Mute and a Mosquito

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 01 August 2005 00:22.

Some months ago a good man with some powerful opinions quit the MR threads without apology or explanation. He mailed me thereafter, and though in my own mind I had been quite content to assign him to that unloved and disrespected category of the semitically-obsessed, he has in fact forced me to re-examine my assumptions about him, about Nationalists and Nationalism in general. And this he has done not through the force of argument but, unwittingly no doubt, by personal virtue.

I am, let it be said, a succour for personal virtue. It does not count for much now, perhaps. But in my formative years it most certainly did. My generation was raised in the full awareness that one day we could, like our fathers and grandfathers before us, be called up to defend the nation. It did not happen. The New National Service Act, which came into being with peace in 1945, was ended in 1963 when I still only eleven years old. A full and free life stretched before me and before all those of my wretched generation.

What we did with it politically, of course, is turning out before our eyes to be the most grave and final of treasons. It is my self-indulgent generation – and no other – that has demeaned our nation as some kind of multiracial, governmentally administrated geographic unit excused by universalist “ideas” and “values”. Suffice it to say that these fine liberal “goods” have absolutely no connection to the public and private virtues with which, for the most part, our parents and teachers attempted to imbue us. In the fifties that much of Old England still remained, and I am grateful for it.

It is an extraordinarily important truth that, anywhere in political life today, the highly particularist virtues I learned are expressed only in Nationalism. Everywhere else I cast my eye I see a universalist Leviathan trampling across my England. MR readers will be only too familiar with my obsession about meta-politics, zeitgeists and what-have-you, and will know that by “Leviathan” I don’t mean New Labour or “the left”, or political correctness, immigration, Organised Jewry or any other sectional interest. I am thinking in more global terms.

Sometimes, this disdain for sectionalism can come flying back at me – as, for example, when I called that good man with whom I began this post a White Nationalist.

“How did I become a “White Nationalist”?”, he complained, “Blacks who pursue their own interests are not “Black Nationalists” - they’re Black. So should it be with us, though I would want more interest in Pan European identity and less of the particularist Nationalism you’re so fond of - but we can discuss that later.”

Well, I know about Pan-European identity and we’d be wise to leave the matter there, sans debate! But my correspondent was right about White Nationalism and even Nationalism per se. It is not a useful phrase. It should not exist. It is a constricting device we do not need. That quality it describes is a human norm, and was understood as such all through the ages until my generation hit the road. It is, of course, the denial of that quality and all its inherent virtue that is pathological.

Put plainly, this is Racial Socialism - the name we ought to be attaching at every opportunity to the whole rag-bag of liberal pathology which passes for modern race politics (and which, tolerating no contradiction, has infected even strong Conservative hearts). In contradistinction we should – we must - find a way to re-attach normalcy to the Nationalist principle.

That process has to begin, obviously enough, with understanding it as a moral good. In that regard I am going to restrict myself here to an historical illustration, a story of personal virtue, sacrifice and loss. It is about some people in Denmark, whose behaviour before, during and after an event of high drama personifies the natural and entirely right particularist love that should always attend the lives of European peoples and should be ours today. I have used the story before elsewhere, so apologies to anyone who finds me repetitious.

It is the wartime story of the 21st March 1945 attack on the Gestapo HQ at the Shell House in the centre of Copenhagen by mosquitoes of 21 and 464 Squadrons of the RAF.

The Shell House, a large, U-shaped building of six storeys, was used by the Gestapo as a prison and interrogation centre for captured Danish resistance fighters. This was a time when the Danish Resistance was desperately close to being smashed. Under the usual methods of torture, the Gestapo’s prisoners were slowly giving up information about their 20,000 free comrades. A vast archive had been accumulated in this way. It only remained for the logistics of moving against the Danish fighters still at large to be determined and acted upon.

The prisoners knew only too well what information they had given up. They knew they were dead men, too. There was only one hope that the German occupiers could be frustrated in their designs. Accordingly, the prisoners managed to get out a message to their brothers in arms pleading for an RAF raid to destroy the evidence the Germans had gained.

This information, too, soon fell into Gestapo hands. Two things were done. Following an earlier RAF raid on their Jutland headquarters at Aarhus, the Copenhagen Gestapo chief, Dr Karl Hoffman, had ordered the building to be camouflaged in green and brown paint. This was now done with exemplary German thoroughness - Hoffman never realising, apparently, that in the midst of the city it made the building even more obvious to aerial attackers.

Secondly, Hoffman took the precaution of moving the most important of his prisoners into the attic of the building, and ensuring that knowledge of the fact was known as widely as possible in the city. This, however, was quickly negated by the prisoners themselves who smuggled out the news that, “We would rather be killed by RAF bombs than a German firing squad.”

