what Lord Byron told you. You are, as even that foul rag the Times tells you, a little late in making a start.

In the year 1942 Anno Domini, there is only one start you can make. And that is a start toward being England. A refusal to be a province of Israel, or an outpost of Yankee-Judaea.

The reference is to Byron’s poem “The Age of Bronze”, specifically sections XIV:

Their good, ill, health, wealth, joy, or discontent,

Being, end, aim, religion—- rent, rent, rent !

Thou sold’st thy birthright, Esau !  for a mess;

Thou shouldst have gotten more, or eaten less;

Now thou hast swill’d thy pottage, thy demands

Are idle; Israel says the bargain stands.

Such, landlords !  was your appetite for war,

And gorged with blood, you grumble at a scar !

and XV:

How rich is Britain !  not indeed in mines,

Or peace or plenty, corn or oil or wines;

No land of Canan, full of milk and honey,

Nor ( save in paper shekels ) ready money:

But let us not to own the truth refuse,

Was ever Christian land so rich in Jews?

Those parted with their teeth to good King John,

And now, ye kings !  they kindly draw your own;

All states, all things, all sovereigns they control,’

And waft a loan “from Indus to the pole.”

The banker, broker, baron, brethen, speed

To aid these bankrupt tyrants in their need.

Nor these alone; Columbian feels no less

Fresh speculations follow each success;

And philanthropic Israel deigns to drain

Her mild per-centage from exhausted Spain.

Not without Abraham’s seed can Russia march;

‘Tis gold, not steel, that rears the conqueror’s arch.

If anyone is keeping track, “The Age of Bronze”, which Mr. Pound extemporized on so politely for the benefit of British listeners, was written in 1823, one hundred and nineteen years prior to Mr. Pound’s anguished lament.

It is now seventy years since Mr. Pound’s exegesis of Mr. Byron’s poem. There is still the possibility, that if you pay attention, these men - the antennae of our race - might still be of some benefit to you.

Posted by wintermute on August 06, 2007, 06:10 PM | #

But then the same post-imperial identity crisis that is destroying Britain, also infected the United States after WWII, and esp. after 1965.  Unbelievable that what was once the strongest White nation, will have a White minority by 2030.

WWII really seems to have been a turning point for Yankee-Judea. While I am happy to have the relative power of both nations temporarily destabilized, since both suffer from messianic delusions, yet I think saving part of the North American continent for state built on a racial basis is highly likely and desireable, and I regard the preservation of the British Isles as a White homeland as being non-negotiable.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 06:13 PM | #

[Quoting NN:] “ ‘Petty nationalism’ was the alternative to Revolution and Communism.”

Hitler’s Halt Order and ceaseless praise of the British hardly constitute petty nationalism.

Indeed.  Let it be understood, however, that the reference to pettiness was in regard to the origins of WWI, as discussed by Scimitar, and to which I responded in those terms.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 06:45 PM | #

But then the same post-imperial identity crisis that is destroying Britain, also infected the United States after WWII, and esp. after 1965.  Unbelievable that what was once the strongest White nation, will have a White minority by 2030.

This is a misunderstanding.  The “USA” was never “once the strongest White nation” - unless you consider elite Jewry, the century-long oligarchy of North America, “White”.  It was Greater Judea - properly so-named for its regnant oligarchy - that could have been said to have been “strong”.

Posted by Wunderhund on August 06, 2007, 08:24 PM | #

How does he do it? How does CvH find the time to compose his sermons, which are found all over the internet?  Go to just about any WN, Euro-centric site and, by the Gods, there he is!

The man should be in the opera.  He certainly has that bombastic ‘opera’ style.  I mean, he’s full of hot air, or rather, he’s full of himself.  The man doth take himself and his s-e-l-f- appointed mission v-e-r-y seriously.

I have to wonder, does he work?  Does he have a job?  How does he find the time to pen his missives to the people?  Who pays his bills?

He strikes me as being uniquely ‘chosen’ for a full-time public relations job assignment for….Israel. 

Posted by Scimitar on August 06, 2007, 08:56 PM | #

I suspect this thread might be of some interest to our resident Germanophiles:

No Nightingales: The United States Seen Through German Eyes

http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/08/06/no-nightingales-the-united-states-seen-through-german-eyes/

I took a little trip to the library and thought of you while I was there.

Posted by Wunderhund on August 06, 2007, 09:08 PM | #

wintermute:

“I am currently “on the ground” here in the South and the Southwest. While I am optimistic about the long term prospects of our race and civlization, I am not a fool. My beloved Central Texas will be subsumed into Latin American Civilization, along with Florida. The Southwest will also be absorbed, along with Southern California. The Deep South will follow the fate of White Nations in Africa, and any displacement of Africans there will be made by Mexicans, not Americans. Whites have it within them to regroup as a racial organism in North America, but they won’t get the southern half, broadly speaking, of what is now “The United States” back, ever. No force on Earth could accomplish that, now. I should also add that Vancouver will be a permanent toehold for China on the North American continent. Everything we accomplish will be accomplished within those parameters.”

I’m in California and I see the same scenario unfolding.  We’re heading towards some kind of ‘moment to truth’, when the current racial trends become glaringly obvious. 
That’s when people make their decisions.  Some will stay and become, or try to become part of the ruling class.  I’m a builder and I know that one reason many builders hire Mexicans is that they don’t talk back.  Most young whites are suffering from ‘spoiled slacker syndrome’ (SSS).  They complain.  Mexicans don’t. 
BUT, once a crew is composed of a majority of Mexicans the internal dynamic changes.  White workers are cursed in Spanish, and a relaxed job becomes infected with a strong racial element - a Mexican racial element.  The whites are slow on the uptake.  They don’t get it, because ‘thinking racially’ is not ok for whites.  Whites that find it hard to be on such a crew will move on and their job will be filled by Juan’s brother, or Pedros’ cousin, or Francisco’s uncle….
That crew is then closed to whites.  Then one of the Mexicans realizes that he can get his contractor’s license.  He does and then hires his own people, ignoring some or all of the legally required insurance and withholding tax payments, and then underbids the white contractors.  Homeowners, who may be increasingly feeling the financial squeeze as the bubble deflates, will vote with their dollars.  Mammon rules. White workers lose.
This cannot end well.  This is leading to some kind of fundamental break, a fundamental shift.  The Northwest Homeland may turn out to be more than just a work of fiction.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 09:23 PM | #

I suspect this thread might be of some interest to our resident Germanophiles:

No Nightingales: The United States Seen Through German Eyes

http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/08/06/no-nightingales-the-united-states-seen-through-german-eyes/

I took a little trip to the library and thought of you while I was there.

Evidently my Norman eyes work just like German eyes.

Posted by Scimitar on August 06, 2007, 09:26 PM | #

“Petty nationalism” was the alternative to Revolution and Communism.

Neo,

I believe I said above that ethnic bigotry and petty nationalism was merely the other side of the coin to class warfare. Actually, this is a false dilemma. We don’t have to choose between either of the above. We can dissolve both into the solvent of racial nationalism. To use wintermute’s terminology, we can take the “broader view” and think of the best interests of the Occident as a whole.

There are many things which I find admirable about the Third Reich. I have discussed this in the past:

1.) The sterilization of the Afro-Germans.
2.) The crackdown on degenerate art.
3.) Support for environmentalism.
4.) Dethroning the Jew from positions of influence.
5.) Support for eugenics and racialism.
6.) Reuniting the German minorities with the Fatherland.
7.) Outlawing communism.
8.) Support for opera and classical music.

Those are a few things that come to mind. I once made a list, but it is buried in a sewer on another forum, and I can’t be bothered to retrieve it. What I disapprove of is the extreme petty nationalism and the aggressive foreign policy. I’m not going to defend Hitler’s Eastern policy in Poland and Russia, or his plans to annex the Low Countries and Scandinavia to his Greater German Reich.

