|
|
Revolution and Counter-Revolution
In the course of centuries it is sometimes forgotten that the American Revolution of 1776 was fully intended to be spread worldwide. It was a revolution of a radically new understanding of the self (ie man the individual and his place in relationship to the universe) which was intended to wholly replace the understanding of old. An economic philosophy, based largely upon Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776) eventually having the name Capitalism, would in time be a part of this Revolution as well. The US Constitution, as the idea of this worldwide revolution evolved, was to be the foundation document for a constellation of Republics that was to span the globe and incorporate all peoples. The means to spread this Revolution, besides thru the publication of media, was primarily by the direct annexation of lands that had been purchased, ceded, or conquered, to the United States. Examples of this were the attempts to annex/conquer Canada in 1775 (the invasion of Canada) and in 1782 (peace negotiations with Britain and the idea proposed then to cede Canada to the US) and in the War of 1812 (invasion of Canada), the Louisiana Purchase from France (1803), the ceding of Florida by Spain (1819), the ceding of the Oregon Territory by Great Britain (1844), the annexation of Texas (1845), the conquest/purchase/annexation of the North American far west from Mexico (1845-48), the Gadsen Purchase from Mexico (1853), the purchase of the Alaskan Territory from Russia (1867), various quasi-private ventures (with strongly suspected US government support) to invade Central America and Cuba thru-out the 1800’s and culminating in the US invasion (and what amounted to economic annexation) of Cuba, and the conquest/purchase/ceding/ annexation of the Phillipines, Puerto-Rico, and Guam from Spain in the Spanish-American War (1898), and lastly Hawaii’s annexation (1898). By the time of the Mexican-American War of 1845-48 this process described would have acquired a name…“Manifest Destiny”...which was the belief that in time all of North America would be a part of the United States. Sometimes, quite a bit less often, Manifest Destiny would refer to the idea of annexing the states of South America in addition to North America, and much less oftener still the term would refer to the annexation by the US of the Far East (ie Japan, China, Phillipines, etc.), in addition to that of the Americas. A term that also began appearing in the 1840’s and that went beyond “Manifest Destiny” in describing the wholeness of the world-wide revolution being promoted was “The United States of the World” of which are some examples below which appeared, amongst others, in the media of the nineteenth century… From a history book regarding the state of Deleware published in 1870… “But even should its stormy waves in the lapse of eventful time totally destroy our State; wash away both hill and plain and leave not a vestige of its territory, save what was covered by its waters, Deleware would still live in history and the minds of men; from the glorious deeds of her sons in the Revolution, and from her being the first to adopt the constitution of what will be the greatest and mightiest nation the world has ever seen, which now known as the United States of America, may hereafter be the United States of the world. The mortal body of our State may be destroyed, but its soul will live, “till time is old, and hath forgot itself….” “This consolidation of territory also enabled us to show a united front to Great Britain, when we threw off her yoke, declared our independence, and formed the mighty Republic of the United States of North America, which who shall say hereafter may not be the United States of the World. From a book describing British visiters to the United States and their commentary published in 1864. This is an excerpt from the book and an accompanying reference it makes, both of which are insightful… [B]“What is more befitting for us Englishmen, than to watch with intense study and deepest sympathy the momentous strivings of this noble people? It is the same fight we are fighting - the true and absolute supremacy of Right. Surely nothing can more beseem two great and kindred nations, than to aid and comfort one another in that career of self-ennoblement, which is the end of all national as well as individual existence.”* *“The stupendous greatness of England is factitious, and will only become natural when that empire shall have found its real centre: that centre is the United States.” The New Rome; or, The United States of the World (New York, 1843). A remarkably bold and comprehehensive theory of American progress, unity, and empire, by Theodore Porsche and Charles Goepp - one an Americanized German, the other a Teutonic philosopher. In this little treatise [ed. The New Rome] the geography, politics, races, and social organization of the United States are analyzed, and shown to be “at work upon the fusion of all nations - not of this continent alone, but of all continents - into one people.” An excerpt from an article published in May 1898 which sought “An Anglo-American Understanding”... “Let us suppose, then, that Great Britain and the United States were to enter into an alliance involving these three elements: first, absolute reciprocity of trade; second, a tribunal to which should be referred for settlement, as a matter of course, all question arising between the two nations, as now all question arising between the various States of this Union are referred to the Supreme Court of the United States; third, a mutual pledge that an assault on one should be regarded as an assault on both, so that as towards other nations these two would be united as the various States of this Union stand united toward all other States. Such an alliance would include not only our own country and the British Isles, but all the colonies and dependencies of Great Britain - Canada, Australasia, and in time such provinces in Asia and Africa as are under British domination and administration. It would unite in the furtherance of a Christian civilization all the Anglo-Saxon people, and all the peoples acting under the guidance and controlling influence of Anglo-Saxon leaders. It would gradually draw into itself other people of like minds though of foreign race, such as, in the Far East, the people of Japan. It would create a new confederation based on principles and ideas not on tradition, and bounded by the possibilities of human development, not by geographical lines. It would give a new significance to the motto E Pluribus Unum, and would create a new United States of the World of which the United States would be a component part.” Lastly, a quote from a journal published in 1859 advocating the “acquisition” of Cuba. Though this quote does not use the term it does quite accurately define what the idea of “The United States of the World” was intended to be. “The nation owes to the Democratic party its greatness, progress, and prosperity, and through its irresistable power will yet be planted upon every quarter of this vast continent, and ultimately, throughout the globe, the American theory of local and independent sovereignty of States, with dissimilar social organizations, existing and prospering in political union and brotherhood, each moving harmoniously in its own sphere, and all revolving with unerring precision within the orb of our Magna Charta - the Constitution of the United States.” However, before the new revolutionary government in North America had even started building its capital city Washington DC (1791) an event would take place across the Atlantic that would greatly complicate the planned for worldwide revolution of the self…
In 1789 a counter-revolution to the American would erupt in France which emphasized the collective (that is man as part of a group) rather than the self. This different emphasis of the French counter-revolutionaries would be crystalised and made much more clear by the events in France of 1792. The French Revolution promoted a radically new understanding of the collective and fully intended to replace the old understanding of the same worldwide. While in a very shallow sense the American and French revolutions would seem to be opposites, this was not so, but rather the two revolutions, with their radically new understandings of the self and collective, simply emphasized a different part, of two primary ones, of what defines a man’s identity as a whole. Nevertheless, as each of the two revolutions grew stronger and initially attracted primarily Europeans, and in time many non-Europeans as well, to their respective causes, they would oppose, fight, and compete, with each other. It would be by the mid 1800’s that the term “socialism” would widely be used to describe the collectivist ideals of the French Revolution. Socialist revolutions in 1848 would attempt to overthrow many of the European governments but would fail. In the same year Karl Marx would publish Das Kapital which would make the economic arguments for socialism…particularly those amongst them who would be called Marxists and Communist. In 1870 Socialist would take the capital of France and form the “Paris Commune”... they would once more be crushed as in 1848. It would be in 1917 that the very aggressive variant of socialism known as Communism would take socialisms’ greatest prize yet…Russia. The Comintern would be founded by Lenin in 1918 to actively spread the Communist Revolution worldwide. After an initial attempt by the Bolsheviks to physically invade Europe was thrown back in Poland in 1920, the concentration would be on written media to spread the revolution. With WWII, the Reds having built up their strength. would gain half of Europe and shortly thereafter China, North Korea, and North Vietnam, etc.
The ultimate expression (as it turned out) of the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and the American Revolution of 1776, each had a “new man” as an ideal….respectively Leonid Brezhnev would have referred to this person as the “New Soviet Man” and Teddy Roosevelt would have referred to him as the “Rugged Individual”. The “New Soviet Man” and the “Rugged Individual” both had a problem in that figuratively each was only half of a man. The Soviet Man was all collective and no self, while similarly the Rugged Individual was all self and no collective. In reality a healthy person is made up in part by certain measures of both a self and collective identity. At the most basic a man is an individual in that he has personal likes and dislikes…ie hobbies, beliefs…favorite books and music, etc…while simultaneously he is also part of a group….ie a family, and having a mother and father, and very often brothers and sisters…should he choose to marry, he will have a wife, and should the husband and wife choose sons and daughters. He also is part of what might be termed the extended family of a people…this is all the more true depending on how homogenous the people are physically and culturally. He will naturally have his friends as well. As if attempting to fill in the vacuam each of the “new men” sensed they had, they would start taking ideas and concepts from the other…ie Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) of the early 1920’s….Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policy of the 1930’s…limited private property in the Soviet Union (ie gardens to plant vegetables in)...the “Great Society” program in the US of the mid 1960’s. As time went on it became apparent that Capitalism and Communism were each in effect converging upon the other and in the process forming something new. This process of “convergance” was greatly accelerated in the West by the Marxist cultural revolution of 1968…and in the East by the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc in 1989 and the subsequent infusion of Capitalism there, Capitalism also becoming a part of much of the rest of the Communist world (ie China, Vietnam, etc). With the official cessation of the Cold War by the early 1990’s, the convergance of Capitalism and Communism would gain a name for itself…“multi-culturalism”. And so it was that between the forces of revolution and counter-revolution, their respective radically new ideas of the self and the collective, and in the course of barely two centuries, that the classical identity of man in both his individual and group sense had largely been swept away. Indeed, this would be true of the most natural basis of man’s identity as well…the self, family, and a people. The Capitalist Rugged Individual and the New Soviet Man would in their convergance give rise to a new revolutionary man….the New Multi-Cultural Man.
“The Hegelian dialectic involves a struggle between two extremely opposed cultural forces—the thesis and antithesis—which are then resolved to form a synthesis” The convergance of Capitalism and Communism, and the subsequant formation of Multi-Culturalism as a direct result, appears to very much fit into the perhaps somewhat dubious view of how history is made known as the “Hegelian Dialectic”. Georg Hegel (1770-1831), espoused the idea that seeming cultural opposites, thesis and anti-thesis, in their struggle with one another would form a synthesis... the synthesis so Hegel’s theory goes is always supposed to be an improvement over thesis and anti-thesis. Could it be that some, believing in the well known theory of the Hegelian Dialectic, engaged in self-deceit and wishful thinking, and that many of the events leading up to the formation of Multi-Culturalism were hardly spontaneous at all but rather in effect manipulated, if but a bit unconsciously on their part, and that Multi-Culturalism’s formation was much more akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy than anything else? From the website linked below
and…
Posted by Alex on Friday, July 24, 2009 at 01:18 PM in History Comments:2
Posted by Don on July 24, 2009, 04:19 PM | # Sorry, but I don’t think this is an accurate statement: “The US Constitution, as the idea of this worldwide revolution evolved, was to be the foundation document for a constellation of Republics that was to span the globe and incorporate all peoples.” There have been two constitutions, the first one being the Articles of Confederation and lacks any hint of such a motive for expansionism, except for an invitation to Canada to join. The Articles were drafted under the direction of the Continental Congress in 1776 and ratified in 1781. It was not a nullity—the war on one-man rule was won under the Articles, the Treaty of Paris (1873) was negotiated under the Articles, and the Northwest Ordinance (1787) and Land Ordinance (1785) were drafted and enacted into law under the Articles. It is usually a hallmark of statists that they elide the existence of the Articles of Confederation, but if one wishes to know the attitudes of the American founders, the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation provide a much more reliable source than the current US Constitution which was drafted in secret, in violation of the scope of reforms it was supposed to consider, and never completely ended the Articles which continue to exist in ghostly form for posterity’s consideration of how much better things could have been. The Declaration of Independence and the current US Constitution do lend some historical plausibility to the author’s thesis, but the overwrought sentiments expressed in those two documents were not necessarily foreign policy initiatives, but simple-minded appeals to universalism, fraternity, and the rest of the foolish French radicalism of the late 1700s. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 24, 2009, 06:47 PM | # Before I comment on the log entry itself let me say: What a great statement by Senator John C. Calhoun in 1848, posted by The Narrator! Wonderful! Superb! Great mind, Cahoun had! 4
Posted by Fr. John on July 24, 2009, 09:18 PM | # I concur. What a great statement to add to the already numerous statements by presidents, senators, and other leaders of WHITE AMerica, to put to rout ANY semblance of ‘multiculturalism’ as ‘organic’ to the identity of who an American is/was. I am not as well-versed in some of this stuff as I should be, and for that, my subsequent comments are not made with the unshakeable conviction I usually proffer up advice to the readers here at MR. But I have read the Founding Fathers, and clearly, what they did NOT want was a ‘Revolution’ but a war for INDEPENDENCE. The fact that the USA TODAY is a model Bolshevik state in the making, is due in large measure, not to the Founding Fathers, but to the antics of the arch-traitor, and scoffer, Abe Lincoln. What Lincoln did during the War Between the States (there was nothing ‘civil’ about it!- and, no- I’m a “Yankee,” born and bred) was to CHANGE the USA’s government, which ALLOWED for Marx’s ideas to take root. Then, with the influx of the Jews, and Boas at Columbia’s “New School for Social Research” things like the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve, Roosevelt, LBJ, etc. all made it THAT MUCH EASIER for the demise of the nation formerly known as the United States of America. This is how I have read my history, as I searched for what the Original thinkers wanted, promoted, and stood for. I think Senatorm Calhoun’s statement, along with a few otehrs below, clearly shows that a ‘world empire of all people, black, yellow, red, and white…was the FURTHEST thing from our minds, before oh, about 1954.
Little Indian, Sioux or Crow,
“I am strongly of the opinion Negroes 5
Posted by Lurker on July 24, 2009, 09:49 PM | # Interesting (great in fact) quote there from Sen. Calhoun there. Doesnt the statement rather conflict from Desmond’s regular assertion that was no conception of such a thing as the white race until very recent times? 6
Posted by Harsh_Henry14W on July 25, 2009, 10:32 AM | #
Dang, good post and in total agreement! 7
Posted by GenoType on July 25, 2009, 12:12 PM | #
Race: For political reasons the French, English, and German people are accused of developing the word’s classificatory meaning. Care is taken to downplay the Arab ra and the Spanish razza. Nevertheless, the word’s origins are connected to the Latin ratio, which had a classificatory meaning similar to kind and species. See Cambridge anthropologist J.C. Trevor, 1951. 8
Posted by GenoType on July 25, 2009, 12:34 PM | # Care is taken to downplay the Hebrew rosh, as well. 9
Posted by simplicius on July 26, 2009, 12:33 AM | # the word’s origins are connected to the Latin ratio, which had a classificatory meaning similar to kind and species.—Care is taken to downplay the Arab ra and the Spanish razza [...] the Hebrew rosh, as well. A good guess, but like the Semitic theory, just a guess—and a wrong one. It’s much simpler than that, but in the spirit of discretion before swine I shall withhold my own superior theory. It may have derived from the Arabic râs, meaning ‘chief’, ‘head’, and ‘origin’. The word entered Europe between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Initially ‘race’ was understood to signify descent of an aristocratic breed. In particular it referred to the lineages of the Frankish kings. There’s no good reason for an Arabic root meaning “chief, head, origin” coming to refer to “the lineages of the Frankish kings” centuries after their passing, that via Italy and, if the Semitic theory is to be retained, ultimately from the brief Arabian domination of western Sicily. In fact it’s absurd. And rosh means little more than “head” or “beginning” in semantic context, hence Rosh Hashanah, “head of the year”. Ratio ( < PIE * ar-), again, is a good guess, but you’ll spend your life long trying to dig up a single text or inscription where it is used in any but a cogitative or mathematical context. Ratio expresses conceptual or non-human relationships: hence its very short trip from root to modern words like ratio, ration, rational, rationalize. Nowhere in its traceable history will you find it straying into the social field, much less to the extent that’d be required to establish it as the origin of our “race”. Remember, the proximate origin of the latter is Italian razza—NOT French. If you want to believe Latin ratio flouted all known laws of morphology from Latin to Italian to become razza, fine, but it’s absurd. Sorry to disappoint. 10
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 26, 2009, 02:04 AM | # With all due respect to Master Alex, the link between revolutionary America and Manifest Destiny is tenuous. The actions in 1775 and 1812 were, readily argued, defensive actions taken against British belligerence. American annexation of Canada was oft supported by Canadians. Especially after the Peelers revoked the Corn Laws and virtually bankrupted the colony. It was the Southerners, like Calhoun, who advocated expansionism, and they were no friend of equality. Even, John L. O’Sullivan, who coined the phrase “Manifest Destiny” in his “Annexation” essay that favored allowing Texas to enter the Union, became an active supporter of the Confederacy. “Although he had earlier supported the “free soil” movement, he now defended the institution of slavery, writing that blacks and whites could not live together in harmony without it.”
Jefferson Davis: President of the South Book by H. J. Eckenrode; Macmillan, 1923 11
Posted by the Narrator.. on July 26, 2009, 04:23 AM | #
The American Revolution redefined what a nation or people were/are. Up until then a nation was, generally, considered a common people who were of the same historic tribe. “All men are created equal”. No king. With that as a philosophical base, Manifest Destiny was a given. And multiculturalism was inevitable. Of course those other groups, Germans, Irish, Dutch and French were similar racially and culturally and quickly Anglicized their names and themselves to fit in, but it never-the-less sowed the seeds of confusion on what exactly a nation was. As I stated earlier, there were always men and events which held that inevitable flow back for a time, but America is a river whose course cannot be forever altered. And its course appears to be to overflow and lay waste to all of Western Civilization.
But alas… . 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 26, 2009, 09:52 AM | # The points made in The Narrator’s reply to Desmond, 8:23 AM, are wrong. Americans knew they were of the white race and in their minds pictured it as being pretty narrowly defined — if not strictly limited to Anglo-Saxon, to that plus a very few closely kindred races. They knew that very well, from Jamestown and Plymouth Rock on. The generation of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution understood those as frameworks for types of governance, not as definitions of what sort of flesh and blood the “nation” was or was not to consist of: a nation is blood not ink, and they certainly never labored under any confusion whatsoever on that score. Any acquiescence in stretching of that applied only to situations where the product of the 1) amount of racial difference and 2) the number of racially different individuals did not spell 3) a significant loss-of-racial-identity threat to the numbers of racially-like already on the ground comprising the flesh-and-blood nation. All pushing of phony “proposition nation” propaganda is XXth Century and Jewish. White people in this country always knew what race they were and did NOT have any inclination to approve of a change in that. Another lie Jewish academics created and push, one related to the “proposition nation” lie (and to the Jewish-invented-and-pushed “race doesn’t exist” lie), is “nationalism didn’t exist in Europe until the mid-1800s.” Nationalism existed in Europe from day one (read the Odyssey and the Iliad) and that never changed one iota from the age of Ulysses, Hector, Ajax, and Achilles right on up through to the present day. And it’s not about to start changing now, sorry Jews! Today’s quiz: What’s the thinnest book in the world? Answer: the book of honest Jewish academics. 13
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 26, 2009, 07:10 PM | #
required is n/a. The revolutionary war was more a class struggle or civil war. The Civil War more accurately was a war of independence. As Eckenrode wrote, the South evolved into a different people. And it was the agrarian South, in an effort to survive a competition with the industrializing North that demanded expansion. It was they who viewed themselves as a patrician class governing a slave domain that stretched from Virginia to a least Central America. And it was the vision of the Saxonist planter Jefferson, who believed the Anglo-Saxon had the right to rule others because of their excellence in governance as evidenced by their ancient common law, that sustained it. It was aristocratic in nature and had nothing to do with the equality of man, because the Southern Anglo-Saxon had learned empirically “that in the whole history of man,... there is no instance whatever of any civilized colored races being found equal to the establishment of free popular government”... If there was to be a dominance of the continent and beyond, it was to be an agrarian slave power, governed by an aristocratic Anglo-Saxon patrician class, that would pursue it. It was the North that put an end to the dream. 14
Posted by the Narrator... on July 27, 2009, 01:22 AM | #
I’m not dogmatic on the issue and certainly welcoming of counter arguments. However the point I made still seems valid and I stand by it. And I don’t see how the above from Fred counters what I wrote. Is Europe a nation? Or is Germany a nation?
I have no doubt that the percentage of Englishman was very high and dominant. Paul Revere, for example, was the son of Frenchman Apollos Rivoire. And remember that the category of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not singular, but breaks down, so that the appropriate listing above should look as the following, English
(How those percentages broke down in 1790 is anybody’s guess.) We can certainly call all of them White, but together they form no nationality. American is as generic a term as Oakland Raider. Just put on the jersey and bam, you’re part of the team. And lets be honest, the Revolutionary War was not a struggle for A People, but was rather a struggle on behalf of an abstract ideal known as “freedom”. ... 15
Posted by John on July 27, 2009, 08:35 AM | #
“Freedom” is a nominalization that can easily be re-concretized and expressed as a struggle to become free or a struggle to throw off tyrants. 16
Posted by John on July 27, 2009, 08:37 AM | #
Addendum to above: You might be thinking of the Iraq War 17
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 27, 2009, 01:45 PM | # Overwhelmingly, they were a People, Anglo-Americans. Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America
It was a battle between a People, a civil war. The presence of a few Germans or French or Dutch in England does not make English simply a generic term. They were English people born in America. And the presence of a few Huguenots does not change that fact. It clearly was unrelated to any notion of “Manifest Destiny”. 18
Posted by the Narrator... on July 28, 2009, 02:36 AM | #
Yeah, like I said, freedom is an abstract idea. .
That’s not quite the argument I was making. I never said English was a generic term, but that American was. And it is. From Albion’s Seed, page 429 under ‘The Friends’ Migration: Ethnic Origins’
And as I said before the actual percentage of English is unknown as many people preferred to call themselves English whether they were or not. Add to that, that when a young man, who’s father was English and mother was French, was asked to identify himself ethnically, he would most likely lean to his surname and simply call himself English. The four groups spoken of in Albion’s Seed were themselves diverse. They were mainly from Britian, yes, but they were a mixture of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish. .
The idea that America was a utopia where people of various backgrounds could be made into “Americans” was firmly in the thoughts of many of the elite here.
.
. ... 19
Posted by John on July 28, 2009, 04:08 AM | #
Then you missed my point. The American revolutionaries weren’t fighting for an abstraction so much as they abstracted what they werer fighting for. 20
Posted by the Narrator... on July 28, 2009, 05:07 AM | #
They weren’t really fighting FOR anything, but against things such as Western Civilization, Western Tradition, Western Culture etc.. They made violent war upon themselves and their posterity, hence their muddles and convoluted reasonings and (ultimately) mischievous actions. They gave birth to everything we now lament. ... 21
Posted by Jason on July 28, 2009, 06:33 AM | # Actually, White Americans do form a distinct ethnic group. It doesn’t matter whether their ancestors came from Germany, Sweden, Ireland, etc. because all White Americans think of themselves a just “White American.” There are absolutely no identity issues and divisions among White Americans. Anyone who says otherwise has obviously never been to America. 22
Posted by John on July 28, 2009, 10:01 AM | #
They did fight for something negative in a sense—the right to be left alone. Unfortunately, there were busybodies among their progeny who wouldn’t leave others of themselves or yet others in the world alone.
Cromwell, along with Rhodes, Sidney Webb, Marx and central bankers in general deserve more of the blame than American revolutionaries, imo. 23
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 28, 2009, 12:21 PM | # They gave birth to everything we now lament. But they didn’t. The evidence you provide clearly points to a Quaker and thus North Midlands origin. In other words it was an English idea simply transplanted to America pre-dating the Revolution by almost a century. Paine also was a Quaker, (Abe Lincoln was descended from Quakers). If you are accepting Albion’s Seed as a source, then it is clear that the overwhelming migration to the US from the UK was English. East Anglia, the South, Midlands and Borderlands are all English. Robert the Bruce (Robert de Bruys) and Edward I, Longshanks (Scotto-Norman & Anglo-Norman) are of the same tribe.
Adams display the exclusionary and defensive nature of the New Englander. ...remove the turbulent Gallics [no embrace of diversity here.] ...will not be able to subdue us. John Quincy Adams, his son, wrote:
Thomas Jefferson was a Virginia planter, a slaver, and as it was pointed out above, it was the Slave states and Calhoun when he was young, who were anexationists, who held the vision of an Anglo-Saxon patrician class dominating the continent from Virginia to at least Central America. It was driven, as your Calhoun quote indicated, by the “Society of Friends”. 24
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 28, 2009, 12:23 PM | # by the “Society of Friends” s/be not by the “Society of Friends”. 25
Posted by the Narrator... on July 28, 2009, 01:06 PM | #
Technically no, we don’t form an ethnic group, but we are distinct and distinguishable as European-Americans. We come from a common family of nations (ethnicities) with common race and culture. We have to work with that as that is what we are. But we are fundamentally, philosophically, handicapped by not having a unified ethnic identity.
Well, yes. But the context of Alex’s article was on the American Revolution and its (arguable) link to Manifest Destiny. We can over generalize and say that the founders were equally influenced by the British Empire’s merging of Welsh, English and Scottish peoples under one generic description, British. Alexander the Great had similar designs on his world empire. .
In the sub-section on the Back-country settlers in Albion’s Seed, the section on ethnic origins is titled. ‘Ethnic Origins: We Are A Mixed People’. But I actually agree with you on their origins. But since you brought up Albion’s Seed I used it as a sample.
I took the quote from the book ‘John Adams’ by Daivd McCullough. Adams was (as he admits in the rest of the quote which was part of a letter to a friend) a young man caught up in the politics of the moment. But it does show the mentality was definitely present and active. His quote was, also, prophetic.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that speech was in conjunction with his support of the Monroe Doctrine. ... 26
Posted by Prozium on July 28, 2009, 03:22 PM | # The Founders can be faulted for not establishing the United States on a firmer racial basis. They fell short of their own standards. It is important to keep in mind though that no other country in the world had the same degree of White racial consciousness. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 28, 2009, 05:13 PM | # Non-intervention in the Spanish American wars, apparently.
28
Posted by the Narrator... on July 29, 2009, 01:52 AM | #
Their main fault was in believing they could establish a better system than the old monarchy/aristocratic one of Europe. America’s racial consciousness is due to the presence of Africans and Indians in our midst.
Yet he did support the Monroe Doctrine.
29
Posted by Alex on July 29, 2009, 01:16 PM | #
Ahhh, but are you so sure of that? For in actuality, my little essay hardly did service to the idea of Manifest Destiny, what it was called in the 1840’s, as the idea of the conquest and consolidation of North America goes back much further, but was merely under a different name. That idea as it manifested itself (no pun intended 30
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 29, 2009, 02:39 PM | # The essay suggests that Manifest Destiny grew from “a radically new understanding of the self.” It didn’t. It grew from a desire to extend slavery. Hardly a radical new understanding. Continentalism also has a Canadian political history. It meant trade and economic ties with the US versus the British Empire. Annexation was also part of it. We’re starving, please invade us. In the 19th century Continentialism was one of the three main theories of Canadian nationality, the others being pro-British Imperialism, and Canadian independence. Surely you are not suggesting Canadians had a “a radically new understanding of the self.” Sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense. Are you English/British, by the way? 31
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 29, 2009, 10:31 PM | #
Okay, I’ll bite.
It’s consistent with Adam’s position. Non-interference unless provoked by European action. Of course the fledgling US had no means to enforce the doctrine, but was aided and abetted by the power of the British navy. Why, because the British maintained an interest in the Spanish colonies. An interest that extended to the growing discontent that eventually would become the state of Texas.
Southern slaveholder and 10th President of the United States, John Tyler sailed some rough waters. His salvation was Texas and he managed to raise enough of the ol’ jingoistic fervor to make it happen.
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/part3/page2.html Again though, it is evidence that the expansionist agenda had nothing to do with the coming of a radical new self, but very much more was politics as usual. 32
Posted by the Narrator... on July 30, 2009, 01:32 AM | #
Which, as I pointed out above, was hypocritical. But he was a politician and so we can expect as much. The following is from the US State Department on the Monroe Doctrine, (link below)
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm ... 33
Posted by Jason on July 30, 2009, 07:22 AM | # the Narrator,
I’m definitely no expert on the exact specifications of what constitutes an ethnic group. However, my understanding is that an ethnic group is defined as a people who share a common heritage, language, culture, and history. Doesn’t this definition qualify White Americans as a distinct ethnic group? In addition, as I mentioned in my last comment, basically all White Americans think of themselves as just “White American” (they rarely identify with an individual European ethnicity). And a big reason for this is that they can’t identify with just one ethnic group because they are descended from multiple ethnicities. So, considering this, isn’t it fair to say that the American “melting pot” has molded a new and distinct ethnic group in White Americans? Moreover, I always thought that ethnic consciousness was in some ways psychological. Meaning that if a people think that they are ancestrally related then they are ancestrally related - even if they come from slightly different tribes. Indeed, even many of the nations of Europe are made up of various different tribes with their own unique heritages. 34
Posted by the Narrator... on July 30, 2009, 08:27 AM | #
Yes it does. Generally though, an ethnic group are considered a people of common relation (as in by blood). Prior to the 1960’s most texts used race instead of ethnicity when referring to various peoples. So you would see references to the Irish Race or German Race etc…. .
If I remember right only around 19% of Census replies (in 2000) referred to themselves as simply, American. And those tended to be descendants of early English and Scotch-Irish who were not certain of their ethnic affiliation. ... 35
Posted by Jason on July 30, 2009, 10:34 PM | # The Narrator, I guess my main disagreement with you is that I believe that White Americans have been more historically unified then you do. You seem to think that the fact that many of us are descended from different nations of Europe has hampered our sense of being one people. In contrast, I take a more optimistic view towards the melting pot (as it relates to European immigrants) and believe that the European immigrants became Americans first and foremost. That being said, I do acknowledge that the somewhat heterogeneous nature of White Americans has hampered the blood and soil nationalism that you have seen in Europe from appearing here to some extent. When many White Americans are asked they will tell you their European ethnic origins. However, for basically all of them this is of a trivial nature. They might acknowledge that their ancestors came from Ireland, Scotland, England etc. but they don’t really view themselves as being Irish, Scottish, English etc. Instead, they view themselves as White Americans and don’t really see themselves as having a great deal of kinship with the Old World. 36
Posted by the Narrator... on July 31, 2009, 05:05 AM | #
I know what you’re saying, and to a degree I don’t disagree. (although the cultural differences between Yankees and Southerners was at one time more pronounced than today) As I said, we must see ourselves as a distinct group, as we are. The problem is defining that group in clear terms. I often refer to us as Whites and White Americans as well, but that is with the understanding that I mean peoples of European descent.
.
Actually that’s kind of the opposite of my point. We have too easily seen ourselves as one (generic) people (due to misplaced altruistic instinct). A nation is an extended family whose blood-relatedness spreads out in concentric circles from each person; From individual to mother and father to cousins to clans and so on. The farther away from that center you get the less related you are.
That is a major part of the problem though. If we neglect our European kinship then we’ve cut ourselves off from most of our kin and 99% of our history. Our entire history is extremely recent. There are buildings in Europe that are centuries older than America. The ease with which Whites view themselves as “simply American” is the reason Whites cannot, philosophically, oppose the massive non-White immigration that has reduced them to just around 52% of the population in their own “nation”. Put it this way, if my argument about this is wrong, then why are there about 80 million Mexicans present in United States? America has a fundamental problem of identity. And to illustrate the problem of which I speak, ask some of your fellow White Americans if William Shatner (aka Captain Kirk) or Henry Winkler (aka “The Fonz”) are White Americans. etc.. I mean, just to show how extreme the confusion is, a lot of people used to think Mariah Carey was White American.
37
Posted by Alex on July 31, 2009, 04:27 PM | # The link in my initial response to Desmond Jones is here repaired regarding ‘Continentalism’. To add a bit too that initial response, there were open letters addressed to ‘American soldiery’ published in colonial newspapers such as the one below (note that a special point is made to italicize ‘American’ there, once more, the theme of the continent) exhorting the Revolutionary soldiers to conquer the continent of North America and get the land ‘which extend from our most western settlements to the pacific ocean’ which is there just for the taking. Strike while the iron is hot! And, too the very end of the Revolution you had US delegates pushing in a hard way for the Canadian territory of the British Empire. So, from beginning to end, the conquest of North America was a very major theme of the Revolution. The 1776 Revolution seems to have set something of a pattern regarding this matter… first a revolution, followed quickly by a strong initial push to conquer the whole of the continent where the revolution occurred, which usually fails, though not for lack of trying… and then a slow, broad push for continental unification. This was the case with Simon Bolivar and his compatriots in South America, Napoleon in Europe, and to a lesser, much less dramatic extent, Africa as well
38
Posted by Alex on July 31, 2009, 04:51 PM | # An article from the very same 1775 newspaper issue as the one highlighted above…reports received in New York City regarding the capture of Montreal by the North American revolutionary forces of Brig. General Montgomery and of Brig General Benedict Arnold’s simultaneous invasion of Quebec.
About 11 O’clock yesterday forenoon Capt. Henry Livingston arrived here from Montreal, and informs us of the surrender of that city to General Montgomery, on Monday the 13th instant…
39
Posted by Alex on July 31, 2009, 05:06 PM | #
Well, your misinterpreting the essay in that instance. To do this response justice, i’ll have to get back with you a bit later.
My family came by way of England to what would be the United States in the first half of the 17th century. 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 31, 2009, 07:07 PM | #
Just to remind everyone: if things get much worse demographically before they get better, we can if need be regenerate whole Euro nations out of very small numbers of residual racially intact folk of those nations. The above quote says indirectly that the population of the “whole island of Great Britain” (England plus Scotland plus Wales) in 1775 numbered five million. Of that, let’s estimate a 1775 English population in England of maybe 3.8 million. Fast forward to 1950: 95% of Englishmen populating England in 1950 descended from those 3.8 million in 1775. Essentially the whole English nation of 1950 came from 3.8 million. Fast forward to now: if all but 3.8 million out of today’s Englishmen become racially mixed to one degree or another, the unmixed 3.8 million will be able to regenerate the England of 1950 consisting of unmixed Englishmen. So, even if things get much worse they’ll still be salvageable. Same goes for Holland, France, Germany, Norway, etc. 41
Posted by Frank on August 01, 2009, 01:05 AM | # Fred Scrooby, I very much like your idea - folks should just try to preserve their races. Separating Englishmen from the English state might be a good idea - that is getting them to see themselves as a race and not as merely citizens of the state. It’s good for Americans to be sure, and I’ve heard how y’all are fighting for the English nationality to be recognised. The nation is the race - it’s not the state. People need to wake up and see that. 42
Posted by GenoType on August 01, 2009, 05:24 PM | #
So Latins were too stupid to apply the mathematical concept of ratio to a social context. Therefore, the combination of gens and ratio and its subsequent morphing to generatio and generation are figments of my imagination. The accusatives of generatio, generationem (singular) and generationes (plural), are also products of my imagination. Indeed, the suggested link between race and ratio is absurd.
Arabs may have invented the concept of race, but we’ll let that pass for now. More important is the following:
So any suggestion that a connection exists between the Arabic râs and Hebrew rosh is anti-Semitic. We all know about anti-Semites. They are like the character portrayed by actor David Duchovny of the X-files: We want to believe, so we manufacture shit to make it so. Gotcha. The concept of race is evil and those nasty Germanics invented it. Germanic Whites Must Perish! Thank you, simplicius. 43
Posted by Q on August 01, 2009, 07:56 PM | # ratio genealogy gene kin genus 44
Posted by GenoType on August 01, 2009, 09:27 PM | # Ratios are comparisons. Comparisons require classification. Biological classifications are no different from anything else. Break the classification into parts, divide these by time segments, and call them whatever you want - it makes no difference. At every point the classification subsumes the concept of “ratio.” The attempted divorcement of ratio from race is how pigeon-Spanish speaking Indian and mestizo nationalists downplay the significance of “La Raza” and absolve themselves of historical guilt for thinking racially or avoid looking foolish for having been suckered into using a word which is not to their political advantage. Others recognize the trick as well. When it’s to their advantage, these emphasize the history of a sound to divorce it from disliked concepts. When it’s not to their advantage, they do not. It’s that simple. The problem is human sounds have meanings which subsume other meanings - some known, others unknown. Some of these meanings are explored, others are not. Most historical meanings of sounds, I’d venture to say, are unknown and can never be explored. Nevertheless, if by race we mean an extended family slightly inbred, then there is no getting away from the word ratio and the claim that Germanics invented the race concept is a bald-face lie. Not too shabby for an uneducated non-intellectual with a history of guessing and pulling things out of his ass, eh? See ya later, MRites. I’m rested and physical work is calling. 45
Posted by Captainchaos on August 02, 2009, 10:17 AM | # The Jews hate Germanics, and want to see them genetically exterminated, because, if there be such a thing, Germanics are the master race, and Jews conceive of themselves as that. They can brook no competition. The English hate Germans, er, I mean have a rivalry with them, because of their doctrine of “balance of power” on the continent in which they align themselves with the next most powerful country to prevent the first most powerful country from gaining a unbudgeable hegemony. That first most powerful country is perennially Germany - by virtue of the essence of its people. No other people could have accomplished what Germans did between 1933 and 1945. Both Jews and the English need “atrocity” propaganda to establish in the minds of their rabble the unique evil of Germans if Germans remain unchecked. 46
Posted by Captainchaos on August 02, 2009, 10:54 AM | #
Alex seeks to implicitly present palingeneticism as a purely cultural phenomenon amongst Europeans, with no genetic propensity to said that adheres more strongly in some Europeans as opposed to others (e.g., Germans and English). With palingeneticism leading inexorably to racial dissolution. Perhaps he should consider this: English palingeneticism, with the English more strongly genetically disposed towards individualism, takes on the aspect hyper-individualism to the detriment of race. Whilst German palingeneticism leads to the preeminence of race within the volkish collective consciousness, for the reason that Germans are less genetically disposed towards individualism.
Prost! 47
Posted by Frank on August 02, 2009, 03:11 PM | #
I look forward to the day this is no longer seen as a self-evident truth. The Celts of old were extremely ethnic oriented. Their strength came from their close ties to blood and land. Blacks are often said to be more ethnic oriented, but I think rather they’re just more like beasts who give in entirely to their impulses whereas the English control theirs. Blacks who abandon their families, abuse their children, and too often attempt to rape every warm, wet hole they find surely are more individualistic than are English who care more for their families. 48
Posted by Frank on August 02, 2009, 03:19 PM | #
“Bloody Hell”. That prop doesn’t serve white interests in the least. As an American and part English I’m in a similar boat, but that prop serves us one interest: to justify WWII - nothing else. German success would be wonderful for England in this day, even if it wasn’t seen as such prior to WWII. You’re starting to sound like Southerners who think the same Yankees who defeated them in 1865 are oppressing them today. The English of today are being exterminated just like the Germans, and we’re all nearly of the same blood, northern Germany especially. 49
Posted by GenoType on August 02, 2009, 03:20 PM | # Beget, begat, seed, line, people, tribe, breed, stock, and nation. In ancient texts the lack of crisp wording and conceptual clarity congruent with accepted political ideas of “race” is used to support the view that the concept is new. But accepted political ideas of race and racism are primarily ad hoc and intended to serve the interests of modern opinion makers – all of whom are racial egalitarians. How do we know this? One simple idea about race is purposely left out of the mix. That idea is this: Race simply refers to an extended family, slightly inbred, which springs from a common source. Thinking of race in terms of family poses a huge problem for egalitarian linguists and others, like “simplicius,” who seem to have issues with my views if not me personally. The idea of family is congruent with ancient words and concepts, and can be supported through modern genetics technology. Family is something racists and GenoType can’t be accused of pulling out of their asses. Egalitarians professing disbelief in race would look foolish if, for the sake of ideological consistency, they professed disbelief in families both near and extended. Once again, I’m sorry to disappoint. 50
Posted by Frank on August 02, 2009, 03:40 PM | # The English need to heed the Scottish Dougie MacLean in his song Homeland. We need to call the kin with the fiery cross - aliens mayn’t heed the call, they don’t belong. 51
Posted by Frank on August 02, 2009, 03:52 PM | # GenoType, Those who have a mind can easily see race is part of the ancient order of things. Darwinian evolution is modern from pond scum is modern, but race as descending from a common source is ancient. 52
Posted by Captainchaos on August 02, 2009, 06:37 PM | #
LOL! Damn Frank, I didn’t know you had it in ya? Yes, dem dar niggers are a problem for Whites when we are forced cheek to jowl with them. But do you have to put it so provocatively? What would Weaver think?
So by that standard East Asians are still more individualistic than Whites because they rape less and stay married more. LOL! Where do you get this shit, Frank? No, East Asians and Blacks fall on two sides of the spectrum of a high/low child investment, high/low fertility reproductive strategy - with Whites in the middle. The more pronounced trait of individualism in Europeans, and intra-Europeans, is a separate matter.
The restoration of National Socialism in Germany, and Germany as Europe’s leading nation, would be great for the English, now, as well as then.
Abraham Lincoln wanted you to repatriate your niggers. Adolf Hitler wanted to crush Judeo-Bolshevism and diminish the influence of Anglo-Judeo capitalism in Europe for the salvation of our race. Are you telling me Anglo-Judeo globalists are not oppressing the people of Germany, England, and all White lands, today? 53
Posted by Frank on August 02, 2009, 07:38 PM | # CC, “So by that standard East Asians are still more individualistic than Whites because they rape less and stay married more.” “The more pronounced trait of individualism in Europeans, and intra-Europeans, is a separate matter.” No I meant the East Asians and whites are more group-oriented. The empathy I think is tied to group ties, not separate as it’s popularly treated today. I could be wrong. Whites might be unique in preferring lower population densities, but that’s not the same as individualism. I’m not simple-minded enough to think racial differences are as simple as a scale from East Asians to whites to blacks - I mean I see that exists somewhat but it’s not absolute. Nevertheless, I’m doubtful that whites are uniquely individualistic. “I didn’t know you had it in ya?” All humans are depraved by nature, but blacks have a stronger libido and weaker empathy. Whites and East Asians are more empathetic, more monogamous and high resource oriented, and have less libido. R. Weaver and Dabney wouldn’t have had a problem with that. What other explanation can there be for their rape and child abandonment statistics than that they’re less empathetic? I can’t imagine raping or abandoning a child, and yet that’s the norm for black males, at least abandoning children is. We say they’re more ethnic oriented, but the truth is surely that they just don’t control their behaviour as do whites. So, the ethnic orientation just comes out. Whites are capable of ethnic suicide; blacks aren’t. “The restoration of National Socialism in Germany” I guess I just hadn’t run into a right wing German before. Apparently you really do exist, lol. I can now see how you view the world somewhat. You see Germany as I see the South I guess. However, just as I’ve rejected all the liberal crap that was popular in the South, I hope you keep an open mind with NS. I don’t even know what NS is in full though - I just remain wary of it. Loyalty is to blood, not a political system though yea I know it’s supposed to have been really powerful. “Abraham Lincoln wanted you to repatriate your niggers.” Lincoln said a lot of things. The only thing clear about Lincoln was he was ridiculously dishonest even for a politician. He wasn’t even white. White nationalism was just politically useful for him so far as I’m aware. You’ve been lied to about the South - you continue to repeat Yankee propaganda, perhaps just as I’ve repeated some prop about Germany. “diminish the influence of Anglo-Judeo capitalism in Europe for the salvation of our race” Where… did you pick that up from? How are my people tied to Jews who view me as inferior? The English wanted WWII to protect the empire, right? The empire fell - it’s dead. The Anglos are nothing now. It’s not even clear if Anglos will go extinct or not. Anglos are the victims - look at England right now. Germans are surely just as liberal as Anglos are nowadays, right? We’ve both got the disease. Anglos are essentially Celtic Germans. How can you hate your close kin? Two recent wars the English might have been wrong in and you’re going to hate them eternally? If the Anglos and Germans war, what’s going to be left of Nordics? Koreans and Japanese seem to hate each other too, so maybe this kind of thing is normal… It’s stupid though. 54
Posted by Frank on August 02, 2009, 07:41 PM | # “rape every warm, wet hole they find “ Someone ought to use harsh language when dealing with such a matter. It’s pathetic. Blacks should hang their collective heads in shame. They must change - that’s unacceptable. If you have some capable child who’s failing at school, you often must be harsh with him and tell him this is unacceptable. There are times when this is needed. 55
Posted by Frank on August 02, 2009, 08:02 PM | # We’re often told how whites are individualistic and Jews are group oriented, but who would win in a head on war man for man? And why is that? Lions are group oriented. Abstract thought might confuse us at times, but we’re group oriented at heart. How is it the East Asians are resistant to abstract ideologies btw? I wonder if they won’t soon fall to some ideology and be declared “individualistic”. 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 02, 2009, 08:11 PM | #
I’m certainly no fan of Lincoln’s — I rate him the second worst president of all time after George W. Bush in worst place — but I’ve never bought the contemporary line (trotted out by opponents during his first presidential campaign) that he had Negro blood. There are certain things you can tell by looking closely at a photo of someone, and Negro blood is one of them. He was white. 57
Posted by Frank on August 02, 2009, 08:14 PM | # CC, I might not understand the German right wing in the US, but I do know the South somewhat. This is a good summation of what I’d feared previously - ah why I’d said you were an “enemy of whites”, albeit I’d said that to get a point across. Obviously I have no idea what you do regarding activism, so I have no idea your impact:
And just as these people were seen as foreign, despite being white, I’d be seen as foreign were I to march in Germany with the Confederate flag. On some level you can understand where I’m coming from at least, right? When I’d said Germans were foreign, I was thinking that in the sense that Confederates would be foreign in Germany, especially if speaking English instead of German. 58
Posted by Frank on August 02, 2009, 08:16 PM | # Fred, “It has been speculated that Nancy Hanks may be of Melungeon descent.” wikipedia. 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 02, 2009, 08:23 PM | # Pieces of cloth stained with Lincoln’s blood exist in museums. A DNA analysis should settle the issue. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 02, 2009, 08:32 PM | # According to the Wiki article it is known where Nancy Hanks remains are. Those could be analysed. So could Lincoln’s: he’s buried in Springfield, Illinois. 61
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 03, 2009, 01:39 AM | # “Confederates” did see Germans as foreign. In fact, in the US, the “Old South” was the greatest proponent of war against Germany.
Public Opinion, 1935-1946 62
Posted by Frank on August 03, 2009, 05:13 AM | # We were likely more ethnically British than any other part of the country (and probably less ethnically German at least from more recent German immigrants), and we’ve a long military tradition. We’re ready to fight while the rest of the country is prone to cower in fear. We’re also more racial oriented and more conservative than all the rest - the South is also the core of America and was hit relatively little from later waves of migrations. In addition, we were likely told all sorts of false information. The South also was less in favour of secession from Britain. Had America never seceded from Britain, perhaps it never would have become so insanely liberal. Thor Heyerdahl tells how Norwegians viewed the war. I wonder if this will make Germans now hate Norwegians too…:
As for the last part about Germans being against Nazism, that’s probably mistaken, right? However, Heyerdahl surely does know Norway. It sounds like from what Heyerdahl is saying there is when Hitler attacked Stalin (and his attacked was justifiable since Stalin was preparing to attack - I understand that now), that Hitler lost the diplomatic struggle with other countries. Regardless, a British South is going to side with Brits. That’s just reality, and you can’t blame us for being biased any more than Germans siding with Germany. 63
Posted by Frank on August 03, 2009, 05:16 AM | # The media is meant to inform the nation. It’s job is vital to get truth to the people. And the elite of a society is meant to lead that society. The South had an elite - it was crushed. The South was reconstructed just as Germany was. We’re not a healthy nation because of all this, and we cannot be blamed for acting stupidly. Had we our former elite, perhaps we would have seen the truth. Or at least had we a decent media, then maybe we’d have made the right decisions. 64
Posted by Captainchaos on August 03, 2009, 05:57 AM | # I don’t hate the English, any other Europeans, or even Jews for that matter. Most of them are not conscious of what they do, of what is adaptive. Yet a part of preserving intra-European distinctiveness is a bit of tension, and rivalry. And to become conscious to ourselves, to act adaptively, we must come know the truth, all of it. I don’t see that we have much to lose, as of now, we are headed for oblivion - the change in consciousness which averts that will necessarily be radical. Also, I do believe dressing up in costumes is counterproductive. 65
Posted by Frank on August 03, 2009, 08:00 AM | # “the change in consciousness which averts that will necessarily be radical. ” and “Yet a part of preserving intra-European distinctiveness is a bit of tension, and rivalry.” True. “we must come know the truth, all of it.” It’s a nice ideal, but at the least most people can’t change their views dramatically overnight. And there’s always going to be bias. I’m doubtful Southerners will be open to seeing NS as positively as you do any time soon - just because of history and the propaganda we’re hit with. At the same time… Yankees pretty readily see Southerners as backwards trash even today. It’s good for Germans to be proud of who they are, but it’s bad if Americans get too divided. Recently in Mongolia a group of nationalists there declared themselves NS and seemingly embraced some fairly harsh solutions to the Chinese threat there. People the world over have some harsh views of it it seems. Kinda funny for Mongolians to embrace a Swastika though… While it’s common the world over, it’s really an Aryan symbol - it’s not exclusively associated with NS. 66
Posted by Frank on August 03, 2009, 08:15 AM | # “we must come know the truth, all of it.” I wonder if you’re applying that objectively though - ah if you could readily accept some negative fact about Hitler for example. I suspect at least that Southerners would more readily work with Germans who were proud of being German and who honoured their NS ancestors but who didn’t call themselves NS - unless of course NS takes on a clear meaning. Though at the same time, being a German should come first - NS second. I’m proud of the South, and I can’t fully get over that war; but somehow I’d like it if Germans can get over their war… 67
Posted by Prozium on August 03, 2009, 02:42 PM | # John Wilkes Booth shot and killed Lincoln because he endorsed nig**r equality. 68
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 04, 2009, 01:17 AM | #
Except, based on the October 1939 survey, it was more than just the Germans siding with the Germans, it was a good 70% of Americans who had no desire to get involved in another European war. Except in the Southeast. The interesting thing is not that the South entertained war because of an element of kinship, it was the same in the white Dominions, but it did so in spite of the lack of support from their distant cousins, some 80 years earlier.
Sounds familiar.
The South was morally debased. And while Lincoln had broken the bond of blood and soil, in his Electric Chord speech, the British had long before simply broken the bond of blood.
Unlike the South or the Germans, the British have been loathe to embrace ethnic solidarity. The North, who was home to 87% of the new immigrants, now more German and Irish than English, mercilessly destroyed the South while their British cousins, shining examples of a higher moral order, cheered the destruction. Yet eighty years later, with memories of hardship still alive in the Jim Crow South, Southern gentlemen rallied to the cause of kinship. Ultimately, it was to be their demise. Scientific racism, Nordicism, selective immigration and Southern segregation (supported initially by English Benedict Arnold intellectuals like Julian Huxley, his paternal grandfather “Darwin’s Bulldog”) all smashed upon the egalitarian shoal that formed from a defeated Germany.
(*)The Emancipation Proclamation and British Public Opinion Journal article by Christopher Ewan; The Historian, Vol. 67, 2005. 69
Posted by Matra on August 04, 2009, 03:44 PM | # Southerners were more pro-war than other Americans, particularly Germans and Irish, but Americans of British descent in the North weren’t that far behind. When FDR complained about isolationists in Massachusetts he was referring to the Irish, not old stock Yankees. In 1940 more than half of New England’s population (4.3 m out of 8.3m) was in Massachusetts, the most Irish state in the Union - though not the only North Eastern state with a large anti-war ethnic vote. It was in MA that the pro-Coughlin Christian Front was most active. It was their Senator Walsh (Irish Catholic) who was vociferously against Lend-Lease whilst Anglophile North Eastern Republicans heavily influenced by British (and Jewish) war propaganda staged a virtual coup at the GOP convention to ensure isolationist Midwesterner Robert Taft didn’t get the nomination. Similarly it was North Eastern Anglos like Stimson and Knox who provided cover for FDR when the latter made his first important steps towards war when he sent ships to protest British territories, inclduing Newfoundland. (Read the whole sordid story in Thomas Fleming’s The New Dealers’ War). The reality is that Anglo-Saxons, whether they lived in Canada, South Africa, the Antipodes, the old Confederacy or the Yankee states were among the world’s most pro-British people during WW2. 70
Posted by Matra on August 04, 2009, 04:16 PM | # Unlike the South or the Germans, the British have been loathe to embrace ethnic solidarity. The North, who was home to 87% of the new immigrants… mercilessly destroyed the South while their British cousins, shining examples of a higher moral order, cheered the destruction. Yet eighty years later, with memories of hardship still alive in the Jim Crow South, Southern gentlemen rallied to the cause of kinship. The same can be said today. Southerners are still loyal to the flag of the Union army and the country that forced desegregation on them. Anglo-Saxon Yankees, like the British and Anglo-Canadians, showed no sign of sympathy, and plenty of animosity, towards their ‘kin’ in the South by siding with Jews and blacks during the Civil Rights Revolution. When New York City was hit on 9/11 Southerners wanted revenge more than anyone. If small town Alabama were similarly hit by terrorists SWPL Yankees and Jews wouldn’t give a damn. Based on their previous support for blacks against white Southerners maybe they’d even welcome such an attack. Anglo-Canadians continue to be the most patriotic Canadianist of Canadians even as the government of Canada tears down the symbols of Anglo-Canada and actively works to dispossess those patriots in the land of their forefathers. When conflicts break out between Indians (oops, I meant ‘First Nations’ peoples) and Anglo-Canadians there is no solidarity within Anglo-Canada, but drive around and you’ll see thousands of ‘Support our Troops’ (in Afghanistan) stickers on their cars. Anglo-Canadians are overrepresented in the Canadian military. There was never much sympathy in Britain towards British Ulstermen even just two and a half decades after the sacrifices of WW2. The British army was sent in to first of all protect anti-British Catholics and to, in the long term, ensure British Ulstermen did not rebel against their own dispossession. They were NOT sent in to fight the IRA who could’ve been destroyed in weeks by the local army and paramilitary police had they been permitted to. It is reminiscent of federal troops forcing desegregation on Southerners. Last I checked Ulstermen are overrepresented in the UK military. I do believe we have a pattern here. Some Anglo-Saxon populations are still ethnocentric, however they are still stuck thinking of the state - USA, Canada, UK, Australia - as representative of their ethnic group, and therefore their loyalty is to that state. As those states become more explicit in their hostility, these people will have to adjust and find new ways of expressing their ethnocentrism otherwise, as I suspect, they will just disappear like the Romans. 71
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 04, 2009, 04:52 PM | # In the end, it doesn’t matter. All the Nordicism, scientific racism, selective immigration, loyalty to kinship, it means nothing because ultimately Westminster would war with Berlin. The displacement was inevitable. 72
Posted by Alex on August 05, 2009, 07:31 PM | #
Continuing my response to you from earlier. Well, I have to disagree as to your assertion that ‘Manifest Destiny’ was from a desire to extend slavery. Almost every account I’ve come across from numerous original sources has no hint of that, instead almost always its just as the term indicates, ie that it was simply ‘manifestly’ obvious that the entire continent of North America was in time to be made part of the United States. Now, perhaps some (Marxists possibly?) for their own political purposes have strove to create a very greatly exaggerated artificial connection between chattel slavery and Manifest Destiny, I don’t know. What I wonder about is why in the US schools they teach only the idea that Manifest Destiny was some very vague ‘push west’, something that my friends and acquaintances have also verified from their own memories, when from the 19th century accounts I’ve come across they consistently speak of the conquest of the entire continent. The schools also barely teach at all, if it is even broached, that by way of ‘Continentalism’ the idea goes back much further than the 1840’s. Maybe for some political reasons they don’t want that subject taught in too detailed a manner, who can say.
Perhaps not to yourself, but I think to a great number of others (myself as well) that the subject matter of this thread does make quite a lot of sense. 73
Posted by Alex on August 20, 2009, 03:00 PM | # An appropriate place for this. The idea of ‘counter-revolution’ goes back quite a lot further than the ‘Contras’ of Nicaragua in the 1980’s or Soviet show trials in the 30’s. The below is a report of counter-revolution in France and part of an interesting account of the execution of Marie Antoinette as published in the United States on March 6, 1794…
Her [Queen Antoinette’s] beautiful hair from behind was entirely cut off & her hands were tied behind her back…On her right, upon the cart, was seated the executioner…At half past twelve o’clock the guillotine severed her head from her body. She died in the 38th year of her age…A young man who dipped his pocket handkerchief in the Queen’s blood and pressed it with veneration to his breast, was instantly apprehended. Upon him were found the portraits of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
Next entry: Jedwabne and the race hucksters Previous entry: Norman Lowell Book Launch |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'Another straw in the wind' on 05/22/12, 05:58 AM. (go) (view) Daniel Mccumllam commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 04:57 AM. (go) (view) Scewoweks commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 02:51 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Shamim commented in entry 'Dawkins sides with the race realists.' on 05/22/12, 02:24 AM. (go) (view) Facebook Application Developer commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 01:14 AM. (go) (view) rags6 commented in entry 'Black serial-killers' on 05/22/12, 12:23 AM. (go) (view) abibemume commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/22/12, 12:06 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/21/12, 09:58 PM. (go) (view) alexaesjiong commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 09:53 PM. (go) (view) cocreneamenrYk commented in entry 'Time travel and a pol in the MultiCult' on 05/21/12, 09:51 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 09:12 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:46 PM. (go) (view) sweectexcagma commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:45 PM. (go) (view) Hinksmick commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:43 PM. (go) (view) pet sitting commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/21/12, 08:36 PM. (go) (view) aharlesjaj commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/21/12, 08:26 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/21/12, 08:25 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:02 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) InsetaTemwews commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:54 PM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/21/12, 06:37 PM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:29 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:48 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:23 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:41 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:19 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 02:25 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) BroowlorCliEf commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/21/12, 12:44 PM. (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 |
)at the time of the 1776 Revolution, and very probably for some time prior, was referred to as 
Posted by the Narrator... on July 24, 2009, 03:24 PM | #
Nicely put together. I very much agree with the premise. Fortunately for Americans there have been a few chinks in the multi-cult armor along the way such as the Klan, Jim Crow laws, those “evil” Nordicists and their 1924 Immigration act and so on.
But you are right. For most of the movers behind the American Revolution the “cause” was a universal one.
And the idea of merging Mexico and America is nothing new.
The following was written by Senator (and former vice President) John C. Calhoun in 1848,
...