In England, meanwhile, the RAF had responded to the Danish request with Operation Carthage, a complex plan for a roof-top raid by eighteen Mosquitos of 21 and 464 Squadrons - the priority being pinpoint precision. Air cover was to be delegated to long-range Mustang fighters from 64 and 126 Squadrons, and two further Mosquitos were to film the attack. It would be a 700-mile round trip.

But first weather and, then, operational factors forced a delay. Days turned into weeks. The situation in Denmark deteriorated to the point where General Pancke was on the verge of carrying-out mass arrests. A third message was despatched to London. “Military leaders arrested,” it said, “and plans in German hands. Situation never before so desperate. Remaining leaders known by Hun. We are regrouping but need help. Bombing of S.D.Copenhagen will give us breathing space. If any importance is attached at all to Danish Resistance you must help us irrespective of costs. We will never forget RAF.”

In response to this extremis, amplified as it was by the remarkable fortitude and courage of those men imprisoned in that building, the raid was mounted at the very first opportunity. On the 21st March the Mosquitos took off at last in three waves of six, together with the two Mosquitos of the RAF Film Unit, at 08.40 hrs in the morning - the time that the Gestapo workers would be arriving at the Headquarters. They flew across the North Sea for over two hours at 50ft, making landfall as planned on the coast of Jutland. At times the Mosquitos had to pull up to clear high-tension cables and trees. Finally, the fields gave way to the suburbs of the Danish capital and the Shell House came rushing into view.

The first bombs hurtled between the first and second floors of the building, rapidly followed by more. The fourth aircraft in the attack was piloted by 21 Squadron commander, Peter Kleboe. He came in on his bomb run at deck level. But as he turned, the tail of his aircraft clipped a 130ft steel pylon. For a moment it seemed that he might keep the Mossie in the air, but she couldn’t recover, and smashed into a garage. Her bombs fell in Sonder Boulevard in adjacent Fredriksberg. Kleboe and his nav, Reginald Hall, were killed instantly.

All was now confusion. The next two aircraft in the first wave bombed accurately, although flak had begun to come up from the cruiser Nurnberg, which was anchored in the harbour.

For the two later waves the situation was more difficult. Not only the element of surprise was missing but smoke billowed across the city. At least one crew was unable to identify the target and returned home without completing its attack.

Nonetheless, in purely operational terms the raid was a brilliant success. The Shell House and the Gestapo’s infamous intelligence archive was utterly destroyed. The Germans put out a rumour that the officials were out at a funeral at the time of the attack. But official information from Denmark states that 151 Gestapo men were killed and 30 Danish patriots imprisoned in the building got away.

But there was also tragedy. In the smoke and confusion some of the later aircraft released on the “mark” of Kleboe’s bombs. The Jean d’Arc School was underneath them. Eighty-six children and seventeen staff lost their lives, along with many Danes living in the immediate area. Whatever sense of triumph arose from the destruction of the Shell House, it was utterly dashed by that.

Courage among fighting men is not restricted to warring. A few months later, when Denmark was liberated and its King returned from his English exile, a group of 21 Squadron officers made a special journey to Copenhagen. Their wish was to meet the injured children and their parents in hospital, and also some of the Resistance escapees from the burning Shell House.

I suppose the flyers did not know quite what to expect. But what they found was “a lack of bitterness, and understanding and sympathy”. They returned home deeply touched and impressed by that. And we can be, too. For such nobility among ordinary men and women is born of one love, and it is or should be ours.

Tags: European Nationalism

Comments:

Posted by John Ray on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:04 | #

Perhaps you could spell out more fully what you think the implications of that story are

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:15 | #

John,

If one knows, one knows. But, put plainly, love of country and love of one’s own people are not liberal emotions, and the willingness to undergo trial for that love is not a liberal virtue. For all that, though, these things are ... normal.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:29 | #

“ ‘How did I become a “White Nationalist”?’, he complained, ‘Blacks who pursue their own interests are not “Black Nationalists” - they’re Black. So should it be with us, though I would want more interest in Pan European identity and less of the particularist Nationalism you’re so fond of - but we can discuss that later.’ Well, I know about Pan-European identity and we’d be wise to leave the matter there, sans debate! But my correspondent was right about White Nationalism and even Nationalism per se. It is not a useful phrase. It should not exist. It is a constricting device we do not need. That quality it describes is a human norm, and was understood as such all through the ages until my generation hit the road. It is, of course, the denial of that quality and all its inherent virtue that is pathological.” (—from the log entry; emphasis added)

I agree with this completely. Don’t make up special names for yourself when all you’re doing is something normal that everyone normal does. It weakens your position in a few ways, one of them being to hand the other side a useful way to ridicule you. I never refer to myself as “a white nationalist.” What else is a normal white but someone who questions the racial extinction of the white race? A normal, completely apolitical white person doesn’t do that? Why does that need a special name? There’s only one normalness, not two. A white who couldn’t care less if whites went out of existence is gravely defective. He’s not normal. He’s the one who needs a special name, not the normal one. “White nationalism” should be pursued exactly the same way everything else normal is, by pointing out the obvious: it’s not normal to disagree with or be indifferent to it. There are people whom neither way of arguing will impress. To hell with them. They are a waste of time. This whole undertaking is not so much convincing the unconvinced as it is communicating to those already sympathetic that their instincts, their intuitions, are not false but true and they’re not alone, and we and they can come together and make progress for rightness, truth, and morality.