About the British. I don’t particularly like their foreign policy viz the Third Reich (or, for that matter, Ireland or the Boers). This seems to be the key issue for many around here and they take a negative view of the UK because of this. As for me, I find myself more interested in their colonial empire abroad, the eugenics movement in the UK, the enormous contributions made by the British to scientific and technological progress.

Britain for me is the land of Darwin, Galton, Carlyle, Stanley, the Royal Geographical Society, etc. Personally, I can’t see the British as being monsters in the way I often seem them portrayed here.

The American Revolution was one of the cleanest wars we ever fought. During that conflict, the British occupied Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston. As a rule, they bent over backwards to treat American civilians with respect. The British showed incredible restraint during that war in dealing with partisans.

Posted by Scimitar on August 06, 2007, 10:10 PM | #

To: Neo

Wilson, unaware of the actual meaning of the German note, found its text sufficiently encouraging to suggest that Berlin might perhaps be willing to state its peace terms privately to him and to House. When Bernstorff agreed to pass that suggestion to Berlin, the president began to work on a major policy statement calling for a negotiated peace and a postwar association of nations as a guarantor of international right and justice. The arrival of the Allied reply sustained the president’s optimism, as did Berlin’s reply to Bernstorff, at least in the form in which it was communicated by the ambassador to Colonel House. In actuality, Zimmermann had emphasized in his telegram of January 7 that Germany wanted no mediation and intended to win the war. He asked Bernstoff to employ dilatory tactics in any discussion of war aims and, in view of the decisions then being made in Germany, even inquired how unrestricted submarine warfare could be carried on without causing a break with the United States. Bernstorff apparently told House nothing of this. Instead, he emphasized Zimmermann’s agreement to a discussion of such matters as freedom of the seas, arbitration treaties, and a league of nations, and his suggestion of moderate, if vague peace terms, which did not include the annexation of Belgium. With even House now thoroughly convinced that the secret mediation efforts were likely to bear fruit, Wilson delivered his “Peace Without Victory” speech to the Senate on January 22.

That speech, one of the finest American political utterances, genuinely reflected the president’s aspirations, as well as his expectation of what might be attained. On the latter count he was clearly mistaken. By January 1917 Germany and the Allies had already expended too much in blood and treasure to allow their governments to settle for anything but victory, and most leaders on both sides still believed that victory was possible. For the Germans, this victory was to be won by unleashing the submarine. Even as Wilson drafted his speech and House carried on private negotiations with Bernstorff, the Germans decided on this fateful step.

Unleashing the Submarine

Confronted by the failure of Wilson’s peace note to meet his wishes and by the Allied rejection of the German peace offer on December 30, and pressed by the admirals and by Generals von Hindenberg and Erich Ludendorff, in whom he had the greatest confidence, the kaiser issued a secret imperial order on January 9 calling for the beginning of unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1. Bethmann, opposed by both the army and the navy, left nearly without support in the government and with dwindling support in the Reichstag, had acquiesced. Given the kaiser’s decision, which was made in the full realization that it would almost certainly mean war with the United States, the apparently conciliatory messages sent by the Foreign Office to Washington during the following weeks reflected no interest whatever in a negotiated peace but only a forlorn attempt to keep the U.S. out of the war. Indeed, the Zimmermann telegram, which offered Mexico an alliance with Germany in case of a U.S. German war and agreed to the reannexation of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, was composed on January 16 and sent on January 19. It began by informing the German ambassador in Mexico City: “It is our purpose on the 1st of February to commence the unrestricted U-Boat war. The attempt will be made to keep America neutral in spite of it all.”

Manfred Jonas, The United States and Germany: A Diplomatic History (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1984), 121-122

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 10:16 PM | #

S.,

We don’t have to choose between either of the above. We can dissolve both into the solvent of racial nationalism.

Since your miraculous thesis-in-prospect as to this “solution” did not have creditable currency in its necessarily unfathomable detail, seeking to be both complete and coherent, prior to the World Wars, due to some inexplicable oversight on your part, the resort then to nationalism as the alternative to social disintegration is not to be condemned as if it had.

I hope you can now do as you suggest, but I see no reason to believe you can.  Unless you can suggest an enemy to be conquered, dominated, and exploited by your race, as an organizational principle - and your race is so inclined, which it is not - you have no basis for resolving the internal contradictions of your society that now dissolve it.  In classical terms, yours is an exhausted race that awaits conquest by barbarians who would restore order and discipline.  Unfortunately there are no more noble barbarians - just the peasants of Asia ready to intrude and reduce the planet to chaos.

Posted by Scimitar on August 06, 2007, 10:35 PM | #

1.) Nationalism is an alternative to exactly what? To warfare between the Great Powers? History shows otherwise. It was the border conflict between Germany and Poland that occasioned the war. That’s what happens when you have two linguistically defined nation-states contesting the same piece of territory. France and Britain were also using Poland and Czechoslovakia as pawns to advance their interests in Eastern Europe. The USSR had its own interests. These interests proved irreconcilable and war was the result.

2.) Re: Europe, 1914-1945. I was diagnosing a problem: ethnic bigotry and class hatred. Obviously, no one can change the past, but we can learn from our mistakes. War is now unknown in Europe.

3.) You write: “Unless you can suggest an enemy to be conquered, dominated, and exploited by your race, as an organizational principle - and your race is so inclined.”

I take it you are of the view that NS Germany reflects this ideal? Are you saying that Germany wasn’t interested in peace and wanted to conquer, dominate, and exploit other European peoples in order to maintain its virility?

Posted by Scimitar on August 06, 2007, 10:38 PM | #

Reflecting upon this, I can see your point. For example, I am on record holding the view that race conflict is needed to maintain race consciousness. Why can’t this impulse be directed outwards, though, say, towards the civilizing and colonization of Sub-Saharan Africa?

Posted by danielj on August 06, 2007, 10:38 PM | #

This is leading to some kind of fundamental break, a fundamental shift.  The Northwest Homeland may turn out to be more than just a work of fiction.
Posted by Wunderhund on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 01:08 AM | #

This is why I sign my letters: “Tomorrow in Vinland…”

Posted by PF on August 06, 2007, 10:52 PM | #

Hey NeoNietzsche,

Do you have a blog or are your writings stored anywhere on the internet? Also two questions:

Everybody here know the story of the “House-Grey Memorandum”?

No. Can you expand on this?

Precisely what Golitsyn attributed to Soviet strategic deception/disinformation planning by way of prediction of developments in the West to be exploited.

The powers-that-be ever more flagrantly lie about the Golitsyn/Angleton/CIA counter-intel episode - as they must.  See The Good Shepherd for the most recent piece of rankly inverted reconstruction of the Nosenko/Golitsyn drama.

Could you elaborate on the relevance of this point to our discussion? It would not be clear to me unless I research it.

Addressing Wintermute:

European intellectuals cooperated in the creation of literature while the other 98% worked like normal people and fought wars against each other. If Shakespeare had known his borrowing of Sonnet verse form would have lead to someone making an argument for the identity of the German and English nations, or of the common interests of Italian and English nations, he wouldn’t have believed it. I listen to rap music, does that make me a friend of niggers? If anything, I will use their own music against them, after I have sucked the brutal military spirit out of it, because sharing a cultural form doesnt mean sharing interests or identity.

The train was invented in Britain. Most countries that went to war with Britain post-industrial revolution used trains to transport the equiptment with which they attacked the British. Steal the forms, use them for your own, there is no such thing as a reciprocal relationship between peoples. Cultural borrowing does not imply a reciprocal relationship because that doesn’t exist across tribal lines except as an exception.

