|
|
|
Not a gift, exactly. Because this will cost you money. $19.95 a year, in fact. But for that you get full access to the entire and most wide-ranging serious music back-catalogue in the world. And to me that’s as near to a gift as one can get. Naxos decided to open its doors in this way to the internet listener in 2003. I don’t think it has precipitated the other giants to follow suit - no doubt because they cannot make money doing it. But then they can’t make money at all. The music industry in general, and not just the serious side, is in growing difficulties, and where it will all end is not yet foreseeable. But the corpus of Western music will stand as long as Western Man survives. And, certainly, the quality of music-making is as strong as ever. There’s enough of it to explore at Naxos to last at least the year of the life of the subscription. The catalogue includes a very nearly full representation of late romantic nationalist composition, which is the subject of this post. There was a golden period for nationalistic composers lasting arguably from the operatic exploits of Michael Glinka (1804-1857) until deep into the 20th century. It was made possible in no small measure because the compositional dependency on the patronage of great churchmen and petty princes was withering. Artistically, however, the Age of Enlightenment did not provide sufficient answers. The roots of the nation and its meaning for its people were not matters of interest to the old or new elites of Europe. But the people themselves were another matter. With the obvious exception of France, most of the European nations produced men desirous of expressing the soul of their homelands in sound. In the music world descriptions of nationalist music tend, as one might expect, to be a trifle circumspect. Much emphasis tends to be placed upon the composer’s conceivably non-political search for the national soul in ancient folk tales, traditions and songs. It was a natural enough place to look, of course. The question remains, however, as to how nationalism then fits with nationalism now. My answer is that that special reverence which informed the best nationalist composition, and which was answered by all those who loved it so long ago, still obtains among listeners today. Nothing has changed, beyond the fact that the race issue has been thrust upon us where once such a pass would have been unimaginable. Reaching down into the lives of our ancestors and finding there a reflection of our collective selves is no less proper now than before, and probable more necessary than ever. Marxism, anyway, makes crap art. The following list, should you wish to explore the Naxos option, might be worth your time. It is not complete by any means There is no song, for example. I have not included Glinka’s successors in Mother Russia: that loose association of like-minded composers who came to be called The Mighty Handful. Likewise Norway’s most famous composer Edvard Grieg (1843-1907) and the great Czecks Leoš Janá?ek and (1854-1928)) Antonín Leopold Dvo?ák (1841-1904) have been left off. I would have liked to reference the Slovak, Vitezlav Novák (1870-1949). But his Moravian & Slovak Suite is not catalogued by Naxos. The lesser known Scot, Alexander Mackenzie (1847-1935), is also not catalogued but deserves a mention here. Anyway, here’s my list, much of it rather obvious I know ... but not all. Some you may care to challenge. That and any other ommissions will be most carefully studied by me in the thread. Vaughan-Williams (1872-1958): Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis, Flos Campi, Norfolk Rhapsody and The Lark Ascending are all wonderful examples of English idyllicism. But Vaughan Williams also wrote some cracking film scores in which moments of high patriotic drama occur. Go to the second listing under his name and play Dawn Patrol (Quiet Determination) - a quite perfect evocation of a wartime RAF Coastal Command crew preparing for take-off. Wilhelm Stenhammar (1871-1927): A little known but rather good Swedish composer and pianist, whose Piano Concerto No.1 evokes sentiments much akin to nationalist reflection (though whether or not they were intended that way I cannot say). Jean Sibelius (1865-1957): The great Finn, high in the second of rank of composers like Shostakovich and Richard Strauss who carried the romantic torch into the 20th Century. So much of Sibelius’ orchestral output was grounded in the austere Finnish landscape and in Finnish folklore, it is almost invidious to select a specific piece. However, Finlandia is the one most obviously given to Finnish nationalism. The famous final movement of the fifth symphony is impossibly stirring. Of his folklore-inspired output, Lemminkaenen’s Homeward Journey is perhaps the most optimistic. Bed?ich Smetana (1824-1884): Smetana wrote the most overt of all lyrical nationalist pieces in his six-part Ma Vlast (My Country). It has a playing time of around one and quarter hours and includes, of course, the much-played Vltava. Ignacy Jan Paderewski (1860-1941): Paderewski had the most extraordinary career of any musician, being not just a leading international pianist but also a composer, diplomat, politician, social worker, charitable donor and the third Prime Minister of Poland. Not much of his compositional output is in the published repertoire today. But his only Piano Concerto is well worth listening to. Ern? Dohnányi (1877-1960): Once he escaped from the influence of Brahms, Dohnányi produced some highly inventive piano pieces. He was no Sibelius. But he made one successful orchestral foray into the folk world of his native land, and that was Ruralia Hungarica. Carl Orff (1895-1982): Two words ... Carmina Burana. Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975): Shostakovich narrowly survived Stalin’s displeasure. He was twice denounced for formalism and for his seeming inability to generate the relentless optimism required by the Soviet authorities. He wrote his great fifth symphony as a mea culpa, and it is not an exaggeration to say that it saved his life. I find in it as much love of the Russian spirit as any composer of more plainly nationalist work. Otterino Resphigi (1879-1936): He was associated in many people’s minds with Mussolini’s Fascists, but he was never political. He did, however, write Pines of Rome! On behalf of all MRers, a happy Christmas Day to you all. Comments:2
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 25 Dec 2006 19:17 | # Amalek, doesnt Carmina Burana contain some Mittel Hoch Deutsch? 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:29 | # It looks like one of the older forms of German in §7 through 10 and §13 and one of the older forms of French in §16. 4
Posted by karlmagnus on Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:39 | # Classical music loses me about 1880, but I agree the earlier parts of your romantic-nationalist canon are wonderful. In particular I recommend the Hungarian Ferenc Erkel’s “Hunyadi Laszlo” (1843) and the Croatian Ivan Zajc’s “Nikola Subic Zrinski” (1876). Both are heroic operas dealing with inicdents of their country’s mediaeval history; Naxos will certainly have Erkel, I’d be surprised if it got as far as Zajc, which I picked up in Zagreb (it was Franjo Tudjman’s favorite opera, and was performed every year during the great man’s lifetime.) 5
Posted by Laban on Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:04 | # RVWs 3rd and 5th Symphonies are excellent too if you like pastoral English stuff. EJ Moeran is good too. Pity they’ve got no Butterworth ... 6
Posted by jane on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 04:32 | # “ut the corpus of Western music will stand as long as Western Man survives.” Really? Seems to me the majority of great string players nowadays are Asian. Not to mention the long history of Jewish fiddlers and pianists, without whom the Western canon would have been much impoverished for lack of great interpretation. Your post is incoherent garbage. The majority of great Western music had nothing whatever to do with nationalism. To name only several examples, Bach wrote long before Germany was a nation, Haydn & Mozart were products of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (that is, a transnational entity, for the thickheads among you, which is all of you) and Beethoven’s artistry had nothing to do with nationalism. Mozart was a Freemason, i.e., a humanist. Also, Marxism doesn’t pretend to create art, but Prokofiev wasn’t too shabby. You are all failures and scum, and you know it. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 05:02 | # Could you tell everyone which of Simon Sheppard’s ten reasons apply in your particular case, Jane? 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:31 | # A certain Prof. William Rubinstein of the University of Wales ventures the opinion that Ralph Vaughan Williams was the greatest composer in history:
9
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:38 | # Jane, Also the sheer genius required to invent Western musical notation was a White achievement. Alas we MR supporters cannot be successful in the same way as auto-racist Marxists like yourself because your measure of success depends on the ruination of White civilisatiion. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:12 | # First my apologies for the many errors in the post. It was researched on Christmas eve. But the task of actually writing it only getting done on Christmas morning whilst on the hoof and using my daughter’s laptop. I have corrected all the typos, I think. Jane, Prokofiev was denounced for formalism. Laban, Thanks ... Moeran I know very little about. But I see there is a website devored to him. I will check that out and listen to the five of his works listed by Naxos. KM, there’s only a very little Ferenc Erkel in the Naxos catalogue, but no opera. Jajc is absent. 11
Posted by frosty the snowbrute on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:43 | # “You are all failures and scum, and you know it. “ By golly, no refuting that sterling logic. Jane, your argumentative skills are amazing. “But the corpus of Western music will stand as long as Western Man survives.” Better: the ‘corpus’ of Western peoples will stand as long as Western Man survives. “Could you tell everyone which of Simon Sheppard’s ten reasons apply in your particular case, Jane? “ Frederick, good find. This analysis - consistent with real-life political preferences (white females tending to be more racially liberal) - refutes the utter nonsense of the “Italion Stallion” who wanted to “convince” us that racial preservation (“racism”) was feminine, and “diversity”, male. 12
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:05 | # Jane, Im not sure I follow your logic old girl. When some of these ‘German’ composers were around, Germany did not exist as a nation state. So they were not German then. Who are these ‘Jews’ then? If they were around pre 1948 who are they? Not ‘Jews’ obviously, what then? 13
Posted by wjg on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:55 | # GW, Are you limiting your list to both composers you deem nationalistic in their art and available thru Naxos? My first question is what would define a nationalistic composer? His motivation or his impact? I might be mistaken here but I would describe any composer who stirs the heart of his people to be true to their kin or any other people to be true to their kin is an asset to nationalism. By the more restrictive definition Beethoven does not appear a nationalist composer having been motivated quite a bit by universalistic principles. But, forgetting his inspirations for a minute isn’t his art one of the very things that inspires a German as a German to love his origins and have hope for his future? Even as an American I see the true art of a Beethoven and it reminds me of what a noisome fake “American” culture now is; likewise with Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, and certainly with Wagner. There are several others of this caliber and effect. It is true that the sponsorship of the composers, and where music was in its evolution, had an impact on their art such that pre-Beethovian work largely seems shallow, technical, and often dainty. Not to say Bach, Handel, Haydn, and Mozart, etc. weren’t great but not seemingly destined to motivate men to defend their interests as a folk. As Christians possibly - Handel’s Messiah being a great example - but not as people bound by birth kinship. They were a necessary precursor to the Romantic greats who can directly or indirectly be called folk artists. You maybe have a very narrow, and objective, definition of “nationalist” composer that is valuable but what is it? Still, I like your list though I need to check out Stenhammer, Paderewski, and Dohnanyi. I’m aware of them but can’t recall their work from what I’ve heard before. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:05 | #
To say nothing of what happened to Shostakovich:
15
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:45 | # What really saddens me is the utter, utter cr*p that is somehow foisted upon us now as being representative of ‘musical culture’ of the early 21st century.Of course here I’m talking about ‘rap’ ‘hip-hop’, ‘R&B’ and all of the rest of the worthless dogsh*t. 16
Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:41 | #
A Study in Art Part One Wandering on the great peninsula of Peloponnese I drove into the medieval-looking town of Nauplio. Its harbour is guarded by a grey-walled islet, cosy cafes line up the waterfront, while behind them, narrow and curvy lanes rapidly climb up the steep mount, crowned by a Venetian fort. City streets are fresh and dainty, and preserve the proverbial charm of Greece. There are not many places on the Greek mainland that so effortlessly captivate a stranger. Greeks call it ‘Nafplio’, probably in honour of Nafnaf the Pig. Unusual for Greece, it was built up by Crusaders on their way to Jaffa and Acre, sculpted by Venetians, Turks, French and Bavarians, ruled by Duke of Athens. Nauplio was for a short while a first capital of independent Greece, but mercifully was spared the grim fate of Athens: it did not become a centre of overcrowded honking urban spread. It is a good base to scout the plain of Argolis. On its main square, there is an old Venetian building. It houses now the local archaeological museum. Its collection starts with the great Mycenaean civilisation, a child of Minoan civilisation of Crete. This art blossomed not far away, in the walled cities of Mycenae and Tiryns, once ruled by the accursed Atreid kings. It is a period of wonderful free and inspired art, with voluptuous (like Baroque nymphs crowding the ceiling of my hotel room) figurines of goddesses, jolly octopuses (octopi for Jennifer) on the jars, and frescoes reminiscent of Palestinian work in Deir el-Balach. Mycenaeans could read and write, built castles and palaces, carved the magnificent lions above the gate of their capital. But as one continues the tour, all of a sudden one witnesses the great collapse. Art disappears, and its place is taken over by bare geometric forms. Centuries will pass – from 12 c BC to 6 c BC, until local inhabitants will regain the developed forms of art, knowledge of writing and sophistication of old. One feels this lacuna of time while reading Odyssey. Homer composed his anachronistic masterpiece some four hundred years after the collapse, and he did not know that his heroes could write and read, and their princesses did not have to do laundry by themselves. After the collapse, one finds pieces of art strangely similar to our modern creations. In the small museum of Acropolis in Athens, there is a precise copy of Giacometti statuette, made some 2700 years ago. Geometric forms of that period are reproduced now as best examples of modern art. Thus, in the small museum of Nauplio, I found a missing piece to fit into the puzzle. Death of Art is a symptom of civilisation collapse. A Study in Art Part I - http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1127 For those interested in real (visual) art as opposed to gimmickry: For those interested in (visual) gimmickry as opposed to art: Illustration: Merry Chrismas! 17