“we must - find a way to re-attach normalcy to the Nationalist principle.”

Exactly, and one way toward that end is to not talk about it as if it needs a special name. Normalness doesn’t need a special name and “white nationalism” is nothing other than normalness.

That was a riveting and instructive story about the raid on Copenhagen, GW (and no, I don’t recall you telling it before—this is the first time I’ve heard it).

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 02:04 | #

I’m open to suggestions. What does one call the movement, the people, the ideology, the sentiment?

I’m not going to cut and paste a definition constantly.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 02:06 | #

And no, open love of one’s race is not normal if one is white.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 02:32 | #

I think “healthy” is more accurate than “normal”. But calling oneself healthy (or normal, for that matter) doesn’t convey much useful information.

Posted by John Ray on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 02:54 | #

“the willingness to undergo trial for that love is not a liberal virtue. For all that, though, these things are ... normal”

They are indeed normal—particularly in times of conflict.

We see much the same in the multiracial US army of today—which appears to have excellent morale and cohesion—even though Hispanics are over-represented in it (if I remember rightly)

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:22 | #

John, if you were near me right now you’d have your teeth knocked out.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:38 | #

John, mestizos and blacks are slightly overrepresented in the military. Within the military they are overrepresented in noncombat units, while whites are overrepresented in combat units.

Mestizos and blacks are overrepresented in “lifer” units. Whoopee, more state-sponsored socialism for the dark man.

Your beloved Jews are of course nowhere to be found.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:40 | #

Also, as units become “more combat,” they become dramatically less non-white.

Elite units are almost totally white. Of course, I don’t blame all of this on any kind of non-white malfeasance; blacks are as a race practically incapable of being fighter pilots, for example, through no choice of their own.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:58 | #

“We see much the same in the multiracial US army of today—which appears to have excellent morale and cohesion—even though Hispanics are over-represented in it (if I remember rightly)” (—John “He’ll Say Absolutely Whatever’s Necessary To Defend Multiculti” Ray)

John, this multiculti, affirmative-action, all-standards-re-normed-downward-to-accommodate-
women’s-inadequate-physical-abilities-and-woefully-inadequate-aggressiveness, dumbed-down-intellegence-wise-because-smarter-white-guys-are-refusing-in-droves-to-join-a-
politicized-army-redesigned-by-the-feminists-where-white-men-are-forced-to-kowtow-constantly-
to-females-and-non-whites army hasn’t been tested on the battlefield in a real war against an army made up entirely of white Euro men. I think in a real war against an army of white-Euro men with comparable equipment it wouldn’t have a prayer. It did pretty well in 2003 against an Arab enemy with one-and-a-half times California’s population that had only gotten out of the Stone Age for the first time fifty years previously then got one-hundred-percent bombed back into it ten years previously, had lost all its armor, airplanes, and military airstrips, had not for ten years had any spare parts for whatever obsolete tanks and planes it could scrape up, had no credible anti-aircraft or field artillery or ordinance for what few pieces they did have and a severe shortage of large- and small-arms ammo with woefully insufficient stockpiles, didn’t have a dime to its name as a country or any industry or infrastructure left (all bombed out and not replaced) or any employment opportunities for its population whose average life expectancy had been driven down to something like 40 years, whose population had for eleven years been kept in a state of semi-starvation and also literal starvation with large numbers literally starving to death and dying of disease because it had no medications and only the most primitive and sparse medical and hospital services. The multiculti U.S. army did OK against that outfit but that’s not saying much is it. You show me the entirely white-Euro enemy army, a modern counterpart to what World War II’s German Wehrmacht was, or the Cold War’s Soviet Red Army was, that’s going to lose in a serious military campaign to an army of made up of Negroes, Mexicans, and women, with a sprinkling of white men, white men, moreover, who’ve had drilled into them in a massive brainwashing campaign that they must subordinate themselves to the women and the non-whites. I’d like to see it.

Posted by Commenter on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 04:34 | #

Perhaps I’m missing something here, but the cohesion in a multi-racial army contrasted to the lack of cohesion in a multi-racial nation shows just how far you need to go to pull people of different races together. Steve Sailer has made the point that using the military model on society to force racial unity by force would certainly not be appealing to our libertarian friends and would indeed be very wrong.