China is borrowing all the European and American technology, do you think that means they owe us anything?

And here is why Europeans borrowed forms from Europeans: to gain status in their own countries or to kill each other more effectively. No self-concept should be based on the effusions of poets.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 11:22 PM | #

Given the kaiser’s decision, which was made in the full realization that it would almost certainly mean war with the United States,...

This is to mistakenly take the German imputation of motive to Wilson for Wilson’s actual motives.  Wilson was already anti-German for moralistic reasons in which House had indoctrinated him. Thus the submarine sinking of the Lusitania, staged by Churchill, had to involve enhancing the ship’s attractiveness as a target for torpedoes, and its potential for loss of life, in order to induce a morally stimulating “atrocity”.  Despite this devious “success,” it was, rather, the infamous Telegram itself that became the pretext for American entry - not the submarines nor even the Lusitania.

The Germans did not force America into the war, and their anxiety in that regard was a misapprehension for having projected their own motivation on the anticipated response to their actions.  Indeed, it was this projection that excused them from understanding the self-righteous American reaction to the perfectly conventional, and in fact gratutiously precautious, attempt to align Mexico with the German cause.

Posted by JB on August 06, 2007, 11:45 PM | #

folks remember, we’re talking about a guy whose manifesto includes such great ideas as:

http://www.majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_housemaster_at_majority_radio/

16. harassing heathens harrowing horror hearth helios!

17. ruins red roasting rodents rattles roars renegade rebel rhymer

18. All buildings that predate 1800 will be demolished.

19. Shakespeare will be shot. Queen Elizabeth will be raped with a chainsaw.

this guy is a clown and I don’t understand why Soren is giving him any attention at all.

we’re supposed to be fighting for our survival remember ? Until Von Puffmeister actually does something that is helping us let’s just ignore him and focus on more important people.

I hate these people who dream up of these big solutions on a black board and then pretend they’re helping the cause.

Soren why don’t you go to Australia to interview young australians fed up with the arabs down there ? Fuck the dreamers, show us some fighters. And besides those clips would get thousand of views on Youtube.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 11:45 PM | #

1.) Nationalism is an alternative to exactly what? To warfare between the Great Powers? History shows otherwise.

As I wrote exactly, it was the alternative to Revolution and Communism.  And was obviously a stimulant to warfare. 

2.) Re: Europe, 1914-1945. I was diagnosing a problem: ethnic bigotry and class hatred. Obviously, no one can change the past, but we can learn from our mistakes. War is now unknown in Europe.

Famous fatuous last words.  Would you like to add something to “the End of History” thesis while you’re in the mood?

3.) You write: “Unless you can suggest an enemy to be conquered, dominated, and exploited by your race, as an organizational principle - and your race is so inclined.”

I take it you are of the view that NS Germany reflects this ideal? Are you saying that Germany wasn’t interested in peace and wanted to conquer, dominate, and exploit other European peoples in order to maintain its virility?

Hitler wanted them to do so.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 06, 2007, 11:56 PM | #

Hey NeoNietzsche,

Do you have a blog or are your writings stored anywhere on the internet?

Had a blog until last week, when I deleted it.  Have stuff here and there at The Phora, Original Dissent (maybe), Speakeasy (now suspended), and the VNN forum.  Spent many years at one of the Nietzsche venues.

Also two questions:

  Everybody here know the story of the “House-Grey Memorandum”?

No. Can you expand on this?

See one of the Comments, above. And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Grey_Memorandum

Precisely what Golitsyn attributed to Soviet strategic deception/disinformation planning by way of prediction of developments in the West to be exploited.

The powers-that-be ever more flagrantly lie about the Golitsyn/Angleton/CIA counter-intel episode - as they must.  See The Good Shepherd for the most recent piece of rankly inverted reconstruction of the Nosenko/Golitsyn drama.

Could you elaborate on the relevance of this point to our discussion? It would not be clear to me unless I research it.

This excludes “Moscow” from “Europe”.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 07, 2007, 12:28 AM | #

Reflecting upon this, I can see your point. For example, I am on record holding the view that race conflict is needed to maintain race consciousness. Why can’t this impulse be directed outwards, though, say, towards the civilizing and colonization of Sub-Saharan Africa?

This would be to reproduce the North American experience, wherein colonial activity promotes laissez-faire, ending the requisite frontier upon reaching the ocean on the far side of the continent, after which Jewry takes over from an individualistic, uncohesive, internally-competitive upper-class, incompetently facing class war.

Posted by Andy on August 07, 2007, 12:37 AM | #

this guy is a clown and I don’t understand why Soren is giving him any attention at all.

  Soren is obviously a bit confused. What I don’t understand is why Soren is allowed to use this website to promote CvH and his absurd “National Bolshevism”.

Posted by PF on August 07, 2007, 12:51 AM | #

NeoNietzsche wrote:

Unless you can suggest an enemy to be conquered, dominated, and exploited by your race, as an organizational principle - and your race is so inclined, which it is not - you have no basis for resolving the internal contradictions of your society that now dissolve it.

Do you think that the conquest of America by Latinos doesn’t pose this question and dare the Americans to become conquerors again, or demand the emergence of some group of Americans capable of this? Especially because they are already mobile people, derooted from Europe, I think that once they realize “home is where my tribe is”, they will be even more ready for a race-is-religion or whatever its called form of full-stop ethnic mobilization.

Do you think that the conflicts which seem to hang inevitably before us can spur the creation of a conquering class and conquering tribalist ethic? It seems that surrounding onesself with enemies in one’s own house, gives one a good reason to become a fighter. At some point, it will appear to be “the only way out”—or have I speculated too far there? It seems western countries are setting themselves up for a death-match in their own nations. Can this have selective benefits?
Is it naive to think that such an outcome is probable?

Posted by wintermute on August 07, 2007, 01:28 AM | #

Those are a few things that come to mind. I once made a list, but it is buried in a sewer on another forum, and I can’t be bothered to retrieve it

Did it look like this?

I have a more balanced take on National Socialism these days. It had strengths and weaknesses like any other ideology.

Positive

1.) Afro-Germans were sterilized.
2.) Eugenics was institutionalized.
3.) Unification of Germans into a strong new state.
4.) Czechoslovakia destroyed.
5.) Jews lost all influence.
6.) Degenerate art eliminated.
7.) Abolished democracy and liberalism.
8.) Materialism frowned upon.
9.) Encouraged a strong new spirit of community.
10.) Proactive support of the arts by the state.
11.) Strong birthrate encouraged.
12.) No abortion on demand.
13.) German land taken back from Poland.
14.) Significant advances made in science and technology.
15.) Favored economic autarky.
16.) League of Nations repudiated.
17.) Germany rearmed.

^^ These were all good things. National Socialism started off rather well.

Negative

1.) Too much power concentrated in the hands of Hitler.
2.) Chaotic relationship between state and party.
3.) Lack of solid institutions; public administration far too arbitrary.
4.) Chaos in the legal system; ex post facto crimes.
5.) Incompetant underlings (although this is hardly unique to NS).
6.) Poor diplomacy; Germany landed in WW2.
7.) Far too nationalistic.
8.) Ideological weakness; too much pragmatism.
9.) Lack of a solid moral foundation; vices of excess.

Conclusion: National Socialism was a significant improvement upon liberal democracy, but was internally flawed. Those flaws led to its swift downfall.

Posted by JLH on August 07, 2007, 09:25 AM | #

The horror that GW sees in his American looking-glass is his very own face.

That’s the best one-liner I’ve ever seen on Majority Rights.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 07, 2007, 09:41 AM | #

Do you think that the conquest of America by Latinos doesn’t pose this question and dare the Americans to become conquerors again, or demand the emergence of some group of Americans capable of this?