Posted by onetwothree on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:58 | # It’s a good deal except for one thing: Listen to more than 5,000 CDs including all Naxos, Marco Polo and Dacapo recordings in FM quality sound (20Kbps) 20Kbps. Ouch. Classical music isn’t even right at 128Kbps. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:16 | # wjg, Your question is valid and I thought about attending to an answer in my original post, but didn’t have any time to spare. I still haven’t, much. But anyhow ... A composer may just feel a romantic attachment to landscape. That can be enough ... certainly so if the landscape is part of the people’s soul in a Sibelian sense. Of course, then we have to distinguish the nationalistic lover of the land from the genuine political nationalist, and the political nationalist from the racial nationalist. It is all a matter of degree. Thus Chopin, who was only half-Polish and lived in France, gave the first performance of his Heroic Polonaise to an audience of Polish exiles and receved the most tumultuous response, complete with hats tossed in the air and an outbreak of singing of the Polish national anthem! He gave instructions at his death for his heart to be buried in his spiritual homeland, and indeed it was placed in an urn installed in a pillar of the Holy Cross church in Krakowskie Przedmiescie. Not much doubt that he would have counted himself a romantic nationalist and probably a political one. With the same certainty one can say that Wagner was not merely a political or even racial nationalist but a supremacist! He was scathingly anti-semitic, even to the point of dismissing the rather popular compositional output of the group of Jewish concert pianists gathered around the ageing Mendelssohn as all pretty, lightweight tinkling fatally bereft of cultural depth and maturity. So, I don’t think one can profitably draw a line in one place here and say that on one side of it is nationalism and the other not. This is one area where inclusivity is wholly desirable. One has to remember, too, that all these interesting men were whole people with more than the soul of the nation to light their path. Enjoy Sibelius’ fifth by all means. But when you come to his seventh bear in mind that this is a personal statement upon the course of life from tiny beginnings to a hopeful end. He wrote nothing of substance after the seventh, and the forty fallow years to his death at the age of 92 is the most profound silence in musical history. 19
Posted by jane on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:02 | # I forgot to say creepy. You don’t know anything music, that’s obvious. Just a short list of great Jewish violinists:
* Joseph Achron Conductors: SHORT LIST * Vladimir Ashkenazy 2 COMPREHENSIVE LIST * Maurice Abravanel Now shove that up your untalented, musically illiterate asses. Stop spewing horseshit about a subject about which you obviously KNOW NOTHING and go back to mindlessly quoting Kevin MacDonald. And what the fuck are Jew-haters doing quoting William Rubinstein about musical issues? He’s a Jew. And he’s a history prof. I happen to love Vaughan Williams myself, but that’s a side issue. 20
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:17 | # Jane. Thanks for not replying to my innocuous little question. Told me all I needed to know. 22
Posted by wjg on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 04:52 | # GW, The label is not binary as you say though your definition primarily revolves around the explicit intent of the composer. This intentional-nationalist view seems a bit restrictive since some art is nationalistic without even intending to be so. My criteria would be does it create a sense of purpose among a people group to act in their interests thru looking back to an awesome past (e.g. Wagner) or looking forward to a better future (e.g. Beethoven). If so it serves that nation positively, hence is nationalistic. Some music can be explicitly claimed by White sub-races (Czechs, Finns, Germans, Poles, Huns, etc.) while others are inspirational to a pan-White movement. American Whites must look more to the latter in the classical genre since our most well-known composers were either Jingoists (like Sousa) or Jews. The most nationalistic genre we’ve ever had is pre-Civil War Southern pop tunes like Dixie. 23
Posted by Jan on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:02 | # Just a reminder to most of you, if Antonin Dvorak had the chance to meet you in person, he would spit in your faces. Pride in one’s nation and culture does not require being scared of other races partaking in it. Including the Jews you so revile. 24
Posted by Jan on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:41 | # I’m probably casting pearls before swine, and Czech pearls to boot, but here goes. You might be aware by now that by tradition, orchestras conduct blind auditions, whereby the applicant plays his instrument behind a curtain. If your racial theories in regards to music held any water at all, such a process would separate Jewish dilletantes and non-Jewish musicians without a problem. And yet, Jewish musicians abound in classical orchestras. The same applies to compositions. Just try to tell apart expressions of Jewish cosmopolitanism from those evocations of a national soul if you don’t know the pieces a priori. And as for Dvorak: “In the negro melodies of America I discover all that is needed for a great and noble school of music,” he wrote. “They are pathetic, tender, passionate, melancholy, solemn, religious, bold, merry, gay, or what you will…. There is nothing in the whole range of composition that cannot be supplied with themes from this source.” Dvorak hoped black-derived music would do for African Americans what he hoped his work would do for the Czechs. For your crowd even to mention him is an insult to his legacy. 25
Posted by onetwothree on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 07:01 | # COMPREHENSIVE LIST Very comprehensive. What kind of “Comprehensive” list of jewish conductors has Mitch Miller but not Anton Rubinstein? Maybe instead of applying a copy-and-paste method of pretending knowledge, you should actually gain some knowledge, eh? But, hey, all your holiday favorites are here:
26
Posted by onetwothree on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 07:07 | # Oh, by the way, here’s a non-comprehensive list of non-Jewish conductors: Beethoven. Beat that. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 07:19 | # Did Dvo?ák, Czech nationalist that he was, want Czechs and the Czech nation forcibly race-replaced by Negroes, Mexicans, Pakistanis, Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, Lebanese, Guatemalans, Hindus, Chinamen, Filipinos, Poles, Albanians, and Hmong, Jan? What do you suppose his reaction would’ve been had someone tried to pull that stunt against the Czech nation and people in his day, tried to wipe them out, completely eradicate them, genocide them, by the strategy of forced anti-Czech race-replacement “immigration,” anti-Czech “affirmative action,” anti-Czech preferences, anti-Czech quotas, forced anti-Czech “diversity,” anti-Czech “tolerance,” and anti-Czech “multiculturalism” for Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia till there were no more Bohemians, no more Moravians, and no more Slovaks left? Or, forget Dvo?ák — how do you think the Jews, the very same ones who run around praising race-replacement of Eurochristians to the skies, such as Abe Foxman or Prof. Alon Ziv, would react if someone tried to ram all that crap down the throats of the Israelis till there were no Jewish Israelis left, only Mexicans, Moroccans, Guatemalans, Chinamen, Koreans, Poles, Nigerians, Somalians, and Togolanders all transplanted within the borders of the nation-state once known as Israel till it was no longer Israel? You’ve got a big yap, Jan/Jane or whatever your name is. A huge one, in fact. Use that gargantuan yap of yours to answer those questions, please. 28
Posted by Jan on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 07:31 | # You appear to have forgotten, but the prospect of being swallowed up and made extinct is not an academic one to the Czechs. And one does not need to be in your odious crowd to observe that the European Union is letting in huge numbers of immigrants while at the same time rendering the economies and states of Europe unable to absorb them in the fashion of the United States, and that therefore something has to give. And yes, some of those immigrants act like, hmm, what analogy shall I use… how about… Sudetenland Germans! Some how immigrants from the same locales who go to the US behave themselves much better. That same United States you lot think is run by the Jews. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 07:45 | # How about answering my questions? There were three of them (don’t forget Simon Sheppard’s “ten reasons”). Oh and, uhhh ... do try to be coherent next time instead of an illiterate bore, won’t you sweetie? Save the gibberish and confused meandering non-sequiturs for your leftist friends — they’ll have no difficulty understanding them. 30
Posted by Jan on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 07:56 | # Fred Scooby, you are either too ignorant or too incapable of reading comprehension to see I have already answered what little substance there was in your questions. Probably both. 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:26 | # This is what we’ve let into the voting booth. 32
Posted by Jan on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 08:37 | # “Who’s this ‘we’, paleface?” God bless Don Martin, RIP. Your crowd never had a say in the matter, except in one place, for a brief period. 33
Posted by Makran on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:53 | # Actually, non European classical traditions tend to be more nationalist as compared to European classicla traditions. For example most poetry and songs in Hindustani music is more or less limited to India. No Indian poet or artist gave a damn about negroes, whites or the Chinese. Compare that to Bizet’s Lakme, Puchini’s Turandot. Europeans are very international in nature. For example the large amount of money donated to the Tsunami in Southern India, Sri Lanka and to Dafur by westerners looked wierd to most Desis (subcons). We subcons only care about our nations. If the entire population of darfur, Zaire or Columbia were to be mass murdered, most Asians would not give a hoot. Muslims will only give a hoot only if others muslims are involved. 34
Posted by EC on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:40 | # Nationalism considered morally wrong is a insane concept for most non westerners. Did you hear that Jane, you ignorant slut?! LOL (a little SNL humour) Jane, are you a Jew, married to one or just a looney, aracial, hypocritical leftist twit? Curious minds DO want to know. 35
Posted by karlmagnus on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:08 | # Guys, the general point is valid, but bag the paranoia about Jews. Mendelsohn was the son of a banker, thoroughly pro-European all his life, didn’t have Dvorakian fantasies about jazz (I’ve NEVER liked Dvorak) and was consistently an upholder of the excellent Conservative social and political order into which he was born. 36
Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:13 | # The Flemish equivalent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benoit 37
Posted by wjg on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:13 | # There is a funny line from Peter Jackson’s interpretation of the LOTR where Merry and Pippin are first picked up by Treebeard and Merry asks Treebeard a question. Pippin then says “Don’t talk to it Merry, you’ll only encourage it”. I’d recommend that be the case with this troll so that you don’t encourage it to cast any more of its “pearls” to us “swine”. The best thing to hear when a jew - or one of their pets - talks is a viper hissing. Would you respond to it, like Eve? No you leave it or destroy it since all it wants to do is inject its poison. 38
Posted by wjg on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:24 | # Karl, You are raising the exception fallacy, which is irrational for self-proclaimed racialists. Guess what, we generalize. And in so doing holding up Mendelsohn as a reason to refute anti-semitism is about the same as saying we shouldn’t separate from blacks because of the Huxtables. Philo-semites are either irrational or intentionally treacherous, though possibly both. 39
Posted by Detective Richard Tracey on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:37 | # “You are raising the exception fallacy, which is irrational for self-proclaimed racialists.” Note that Karl is not a racialist, so expect anecdotal, “it’s true because I say so” type arguments related to race and ethnicity from him. He does seem to know a bit about economics, though. “We subcons only care about our nations….The West is much less nationalist in nature as compared to Asia…. Nationalism considered morally wrong is a insane concept for most non westerners.” Right, a bit of refreshing honesty. It is unlikely that “subcons” and other Asians suddenly become altruistic universalists when living in the west. That being so, the presence of particularists living amongst universalists means eventual displacement of the latter by the former, not only demographically, but also in various arenas of economic-social-political-professional- academic activity. Any attempt by the universalists to themselves practice the exact same particularism and “level the playing field” will be, of course, met with charges of “racism”, “discrimination”, and an “unAmerican fear of competition.” In other words, attempting to compete is considered “fear of competition” by those who believe they have a monopoly on ethnic particularism and nepotism. 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:44 | #
Can “The Realist” or “White, Jewish, and Proud” from Inverted World tell us why 99.9999999999999 percent of Jews have allied themselves with this against Eurochristians or explain how it is that concerned patriotic Eurochristians who’ve noticed this allignment are supposed to remain completely free of a kind of anti-Jewish resentment in light of it? I’ll throw in that I like Jews, I support Israel, and where Israeli politics are concerned I favor the Likud. But I also certainly understand Eurochristians who’ve conceived a degree of ill-will toward the Jewish community on account of the stance it has taken in this and in other similar regards. Such ill-will given the stance taken by 99.9999999999999 percent of Jews does not amount to mystical anti-Semitism. The whole thing is regrettable — the Jews having positioned themselves the way they have, and the Eurochristians who’ve noticed having strong resentment against them for this reason — it’s regrettable and I wish the whole thing weren’t happening. But I certainly understand it. Can “White, Jewish, and Proud” help us out here a little? 41
Posted by misty fjords on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:57 | # Fred Scrooby asks: Can “White, Jewish, and Proud” help us out here a little? Well, Fred, apparently WJP is too busy denigrating the ancestors of today’s north Germanic whites as primitives wearing “smelly skins.” Note well that comments on TIW are moderated and that “The Realist”, while deleting even thoughtful comments critical of Jews, allows hateful comments by Jews against Europeans to stand, uncritiqued, on his site. This is, of course, how and why the Amren yahoo discussion list went down and lost members. Criticism of Jews there was either deleted or met with scorn by the moderator; meanwhile, hostile comments by Jews against European whites were allowed. I’m not sure how The Realist is going to be able to justify this outside of his own blog. On TIW, questions as to why WJP’s contempt for the historical peoples of Northern Europe is allowed are not posted. However, The Realist cannot stop others from questioning this elsewhere; for example, on this blog. Is The Realist actually an anti-Semitic “mole” - attempting to demonstrate that philosemitic race realism is actually impossible? So far, he’s been doing a good job of leading us to that conclusion. 42
Posted by Jan on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:28 | # Oh, how funny. It’s revealed to you that Dvorak took interest in black folk music( gospel, not jazz), and now he has fallen from grace, and his music no longer holds value for you. The same a posteriori idiocy. The funny thing is Muslims do the same thing, when they challenge people to write anything with the literary merit of the Koran. Since the Koran is the standard, they will always find fault with anything else. Nevertheless, without knowing a priori, you could not sort out any pre-Modernist musical compositions just by listening. The works of Jews would also be just as “Aryan” to you, until you found out the name of the composer. But please, insult Dvorak some more. He would far prefer your aspersions to your compliments. 43