Posted by Amman on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 05:18 | #

Svigor, I’m just wondering, but a couple of your assertions interest me…first off, what makes you say that blacks aren’t capable of being fighter pilots? How under-represented are they in the makeup of fighter pilot units? I’m curious, since I wonder if there’s anything about their bone structure or physique or whatnot…

Secondly, are you citing any statistics when you say that “Jews are nowhere to be found” in combat? I don’t know much about the Army, so that’s another thing I’m just wondering about. Thanks in advance.

Posted by Andrew L on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 06:48 | #

You Can not use a Defence Force as a Racial tollerant Model, It perhaps becomes more of a disiplin and Communist type enviroment, Lets face it, when Bullets and Bombs are flying around, any on your side is good company, unless it is a Moslem, and that is written History, you are still the Infidel, and he has a weapon at your back, never get in that position.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:40 | #

Kevin MacDonald writes, in his “Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism” that “The National Socialist movement in Germany from 1933-1945 is a departure from Western tendencies toward universalism and muted individualism in the direction of racial nationalism and cohesive collectivism. The evidence reviewed below indicates that National Socialism developed in the context of group conflict between Jews and gentiles, and I propose that it may be usefully conceptualized as a group evolutionary strategy that was characterized by several key features that mirrored Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.”

It is our parents, imbued with the values of Western liberalism that destroyed “the inculcation of selfless behavior and within-group altruism” the foundation of European nationalism.

WWII is essentially Germanic tribal war. Two ancient German tribes fighting for supremacy. The clash of individualism and collectivism. WASP individualism prevailed but also spawned an insidious offspring.

The destruction of Germany destroyed nationalism.

Posted by dlg on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:08 | #

I don’t think it’s true that Jews are “nowhere to be found” in the military. I’m sure they are under-represented, but they are there. I recall a recent war casualty from my area being Jewish.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:20 | #

“What does one call the movement, the people, the ideology, the sentiment?” (—Svigor)

I simply say I’m against race-replacement. In certain other contexts I may need to add that I’m against leftists, Tranzis, unbridled capitalism (Godless capitalism in other words, which I consider worse than Godless communism), CCRs (Country Club Republicans), homosexualism (homosexualism is the attempt to mainstream homosexuality, to put it officially on a level fully equal to heterosexuality), and so forth. I never refer to myself as a “white nationalist” because the term never occurred to me and all want is for the white race to stop being extinguished—that calls for some special name? It’s sort of, “Doesn’t everybody want that? You mean, some don’t??? Well, if they don’t—expecially the élites, who have the intelligence to see plainly what’s going on—they certainly should, otherwise something’s gravely wrong with them.”

Calling plain ordinary normalness by some special name concedes legitimacy to the side that’s not normal—to whites who aren’t in agreement with “white nationalism”—in other words, to whites who want the white race extinguished (opposing opposition to it is equivalent to wanting it, sorry). But they don’t have legitimacy, so let’s not concede them any. They’re morons or evil and should be marginalized. The ones opposing white extinction have legitimacy and don’t need any special name.

Posted by John Ray on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:22 | #

Jews were quite prominent in the Axis armies of WW1. One of them recommended Hitler for a medal!

Posted by John Ray on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:23 | #

“John, if you were near me right now you’d have your teeth knocked out”

No that’s sophistication for you!

Posted by John Ray on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:26 | #

Fred put so many hyphens into his postb that I am going to have to answer it.

I was of course referring to cohesion and morale in the US army AT PRESENT

Pushing over Saddam was of course child’s play but dealing with the terrorist attacks is a much bigger difficulty. And the army seems to be coping well.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:31 | #

Also, Svigor, “White Nationalists” sounds like a bunch of thugs, a bunch of brownshirts. I know they’re not. I know they’re not. And I never thought of them remotely that way—I see them as just like me. In fact of course, I am one—I’m a white nationalist myself, and I’m no thug. But that name has negative PR value, I can tell you. Just say that you’re normal and you don’t want whites to be extinguished. The other side—the John Rays of this world—will always call you “White Supremacists” and “Neo-Nazis” so why add to your problems by calling yourselves an unnecessary name that sounds like both of those? You’re not anything special. You’re normal. Pin the genocidal tag on the other side—where it belongs. No matter what you call yourselves—make that, no matter what we call ourselves—the other side is going to try to pin the genocidal tag on us. Let’s not make it even easier for them. They’re the unacceptable ones. We’re the normals.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:37 | #

Are the other side calling themselves “The Slow Genociders”? No, but that’s exactly what the bastards are. They’re posing as the normal ones and trying to force us to name ourselves with some name that makes us seem not simply ordinary normal folk. Let’s not help them in that tactical move, shall we? We’ll get called all the names anyway—let’s not call ourselves names.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:46 | #

I was enraged when JJR made his comment about the great multiracial army of the USA.