Blacks and Lats know that the white boys are cocksucking pussies - only the nazis among the whites will fight. 

Do you think that the conflicts which seem to hang inevitably before us can spur the creation of a conquering class and conquering tribalist ethic? It seems that surrounding onesself with enemies in one’s own house, gives one a good reason to become a fighter.

You would think, wouldn’t you.  For the past decade, I’ve openly worn an automatic pistol in public, in a majority black city, even in places where it is illegal to do so, in an effort to inspire fellow whites to regain a sense of physical confidence.  Blacks and Latinos have great morale, because they feel physically, if not financially, superior to all these effeminate Whites.  In those ten years I had only one person congratulate me and evidence having gotten the idea.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 07, 2007, 10:06 AM | #

his absurd ‘National Bolshevism.’ “  (—Andy)

If you have nationalism you don’t need bolshevism:  nationalism by itself will see to there being a good, appropriate, reasonable, fully adequate social safety net in place in all domains — National Socialism, in other words.  Bolshevism’s harshness and breathtaking irrationality came in large part, directly or indirectly, from its plan to suppress nationalism (and along with it, the national religion).

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 07, 2007, 11:03 AM | #

Just in case anyone forgot how the other side is playing this game, take a look at this latest outrage (those, particularly pro-democratic types, mounting a coup in the US might like to explain precisely WHAT democracy is left to overthrow here):

“House Democrats apologized Friday for wrestling what appeared to be a winning vote away from Republicans Thursday night, and on Friday evening agreed to an investigation.

Republicans continued to steam, however, over the episode in which they appeared to be the winners by a 215-213 tally on a procedural motion designed to make sure illegal immigrants would not get certain benefits from an agriculture spending bill.

Instead, with the tally clerk registering the final votes, Rep. Michael McNulty, D-N.Y., gaveled the vote to a close, saying the GOP measure had failed on a 214-214 tie.

Republicans erupted, chanting “shame, shame, shame,” and then walked out in protest after McNulty permitted further Democrats to switch their votes to prevail 216-212. Despite winning that tally, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., moved for a revote as permitted under the rules, and Democrats prevailed again.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080300874.html

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 07, 2007, 11:05 AM | #

Sorry, this sentence:

(those, particularly pro-democratic types, mounting a coup in the US might like to explain precisely WHAT democracy is left to overthrow here)

Should actually read:

(those, particularly pro-democratic types, who wince at the idea of a Pinochet-type mounting a coup in the US might like to explain precisely WHAT democracy is left to overthrow here)

Posted by PF on August 07, 2007, 12:24 PM | #

NeoNietzsche wrote:

Blacks and Lats know that the white boys are cocksucking pussies - only the nazis among the whites will fight.

Thats reality, it seems. The paradigm shift needed to realize that one’s interests demand a mastery of the methods of ...force, I will carefully say, is so far off, I wonder if it will ever come. The only people who understand this point are East Germans and Russians, and I say that tentatively, not sure if I’m fully correct in saying it. A black person in rural Brandenburg or Saxony is in a dangerous place. But precisely these areas are dirt-poor, ridiculed for being culturally backward, and still maintain a detachment of do-gooders who strive to ridicule their home grown nazi-tending youth.

Beyond your personal anecdote, which was interesting, do you have any other thoughts concerning the likelihood of this realization taking hold in the minds of American whites or Europeans? What are the indices by which you would judge the popularity of this idea, do you see any positive gains?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 07, 2007, 12:41 PM | #

“How comes it that the victorious nation is, just seventy years on, facing wholesale physical extermination?”  (—WM)

It wasn’t “the nation” that won, but those pulling the nation’s strings.  Find them and you’ve solved your mystery:  you’ll see that the victorious string-pullers of that epoch continue to be victorious today.  No more mystery:  “the victors” did not become “the losers” in seventy years but are still the victors and our overlords who see death and extinction for us as life and health for themselves.  Yes the Jews are part of it.  So are the Lord Deedeses of this world.  The two are bosom buddies, in fact.  Our horrific destruction makes both of them sleep sounder and sweeter at night.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 07, 2007, 01:21 PM | #

Beyond your personal anecdote, which was interesting, do you have any other thoughts concerning the likelihood of this realization taking hold in the minds of American whites or Europeans? What are the indices by which you would judge the popularity of this idea, do you see any positive gains?

I’d best not respond to these questions, because I cannot offer anything of a positive response.  My friend, Brother Wintermute, is to be consulted for words of inspiration and hope.

Posted by wintermute on August 07, 2007, 01:38 PM | #

It wasn’t “the nation” that won, but those pulling the nation’s strings.  Find them and you’ve solved your mystery:  you’ll see that the victorious string-pullers of that epoch continue to be victorious today.  No more mystery:  “the victors” did not become “the losers” in seventy years

Perhaps, then, the purported ‘victors’ - Anglo-America - were not victors after all. This would square with the fact that both of them are facing physical annihilation just seventy years after their great ‘victory’.

Posted by NeoNietzsche on August 07, 2007, 02:52 PM | #

Perhaps, then, the purported ‘victors’ - Anglo-America - were not victors after all. This would square with the fact that both of them are facing physical annihilation just seventy years after their great ‘victory’.

Hence the importance of the HoloHoax to represent the effort as a moral victory, where the material objectives of the war - Polish independence and Continental balance-of-power - were catastrophically forfeited to the Soviets and Jewry, the true victors in the conflict.

Posted by wintermute on August 07, 2007, 03:17 PM | #

No self-concept should be based on the effusions of poets.

Here we disagree.

I feel obliged to point out that I did not merely reference Shelley, Raine, and Pound but also Nietzsche, Yockey, Adolf Hitler, and Oswald Mosley (“to England, to Britain, to Europe they were true”). 

To that list you might add James C. Russell, the author of The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, a book that if you haven’t read, I think you might find interesting. The last paragraph from his essay, The Western Contribution to World History, reads:

It is our duty to maintain and advance the Western continuum that originated in ancient Greece and earlier. To falter at this critical juncture is to allow our people to approach extinction. The greatest achievement of the West will be our extrication from our current dilemma. If we succeed in our efforts, the chroniclers of this age will celebrate our valiant struggle in the epic literature of the future - if we fail, there will be no such literature and our beleaguered descendants will mock us in our graves.

Those last five are, arguably, not poets. Perhaps if you have some time left over from extracting the martial spirit of rap music, you might deign to peer into their works.

Regarding poets and their effusions, how many more American poets will we have to send to you before you pay attention to your own? - namely Mr. Byron and his “Age of Bronze”.

On that same topic, I commend to you Simone Weil’s essay, “The Iliad, Poem of Force”.

” . . . nothing the peoples of Europe have produced since is worth the first known poem that appeared among them. Perhaps they will yet rediscover the epic genius, when they learn that there is no refuge from fate, learn not to admire force, not to hate the enemy, nor to scorn the unfortunate. How soon this will happen is another question.”

Who are these ‘peoples of Europe’ she is talking about? Why does she assume them to be a spiritual unity? How can a poem appear “among them” if there is no “them”? Why does she regard Homer’s Iliad as the first European poem? How can one learn from a poem about Bronze Age warriors how not to admire force, hate the enemy, scorn the unfortunate? How can “they” - the imaginary people of Europe - rediscover the epic genius when there is no “they”? Why does Weil instinctively compare Homer to later European cultural productions (“nothing the peoples of Europe have produed”), and not to Chinese or Indian cultural productions, which she is quite familiar with?

Why are these things so clear to outsiders and so outrageous to us?  You, GW, Maguire, GT, all are on tenterhooks when someone suggests that Europe was in any way a product of Ancient Greece.