Posted by EC on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:52 | # Jane (you ignorant slut), you are a typical screeching leftist banshee. The one person who said a negative comment about Dvorak, which you latched onto, is the one person that is not a white nationalist on this blog. LOL You ignorant moron. I will presume that most people here will not have a problem with Dvorak’s affinity toward black music. Why should we? The bigger point which Fred Scrooby brought up is Dvorak, despite his love of black gospel, would in no way want his nation flooded with these same blacks. Do you disagree with this major point, Jan(e)? 44
Posted by JB on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:55 | # Jane:
what’s black music these days ? turn on your televitz and watch MTV in you can stomach it. it seems you’re the one living in the past. 45
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:26 | # Jane’s shrieking Medusa persona will probably not undergo any improvement when she learns what contemptible racists America’s hideously White Founding Fathers actually were : http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8009 Their forthright views on Yahweh’s Yammering Yids, widespread Freemasonry notwithstanding, were also, doubtless, impressively trenchant. 46
Posted by Rnl on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:07 | # Jan/Jane wrote: the funny thing is Muslims do the same thing, when they challenge people to write anything with the literary merit of the Koran. That sounds suspiciously like Islamophobia, perhaps even “racism.” Certainly Jan/Jane is essentializing the Other, as hatemongers so often do. Pride in one’s nation and culture does not require being scared of other races partaking in it. Including the Jews you so revile. That sounds suspiciously like belief in the existence of races. Jan/Jane may also be suffering from a belief in the value of national cultures. And one does not need to be in your odious crowd to observe that the European Union is letting in huge numbers of immigrants while at the same time rendering the economies and states of Europe unable to absorb them ... Jan/Jane, like most bigots, doesn’t appreciate the benefits of diversity. It’s like gold: the more of it you have, the wealthier you become. 47
Posted by The Other Guy on Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:39 | # Ah Jane, I have my problems with the Majority Right crew, but I have to say, it is rather bad form to just throw your bombs without engaging in honest debate. Having said that, when I go to Tanglewood, I am surrounded by Jews, most of whom are drinking wine. My guess is I am a great deal safer than at a soccer match with 100% Anglo Saxon yobs. I am sure there are better piercings and tattoos at the soccer match. 48
Posted by The Other Guy on Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:28 | # Alex, sorry you have a problem. Try a little humility the next time you are out having a Guinness and you might have a better time getting along. 49
Posted by wjg on Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:14 | # “Having said that, when I go to Tanglewood, I am surrounded by Jews, most of whom are drinking wine. My guess is I am a great deal safer than at a soccer match with 100% Anglo Saxon yobs.” As a deracinated white individual that’s probably true since you are no threat to Jewry. Just never be a man and proclaim just as much right to organize as they claim for themselves. Do that and then comment on their hospitality. Then you may not be so inclined to call Anglo-Saxons yobs. I’m presuming you’re White. 50
Posted by the other guy on Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:49 | # wtg, I do not mix with them at Tanglewood, I’m just safer than one would be at a soccer match where there are a surfeit of hooligans. At Tanglewood, the Jews are the most represented ethnicity. I guess as part of their strategy, they are foisting the very Jewish music of Handel and Beethoven (the two featured composers of the programs I attended) on the attendees. Boy, does that subvert Western culture. I guess, they have subtly foisted the yob soccer fan culture on the English so they mutilate and decorate their bodies. A brilliant strategy. I have never hid from anyone, Jews included, that our adventures in the Mideast are a waste of time and it has never changed a relationship. I do not aver that all Anglo-Saxons are yobs or that all Jews are angels. The opposite is also not true. As to deracinated, hardly. 51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:09 | # wjg, The Other Guy is an Irish Catholic Amerikwan who nurses bitter resentments against the English nation and race on account of their past dealings with the micks. Those resentments are his foremost concern in life. They’re why he attacks “Anglo-Saxons” at every turn and belittles opposition to forced race-replacement: in his eyes nothing in life rivals Irish anti-English resentments in importance, absolutely nothing. It’s extremely pathetic, really. And to top it off, he’s simply not the brightest bulb on the tree, as the expression goes — if you get my meaning ... (no surprise there, frankly, when you consider the nationality ...). He’s got Professor von WhatsHisName over at the University of Dublin trotting out all sorts of plans, most of them currently underway, for changing irrevocably the race of Ireland’s people from what they’ve been traditionally to a mixture of Chinese, Subcon, African Negro, and so on — you-name-it, in other words, and they’ve got a plan already worked out to change the Irish into it — and have already begun making the changes, implementing the plan, race-replacing Ireland’s traditional population, and TOG comes along, takes a look at it, yawns, couldn’t care less, then gets back to his mainstay of attacking the Anglo-Saxons for what Sir Walter Ralegh did to the micks four hundred years ago or something. Right, that’s Irish-Catholic intellect for you ... 52
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 00:22 | #
Here‘s the insect. Check it out. 53
Posted by BGD on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:55 | # Fred Scrooby: “A certain Prof. William Rubinstein of the University of Wales ventures the opinion that Ralph Vaughan Williams was the greatest composer in history” Regarding this man I remember coming across this comment in David Irving’s Action Report some years past. Shame it’s not more widely circulated, if it exists: Professor William Rubinstein of the University of Wales at Aberystwyth came to an identical conclusion about the immigration campaigning of Jews in this country in a paper which he sent me some time ago. 54
Posted by tog on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:06 | # Oh poor Scrooby. Why the obsession with the Irish. He sounds like a drunk in a bar. Then again, there is no risk to making your remarks with the anonymity of the internet. It’s okay. I know Scrooby would never dare say these things to anyone’s face. Substituting insult for an honest discussion. A real addition to your site, GW. 55
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:13 | # TOG: How about you stop insulting Anglo-Saxons, you Irish whiner! 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:15 | # Have you ever posted a word in this blog, one single word, about what Prof. Ferdinand is doing to Ireland, you pathetic obsessive creep? No, because you’re a moron. 57
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:20 | # I am not alone in likeing Fred, tog. He gave us the term race-replacement, and for that can forgive him a lot. He was a little hard on you, I admit. But was he wrong? I’ve had the quiet hope before that you might put away the intra-European hostility - which, frankly, none of us need right now - and develop your thoughts on the direction of Irish liberalism, including SF’s, and the increasingly traitorous Irish elite. And you know ... the real interests of the Irish people. 58
Posted by tog on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:27 | # Oh, I seem to have hit a nerve. Poor Mr. Scrooby resorts to insults from the safety of the internet. I actually did mention my opinion of the professor in another thread months back. There are many amazing and noble Anglo Saxons. I doubt they go to soccer matches. Then again, there is Scrooby. Charity does not allow me to comment further. In the name of compassion, can we not reverse the crime of deinstitutionalization. 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:28 | # That’s interesting, BGD. Thanks for that bit of cross-referencing. Here’s a fuller excerpt from the relevant passage:
(The emphasis at the Leonard Glickman quote was added by me.) 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:38 | # Thank you, GW.
For the record, TOG, I have no Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Furthermore, I’m Catholic. 61
Posted by tog on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 02:59 | # GW, I have never liked socialism in any of its forms, SFs included. That Professor is a joke without humor. That the Irish elite acts like the Anglo American elite is deplorable. I did not bring up the Irish today. On another blog, Scrooby has mentioned his feelings about the Irish. If you don’t want the Intra European fight, fine. Talk to FS. He is the one who went off the deep end. 62
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:14 | # Meanwhile in a faraway land, immigration controls are sensibly tightened and penalties increased, leading to outraged squawking by the usual suspects. http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Friday/National/20061229091738/Article/local1_html Keep it up Fred. You do have a way of being right about most topics on MR 63
Posted by Matra on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 08:13 | # Fred Scrooby -
Fred, it’s worse than that. He told either me or Desmond Jones - can’t remember which - that he has pre-Revolution Anglo-Saxon Yankee ancestors on one side of the family. That he rejects them and sneers at Anglo-Saxons in general is a perfect example of why I think White Nationalism will always fail - intra-European animosity and competition. Despite such illustrious ancestry (or so he claims) connected to the New England land he lives on he prefers to identify with the Irish Catholic side of his family. Perhaps they are more hip in Ted Kennedy’s multicultural New England than those boring old Anglo-Saxons. I mean some of them there ol’ cantankerous Yankees still pronounce Norwich, Vermont as “nor-itch” instead of flatlander multicultural, “Nor-witch”. Who’d want to be associated with such unfashionable people when you can whip out your Ellis Island Irish status and be an instant victim of WASP oppression? Perhaps some day when TOG manages to scrape together a sentence or two about the damage being done by non-whites we can consider his opinion absent his obvious Irish fixation. But until then he’s just another crybaby victimologist whining about the evil WASPs. 64
Posted by Paddy O'Brute on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:32 | # “I’ve had the quiet hope before that you might put away the intra-European hostility - which, frankly, none of us need right now…” Well said, GW, which is why I hope you’d ask the regulars at MR to, perhaps, tone down the constant “mick”-baiting at your blog. I’m not supporting tog’s attitude here, but you are ignoring the broader context as well. 65
Posted by doodlebug on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:54 | # Test. My post did not seem to work. I’ll try again if this one works. 66
Posted by doodlebug on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:59 | # Took the nap, drank the caffeinated beverage, no sleep for me tonight! Like Dvorak, I too enjoy Negro spirituals. Too bad one almost never hears them anymore. But AA music since emancipation has been all downhill. That uber-rhythmic, beat-based style of music gets boring fast. Traditional jazz is interesting for the first few minutes, then it just meanders without any structure. Classical music is great, but for stirring ethno-national affections, traditional folk music—largely ignored and forgotten—is probably better, even if it is not self-consciously nationalistic. I also wonder why no one has tried to set great poetry to music. For example, Kipling’s _Ballad of East and West_ is not specifically Anglo-centric, yet it is clearly conducive to an ethic of universal nationalism characterized by mutual respect. We need to get people to understand—automatically and without constant explanations—that ethnies can live apart from one another, they can even compete with one another, and yet they can still respect one another, just as I can admire Negro spirituals and feel respect for the people who wrote them (in fact, some of the people who sang and preserved those simple songs were owned by my ancestors), even though they are not the creation of my own ethnic kin. In fact, even peoples at war with one another can respect each other, as warriors if nothing else. Loving one’s own ethny and putting its interests before the interests of foreign ethnies no more constitutes hate than does the same attitude towards one’s own family. St. Paul, for example, wrote—openly, to gentile Christians—that he had a special, preferential affection for his own ethny, the Jews. Does that make St. Paul a hater? Is that not a perfectly normal, natural, human, yes, even a morally *good* affection? Is it not merely an extension of one’s natural love for one’s own family? We understand this, but we need to make sure that this understanding does not die with us. We need to point these things out and get people to think about them. That is the only way to erase the stigma that anti-majority indoctrination has attached to European ethnies who act like normal, well-adjusted ethnic groups—who honorably defend the interests of their own ethnic family just as other ethnic groups do. Manipulating the terminology is so important for this. For example, I too like Scrooby’s “race replacement.” I also would like to encourage the expression “ethnic family” as a substitute for “ethnic group.” Something else that I don’t have an adequate suggestion for is a Euro counterpart to the AA term “Uncle Tom.” Race traitor is just not a term that commands respect. It sounds too harsh to today’s sensitive ears, and, perhaps worse, is mentally associated with crude stereotypes of unreflective “redneck” racism, ignorance, and obscurantism. The brilliance of the Uncle Tom metaphor is that it adequately conveys the idea without being hamfisted. Euros need a counterpart to that. Any suggestions? But I mentioned folk music. It isn’t going to sweep the electronic youth culture, but it surely would encourage affections for the ethnic family if children were taught and required to sing this music in childhood, and if adults found ways to celebrate folk music and keep it alive as well. Okay, quoting the original message: Honestly, “nationalism” now is a trick. It is really statism. Libertarians use this word as a synonym of socialism or welfare-state capitalism, but I am using it—and asking my “comrades” to help me popularize this usage—more literally as loyalty to the state. People who support statism like to call it patriotism, or sometimes constitutional patriotism. I would discourage the use of the words patriot, -ism, -ic, because the term is just so deplorably ambiguous. Is it a synonym for statism or ethno-nationalism (ethno-familism)? Because it can be subjectively understood either way, it tends to reaffirm the status quo. It is a word, a symbol, a shared self-description that we can all affirm even if we understand it in mutually irreconcilable yet unarticulated ways. Because our enemies are favored by the status quo, complacency-inducing ambiguity also favors them, and that is why the word has to go. The same ambiguity characterizes the word “nation.” Does it mean ethny or state? It all depends on the listener! We should refer to the ethnic family or the ethnic state. If that is not what we mean, then we should refer simply to “the state” or, better, especially in America, “the Empire.” (No need to preface it with the word evil—that is overkill and will backfire. There is much to be said for understatement. Propaganda is more a war of connotation than denotation.) Okay, I have rambled on too long (it’s the caffeine—or that will be my excuse). But I really wanted just to speculate here—probably very useless speculation, but I find it entertaining. I say it is useless because it not only is improbably that any group of people would actually undertake this, but, even if they did, there is absolutely no way it would sweep the ethnos and turn into a mass movement. But if you will indulge an impractical fantasy for a few moments, I have wondered how well a “nation within the nation” (Euro ethnic family within the Empire) would work. Would it actually be able to resist assimilation to the dominant self-loathing Euro culture? I think it could, but I do not think it would be easy. A while back some people actually tried something like this, creating “little Europe” urban neighborhoods, but I haven’t heard much about it. Frankly, I never thought it would work, because I thought it lacked adequate defenses against suppression, infiltration, stigmatization, etc.