This army is not made up of independent citizens, but is a professional Army fighting for a paycheck, and not the liberties and customs of the nation.

The Old Republic despised standing armies, and until WWII they were unknown. This is an imperial army, filled with much foriegn trash.

Unfortunately, the good White boys from the Midwest and South are the ones dying, the brown mercenaries are careful not to take the bullet, but the paycheck.

One day when Ceasar returns he’ll march on our cities. Count on it.

Posted by Commenter on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 15:49 | #

What about calling ourselves “white activists”? I remember seeing a person in the Amren website that signs on as this. It’s just an idea; I’d have to think about it more.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:06 | #

I would just like to say that Fred has caught my drift in toto. As so often, he explains matters with his customary gusto and clarity. Perhaps I am getting too oblique with the passing years.

Desmond makes a very interesting point about the death of nationalism. He might easily be right. I made exactly that same point in my Buttiglioni post of last year, but pinned it on the eggregiously unjust decision of the American State Department in, I believe, 1943 to apportion blame for the Nazis’ excesses on Germans as a whole. That was a defining moment in the creation of a “correct” mass moral attitude which the left - and others, of course - seized upon with unfettered enthusiasm.

The $64,000 question, then, is whether European patriotisms and racial identities are “dead” - or mortally wounded - alongside Nationalism. Is there sufficient consanguinuity between them? This I do not believe. I do believe that Wintermute was correct in eschewing the torn and tattered rayments of WN and insisting upon being just White ... like Danes, essentially, and not Germans.

Posted by h-man on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:10 | #

Geoff
Regardless of other issues on this thread, I assure you that Mexican-Americans are a vital part in the frontline combat units in Iraq. In Vietnam where I served, Mexican-Americans were of great value and contrary to what you say they were more than willing to “take the bullet”. This applies to foreign nationals from Mexico and Central America who were eligible for citizenship after their tour of duty. Sorry if this should create some awkward confusion in any theories regarding limiting immigration of non-whites (a policy I support)

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:24 | #

h-man,

A couple of years ago Channel 4 television in Britain featured the black activist and former Marxist hard-man, Darkus Howe, seeking out those old white racial attitudes in “modern” Britain. He interviewed some British Army boys. The two blacks among them were very aggressive towards him, insisting that he was out of touch.

“There’s only two kinds of soldier,” one of them told him, bluntly, “good soldiers and bad soldiers.”

I think there’s much truth in that. The professional Army is a high-octane unified structure built on trust and reliance. I do not doubt that Army training and operational pressures will psychologically deracinate, and replace the civilian worldview with one that is, of necessity, bipolar: not black and white but friend or foe.

However, since Khymer Rouge “death or re-education” is not quite upon us in the MultiCult yet, I don’t think the Army experience represents a useful guide to matters in civilian life, racial or otherwise.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:00 | #

h-man,

You really don’t get it do you? This army is not “our” army. It is not defending “us”. It is a mercenary force. Hell, they’d staff it with Zulus if it were necessary - people are just objects for the masters of the armed forces. This is not the Army of our forefathers ... wake up, folks!

Furthermore whites shouldn’t expose themselves to any danger in the mercenary army. Not one white should die for any cause the “US” military is engaged in. If you want to fight join the Minutemen.

This uber-respect for the military - which we see so much of - is a sign of institutional decay.

Vietnam was the suicide of the American nation. FYI my brother died as a result of his wounds from that war. What a waste.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:01 | #

Fred, defining oneself as a list of “anti-isms” is probably as rhetorically negative as defining oneself as a WN.

Defining oneself simply as “against” something is negative.

“White Activist” is good I suppose, though as vulnerable to demonization as White Nationalist I should think.

The Birdman had a whole letter about this subject, I forget the title he came up with, something like “White Defender” or something that sounded more defensive than anything else. He made some good points.

Jews in the military:
http://svyatoslav.50megs.com/JEWS&LOYALTY;.HTML

Of course I didn’t mean that there are no Jews in the military.

h-man, I don’t doubt that Mexicans make decent bullet-blockers.

The other side—the John Rays of this world—will always call you “White Supremacists” and “Neo-Nazis” so why add to your problems by calling yourselves an unnecessary name that sounds like both of those?

You’re sort of undermining your own argument here.

You’re not anything special. You’re normal.