Once again, for your consideration, the words of a humble midcentury German:

For, my Deputies, what is Europe? There is no fitting geographical definition of our Continent, but only a national and cultural one.

Not the Urals form the frontier of our Continent, but the eternal line which divides the Eastern and Western conceptions of life. There was a time when Europe was that Greek Island into which Nordic tribes had penetrated in order to light a torch for the first time which from then onwards began slowly, but surely to brighten the world of man. When these Greeks repulsed the invasion of the Persian conquerors they did not only defend their homeland, which was Greece, but that idea which we call Europe today. And then Europe traveled from Hellas to Rome. With the Greek spirit and Greek culture, the Roman way of thinking and Roman statesmanship were joined. An Empire was created which, to this day has not been equaled in its significance and creative power, let alone outdone. When, however the Roman legions were defending Rome against the African onslaught of Carthage and at last gained a victory, again it was not Rome they were fighting for, but the Europe of that time, which consisted of the Greek-Roman world.

The next incursion against this homestead of European culture was carried out from the distant East. A terrible stream of barbarous, uncultured hordes sallied forth from the interior of Asia deep into the hearts of the European Continent, burning, looting, murdering-a true scourge of the Lord. In the battle of the Catalonian fields the West was formed. On the ruins of Rome the West was built, and its defence was a task, not only of the Romans, but also above all of the Teutons.In centuries to come the West, enlightened by Greek culture, built the Roman Empire and then expanded by the colonization of the Teutons was able to call itself Europe. Whether it was the German Emperor who was repelling the attacks from the East on the Field of Lech or whether Africa was being pushed back from Spain in long fighting, it was also a struggle of Europe, coming into being, against a surrounding world alien in its very essence. Once Rome had been given its due for the creative defense of this continent, Teutons took over the defense and the protection of a family of nations which might still differentiate and differ in their political structure and objective, but which nevertheless represented a cultural unity with blood ties. And it was from this Europe that a spiritual and cultural abundance went out, of which everyone must be aware who is willing to seek truth instead of denying it.

You are still denying the simplest truth. It is so simple I regard it as a pons asinorum of racialism.

How is it that the Occidental Quarterly so easily and so quickly grasped the elemental truth (“Western Civilization is a cultural compound of our Classical, Christian, and Germanic past”) which I commended to GW in my first post at this site three years ago, while here at MR, the mere mention brings howls from every quarter? 

Why is our unity so obvious to outsiders and so at odds with commenters here? What has gone wrong with MR?

Posted by Rnl on August 07, 2007, 03:28 PM | #

It is not surprising at all that an American president would have went to war after such a provocation.

There were other provocations too. German saboteurs blew up a loading depot in New York harbor. They set fire to ships in American ports. Germans funded extensive espionage from their embassy; if I recall correctly, Franz von Papen was one of the German diplomats ejected in reprisal after the extent of German spying and sabotage became known.

The Germans expected that the decision to resume submarine warfare against non-belligerents would bring the US into the war. They took a calculated risk, hoping that they could win before Americans arrived in Europe. Bethmann opposed the decision. The militarists overruled him, violating the principle of civilian command of the military. Their calculated risk turned out to be a mistake. The blockade which they hoped would cripple the British and end the war didn’t work.

the kaiser’s decision ... was made in the full realization that it would almost certainly mean war with the United States

In the margin of a government report predicting that the resumed U-boat campaign would bring America into the war, the Kaiser wrote “I don’t care.” That was the attitude of non-politicians in the German government. They knew they were provoking the US, but they were willing to take the risk. 

Germany had once been viewed more favorably. When the _Deutschland_ arrived in Baltimore after running the British blockade, the crew were treated as heroes. The captain was invited to meet the President. But as the war progressed attitudes hardened against Germany. I can only quote this from memory, but a German cabinet minister commented that he wasn’t surprised that the opinion of neutrals favored the Allies: “The whole world hates us because of the brutal way we have conducted the war.” He didn’t mean only the sinking of the Lusitania. There were terrible and systematic Austrian atrocities against Serb civilians in the opening months of the war; the German atrocities against the Belgians were real, even if exaggerated for political purposes; French and Belgian civilians were robbed and put into forced-labor companies; the execution of Nurse Edith Cavell, which was featured in a fictionalized film treatment distributed in the US, made Germans appear barbaric. Cumulatively German behavior - or at least reasonable perceptions of German behavior - gradually changed neutral opinion as the war progressed, making the Zimmerman telegram the final intolerable outrage which, in the eyes of many Americans in 1917, made Germany’s defeat seem imperative. They may have been wrong, but they weren’t without reasons.

Posted by jonathan on August 07, 2007, 03:34 PM | #

Soren, what’s your take on this speech?  Are CvH’s critics misinterpreting him?  As I said in another thread, he sounded much better in the spontaneous interview you did with him than he sounds in his formal writings — way better.  (Or better yet:  CvH, if you’re reading this thread, how about setting us straight, if we’re mistaken?)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 03:57 AM |

As we may imply, it was Soren who filmed Constantine reading the Siverman poem, “Blue on Blue.” For all we know, their is a friendship there that very well may have included the sharing of recipies on the perfekt Gin Kosmopolitan. I don’t think a divulgence of personal reflection is needed.

Posted by danielj on August 07, 2007, 03:47 PM | #

RE: Oswald Mosley

Didn’t Mosley pander to the Jews his entire career, to the bitter end, without realizing that therein lied the problem?

Posted by PF on August 07, 2007, 05:02 PM | #

Hi Wintermute,

You’ve been a great sport in your arguments, putting your viewpoint across tirelessly, with examples. I even think that an extended philosophical debate of this kind could be profitable to everyone at this site, by offering insights which only a collision of our two viewpoints could make clear. Here are some individual points.

1. You use cultural borrowing to tie Europeans together in bonds of reciprocity. In reality, kinship is the metric for measuring the bonds of reciprocity, not culture. Your argument that Shakespeare’s sonnet forms being Italian makes me, a person of direct, mixed Anglo-German derivation, closer to the Italians, essentially reduces to this: memetic similarity within one’s cultural tradition should be the basis of determining group identity and group interests. An example to illustrate.

Because Abelard once wrote some interesting stuff, I’m indebted to France, and have to consider her interests as my own. My dad always used to mock French people, and the French generally: who do I have to follow, long-dead Abelard, whose love letters provided me with approximately 10 minutes of half-disinterested reading, or my cherished father?

2. European nationalism gives a finer resolution of Group interest than your inspired West-As-Unity vision of history. In the posts I have made from The Dilessi Murders, and in that historical episode in general, and more generally in the administration of affairs in 19th century Greece as a whole, Englishmen and Greeks were in conflict and competition: they had antagonistic interests. Your vision of history did not provide a sufficient resolution of motive, competition and interest to model the situation.

But Englishmen and Greeks do have competing interest, like all peoples the world over.

It would be better for Englishmen, in theory and in reality, if Greece were populated by Englishmen, rather than Greeks. Benefits to EGI, benefits of cross cultural influence, gaining a territory to travel in, expanded resources from increased trade. The loss of the modern Greeks would not even result in the loss of Plato, just like GW can have the Botticelli painting without having to genuflect to Italians. Rob them, rob them blind, and never ever say thank you.

3. Have you ever seen a Greek riding in a car? That’s funny—because in a world where cultural borrowing was dependent on reverance and reciprocity, no Greek would ever be riding in a car. He would be using a donkey and a cart to transport his vegetables to market. In the Hellenocentric world vision which dominates modern Greek thinking, the Brits come a far, far second to the elite Heirs of Socrates. They have never, ever genuflected to modern Northern Europeans as a thank-you for the industrial revolution, instead they have insisted on the centrality of Classical Thinking—the classic case of a worn-out culture resting on its laurels and begging money from it’s culturally-inferior superiors. If you read my posts from the Dilessi book, you will see this described in perfect clarity by Jenkins.