—the usual weapons of our oppressors, whether the self-loathing majority or simply aliens. (This could form a convenient shorthand for the three groups we are mainly concerned with—the aliens, the self-loathers, and the—what? the faithful, but that is a little too broad, being a well known synonym for the members of the Church, wherever they are found and whoever they be; the loyalists? Good in some countries, but for Americans it carries a negative connotation from Civil War days (I mean, the first Civil War, the colonies’ war of secession from the Mother Country—wars of secession *are* properly called civil wars, aren’t they? Sorry, just needling the Yanks)—loyalist has been stigmatized since the American Revolution. I am going to suggest “preservationists.” The Empire is composed of three groups—preservationists, self-loathers (potential preservationists in a *few* cases), and aliens.) Okay, getting back on track. We need to talk about ethnic identity formation. There are several factors that contribute to ethnic identity (EI) formation and maintenance. 1. Not all of these factors need be present. 2. Yet some of them *must* be present. 3. The more factors that are present, the more likely EI will be achieved and preserved. 4. Some factors are more powerful than others. Let’s start with the factor racial similarity. I start with this factor because, [Darn! Went a few hundred characters over the blog limit, so I’ll pause with this cliffhanger and finish up with a “part 2” posting.] 67
Posted by doodlebug on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:06 | # Part “Deux:” Okay, getting back on track. We need to talk about ethnic identity formation. There are several factors that contribute to ethnic identity (EI) formation and maintenance. 1. Not all of these factors need be present. 2. Yet some of them *must* be present. 3. The more factors that are present, the more likely EI will be achieved and preserved. 4. Some factors are more powerful than others. Let’s start with the factor racial similarity. I start with this factor because, for many “white nationalists,” this is the be-all and end-all of ingroup identity. Widely embraced, this least common denominator (LCD) of ethnic identity, when relied on exclusively, is a fatally flawed strategy. Fact is, no ethno-nationalist movement anywhere in the world has ever succeeded based on this narrow a foundation, and it has not been working for contemporary Euros either. A small group with broad-based solidarity is far more likely to survive in the long run than one that is a mile wide but an inch deep. Any LCD strategy is relatively weak, and this particular one is particularly weak. Not that it is not a valuable component, but it is a component that has never, ever in history been adequate alone. Bottom line: genetic interests must piggyback on cultural interests. It has always been thus, and probably will always be thus.
(Of course, with so many genetically distant aliens in America these days—the majority will likely be a mere plurality within 25 years—cultural assimilation, which becomes biological assimilation eventually, is probably not a good idea. Plus, the aliens plus the self-loathers have created a politico-ideological culture which it is simply not in preservationists’ best interests to assimilate to. For all these reasons, preservationists would best jump on the bandwagon and support multiculturalism. Unfortunately, still thinking like the majority that preservationists have not been in a very long time, preservationists have been very reluctant to pursue a movement which at this late date is in our interest, and now our dispossessors (really a much better propaganda word than the hyperbolic-sounding “oppressors” I used earlier) who pragmatically supported MC in the past are starting to jump ship and promote cultural and racial homogenization. Yet it is not too late. Many aliens still have a built-in incentive to support MC, and we should not only endorse it ourselves but promote it among our rivals. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, but that is where our interests lie, at least here in America. Thomas Jefferson well understood that sometimes one strategy and sometimes the other favored the ethnic family’s interests. He advocated assimilation for the Indians, who were proportionately few in number—just marry them out of existence—and deportation for the Blacks who were proportionately great in number.) Okay, I’ll try to cut this short now. Geographic concentration. This can complement and, to some extent, substitute, for a homeland mentality. Isolation. There are two kinds. a. Geographic isolation. b. Cultural isolation. Irredentism—having a country where your ethnic family is the majority right next door to where you live as a minority (preservationists are a minority) in a neighboring country. Great work if you can get it. To some limited extent, air travel back and forth to one’s original homeland, and arranged marriages with people back in the homeland and chain immigration from the homeland, can substitute for irredentism. Shared ancestry. Belief in descent from shared ancestors has been the inspiration for ethnic solidarity going back to ancient times—the Hebrews, the Hellenes (Greeks), the Romans, the Japanese, and others. Shared history. The stories from their shared history are powerful reinforcers of EI. That is why our dispossessors are manipulating the history books to abbreviate, ignore, or stigmatize our own history and to glorify that of the aliens and their self-loathing collaborators. Distinctive clothing. This one often gets overlooked because the recently evolved ethnic costumry of western Europe has, like the Gregorian calendar, become the “default” international style. But people in other cultures are often quite conscious of the solidarity factor in their traditional costumry, whether the Scottish kilt, the sari of India, traditional African clothing that I have forgotten the name of, the kimono in Japan, the turban of Iran and nearby places, or the distinctive traditional Arab clothing. Many cultures have ceased to wear “native” costumry in daily life, but it would be a very good custom to revive, even if an ethnic family had to borrow or invent a distinctive garb. One study of communes found that a communal “uniform” was one of only four factors that were independently associated with communal longevity. Even without a commune structure—perhaps especially without a commune structure—distinctive costumry should strengthen EI. A distinctive language. Single biggest factor, guys. Numero uno. The basis of more successful ethno-nationalist movements than any other, and sometimes sufficient in and of itself. Genetic family trees also have mirrored lingusitic family trees to a remarkable extent for most of history, and, for most of humanity, still do. One language may be more or less as good as another, but the important thing is that it be a *different* language. In it, debates, ideas, hopes, dreams, take their own course with much reduced outside influence. A linguistic family lives in a world of its own, with limited penetration from other linguistic worlds. Can an aspiring ethnic family adopt a new language successfully? I think so. The Jews did it in Israel. Bilingual ed works. (Don’t believe the naysayers—they have their own agenda, agenda that I sympathized with at an earlier, less advanced stage of our collective disease, but they rely on the quantity of studies while ignoring quality. The best studies show that bilingual ed works—and, for some people, as it would have been for me at one time, that is the most important reason for trying to discredit it. ) Children of diaspora Jews who attend religious Yeshiva schools have been known to acquire fluent Yiddish to such an extent that they reverted to their monolingual assimilated parents’ dominant tongue with a Yiddish accent! And Amerinds and other groups are beginning to find success with language revival among young children by implementing something called a “language nest”—you can google it. If the Little Europa experiment had concentrated on new language acquisition, I think it would have succeeded. And if the language is obscure, the dispossessors will not even know what your internal debates are. You are also more likely to be recognized as a “legit” minority in your own right. Alphabet or other script. Related to language. If your chosen tongue is normally written in a non-Latin script, it will be that much harder to penetrate, the alien script will further discourage would-be dispossessors from bothering to learn your language, and the script itself will become an EI reinforcer. Religion. This is factor #2, second only to language in its power. While a different religion is helpful, it is less important that the religion be different than that it be shared. (In fact, having some sympathetic co-religionists among the dominant population might even work to your advantage.) A shared religion, with shared beliefs, shared stories, shared conceptions of virtue and vice, and shared rituals is immensely unifying and facilitates personal sacrifice for the ethno-religious family, and it can permeate all strata of a society, reducing class conflict. That is why so many among the dispossessors fear nothing so much as the confluence of ethnic and religious identity. I know that Americans have always been divided by religion, and never more than now, but remember my little fantasy is not about the formation of a broad-based mass movement but the formation of one or more very small but extremely solidary ethnic families. Ethno-national symbols, such as flags, “patriotic” songs, government buildings or monuments, etc. Usually associated with states, there is nothing to stop the “nation within the nation” from adopting and substituting its own symbols for those of the dominant powers. The ethno-state governing apparatus. This is what any ethno-national movement aspires to obtain for itself, but why wait? Beyond a certain very modest size, a very solidary ethno-family—even an “invented” one (and some theorists argue that all successful nationalisms are based on invented identities—a good line if your “authenticity” is challenged by your enemies)—beyond some rather modest size can begin instituting its own apparatus of state, such as “tribal” laws, assemblies, arbitration courts, etc., much as US Amerindian tribes do. It might substitute fees for taxes, or it might own and manage certain business interests using some of the profits to fund a very modest yet useful governmental structure. Mass media and schools—they should control their own. This will come rather naturally if they can pull off the transformation to an alternative linguistic community. Far-fetched? Yes. Impossible? Probably not. Useful in the big scheme of things? Who knows? —doodlebug 68
Posted by BGD on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:27 | # Fred Scrooby: That’s interesting, BGD. Thanks for that bit of cross-referencing. Here’s a fuller excerpt from the relevant passage… It’s a shame that we don’t have a fuller exposition of this from the UK perspective - such as Rubinstein’s. Of course K McD lays out the American perspective very well. A few years back Alexander Baron, while not politically inclined in this direction wrote some pamphlets that suggested a lot of the background info on campaigning etc was contained within the (predominantly Jewish) periodical ‘Patterns of Prejudice’ with the back catalogue held I think at the Wiener Library. He apparently was thereafter refused admission. Couldn’t -at the time- bring myself to go and leaf through the issues. Maybe a NY’s project..Uurgh. PoP and online sample as a taster… http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/0031322X.asp 69
Posted by tog on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:45 | # “He told either me or Desmond Jones - can’t remember which - that he has pre-Revolution Anglo-Saxon Yankee ancestors on one side of the family. That he rejects them and sneers at Anglo-Saxons in general is a perfect example of why I think White Nationalism will always fail - intra-European animosity and competition. Despite such illustrious ancestry (or so he claims) connected to the New England land he lives on he prefers to identify with the Irish Catholic side of his family. “ I will not say this is a lie, just maybe a senior moment and it is again for me to call for compassion for him who suffers the curse of early onset. Suffice it to say, I did give some of the aspects of my background, but not that. Teddy is thrown up at me here for reasons I don’t understand. I have only commented negatively about him. Still, the inference is that somehow he taints everyone who shares some of the same background. If you wish to take that tack, fine with me. I have only two words for you, George Bush. Paddy O’Brute is right and it was Alex and Scrooby who brought up the Irish thing here. I certainly am not the one bring up intra European hostility. I think my original point was correct and I pointed it out to Jane that just throwing her bombs and running off was not the right thing. When I mentioned the yob culture, I was not insulting all English, but pointing out something that is not exactly a positive contribution. So, kids, argue the point. 70
Posted by jlh on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:41 | # I second Scrooby and Matra on the Irish animosity against Anglo-Saxons. The description of the underlying psychology conforms perfectly to my experience in the U.S. urban rust belt. I trace a great deal of the suicidal tendency in American whites to this desire on the part on non-anglo whites to see the older-stock American done in. The usual suspects have played upon this underlying problem perfectly, and our culture and genetic prospects have been diminished in kind. 71
Posted by jlh on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:43 | # btw I have ancestry from County Tyrone at the great-grand level myself 72
Posted by tog on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:59 | # “It’s still odd how easily you get baited on the whole Irish thing.” Cute. Stupid, but cute. 73
Posted by tog on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:35 | # “It’s still odd how easily you get baited on the whole Irish thing.” Actually, if you’ve noticed, it is more the other way around. The last time I was here it was about the Somme. Someone wanted to celebrate that bit of intra-European hostility. I merely made the point that the soldiers were either victims if conscripted or fools if volunteers. Nothing about Hibernia. Well, I was roundly attacked in a display of jingoism. I wasn’t even trying to bait y’all and you were so hurt. No one made any attempt to make the case that the Somme was a great idea. The Jews are hardly perfect, but in the death of Western Civilization, suicide had a big part. I am ashamed as I took some pleasure in the discomfiture. 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 04:56 | #
What’s wrong with “the people”? — “The Empire is composed of three groups — the people, the self-loathers, and the aliens.” I oppose calling normalness by a special name. Only abnormalness and degenerateness need special names. Furthermore, to call normalness by a special name concedes legitimacy to degenerateness.