You’re misusing the word normal here. It is not a positive, per se. WNism isn’t normal; as Ben suggested, it is healthy, not normal.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:04 | #

Desmond, WWII was essentially a Russo-Germanic war.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:11 | #

GW is of course right about the U.S. military. It’s a selective organization; the blacks are vetted to be as intelligent and disciplined as the whites, so it casts NO light on racial relations in the real world.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:05 | #

Boyd & Richerson:

German army cohesion vs. American & British

Citing DuPuy’s studies showing 100 German soldiers equalled 120 American or British, Boyd & Richerson observe the following:

German doctrine placed great emphasis on developing a sense of cohesion and solidarity among the members of small units (squads, platoons, and companies). To begin with, troops were recruited on a territorial basis, so the men served with fellows from the same towns and villages of their birth. Recruits were trained by elements of the same regiment in which they would serve in combat, and sent as a body to the front to make up losses from their regiment. A German soldier always served in the company of comrades, whose bonds of loyalty and fellowship were deliberately designed to cumulatively increase from the day of induction onwards. At the opposite extreme, the American system gave recruits basic training in temporary groups, and sent them on to advanced schools, and eventually to combat, as individuals. Socially isolated neophyte soldiers suffered considerable psychological turmoil during their long, lonely journeys to the front, and were disproportionately likely to become casualties in their first weeks of fighting. Not until actually incorporated into their final destination units could recruits begin to develop a sense of cohesion with any of the comrades with whom they would fight.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:09 | #

More from Boyd & Richerson:

Modern militaries, as we’ll see, are most successful when they can recreate many of the elements of the egalitarian tribal ethos notwithstanding the reality of highly formalized hierarchical command and control.

A multiracial military is unlikely to recreate such an atmosphere.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:12 | #

ben,

You can skip the British comparison. The British Army was denuded of its officer and NCO class by the huge manpower demands of the RAF, most especially Bomber Command. In all its four branches the RAF was a volunteer service that was wildly over-subscribed and took only the highest-quality personnel. The Royal Navy got by relatively unscathed because its officer class were also often volunteers from a naval background. But the British Army was badly affected, poorly led and given to under-performance in all but the specialist branches (SAS/SBS, Commandos, Parachute Regiments).

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:24 | #

Sorry for not answering above, I only just noticed your questions.

I should’ve stated that bit about black fighter pilots differently. The black race is practically incapable of competing with the white race in the production of fighter pilots.

This is of course simply an assertion based on a few facts. One, the military wants the best fighter pilots possible, irrespective of race. Two, the military would love for as many of these pilots to be black as possible, or at least enough to achieve demographic proportionality. Three, blacks are drastically under-represented as fighter pilots.

All I can draw from this is that they can’t get blacks into those seats and get adequate performances from them. Occam’s Razor, badda-boom badda-bing… blacks aren’t suited to this sort of thing.

My guess is it has to do with IQ and the nervous system. My even-more-speculative theory, based on this one, is that the growing endeavor to thrust blacks into NASCAR will prove a failure as well, since the physical demands are probably so similar.

Of course, they do have the option of shoving Mustifees into cars and calling them blacks, but that might prove embarrassing.

So, I was wrong to state that blacks can’t be fighter pilots. Obviously if all Nigeria has to work with is blacks, then blacks will end up piloting fighter jets.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:32 | #

Svi,

How does pool stack up in the race department?

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:40 | #

I heard somewhere that Jews make up about 3% of the US military. More or less their %age of the US population. I think there is a tendency to overestimate the Jewish population due to their prominence in the media, politics etc.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:07 | #

Lurker, I’d like very much to see a source.

The sources I cite at that link paint a much different picture, and represent all that I know about the subject.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:08 | #

GW, I haven’t the foggiest. I’m assuming you mean the kind of pool with sticks and balls and a table?

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:10 | #

Anecdotally, blacks in general enjoy hitting the ball too hard to be good at pool.

Posted by Commenter on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:12 | #

“‘White Activist’ is good I suppose, though as vulnerable to demonization as White Nationalist I should think.”

Now that I’ve thought about it, I think you’re definately right. Anything with white probably doesn’t work. At least, I wouldn’t use it, and I’m not sure it would be good for the movement (though I admit I’m a moderate voice, like Sailer but probably to the right of him). In practice, I usually call myself a conservative, very conservative, or a paleoconservative and then talk about the issues. It’s not a specific label, but I think it works.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:22 | #

http://www.isteve.com/2003_Few_Atheists_In_U.S._Foxholes.htm

I’m finding way more info than I did when I ran my Googles for that page a year ago. I put an evening into running down what scant info I could, and now five minutes is yielding more info.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:28 | #

Conservative and Paleoconservative are fine if one’s goal is to hide one’s true affiliations, but they hardly the sort of thing we should be using to self-identify as far as organizing as white people goes.

Remember, we are creating new memes in preparation for creating new institutions, ideologies, nations, and even religions. There is nothing for us to “adapt.” We’re starting from scratch here.