4. All this is well and good, I don’t want the Hellenes to have to answer to me for their ethnocentrism, even where it contradicts or seems to contradict historical truth. They can have it. But lets be clear that I’m going to arm myself and mine with a philosophy equally as for-itself as theirs is.

5. Culture is overrated. I value the works of Milton, and others, and every significant European author should have a bookshelf to call his home, even if only for reasons of historical interest. But your opinion that literary and religious culture should become a measuring stick for group interests and cooperation, overestimates the worth of culture both in the eyes of people generally and in the eyes of those who created it.

Mozart said “I write music like a sow pisses.” Which means, it was not a holy, magical process which led him to write his music, it was a kind of simple fullfillment of bodily needs. Likewise, I wrote poetry which was acclaimed by friends, family, and won some minor contests. God, there was nothing otherworldly or divine about it! Although these are fitting metaphors for a state of elevation which is in every sense completely worldly. I got excited about something, felt a breathe of some special stuff like I was breathing ‘large air’, was troubled with a dream and woke up and wrote the poem.

It was hormones and naivete, with some precocious brain power thrown into the mix. If I had more brain power and perhaps more hormones, I could have bested Shakespeare probably.

If someone who comes later wants to treat me like a God for composing poetry, or pretend to be an Heir to my cultural legacy, I would think: what a damn fool! Likewise these essays, anybody who thinks that way about my essays is an idiot.

But remove a bit to the past, Francis Bacon, the authors of the Sagas, or the Renaissance poets. Are they that different from what we are doing? They have the acclaim of history, so what? So will we, if our movement and our race succeeds.

I guess I no longer feel that my predecessors were better men than I am, or than you all are, although this is an insight which only came in the last three years or so. An in-depth inspection of each individual author’s biography will reveal the simple fact that that was a man, a gifted man, a hard working man, often a traumatized man, but a man.

Also, I recently read a book about Goethe which compared the original sources about him with the Goethe-cult which has arisen over the last 200 years. It put Goethe back in the position of a mentally gifted, able, amibitious man.

Posted by PF on August 07, 2007, 05:20 PM | #

Ezra Pound’s quote that everything that makes life worth living originated in Europe, is also an impiety against life.

What is he trying to say, without the industrial revolution, life wouldnt be worth living?

The comment strikes me as really base, in the old meaning of the word. Here is someone who puts culture before life, because he says, without culture, he wouldn’t want to live. He wants to give back the gift of life if he cant have modern European comfort.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 07, 2007, 05:38 PM | #

What has gone wrong with the Anglosphere and the West in general, has nothing to do with the English Civil war or a Puritan city on a hill. It has everything to do with the excesses of WWII and its aftermath, in particular, the mass resettlement of refugees or displaced persons in Europe.

The excesses of WWII led to the writing of the UNESCO Statement on Race in 1950 and the direct perversion of racialism and the science that surrounded it.

14.    The biological fact of race and the myth of “race” should be distinguished; for all practical social purposes “race” is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. The myth of “race” has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years it has taken a heavy toll in human lives and caused untold suffering. It still prevents the normal development of millions of human beings and deprives civilization of the effective co-operation of productive minds. The biological differences between ethnic groups should be disregarded from the standpoint of social acceptance and social action. The unity of mankind from both the biological and social viewpoints is the main thing. To recognize this and to act accordingly is the first requirement of modern man. It is but to recognize what a great biologist wrote in 1874: “As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.” These are the words of Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man ( 2nd ed., 1874, pp. 187-188). And, indeed, the whole of human history shows that a co-operative spirit is not only natural to man, but more deeply rooted than any selfseeking tendencies. If this were not so we should not see the growth of integration and organization of his communities which the centuries and the millennia plainly exhibit.

unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001269/126969eb.pdf

Posted by Scimitar on August 07, 2007, 05:58 PM | #

Why is our unity so obvious to outsiders and so at odds with commenters here? What has gone wrong with MR?

There is a simple explanation for this. The unity of Western civilization is more obvious at the periphery than at the center. The same can be said for the common interests of whites. Once again, I think your perspective is colored by your own socio-historical situation.

Posted by Scimitar on August 07, 2007, 05:59 PM | #

Desmond,

The Midwest and New England already had state civil rights laws by 1900.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 07, 2007, 06:13 PM | #

Scimitar,

With all due respect, and believe me I do enjoy your musings on the South immensely, but so what? Civil rights laws in New England did not mean mass immigration of non-whites, or prevent the restrictionists from passing their legislation in 1924. The most liberal people on the face of the Anglosphere planet, United Church ministers in Canada, believed before WWII that Canada had a right to remain “overwhelmingly European”. Now they equate pedophilia with homosexuality. The fundamental divide for race realism was WWII. WWI did not change the views of these liberal UC ministers. New England’s legislation did not budge them. It was the excesses of WWII that was the reef that broke the wave of race realism.

Posted by Scimitar on August 07, 2007, 06:22 PM | #

The best treatment of this subject I have ever seen remains Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. I’m still the only person I know who is familar with this source.

Kaufmann argues that Americanism had something of a “split personality” until the mid-twentieth century. On the one hand, there was a tradition of racial nationalism that predates the American Revolution and goes back to the late seventeenth century. On the other hand, there was a tradition of civic nationalism which was more inclusive. The two were always in tension.

Americans like Jefferson, Emerson, Lincoln, and TR wrestled with the two for many years. They suffered from “double consciousness.” Around the mid-19C, a more liberal strain of civic nationalism began to emerge that warred with the racial nationalist tradition; the best example being Garrison and his abolitionist circle.

In the late 19C/early 20C, Jews from Eastern Europe descended on the United States and brought all sorts of radical ideas with them. Eventually, the more radical Jews and the most degenerate element of the liberal progressives began to interact in Northern urban centers like Chicago and NYC. Horace Kallen’s influence upon Randolph Bourne and John Dewey comes to mind here.

Two strains of radicalism - one indigenous Anglo, the other immigrant and Jewish - merged into a new cosmopolitan avant-garde identity during the late 1920s/early 1930s. In the wake of WW2, this group gained cultural ascendency and purged the American national identity of its racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural elements.

Posted by Al Ross on August 07, 2007, 06:41 PM | #

As I’m sure Desmond knows, the UNESCO Statement on Race (1950) was largely the creation of Israel Ehrenberg (or Ashley Montagu, after he restyled himself) in his capacity as Rapporteur to that Monty Pythonesque madhouse of utopianist dolts and mattoids.

Posted by Scimitar on August 07, 2007, 06:42 PM | #

Scimitar,

With all due respect, and believe me I do enjoy your musings on the South immensely, but so what? Civil rights laws in New England did not mean mass immigration of non-whites, or prevent the restrictionists from passing their legislation in 1924.

It means that the Northern tier of the United States already had post-1964 style integration five decades before WW2. What’s more, during Reconstruction, the North attempted to extend this state of affairs to the entire American nation. That’s highly significant because the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were the legal foundation of Brown and federal civil rights legislation to this day.

By the time of Pearl Harbor, millions of white Americans believed the negro was the intellectual equal of the white man. We have polling data that confirms this. Virtually all of these people lived in the American North. Also, hereditarianism had been in retreat since the 1920s. See Elazar Barkan’s The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States Between the World Wars.

It is inaccurate to say that Puritanism has nothing to do with America’s race problem. That’s simply not true. There have been three major bouts of racial utopianism of this sort in the United States: during the 1790s, in the aftermath of the American Revolution; Reconstruction, in the aftermath of the American Civil War; and the Civil Rights Movement, in the aftermath of WW2.

Finally, there was a mass immigration of nonwhites into the American North: the exodus of millions of negroes to the North’s major cities. Previously, this wouldn’t have been tolerated: Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois had negro exclusion laws that prevented the settlement of free blacks. That’s changed after the Civil War. Those laws were repealed.

The most liberal people on the face of the Anglosphere planet, United Church ministers in Canada, believed before WWII that Canada had a right to remain “overwhelmingly European”.

During the 19C, Canada was the terminus of the Underground Railroad. That should tell you something about Canadian racial attitudes.

Now they equate pedophilia with homosexuality. The fundamental divide for race realism was WWII. WWI did not change the views of these liberal UC ministers. New England’s legislation did not budge them. It was the excesses of WWII that was the reef that broke the wave of race realism.

There is some truth to this. WW2 was indeed a major factor in the decline of racialism. It would be more accurate to say that WW2 was a catalyst for forces that were already at work in American society. Clearly though, the rot was already there before anyone had ever heard of Hitler.

You’re also forgetting something here: WW2 didn’t break the reef of race realism in the Jim Crow South or Apartheid South Africa. If anything, Southerners became more committed to segregation after the war than they had been before.

It was New England and the Midwest that came out of WW2 with their ideal of America being a “city on a hill” supercharged. Look at the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 90%+ Southerners in Congress voted against it. 90%+ Northerners voted for it.

British racial attitudes were a seesaw in the 19C. During the early 19C, in the heyday of abolitionism, the British were actually quite liberal on race. In most European countries, there was never a “fall” because there was never a “rise.” They simply never had any interest in racialism.

http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/07/28/egypt-in-america-the-confederacy-in-london/

Posted by Scimitar on August 07, 2007, 06:46 PM | #

BTW, I found out today that negro representatives from French West Africa were participating in the French parliament before WW2.

Posted by Al Ross on August 07, 2007, 08:35 PM | #

Scimitar, the French government attitude to their colonies was redolent of racial egalitarianism inasmuch as overseas possessions like Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco were, in fact, ‘departments’ of France. Thus did the French confuse and conflate the home country with its colonial empire and from there it was but a short, spuriously logical and suicidally insane post-colonial step to open immigration of racial aliens.

Posted by jonathan on August 07, 2007, 10:22 PM | #

PF, I recently read a critique that Goethe’s 20 year investigation into the underpinnings of Color was trumped by Newtons. Not being familiar with either besides the fascination and snippets I’ve gathered on Theory of Color, I want to disagree as Newton apparently didn’t join the cult of Faust knowingly. What might be your opinion on Goethe’s preference for yellow and blue?

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 07, 2007, 10:28 PM | #

Barken does show scientific racism under attack in the US by highlighting Boas et al. Such was not, however, the case in the UK where biology was important than anthropology. He also moves too readily from 1939 to the UNESCO statement in 1950. His case for environmentalism, in the UK, is weak.

Again, look to Canada, the most liberal of the liberals, still maintained that Canada was “European”, of the British race, white man’s country. As the Jews Abella and Troper are all to eager to remind us, vis-a-vis Jewish immigration in the 1930’s “None is to Many”. A notion roughly equivalent to Linder’s “no jews, just right” belief. That which was mainstream in pre-WWII Canada, land of the “underground railroad”, is now so far removed from today’s discourse that it might as well be from another universe. The mighty Jewish lobby, either in the US or Canada, could not land a boatload of 900 friggin’ Jews in either country in 1939. The Chinese were not enfranchised until 1947. Blacks could be denied service in restaurants, theaters, etc. until 1956. Immigration was still preferentially European until 1967. And this was not the deep South.

This is not rocket science. The flashing beacon of change is right there for all who wish to see it.

Posted by JB on August 08, 2007, 01:16 PM | #

What I don’t understand is why Soren is allowed to use this website to promote CvH and his absurd “National Bolshevism”.

you’re right, it’s a better question.

GW ?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2007, 02:07 PM | #

JB, there are many ways this cat is going to be skinned.  I’m no supporter of National Bolshevism but CvH is a strong voice for lots of things which this site stands for.  I guess I take the “big tent” approach to our struggle.  I welcome all allies and don’t require stringent tests of their orthodoxy.  The only test I require is, Do they oppose forced race-replacement, either explicitly (me, for example) or implicitly through their opposition to laws and policies the other side needs for race-replacement to succeed (JJR, for example)?  If they pass that test they’re on my side, is how I see things.  I don’t quibble over the other details.  I’m glad Soren has introduced us to CvH’s ideas.

Posted by wintermute on August 08, 2007, 05:28 PM | #

I welcome all allies and don’t require stringent tests of their orthodoxy.

You had some pretty stringent tests for that poor Greek man you hounded from this site. Why not for CvH?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2007, 06:18 PM | #

“You had some pretty stringent tests for that poor Greek man you hounded from this site.”  (—WM)

Pericles?  I didn’t hound him.  He couldn’t abide anyone expressing identity as a Christian.  Whenever I alluded to my Christian identity he jumped on my back like a monkey.  No one hounded him.  He hounded others.  I defended myself (as in this comments thread, for example).

If not him, I don’t know whom you mean.  Kubilai, a Greek Canadian, stopped commenting but it had nothing to do with me.  He and I were in perfect agreement.  Charles Copeland left because of me and as a result I came close to being banned.  Copeland wasn’t Greek, but an Irishman from the Republic.  (Just the other day here I posted a comment by him in a Turnabout thread, btw.)  And in Copeland’s case I wouldn’t say I hounded him.  It was more that he feared association with this site might embarrass him in front of the EU politicos he hung out with (he wasn’t signing with a pseudonym).

Arcane made himself unbearable with his Hitler fetish so I went after him a few times, when he showed up seemingly in order to let loose with his “GOTCHA YOU’RE A NAZI!” schtick.  But 1) he richly deserved even worse, for being a) dishonest, b) not one-thousandth as smart as he thought he was, and c) a hyper-obnoxious little twerp and insufferable pest and 2) he wasn’t Greek.

I don’t know whom else you might mean.  There was a Greek-Orthodox, half-Greek-by-ancestry blogger who came here for a while the other month and left long classical-cultural/Christian posts which I liked.  His pen name eludes me just at the moment.  I never hounded him.  I liked him.

In general I like Greeks.

As for CvH, he has a lot of not only good stuff but outstandingly excellent stuff.  Yes it’s mixed with a lot of really bad stuff.  But let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water, shall we?  The guy’s confused.  He’ll straighten out, is my feeling.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2007, 07:33 PM | #

Unless you mean David Stennett (“DS”)?  He’s Greek?  Yes I harshly criticized him and with reason.  Furthermore, he’s not exactly a shrinking violet, so I don’t think anything I said has kept him from coming.

Posted by Andy on August 08, 2007, 07:33 PM | #

I guess I take the “big tent” approach to our struggle.  I welcome all allies and don’t require stringent tests of their orthodoxy.

First, a clarification as to what a “big tent” approach actually entails: It’s an approach where individuals of differing view-points come together to promote a shared interest, temporarily ignoring areas of disagreement.  How exactly does the promotion of philo-semitism and of a Berlin-Moscow-Jerusalem axis actually serve the interests of Europeans? Under a theoretical “big tent” approach, these would be the positions of CvH which we would ignore, instead choosing to focus on his helpful positions.  It’s self-defeating if the Big Tent is promoting ideas destructive to its own values. 

The only test I require is, Do they oppose forced race-replacement, either explicitly (me, for example) or implicitly through their opposition to laws and policies the other side needs for race-replacement to succeed (JJR, for example)?  If they pass that test they’re on my side, is how I see things.  I don’t quibble over the other details.  I’m glad Soren has introduced us to CvH’s ideas.