It’s hard to fault aware Euros who favor pushing multiculti, open borders, “diversity,” “tolerance,” and race-replacement on Israel in a spirit of revenge — giving Jews a taste of their own medicine. (I think that may be what’s going on with the magazine “The American Conservative” and various “WNs,” who seem to make a point of siding with the Palestinians in the Near East conflict.) I don’t favor it, because I view the diaspora Jews who are perpetually pushing this stuff on Euros as different from the Israeli Jews (who of course aren’t — if anything, they’re pushing it on themselves: as Prof. Steven Plaut shows constantly in his blog, there’s no lack of wacko extreme-radical left-wing Jews in Israel who do all they can to kill their own country). But the average person may not know ordinary, average Jews that well, simply because not raised in proximity to them, may not, when angered for the Nth time, be in the mood for making fine distinctions between diaspora and Israeli Jews, and may not have the superhuman reserves of patience that putting up with some of the stunts pulled by the diaspora Jews would require, what with their relentless attacks on the fabric and foundations of Euro societies, nations, and races, attacks which stretch patience beyond all reasonable limits. So I don’t blame Euros who’ve finally lost patience with “the Jews,” Euros who, seeing the appalling behavior of diaspora Jews residing in their countries, want to “get back at them” by “repaying them in kind,” so to speak: a little of, “let’s see how they like it for a change: let’s call for exactly the same to be pushed on Israel and let’s never stop calling for it until the Jews here stop calling for it to be pushed on us!” 75
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:10 | # Soon, traveling to Ireland will be just like ... traveling to Somalia! But who cares about that when there are the English Prods to whine about? Damn right! Suuuure and begoooorrah! 76
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:17 | # Gawd bless you and ta bawth of us, Toggy, we’re not fools! We wawn’t let de English trick us into thinkin’ there’s an immigration problem in our country just so they can get let off the hook, will we, Gawd help us! 77
Posted by Matra on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 08:16 | # JW Holliday:
I won’t speak for anyone else but as someone who has engaged in occasional Euro-bashing - particularly Micks - let me just give my view of intra-European squabbling here at MR. I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions I’m a Protestant from Northern Ireland living in a traditional Anglo-Saxon part of Canada with blood relatives in Ulster, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand and England. I want MR readers to know my background as they consider anything I write as it is those blood and soil biases that usually determine our world views - more so than any kind of rationalism. As far as I’m concerned European ethnic groups that continuously side with non-Europeans against us need to be named and shamed. If my fellow Protestant Anglo-Saxons in Italy, France or Spain are working against the interests of the European Christian majorities in those countries I have no objections to them being attacked by natives of those countries. Here in the English-speaking world - UK, North America, Australasia - European ethnics who side with Jews and blacks should not be immune from criticism. Let me be clear - again speaking exclusively for myself and no other posters here - my occasionally expressed criticisms of Irish Catholics, Ukrainians, Italians and other European Christian ethnic groups are not based on genetics. I’m satisfied that the genetic distance between Europeans is minimal enough to jettison any concerns about losing the white race. I’m not a Nordicist. But neither am I a liberal willing to accept the subordination of my own specific ethnic group interests when the aggressors also happen to be white. Since coming into contact with WNism it is my impression that it is just another form of liberalism - ie, we Anlgo-Saxons should accept other Europeans walking all over us in return for their support against blacks, Jews, and other non-whites. Sorry but I’m not interested in that. Nor am I interested in singling out Jews as the exclusive enemies of my ethnic group whilst numerous Europeans pile on but remain untouched by criticism. I don’t think GW has a party line in mind. If he planned on being a commissar (a la John Podhoretz) John Ray would never have been a contributor here in the first place. If GW thinks the kinds of criticisms Fred Scrooby, Desmond, and yours truly have made of other Europeans are out of line then fine - it is his blog. But I hope MR can remain open to debate even if it offends particular European ethnic groups from time to time. 78
Posted by doodlebug on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:28 | # “[T]he three groups we are mainly concerned with — the aliens, the self-loathers, and the — what? The faithful, but that is a little too broad [...]; the loyalists? Good in some countries but for Americans it carries a negative connotation from Civil War days [...] — loyalist has been stigmatized since the American Revolution. I am going to suggest ‘preservationists.’ The Empire is composed of three groups — preservationists, self-loathers [...], and aliens.” (—doodlebug) FS: What’s wrong with “the people”? It encourages ambiguity, which favors our dispossessors. “The people” means, to most people, all citizens of the Empire, sometimes even all residents of the Empire. Giving the word a “special meaning” that is not clearly implied by the word does not clarify matters for the muddled thinkers and fence-sitters who barely grasp what is happening to them or why it matters.
You are not one of those whose sympathy we need to win. This is all about reframing the debate so that it is harder for our dispossessors to continue successfully stigmatizing normal ethnic behavior on our part. Restricting the term “the people” to ourselves may gratify members of “the choir,” but rather than helping to refrain the debate it merely makes us sound presumptious; even our potential sympathizers will think, “Hey, wait a minute! We’re people, too!” We need to swallow our pride and think about what has a chance to work, or at least help. FS: Furthermore, to call normalness by a special name concedes legitimacy to degenerateness. And just how do you think “self-loathing” implies legitimacy? In fact, it is an excellent choice, since it turns the “hater” accusation back on the accuser; now *he* is the hater—of his own people! That does not concede legitimacy. Further, we *need* a special name that will *easily* distinguish us from our fellow Euros—the great majority—who loathe us (their kin). “The people” does not do that and so has no chance of “sticking.” The majority of Euros may not like the term “self-loather,” but they all know it is basically true, and they everyone will recognize immediately who it refers to. “Preservationists” is another term that will require little explanation. Our dispossessors (aliens and self-loathing collaborators, although I would not call all self-loathers collaborators) would prefer a more stigmatizing term (haters, racists, anti-semites, White “supremacists,” etc.), just as you would prefer a more neutral term (“the people”). In fact, Whites are not united, and we need some term to distinguish the good White minority from the bad White majority—even if all it does is sweep away our own delusions. Preservationists beat their heads over “Why do Whites allow their own country to be stolen from them?” Well, wake up and smell the bacon, folks—it is because most Whites despise their own kind; they are ashamed to be who they are. “The people” does not clearly distinguish the two kinds of EurAms. Even if all we can save at this late date is a remnant, that requires that the remnant first open its eyes and realize that it *is* a remnant. Also, “preservationists,” unlike “the people,” clearly implies our goal—and it is not an objectionable goal. If we stop talking about “the people,” “patriots,” and undifferentiated “Whites,” all of which are terms that both preservationists and self-loathers identify with, I think a light will turn on in the heads of some of our fuzzy-minded fellow Euros and they will realize that the struggle (a very one-sided one) is not between “hate groups” and good, decent White people. The name of the game is reframing: In film, reframing is changing the view of a subject. The term belongs more to criticism than to filmmaking and probably is not used in a systematic way. But the trend of usage seems to be: Reframing is changing the view of a subject while the camera is running—either the subject moves or the camera does. In other words, the change occurs without a cut. We have to change the view of ourselves in the minds of as many Euros as possible. “Many aliens still have a built-in incentive to support M[ulti]C[ulti], and we should not only endorse it ourselves but promote it among our rivals.” (—doodlebug) FS: It’s hard to fault aware Euros who favor pushing multiculti, open borders, “diversity,” “tolerance,” and race-replacement on Israel in a spirit of revenge — You are changing the subject. I was clearly not writing about the little Jewish racial state the support of which has caused America so much grief since 9-11-01.
I think it is because, like the rest of mankind, they feel pity for the Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, who by any objective assessment have been the victims of the Jews with the collusion first of the British Empire and then of ours. FS: I don’t favor it, because I view the diaspora Jews who are perpetually pushing this stuff on Euros as different from the Israeli Jews
FS: (who of course aren’t — if anything, they’re pushing it on themselves: as Prof. Steven Plaut shows constantly in his blog, there’s no lack of wacko extreme-radical left-wing Jews in Israel who do all they can to kill their own country).
FS: But the average person may not know ordinary, average Jews Who overwhelmingly support easy immigration policies to America and radical interpretations of the non-establishment clause of the first amendment, and vote for the Democratic Party in almost as high proportions as the Blacks do. Ordinary Jews are not the “party line” fanatics that one finds in AIPAC, but, for the most part, neither are they any friend of EurAm’s. But that may not be your point in implying “it’s all because they don’t know ordinary Jews”—are you saying: “many people are against Israeli Jews because they don’t know enough average, ordinary [diaspora] Jews?” If so, that doesn’t make any sense, as I am sure you realize now.
Israeli Jews are also causing serious problems for Christians in the Holy Land, and have been for many years, such that Christians and our ancient holy places there would be far more secure if their “shitty little state” simply did not exist. And, no, Muslims do not cause us equal or worse problems there. In fact, Muslims have a high regard for Christ and Virgin, and are usually more tolerant than Jews of the presence of Christians in their midst. If you follow news stories from Christians in the Holy Land, you will see that this is true. The Christian exodus from Palestine and Lebanon is also largely the consequence of the Jewish state and the trouble it has caused there. (And, hey, let’s not forget that spiteful Arab oil embargo in the seventies that plunged our countries into recession—that was revenge for taking sides in the Yom Kippur War.) But our unconditional support for Israel is entirely a separate issue and your bringing it up does not address any of the matters that I raised in my post. FS: Euros who, seeing the appalling behavior of diaspora Jews residing in their countries, want to “get back at them” by “repaying them in kind,” so to speak: I don’t think that is many people’s motivation. By the very standards that Jews themselves espouse, and that *Americans* espouse, and practically the whole world these days, the Jews are land thieves and the natives of the land are innocent victims. That does not mean it is our duty to save the Palestinians—we can’t afford to police the world—but we certainly should not be actively aiding the Jewish state in dispossessing the Palestinians from the land where they have lived for at least 2000 years (contrary to Zionist propaganda, which is demonstrably false on this point, as even some Jews admit). “Why do they hate us?” Only Americans would be ignorant enough to even ask this question.
1. Jews don’t like to do manual labor, so they demand the right to import cheaper “guest workers” who are not Jewish. 2. Because it is a race-based state, using the same one quarter Jewish blood standard that the Nazi’s used to identify “who is a Jew,” they have allowed in many people with one Jewish grandparent and a weak Jewish identity. (If you had one Jewish grandparent in Germany *but* you chose a German spouse, which would make your children only one eighth Jewish, the Nazis would accept you as a German; otherwise, you were Jewish.)
I would still welcome comments on that question—from anyone, even Crazy Jane. 79
Posted by doodlebug on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 09:33 | # but rather than helping to refrain the debate it merely makes us sound presumptious; Oops. I meant, “reframe,” not “refrain.” Sorry for any confusion. 80
Posted by doodlebug on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:32 | # JW Holliday wrote: As far as I’m concerned European ethnic groups that continuously side with non-Europeans against us need to be named and shamed. While I do agree that the big influx of continental immigrants undermined our “Old American” Anglo-Saxon ethnic identity, I think that problem was salient 80 years ago, but is not so much today. The most you can honestly say, I think, is that fewer Saxons than other EurAms are collaborating in our demise. But I don’t think finger-pointing nowadays is going to make them change. Even if we could reduce the incidence of pro-replacement sympathies among them to the Anglo-Saxon level, we would still be done for, as things now stand. Really, I think the majority—although probably smaller majorities—of Continentals and Irish probably disagree with our current immigration policies, but the majority also acquiesces, even among colonial stock. That’s why you didn’t see millions of Anglo-Saxons (or Irish either) turning out to vote for Pat Buchanan on the Reform Party ticket in 2000. That’s why Buchanan couldn’t upset Bush#1 in the ‘96 Republican primaries—not even in the South, where Buchanan is a natural fit. Most Whites—even most AS—are just not strongly enough opposed to being replaced. That is one reason we are doomed to minority status. Another reason is that, even if all immigration permanently stopped *today*, Whites would still become a minority during this century. That’s right, demographic change has already gone that far. The best we can hope for is to slow things down. The critical question we face now is whether our next phase of existence as a minority in our own land is faced in a country that promotes homogenization and individual rights only, which is the direction that the pendulum is starting to swing back to just as it ceases to be in our interest, or multi-culturalism and group rights. Only the latter will make our survival as a distinct ethnic family possible. Otherwise, “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.” Are you ready to join the “Raza Cosmica”—the Universal Race? If you are, then you should bid farewell to the memory of your ancestors and oppose Multi-Culturalism. Okay, I’ve got to check on a download now. 81
Posted by red-nosed drunken wobbly liver-damaged O' McBrute on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:56 | # “I don’t think GW has a party line in mind. If he planned on being a commissar (a la John Podhoretz) John Ray would never have been a contributor here in the first place. If GW thinks the kinds of criticisms Fred Scrooby, Desmond, and yours truly have made of other Europeans are out of line then fine - it is his blog.” You are completely missing the point. It is not that GW is against the criticisms that “Fred Scrooby, Desmond, and yours truly (ie. Matra)” have made against “other Europeans.” No, the point is that comments such as “I’ve had the quiet hope before that you might put away the intra-European hostility - which, frankly, none of us need right now..” seem to be directed toward “The Other Guy”, when tog criticizes Anglo-Saxons from an Irish perspective - not when others critique the Irish. “But I hope MR can remain open to debate even if it offends particular European ethnic groups from time to time.” Then tog should be encouraged to express his opinions as well. I can’t understand why tog’s opinions are viewed as “intra-European hostility”, while referring to the Irish as “micks” is not. MR shouldn’t be like TIW; whatever the standards, they should be consistent. 82
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:13 | # http://www.irishvoices.blogspot.com/
http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=18210
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiocfaidh_ár_lá
83
Posted by rowdy drunken lantern-jawed mbcrute on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:14 | # The first thing is to get a rational view of the problem. The Irish are not Jews. They are not an extra-European, historically endogenous diaspora people with a culture forged from living for many centuries as minorities in other people’s lands. They are instead a “normal” “blood and soil” ethnic group, who have emigrated in large numbers to America, and now have normal intermarriage rates. (*) whatever “benefit” is obtained by legalizing Irish illegals is going to be reversed, and more, by the costs incurred by the non-European influx. And the same liberalism that encourages immigration in the USA seeps back to the Emerald Isle and destroys the “motherland.” The Irish are being fooled if they think immigration liberalism is going to be a net benefit. The involvment of Schumer in this context is no surprise. 84
Posted by jane on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:21 | # Jan, I doubt you are still reading this garbage, but in case you are, thank you. The problem with these idiots is that what they say contains grains of truth. The war in Iraq *is* a horror. Western civ *is* great. Multiculturalism *is* cultural suicide. Immigration *is* out of control. Israel gets too much aid. But they are paranoid, crazy, deranged with hate, and dangerous and the totality of their though amounts to insanity. They also don’t know what they are talking about half the time, as was evidenced in this post, and in the one on mtDNA, so they are as unscientific as the primitive savages they regularly deride as being un-Western. 85
Posted by Kosher Weiner on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:49 | # Anthony Weiner is an open and unapolegetic Zionist. IIRC, on one Crossfire appearance, Robert Novak bluntly accused him of putting Israel first, and Weiner, representing a heavily Jewish New York district, retorted, “Good. Keep saying that because that’ll only get me re-elected.”. 86
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:05 | # Jane, I am pleased that you understand even a little of our case against the future. I am going to put you to the test in your criticism of this post, however. Would you please read it again and inform me where I am in error. Please restrict your area of reference to serious music of a nationalist mein. Please be disciplined and do not introduce subjects, such as one in the thread about Dvorak, that I did not discuss. Remember, your credibility as an expert in musicology rests on your performance now. We all await it with impatience. 87
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:20 | # (I typed the following out before seeing Brute’s latest post but I think it still applies so I’m posting it.)
First, I’m amply on record as opposing the Republic of Ireland’s forced race-replacement. If that means nothing to TOG, that fact by itself speaks volumes about his suitability to participate here. Second: let him come here just once without first and foremost whining about England’s treatment of the Irish and no one’ll be tempted to retaliate by calling him a mick. If opposition to forced race-replacement is 67th on someone’s list of what’s most important, and what happened to Bobby Sands 1st on the list, something tells me there are sites where that person would feel more at home than this one. TOG comes here essentially to snipe at the English. Doodlebug, I apologize for misinterpreting your first comment: I mistakenly thought you implicitly included Jews in the category “aliens.” As for the criteria regarding the legal determination of who was a Jew under the Nuremberg Laws, I think you’re mistaken: if memory serves, a Jew was someone three of whose (not one of whose) grandparents were Jews. Israel of course has its own exact counterpart of the Nuremberg laws and no one (such as Abe Foxman or David Duke) can approve or disapprove of one set of such laws without approving or disapproving of both. 88
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:33 | # I’ll just reply to Kosher Wiener by saying I see nothing whatsoever wrong with an Amerikwan Jew (or an Amerikwan Eurochristian) being a Zionist or supporting Zionism, supporting Israel, or having dual loyalty. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with an Amerikwan Jew loving Israel more than the United States of Amerikwa if that’s how much he loves it, or the same amount as the U.S., or almost as much as the U.S., whatever the case may be. Where the “wrong” comes into the picture is when an Amerikwan Jew, Greek, Italian, Jap, German, Irishman, Pole, or whoever, who holds office in this country or in some other way has power to influence it, represent it, or act on its behalf, puts his ancestral nation’s interests ahead of this country’s. If he can’t keep himself from doing that he must resign his post and resume life as a private citizen. As long as he is in a position to influence things he must put the interests of this country above those of his ancestral one. He must not betray this country, in other words, no matter what he privately feels in his heart toward another country. Treason rightly deserves the death penalty. 89
Posted by whiskey drunken brute on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:04 | # “They also don’t know what they are talking about half the time…” Which is why I strongly advise in favor of cautious and conservative interpretations of genetic studies. Race realists and race preservationists should always be in the position to defend their arguments, using sound data, reasonable interpretations, and strong logic. “If that means nothing to TOG, that fact by itself speaks volumes about his suitability to participate here.” Perhaps the Irish perspective would be better served by someone with stronger racial nationalist credentials. The fellow who writes for TOQ and Natvan under the name O’Meara, I assume he is of at least partial Irish ancestry? He would seem to be a sound choice. “Second: let him come here just once without first and foremost whining about England’s treatment of the Irish and no one’ll be tempted to retaliate by calling him a mick. “ The word “mick” is used here in contexts other than just addressing “The Other Guy.” Not to put too fine a point on it - but if you want to convince Irish readers that your criticism of their ethnicity is rational and justifiable, it’ll probably be a good idea not to use “mick” as part of the argument. Sort of takes a bit away from the assertion of objectivity. 90
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:25 | # Brute’s apparently vying for the title “Mr. Sensitive, 2006” organized by Women’s Lib. This is a site for men, not dainty XY-genotypes whose testicles have been lopped off with a pair of Eleanor Smeal’s hedge clippers as a precaution lest, in the gonadally-intact state, they seem more attractive to the young women the butch-lezzes, bull-dykes, and dykes-on-bykes who run Women’s Lib covet for themselves. Men use words like mick, limey, yank, and canuck among themselves without giving each other a case of the fantods. If those terms give Brute a bad case of the vapors let him open a few windows, have a sip of water with a drop of brandy in it, and lie down a minute — some fresh air’ll keep him from swooning into a faint. Oh and he might consider carrying a Chinese fan with him at all times the way Victorian women did — he can fan himself with it if need be, when in the company of men talking like men (also comes in handy to coquettishly hide his face when he blushes at certain, you know, bad words ...). 91
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:58 | #
All right, is forced race-replacement racial suicide (racial homicide, actually)? And are there such things as human races? And is the white race’s extermination by means of forcing race-replacement on it a good thing? If your answer to the first two is yes and the third no, what are you complaining about here? Incidentally, you’re not that highly obnoxious extreme radical left-wing clueless “Jane” creep posting from Toronto who briefly frequented View from the Right a few years back, are you? Have a nice day. 92
Posted by Top on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:07 | # “But they are paranoid, crazy, deranged with hate, and dangerous and the totality of their though amounts to insanity. “ That’s a great statement! LOL Is that not the sort of clear reasoning and justification all leftists engage in before they proceed to mass murder anyone who disagrees with them!? Is that not the story of the 20th century? Weren’t Russian communists fond of labelling their political opponents as insane before sending them to the local torture/execution chambers? But alas it is us who are the insane ones… Guessworker - do you really think it is possible to ‘reason’ with people who make such statements? 93
Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:42 | # “The Empire is composed of three groups — the people, the self-loathers, and the aliens.” How about “healthy people, hijacked people, and hostile people”? 94
Posted by swooning dainty sensitive brute on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 22:23 | # “Brute’s apparently vying for the title “Mr. Sensitive, 2006” organized by Women’s Lib.” Frederick - thanks for a good laugh. Seriously though, “sensitivity” has nothing to do with it. Sure, sitting around the table with fellow nationalists and trading good natured slurs such as “mick” is no problem. What that has to do with an allegedly intellectual and thoughtful blog, such as that GW wishes to put together, I’m not sure. There’s a time and place for everything. If you can make the same point while keeping the discourse at a high, sans “micks,” level, why not? Then we have Fred’s comment to tog: That’s my major point: be consistent. Really, if you want to call Irish “micks” and concentrate on their ethnic failings in the name of free speech, fine. But don’t get all upset when some “mick” shows up and returns the favor. That is to be expected. 95
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 22:40 | # do you really think it is possible to ‘reason’ with people who make such statements? On the other hand, she is in agreement with most of the blog on some important issues. The problem with these idiots is that what they say contains grains of truth. The war in Iraq *is* a horror. Western civ *is* great. Multiculturalism *is* cultural suicide. Immigration *is* out of control. Israel gets too much aid. Those are not of course mere “grains of truth.” They’re large truths. Jane’s list of large truths puts her on the far right. She would be ejected from any mainstream political party if she voiced them publicly. 96
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 22:47 | # Matra wrote: European ethnics who side with Jews and blacks should not be immune from criticism. The difficulty with this position, which sounds reasonable, is that it encourages those of us who are not Anglo-Saxons to reply in kind. WASPs have surely sided with Jews and Blacks more regularly than any other White ethnic group. More important, WASPs were better positioned to prevent the racial disasters of the last fifty years than were, say, Poles or Italians. A Lithuanian-American - i.e. a member of a White ethnic group with very little political power - could reasonably blame all other groups for their racial passivity and collaboration. He is the least to blame because his group had the least ability to prevent the disasters. The group with the most ability to prevent the disasters - namely your own - bears the most responsibility. That’s not my argument, but it would be a predictable argument if we started assigning blame. 97
Posted by Rnl on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 22:51 | # doodlebug wrote: Any LCD strategy is relatively weak, and this particular one is particularly weak. Not that it is not a valuable component, but it is a component that has never, ever in history been adequate alone. If Daedalus were still around, he might point out that White identification worked well enough in the South. I would say that it worked well enough throughout most of American history. “Lowest common denominator” sounds bad. “Most important common denominator” would be more accurate. 98
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:43 | # What game are the Irish playing? They reform their Constitution to invoke jus sanguinis for the homeland,
yet continue to advocate open bprders in North America. What’s the link between the IRA and illegal Irish immigrants and why side with virulent Zionism in the shape of Schumer and Weiner, and then disdain nationalism in the US? Sounds like a familiar game played by another highly ethnocentric diaspora group. 99
Posted by drunken savage mcbrute on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 00:27 | # “What’s the link between the IRA and illegal Irish immigrants…” I don’t know. Is there a link? “...and why side with virulent Zionism in the shape of Schumer and Weiner…” A question that can be asked of the entire US establishment, from Bush on down. “...and then disdain nationalism in the US?” And what (white) ethnic groups are actually supporting nationalism in the US? Most everyone is anti-nationalist. “Sounds like a familiar game played by another highly ethnocentric diaspora group.” By this implied definition of “diaspora group”, virtually everyone in the USA is a member of a diaspora group. Are the Irish actually highly ethnocentric? Their intermarriage rate is what one would expect based on their numbers and are the antics of vocal Irish-American liberals indicative of the beliefs of the entire population? 100
Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 02:58 | # Doodlebug asks two very interesting questions: (1) “Something else that I don’t have an adequate suggestion for is a Euro counterpart to the AA term “Uncle Tom.” Race traitor is just not a term that commands respect. It sounds too harsh to today’s sensitive ears, and, perhaps worse, is mentally associated with crude stereotypes of unreflective “redneck” racism, ignorance, and obscurantism. The brilliance of the Uncle Tom metaphor is that it adequately conveys the idea without being hamfisted. Euros need a counterpart to that. Any suggestions?” Euromen in the USA revile the term Redneck and it detracts from this question which is otherwise admirably framed and phrased. But Race Traitor is in fact used in the USA, especially by mentally diseased white Semites, to glory in their revulsion to us white Euromen. For an example, see: http://racetraitor.org/abolishthepoint.html At Resisting Defamation, we use white-basher and left-wing racialist to name and shame those who engage in public hatred of European Americans. Standing alone, those two terms don’t look very inflamatory, but attended by the proper tone, hissing, spitting, and shouting, they are as freaky to the recipient as the hate term anti-Semite. We do have another term in our syllabus, europhobe, which however has not gained any traction since we introduced it about ten years ago. Latino spokespersons on the Left Coast typically use vendido to shame other Latinos who have been too helpful to European American cultural or social institutions. It is humorous to hear it spoken because it is usually adorned twice with the Royal Spanish “d” which has a lisp to it, somewhere between a hard “d” and a soft “th” so that’s kind of fun. Irish Americans on the Left Coast use shoneen to shame co-ethnics who have sold out some Irish American institution. We’ve used the term ourselves to embarrass self-hating Irish Americans who are frequently ready to agree with haters that they don’t mind this or that slur. Paddy comes to mind…it was a term in use by Latinos and blacks back in the 70s on the Left Coast as a label for all Euromen, and some local Irish thought it was okay. In some ways, it was the first slur we fought under the rubric of the Irish Task Force which morphed into Resisting Defamation shortly thereafter when we woke up to the sheer malignity and massiveness of the campaign of defamation against European Americans. (2) “America is not pushing open borders on Israel. The only real problems that Israel has in this regard are two: 1. Jews don’t like to do manual labor, so they demand the right to import cheaper “guest workers” who are not Jewish. 2. Because it is a race-based state, using the same one quarter Jewish blood standard that the Nazi’s used to identify “who is a Jew,” they have allowed in many people with one Jewish grandparent and a weak Jewish identity. (If you had one Jewish grandparent in Germany *but* you chose a German spouse, which would make your children only one eighth Jewish, the Nazis would accept you as a German; otherwise, you were Jewish.)” Doodlebug, there’s a third reason for problems with an Israel border and that is that Israel has no borders. It has internationally-recognized boundaries, but Israel itself has only frontiers. You can search Israeli documents as much as you like and you will not discover that Israeli officials have themselves recognized borders or embodied them in anything resembling a constitution or statute. The lack of Israeli recognized borders for Israel provides the basis for endless frontier provocations, disturbances, and riots. Even the Great Wall now under construction does not mark borders, only physical protections for Israelis living in their shadows. On reviewing this, I didn’t mean to be too hard on Doodlebug. He seems to bring a new and lively spirit to this blog, and I enjoyed his postings above. I guess Redneck just gets to me. The White Abe Foxman 101
Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:50 | # Jane, is Prokofiev the best you got? It figures. If I were to make a list of crappy classical composers, Prokofiev would head the list. What a horrible racket he makes. His sounds are as bad as Jewish/Marxist “art”. We must be honest, Jane, Jews have no real creative or asthetic sense. They are confused about real beauty and truth. They are merely administrators, money-changers, and imitators. They must give up this incredibly silly idea that they are as good as Whites at creating a civilization worth living and dying for. 102
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:07 | # Do the majority German ethny, in the US smuggle illegals across the US/Canadian border? “A “robust Irish smuggling ring” operating out of a popular pub in Buffalo has been smuggling dozens of Irish citizens from Canada into the United States for about three years, U.S. court documents show. The proprietor, bartenders and customers of the pub, which is less than five kilometres from the Peace Bridge border crossing at Fort Erie, Ont., have shuttled across the border as many as 50 Irish nationals, many of whom had previously been deported or denied entry into the United States.” Is there a German American Lobby for Immigration Reform? Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project is an Irish Catholic defamed by his own people.
http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/mukhtaran_bibi/index.html
Apparently, with the exception of Gilchrist, not a lot of Irish Catholics at the leadership levels of the MMP. It appears Sinn Fein is linking attempts to obtain visas to the US for convicted paramilitaries ot the efforts of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform.
Why are ex(?)IRA paramilitaries trying to get visas to the US? 103
Posted by wjg on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 05:29 | # Matra, You made the following point: “As far as I’m concerned European ethnic groups that continuously side with non-Europeans against us need to be named and shamed. If my fellow Protestant Anglo-Saxons in Italy, France or Spain are working against the interests of the European Christian majorities in those countries I have no objections to them being attacked by natives of those countries. Here in the English-speaking world - UK, North America, Australasia - European ethnics who side with Jews and blacks should not be immune from criticism.” I don’t disagree in theory but the scenario you hypothesize doesn’t jive with reality. All of us Euros have been pitted against each other for the past 100 years by intent by Jewry. Jewry has taken a seed of animosity that existed (as is the case with all competing kinship groups around the world) and harvested it into a crop of tares. Even when individual European sub-races collaborate with Jewry they are doing so as privates following the orders of an evil general. Jews pull the strings and we either respond the way Jewry wants - with vitriol to our cousins - or we defy them and say “no”. Individual traitors like Ted Kennedy (Irish), George Bush (WASP), and Tony Blair (English) need to face our reprisals not the Irish, WASPs, or English as groups. Why? Because we CAN"T WIN if we continue to take on our own kin as persuaded by Jewry. In the future if all of us directed our anger and (if it happens at all) our violence at Jewry we would be on the first steps towards recovery. The first of many steps but an absolutely necessary start. 104
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:30 | # It’s hard to buy into the Jewish puppeteer position because it happens so often w/o Jewish influence. The Irish Catholic desire for immigration reform would exist w/o Schumer and Weiner because it serves their ethnic interest. Clearly an Irish Republican Lobby in the US serves to move Sinn Fein’s agenda forward using US leverage. For example, the nomination of Alberta’s newest premier, the Ukrainian Ed Stelmach was clearly flavoured by an ethnic agenda. Ukrainians in northern Alberta arrived more than a century ago, yet Canadian born Stelmach, according to some speaks with an accent thick enough for him to be mistaken as eastern European. “If Ed Stelmach wins the Conservative leadership race Saturday night, it will be in part because of support from Alberta’s large and politically engaged Ukrainian community.” And according to Marco Levytsky, editor of the Ukrainian News, “I know people who bought memberships in both the federal Liberal party and provincial Progressive Conservative party so they could support Gerard Kennedy and Ed Stelmach,” Levytsky said. Levytsky said he tends to be non-partisan, while his paper supports candidates of all political stripes who will effectively represent the Ukrainian community’s interests in areas such as education, multiculturalism and immigration. In contrast, Anglo (American born) Ted Morton, Stelmach’s opponent, is an immigration reformer. “As one of the writers of the now-famous Alberta Agenda, aka, the 2001 firewall letter, Morton has the best ideas and policies of all the other seven candidates combined. Period. As that firewall letter pointed out then—and his policy platform points out now—Morton would move towards doing what Quebec has done by: establishing a provincial pension plan with lower premiums and higher payouts; starting up a provincial police force so our rural communities are better served; controlling our own immigration so we can bring in the kinds of workers our economy needs and collecting our own taxes. “ At the federal level, during the recent nomination of a leader for the federal Liberal Party of Canada, ( Canada’s natural governing party), Gerard Kennedy (Irish Catholic?) was a king maker. Ethnic interest politics abounded. “Perhaps the most influential of these groups would turn out to be the Khalistani Sikh Canadians, many from areas west of Toronto, who voted en masse for Gerard Kennedy in the convention’s first and second ballots. ...one Kennedy delegate organizing among the Muslim community sent out a letter to the country’s mosques, asking for Muslims to vote “en masse” for one candidate. The Islamic Congress had given Mr. Kennedy an A grade, while listing other hopefuls on a scale from a B to an F. This led to a spirited response from Ignatieff delegate Salma Siddiqui, who is a vice-president of the secular Muslim Canadian Congress. “Muslims are not a herd of cattle to be sold to the highest bidder,” she responded. Kennedy’s plan? Elimination of the “immigrant success gap”. “Kennedy asserts that a Liberal government led by his office would ensure that Canadian immigrant wages are equal to non-immigrants within ten years of their arrival to Canada. The policy Kennedy is promoting involves creating a cabinet-level position for an “immigrant success advocate”, an officer of parliament who represents the interests of Canada’s immigrant community. Kennedy is also calling for an expansion of the family-reunification plan. He wants to make it easier for Canadian immigrants to sponsor their extended family. He suggests that it would do much to reduce the anxiety often experienced by newcomers, which consequentially provokes them to return home.” In addition, Raymond Chan, Liberal Cabinet Minister and signatory to the Chinese head tax reparations program, was Kennedy’s campaign manager. Thus at the provincial/state level the Ukrainian “community” supports Ed Stelmach because he’s “nash”, one of our boys, ensuring that an Anglo social conservative, immigration reforming Ted Morton does not advance to the premiership of Alberta and then at the federal level supports a liberal candidate who promises to steal from indigenous Canucks to give to the non-European immigrant poor. All because Ukrainian “values” are “education, (education because in Edmonton, Alberta’s capital where Ukrainians are most numerous, Ukrainian language schools are funded by the Alberta taxpayer) multiculturalism and immigration.” 105
Posted by mcbrute on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:06 | # “The Irish Catholic desire for immigration reform would exist w/o Schumer and Weiner because it serves their ethnic interest.” That’s the whole point - it doesn’t serve their interests. They may think it does, but they are incorrect. The net result of “immigration reform” is a net blow, by an enormous margin, to Irish interests. Others, notably Mexicans, benefit, and, if MacDonald is correct, the ethny of Schumer and Weiner benefit as well. How does flooding America with Third Worlders, genetically distant from the Irish, serve Irish interests? There aren’t enough “Irish illegals” to make a dent in that net result. On the other hand, a non-assimilating historically endogamous minority may have an interest in diluting majority influence, but even Steinlight would argue against that as well. The difference is that one group is a European ethny and the other is not. And whose interest is served by the George Bush desire for immigration reform? 106
Posted by dainty mcbrute on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:05 | # “Why? Because we CAN"T WIN if we continue to take on our own kin…” I’ll agree there, but another point exists as well. In the midst of all this cherry-picking of anecdotes and news stories and links, that attempt to convince us that MacDonald wrote his trilogy about the wrong ethnic group, is a lack of constructive criticism and pondering of solutions to the alleged problem. The Irish are the second largest white ethnic group in America, whose intermarriage rates, and long presence in the country, suggest integration into America’s white middle class. The Irish in Europe are a small nation, but one of Europe’s indigenous peoples and a people who contributed to the preservation of western cultural artifacts during the so-called “dark ages.” Do we then consider the Irish as the “enemy”, as light-skinned blacks? Or, should we actually determine what the rank and file Irish-American thinks about these issues? Should we attempt to convince the Irish where their loyalties should belong, due to what their real ethnic interests are? Or do we just point fingers in their direction? I see the Irish “leadership” as corrupt and self-serving in an elitist fashion as that of other groups; this elite needs to be bypassed to the extent that it betrays both the interests of their own ethny as well as the race to which that ethny belongs. The writers of the “Irish Voice”, IRA members, or folks smuggling illegals over the northern border should not be the target audience for MR among the Irish. However, a target audience does exist in that group. What fellows like GW need to decide is whether the Anglo-Irish historical animus can be put aside long enough to make an honest attempt to reach that target audience. I don’t see that any attempt has so far been made. Declare failure only after actual attempts have in fact failed. And no, this “dainty” person says that calling them “micks” is not suggestive of an honest attempt at dialogue. Ethnocentrism is as ethnocentism does. Sinn Fein obviously are not the only ones who seem to have adopted the attitude of “ourselves alone.” 107
Posted by tog on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:29 | # “Men use words like mick, limey, yank, and canuck among themselves without giving each other a case of the fantods.” Did any one notice that Mr. Tough Guy did not use the common epithets for a couple of other ethnic groups?
I believe I have made observations about Anglo Saxons, but I would like Mr. Tough Guy to point any out. Gratuitous insults are his stock in trade. Quite a staff you have here, GW 108
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:56 | #
I would like Mr. Victimology 2006 to start talking about race-replacement and EGI when he shows up here and only that. I’m waiting. 109
Posted by tog on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:11 | # Scrooby can’t back up his accusation. He is a liar. “Men use words like mick, limey, yank, and canuck among themselves without giving each other a case of the fantods.” Did any one notice that Mr. Tough Guy did not use the common epithets for a couple of other ethnic groups? He is also a coward. Not to mention whiner. GW, if he is your idea of a worthy European, good luck. 110
Posted by tog on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:07 | # GW, I wish to apologize to everyone here. That I have come to calling someone a liar and a coward under cover of anonymity is low and something I regret and apologize for it without reservation. Though your website is interesting and has a purpose, it is not for me and this is my last post. 111
Posted by wjg on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:20 | # Desmond, These examples you cite help to prove my point. These individual White ethnic collaborators are playing by “the rules” of our current paradigm. Everyone in the “mainstream” plays by these rules. I’m sure you realize that we White Nationalists/White Racialists are on the fringes. Our role is to help destroy the zeitgeist whereby all Whites who want a mainstream voice must prove themselves first as anti-white. Who controls the zeitgeist? Destroy, discredit, undermine, etc., them and we will eliminate much of the tendency of Whites to triangulate against our brethren to gain a voice at the table. The table must be overturned. Otherwise any battles we win take us no closer to winning the war. 112
Posted by paddy mcmick on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 22:12 | # “Though your website is interesting and has a purpose, it is not for me and this is my last post.” MR: no Irish need apply. 113
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:30 | # The brute: What fellows like GW need to decide is whether the Anglo-Irish historical animus can be put aside long enough to make an honest attempt to reach that target audience. As far as I am concerned:- 1) Yes, Irish racial nationalism is (or would be, if it really existed) part of European racial national. On that basis there could be NO animus towards Irish racial nationalists. As it is, there is a certain wearyness about the Irish pursuit of, shall we say, non-EGI-bearing group objectives. But animus? No, I still wouldn’t call it that. 2) The use of “Mick” is a very old commonplace of no significance, and we shouldn’t be dragged down the PeeCee road of worrying about out-group sensitivities. We have to be a bit tougher than that. However, as individuals we may consider that such usage reflects somewhat poorly upon our own tastes and upon our seriousness. Personally, I would avoid it for those reasons. 3) tog was very welcome here. I understand that history weighed heavily on his relationship with me, certainly. The disagreements that we had needed to be had, however. We needed to clear our lines and I think we did that pretty well. That was the precondition for a useful conversation. There is no point in pretending that an Englishman and an Irishman discussing politics haven’t got to go throught that. We did. I would have wished him to stick around and maybe develop lines of argument about “the National Question” from a perspective which we currently lack and from which we might profit. Now, it seems, we have lost that opportunity. 114
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 02:43 | # After reading Rnl’s Jewish tribal link, regarding the Jews and Polish serfdom, it’s easy to see why Anglo-Canucks had no desire to encourage either the Jews or the men in sheepskin coats to immigrate to Canada. WOW! How long must we wait, before these non-Anglo Euro groups move to at least a neutral position. The Ukrainians have been in Canada for over a century and still they align with non-European groups to trumpet the joys of the multi-culti. When will they view the Albertan/Canadian/white community interest at at least a par value? Another century? How do you instruct this community of the folley of their ways if you don’t point out the wrongdoing and the fact it has an ethnic base to it? Is it any wonder that the founding people, at least those aware of the impending danger, are fed up, not only with thet renchant liberalism of their own, but with fellow Euros who have aided and abetted liberal elites and the rainbow coalition in the transformation of a founding people. And they do it because they see it aiding their interest. Their children receive an education, funded by the taxpayer, in the language of their fathers. Community newspapers, in Ukrainian, are published with financial assistance from the federal government. Foreign policy, in part, is dsigned to aid the old country. Is it any wonder that “Sinn Fein obviously are not the only ones who seem to have adopted the attitude of “ourselves alone” whenpeople like Ukrainian Paul Yuzyk, Canada’s father of Multiculturalism, made it his life’s work because he was called a “bohunk” in depression era Saskatchewan? How many more years will the distrust prevail because in the forties Toronto cops dispersed “Wops” who gathered on street corners? Or is “ourselves alone” a pathology, like the dreaded disease of anti-semitism? Or maybe there is something to this age-old nativism afterall. The Inductivist writes: Bad Behavior Index Blacks 106 My hunch was correct. This pattern coincides with that feeling that goes way back among nativists that the moral quality of the country was slipping with the mass immigration from Catholic, southern and eastern European countries, and more recently in concern over immigration from Mexico. 115
Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 04:02 | # “The use of “Mick” is a very old commonplace of no significance, and we shouldn’t be dragged down the PeeCee road of worrying about out-group sensitivities.” Guessedworker, how did Irish interests become those of an out-group? Say it isn’t so. It behooves us to utilize the greatest tact and delicacy toward our Euro Celtic, Slavic, and Iberian cousins. 116
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:44 | # Short of panmixia it IS so, Bo. The brute has suggested concentricity as a method of accomodating European out-group EGI within one’s “loyal range”. I think that’s fine and necessary. But our ethny is our ethny, even in America and Canada. At home in Europe, of course, the issue is perfectly clear. To the Irish the English are an out-group, and vice-a-versa. It isn’t a problem. It’s natural. It means we have to clear our lines a little so we can agree to have a discussion based, if you like, on the outer ring in the concentric sense ... in a place where we can identify as Europeans and against non-Europeans. Desmond, The golden rule for any minority is: If we can’t live in our country, we prefer to live in no man’s country. The unbearable affront is to have to live under the hegemony of a strong majority. The question then arises: Is this group behaviour - essentially, the will to destroy - really maladaptive in a Saltarian sense? 117
Posted by paddy mcbrute on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:31 | # “How do you instruct this community of the folley of their ways if you don’t point out the wrongdoing and the fact it has an ethnic base to it?” If there has been any attempt to “instruct” that “community” on this blog, I must have missed it. “...when people like Ukrainian Paul Yuzyk, Canada’s father of Multiculturalism, made it his life’s work because he was called a “bohunk” in depression era Saskatchewan?” Obviously, the older generation is worse than useless and their time has passed. That includes members of all ethnies. “The question then arises: Is this group behaviour - essentially, the will to destroy - really maladaptive in a Saltarian sense? “ Yes, if the “minority” is no longer actually a minority, and is in fact part of the majority. Other than this blog, does anyone, including most Irish-Americans themselves, consider them to be a “minority?” “Guessedworker, how did Irish interests become those of an out-group? Say it isn’t so.” Bo, a point. Obviously, potential Irish readers and participants are going to be turned off from this blog. “It behooves us to utilize the greatest tact and delicacy toward our Euro Celtic, Slavic, and Iberian cousins.” Wrong blog. “2) The use of “Mick” is a very old commonplace of no significance, and we shouldn’t be dragged down the PeeCee road of worrying about out-group sensitivities. We have to be a bit tougher than that.” Does being “tougher” mean applying the same standards of insensitivity when guys like tog insult your own ethny? Or do you complain about “intra-European hostility” when that happens? You know, it is funny when people who are extremely ethnocentric, and who have obvious “dual morality” about ethnic groups, then proceed to negatively compare other groups’ ethnocentricity to that of the Jews. Nothing wrong with being ethnocentric; it is a good thing. But don’t condemn in others what you practice yourselves. Now, that is what the Jews do. “tog was very welcome here.” Have you read all the threads on which he was a participant? 118
Posted by deductive brute on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 12:11 | # With the complaints about Mr. Yuzyk and the “bohunks” comes a question. Assume that there are some bohunks who are firmly in support of, not only a white Canada, but supportive of a white Canada and its Anglo founding people, their culture and traditions and right to majority status. Nicely assimilating and civilizationally patriotic bohunks. Do you accept these bohunks as fellow white Canadians, or reject them as being bohunks? Note: there is nothing wrong with the latter answer; after all, bohunks are bohunks, and not the founding ethny. However, the latter answer would put one in the position of not really being able of logically criticizing bohunk “minority” activism as a betrayal against a white Canada; the anger should instead be directed toward those who let the bohunks in the country and accepted their demands. So, there needs to be some consistency; if bohunks are to be critiqued for not being good white Canadians, then they must at least be given the potential chance of becoming good white Canadians. If they are not given the chance, and if assimilated bohunks are not so recognized, you can hardly make an issue of their “betrayal” of whiteness. Fight it, certainly, but not complain about how “they’ve been here so long and yet have not assimilated…” Do you want them to be assimilated? That’s the first question. It is also noted that included in the Inductivist’s index as bad behavior is “ethnocentrism.” Of course, that one character alone is probably not enough to alter the rankings but it is interesting - since many on this blog are the most ethnocentric one can observe outside of a Hasidic synagogue. 119
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:03 | # brute, If the “outer ring loyalty” means anything, Irish-American and Ukrainian-Canadian readers with a desire to escape the Multicult can participate fully here. But they have to have the desire. If they do, the only remaining issues are whether they can:- 1) Make the leap to an objective assessment of their group’s strategy, 2) Accept the majority Anglo-American/Canadian ethnic interest as the only viable agent of a pan-European interest. That does not mean they give up having Ukrainian or Irish hearts. But they have to give up damaging the one ethnic interest that can, in the longer run, offer protection. It seems to me that a level-headed discussion of the destructive roles played by Ukranian and Irish groups in North America is, in itself, a necessary barrier to surmount - a filter for racial awareness among Ukrainians and Irish. I see nothing wrong in setting them the test. I do dislike tastelessness in doing so. 120
Posted by tasteless brute on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:56 | # “It seems to me that a level-headed discussion of the destructive roles played by Ukranian and Irish groups in North America is, in itself, a necessary barrier to surmount - a filter for racial awareness among Ukrainians and Irish.” Do you think the discussion here has been “level-headed?” “I see nothing wrong in setting them the test.” I agree. But the problem is, what is the outcome of the test? Let’s say that a “mick”, as designated here, agrees that Irish Catholic liberalism has played a negative role. What then? Is there a sincere counter-desire to attempt to “instruct” Irish-Americans as to their, as you put it, “outer ring loyalty?” Carrot and stick, both are needed for this “instruction”; all stick and no carrot is not going to work. Note that no one here, I believe, has ever objected to a “level-headed” application of the stick, as long as the counter-balancing carrot was there as well. “I do dislike tastelessness in doing so. “ Tastelessness, sure. What about inconsistency as well? Certainly, you have to admit that the Irishman has the right to point out destructive behavior by other groups. Then there was the old post comment that justified the displacement of the indigenous Irish in Ulster on the basis of their “unsucessful” nature and the superior cognitive and cultural characteristics of the newcomers. And yet, the argument our English friends here make against, for example, Asian cognitive elitism, JJR’s promotion of Asian immigration, or the “need” for Eastern European economic migrants is to invoke “blood and soil” of English ethnic interests, ethnic traditionalism, inherent rights of continuity, etc. You can argue that the native Irish can make those same points about their history. Note that I would, at this point, advise the Irish to give up on Ulster, as the fate of their ethny in the Republic and the well being of their “diaspora” in America should take precedence. But, from the standpoint of consistency, you’d have to admit that the Irish should no more accept a “let yourselves be displaced by the cognitive elitists” mindset than should the English. “...Irish-American and Ukrainian-Canadian readers with a desire to escape the Multicult can participate fully here. But they have to have the desire.” Such individuals should show up on this blog and therefore participate. Some carotene may be helpful here. 121
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:06 | # I think you are demanding an ownership of the greater process by actors here who have no such ownership in fact. If, instead, they perceive themselves as free agents on a free speech blog on the badland frontier of cyberspace who can really blame them? The rigid discipline you desire is a product of more than just a wise restraint on intra-European hostility. It is some way down the road to a sense of real unity. We are not there yet. I agree we should strive to move in that direction. But you cannot demand too much too fast. Post a comment:
Next entry: Frontierist News Roundup 20061229
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
</img>
Posted by Amalek on Mon, 25 Dec 2006 11:56 | #
Mea culpa. Mia Farrow.
‘Omissions’ omits the second ‘m’.
ForEseeable.
Change them now while readers are wassailing, delete this comment and no-one’ll know.
PS: ‘Carmina Burana’ has no German content and was condemned for anachronistic fatalism by Nazi music critics.