More on Jewish participation in the military:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200464.asp
http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/31104/commilitary.html

Funny how most of these sources cite much lower percentages of the general population for Jewry than I’m used to seeing in other contexts.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:35 | #

Regarding Sailer, I find his political stance to be perfect for his role. He’s a race-realist and otherwise a self-professed paleo-neocon.

I wrote more about this but I deleted it because I haven’t given it enough thought.

It should suffice to say that Sailer is a wonderful, if erstwhile, ally. Aside from his politics, he does a fantastic job of presenting the science of race to the layman in a neutral way.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:49 | #

It’s likely that the percent of population and percent of servicemen reported as Jewish are both underestimates, since the question is one of religion, and Jewishness is not.

This might cancel itself out to a large degree. On the other hand, orthodox Jews are far more conservative. On the other other hand, orthodox Jews are far more likely to obey religious strictures against military service.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:55 | #

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=11368

According to that, 1 in 1000 Marines is Jewish.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:58 | #

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050506-035058-4045r.htm

Plenty of commie soldiers though! (Jewish participation in American forces during WWII was a high-water mark too; it was a war in their interests, after all)

Posted by AD on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:03 | #

Although i don’t refer to myself as one,‘White Nationalist’ doesn’t really have the terrible connotations that alot of you may think.Note that the media and our enemies rarely use it publicly….instead largely depending on good ol’ ‘White Supremacist’ to get pavlovs dogs salivating.They know very well that although ‘WN’ suggests militancy,it is a move towards normalisation….only really one step away from,gasp,‘pro-white’.

We don’t need a label for our views,we just need to make sure any labels applied to us aren’t outright lies(eg White Supremacist,Neo-Nazi etc).

My personal policy is to never label myself,never call non-whites racial epithets and never call white females names…..but always call submissive white males racial epithets.The onus is on them to prove they’re not castrated she-male sissy white man-whores.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:34 | #

Lol, man-whores and he-bitches.

Yeah good point AD, getting the media to call White Nationalists what they call themselves is a lot harder than pulling teeth.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:41 | #

Svigor, dont remember where I saw it.

Re Jews in WW2 military, in their interests,yes, conscription another factor.

Posted by this is hilarious on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:59 | #

http://hano53433838.web.infoseek.co.jp/list/p_54/54_0.htm

By now Bobby felt certain that there was a real possibility of his being chained and handcuffed and flown back to the filthy Jew-controlled U.S.A. with a bag over his head that very night. So he decided not to go down without a fight!

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:29 | #

Svi: Conservative and Paleoconservative are fine if one’s goal is to hide one’s true affiliations, but they hardly the sort of thing we should be using to self-identify as far as organizing as white people goes.

There has never been a Conservative zeitgeist in American political life because OMOV democracy does not generate it. The most it can manage is some more or less Conservative leanings from time to time. Essentially, a constitutional balance of interests founded on the arrangement of government is not the same as a constitutional balance of interests founded on a restricted (or weighted) franchise.

My firm conviction is that genuine Conservatism of the latter sort is the natural politics of Western Man. I would love to see this idea really explored by American intellectuals of the right. Not that I expect to, of course!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:59 | #

How about stuff like universal nationalist, universal pluralist, plural universalist, diversity nationalist, multinationalist, world pluralist, “for people’s self-determination,” “for international self-determination,” “for worldwide self-determination,” anti-Genocide group, national diversity preservationist, worldwide diversity group—stuff like that.

Stuff like that might be better than “white nationalist” if someone can think up a good one along those or similar lines. I’ll try to remember to keep trying. “White nationalism” has to go, I fear. Remember that half the people who have to approve are women, who are natural one-worlder-type race and nation-state destroyers. They hate anything that “separates people,” as they see it, and love everything that, as they see it, “brings everyone together in one big happy mutually-interdependent group resembling nursery-school children with nice, gentle adults to look over and supervise them.” By nature, women aren’t hard-wired or hormonally-equipped to see the world in terms other than as a giant kindergarten class. Expecting women to see the world otherwise would be like expecting you or me to take off and fly like a bird by flapping our arms in the air—impossible: we aren’t equipped by nature for it. But women are out there and you have to deal with them. Any country that grants the vote to women without first putting several very stringent protections in place (which none have done) signs its own death warrant as a nation-state. The first thing that happens when women start to be a voting block is effeminate men—the lisping, limp-wristed liberal men Rush Limbaugh imitates so well with that mincing, sissy voice he puts on( * ) (who previously, ever since the days of Ancient Sumeria or whatever it was, were always totally marginal and ignored) find an ally and not only an ally but one that amounts to half of all voters! Then other alliances of nation-destroyers fall into place, with outfits that aim to destroy national particularism by deftly making use of women’s natural preference for one-worldism, and you can kiss your nation-state good-bye. Throughout the whole process women, of course, are blithely unaware they’re being 1) a million times more destructive than earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves, and atomic bombs put together, and 2) they’re being used, manipulated, by the real “haters,” the real “evil ones.” Then when everything starts going to hell in a handbasket, women turn around and ask what’s going on.