  Our side/Their side is the wrong paradigm to use when evaluating writers/ideas on the internet.  It’s far more useful to evaluate in terms of helpful versus not helpful.  It’s not about orthodoxy, it’s about usefulness.  If a writer opposes race-replacement while simultaneously promoting ideas that would lead to it, are they still worthwhile in your view? Everything I’ve read from you suggests that you would say yes. 

CvH may oppose the flooding of Europe with third-worlders, but National Bolshevism and non-serious writing (red roasting rodents) are the wrong way to go about it.

But let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water, shall we?  The guy’s confused.  He’ll straighten out, is my feeling.

  Good. Let’s have posts about CvH at that point, when he’s all straightened out.

Posted by Al Ross on August 08, 2007, 09:14 PM | #

Fred, I think the name you were looking for is ‘Lindsay Wheeler’ .

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2007, 10:12 PM | #

“Fred, I think the name you were looking for is ‘Lindsay Wheeler’.”

Al thanks, yes, that’s the name.

Posted by Scimitar on August 08, 2007, 10:44 PM | #

Everyone, say hello to Big Von and his friend Impérialiste. They have been following our discussion at another website. I can’t say that I dislike Big Von. I know relatively little about him. His views are simply incomprehensible to me:

1.) The Soviet Union as a bastion of white racial preservation.
2.) Russia/USSR not being an imperialist power.
3.) “From Jerusalem to Berlin to Moscow.”
4.) Jews are our allies.
5.) Steve’s point re: alienation.

None of that makes any sense. Big Von says he isn’t interested in defending his views here. He doesn’t care what other people think.

Big Von is also claiming that Duke frequents “massage parlors” in Moscow while complaining about pornography. For some reason, I am inclined to believe that he is telling the truth here, as I have seen photos of Duke and Big Von together. Given Duke’s history, that wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Is Duke ever in the United States? It seems like he is in Eastern Europe every time I hear about him. An individual who calls himself “Captain Marinesko” posts:

Why would you be surprised by that? These people aren’t rational thinkers. They will condemn pornography while screwing prostitutes. These Westerners are nothing but scammers. Russia does not need them. At least the Turkish businessmen who come here for sex don’t tell you they’re trying to “save your race”.

That’s an explosive charge. Is there any further evidence that it has any merit?

Posted by wintermute on August 08, 2007, 11:04 PM | #

I even think that an extended philosophical debate of this kind could be profitable to everyone at this site, by offering insights which only a collision of our two viewpoints could make clear.

I have said before on the Classics thread, that there is simply no point in you and I having any discussion whatsoever. I now see that I was right.

I think also my more general discussion with Majority Rights is properly finished, as there is nothing for me to say here that is not simply a rewording of what has gone before.

That said, I will leave you with three gifts that I earnestly do hope will help you in your difficult situation.

Firstly, a proper name. I dub you Tarquin, after the early and semi-legendary kings of Rome. Here is the story that makes the name seem so fitting for you:

An old woman came before where Tarquin the Proud sat, and demanded that she be brought before him, the king. Now Tarquin had had a dream in which an old woman appeared, and when he heard that there was such a one near he let her be brought before him. So she came and she stood before where the king sat in his ivory chair, With his purple robe upon him, and with the men who bore the rods and the axes standing around him. She was very old; she held herself up with a staff; her face was a mass of wrinkles. Nevertheless, the grey hair that fell upon her shoulders was heavy and her eyes were filled with light. She stood before the kin, this grey old woman, and she showed him what she held in her hands.

She had nine books. “These books I would sell to you, O king,” she said, and her voice was startling to all who were around, either because she spoke like one unused to the utterance of words or because there was a tone in it clearer and stronger than they expected to hear. “These books I would sell to you, king of Rome,” she said. “What is in your books?” the king asked her. “A foretelling of events that may befall,” she said, “and a way of dealing with them that will help to the safety and the greatness of Rome.” “How much do you ask for your nine books?” “Half of all that is in the king’s treasury,” she said.

“This is a crazy woman,” said the king. Those who were around him said, “A crazy crone she is.” The old woman asked them to bring near to her the brazier of burning coals that was in the hall where the king sat. They brought it near her. Then the old woman took three of her books and cast them into the fire and watched the flames burn them. When the leaves were in ashes she did not go from the hall. Once more, leaning on her staff, she looked at the king and she said, “I have books for sale; it is for you to buy them, O king.” “How much do you ask for the six books that are left?” the king asked. “Half of all that is in the king’s treasury,” she said. “But this is what you asked before; you had nine books then and now you have six only.” “I ask the same price for six as I did for nine.” “She must be the craziest woman in Rome,” said those who were about the king. “But she does not belong to Rome; she is a stranger; no one here has ever seen her before.” “What does the king say?” said the woman. “I cannot pay that price for yours or for anyone else’s books,” said King Tarquin.

Then the old woman threw into the brazier three of her books and watched them burn to ashes. For a while she remained leaning on her staff and looking down into the brazier; the flames lighted up her face with all its wrinkles, and Tarquin the Proud looking upon her felt in awe of that stranger-woman. She looked at him from across the brazier. “Half of all that is in your treasury, O king,” said she, “for the three books that are yet unburned.”

Then those who were around the king laughed heartily; but the king did not laugh. He knew that if he did not buy the books she had they would be thrown into the brazier and burned to ashes, and that the old woman would depart and never afterwards be seen in Rome. Long he pondered without answering her. Then he beckoned to her and she came and stood beside his chair. She left the three books with the king, and when she went from the hall she was allowed to go into the king’s treasury and take half of all that was there.

The king put the three books that he bought from her in a shrine in the temple of Iuppiter. And there they remained for a thousand years. Fifteen priests guarded them; it was the duty of the fifteen to read them whenever the immortal Gods were to be consulted regarding the welfare of the Roman state.

So, a rebuke, but not an unhopeful one.

Secondly, I offer you a good-faith answer to your question, why won’t the classics open for me? Your anger and impatience regarding these works remind me of the question asked in Rilke’s “Sonnets to Orpheus”: When do we become real? When does he pour the stars and the sky into us?

If you read C.S. Lewis’ “Till We Have Faces” from beginning to end, then you will know why the Classics never opened for you.

Lastly, on the subject of European history and continuity.

In America, when someone is having trouble understanding something, his or her interlocutor will often say, here, let me draw a picture for you, or, let me paint you a picture.

I can’t draw a picture for you, PF, but I can draw your attention to a picture that already exists.

The painter is John Duncan, a Scottish symbolist. He died in 1945. The title of the work is “The Masque of Love”.

The figures, left to right, are: Orpheus, Semele, Cupid and Psyche, Sappho, Francis of Assisi, Isolde, Elaine (carrying the shield of Lancelot), Hugh of Lincoln, Aucassin and Nicolette, Dante witnessing the vision of Paulo and Frencesca, Màgia Santi and her son, Raphael.

From the Encyclopedia Orphica: http://www.rastko.org.yu/drama/zstefanovic/orfej/mit/

“In the background Alcestis is carried off to death (behind Semele), and Percival carries a stave as he rides in quest of the Holy Grail.”

No identity is given for either of the winged figures, but as the paiting is currently in the Paisley Museum and Art Gallery, perhaps you can go and ask them in person.

Well, now I have drawn you a picture. I think, in all honesty, that you can’t ask for more than that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 09, 2007, 08:42 PM | #

”(Just the other day here I posted a comment by him in a Turnabout thread, btw.)”  (—my comment, above)

Forgive me, I should have gone back and checked:  that was a comment by Clark Coleman I posted, not Charles Copeland.  I used to get those two names mixed up; evidently I still do.  (Clark Coleman btw, a very smart guy, used to be a semi-regular commenter at VFR.  I remember he also got banned by Richard Poe around the same time I did.)