|
|
Ludendorff’s Carelessness and Scimitar’s “Petty Nationalism”Americans see genocidal conflict in the European World Wars, and they see European nationalists placing great emphasis on local cultural peculiarities, and think the one somehow derives from the other. As though the national self-concept has become so defined, and so specific, and so powerful, that it forbids cooperation and forces all Europeans to be always at each other’s throats, waging irrational wars. This somehow is construed as a result of an overemphasis on parochial culture, which as we know, is an important part of ingroup-outgroup boundary marking. We don’t want to give up the ingroup-outgroup boundary markers, but we also don’t want internecine, genocidal conflict amongst related peoples. How do we resolve this contradiction?
The reason for the length of these conflicts and the incredible destruction they caused lies not in any emphasis on parochial cultures, but rather in the psychological distance between those conducting the war and those actually fighting it: something like the same reason the Iraq war continues today, though it should have ended at the latest in 2004. This psychological distance resulted from entrenched aristocratic leadership in World War I, and from Hitler, a very special case all his own, in World War II. Such psychological distance between a nation and it’s leaders prevents the clear recognition of national interests by the leaders and dooms them to irrational conflicts. This misunderstanding of national interests also makes problematic the claim’s of these leaders to nationalism: it would be more fitting to describe their ideologies as nationalistic, yet not as nationalism. Ludendorff and the Prussian Junkers in charge of World War I knew little or nothing at all of the would-be Kitsch-essence of German “petty nationalism”. These men grew up on feudal Estates in modern-day Poland and the Baltic countries: something like a mixture of King Arthur’s Round Table and Count Dracula’s Castle. Precisely for this reason, they did not care about the actual German nation, so they had no problem sending them to their deaths. This excerpt is from Fest’s Hitler:
What from the American perspective is construed as bloodthirsty hatred based on minute cultural differences, as evidenced by these wars, was actually just the stupidity of this man and others like him, their outmoded thinking, and Hitler’s incredible psychological complexes, which kept a war machine running long after the interests of Nationalism would have demanded it be shut down. Nationalism, properly understood, would have fought the wars in all probability; properly understood, it would have ended them much sooner. Nationalism considers the interests of the nation as paramount. It is not “petty”, but in the presence of immense psychological distance between Leader and Nation, the one cannot be said to properly pursue the interests of the other. Germany had feudal leaders in World War I who made use of nationalist sentiment; she had Hitler in World War II, whose interpretation of nationalism did not exclude the possibility of sending each member of the German nation to his or her death. That is not nationalism, it is Hitlerism.
Posted by Potential Frolic on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 10:24 PM in Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 22, 2007, 12:03 AM | # What went wrong with the XXth-Century European wars was the United States sticking its nose into them where it had no business. But for that, the first war would’ve ended after two years in a negotiated settlement to the Central Powers’ advantage. (Ludendorff, incidentally, wasn’t a Junker, if memory serves.) The second wouldn’t have taken place (neither would the Bolshevik revolution) but if it did and the U.S. kept out as it ought to have, that would’ve ended in Russia’s defeat by the Third Reich around 1943 and a negotiated settlement with the British Empire. The United States sticking its nose into Europe was the cause of most of the misery of the appallingly bad XXth Century. The United States is now paying the penalty for its many sins. It’s going to learn the hard way how to behave itself next time ... if there is a next time ... 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 22, 2007, 12:22 AM | # The United States fought World War II essentially in order to impose race-replacement on the Eurosphere in the war’s aftermath. That much is now clear. 4
Posted by James Bowery on August 22, 2007, 03:10 AM | # The United States is now paying the penalty for its many sins. There is only one sin here really: Cromwell’s Bush-like amnesty for illegal immigrant Jews coming to England. Well, not exactly: Imagine the US Chambers of Commerce objecting and Bush _still_ aiding and abetting illegal immigrants. 5
Posted by PF on August 22, 2007, 06:01 AM | #
I don’t know why the emphasis on the Junkers is odd, because to understand German military culture both WWI and WWII you need to understand above all Prussian culture. My assertion is that the feudal nature of Germany in WWI and in WWII, Hitler’s complexes, caused the wars to go on till the bitter end. Much longer than national interest would have dictated.
This ‘hero of Germany’ was operating on a strategy which saw the destruction of Germany in the category of acceptable loss. That person will, to my mind, never be a hero.
A real hard-core nationalist never allows for this possibility. He would defer to diplomacy 100 times before seeing his nation ‘destroyed’, but these guys thought differently. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on August 22, 2007, 08:07 AM | # I found this post highly interesting. Maybe I should put together a response at the top of the page, with the title, “Not on the beaches ... in the air”. For the bomber offensive, and most particularly Harris’s Area Offensive ordered on Valentine’s Day 1942, was the true and most tangible British reply to Hitler’s offer of terms after the Luftwaffe’s disaster on Eagle Day (and, of course, to its own subsequent switch to the night-bombing of British cities). The RAF proved stronger than the Luftwaffe both as a Fighter Command able to protect the homeland (in daylight, at least) and as a Bomber Command able, after the Battle of Hamburg, to inflict disproportionately high civilian losses. So, to follow PF’s reasoning, the British were presenting Hitler with far higher costs. But they were in a civilian currency he could not properly value, as evinced by his final will and testament written in the Fuehrerbunker, in which he ordered the German people to fight on even unto extinction. It was Harris’s objective to demoralise the German populace and sap their war-will. Post-war historians of British air policy have largely critiqued this on the reasonable grounds that no such collapse ever occurred, either here with respect to the Luftwaffe’s offensive or in Germany with respect to Bomber Command’s. But by extention to PF’s point, the very existence of the Area Offensive proves Harris and Churchill were sensitive to civilian costs, and may have been the only ones in the equation to be so. 7
Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 22, 2007, 08:24 AM | # This excerpt is from Fest’s Hitler… Joachim Fest is considered by nationalists to be a propagandist for the other side. His works contain much disinformation about Hitler and NS Germany. Hitler’s complexes What complexes exactly? The ones Fest taught you about? My assertion is that the feudal nature of Germany in WWI and in WWII, Germany was the most culturally and educationally advanced country of its time. The above is ridiculous, probably more propaganda from Fest. Hitler’s complexes, caused the wars to go on till the bitter end. Much longer than national interest would have dictated. The reason Hitler fought to the end, and a good one, is because 1) he was slimly hoping for a capitalist/communist split, expecting the British to come to their senses regarding the murderous USSR, and 2) he knew a loss meant the jews would seize Germany’s sovereignty permanently. Hitler was right, as we see. Ludendorff and the Prussian Junkers in charge of World War I knew little or nothing at all of the would-be Kitsch-essence of German “petty nationalism”. No, no. PF has swallowed far too much Jewish propaganda. He does not know Ludendorff and the Junkers were a prime target of Jewish propagandists from 1917-1945 or why. 8
Posted by PF on August 22, 2007, 09:33 AM | #
All I see in this book are specific quotes, references, dates, excerpts from documents, referrences to contemporary events, and in short, a litany of facts, the use of which acquit Fest of the accusation of propaganda.
Germany was a society still half-moored in feudalism, with all the supposed benefits and very real pitfalls that brings with it. Like a deluded officer class raised on remembrances of 1870, not understanding that men running at machine guns would not recreate the glories of their illustrious much-worshipped forebears, no matter how many times they ordered German men to charge at those guns.
I’m going to be posting psychological portraits of Hitler from Fest in upcoming additions to this blog. This Saint of revisionist New World German Nationalism was in fact a much more complex and strange man than often acknowledged. More to come. 9
Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 22, 2007, 10:05 AM | # All I see in this book are specific quotes, references, dates, excerpts from documents, referrences to contemporary events, and in short, a litany of facts, the use of which acquit Fest of the accusation of propaganda. Not if key sources are themselves part of a propagandist circle-jerk, as they are. Fest is bad news. I’m going to be posting psychological portraits of Hitler from Fest in upcoming additions to this blog. This Saint of revisionist New World German Nationalism was in fact a much more complex and strange man than often acknowledged. Oh boy. 10
Posted by PF on August 22, 2007, 10:40 AM | #
From Wikipedia:
Regarding his parents and upbringing, solidly upper middle class Berliner:
So his lack of sympathy with Hitler can be tied to his fathers dismissal from the Weimar government, and seen even in his youth, when he got kicked out of school for drawing a caricature of Hitler. His parents were both strongly against the NSDAP. His death led to alot of newspaper editorials celebrating him as a “a controversial Conservative”, “the proud loner”, “the last Citizen of the Bundesrepublik”, “A small-world of decency”, “A man against every Zeitgeist.” 11
Posted by PF on August 22, 2007, 11:03 AM | # To use the terminology of Dunbar and the other guy: These Prussian militarists had no ordinary everyday Germans in their ‘monkeysphere’. Hitler had nobody in his ‘monkeysphere’. 12
Posted by Sir Roger on August 22, 2007, 11:03 AM | # ‘What went wrong with the XXth-Century European wars was the United States sticking its nose into them where it had no business. ‘ Agree with this statement wholeheartedly—I’ve always questioned why not only the USA or even Britain for that matter got sucked into that fiasco. WWI was a dumb war fought for dumb reasons, but when it got started, it wasn’t anything the European generals were surprised by—from the Wars of Louis XIV onward, European statelets had been getting drawn into these intra-European conflicts, though the technology of WWI made this one a good deal deadlier. What made the First World War so much more disastrous for Europe in general, was that the normal checks on a war’s length, destructiveness and capacity to sow resentment were gutted by the leaders involved. In past European wars, all sides tended to avoid seeking a “KO” against their enemies, in part due to a recognition of their shared culture and interests but also due to a recognition of the mutual damage from a drawn-out war. There was either a quick victory for one side or another and a resolution—which generally involved only minor changes to the status quo ante—or some kind of armistice following a stalemate which, *especially* if the war had dragged on, also tended to restore the status quo ante, to involve all parties, and to avoid sowing seeds of resentment. The Wars of the League of Augsburg, Austrian Succession, Spanish Succession and others were quite bloody affairs but they were self-limited by the sense of mutual interests involved, and the refusal of any side to impose terms that were too harsh on any of the others. While Ludendorff was a fool and IMHO one of the more distasteful figures on either side (though he’s nowhere near being in the same league as Douglas Haig and other British generals who used their own soldiers and the Australians as cannon fodder), it was chiefly the Allies—including that fool Woodrow Wilson—who were responsible for refusing to allow an armistice and doing everything they could to introduce a non-status-quo ante peace that was guaranteed to sow resentment. As you say, the intervention of the Americans was crucial in allowing this disaster to unfold. Both sides, but especially the Central Powers were putting out floaters for an armistice as early as 1915—they had started to realize how useless and wasteful the war had become, and were seeking to restore the status quo ante. They’d learned how ruinous war with the new weaponry was and were determined to be more cautious in the future. This is where I find the UK and especially the USA guilty for a catastrophically stupid mistake that would ultimately cause them far, far more damage than it would cause Germany. Britain saw an opportunity to gain imperial territory from the Ottoman Empire, and also to deliver a KO against someone they saw as an industrial rival, i.e. Germany. The British especially therefore prolonged the war for their own foolish ambitions while blocking a states quo ante armistice *and* enlisting the Americans. It was this prolongation that led to all the subsequent disasters, including the Bolshevik Revolution and the Treaty of Versailles. The irony here, is that Britain was ultimately by far the biggest loser of World War I and then from its successor. Before the World Wars, the UK had the world’s biggest and richest empire bar none—*the* world power par excellence. By the end of the World Wars, Britain was a bankrupt, second rate power being stripped of its empire with further military defeats against local rebels. From 1945 onward, British forces were so weak that they couldn’t even defeat local resistance in the East Indies or the Middle East, and the British saw their Empire crumble in ignominy. Germany posed no threat to the UK and the Germans had no interest in fighting the British whom they saw as Teutonic brethren and natural allies—Wilhelm II was the opposite of a revolutionary like Napoleon, and he had no interest in disrupting British trade routes or imposing a Napoleonic Continental System to hurt British commerce. Britain could have easily sat out the war, or just fought on the margins, e.g. some skirmishes in Africa or naval actions not necessarily favoring any side, but to the benefits of Britain’s Empire. The result of this would have likely been a rapid German victory on the Continent, but not one that would have had much effect either way—there was a minor request list from Kaiser Wilhelm II that chiefly sought out the creation of a Polish buffer zone between Prussia and Russia, hardly an unreasonable or overly ambitious request. Instead, the UK—just as the USA later did—got its nose involved in a conflict where it had no real interests, and it was Britain that ultimately got slaughtered for it. It had taken almost 3 centuries to build up Britain’s fortune in its Empire, and in the span of those 4 awful war years from 1914-1918, Britain managed to bankrupt itself in WWI. British performance in the war was abysmal, the casualty ratio (# of Tommies needed to cause one Central Powers casualty vs. vice versa) and expenditures needed to bring about an effect on the field were horrendous for Britain. So the British government tried to compensate for military incompetence with outrageously extravagant expenditures—Britain being by far the most profligate spender on any side in the conflict—which bankrupted the UK and put them in hock to US bankers and merchants. The British also managed to kill off an entire generation of their own best and brightest, they sent off the cream of their crop from Oxbridge to get slaughtered in the Somme and Gallipoli. They got their own country bombed by the Zeppelins and their ships creamed on the high seas. Instead of just accepting the armistice in 1915, when they could have preserved the heart of their empire and their economic standing, they kept fighting on with their idiot fantasies of KO’ing Germany and especially, getting Ottoman Turkish territory. In doing so, they enabled the Bolshevik Revolution which brought further disaster to the West in particular, and Britain in particular—many of those anti-colonial movement which caused such destruction of the British Empire in places from Egypt to Ireland to SE Asia and Yemen, invoked Communist ideology. (Churchill himself saw this danger when the Bolshevik Revolution took place and helped to send British troops into the Russian Civil War to fight against the Communists—unfortunately, the British were defeated, as were their anti-Communist allies.) And what did the British gain from all that disaster they caused themselves when they picked up some territories of the former Ottoman Empire? Oh, that’s right—they got Mesopotamia, where they were “rewarded” with a nasty, bloody rebellion in the new country of Iraq in the 1920’s, that led to even more nastiness which traps them still. Remember, the British after WWI also suffered further defeats in Afghanistan (where they’d been defeated before and never had an empire) and in Ireland (where they definitely did have an empire). Just as Britain entered and especially *continued* WWI for stupid and shortsighted reasons that would ultimately destroy it as a world power, so did the United States in 1917. In this case, the USA had even less to gain—this was nothing more than Wilson’s narcissistic fantasy of his League of Nations. Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst leaders in world history, and his entry into WWI has caused far more damage to Western civilization than almost any other blunder. He further prevented a sensible armistice from taking place, blocking the simple working out and coming-to-terms that the Europeans were inevitably being pushed toward. Wilson, remember, also thoroughly persecuted German-Americans in the USA—people who had been probably the country’s best contributors to the United States’ leadership in fields like commerce, science and technology—and so sowed bitter resentment among them, the USA’s biggest ethnic group, which distanced them from a sense of belonging to the US and ultimately damaged the USA’s fabric as a Western civilization in general. And Germany wound up Europe’s preeminent power anyway, dominating the economy and the European Union that sprouted up after the Second World War. Now look at the sorry state of Britain in particular and also of the United States. The UK is a third-rate power that has been stripped of self-respect and robbed of its sense of even being a Western nation. Not only was the British Empire destroyed, but Britain itself is being destroyed by multiculturalism and an inability to assert its own Western identity. The UK will be a majority non-White nation in no more than 20-30 years—it’s already descended to become a dirty, litter-strewn, alcoholic, squalid and ruined cesspool of a place that’s clearly lost all appreciation for its own self, as any trip to Britain these days will reveal. The USA is a superficially powerful nation that nonetheless has a core so weak and in such pathetic shape, that we’re headed for a disastrous fall far more horrible than anything than even the gloomiest of Romans in the 5th century would have envisioned for Rome. We’re essentially bankrupt, in extreme debt that we compound with the Iraq War that’s trapped both us and the UK (another gift from WWI). The USA along with Britain’s spin-off nations after WWI (New Zealand, Canada, probably even Australia) is about to become a Third World, non-White majority nation a little after 2020. (Germany, for all its own problems, is at least largely replenishing itself with Germanic immigrants it draws in from its overseas peoples.) In spite of all the other disastrous effects on the USA and Britain from the First World War, the worst by far is the disease of the mind that we’ve been afflicted by, which owes partly to the non-Western “one-world” ideology that we picked up partly as a result of Woodrow Wilson’s idiotic principles, partly straight out of Socialist/Communist cultural Marxist ideology that’s infected us even as we try to push it away. Our political correctness in the USA and UK that antagonizes anything hinting of a White Western identity, the 1965 immigration law, the moves in the UK and USA to liquidate not only the White majority but anything hinting of our civilizational heritage—all of these represent our “gifts” from WWI. And we could have avoided all of these disasters if the UK and especially the USA had simply stayed out of a fight that did not concern us in any form. Thanks to the likes of Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Herbert Henry Asquith and the others, the United States and Britain have been inflicted with mortal wounds from which we will not recover. The only solace is that Germany/Austria, another center of Western high civilization (maybe the paramount one depending on your inclination), will likely make it through our current crisis intact, and at least provide some kind or refuge for what’s left of Western civilization in two decades. But that’s at best a minor silver lining for those of us in North America or the United Kingdom, who are compelled to witness our own Western, Nordic civilization crushed for good before our very eyes by the consequences of the First World War and the forces that conflict set in motion. 13
Posted by Sir Roger on August 22, 2007, 11:23 AM | # “Hitler’s complexes, caused the wars to go on till the bitter end. Much longer than national interest would have dictated.” I’m not going to defend Hitler or his reckless ambition here, but what caused the war to push on like that was FDR’s idiotic insistence on unconditional surrender. You seem to forget that Hitler was deeply resented by many in the German officer class and the army, who planned to assassinate him at multiple points—before the war even started, after the Soviet invasion and especially, before Hitler sent the tanks into Russia in the first place. Germany’s military was quite nationalistic, but by and large it had limited sympathy for the overambitious and loopy Nazi ideology—they were mostly interested in smaller, more practical gains that could be held, along the lines of what the much more clever Bismarck had managed in the 19th century. The military realized that even if the Wehrmacht could conquer large territories, they couldn’t possibly hold and administer them long-term—factions, civil wars and the same nationalistic resistance that plagued Napoleon would have broken up any German empire after 1941 and threatened the very integrity of Germany itself. Only the nearby territories with pre-existing German settlement were relevant, which the generals realized. Had Franklin Delano Roosevelt not insisted on the foolish unconditional surrender doctrine, Hitler’s opponents would have had much more support to topple him and oust the Nazi leadership, resulting most likely in a negotiated settlement of some sort or another. But unconditional surrender gave them little choice but to fight on. I’d say that the country most severely victimized by this doctrine was actually Britain—the UK was blitzed well into 1945 and then got the V-1s and V-2s aimed right at it. (The air war of the Battle of Britain did nothing to stop the Luftwaffe bombing attacks.) The German leadership and even Hitler weren’t very interested in hurting Britain, their targets were France and especially the USSR, but Roosevelt’s unconditional surrender doctrine—which Churchill also felt obliged to accept, to ensure American help—put the United Kingdom squarely in the crosshairs, with the result that historic Britain was turned into a parking lot. Whenever I visit my relatives in the UK today, I weep to think at what was lost of the country’s history and heritage—physical and otherwise—due to the bombing in the Second World War, supplemented by further damage from the IRA’s campaigns from the 1970’s. I sometimes wonder if the current malaise and self-destructiveness of the British nation, has something do with Britain’s loss of its connection to its own historical grounding. The continuation of WWII, and the damage that it caused the West in general—damage most acute, paradoxically as we know now, for the US and Britain—would have been spared in the absence of Roosevelt’s idiotic unconditional surrender doctrine. While FDR was not as appallingly bad as Woodrow Wilson, his insistence on Unconditional Surrender, not to mention his backstabbing betrayal of the Polish people and other Eastern Europeans to the Soviet Communist forces in 1945 (which FDR clearly sympathized with—my Polish in-laws still hate FDR for that), render Franklin Roosevelt, along with Wilson, among the most atrocious traitors to Western Civilization in history, and we’re still paying for his blunders. In fact, this has only just begun for us. Of course, if the UK and USA had just stayed out of WWI, we wouldn’t have had a disastrous WWI in the first place. 14
Posted by Sir Roger on August 22, 2007, 11:33 AM | # “Germany was a society still half-moored in feudalism, with all the supposed benefits and very real pitfalls that brings with it. Like a deluded officer class raised on remembrances of 1870, not understanding that men running at machine guns would not recreate the glories of their illustrious much-worshipped forebears, no matter how many times they ordered German men to charge at those guns.” And the British officer class differed from this… how, exactly? Something about Douglas Haig sending off an entire generation of hardy young British men to be massacred by the German machine guns at the Somme? The rigidity and blunders of military thinking were a problem for all sides on the conflict. (It’s notable that despite this, Germany’s military still vastly outperformed any of the others by leaps and bounds—N. Ferguson, very much a pro-British Empire defender, has drawn attention to this.) The generals were realizing this already by 1915, which is why there was already an interest in a negotiated peace, an armistice with “malice toward none” and in general a return to the status quo ante. With such a peace, the powers fighting in WWI would have drawn back, but this time having learned the lessons that the new technology of the war made another such intra-European conflict inevitably one of far more losses than gains. It was Britain’s stupid insistence on a KO against the German nation which they saw as an industrial and technological rival, and especially the disastrous participation of the United States, which prevented such a magnanimous negotiated peace, leading to the resulting outbreak of the Bolshevik Revolution, WWII, and the PC mind disease that’s ruining the West and destroying Britain, the USA and Canada in particular. It’s an irony that both Britain and the USA would have been the chief beneficiaries of a negotiated, amicable peace in 1915 (or even a quick German victory), since this would have spared Britain the disastrous losses in their finances and manpower that destroyed the empire the British had spent centuries putting together, and would have spared the UK and the USA the disastrous identity crisis which is taking down our home nations today. 15
Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 22, 2007, 12:01 PM | # they kept fighting on with their idiot fantasies of KO’ing Germany and especially, getting Ottoman Turkish territory. Lloyd George on WWI and British interest in acquiring Ottoman territory for Jews: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/l-george.html but what caused the war to push on like that was FDR’s idiotic insistence on unconditional surrender. Was it Roosevelt’s insistence? From http://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/10.html :
For those unfamiliar with the wartime Roosevelt Regime, Morgenthau dominated policymaking in a way analogous to Elliot Cohen and Bush Regime today. 16
Posted by Sir Roger on August 22, 2007, 12:05 PM | # ‘The United States sticking its nose into Europe was the cause of most of the misery of the appallingly bad XXth Century. The United States is now paying the penalty for its many sins. It’s going to learn the hard way how to behave itself next time ... if there is a next time ...’ That’s the heart of it. Just like you say, by 1915, when it became clear that the military technology of WWI and the nature of the Western front were going to bog Europe down in mutually destructive trench warfare, the German leadership (as well as a few enlightened leaders on the Allied side who were ignored) began to seek a negotiated peace, an armistice with a return to the status quo ante. Even in the absence of such a negotiated peace, the Central Powers were actually asking for very little other than a Polish corridor as a buffer against Russia and a leading role in the Continental trade networks, as opposed to France. Thus, the German leadership was largely seeking a kind of malice-toward-none peace. Even as late as 1917, with Britain, France and Russia all defeated prior to the Bolshevik Revolution and the American entry into WWI, this malice-toward-none peace or an armistice is what the Germans largely sought. (Remember, before the Bolshevik Revolution there was the anti-czarist February Revolution in Russia, with many Russians wanting to withdraw from the war—it was Britain in particular that was pushing for Russia to stay in, leading to further antagonism of the Russian masses and the door being opened to the Bolsheviks.) Either of these outcomes—a quick German victory or, more likely, an early armistice with a return to the status quo ante—would have saved all sides the ruin that resulted, and it would have ironically been better especially for the UK and USA, both of which were badly hurt from a drawn-out war and both of which are brining about our own self-destruction in the aftermath. Compare that status quo ante armistice—differing from the situation before only by the likely creation of a Polish corridor and some variation of the Czech/Yugoslavian nations which were already growing more autonomous and independent from the multinational Hapsburg state—and a peace without malice, avoiding the Bolshevik Revolution and the disastrous US entry into the war, resulting in a peace much like the armistices that concluded earlier European wars, with what we got instead. The Bolshevik Revolution, Versailles, WWII, the 1965 immigration law, political correctness and cultural Marxism, demographic warfare against Whites in the UK and USA, multi-trillion dollar US debt with our own imperialistic gig (with similar rising indebtedness in the United Kingdom), the destruction of the British Empire, the current self-destruction of the USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand and probably even Australia, i.e. the essential destruction of the Anglosphere—all would have been prevented if the British and especially the USA had just stayed out of WWI, or alternatively by a negotiated peace, an early armistice of even a German victory, since the Central Powers had little interest in imposing a vindictive settlement. If the British had just been able to see the Germans as potential allies of Western civilization in their technological, industrial and cultural prowess—rather than as dangerous competitors who had to be delivered a knockout punch—and if Woodrow Wilson and the USA had not stupidly entered the First World War in which the country had no prevailing interest, then the USA, UK and our cousin Anglophone countries would have avoided the crisis that is destroying us today. Just like you say, the USA is paying a horrific penalty today, and my fear is that there won’t be a next time for us to apply our lessons—the country is headed for a catastrophic collapse, with our current debt, our military defeat and most of all, the successful demographic warfare waged by the cultural Marxists on White civilization here. In my darker and more cynical moments, I sometimes wonder if the best thing for the USA, might paradoxically be an acceleration of the importation of non-Whites so that American Whites become a minority even faster—at a point when we’ll hopefully still have some kind of geographic majority status at least in enclaves in places like the Pacific Northwest, Great Plains and Upper Rockies. Instead, the way things are now, we’re suffering a more slow-motion conquest that may well leave us without any kind of homeland in a few decades. Think about it—does anyone think it’s an accident that the Somalis are routed to a place as ridiculously different from their homeland as Minnesota? Or that the Sudanese are routed to Maine and upstate New York? Or that welfare benefits are structured to attract the Hmong to Wisconsin? These are the few remaining White outposts still present in the United States, and it’s obvious that the cultural Marxists are trying to saturate them as well as the already Third World SW states, New York, Illinois, Florida and Hawaii, to prevent Whites from having any kind of homeland when we become a minority in the USA. Honestly, again, I sometimes wonder if paradoxically, Whites in the USA might not benefit from becoming a minority even more rapidly—say, by 2015 rather than 2025—so that we’ll hopefully have at least somewhere we can call our own home. This powerful cultural Marxism and the PC self-destructiveness hitting both us and Britain—yet another wonderful legacy of WWI as it wound up proceeding. 17
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 12:15 PM | #
That’s nonsense. It is hardly our fault that Europeans chose to destroy themselves in unprecedented numbers during the First and Second World Wars. Why aren’t we asking ourselves instead what went wrong with North America? We didn’t have this problem in the twentieth century.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why was there such hostile coalitions in Europe in the first place?
It was hard for the U.S. to stay out of the Second World War when we were attacked by Japan and her Axis confederates. You also drastically exaggerate the importance of the U.S. to the European war effort. The Soviets more or less defeated the Germans on their own.
That is absurd. Once again, if the U.S. was the cause of Europe’s misfortunes during the 20C, why didn’t we have these problems in North America? Fascism, Nazism, and Communism never had much appeal here. Also, petty-statism.
That’s ridiculous. You make it sound as if Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Liberalism, Postmodernism, the Frankfurt School and the like originated over here. That wasn’t the case at all. All of this crap came from Europe to North America. 18
Posted by PF on August 22, 2007, 12:19 PM | # When it comes to military planning and tactics, the Germans are geniuses; when it comes to making peace, or extracting themselves from a war without killing their entire citizenry, the Germans are poor little helpless people at the mercy of the big bad Anglosaxons. If the Anglosaxons dont offer the proper peace terms at the proper time, the Germans have no choice but to let every citizen die on the front line. More apologies for the German elites of these times; their failure to serve the interests of their people is obscured. Strangely, though, the vindications of these now long-dead elites come from people primarily interested in criticizing the post-War Anglo-Saxon/Jewish elite power structure and the results of it’s rule. How a historical white-washing of the German elites will help in that cause, I do not see. Perhaps they become angelic, upright, incorruptible foils to an elite which will seem all the more devilish by comparison. Perhaps that is the thinking. At any rate the picture is inevitably distorted. 19
Posted by ff on August 22, 2007, 12:43 PM | # “Sir Roger”, Germany was fighting to maintain the “status quo ante” while Britain was seeking a “KO”? No. Britain’s chief aim in both world wars was to maintain a balance of power on the continent. And how did Germany behave when it had the upper hand? See their treaty with Russia:
The accounting at Versailles was mild by comparison. Personally, I believe America should sit out any wars that don’t directly threaten American security. This includes WWI and probably the European theater of WWII (despite Hitler’s declaration of war on the U.S.). The case that Britain should have let Germany dominate the continent and relied on the mercy of German autocrats for its survival, is much weaker. In any event, this strange insistence the U.S. is to blame for WWI and WWII tells us only that “Scrooby” and “Sir Roger” identify with foreign countries rather than America. Wilson, remember, also thoroughly persecuted German-Americans in the USA—people who had been probably the country’s best contributors to the United States’ leadership in fields like commerce, science and technology—and so sowed bitter resentment among them, the USA’s biggest ethnic group, which distanced them from a sense of belonging to the US and ultimately damaged the USA’s fabric as a Western civilization in general. Oy vey! Franz Boas disapproves right along with you. In fact, Germans were not the biggest American ethnic group circa WWI; they were not “the country’s best contributors to the United States’ leadership in fields like commerce, science and technology”; and WWI-era “persecution” forced “German-Americans” to integrate more completely into America—not the opposite. 20
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 01:02 PM | #
Americans are “paying a horrific penalty” precisely to the extent that they depart from authentic American traditions in favor of the latest nonsense that blows across the Atlantic from Europe. This has always been one of our major problems. In the nineteenth century, it was abolitionism which kicked off in Britain and brought down the Union itself in the 1860s. Most recently, American culture has been infected by political correctness, postmodernism, and free trade.
I don’t share this view of some White Nationalists that a nation has to be racially homogeneous to be sustainable. Experience shows otherwise. The United States has never been racially homogeneous. In fact, the percentage of nonwhites was higher in Colonial America than it is today. Alabama is probably whiter now than it was a century ago. South Carolina and Mississippi certainly are. The sky didn’t fall.
Actually, a few Somalis here, a few Sudanese there might not be such a bad thing. Whites who live in homogeneous states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Maine need to be reminded from time to time of the reality of racial differences. Really, I think it is more important for Minnesota not to produce Hubert Humphreys than it is for Minnesota to be 100% white. The fundamental reason Americans lost their way can ironically be traced to the fact that America became too white. As racial homogeneity increased in New England and the Midwest, racial consciousness eroded there, and liberal ideas about how society should be organized gained popularity. What matters ultimately is racial consciousness, not racial homogeneity. Third world immigration is creating ideal conditions for us to reinflame white racial consciousness in the Southwest and Southeast. In fact, this is already happening, largely in spite of the efforts of the White Nationalist movement.
Personally, I am in favor of distributing the nonwhite population across the United States. It is better for them to be a threatening and outvoted minority in every state in America than to be concentrated in such numbers that they can wield effective control. Whites in the homogeneous states need to experience what those of us from Alabama and Georgia have always known. That’s the only way they will be persuaded to give up their illusions of racial equality and stop blocking our path in Congress on racial issues.
We shouldn’t focus too much on numbers. The number of nonwhites is less important than whites perceiving them as a threat to their interests and developing racial consciousness. The intolerable situation is whites in homogeneous states like Maine being so insulated that they vote in Congress to throw the rest of the country to the wolves. That’s why we have all the federal civil rights legislation we currently do.
It should be noted here that Americans wanted absolutely nothing to do with the First World War. Woodrow Wilson was only re-elected president after promising not to get America involved in that war. This is in stark contrast to how the news of the war was received in Europe - there was an orgy of patriotic chest beating at the beginning. It was perceived as an exciting, wonderful thing. Your analysis is unfair for several reasons. 1.) The United States never signed the Treaty of Versailles. We negotiated a separate peace with Germany. 2.) The origins of “political correctness or cultural Marxism” can be traced back to the various European communist parties. See especially the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. It is not our fault that Communism had such appeal in Europe. 3.) Woodrow Wilson intervened with military force to stop the Bolsheviks from taking over. In fact, it wasn’t until 1933 that the U.S. recognized the Soviet Union. Another example of horrible America crushing European nationalist movements! 4.) The Second World War was caused by the terms France and Britain, not the United States, imposed upon Germany. France wanted to dismember Germany altogether. Who was it that stopped them from doing so? 5.) The Immigration Act of 1965 cannot be pinned on WW1. If anything, American racial attitudes hardened during the 1920s . . . right up until the Second World War. 6.) How is the United States to blame for the destruction of the British Empire? The dominions themselves wanted greater independence from Britain and campaigned for it during the early twentieth century. Ireland won its own independence. The Indian nationalist movement existed long before the Second World War. Hong Kong was only turned over recently to China. The African colonies were given their independence because the British could not be bothered to put down indigenous nationalist movements. The first such colony was Nkrumah’s Ghana which the British had been preparing for independence for decades.
1.) It is not the fault of Americans that Britain was carrying on a quarrel with Germany during the early twentieth century. Germany was perceived as a threat to British interests by the ruling clique there. 2.) I don’t see anything above about why the United States entered the First World War. Germany proposed a military alliance with Mexico and promised to return Texas and the American Southwest to that country. Virtually any American president would have gone to war after being provoked in such a fashion. 3.) How, pray tell, is the United States responsible for the crisis that is “destroying” the Anglophone nations today? It was the United States that propped up Britain in the First and Second World Wars. It was the U.S. Navy and USAF which prevented Imperial Japan from running over Australia and New Zealand in the same way that they did Singapore and Hong Kong.
Which, of course, explains why Germany elected to escalate the conflict and draw in neutral powers by making the decision to wage unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic and spread the war to the Western Hemisphere through its proposed alliance with Mexico. 21
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 01:40 PM | #
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to you that FDR might have had good reasons to insist on unconditional surrender, namely, the fact that Nazi Germany had attacked Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the Soviet Union before declaring war on the United States in 1941. In FDR’s view, the Nazis were irrational German militarists and could not be reasoned with. They were a destabilizing force in the international system and had to be taken out. Honestly, how smart was it to make so many enemies simultaneously? What sense did it make to wage war against the British Empire, United States, and USSR . . . with an Italy, Romania, Slovakia, and Bulgaria on your side? There are many things that I admire about the Third Reich. Hitler’s diplomacy is not amongst them. Hitler criticized the Kaiser for his stupidity - for waging war on multiple fronts, for weak alliances, for needlessly antagonizing other states where no clear German interests were at stake. And yet, Hitler repeated almost every one of those errors, and brought down ruin upon his country in much the same way the Kaiser did before him. What if . . . Hitler had been smart enough to be a Franco instead of a Mussolini? Franco wasn’t bent on overthrowing the existing international system and replacing it with a “New Order” that suited his fancy. He was wise enough to play both sides and stay out of the conflict. His regime survived the catastrophe that consumed the rest of Europe. Your criticism of the United States is again hypocritical and unfair. On the one hand, you complain about the United States getting involved in the World Wars and foreign conflicts. That’s a reasonable criticism. I agree that the U.S. should have stayed out of both of those conflicts. Yet on the other you criticize the United States for not playing the knight in shining armor and coming to the rescue of Poland et al. - where our national interests were less at stake than in Western Europe. Which is it? How do you get off blaming the United States for Poland’s misfortunes? It is not our fault that the Germans and Russians had been partitioning that country for hundreds of years. Millions of Poles died at the hands of these two powers, not at the hands of Americans. We supported giving the Poles their independence after WW1. It was Germany and Russia that took it away. The Poles themselves are under no illusions as to who is the threat to their liberty and independence. 22
Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 22, 2007, 01:56 PM | # If the Anglosaxons dont offer the proper peace terms at the proper time, the Germans have no choice but to let every citizen die on the front line. The Anglo/Jewish coalition never offered terms in WWI or WWII. (Unconditional surrender doesn’t count, does it?) You see, when an enemy insists on unconditional surrender he means do extreme evil to the country in the aftermath, for otherwise he gladly grants all concessions he himself does not intend to expropriate. Hitler understood what this evil is that World Jewry intended upon Germany: permanent enslavement and slow race-death. So Germany fights on, preferring a probable loss with some chance of victory over immediate surrender and sure death. Perfectly logical. 23
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 02:15 PM | #
You’re right, Scroob. The United States is clearly responsible for the popularity of Communism in Europe and for Sweden’s immigration problem (Sweden was never occupied by the U.S. Army). Gunnar Myrdal came to the United States and wrote The American Dilemma which became the most influential text in the history of American race relations. The American Dilemma was the intellectual foundation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown decision in 1954. Sweden is obviously the victim of America’s crazy racial ideas, of the insanity of Mississippi’s anti-racism, not the other way around. The United States, which had the most elaborate race regime in the history of the world for three centuries, and which in fact exported modern racialism to Western Europe, is the cause of Europe’s infatuation with anti-racism. Franz Boas was an Anglo-American, not a European Jewish immigrant from Germany who brought that country’s school of cultural anthropology to North America. “The Frankfurt School” were also Anglo-Americans who maliciously infiltrated and corrupted Europe. Europe is the “victim” of Old American anti-racists like Carleton Putnam, William Z. Ripley, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, Charles Davenport, Earnest Hooton, and Carleton S. Coon. These names associated with the rise of anti-racism in the United States - Boas, Kroeber, Lowie, Myrdal, Herskovits, Klineberg, Malinowski, Goldenweiser, Montagu, Gould, Lewontin, Rose, Wise - all sound like Anglos to me. 24
Posted by PF on August 22, 2007, 02:43 PM | # Anonymous Species Hater wrote:
Unconditional surrender was the alternative to being hounded and bombed to death in a retreat through one’s own country, while the civilian populace crouched starving in basements, emerging later to be raped in those sections unfortunate enough to fall under Soviet control. Unconditional surrendering would have done nothing comparable to Germany, like what happened to it because it did not accept that surrender. Actually your black-and-white vision of historical outcomes as all-or-nothing is very much a part of Hitler’s ideology and propaganda which kept people fighting long after the war was lost, causing untold millions of German lives lost. I guess one is well advised to know one’s enemies, come they from the right or the left. 25
Posted by PF on August 22, 2007, 02:47 PM | # Scimitar wrote:
That’s an interesting aspect of things I never saw represented anywhere else before. ... Back to WWII… 26
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 03:42 PM | #
We discovered a simple solution to this problem in the United States: the principle of racialism. We Americans have traditionally believed that heredity is more important than ethnicity and culture. The experience of living in the New World demonstrated to us that small cultural differences between closely related populations are mostly the product of random drift and tend to wash away within a few generations. We haven’t had any wars between “Irish-Americans” and “Anglo-Americans” and “German-Americans” and “Swedish-Americans.” Americans came to define themselves in terms of their race. Cultural differences were repressed - European immigrants were forced to “assimilate” to WASP norms. In Europe, as we discussed at OCD, the Romantic movement of the nineteenth century followed Herder and Fichte democratized culture and exaggerated its importance out of all proportion to its actual significance. Balkanization, secession, and fratricidal wars between linguistically defined nation-states are the logical consequence of the belief that “different Völker have their own way of being human, and shouldn’t betray it by aping others.” The clear alternative is to assume that other things besides acquired characteristics (which cannot be biologically inherited) are more important in determining how we should live. As an American, I don’t have any objection to Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Germans, Englishmen and so forth immigrating to my nation and putting down roots here. That enriches my country. It is Europe’s loss. Provided these immigrants assimilate, why is that a problem? America’s current racial problems stem almost entirely from the fact that we have lost touch with our own traditions. “Race” is now believed to be of no importance whatsoever in determining what makes a good potential American. Rather, it is “culture” which is said to matter. That is the exact opposite of the traditional American view of immigration. It is now widely denied that America is a “white man’s country.” My grandparents can still remember the days when everyone was of that view. Another benefit of emphasizing the importance of race is diminishing class conflict. The United States is one of the few Western countries where Communism never had much appeal. In the American South, we had plenty of poverty, but that never translated into any significant interest in Marxism. In contrast, Europe was wrecked by class warfare during the twentieth century. War, also. From a racialist perspective, the World Wars were incredibly destructive to Europe’s racial stock, as the American Civil War was here. What sense does it make for Germans and Englishmen, Serbs and Croats, to slaughter each other over non-heritable, parochial, acquired characteristics like “most favorite alcoholic beverage” or “folk dances” or “dialect”? If racial sameness had been seen as being more important than cultural difference, there never would have been any World Wars in Europe. There never would have been any Communism or Socialism or Social Democracy or “Internationale” either. I know what you are going to say. It will be something like, “the USA was influenced by the Enlightenment and its ideal of deracinated rationality.” Well, that may very well be so, but this ignores the fact that the Enlightenment tended to affirm naturalistic racial hierarchies. Jefferson, the American Founding Father most influenced by the Enlightenment, was the most outspoken naturalistic racialist amongst his colleagues. It was Enlightenment influenced America that constructed the most expansive race regime in world history. And it was also Enlightenment influenced America where racial consciousness was more salient than anywhere else. Ideas like culture is more important than race, the primitive noble savage is good and the civilized white man is bad, Western civilization is a metanarrative that oppresses difference - these stem from the Counter-Enlightenment tradition. Freedom as the absence of restraint, tolerance as indifference, the good life is unknowable, virtue as irrelevant to government, and equality as social and political equality come from liberalism. These concepts are alien to classical republicanism. In fact, they are a critique of republican political theory. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 22, 2007, 04:18 PM | #
If that really was true, why, to mention but one instance, the 1924 restriction?
If racialism bound America together as one amorphous white mass, who were these other people? 28
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 22, 2007, 04:36 PM | # The Baron and ff/required make sense IMO. It appeared. in the 1890s, that the next world conflict, was destined to be Britain and France (over the head waters of the Nile or Siam) or Britain and Russia (over the Ottomans). German manufacturers were outproducing the UK before WWI and the British employed free trade, so even their markets were open to German goods. The British dominance was financial, however, the overwhelming share (95%) of that investment was in the US, the Dominions and the Empire because the ROI was better. Ferguson writes in the Pity of War:
Surely, the mad Welshman, did no drag Britain and Empire into Armageddon for political expediency (or did he)? Again, it smacks of elite goals being developed without consideration for their mass of countrymen because they felt no more duty to them than Southern slaveholders felt for the white yeomanry who were to perish in vast numbers to ensure their investment in slaves was protected. Scrooby’s been smoking shit. The US at fault for WWI? 29
Posted by Red Baron on August 22, 2007, 04:57 PM | # PF has proven that the victors write the history books, that’s for sure. 30
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 04:57 PM | #
I have already been through this several times with Anon. I think we arrived at an agreement about this issue. The term “Nordic” doesn’t come into circulation until the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Even Ripley used “Teutonic” as opposed to “Nordic.” “White” is of much older vintage and was always - before, during, and after the early twentieth century - the most ubiquitous term used to describe the American racial ideal. You will search in vain for the use of “Nordic” in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. Even the Immigration Act of 1924 did not eliminate immigration from non-Nordic sources. It simply privileged “traditional sources,” that is, immigration from Northwestern Europe over immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. “White” was an unscientific approximation for “Nordic” - a reference to a Northern European phenotype. “Nonwhites” were not eligible to become naturalized American citizens (there were special exemptions made for ex-slaves and Indians). It doesn’t say anywhere in the Immigration Act of 1924 that 1.) only Anglo-Saxons can be Americans or 2.) that non-Nordics cannot be Americans. During the 18C and 19C, the belief was widespread in America that the Anglo-Saxons were the “whitest” of the Europeans; “whiter” than the Irish, Germans, French, Swedes and so forth. This belief obviously stemmed from the extremely fair complexion of native Britons. This wasn’t to say that the Irish or Germans were not white (otherwise, they would have been excluded under American naturalization law), only that the American ideal was the “white” or “Nordic” man of Anglo-Saxon background. Race was the criterion of American naturalization law. At various times, other categories of potential immigrants were excluded. The Immigration Act of 1907 excluded:
The Immigration Act of 1917 excluded:
It also barred illiterates and included an “Asiatic Barred Zone.” The Chinese Exclusion Act and the Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan restricted Japanese and Chinese immigration. In contrast, “white” immigration was allowed. This was in line with the American ideal of racial compatibility + Anglo-conformity. 31
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 05:19 PM | #
Slavery was already protected by the U.S. Constitution, the fugitive slave laws, and the Dred Scott decision. Obviously, the Southern states seceded from the Union for Southerners could be excluded from all the territories, not just Kansas, and for the North could repeal the fugitive slave laws. Lincoln himself offered to pass a constitutional amendment that would have legalized slavery forever. In fact, several Northern states ratified this in early 1861. Lincoln had a vague idea of slavery ending around the year 1900, but never had any intention of interfering with it in the Deep South until well into the American Civil War, and then only as a war measure. Secession was initially rejected in the Upper South for obvious reasons. Nothing would have done more to eradicate slavery there than a war in their territory and the repeal of the fugitive slave laws. The only reason the Upper South seceded from the Union was because of Lincoln’s decision to use force against the Confederacy, which they regarded as being unconstitutional. South Carolina, the most ultra of all the Southern states, had little interest in national expansion. In fact, it was none other than Calhoun who opposed the annexation of Mexico. During the 1850s, South Carolinians were lukewarm on the annexation of Cuba, which was most popular in pro-Union New Orleans. The idea of a slaveholder conspiracy is ridiculous. The most radical secessionists tended to be lawyers or newspaper publishers, not great planters; the great planters like Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens opposed secession. Lincoln would have been defeated in 1860 if it had not been for Yancey’s deliberate, calculated plan to sabotage the Democratic National Convention and doom Douglas’s presidential candidacy. The South had dominated the Union with few exceptions ever since the Virginia Dynasty. The reason non-slaveholding whites fought for the Confederacy in such incredible numbers was because they were horrified by the idea of n***** equality and associated it with fanatics like John Brown and Black Republicans like Charles Sumner. Surely enough, that is exactly what came to pass after the Confederacy was defeated in 1865. BTW Desmond, are you an American? You never answered this question last time I asked you about it. 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 22, 2007, 05:26 PM | # If America’s racialism was all about whites, then why the “privileged” position for Anglos/Nords versus non-Nords? Both groups, by any definition are European white, aren’t they? Both groups, according to you, vary little either culturally or phenotypically. Why privilege one group over the other? We’re all white aren’t we? 33
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 22, 2007, 05:36 PM | # The idea of a slaveholder conspiracy is ridiculous. Who said anything about a conspiracy? It wasn’t illegal nor secret. Yet why did Robert E. Lee support the emancipation of the Negro in order to save “his people”? If it was solely about living with “niggers” why didn’t he reference that in his letter? Surely, Lee, like Hitler, would have urged his people to fight on to extinction, rather than be ruled by Negros. Canadian, in answer to your question. 34
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 06:51 PM | #
Generally, Americans didn’t perceive any contradiction between the two. “White” was more or less synonymous with the later “Nordic.” As Anon pointed out the other day, immigration was almost entirely from Northwestern Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. “White” referred to a specific phenotype. Americanism at this point was still racially ascriptive. There were shades of “whiteness.” The Anglo-Saxons were thought to be the “whitest” of the Europeans and the most desirable immigrants. They were the WASP ideal and were most racially and culturally compatible. Less ideal, but nevertheless capable of being assimilated, were the Irish, Germans, Huguenots, Belgians, Swiss, Dutch, Austrians, Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes. Less ideal than Northwestern Europeans, but also capable of being assimilated to a lesser extent, were Southern and Eastern Europeans. So, what we find is a pyramid of “whiteness” with the WASP on top, and the non-white excluded or a special exemption at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. The negro, of course, was considered most inferior of all. Why the privileged position for the Anglo-Saxon and the Nordic? For the obvious reason that they were the ones who created America in the first place and until the mid-twentieth century completely dominated the country. Why the Immigration Act of 1924? Because immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was disrupting the demographic pecking order and had started to outstrip immigration from the “traditional sources.” Even the Nordicists of the early twentieth century were not of the view that only Anglo-Saxons could be Americans. Their focus, as has always been the case in American history, was upon race and heredity, not culture. They believed that racial characteristics informed and completely dominated culture. It was Boas and his followers that took the opposite view - who believed the environment was more important.
“Slavery” didn’t become an issue in the American Civil War until Southern victories frustrated the Union war effort. If the war was about “slavery,” why didn’t Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, or Maryland secede? Lincoln himself said his attack on the Confederacy had nothing to do with slavery.
Robert E. Lee considered the idea as a last ditch war measure and for that reason only. For that matter, so did one of the bigger Mississippi planters, Jefferson Davis. The people most opposed to arming the negro were non-slaveholders. There was a very good reason for that. It was feared that if the negro got his hands upon firearms, he might try his hand at stealing and raping white women. Of course that is exactly what happened during the Reconstruction years.
Robert E. Lee was nothing like Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was a German nationalist who consolidated the German states under his singular rule. Robert E. Lee fought for his home - the State of Virginia - in the Civil War, not “America.” The same was true of Stonewall Jackson and virtually every Southerner. It was the North that invaded the Confederacy to “preserve the Union” in the name of the “higher law” and the “irrepressible conflict” and “mystic cords of memory.” The Union war effort was more like German National Socialism. The Confederacy was a league of sovereign, free, independent states organized along republican lines. The South wasn’t a nation-state like Revolutionary France. The loyalty of every man rested first with his community, then his state, then his region, and only then the federal government. That’s why slaveholders and non-slaveholders fought for four years to repulse the invasion. In those days, the republican tradition was still alive; we have since lost touch it under the influence of liberalism. About fighting to extinction. Lee wasn’t stupid. He knew he was beaten and honorably surrendered. At the time, Lincoln was still president and was promising magnanimous terms. It was only later that the Black Republicans took over under Grant (after impeaching Johnson) and abolished the indissolvable Union into federal military districts. Lee later regreted his decision. In any case, the Ku Klux Klan, White Line, and various other paramilitary groups took up arms and fought to put the negro back in his place. After Tilden was elected president, the Democratic South cut a deal, settled on home rule, and threw their support behind Hayes in exchange for the withdrawal of Union troops from the South. 35
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 22, 2007, 07:24 PM | # The above is not what you said originally.
Now you say there were grades of whiteness, almost like a caste system determined by…ethnicity and culture.
By your own definition you show that heredity was trumped by ethnicity. Everyone was not equally white. It depended, almost exclusively, upon where in Europe you originated. The petty nationalism of Europe was equally evident in America’s “shades of whiteness”. 36
Posted by Wha? on August 22, 2007, 07:42 PM | # The gap between MR’s bloggers and commenters on the one hand and those most affected by those most affected by our nations’ deracination is a bigger problem for people like PF and GW than that between Hitler and twenties workers. And it’s deliberately evaded. See if the revolution doesn’t come from ‘below’... 37
Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 22, 2007, 08:46 PM | # Unconditional surrender was the alternative to being hounded and bombed to death in a retreat through one’s own country, while the civilian populace crouched starving in basements, emerging later to be raped in those sections unfortunate enough to fall under Soviet control. Unconditional surrendering would have done nothing comparable to Germany, like what happened to it because it did not accept that surrender. PF commits the naturalistic fallacy. He thinks, “Hitler lost, therefore he must have screwed up Somewhere. Let me find that Somewhere.” Not, “How did the French/British/Americans fall without a fight to world Jewry, such that MR.com is today necessary?” Not, “Hitler of all men of the West (including among them PF’s ancestors, PF himself, and everyone reading this) came closest to preventing today’s culture death and race-replacement.” His reaction is to repeat jew-propaganda ridiculing the easy, politically correct targets: “Ludendorff is a feudalistic hick [‘feudalism’ and ‘feudalistic’ being commi agitprop terms of the early twentieth which doesn’t describe Germany 1914 or 1939 in the slightest, btw]”, and soon the Freudian “Hitler is a psychopath, with ‘complexes’...” 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 22, 2007, 09:12 PM | # In that article linked by “Species-Hater” at 4:01 PM, “Lloyd George on the Balfour Declaration,” everyone will see how everyone involved in the coming about of that 1917 document knew exactly what was going on with everything: knew exactly what was going on with the Jews, the Zionists, the Bolsheviks, the Turks, the Germans, the Rothschilds, the French, the Americans, the Arabs, the Russians, everybody. No one was scratching his head wondering what was going on: everybody maneuvering behind the scenes knew exactly what was going on with everybody, every actual or potential party to the matter. No one had any illusions about any of it and nothing was happening by accident; neither was anything happening as a result of a “force of nature like an earthquake or hurricane.” The discussions had, the confidential memos passed, the behind-closed-doors meetings held, the maneuvers executed, the decisions taken were all behind the scenes, the public allowed to glimpse here or there only this or that tip of the hidden iceberg, this or that final manifestation of this or that detail of policy, the Balfour Declaration itself for example. No one among the public was allowed to see the machinations lasting decades that led to the Balfour Declaration, machinations in the course of which every participant knew precisely what was going on with every other participant, no illusions whatsoever. So all this stuff goes on behind the scenes, totally explicit in private, completely informed, expertly analysed, leaving nothing, not one jot, to chance, then the public has an announcement thrust in its lap such as the Balfour Declaration as if it had just sprung up spontaneously out of thin air one minute before, when it’s been carefully in the works twenty years and longer. The same sort of thing is going on behind the scenes with the present-day forced race-replacement régime. When someone says there’s a behind-the-scenes policy explicitly aimed at doing away with Euro majorities in all Euro countries, that charge is to be taken literally, not as just someone’s frustrated rant dashed off in exasperation at our side’s lack of success or something. The people running the show are explicitly saying to each other behind the scenes that they are going to do away with Euro majorities in Euro countries and are controlling Eurosphere politics accordingly. The above background on how the Balfour Declaration came about illustrates the way these things are done and that’s the way they’re being done with race-replacement. Yes, behind closed doors people are meeting, passing memos to each other, maneuvering, planning, calculating, with the explicit aim of doing away with Euro majorities in Euro countries. This is being done deliberately, based on cold calculation, by all sorts of experts and powerful forces. What can overthrow it? Only one thing: enough people on our side waking up and rising in opposition to it. Why hasn’t that happened yet? Isn’t it getting rather late in the game? The answer to why it hasn’t happened yet is one of the things I for one still don’t understand. But the rising will come. When it comes, by the way, a significant number of Jews will be on our side, for what that’s worth and for any who may be interested. But the main thing isn’t what the Jews do or don’t do but what we Euros do ... or don’t do. These words aren’t directed at MR.com readership of course, who are already awake and are looking out for the awakening of enough others to start dismantling and reversing the other side’s genocide of us.
No I don’t identify with a Negro America, ff. Do you?
By forcing race-replacement on them and it’s not just the Anglophones, it’s the Eurosphere. Evidence they’re forcing it on them? I can’t quote chapter and verse; nonetheless it’s obvious to me forced race-replacement is an American export. Species-Hater’s comment of 5:56 PM is right.
Gunnar Myrdal was an American Jewish, not a Swedish, creation. He was created out of thin air by U.S. Jews exactly as were Barak Obama and countless other soldiers in the war of extermination against the Euro race.
Dixie did, a defeated nation occupied by the United States and at present getting forcibly race-replaced by it. A lot of good its history of Jim Crow is doing it now, filled as it is to bursting with Negroes and Mexicans on every hand and five-and-a-half billion more on the way, guaranteed by President Bush.
A rabid dog, no matter who gave him rabies, is a danger. The United States is a rabid dog.
Responsible for turning it into the horror it became and for the horrors it led to in its aftermath. All caused by the U.S. entering and meddling, but for which it and its aftermath would’ve been a far more benign affair. Ditto for WW II.
It’s not evaded here, deliberately or otherwise: people here discuss it endlessly. (Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting your comment.) 39
Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 22, 2007, 09:21 PM | # Unconditional surrendering would have done nothing comparable to Germany, like what happened to it because it did not accept that surrender. When does PF advise his savior to surrender? March 1943 after Stalingrad? August 1944 after the loss of France? November 1944 as Allied armies pierce Germany herself? I would argue November 1944, perhaps. But PF expects mercy from World Jewry and the USSR. What do you think the USSR would have done if Germany surrendered whole, in August 1944? I suspect they would have done what they did to Russia herself, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, planned to do to Finland and murder en masse the German middle class and elite systematically after occupying the country. They would not have allowed a sovereign, intact Germany to survive under any circumstances. Does PF understand this?? 40
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 09:52 PM | #
That’s not what I was saying at all. The “whiteness” of the Anglo-Saxons that was so celebrated was their extremely pale skin, their ruddy physical complexion (Queen Elizabeth’s “lilyes and roses”) which, of course, is hereditary (it stems from the cloud cover of the British Isles), not “cultural.” “Northwestern European” or “Nordic” or “white” is a racial type, not an “ethnicity or culture.” These terms come from the Jewish anti-racists Montagu and Boas respectively. Immigrants from Northwestern Europe like the Germans or Swedes were required to eschew their ethnicity/culture and become WASPs. If ethnicity/culture or “nationality” was so important, then the only people who would ever be allowed to come here would have been English-speaking Protestants. Obviously, that wasn’t the case. The traditional American ideal has always been “whiteness” + “Anglo-conformity.” And no, the petty nationalism of Europe belongs to a different tradition than American racialism. The former grows out of Rousseau, Herder, Fichte and the Romantic movement of the 19C which exaggerated the importance of “cultural” differences, in particular, language and things like folk dances and favorite beers and national flags of different colors. The latter is an older tradition that dates back to the development of white supremacy in the mid-seventeenth century and later becomes secularized during the Enlightenment into modern naturalistic racialism. American racialism is based on the “materialism” that the Romantics so despised. Ancestry was considered more important than acquired characteristics like language, religion, customs, etc. Obviously, all European populations are not equally “white.” I don’t know where you got the idea that “whites” are interchangeable. “White” is an approximately of a specific phenotype which varies in frequency across Europe. 41
Posted by amaterialist on August 22, 2007, 09:58 PM | # Says scimitar: Obviously, all European populations are not equally “white.” I don’t know where you got the idea that “whites” are interchangeable. “White” is an approximately of a specific phenotype which varies in frequency across Europe. Do you therefore say some nations are not ‘White’ or do you hold to criteria that exclude certain individuals? Explain. 42
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 10:11 PM | #
Explain. How exactly is the U.S. “forcing race-replacement” on the “Anglophones” and “Eurosphere”? Who are the victims of this American conspiracy? I suppose you have the Germans in mind and the postwar de-Nazification program. To my knowledge, German citizenship is still even today based on ancestry, although various exceptions have been made for Turkish guest workers. Germany doesn’t have an immigration policy like that of the United States. The Germans imported guest workers from the third world as cheap laborers to work in their postwar industries. The same is true of the French. Capitalism is hardly a problem specific to the U.S. Why doesn’t Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan have these problems? These three states are more closely aligned with/influenced by the United States than a Sweden or Denmark. Many South Koreans have been converted to Christianity by American missionaries. Japan was occupied by the U.S. after WW2 and the Japanese militarists were ousted from power there. Yet Japan isn’t exactly of bastion of self-hating nihilism. It is really amazing: this idea that France or Sweden wants to be like America. The U.S. isn’t exactly the most popular nation in Europe. The French have never in their entire history seen the U.S. as a model for France to imitate and they have the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. The British got in the game of third world immigration with the British Nationality Act of 1948. Nonwhites were already flooding into Britain in the 1950s and 1960s. Enoch Powell gave his “rivers of blood” speech in 1968 - three years after the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed in the U.S. 43
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 10:39 PM | #
Gunnar Myrdal was not Jewish. He was a Swedish anti-racist liberal. The Swedes have a history of this sort of mischief. As you know, I have been researching the history of the Congo over the past few weeks. Swedish missionaries there were responsible for much of atrocity propaganda that brought down the Congo Free State. Similarly, the British are probably the most famous of all the Europeans for their moralizing crusades. They are a lot like New England in this respect. In the 18C and 19C, it was abolitionism and free trade. In the early 20C, it was King Leopold II butchering the poor innocent blacks of the Congo, and before that the Turks massacaring the Armenians. Then it was the Germans tearing apart Belgian babies in WW1. Later, the evangelical impulse would be fixated the wickedness of Nazism in WW2 and “racism” after the war. On the continent, Socialism, Social Democracy, and Communism had a lot of cachet during the early 20C. I was just reading yesterday about how the Socialists in the Belgian parliament expressed their “solidarity” with the savage cannibals of the Congo. During the First World War, whites in the U.S. Army were shocked by the willingness of French women to consort with the negro. There was no segregation in France at the time. The negro war veterans came back from France with ideas about “equality.” 1919 was a year of very bad race riots in the U.S.
Racialism isn’t specific to the American South. It was a common American tradition. The Midwest and West once had their own Jim Crow laws. Something like 90% of white Americans were opposed to miscegenation in the 1950s. I have polling data that verifies that. Also, what about Lothrop Stoddard, Carleton Putnam, Madison Grant, Carleton S. Coon, Earnest Hooton, etc.? During the early twentieth century, racialism was mainstream in anthropology at Harvard of all places. The difference is that racialism waned outside the South because these areas became more homogeneous and filled up with European immigrants.
Obviously, by your definition, Germany is a danger and qualifies as a rabid dog. The Germans are far and away more self-loathing than Americans are. I don’t like to assign blame in such a fashion. Ultimately, we are responsible for adopting bad ideas no matter where they came from. 44
Posted by Scimitar on August 22, 2007, 10:50 PM | #
1.) Yes, there are populations which are not in any sense “white.” I think we can all agree that the negro would be an example of this. 2.) “Whiteness” is a definite thing. It refers to individuals with fair skin. By this standard, it is fair to say that Europeans with a darker, swarthier, Mediterranean hue are “less white” than the Swedes or Danes or Americans are. No, I don’t believe all European populations are “equally” white. That isn’t true. A Norwegian is objectively more Northern European or Nordic than a Spaniard or Romanian, and vice versa. 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 23, 2007, 02:13 AM | # Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant
Of course, who is going to believe the word of a Yankee, interesting though it is. 46
Posted by PF on August 23, 2007, 04:28 AM | # Regarding Anonymous Species Hater:
As someone who discounted without a reference the biography of Hitler by Joachim Fest, which is considered all-round one of the best, most comprehensive works on the subject, “A summation of Hitler research” as Die Zeit called it—without anything besides the accusation of “Propaganda” and saying “Fest is bad news”—I have to come to the conclusion that protecting your own sacred cow—whose name is Adolf Hitler—is more important to you than gaining an accurate view of history. Others reading these posts will be able to detect in your lack of nuances, your polemics, and the crudeness of your reasoning, precisely how seriously they have to take you. 47
Posted by 2R on August 23, 2007, 04:39 AM | # “In my darker and more cynical moments, I sometimes wonder if the best thing for the USA, might paradoxically be an acceleration of the importation of non-Whites so that American Whites become a minority even faster—at a point when we’ll hopefully still have some kind of geographic majority status at least in enclaves in places like the Pacific Northwest, Great Plains and Upper Rockies. Instead, the way things are now, we’re suffering a more slow-motion conquest that may well leave us without any kind of homeland in a few decades.” These shouldn’t be your “darker” moments when they’re obviously your brightest thoughts. Even if every non-White left America tonight, White people still would be self hating, unmotivated, and without a true purpose. European Civilization is in the situation its in because it has a weakness that we’re still trying to figure out. The struggle we’re in now is an opportunity to address this weakness and become stronger as a result. Steel gets is strength from fire. WE will be harder as a result of the fire we’re experiencing. This hardening is a must for an East Asia that grows stronger by the day. Our writers of history will realize that we were fortunate to go through this period as it hardens us for our future against the sons of East Asia. This minor impotence will be nothing compared to the full castration we will experience if not prepared for the yellow man. 48
Posted by Anonymous species-hater on August 23, 2007, 05:45 AM | # Fest’s Wiki indicates a string of high-level, sensitive posts in the controlled “German” MSM. (Of which Die Zeit is part.) What should repeated praise of Fest from one’s enemy signal?? Fest’s a psychobabbling layman. He hasn’t any accreditations in psychology or psychiatry whatsoever. His latest book, on Albert Speer, claims a homosexual relationship with Hitler, the muscular Speer apparently “tops”, the Fuehrer “bottoms”. On the flipside, David Irving labels Fest as “ignorant”, as someone who doesn’t do primary research, and more. Google “Fest site:fpp.co.uk”. 49
Posted by PF on August 23, 2007, 10:05 AM | # Anonymous Species Hater wrote:
I’m afraid the question of Fest’s credibility is answered for me by reading his book. 50
Posted by Scimitar on August 23, 2007, 02:17 PM | #
It was Grant who gave us n***** equality in America. Grant and his associates left such an impression on the region that “Republican” was something of a synonym for evil in the South for over a hundred years. About planters looking down on the poorer whites. That’s amusing. Most of the great planters in the Old Southwest were nouveaux rich themselves. They were hardly “cavaliers” descended from the English aristocracy. The poorer whites that surrounded them were more often than not their own kin and friends. Even W.J. Cash admits that these people often felt an overwhelming sense of paternalistic racial responsibility to their co-ethnics. They were usually not a generation removed from the old backcountry. That explains why the GOP had about zero appeal in the Deep South and Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in most of these states. A man born in 1790 could have seen the development of the whole trans-Appalachian South. There simply wasn’t time for such a thinly settled, quasi-frontier region to develop ossified class hierarchies. Just the opposite was true in England during the Industrial Revolution and the heyday of laissez-faire capitalism in the Victorian Age. Dickens wrote about how the English working class was destroyed and lived in the most miserable poverty imaginable. He compared the negro slave of America favorably with the plight of his own people. The independent yeoman farmer of the Old South lived a fantastic life compared to these people. The brutalization of labor in England, of course, is responsible for the popularity of Socialism there. Even today, a working class politics has little appeal in the American South, to say nothing of Communism. 51
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 23, 2007, 03:27 PM | # About planters looking down on the poorer whites. That’s amusing. Most of the great planters in the Old Southwest were nouveaux rich themselves. What is interesting is the development of the theme by both Southerner and Northerner. Lee’s desire for emancipation to save his people. Grant’s suggestion that there was class differences in the South; that both Southern political parties were dominated by slave holders (can that be confirmed) and the sense of coersion. In addition, the Toombs quote you posted is interesting.
Me thinks he doth protest too much. However, what was the context of that speech? Back to Grant:
Grant subscribe’s to the theory the cotton gin made cotton (and slavery) profitable once more. Poor Whites of the Antebellum South: Tenants and Laborers in Central North Carolina and Northeast Mississippi Book by Charles C. Bolton; Duke University Press, 1994
52
Posted by Scimitar on August 23, 2007, 05:10 PM | #
Which theme are you referring to? Yankees (and foreigners, too) who had no experience with Southern race relations had all sorts of ignorant things to say about the subject. At various points in history, they have entertained all sorts of fantastic ideas. Racial equality is one we are all familiar with. Another one that comes to mind is the notion that free labor is more profitable and productive than slave labor. The British tried that one out in the West Indies and destroyed one of their most profitable colonies to the benefit of Cuba and Brazil.
How exactly would the emancipation of the negro have saved the Confederacy in 1865? Are you familiar with the military situation on the ground in the spring of that year?
It was Grant and the Republicans around him who gave us negro citizenship and negro equality. Actually, it is really funny that you are quoting Grant of all people. Grant was the most corrupt president in American history; even more corrupt than Harding or LBJ. His administration was so corrupt that many of his own Republican supporters broke with him in embarrassment. The “class differences” you speak of in the South, as Cash and others point out, were not as real as they seem. The Old Southwest was a rough frontier region where all sorts of men got rich quick in the cotton boom of the Antebellum era. The planters of the region were not all that different from the poorer whites that surrounded them. As noted above, more often than not, these people were related, and were not a generation or two removed from the common lot. Yankees imagined all Southern planters to have been like the Virginians they were more familiar with - the Virginians who didn’t secede until after Lincoln called for troops to force the Confederacy back into the Union.
This is false. Whites of all socioeconomic classes enjoyed a superior level of civic, political, and social status over the negro in the Antebellum South. All whites participated in the slave patrols.
Why would North Carolina do that if the negro was considered the equal of the white man?
The poorest whites in the South lived an absolutely fantastic existence compared to the poorer classes of racially homogeneous Europe, in particular, the laboring classes of England which were being destroyed by the most ruthless, predatory version of capitalism in European history. What’s more, they enjoyed a level of social, political, and civic equality with their wealthier brethren that was unknown in Europe during the nineteenth century. Sure. There was income inequality in the South. And yes, slavery did benefit the planter class. Now, some “yes, buttery.” The typical slaveowner wasn’t a great planter. Rather, he was a white man who had saved enough money to buy a slave family to develop his property. Owning a slave was not out of the reach of the common white. Indeed, many of the most successful planters of the Old Southwest WERE common whites who had gotten rich quick. There was never anything in the Old South like the enormous gulf between the capitalist and his degraded free labor workers. The planter was usually better off than his poorer kinfolk, but almost never anything like a Carnegie or a Ford or a Rockefeller or a modern American CEO. What’s more, slavery was based upon paternalism whereas free labor is not. The planters had a sense of obligation to the poorer whites who lived amongst them. Everyone had a stake in maintaining status quo. A sort of racial egalitarianism evolved in the South that was unknown in Europe. It explains why the South never became enamored with anything like Social Democracy, Socialism, or Communism.
These “economic losers” were Jefferson’s independent, self-sufficient yeoman farmers who didn’t pay income taxes and who grew their own food. Why on earth would they have “united” with the negro? They already had full political, social, and civic equality.
That’s true. For example, much of the agitation about reopening the slave trade was inspired by rising price of slaves. It was feared that if slaves became too expensive that the common white wouldn’t be able to afford them.
That’s a rather quaint way of putting it. It would be more accurate to say that Communist agitation in the South was less fruitful than just about anywhere else in the Occident. 53
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 23, 2007, 05:42 PM | # Bolton’s no Yankee or foreigner;
In addition, no general referendum was held in any of the Southern states before secession. The evidence is strong that slave holders pushed hardest for secession, class was an issue in the white South, secession was divisive, largely along slave-holder non-slaveholders lines and the Southern political elite, like Toombs was well aware of it. Georgia’s Sons were not nearly all enamoured of “meet[ing] you upon the border with the sword in one hand, and the torch in the other.”
Those elites, they don’t miss a trick. 54
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 23, 2007, 06:38 PM | #
They missed a few in 1965. Quite a few, in fact ... 55
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 23, 2007, 08:29 PM | #
That’s the whole point. They didn’t miss much. The post 1965 wave of immigration was a golden goose that just keeps on laying the cheap labour egg. It is the common Euro American that suffers, not those in gated communites who send their kids to exclusive private schools. Next entry: The Borg at War:The Story of an Iraqi Jew in Israel Previous entry: Audio of Culture of Critique Preface to the First Paperback Edition: Part 1 |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Limo Bus San Diego commented in entry 'UK Heretics Flee to US, Claim Political Asylum' on 05/24/12, 06:28 AM. (go) (view) Lurker commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) Christian Louboutin commented in entry 'a short message in English' on 05/24/12, 05:56 AM. (go) (view) Christian Louboutin high heels commented in entry 'How whites took over America' on 05/24/12, 05:55 AM. (go) (view) Christian Louboutin shoes commented in entry 'Forests. And trees.' on 05/24/12, 05:54 AM. (go) (view) Christian Louboutin commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 1' on 05/24/12, 05:42 AM. (go) (view) 2012 http://www.christianlouboutindiscountsell.com commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 2' on 05/24/12, 05:41 AM. (go) (view) Cheap Christian Louboutin commented in entry 'The Definition of Art' on 05/24/12, 05:40 AM. (go) (view) Christian Louboutin commented in entry 'Fair shares all round it is, then' on 05/24/12, 05:39 AM. (go) (view) Christian Louboutin shoes commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 3' on 05/24/12, 05:37 AM. (go) (view) buy deca durabolin commented in entry 'Serial killer white-out' on 05/24/12, 04:38 AM. (go) (view) Red Bottom Shoes commented in entry 'A Nation Rejoices: Justice at Last!' on 05/24/12, 04:33 AM. (go) (view) http://www.christianlouboutindiscountsell.com/ commented in entry 'A Nation Rejoices: Justice at Last!' on 05/24/12, 04:31 AM. (go) (view) alvin sunny commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/24/12, 03:45 AM. (go) (view) PMP Preparation commented in entry 'Starvation to keep the masses on a leash' on 05/24/12, 03:15 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) zhrcwuwmkq commented in entry 'The end of Mel Gibson's career?' on 05/23/12, 11:46 PM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/23/12, 11:11 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/23/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) Cockouche commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 09:40 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/23/12, 08:41 PM. (go) (view) GlablePax commented in entry 'University official sentenced for child porn, blackmail' on 05/23/12, 08:23 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Red Baron on August 21, 2007, 11:38 PM | #
I’m ready for a rousing chorus of Rule Brittania. Whatever!
The emphasis on Ludendorf and the Junkers is odd, since interests in Britain, Russia, France, and elsewhere were salivating for war, if not more so. Does anyone recall the Fashoda Clash? You seem to suggest the Germans caused the war - that’s contentious.
Worse, did you forget once Britain and France were defeated and Germany wished to stop the war on gentlemanly term just who was brought into the war? And who did the sweet talking to Woodrow Wilson - our old pals the Brits. Ya, some “partnership for peace” we’ve got with you guys.
Someone ought to study the “bloodthirsty… incredible psychological complexes” of a ruling class that would do such a thing. The British ruling class.