( * And Rush is right—that’s exactly what they’re like. For a sample of it, just go over to Jason Soon’s Catallaxy site, supposedly a conservative site, and read the comments of about two-thirds of the white Australian regulars who post there ... A bunch of she-males. How anyone with a Y-chromosome and descended testicles can stand that site, I don’t know. They should drop the “conservative” pretense over there and admit what they really are, a bunch of limp-wristed, lisping liberals.)

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:12 | #

Fred, I have always believed you can fly.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:10 | #

Anything with “universal” attached will be demonized as “hegemonic” or somesuch.

Self-determinationist is practically impossible to demonize, but it’s too broad. The rest have no ring.

Still, food for thought.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:16 | #

Something like White* Preservationist or White* Conservationist might work.

They include race, but they’re obviously strictly defensive in orientation.

* or HBD or Racial or Ethnic

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:55 | #

Do you know what we are, Svigor?

We’re anti-racists.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:12 | #

That is so in a very real sense, but it’s hardly true in every sense. It’s also “taken.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:17 | #

“Anti-racists” would be good, and I’m completely serious about that. Not only are we anti-racists, we’re the only anti-racists out there. The foaming-at-the-mouth race-replacers are all rabid white-haters and anti-Caucasian genocidal maniacs who can’t wait to kill off the last of the white race. I am completely serious about “anti-racists” being an excellent name for us. I hope no one believes the names the other side give themselves weren’t carefully chosen with maximum propaganda value in mind: the “progressives,” the “liberals,” and so on. (“Progressives”??? “Liberals”??? THEM??? GIVE ME A FRICKING BREAK ALREADY!)

Well, our side badly needs to do exactly the same.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:20 | #

Makes no diff if it’s taken, Svigor. None at all. Take it back, if it serves. “Liberal” was already taken when the non-liberal, anti-liberal, anything-but-liberal leftists took it over for themselves some decades ago or whenever it was. There’s no patent on these names. I for one think the best name for our side would be The Progressives. In fact, I may start using that unilaterally.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:41 | #

I think Human Conservationist has a good ring.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:54 | #

I think Wintermute’s advice remains instructive. In Europe I can afford my narrow particularisms. I am English - an English nationalist and a Conservative to be precise, but none of that additional baggage is really necessary to explain my racial loyalty. “English” is enough.

But white Americans cannot particularise with the same precision. That is why Wintermute favours a pan-European identity. Seeing no abnormality in his racial loyalty he doesn’t like the qualification, “nationalist”. He’s just a normal white guy in America. So white American would seem to suffice.

Say it at its most simple and true. Let the other side explain why “white American” must not mean what you know it means.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:23 | #

I am English - an English nationalist and a Conservative to be precise.

May one be a Lord, but not an Englishman, yet a Tory?

Posted by Balder on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:04 | #

There is only one minor problem with this story:

“A few months later, when Denmark was liberated and its King returned from his English exile,”

The King was never in English exile!

Up to August 29, 1943, the Danish government collaborated with the German occupiers, and encouraged young Danes to enlist in the German army to fight the Russians at the Eastern front. The army kept it’s weapons up to that point in time, and the Danish police assisted the Germans with catching communists.

Denmark was known as ‘Hitlers Canary’.

There are a lot of myths’ about Denmark during WWII: The King was supposed to have been riding on horse back through Copenhagen, wearing the yellow star of David, as a protest against presecution of the Jews.

Complete bull! Even the Jews were never forced to wear a yellow star in Denmark.

The Germans in return for Danish cooperation also were friendly to the Danes.

Until 1943, captured Danish resistance fighters were not sent to Germany or shot, but held in Denmark.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:45 | #

The RAF story is, of course, archival fact. You are right that the Danish king was not exiled - my apologies. He remained in Copenhagen, but paraded through the city with Gen Montgomery when the British arrived.

No doubt the Danes were pleased to have avoided the fate of other German-occupied peoples. But one should be careful not to ascribe to them any great contentment with their lot as a model protectorate of the Reich. I rather like the following passage from this page:-

Relief for those fighting against the occupation finally came on May 4 1945 via a message on the BBC’s Danish service. The calm voice of Johannes G Sørensen broadcast the words: “It can now be confirmed that General Montgomery has announced that the German troops in Holland, northwest Germany and Denmark have surrendered.” Most people cannot remember the remainder of the broadcast as celebrations engulfed the country. The news spread quickly, with people sobbing openly in the city streets. Celebrations continued into the night and the streets were so full that the city’s tram system was unable to operate. Many German soldiers remaining in the capital joined in the celebrations. One shop displayed a sign reading “closed due to happiness”.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments