Sunic’s Homo americanus and the American psychological commonweal

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 01 August 2007 23:00.

Heritage and Destiny is a quarterly magazine printed in England and promulgated by the rockface scalers of the England First Party and the British People’s Party.  It produces some good work, and an example was sent me today by Tom Sunic: a review of his Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age by Peter Rushmore.

In the course of the review Rushmore observes Sunic’s treatment of Christian Zionism:-

Dr Sunic does not present Christian Zionism as some crude conspiracy of venal pastors and crypto-Jews. Nor does he view the U.S.-Zionist embrace (as more shallow analyses by more orthodox political commentators have tended to) as merely contingent on the ‘neoconservative’ reaction (developing out of early American Trotskyism) against Stalinist anti-Semitism.

His approach is to set Christian Zionism in the context of America’s broader political culture. Dr Sunic maintains that a fundamental deceit is at the core of the American system, just as it was behind the Iron Curtain. But most victims of Soviet tyranny had seen through the official lies decades before the system’s final collapse and had been only maintaining a polite fiction of believing in communist ideology.

... the Holocaust:-

Dr Sunic quotes Jean Baudrillard, the postmodernist critic of America, who has died since this book went to press, to support his argument that the “constant verbal and visual featuring of Jewish Holocaust symbolism” creates a “saturation process among the audience as was once the case with former Holocaust symbolism”. Relentless exterminationist propaganda, not to mention the vicious persecution of those who dissent from the dominant ideology, becomes self defeating.

In Baudrillard’s words even the image of Auschwitz itself - the holy of holies - becomes hyperreality: “not a site of annihilation but a medium of dissuasion”. In other words the exterminationists themselves eventually transform Auschwitz in the public mind from a “historical fact” to a propaganda or marketing tool.

... and, quoting from the text of Homo americanus itself, American anti-semitism:-

Yet Dr Sunic goes on, in a section which should be compulsory reading for many in the movement, especially the many varieties of Christian “anti-Semite”, to reject the most obvious forms of Jewish conspiracy theory.

“Blaming American Jews for extraterrestrial powers and their purported conspiracy to subvert Gentile culture borders on delusion and only reflects the absence of dialogue. American anti-Semitic delusions only provide legitimacy to American Jews in their constant search for a real or surreal anti-Semitic boogieman around the corner. Without the spectre of anti-Semitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear. Thus, anti-Semitism provides Jews with alibis to project themselves as victims of Gentile prejudice. Consequently, it assigns them a cherished role of posing as the sole educational super-ego for Americans and by proxy the entire world.”

But many who read Sunic’s quite compact book will find not his stance on Jewry in America to be the most interesting thing about it but the deconstructionism that he commends for the postmodern American personality itself.  Rushmore merely notes:-

The logic of Dr Sunic’s argument is that an American patriot must make a conscious effort to free himself from postmodern America.

Well, what does that mean, really?  Certainly, it’s easy to type the words.  Just a few taps on the keyboard and it’s done.  But to accomplish such a detachment in one’s own psychological being?  To sever oneself from oneself?

Still, Sunic does intend this message of inner deliverance to be uncompromising, I suspect.  If so, of course, he belongs firmly in the long tradition of European thinkers who ascribe to individual Man the possibility to pick and choose what has been unconsciously absorbed.  For example, Rushmore quotes him on the Christianity Question thus:-

Furthermore, American racialism, which boasts some intelligent writers, hardly squares with Biblical fundamentalism, which continues to be the trademark of most American traditionalists and racialists. As long as traditionalist Americans continue to lug about their monotheistic deities, they will be in a permanent position of political contradiction. Their neurotic behaviour, i.e. the acceptance of Christian ecumenism on the one hand and the tacit approval of racial segregation on the other, cannot be a weapon for cultural success.

“Postmodern America”, then, and Judeo-Christian monotheism.  A tall order.  Admittedly, the prospects are better than those of the political liberty-junkey aiming to deliver his or her oppressed self from white European males and Nature.  At least acquired psychological trash can, in theory, be put out for collection, whereas Nature can only be denied - with all the pathological possibilities that implies.  But Man is not born with the knowledge to turn such theory into fact, and does not know where to go to get it.  And even if he did, he would find the stains on his psyche stubborn, indeed well-nigh impossible to remove as directed.

It is a piece of bad advice.  But it is bad advice at the foundation of all liberal and mainstream religious thought.  The reality is that disabusing Americans of, as Rushmore quotes Alain de Benoist, “the Christian “self-chosenness” built into America’s founding myths” is a slow weaning process ... a work, most likely, of generations.  And it would be all the better accomplished if there is something, a new and compelling concept of Americanism and even of faith, pushing to replace the old memes.  Of such flaming meteors, needless to say, there is no sign in the political heavens.

That leaves us with the only game in town: science.  But on this, Rushmore says of Homo americanus:-

Dr Sunic will raise a few eyebrows in the movement with his criticism of racialists and other paleo-conservatives for their fixation on genetic determinism and consequent preoccupation with IQ and other forms of scientific assessment, while neglecting any serious examination of culture, art or language.

This is an attitude I have come across among New Rightists many times.  It is a hatred of the material.  Again, the underlying sentiment is strangely individualist: “there can be no brook to doing what I will”.  The trouble is that this is flat wrong.  There not only can be a brook, there is one.  The NRer can choose to eat this Chocolate Sundae or that Lemon Parfait.  But he can’t choose to lay down his life for his country, to love his child, to feel remorse at the loss of an old friend.  All that is truly human is from the genes.  And it determines.  The fact that the degree of determination is simply unacceptable to NR intellectuals, as it is to liberals, merely commends them to a change of opinion.

This does not mean that the NR philosophical organum has no worth.  Living a life true to European culture is a fine thing, and culture is more easily understood among the masses than science.  But science is giving us knowledge of what is, and I, for one, long to see an outgrowth from this new certainty towards our cultural heritage, explaining its sociobiological rightness, not its fancy and, frankly, in the 21st Century somewhat arch spiritual power.  That, it seems to me, is the path by which these troublesome New Worlders who, to quote de Benoist again, “wanted to create a Promised Land which would become a universal republic”, can be brought to harness with their brothers across the water to the east.

Peter Rushmore’s review, by the way, was published in number 29 (July-September 2007 issue) of Heritage and Destiny magazine.  A sample copy of Heritage and Destiny requires the sending of £3.00 to BCM Box 7318, London, WC1N 3XX or $5 to PO Box 6501, Falls Church, VA 22046.

Tags: Books



Comments:


1

Posted by GT on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:30 | #

“American anti-Semitic delusions only provide legitimacy to American Jews in their constant search for a real or surreal anti-Semitic boogieman around the corner. Without the spectre of anti-Semitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear.”

1.  Sunic’s claim that jews pursue surreal boogiemen is anti-Semitic.

2.  If Homo Americanus’ anti-Semitic delusions legitimize jewish behavior, then why don’t jewish delusions legitimize our behavior?  Answer: They have power and we don’t.

3.  How does Sunic justify jewish delusions and paranoia in nations where truth is no defense?  He can’t.

Sunic’s attempt to blame Homo Americanus for jewish behavior is evidence of carelessness or is an attempt to con us.


2

Posted by GT on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 05:40 | #

Sunic makes an ass out of himself by attributing the cohesiveness of powerful jews to a fringe, anti-Semitic rabble on the Internet.


3

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:02 | #

===================
“Blaming American Jews for extraterrestrial powers and their purported conspiracy to subvert Gentile culture borders on delusion and only reflects the absence of dialogue. American anti-Semitic delusions only provide legitimacy to American Jews in their constant search for a real or surreal anti-Semitic boogieman around the corner. Without the spectre of anti-Semitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear. Thus, anti-Semitism provides Jews with alibis to project themselves as victims of Gentile prejudice. Consequently, it assigns them a cherished role of posing as the sole educational super-ego for Americans and by proxy the entire world.”
===================

Huh?

So *Gentiles* imposed the Jewish self-concept upon the Jews?

And Jews constantly searching for anti-Semitic boogiemen merely wish to assimilate?

And the subversion of Gentile culture is not a *fait accompli* - and that culture to which the Jew would “assimilate” himself is not, in fact, his own culture, already installed?

Someone needs to get a clue and give us a break.


4

Posted by GT on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:42 | #

NeoNietzsche wrote: “... and that culture to which the Jew would “assimilate” himself is not, in fact, his own culture, already installed?”

Was that was another delusional, anti-Semitic statement?  Why, I believe it was!

Shame on you for targeting innocent, powerless jews with your anti-Semitic delusions of jewish cultural supremacy.

Don’t you know that some delusions are more legitimate than others?  Why, there ought to be a law …


5

Posted by Rnl on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:33 | #

Blaming American Jews for extraterrestrial powers and their purported conspiracy to subvert Gentile culture borders on delusion and only reflects the absence of dialogue.

This sentence is incoherent.

Jews do not, in fact, possess “extraterrestrial powers.” It doesn’t _border_ on delusion to believe that they do. It _is_ a delusion. Anyone who believes that Jews have “extraterrestrial powers” is delusional.

On the other hand, it is a matter of historical fact, well documented by MacDonald and others, that Jews as a group have been hostile to traditional Gentile culture and have often worked hard to subvert it. That’s not a delusion, and it is miles away from the belief that Jews have extraterrestrial powers.

Two beliefs share the same verb, but they have very little else in common. So what are they doing in the same sentence? 

Blaming EU bureaucrats for (a) their plan to castrate all white males and (b) their purported conspiracy to limit political dissent through speech codes borders on delusion and only reflects the absence of dialogue. (Tomislav Sunic)

Belief (b) is Sunic’s own, minus the “purported.” He has written about it convincingly. Belief (a) is non-existent, but anyone who did believe it would be delusional. It appears in my bogus quotation only to make Sunic’s serious argument look ridiculous. And that’s exactly what “extraterrestrial powers” is doing in Sunic’s sentence: He is mixing up nuttiness and serious argument for the purpose of discrediting the latter. I have no idea why, but that’s what he is doing.

Without the spectre of anti-Semitism, Jews would likely assimilate quickly and hence disappear. Thus, anti-Semitism provides Jews with alibis to project themselves as victims of Gentile prejudice.

There is a significant problem here. Anti-Semitism had almost disappeared by the 1950s. Yet much of the destructive Jewish behavior that non-delusional anti-Semites complain about began in the 1960s. If we had to select the single most common racialist complaint against Jews, it would likely be the 1965 immigration reform, which opened American borders to the Third World. That is, the sources for racialist opposition to Jews occurred and still occur during an era of low anti-Semitism. There was no Charles Coughlin on the radio in 1965. As I mentioned in another thread, the belief that “Jews are a threat to America” had become so rare by the 1950s that the AJC stopped polling for it. The question was no longer worth asking. The “spectre of anti-Semitism,” which had always been a small spectre in any case, had almost vanished.

The obvious conclusion is that the decline in anti-Semitism served as a tacit invitation to more Jewish subversion. Philo-Semitism didn’t work. It only emboldened activist Jews.


6

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:59 | #

GW,

I hate to be the sort of person who plays copy editor on the internet, but in the piece above a small misspelling actually changes the meaning of your thought.

You write, This is an attitude I have come across among New Rightists many times.  It is a hatred of the material.

Surely this must be wrong. The ideology so hated, I feel certain, is materialism.

This is because it is as absurd and abhorrent a doctrine as libertarianism, although one reduces all existence to DNA and the other to dollars. Both are reductionistic to the point of absurdity. No human community exists independantly of its culture, and no human individual, however isolated, is indepedant of community. That culture and genes always form a co-evolutionary symbiosis, is very troubling to materialists.

This is why I use, as often as I can, the term race-culture, and then further specify which race culture I mean and what level of resolution I’m talking about.

If you pester a materialist about these matters, he will emit a distinctive sqawk, followed by noises about “epiphenomena”. If you inform him or her that his chosen metaphysic, naturalistic materialism, is in fact a metaphysic and not a product of the scientific method, the sqawking eventually becomes unmanageable and the conversation ends.

If culture isn’t imporant, and EGI wins the day by its reliable calculations of kin altruism cranked out like ribbons from an adding machine, then why would any racialist have cause to complain about government in Britian, the US, or anywhere else? My government is overwhelmingly of whatever haplotyes or allele frequencies our scientists have determined make up our “local cluster”. So is yours. How comes it that they seek to destroy us? Given the tenets of EGI, if they do have a genetic stake in demographics, how do they not recognize this? It is pseudo-estrogens in the water, PCBS, flouride, pesticides, what?

What material cause has interfered with the proper functioning of the gene machines we are? If EGI is a real interest, and not a theoretical artifact, we should see its robust expression in Europeans, in so far as Europeans are a product of evolution. We certainly see it in non-Europids.

What physical force or chemical is interfering with proper signalling in our people? A material cause cries out for a material solution, no?

Which leads us to the real larger issue: yours is a strongly worded post about a real subject from a definite point of view. I am happy to see it. The quality of MR’s front page has been very shaky lately. I think a strong POV is just the thing that is needed. Either this blog needs to become the Salterian Euro-GNXP with a solid antiliberal foundation that you desire or a more urgent, practical, British site of resistance that concentrates on creating a nucleus of thinkers and writers who strategize on how to expand the circle of sanity, one by one, in Britain. It is not merely that the commentariat here is too diverse to work together in concert and discover the next step; I also believe that the front page here is too diverse, irregular and frequently, irrelevant. MR is an unhappy jumble of English Nationalism, GNXP ambitions,  and lofty but unpopular pan European goals which stand symbolized by the Botticelli painting and big red blotch that greet each vistor here upon their arrival. 

I will say that you do not have the bloggers or the commentariat to continue justifying your use of an Italian painting of a Greek Goddess in close proximity to a facsimile of Europe in toto, both East and West. You can make a start towards some truth in advertising by hoisting the St. George’s flag or some leonine heraldry. Then you should decide who you are and what you are doing, and exercise your prerogative as editor so that regular posts are made that stay on message and seek to inform and or indoctrinate readers to your particular take on the scheme of things. Once we know your biases, we may read with or against the grain of the blog, but if the blog has no grain at all, productive readings and exchanges dwindle while unproductive ones multiply. A poster on a recent thread compared activity here to “a Snipe Hunt”.

Possibly MR is currently three blogs tripping over each other and getting into shouting matches because they’re all headed in different directions. You should either figure out which one you are and go for broke, or split the functions of this site in two, with one spinoff being a the Salterian/antiliberal site, educating our end of the Web about the science of race, along the lines of what Dinekes does, but with a sharper political edge, like GNXP. The other then may serve as a thinktank allied with the BNP, meeting real, on the ground needs of the British population and considering organizing local meetings, purchasing advertisments, etc. A “Free Republic” serving the goal of a non-Muslim Britain.

I am principally pleased by the post above because it dispenses, for the most part, with cat’s paws and game playing. I hope that it represents a new turn for this blog, which despite being at cross purposes with itself, certainly will be of significant advantage to whatever part of the Whole to which it decides to lend its weight and momentum.


7

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:53 | #

But, wintermute, you make my case against the NR concentration upon culture for me quite persuasively.  There is a name for the hatred of the material (“materialism” is used as a derogatory form, as you know, and would not fit my meaning).  That name is intellectual vanity.

I suppose it was understandable in the 1900s for philosophers to look down upon the nascent life sciences, and inevitable that the scientists’ exploration of the mind of Man would be seen as an intolerable encroachment.  Similarly, the 20th Century NR philosopher whose longing was to place at the heart of the (forever putative) spiritual renewal of Western Man his own version of Zarathustrian glory would hardly welcome a contrary and horribly mathematical model of Man’s meagre possibilities.

And at bottom, this IS the issue, this question of whether men can be made collectively free by philosophers.  If modern neurology, cognitive psychology and genetics uncover different possibilities in Man, it does no honour to the philosopher to fire off poisoned darts in response ... one dart dipped in the vitriol of “determinism”, and another in “reductionism”.  All that bespeaks is a desire to preserve an intellectual closed shop.

My own view of Man, which you of all people should well understand, is that he is beset by mechanicity, absence and illusion.  He includes, of course, you, me and the philosophers of the New Right - notwithstanding messers Guenon and Schuon’s highly developed penchant for metaphysic.  Perhaps he might, through years of informed labour and self-knowledge, learn to extract himself fleetingly from the deadly embrace of culture as it animates in him.  But ordinarily, no.  En masse, of course not.

So what “freedom” are we really talking about?  The freedom to be aware of cultural influences that are harmful?  Perhaps.  The freedom to be able to do something about it himself.  No.  The freedom to be released by philosophers from said harmful influences into others contrived to be of less harm?

My answer is discouraging.  I think the intellectual traditions of philosophy can thoroughly mess with the lives of men, and always have.  It is Nature in us which continually pressages a return to health and normality, and the study of Nature in us that will eventually lead upward to the explication of that in our culture which is, indeed, natural and great and good.

We must endeavour to sweep away the philosophers’ objections to knowledge of the material in Man.  It is our best and only real hope.


8

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:14 | #

I hardly know what to say about your criticism’s of our journalistic ability, other than I think you are being deliberately unfair.

MR has always offered a wide palate of tastes, and will always do so.  It is not a vehicle for a single point of view, but for free and intelligent discussion of anything and everything under the sun that touches on the life of European peoples, albeit from a survivalist perspective.

It is for others, WM, to look to their own roles, which I shall not myself criticise. I am content with ours.


9

Posted by Eureka! on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:53 | #

“He is mixing up nuttiness and serious argument for the purpose of discrediting the latter. I have no idea why, but that’s what he is doing.”

It’s a fantastic technique, and very commonly used. For example, having a crazy skinhead figure making genuine complaints about racial dispossession in his old suburb in “Romper Stomper” or “American History X”, followed by his doing something nutty, horrible and unattractive. Or showing nationalist political parties on television only when there’s news which involves “white racism”, like the Cronulla riots.

The subtle verbal montage of nutty with serious pairs the two assertions of fact. And, in the mind of the audience, as the former is most definitely not true (as it is absurd) the latter probably isn’t either. Like Sacha Baron Cohen as the anti-semitic “Borat”, “yes, we too blame Jews for 9-11, we also blame them for the extinction of the dinosaurs.” I will admit, I think Sacha let his guard down in that particular “interview”, his Jewishness is normally very well conceived by his characters however that particular excerpt reveals his sarcassm.

We should name the technique, and make it and other like-techniques well known and recognisable, particularly those used in very effective propaganda. Once afforded the familiarity of other logical fallacies like “ad hominen”, attempts to expose the other’s intention to deceive may become as easy as name-calling (among ourselves anyway - the masses are a different matter but everything helps).

In fact, and I may be ranting now, the “glossary of terms” post we had a while back (I can’t remember what it was actually called) might well be enriched by a new such volume of entries. We see the same methods used to spread the same lies everyday, and yet to make reference to them a description is still necessary. Foolish!

Further, and now I’m definitely ranting, once extracted as simple formulae we can use the tools ourselves! Mocking anti-racist positions: “Saying that there’s no difference between humans and whales and that there’s no genetic difference between races borders on the clinically insane, and the people that hold these unnatural peoples, honestly, I think they need help…”

Eureka! Fight fire with fire. I’ll give a fiver to whomever can name that behaviour or identify another.

Just think, in time, one could even make a very funny comedy sketch with a Jewish character in it doing all his tricks. And it would be funny because its true.


10

Posted by Maguire on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:19 | #

“Furthermore, American racialism, which boasts some intelligent writers, hardly squares with Biblical fundamentalism, which continues to be the trademark of most American traditionalists and racialists.”

Before broadbrush statements like this are made or accepted, it behooves one to look into the intellectual wellsprings of the ‘Biblical Fundamentalists’ and the ‘American traditionalists’ here in 21st Century North America.  Both streams are of extremely modern vintage and have -0- connection to any white thought of the past.  Two pairs of men serve as the poster children for these overlapping streams.

‘Biblical Fundamentalists’.

This means the judeo-centric (literally judeolotrous) theology of ‘Pre-millenial Dispensationalism’.  This was a mid-late 19th Century perversion of Christianity headed up by English lawyer Charles Nelson Darby and subsequently American lawyer Cyrus I. Scofield.  It was a true ‘Anglo-American’ creation promoted by the highest powers of the British Empire;  Powers with sufficient influence to get Scofield’s talmudicized Study Bible published in 1913 under the imprimatur of the Oxford University Press in 1913.

From the late Jerry Falwell in the east to John Hagee in Vanishing Texas to False Profit Hal Lindsey in Mexifornia, you will not find one ‘Christian Zionist’ leader who is not an adherent of this Noahide cult for Gentiles.

‘American Traditionalists’.

Two men stand in the front rank of reinventers of ‘American Traditionalism’ on a philosemitic and anti-racist basis.  These are William F. Buckley (formerly National Review, now the openly Jewish National Review) and Robert Welch (founding leader of the John Birch Society). 

(Note to GW:  That both Buckley and Welch were self-described ‘Conservatives’ is the prime reason that noun is brand-polluted on this side of the pond for at least the next two generations.)

Observe, these streams of thought are not methods of ‘Power’.  They are methods of goy control employed to organize the base of the ‘Republican Party’.  The ‘leadership elites’ are composed of different personnel drawn from different sources.

Darby-Scofield theology and Buckley-Welch political philosophy are important for pro-white analysts to understand because they constitute the Jewish imposed mental programming of most of the politically oriented whites in the USA. 

“Maguire”


11

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:06 | #

But many who read Sunic’s quite compact book will find not his stance on Jewry in America to be the most interesting thing about it

If that Sunic quote is indicative, then it’s no mystery why; Jews would assimilate if it weren’t for anti-Semitism?  Talk about superficial!  Jews invented ethnocentrism (or at least, pioneered its codification.  Separation is the raison d’etre of Judaism.  Everything interesting whatsoever about Jews traces back to their particularism.

These are the people who would assimilate completely, but for anti-Semitism?  The Jew has spent an inordinate share of the last two millennia dreaming up ways to precipitate anti-Semitism and preserve his separation.

The tendency to see the Jew as a victim of circumstance should be resisted - it’s so ubiquitous that in the vast majority of cases, it just doesn’t hold water.

The obvious conclusion is that the decline in anti-Semitism served as a tacit invitation to more Jewish subversion. Philo-Semitism didn’t work. It only emboldened activist Jews.

Indeed.  Philo-Semitism seems the sort of thing that liberals should be embracing, along with all their other suicidal norms, but instead it’s a “conservative” thing.

Eureka!, brilliant idea for a comedy skit.  If I was packaging it for sheep I’d make him a goy anchorman, but I can already see myself howling in laughter at your Baron-Cohen caricature and his compulsions.

As for the technique, its star has dimmed in the ‘Net sky.  Now, in the two-way media at least, it’s a source of derision (when detected, of course).

But of course, in the mass (one-way) media, it still has center stage.  I call it “guilt by association.”  Ever notice how “racism” is never the only thing “wrong” with anyone (white), ever?  Racism (in whites) is always part of a suite.  Other parts may include:

1) low social status
2) low character
3) criminal behavior
4) violence
5) pathology
6) poor hygiene
7) unattractiveness
8) poverty
9) spouse abuse
10) child abuse
11) substance abuse
12) illiberal thoughts (misogyny, “homophobia,” “xenophobia,” etc.)
13) etc., etc.


12

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:12 | #

How could I forget stupidity and lack of education?  Must’ve been distracted…


13

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:17 | #

Not to mention the homosexual-as-“homophobe,” and sexual inadequacy.


14

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:35 | #

Svi - Thought you had taken up permanent residence in Steve Sailer’s comments section!

O/T

We all know of course how Britain is a nation of diverse immigrants, well funnily enough…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070801/sc_nm/britain_genetics_dc


15

Posted by Maguire on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:06 | #

“My answer is discouraging.  I think the intellectual traditions of philosophy can thoroughly mess with the lives of men, and always have.”

I agree with this completely.  The addicts of the thesis that Fine Old Literature will save us fail to recognize that Fine Words extracted from Old Literature, and divorced from the brutal tests of immediate - ahem ‘local’ - reality and tangible - i.e. ‘material’ - results were the Weapon of Mass Distraction used by the Jew to capture control of the white political and economic base.

Very fine Words, but ever so carefully selected and edited to produce the desired mental effects.  A classic instance of this was the frequent John Birch Society quotation of a famous passage by D’Israeli in “Coningsby”.  This was to the effect that unseen powers standing next to thrones and and inside governments were the true rulers. 

This was shamelessly presented while also shamelessly censoring the preceding paragraph showing that Coningsby was describing a series of Court Jews he encountered throughout Europe who were manipulating foreign relations to their mutual satisfaction. ‘Court Jews’ of which CSA Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin was a living, breathing and contemporary exemplar.

With the citation of the second paragraph and suppression of the first, the stage was set for diverting large masses up the blind alleys of Insider Conspiracies and even further into the quicksand of Rense type UFO-dom conspiracy.

What is most depressing is to realize that in most instances these Fine Old Classics were merely the Hollywood Blockbusters of their era, and like the current ones were remade multiple times until they reached the definitive form complete with leading edge Special Effects. 

“It is Nature in us which continually pressages a return to health and normality, and the study of Nature in us that will eventually lead upward to the explication of that in our culture which is, indeed, natural and great and good.”

Local.

“We must endeavour to sweep away the philosophers’ objections to knowledge of the material in Man.  It is our best and only real hope.”

And equally vital, the other 50% of the white race known as Woman.


16

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:29 | #

I think the intellectual traditions of philosophy can thoroughly mess with the lives of men, and always have.  It is Nature in us which continually pressages a return to health and normality, and the study of Nature in us that will eventually lead upward to the explication of that in our culture which is, indeed, natural and great and good.

I will only say this once. You should not, on account of your currectly constructed beliefs about ‘science’, think that you have left for the precincts of philosophy.

Rather than philosopher’s ‘closing shop’ to you, you rather are trying to make an end run around them with falsely labelled goods.

You have not proved metaphysical naturalism. Indeed, to my question, how have the mechanical processes within man ceased to function with regards to EGI, you repair immediately to discussion of philsophy - liberalism or antiliberalism, as the case may be, proving twice over that far from having left the field in any way, you are carrying two of its products and hawking them to all who will listen.

I don’t know why I take truth in advertising so seriously, but there you go.

And ‘reductionism’ is a real term from the natural sciences, not the New Right or Schuon or whomever you have decided to conflate into the Greater Malific ‘philosophy’. Reductionism is the unwarranted delimitation of causes, combined with a refusal to consider higher levels of causality than the monocause preferred by the reductionist. A genetic reductionist, like yourself, is happy to proffer evidence that genes influence human behavior, but is always unhappy to hear that behavior (culture) can regulate gene expression.

There are thousands of papers on reductionism in science, and hundreds on the problem of reductionism in genetics. An excerpt from an interview with Brian Goodwin, a molecular biologist, about how reductionism results in sloppy thinking in biology and how it impedes scientific progress in biology:

major problem is that in contemporary Darwinism, organisms are actually reduced to genes and their products. Darwinism has given us a very good theory of inheritance in terms of a theory of the genes, but what it has done is to sacrifice the whole organism, as a real entity, to this reductionism, genetic reductionism. That means that organisms have disappeared as real entities from biology, and that, I think, this is a fundamental scientific error. There’s another aspect of this problem which has to do with the way Darwinists explains embryonic development. They say that there is a genetic program that determines the development of an organism. An organism wants to become a newt, say, or a sea urchin. Because it has particular genes, they say, it undergoes a particular embryonic development and that is sufficient, in other words knowing the genes is sufficient to understand the details of the embryonic development, and the emergence of a species with its characteristic form and behavior. That sounds, on the face of it, plausible because we know that mutations actually cause transformation of morphology. Drosophila can have a mutation that transforms a two winged fly to a four winged fly. Now that is a pretty major transformation, and a single gene can do it. So you might say that’s the sort of thing that is involved in evolution. Well, you see, the burden of proof then is on the neo-Darwinists to demonstrate exactly how the genes do this. They use the term genetic programming, and it is a metaphor for what happens in a computer, but if you ask them to use a genetic program to generate an organism, they can’t do it, and the reasons are very simple. You need to know more than gene products in order to explain the emergence of shape and form in organisms. You actually need a theory, a theory that involves physics, chemistry, forces and spatial organization. You can have complete details about genes and you are not going to be able to explain how development occurs. So I think that is the fundamental test. When Darwinists say to me ‘genes are enough’, I say ‘Show me.’

Now, staying within biology, that’s just genetic reductionism. You might reflect here that as a group selectionist yourself, that you are currently on the outs with ‘science’ because selection at the level of the individual is what science currently promotes as its current ‘reality’. In other words, if you cannot defeat their reductionism, you and Salter have lost the day.

Goodwin’s critique continues:

Let me pick up again this issue of the disappearance of organisms as real entities. Because this really has quite profound consequences. I think that this precipitates a kind of crisis of understanding of living forms. It’s an extreme reductionism that makes it impossible for us to understand concepts such as health. Health refers to wholes, the dynamics of whole organisms. We currently experience crises of health, of the environment, of the community. I think they are all related. They are not caused by biology by any means, but biology contributes to these crises by failing to give us adequate conceptual understanding of life and wholes, of ecosystems, of the biosphere, and it’s all because of genetic reductionism. That’s a pretty heavy charge, but let me just describe some of the consequences of genetic reductionism. Once you’ve got organisms reduced to genes, then organisms have no inherent natures. Now, in our theory of evolution, species are natural kinds, they are really like the elements, if you like. I don’t mean literally, but they have the same conceptual status, gold has a certain nature. We are arguing that, say, a sea urchin of a particular species has a nature. Human beings have a nature. Now, in Darwinism, they don’t have a nature, because they’re historical individuals, which arise as a result of accidents. All they have done is pass the survival test. The Darwinian theory makes it legitimate to shunt genes around from any one species to any other species: since species don’t have ‘natures’, we can manipulate them in any way and create new organisms that survive in our culture. So this is why you get people saying that there is really no difference between the creation of transgenic organisms, that is moving genes across species boundaries, and creating new combinations of genes by sexual recombination within species. They say that is no different to what is happening in evolution. Well, you know, in my book that’s a bit like saying there is no difference between radioactive decay, radioactivity as you find it naturally in Uranium, and using that for nuclear energy. Once you scale something up to a particular level you are into a totally different scene.

Did you get that? Reductionism impairs the understanding of the dynamics of whole organisms, Goodwin even implicates it - absolutely correctly - in the current crisis of ‘community’, which you know something about. What else is a political theory about the supremacy of the individual other than reductionism writ large? One you do not happen to like, I might add.

Scientists are not different from other people - they also tend to look for their lost keys under the streetlamp, not because that’s where they lost them, but because that’s where the light is.

Scientists stick to their hidebound notions unto death - as hilariously demonstrated by the school of Thomas Kuhn. It would do well for you to remember that, in just the past ten years, dogmatic statements of long standing regarding neurogenesis in the brain - textbook stuff, there - were proven wholly and totally wrong. Seems that the brain is growing new neurons all the time. And that new generation antidepressants, like Prozac, did not rely for their main mechanism of action on serotonin reuptake, but on enhancing neurogenesis instead.

Do you get that? The whole field takes as axiomatic - “natural truth” - that there is no neurogenesis. Drugs are supplied to millions of people - with no idea how they work.

The idea that scientists are not flying by the seat of their pants is just hoo-hah. They are clearly making it up as they go along.

Here’s another doozy. Do you remember the term “Junk DNA” - scientist passed off, as an aspect of the ‘real world’ the idea that about half of our DNA is garbage. Well, even as a child I knew that wasn’t going to pan out, though I may have arrived at that conclusion by means Karl Popper might not have approved as strictly scientific. Now, it seems, I am right yet again. Two stories, in the past five years, show that this permanent aspect of the real earth - as opposed to the figment of philosopher’s imaginations - was in fact, a figment of some scientific dogmatists hubristic imagination run amuk. “I don’t know what these things do, they must be junk.” Interestingly, salvation for biology in this instance came from the upper registers of mathematics - more Plato than Pasteur - when certain mathematical regularites were discovered in the “Junk” that wasn’t supposed to be there. Biologists, who still haven’t any idea what the non-Junk is doing, have at least been big enough to admit that maybe, just maybe, something is occuring outside the realm of their knowledge.


I think the intellectual traditions of philosophy can thoroughly mess with the lives of men, and always have.

Here is that statement unpacked:

I think that philosophies other than metaphysical naturalism can throughly mess with the lives of men.

I think philosophies other than antiliberalism can thoroughly mess with the minds of men.

I think metaphysical naturalism and antiliberalism are NOT philosophies, because they are natural and real. One is the result of science, which itself rests on no philosophical foundations, and is therefore complete and totally reliable,  and the other is an expression of our recieved natures as revealed by this science, likewise independant of any reflection on our part. My view is therefore the actual truth about the real world, as opposed to what everyone else says which is just talk.

Even Marx is very good about about how powerful communities keep propgandizing an ideology until it is regarded as ‘natural’ and not ‘cultural’. Progressives do this very well, where every action and nation are subject to its utterly false but naturalized ‘metric’. What are you doing in such low company, my friend?

Arise from your semi-recumbent position!

Finally, my purpose in the last paragraph of the post above was not to criticize journalistic talent here, which I respect, but to suggest that the talent here could support three blogs, all of which might be less rancorous and more efficient in getting their points across and attracting like minded individuals. I also, if you recall, began that by praising your post above as an example of “a strongly worded post about a real subject from a definite point of view”. Criticism in a technical sense, but surely constructive criticism.


17

Posted by Matra on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:25 | #

Sunic seems to take the Prindle critique of New Englanders and extends it to European America in general. Reading some of his work I get the impression that he believes Puritanism is essentially Jewish and that it simply follows logically from the acceptance of Christianity - Catholicism included. Christians in accepting Jewish mythology have left the door open to Jewish influence and therefore their complaints about Jews make no sense. In not being able to see this the American “anti-semite” ends up attributing Jewish influence to extraterrestrial powers and conspiracies.

Sunic, however, also rejects genetic science (GW “the only game in town”) as a basis for renewal. Based on his previous work that leads me to think “the only game in town” as far as Sunic is concerned is a return to polytheistic paganism. Although there are still signs of pagan thought after 2000 years of Christianity it wouldn’t be wise for us to pin our hopes on a pagan revival.

Perhaps Dr Sunic can be convinced to respond to this thread and clear up any misconceptions, if there are any, of his work.


18

Posted by Tom Sunic on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:50 | #

Thanks for good, albeit sharp comments regarding my analyses of anti-Semitism and American philo -Semitism in my book Homo americanus - whatever that may mean in Leftist or neocon political semiotics.
It seems to me that most commentators fail to grasp that this endless obsession with Jews and Judaism is a direct offshoot of our self-imposed monotheistic mindset. Europeans took Semitic gods; not the other way around. Its secular transposition resurfaces today under the litany of democracy, liberalism, human rights, globalism, open borders, etc.
It is beyond me why masses of intelligent white Americans turn delirious when reading passages from the Bible. (European anti -Semites are not much better either). Why not get high on Homer? As long one searches for one’s identity by mimicking the Other, the Other will look down upon him as a lesser being.
The position of Jewish self-choseness - which, as a rule, leads to overreachign themselves-  would be very different in an environment where Europeans remained loyal to their pre-Christian sense of the sacred


19

Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:38 | #

Sunic is a European and for that reason completely misunderstands American history. Matra is very to the point: Sunic takes some of the more negative aspects of New Englanders and extends them to “America” in general. I haven’t read his book, but it sounds like he is portraying every American as a capitalizing Babbit, which is ridiculously untrue - we Southerners have always been hopelessly incompetent with money. Compare Franklin to Jefferson.

We’re having a discussion about this on OCD. As for Sunic’s criticism of American racialism, someone should remind him that we are amongst the few people in the entire world who have any considerable experience with this sort of thing, and that insofar as racialism exists at all, we were largely the pioneers of it. With few exceptions, nowhere else in the world has the ideal of a “white man’s country” been as celebrated as it has been in the United States, especially in the American South. This is certainly true of Sunic’s native Serbia which, to my knowledge, has never had anything resembling a racialist tradition.

Sunic is probably right about the emphasis upon genetics over culture. But let us take this point seriously. Consider American culture as opposed to European culture. For centuries, “whiteness” was a defining aspect of the American ethnos. What of France, Germany, Italy, Serbia, etc? Race never played the role there that it does here. On the contrary, the closest thing most European nations have to a tradition of racialism is ethnic nationalism. This was the defining aspect of Nazism and went hand in hand with their contempt for the Czechs, Poles, and Russians which, from an American perspective, makes no sense.

During the 1950s, over 90% of white Americans disapproved of black/white miscegenation. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that a majority of white Americans were willing to say they approved of this. Even Yankees found this extremely distasteful in a way that most Europeans never have.

One last thing: about American racialism and Biblical fundamentalism. Sunic completely ignores the fact that racialism and Calvinism co-existed for three centuries in America and, in fact, the latter complemented the former in many ways. In New England, for example, Yankees imagined themselves as a New Israel in the wilderness with a special providential mission to bring civilization to North America. This enabled them to annihilate the indigenous Indian tribes of the region like the Pequot. What’s more, the American ideal of racial purity owes much to Puritanism, which also came to influence the South in a subtle way during the early republic.

Another example of this: Apartheid South Africa. Calvinism and racialism also went hand in hand there. Predestination and genetic determinism are peas in a pod. Even today, the most racially conservative Americans are evangelical Christians. At the same time, Calvinism often cuts the other way, but in any case, the major problem with America is liberalism, not Christianity.


20

Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:01 | #

Mr. Sunic,

Traditionally, Americans haven’t been “obsessed” with Jews. In fact, Southerners are amongst the most philo-semitic people in the world, and so are the Boers, who also combined racialism with Calvinism. I haven’t read your book, so perhaps I have been grossly misinformed from the comments here and in other threads; if that is the case, I apologize.

Personally, I happen to be an American racialist and a hardcore atheist. Yet I have the “Jew thing” as well. The “Jew thing” is impossible to ignore in America for several reasons:

1.) As it happens, 50% to 60% of American social scientists and humanities professors are of Jewish ethnicity. Thus, in this country, what passes for racial discourse in the academic mainstream is overwhelmingly colored by the Jewish background of most commentators on race relations.

2.) The overwhelming preponderance of Jews in the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. I refer specifically to the Freedom Riders, of whom over 50% were Jewish, the number of Jews who worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the number of Jews who financed the NAACP and the SCLC, the sheer number of Jews in SNCC, often in leadership positions, and so forth.

3.) The legacy of Jewish social and natural scientists upon the concept of race in this country. I have in mind here Franz Boas, Otto Klineberg, Ashley Montagu, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, and others of their ilk. It is in no way inaccurate to say that the leading lights of American anti-racism have been overwhelmingly Jewish by ethnicity.

4.) The decisive role played by Jews like Horace Kallen and the New York Intellectuals in transforming America from the WASP country it was prior to the 1920s to the cosmopolitan, universalist America it became after the mid-1960s. This has been abundantly documented by Eric P. Kaufmann in his book The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America.

Perhaps you can explain to me why Jewish intellectuals and academics, in addition to the organized Jewish community itself, spends so much of its time tearing down racialism and demonizing Americans who take pride in their race. I’m at a loss to understand why this is so. After all, it was my ancestors who welcomed them into this country with open arms and rescued them from Hitler’s Third Reich during the Second World War. I’m by no means a Christian, so my resentments against American Jewry cannot be explained through recourse to monotheism.


21

Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:32 | #

While I am thinking about, I would argue that the conveyor belt of destructive ideologies has operated overwhelmingly in the other direction across history. Tens of millions of Europeans immigrated to America and brought their bad ideas with them, not the other way around.

1.) Liberalism, which became fashionable in Europe during the nineteenth century and was the dominant ideology of Victorian Britain, eventually crossed the Atlantic and took root here. It wasn’t until FDR that America began to adopt a free trade policy.

2.) Cultural anthropology, brought to America by Franz Boas, was racially egalitarian and was the dominant school of thought in 19C Germany. Hereditarianism later became influential in Germany through the influence of Darwin via Haeckel.

3.) Marxism, enough said.

4.) Fascism and Nazism, the influence of which has reduced American racialism to something of a bad joke since the 1960s.

5.) Postmodernism, another European philosophy of French and German origin, the influence of which completely informs the current anti-racist critique of racialism in America.


22

Posted by Tabula Rasa on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:47 | #

It’s an odd argument that mimicking the world’s most ethnocentric religion has rendered us xenophiles.

Jews prosper in this environment because the entire Jewish gestalt is perfectly suited to an environment of rampant materialism and growing chaos. Jews thrive in this environment; they love and propagate chaos. Chaos is probably “their element” like fish and water or birds and the air.  In such an environment of progressive breakdown and disaggregation, the Jewish nomadic mentality is ideal. They form no attachments to anything around themselves and can quite dispassionately wreck somewhere and move on to the next place. Jews are therefore agents in Western decline, but they are not its cause. The cause of Western decline is the lack of a countervailing force or will-to-order. Where that is absent, where the only ideals are material, the “good life” and so on, then the purposeless will always be led around by the purposeful; whether they be Jews or Muslims or Chinese. Perhaps all these groups will be fighting over our collective corpse by the end.

Death and decay can only be arrested by will. But our will has deserted us and all we have is fear.Why? That is the question. And it cannot be answered by looking into microscopes.


23

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:56 | #

For centuries, “whiteness” was a defining aspect of the American ethnos. What of France, Germany, Italy, Serbia, etc? Race never played the role there that it does here. On the contrary, the closest thing most European nations have to a tradition of racialism is ethnic nationalism. This was the defining aspect of Nazism and went hand in hand with their contempt for the Czechs, Poles, and Russians which, from an American perspective, makes no sense

This is just flat out a false statement. Whether it’s the Know-Nothings or the 1924 restictionists, the foundation for their resistance to mass immigration was ethnic nationalism. It had nothing to do with “whiteness”. Americans like Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard divided Europeans into separates races or sub-races or whatever you want to call it. The notion of a prevailing whiteness, if it even existed, was not evident in the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa or Rhodesia. These nations, at a stretch, saw their founders as Nordics, and more specifically as Anglo-Saxon commonwealths.


24

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:24 | #

“Perhaps you can explain to me why Jewish intellectuals and academics, in addition to the organized Jewish community itself, spends so much of its time tearing down racialism and demonizing Americans who take pride in their race. I’m at a loss to understand why this is so.”  (—Scimitar)

Jealousy.  They’re jealous.  Of you

Look, they’re a rival ethnic group (and race).  A large portion of Ulster Catholic antipathy toward Prods can be characterized by the word jealousy.  Ulster Prod antipathy toward Catholics can’t be so characterized because the Prods are in control there:  it’s their society.  Top dogs aren’t jealous of underdogs.  They may disdain them but aren’t jealous of them, there being nothing, from their point of view, to be jealous of.  You don’t feel jealousy toward those who aren’t in control.  When you’re in control and they’re not, they’re your inferiors.  If Ulster Catholics achieved a position of influence over Ulster don’t you think they’d use it to begin tearing down Prod hegemony and erasing every symbol that signified Prod hegemony?  Of course they would.  They’d go at it hammer and tongs.  Jews are no different:  they have no intention of “looking up to” Euro Christians in the West, because they’re not Euro Christians and they’ll be damned if they’re going to be made to feel inferior in that way, looking up to something not just alien to themselves, but which they dislike and consider inferior to boot.  No, they’ll tear down Euro-Christianness first, brick by brick.  As everyone knows, that’s exactly what they’ve been doing, even unto destroying the Euro Christian race they’re so mad, by throwing all their weight for the past one hundred years behind forced race-replacement, which is what they’ve done. 

What motivates Jews is no mystery.  (I mention jealousy but their motivation consists of lots of elements apart from jealousy, pure tribal hatred among them — fear and loathing — and others.) 

To me, the mystery is why no response from Euros?  Certainly a large number of Euro members of the élite mainstream see exactly that deliberate, planned-decades-in-advance race-replacement is being forced on all Eurosphere populations everywhere.  They don’t speak up about it.  There are many Enochs out there who aren’t speaking.  Why?  That for me is the mystery.  If all who see it with crystal clarity spoke up there’d be nothing the Jews could do.  They’d be shown up as a big paper tiger.  In fact, a Euro challenge of that kind would turn a significant portion of today’s race-replacement-supporting Jews (which is to say, about 99.999999999999999999999999999% of Jews) into critics of forced race-replacement:  it would precipitate Jewish infighting, race-replacers against non-race-replacers. 

The big mystery isn’t why the Jews are doing what they’re doing but why almost zero Euro élites oppose it.     

“After all, it was my ancestors who welcomed them into this country with open arms and rescued them from Hitler’s Third Reich during the Second World War.”

Many in the first generation of each wave of Jewish immigration are respectful of the host society and would never dream of tearing it down.  The ones who devote their lives to tearing it down are the second and, especially, third generation Jews.  In a way that’s a compliment because they’re saying they fundamentally like it here:  they feel it’s their society as much as it is the Euros’, and why should they subordinate themselves to Euros?  No, they’ll tear down the Euros and build something more congenial to Jews.


25

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:29 | #

I hadn’t seen Tabula Rasa’s comment before posting mine.  His main point is one of the points I was trying to make.  He makes it better.


26

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:34 | #

“There are many Enochs out there who aren’t speaking.”  (—me, above)

“Enochs” = Enoch Powells, that is, men who see as clearly as he saw but are keeping quiet and just watching it all happen.


27

Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:43 | #

This is just flat out a false statement. Whether it’s the Know-Nothings or the 1924 restictionists, the foundation for their resistance to mass immigration was ethnic nationalism.

That’s ridiculous. It is directly contradicted well over a dozen naturalization laws of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, not to mention by literally hundreds of state and local statutes that specifically used the word “white,” not “Anglo-Saxon,” into the mid-twentieth century.

It had nothing to do with “whiteness”.

That’s an interesting theory. “Whiteness” was the criterion of American naturalization law, not being “Anglo-Saxon.” If the latter had been the case, there never would have been mass European immigration to the United States in the first place. The Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians and so forth were all eligible to come here because they were regarded as being “white” whereas all sorts of other races were excluded until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.

About the “Know Nothings.” Their major objection to Irish immigration was the fact that the Irish were Catholics. They feared that the Irish would conspire with the Pope to destroy American liberty. What’s more, the hysteria that Irish immigration created in New England wasn’t shared by much of the rest of the country, in particular the Democratic South, which was pro-immigration. Yancey, for example, denounced the crude anti-Catholic bigotry of the Know Nothings, most of whom would later join the Republican Party and go on to become Wide Awakes.

Once again, during the 1920s, the anti-Catholic animus of Protestant nationalists was the major motivating factor behind immigration reform, not racial hostility to European immigrants. It is simply a myth that non-Anglo-Saxons suffered from widespread discrimination in the United States. Even Grant and his fellow Nordicists were racialists, not narrowminded ethnic chauvinists of the Hitler and Mussolini variety.

Theodore Roosevelt (of Dutch ancestry), one of the most influential figures of the early twentieth century, comes to mind. He famously glorified the racial nationalism of the American frontier: how it molded diverse European ethnicities into “white men.” As you know, Roosevelt was elected president of the United States, which is hard to explain for a country supposedly based on narrow ethnic nationalism of the sort you seem to be endorsing here.

Amongst the Founders/famous figures of the Revolution, John Jay, John Randolph, and Paul Revere were Huguenots. Pennsylvania and New Jersey were incredibly ethnically diverse. In the South, Louisiana and the Alabama and Mississippi Gulf Coast had been settled by Frenchmen. South Carolina boasted a large population of Huguenots. The Scot-Irish had settled the Southern backcountry. Maryland had a large population of Catholics. Texas and Missouri, of course, large German populations.

O’Sullivan of “Manifest Destiny” fame was an Irishman who, as it happens, lived during the presidency of Martin van Buren, a non-Anglo-Saxon. Amazing for a country supposedly based on ethnic nationalism, how all these non-Anglos went on to play such prominent roles in American life.

Americans like Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard divided Europeans into separates races or sub-races or whatever you want to call it. The notion of a prevailing whiteness, if it even existed, was not evident in the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa or Rhodesia.

Correction: Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were Nordicists, not ethnic chauvinists, who admired the Nordic type of Northwestern Europe, which for centuries had been more or less a synonym for “white” in America. If Grant had been an ethnic nationalist, he would have favored the immigration of English Atlanto-Meds to the U.S. over Nordic Scandinavians. That wasn’t the case at all.

These nations, at a stretch, saw their founders as Nordics, and more specifically as Anglo-Saxon commonwealths.

Actually, the term “white” was more frequently used than any other for centuries to describe the ideal American racial/ethnic type. It is entirely true than the Anglo-Saxons have played a special role in the history of this country, but it is completely wrong to confuse Americanism with, say, English nationalism. No, the American ideal was Anglo-conformity: “white” Europeans becoming WASPs through the “assimilation” of American speech, customs, and mores.

To my knowledge, in all of American history, we have never had an immigration law that restricted immigration to “Nordics” or “Anglo-Saxons.” Even the Immigration Act of 1924 was not a law of this sort. Southern and Eastern Europeans were still eligible to immigrate to the United States, but in reduced numbers; immigration from Northwestern Europe was simply privileged over that from other sources, which is in no way objectionable.


28

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:05 | #

Welcome back, Svi.  I’ve missed your humour and topicality.


29

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:16 | #

Even the Immigration Act of 1924 was not a law of this sort. Southern and Eastern Europeans were still eligible to immigrate to the United States, but in reduced numbers; immigration from Northwestern Europe was simply privileged over that from other sources, which is in no way objectionable.

If S. and E. Europeans were so well accepted and considered universally as white then why the reduction in numbers? If we’re all white together boys, then why a priviledged position for N. W. Europeans?

From KMac:

The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.”

[Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

No mention of universal “whiteness” here, that’s because the notion simply did not exist. The talk, particularly in the US extended at best to Nords, Alpines and Meds, yet men like General George Patton clearly saw himself as a descendant of Anglo-Saxons. Canada, OZ, NZ, and Rhodesia clearly saw themselves as Anglo-Saxon/British people.

One Irishman (Protestant?) is cited as playing a significant role in post-revolutionary America and you cite it as amazing. In antebellum society, the Irish were considered “low-browed, savage, groveling, bestial, lazy, wild, simian, and sensual,” terms almost identical to those describing blacks.

You have to decide. Either the Nordic ideal equated to whiteness in the US or all Europeans were considered white. Which is it?

On any level of genetic assessment are you really saying Pennsylvania and New Jersey were incredibly ethnically diverse? English, some Dutch, and what some French, that’s what you call incredibly ethnically diverse?

To my knowledge, in all of American history, we have never had an immigration law that restricted immigration to “Nordics” or “Anglo-Saxons.”

Flat out untrue. That’s exactly what the 1924 restriction was all about. The fact that a full restriction to Nords, was not accomplished, in no way proves it was not desired?


30

Posted by Matra on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:26 | #

Fred Scrooby:

A large portion of Ulster Catholic antipathy toward Prods can be characterized by the word jealousy.  Ulster Prod antipathy toward Catholics can’t be so characterized because the Prods are in control there:  it’s their society.  Top dogs aren’t jealous of underdogs.

Though I agree in general with the broad point you are making Ulster’s not a good example. The Protestants have not been in control of NI since (at least) 1972 when Red Tory Ted Heath ended devolution and replaced it with direct rule from London. Sort of like an American president abolishing Alabama’s legislature, sending in federal troops, then putting all racial issues in the state under the control of a cabinet minister and a new department of bureaucrats.

Scimitar:

About the “Know Nothings.” Their major objection to Irish immigration was the fact that the Irish were Catholics. They feared that the Irish would conspire with the Pope to destroy American liberty.

There may have also been an ethnic component. Historically the English and Scottish and their descendants in the New World had a low opinion of so-called native Irish. Sometimes it spilled over to Scotch-Irish Protestants though mostly just in New England.

Scimitar:

The Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians and so forth were all eligible to come here because they were regarded as being “white” whereas all sorts of other races were excluded until the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.

But the numbers of them were restricted. Prior to the 1920s most of the immigrants came from those countries so what caused the anti-immigration backlash in the first place? It couldn’t have been non-white immigration. Politicians at the time referred specifically to America’s Anglo-Saxon heritage.


31

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:34 | #

WM,

I am looking at your prolixatious comment while I still have a few moments this evening.  For starters, did you know that Brian Goodwin appeals to the authority of Stephen Jay Gould on his personal page at Edge.org?

Goodwin is not a Jew, btw.  He is a professor of biology at a college in England specialising entirely in sustainability studies.  He teaches on “Holistic Science”.  He is an innovator - even a revolutionary - in his adopted field, and seemingly a lone voice.  His meaning, shared with Gould, is that evolution has “no purpose, no progress, no sense of direction.”

I don’t know where you dug this guy up from, but do you think you could find someone with a little more mainstream credibility?


32

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:35 | #

Matra thanks for that correction:  I didn’t know Red Ted had done that.  But I’m glad my point about jealousy motivating the Jews came across nonetheless.


33

Posted by Matra on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:43 | #

From Max Dimont’s The Jews In America (I picked it up for $1 at a second hand shop recently):

Statistics reflect America’s general concern with the policy of unrestricted immigration. From 1820 to 1870, about 6,700,000 Europeans had emigrated to the United states. Of these, 1 per cent were from Eatern Europe, and 99 percent (mostly of Anglo-Saxon and nordic origin) from Western Europe. But from 1870 to 1930 a total of 25,500,000 European immigrants arrived on America’s shores. Of these, 57 percent were from Eastern Europe.

Though antipathy to the flood of Jewish immigrations was also apparent in the sentiment against unrestricted immigration, anti-Semtism and racism were not the only motives. Americans were worried about the ethnic “character” of their nation. Should it be preponderantly Slavic and Catholic, or Nordic and Protestant? This is a legitimate concern of a country. Just as Israel wishes to remain a Jewish nation and therefore holds other religions to a minority status, just as Finland wishes to remain a Protestant Finnish nation…so america, by and large, preferred to be an Anglo-Saxon and Nordic nation.

(I’m surprised a Jew would write something like that. The book was published in 1978).

It was only when the immigrants were no longer majority Anglo-Saxon/Nordic that Americans got serious about immigration control.


34

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:04 | #

Madison Grant:

The native American by the middle of the nineteenth century was rapidly becoming a distinct type. Derived from the Teutonic part of the British Isles, and being almost purely Nordic, he was on the point of developing physical peculiarities of his own, slightly variant from those of his English forefathers, and corresponding rather with the idealistic Elizabethan than with the materialistic Hanoverian Englishman. The Civil War, however, put a severe, perhaps fatal, check to the development and expansion of this splendid type, by destroying great numbers of the best breeding stock on both sides, and by breaking up the home ties of many more. If the war had not occurred these same men with their descendants would have populated the Western States instead of the racial nondescripts who are now flocking there.


35

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:15 | #

Matra that excerpt from Max Dimont is indeed a jaw-dropper coming from the pen of a Jew.  (It would be nothing remarkable coming from the pen of a Euro.)  May God bless Mr. Dimont for writing it!  Thank you for posting it.


36

Posted by NeoNietzsche on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:15 | #

====================
Mr. Sunic,

Traditionally, Americans haven’t been “obsessed” with Jews. In fact, Southerners are amongst the most philo-semitic people in the world, and so are the Boers, who also combined racialism with Calvinism. I haven’t read your book, so perhaps I have been grossly misinformed from the comments here and in other threads; if that is the case, I apologize.

Personally, I happen to be an American racialist and a hardcore atheist. Yet I have the “Jew thing” as well. The “Jew thing” is impossible to ignore in America for several reasons: ...
====================

As another “hardcore atheist,” I affirm the “several reasons” listed by ‘Scimitar” - and add reference to the treacherous role played by elite Jewry in conducting the catastrophic foreign policy of what I refer to as “Greater Judea”.

The disaster of the First World War, in which they involved us for Zion, was made the foundation of the Second - and the Second World War, in which they involved us for the Soviet, arranged the contestants of the Third. One is embarrassed at having to mention the present Neo-con adventure in Iraq as too obvious a pretext for serious concern with mendacious Jewish influence on “American” foreign policy.


37

Posted by triad60 on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:43 | #

Maguire

How much have you read of Michael Hoffman and
do you follow his blog or bi-monthly newsletters ?
I noticed a reply to one of your comments several
days ago was not so kind to him considering he’s
stuck his neck out further than most to identify
the Edomite problem.

triad60


38

Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 02:34 | #

Svigor, I’ve given up on Sailer’s comments (and his blog) after the last one got censored in the Harry Potter thread.

You had said something about Harry being “somewhat Jewish looking”, and I had responded (paraphrasing) that he’s more of a proto-Jew, someone with dark hair who acts in the role of the Jew. They’re hardly going to make “Hyman Podhoretz and the Quest to Stamp out the Last Racially Aware Goyim”, are they, casting Haley Joel Osment in the lead role?

Then I checked with imdb, LMAO!!!
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005286/bio

“(Osment) Was wanted by Steven Spielberg to play Harry Potter when Spielberg was considered to direct Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001).”

My thought processes were “Hmmm, child revolutionary (perhaps Jewish) leads battle within English public school setting against Germanics hostile to miscegenation? Who to cast… Corey Feldman? Nope, too old, too funny, not innocent enough. Haley Joel Osment? Bingo! But of course, correct theories would never have predictive power, would they. (And this is something Sailer is supposedly very keen about, if you read his blog.)

*************

As to your “guilt by association”, yes, this is used ALL THE TIME. You make the villain represent the ideas and people you want your audience to hate. It’s similar to caricature. The goal is that the mass of people can’t think at all about certain subjects without hating, without fearing, without ridiculing, without arguing, without laughing, anything but embracing.

This technique probably predates the play, heralding back to oral stories. The main difference is that the Jew (or the native conman) uses it to subvert his audience, the host nation may use this technique to foster beneficial values (although it’s often enough just to point out the bad consequences of the action in that case).

Really, study in the methods of propaganda should be mandatory for any of our children.


39

Posted by second class citizen on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:09 | #

Tom Sunic:
“It seems to me that most commentators fail to grasp that this endless obsession with Jews and Judaism is a direct offshoot of our self-imposed monotheistic mindset. Europeans took Semitic gods; not the other way around. Its secular transposition resurfaces today under the litany of democracy, liberalism, human rights, globalism, open borders, etc.”

I’d hesitate to call the obsession with Semitic gods to be “self imposed”. That would ignore the role of Saul of Tarsus, who sold this primitive form of Marxism to the Romans.

And of Charlemagne for that matter.


40

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:33 | #

“I noticed a reply to one of your comments several
days ago was not so kind to [Michael Hoffman]”
  (—Triad60)

I think the reply Triad60 means is this one by me.  I’d like to say I think this man Hoffman is worth reading.  If some of his stuff is tinfoil hat stuff — which some is — it doesn’t take that away.


41

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:34 | #

Scimitar,

What’s more, the hysteria that Irish immigration created in New England wasn’t shared by much of the rest of the country, in particular the Democratic South, which was pro-immigration.

Shocking. Democrats pandering for ethnic votes.

Theodore Roosevelt (of Dutch ancestry)

Out of four grandparents, three had surnames originating in the British Isles.

Amongst the Founders/famous figures of the Revolution, John Jay, John Randolph, and Paul Revere were Huguenots.

No. Jay was half Dutch. Randolph is obviously not “a Huguenot”, and I don’t even know that anyone has claimed he had any such ancestry. Revere’s mother was from Boston (i.e., most likely of English ancestry).

England itself experienced Huguenot immigration. Does this invalidate English ethnic nationalism? (Note: I’m not saying American ethnic nationalism was English ethnic nationalism; it wasn’t, especially after Independence. But I believe an American ethnic nationalism did develop, and it was not broadly-interpreted “white” nationalism.)

Maryland had a large population of Catholics.

“Large”? Maybe compared to the near-zero Catholic populations in the other colonies. According to Wikipedia (and this accords with everything else I’ve read on the topic), “at the time of the American Revolution, Catholics formed less than 1% of the population of the thirteen colonies.”

O’Sullivan of “Manifest Destiny” fame was an Irishman

Half-English.

Martin van Buren, a non-Anglo-Saxon

And what about the previous seven presidents? Anyway, the Dutch are extremely closely related to the English and Van Buren’s forebears settled in North America almost as early as the English.

Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were Nordicists, not ethnic chauvinists, who admired the Nordic type of Northwestern Europe, which for centuries had been more or less a synonym for “white” in America.

Exactly. And when “whites” of less compatible backgrounds immigrated in significant numbers, how did the natives react?

To my knowledge, in all of American history, we have never had an immigration law that restricted immigration to “Nordics” or “Anglo-Saxons.” Even the Immigration Act of 1924 was not a law of this sort. Southern and Eastern Europeans were still eligible to immigrate to the United States, but in reduced numbers; immigration from Northwestern Europe was simply privileged over that from other sources, which is in no way objectionable.

As Desmond has pointed out, if all “whites” were considered interchangeable there would not have been a backlash to southern and eastern European immigration and restriction would not have occurred. Nor were people like Grant and Laughlin content their job was done after 1924.

Some context, from David Hackett Fischer:

As late as 1900 nearly 60 percent of Americans had been of British stock. The old English-speaking cultures still firmly maintained their hegemony in the United States. But that pattern was changing very rapidly. By 1920 the proportion of Americans with British ancestry had fallen to 41 percent. Still, three-quarters of the nation came from northwestern Europe, but other ethnic stocks from eastern and southern Europe were growing at a formidable rate.

As always when threatened from abroad, the four Anglo-Saxon cultures joined together in the 1920s to restrict the flow of the new immigration. Every region voted as one on this question—so much so that the immigration restriction bill of 1921 passed the Senate by a margin of 78-1. The House of Representatives approved it in a few hours without even bothering to take a roll-call.

Albion’s Seed, pp. 871-872

According to Grant:

[Germans were] there only non-British element of importance in the colonies. At the time of the Revolution the Germans numbered about a quarter of a million and by 1790 they have been computed to have been about 9 percent of the total population of the colonies.

The Conquest of a Continent, p. 79

(And of course even these German immigrants had their detractors.)

See also, e.g.:

American Surnames in 1790
In the states for which the schedules of the First Census still exist there were 27,337 surnames in 1790. It is impossible to compute from this figure the number of surnames in the entire United States at the date of the First Census, but the fact that the states for which the schedules are lacking, with the exception of New Jersey, were settled largely by English immigrants, suggests the probability that the names in addition to those appearing upon the existing schedules were comparatively few in number. It is thus probable that the entire number of surnames in the United States at that period did not much exceed 30,000.
A large preponderance of English and Scotch names appears upon the schedules of the First Census. The proportion, indeed, is so large that these two nationalities embrace substantially the entire population, with the exception of that of certain sections, principally in New York, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. Moreover, inspection of the names conveys the impression that they were largely of Anglo-Saxon origin.
[. . .]
Of the total number of surnames reported in the United States, almost exactly half were returned for Pennsylvania. This was nearly double the number returned for any other state—probably because of the large proportion of Germans composing the population of that state. It is clear that the occurrence of more than one nationality as an element of population tends to increase greatly the number of surnames. In general, the number of surnames was smallest in the New England states, where the proportion of British stock was greatest. In South Carolina, with a population no larger than that of Main, the number of surnames was more than double the number reported upon the Maine schedules. In all the states the number of surnames occurring but once—that is, as represented by one family—was very much greater than the occurrence of surnames represented by even two families. In New England the number of single surnames was almost exactly three times as great in each state as the number represented by two families.

Adapted from “Surnames of the White Population in 1790,” A Century of Population Growth: From the First Census of the United States to the Twelfth 1790-1900 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1901), pp. 111-115.
http://www.genealogymagazine.com/surnames1790.html

I believe the precise estimate I’ve seen based on analysis of surnames is that U.S. white population was 90% British in 1790.

As for the views of Southerners:

  . . . that the greater desirability of the northern Italian is recognized wherever experience has been had with both northern and southern Italians . . . The Governor of one state in the heart of the industrial South . . . writes as follows:—

  “. . . We prefer very greatly the northern Europeans, but could use handsomely to their profit and to the profit of our people, some from northern Italy . . . I am certain that we do not want and we should insist that we do not get, people from the southern parts of Italy . . . “

  (Immigration and the South, The Atlantic Monthly, November 1905)


42

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:49 | #

If S. and E. Europeans were so well accepted and considered universally as white then why the reduction in numbers? If we’re all white together boys, then why a priviledged position for N. W. Europeans?

I have already addressed this. Southern and Eastern Europeans were not Protestants and were considered less Nordic than Northwestern Europeans. This is not to say they weren’t considered “white.” If that had been the case, then the Jim Crow laws would have applied to them and they would never have been eligible to naturalize as U.S. citizens in the first place.

During the nineteenth century, the Anglo-Saxons were touted as being the “whitest” of the Europeans because of their fair skin. The Irish, Germans, Scandinavians and so forth were considered “white,” but less so than the Anglo-Saxons. The Immigration Act of 1924 did nothing but privilege immigration from Northwestern Europe over other sources. It absolutely did not eliminate European immigration from non-Nordic sources. Southern and Eastern Europeans have always been eligible to immigrate to the United States and naturalize as American citizens.

The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

Actually, I have that quote posted on my website and I am quite familiar with it. Vaile is saying nothing here other than the Anglo-Saxons built America and enjoy a privileged place within it. He is not saying at all that non-Anglo-Saxons cannot be Americans, only that immigration should not disrupt the traditional ethnic balance of the country.

No mention of universal “whiteness” here, that’s because the notion simply did not exist.

Are you familiar with the Jim Crow laws? Apparently not.

The talk, particularly in the US extended at best to Nords, Alpines and Meds, yet men like General George Patton clearly saw himself as a descendant of Anglo-Saxons. Canada, OZ, NZ, and Rhodesia clearly saw themselves as Anglo-Saxon/British people.

Once again, if you look at the actual federal and state statutes, as well as the local ordinances, the term “white” is used far more frequently than “Anglo-Saxon” or “Nordic.” In fact, the latter two are almost never used. BTW, I am still ignorant of your nationality. Are you an American?

One Irishman (Protestant?) is cited as playing a significant role in post-revolutionary America and you cite it as amazing. In antebellum society, the Irish were considered “low-browed, savage, groveling, bestial, lazy, wild, simian, and sensual,” terms almost identical to those describing blacks.

That’s utterly false. To compare the treatment of the Irish to the negro is, to put it mildly, ludicrous. Name for me a single law in the history of the United States that ever discriminated against the Irish as Irish. Southerners were pro-Irish. During the Great Famine, Southerners organized a relief effort to alleviate the famine in Ireland. Refugees from Ireland were also warmly received in the South. The Irish established communities throughout Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia and fought bravely for the Confederacy during our Civil War. See David Gleeson’s The Irish in the South, 1815-1877 for the most thorough account of the subject. Irish immigrants in the North were allied to Southerners in the Democratic Party. During Reconstruction, Irish rioted throughout the South against forced integration, and during the Civil War famously in the New York City Draft Riots.

John L. O’Sullivan wasn’t just any Irish-American either. He coined the concept “Manifest Destiny” which justified the conquest of the American West during the 19C. He was a close friend of Nathaniel Hawthorne.

From Gleeson’s book:

Native tolerance, however, was also a very important factor in Irish integration [into Southern society].... Upper-class southerners, therefore, did not object to the Irish, because Irish immigration never threatened to overwhelm their cities or states….The Irish were willing to take on potentially high-mortality occupations, thereby sparing valuable slave property. Some employers objected not only to the cost of Irish labor but also to the rowdiness of their foreign-born employees. Nevertheless, they recognized the importance of the Irish worker to the protection of slavery. The Irish endorsement of slavery and the efforts of the Irish to preserve the South as “a white man’s country” after emancipation only endeared them further to southerners. The Catholicism practiced by Irish immigrants was of little concern to Southern natives.

Gleeson, 192-193

You have to decide. Either the Nordic ideal equated to whiteness in the US or all Europeans were considered white. Which is it?

The term “Nordic” was infrequently used in America until the early twentieth century. The term “white” was always by far the most common and dates back to the mid-seventeenth century. In the minds of most Americans, “Nordic” and “white” were used interchangeably as synonyms to reference people of Northwestern European ancestry. This isn’t to say that non-Nordic Europeans were considered “nonwhite,” only that they were less white than, say, the English or the Danes.

On any level of genetic assessment are you really saying Pennsylvania and New Jersey were incredibly ethnically diverse? English, some Dutch, and what some French, that’s what you call incredibly ethnically diverse?

The Mid-Atlantic colonies, Pennsylvania and New Jersey in particular, were ethnically diverse at the time of the American Revolution. Both colonies had large populations of Germans, Scots, Irish, Danes, Swedes. New York, of course, had the most Dutchmen. Were these colonies ethnically diverse? Yes, they were. German and English are closely related, but distinct languages. Dutch also. Since when has it ever been the case that non-Anglos cannot become Americans? I’m not aware of that view ever being predominant in the United States.

Flat out untrue. That’s exactly what the 1924 restriction was all about. The fact that a full restriction to Nords, was not accomplished, in no way proves it was not desired?

Poles, Italians, Czechs, Hungarians and so forth were still eligible to immigrate to the U.S. under the Immigration Act of 1924. Once again, you can’t point out to me a single immigration law in all of American history that restricted immigration to Anglo-Saxons or Nordics. The criterion that mattered was “whiteness” from 1790 until 1952. You are also forgetting that many of the states which supported the Immigration Act of 1924, in particular, the states of the Mountain West and Great Plains had been colonized by Germans and Scandinavians.


43

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:51 | #

”. . . that the greater desirability of the northern Italian is recognized wherever experience has been had with both northern and southern Italians . . . The Governor of one state in the heart of the industrial South . . . writes as follows:—

“. . . We prefer very greatly the northern Europeans, but could use handsomely to their profit and to the profit of our people, some from northern Italy . . . I am certain that we do not want and we should insist that we do not get, people from the southern parts of Italy . . . “

I love stuff like this.  I love people defending themselves and their group.  That people were talking like this as recently as 1905 reassures me as to the potential future prospects for restoration of society’s former sanity, goodness, normalness, health, and strength.


44

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:53 | #

(I was quoting there from “required’s” comment, three above.)


45

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:57 | #

The definition of an American, according to Harry Laughlin (unpublished):

Definition of the American race
Suitable for Legal and Technical Use,—and for General Understanding

Racially, an American is a Caucasian each of whose ancestral lines traces directly to a member of the foundation racial stock of the American people, or to a race-assimilant thereto who was fully assimilated thereby.

(a) The foundation racial stock of the American people consists in all Caucasians who were inhabitants of the territory of the original United States at the consummation of American independence, September 3, 1783.

(b) A race-assimilant to the foundation racial stock of the American people is a person readily assimilable thereby on account of nearness in blood-kinship thereto; such a person is a Caucasian all of whose ancestral lines trace directly to one or more of those previously established European races which furnished the ethnic elements of the foundation racial stock of the American people.


46

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:07 | #

But I believe an American ethnic nationalism did develop, and it was not broadly-interpreted “white” nationalism.)

Is that so? Let’s run through some quotes I just happened to post on my website today from the Antebellum era, Southerners and Northerners alike:

Robert Toombs

“This Republic was born of the soul of a race of pioneer white freemen who settled on our continent and built an altar within its forest cathedral to Liberty and Progress. In the record of man, has the Negro ever dreamed this dream?”

“Well, sir, the question of Slavery moves not the people of Georgia, one-half as much as the fact that you insult their rights as a Community. You Abolitionists are right when you say, that there are thousands and tens of thousands of men in Georgia, and all over the South, who do not own slaves. A very large portion of the people of Georgia own none of them. In the mountains, there are comparatively few of them; but no part of our people are more loyal to their race and country, than our bold and brave mountain population; and every flash of the electric wires brings me cheering news from our mountain tops, and our valleys, that these Sons of Georgia are excelled by none of their countrymen in loyalty to the rights, the honor, and the glory of the Commonwealth. They say, and well say, this is our question; we want no Negro equality, no Negro citizenship; we want no mongrel race to degrade our own; and as one man, they would meet you upon the border with the sword in one hand, and the torch in the other. We will tell you when we choose to abolish this thing; it must be done under our direction, and according to our will; our own, our native land, shall determine this question, and not the Abolitionists of the North. That is the spirit of our freemen.”

William Lowndes Yancey

Our master “idea,” added William L. Yancey, is that every “white man is the equal of every other white man. The second idea is that the negro is the inferior race.”

Freehling, 39

“Rehashing the condemnation of race relations in New England that he had spouted in Congress fifteen years before, Yancey scoffed, the Bay State allowed blacks to practice law and to vote. In the South, he boasted, “we have a white government; yours seems to be a mulatto government.” America’s founders never designed that. On the contrary, Yancey lectured, the founders knew that whites were “the master race.” . . .

As he had done in Boston, at Syracuse again Yancey zealously defended slavery and attacked its foes. When the founding fathers said all men were created equal, Yancey insisted that they meant those among “the dominant race, the ruling race, the Caucasian race, the white race, their own race.”

Walther, 266

“Wild, impracticable and false notions, as to the equality of the human race, got abroad both here and in Europe,” he explained, because the world had so long suffered from absolute despotism, “that the rebound of opinion went far beyond the line of truth.”

Walther, 232

John C. Calhoun

“…it is without example or precedent, wither to hold Mexico as a province, or to incorporate her into our Union. No example of such a line of policy can be found. We have conquered many of the neighboring tribes of Indians, but we have never thought of holding them in subjection—never of incorporating them into our Union. They have either been left as an independent people amongst us, or been driven into the forests.

I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped—the Portuguese at least to some extent—and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project.

Sir, it is a remarkable fact, that in the whole history of man, as far as my knowledge extends, there is no instance whatever of any civilized colored races being found equal to the establishment of free popular government, although by far the largest portion of the human family is composed of these races. And even in the savage state we scarcely find them anywhere with such government, except it be our noble savages—for noble I will call them. They, for the most part, had free institutions, but they are easily sustained among a savage people. Are we to overlook this fact? Are we to associate with ourselves as equals, companions, and fellow-citizens, the Indians and mixed race of Mexico? Sir, I should consider such a thing as fatal to our institutions.”

Alexander Stephens

“The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

Texas Declaration of Secession

“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”

David Wilmot

“The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent. Let us keep what remains for ourselves, and our children — for the emigrant that seeks our shores — for the poor man, that wealth shall oppress — for the free white laborer, who shall desire to hew him out a home of happiness and peace, on the distant shores of the mighty Pacific.”

William Seward

“The population of the United States consists of natives of Caucasian origin, and exotics of the same derivation. The native mass readily assimilates to itself and absorbs the exotic, and these constitute one homogenous people. The African race, bond and free, and the aborigines, savage and civilised, being incapable of such assimilation and absorption, remain distinct, and, owing to their peculiar condition, constitute inferior masses, and may be regarded as accidental if not disturbing political forces. The ruling homogenous family, planted at first on the Atlantic shore, and following an obvious law, is seen rapidly and continually spreading itself westward, year by year, subduing the wilderness and the prairie, and thus extending this great political community, which, as fast as it advances, breaks into distinct States for municipal purposes only, while the whole constitutes one entire, contiguous, and compact nation.”

“The interests of the white race demand the ultimate emancipation of all men. The white man needs this continent to labor upon…. He must and will have it.”

Benjamin Wade

“The Senator from Illinois [Douglas] and my collegue [Pugh] have said that we Black Republicans were advocates of negro equality, and that we wanted to build up a black government. Sir, it will be one of the most blessed ideas of the times, if it shall come to this, that we will make inducements to every free black among us to find his home in a more congenial climate in Central America or Lower Mexico, and we will be divested of every one of them; and then, endowed with the splendid domain that we shall get, we will adopt a homestead policy, and we will invite the poor, the destitute, industrious white man from every clime under heaven, to come in here and make his fortune. So, sir, we will build up a nation, renovated by this process, of white laboring men.”

Stephen Douglas

“I hold that this government was made on the white basis, by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever.”


47

Posted by Thomas on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:08 | #

A bit off topic, but there was and still is a movement/party, Lega Nord, in Italy who want to have the northern Italians break away and from the southern Italians.  I have spent some time in Italy for work and I have heard from Italians, something to the effect of, “everything south of Naples (or sometimes Rome) is Africa” etc, Sicilians sometimes referred to as “SDD” small dark and dirty, etc…Looking back into history, there is a very strong Nordic admixture in Italy and there has been since before historical times even.  As a side note, the men who seemed to have been most successful at ruling the Italians with ability were Nordics/Normans, Roger the Norman comes to mind and the Italians seemed to prosper best under them.   
Now having said all that, I happen to be part Sicilian (the rest is Croatian, Polish, and a dash of German).  I believe that Nordic/Protestant cultural/racial/intellectual/religious norms, or whatever you want to call them, are responsible for making lesser developed Mediterranean stock into a more sucessful people, and thank God for it!  Seeing the traditional appearance/behavior/culture of the southern Italians, I am not surprised that Southerners would not want them. 

Great site and thanks for the opportunity to ramble a bit.  Now flame away if necessary.


48

Posted by Matra on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:10 | #

Amongst the Founders/famous figures of the Revolution, John Jay, John Randolph, and Paul Revere were Huguenots. Pennsylvania and New Jersey were incredibly ethnically diverse. In the South, Louisiana and the Alabama and Mississippi Gulf Coast had been settled by Frenchmen. South Carolina boasted a large population of Huguenots. The Scot-Irish had settled the Southern backcountry. Maryland had a large population of Catholics. Texas and Missouri, of course, large German populations.

Anglo-Saxon is usually used in an inclusive way to include those Europeans who submerged their identity into that of the greater English-speaking society.  The term is imprecise to begin with but it is better than “Anglo-Celtic/Saxon/Nordic plus a few Huguenots”. I’ve never heard of Scandinavians, Dutch, and Germans whose native tongue is English being rejected. Despite the “wogs begin at Calais” saying the British have always seen the French as white, unlike some other Europeans, and have never objected to a small number of them integrating into Anglo-Saxon nations. Huguenots, whether in England, Protestant Ireland or the New World always submerged their identity into that of the Anglo-Saxon community. It wasn’t like Quebec. Scots-Irish is another imprecise term as many have English (and Huguenot) ancestors and they intermarried with those of exclusively English descent without any difficulties. They were both a part of a greater British Isles Protestant identity. 

BTW Tomislav Sunic is Croatian.


49

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:19 | #

I’m Slavic, southern German, and Hebrew.  That in no way keeps me from applauding what Congressman Vaile said in that 1924 Congressional Record.  On the contrary, I applaud it with every ounce of strength in my body.  I adore it.


50

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:23 | #

To quantify the “incredibly ethnically diverse” American founding population, here are the numbers according to Laughlin (Immigration and Conquest, p. 56; percentage of population, based on the 1790 census):

France:  .6
Germany:  5.64
Great Britain and North Ireland: 89.67
Netherlands: 2.5
Sweden: .26


51

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:28 | #

Scimitar,

As you’ve already admitted, “white” in early America was synonymous with “northwestern European”. Quote Americans saying “white” all you like, but unless you can prove otherwise, they were referring to themselves, their ancestors and descendants, and compatible immigrants. They were not talking about Sicilians, Greeks, or Romanians.


52

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:37 | #

Continuing with the quotes above:

Theodore Bilbo

“If our buildings, our highways, and our railroads should be wrecked, we could rebuild them. If our cities should be destroyed, out of the very ruins we could erect newer and greater ones. Even if our armed might should be crushed, we could rear sons who would redeem our power. But if the blood of our White race should become corrupted and mingled with the blood of Africa, then the present greatness of the United States of America would be destroyed and all hope for civilization would be as impossible for a Negroid America as would be redemption and restoration of the Whiteman’s blood which had been mixed with that of the Negro.”

Abraham Lincoln

“What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept free from [slavery] while in the territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes that we have no interest in them — that we have no right whatever to interfere. I think we have some interest. I think that as white men we have…. Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home — may find some spot where they can better their condition — where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people every where, the world over.”

“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

...[W]hy… should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave the country? This is, perhaps, the first question for consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

You here are freemen, I suppose… but even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoys…. Owing to the existence of the two races on this continent, I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery.

I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition — the country engaged in war — our white men cutting one another’s throats — none knowing how far it will extend — and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other…. It is better for us both therefore to be separated….”

“I have urged the colonization of the negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks.

I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal….

Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed of, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whose assimilation is neither possible nor desirable.”

William Tecumseh Sherman

“all the Congresses on earth can’t make the negro anything else than what he is; he must be subject to the white man, or he must amalgamate or be destroyed. Two such races cannot live in harmony, save as master and slave.”


53

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:38 | #

It is beyond me why masses of intelligent white Americans turn delirious when reading passages from the Bible. (European anti -Semites are not much better either). Why not get high on Homer? As long one searches for one’s identity by mimicking the Other, the Other will look down upon him as a lesser being.

Mr. Sunic -

The Other agrees with you.

From Simone Weil, “The Iliad or The Poem of Force”

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


54

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:45 | #

Anglo-Saxon is usually used in an inclusive way to include those Europeans who submerged their identity into that of the greater English-speaking society.  [. . .] Huguenots, whether in England, Protestant Ireland or the New World always submerged their identity into that of the Anglo-Saxon community.

Matra is of course correct.

“Huguenot” John Jay:
<blockquote>
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
</bockquote>


55

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:51 | #

William Tecumseh Sherman

“all the Congresses on earth can’t make the negro anything else than what he is; he must be subject to the white man, or he must amalgamate or be destroyed. Two such races cannot live in harmony, save as master and slave.”

Boy, in his army career Sherman certainly did all he could to act contrary to the spirit and letter of that opinion of his (an opinion I bet he kept private while he was “marching through Georgia ...”).


56

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:58 | #

Scimitar,

You are showing that non-whites were widely considered incompatible and undesirable by white Americans. No one disputes this. You have not shown that white Americans considered all Europeans interchangeable or equally desirable as immigrants. In fact, you have acknowledged this was not the case. I do not dispute that Americans have historically been “racially aware” with respect to negroes and Amerinds. I do dispute that they were utopian, pan-Europeanists with no ethnic identity beyond “white”.


57

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:02 | #

Scimitar,

As you’ve already admitted, “white” in early America was synonymous with “northwestern European”. Quote Americans saying “white” all you like, but unless you can prove otherwise, they were referring to themselves, their ancestors and descendants, and compatible immigrants. They were not talking about Sicilians, Greeks, or Romanians.

As the gallery can plainly see, the notion that “whiteness” was of no importance to Americans is plainly false. On the contrary, Northerners and Southerners alike were unanimous in their belief that America was a “white man’s country” and desired to keep it that way. As I have shown on my blog, Ulrich B. Phillips famously argued that the preservation of America as a “white man’s country” was the central theme of Southern history. See also the quotes from Lincoln and Wade about welcoming white men from the world over to settle in the great American West. That’s exactly what happened.

The United States has a strong tradition of racial nationalism that dates back to the mid-seventeenth century. “Whiteness” was an important marker of the American ethnos until the mid-twentieth century. European immigrants could become “American” by jettisoning their ethnic identities to become “white men.” The ideal immigrant was the Nordic racial type, but other Europeans were always welcomed here.

You argue that Italians, Greeks, Romanians etc. were not considered “white.” Once again, if that was the case, then they never would have been eligible to immigrate here in the first place, and would have been excluded under our naturalization laws. These populations might have been considered “less Nordic” than Danes, but that didn’t disquality them from immigrating to America.

This tradition of racial nationalism has served Americans well over the centuries. Fortunately for us, North America didn’t become a seething cauldron of ethnic bigotry and hatred, and Americans were largely spared the bloody history of Europe during the 20C. I say largely because there was one exception to this - the American Civil War, the most destructive conflict in our history, but that was largely about political differences within the Union.

What is known today as “White Nationalism” is an idea as old as America. During the 19C, it was popularly known as “free soilism” - keeping the Western territories racially pure for the white laborer. See the quote from Wilmot above.


58

Posted by Maguire on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:24 | #

Triad60,

“How much have you read of Michael Hoffman”

I’ve read three of his books; “They Were White And They Were Slaves”; “Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare”; and “Judaism’s Strange Gods.”

The first and last remain very worthwhile since they were structured as academic efforts. 

The second, “Secret Societies”, is best described as literary LSD.  It’s becoming a bit dated, as are the influence networks it partly documents.  Very much a part of late 1980s early 1990s culture.  It’s still a very interesting read.  The “Cryptocracy” however is no longer as cryptic as it once was.

“and do you follow his blog or bi-monthly newsletters?”

I read his blog every few months.  I don’t subscribe to his newsletters. 

“identify the Edomite problem.”

To publicize it in the late 1980s & 1990s, perhaps. 

“Maguire”


59

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:27 | #

Scimitar,

You are showing that non-whites were widely considered incompatible and undesirable by white Americans. No one disputes this.

1.) Desmond disputed this above: that “whiteness” was ever an important theme in American history. He argued otherwise.

2.) You argued above, “But I believe an American ethnic nationalism did develop, and it was not broadly-interpreted “white” nationalism.)”

^^ This isn’t true. “Whiteness” was the very basis of American nationalism, as we can see.

You have not shown that white Americans considered all Europeans interchangeable or equally desirable as immigrants. In fact, you have acknowledged this was not the case.

I have argued that our immigration laws were based on the criterion of “whiteness.” This excluded some populations, but allowed others to immigrate here. First, non-Anglo-Saxons have always been able to immigrate to the United States and naturalize as citizens. Obviously, that was because the American ethnos was defined racially, not in the narrow sense of having an English bloodline. Second, non-Nordics have always been eligible to immigrate here as well. The Nordic may have been preferred to the non-Nordic, but the non-Nordic was never excluded on those grounds.

I do not dispute that Americans have historically been “racially aware” with respect to negroes and Amerinds.

Yes. I would add that this wasn’t the case in Europe. Racial identity, or the sense of being “white,” was never of any importance to most Europeans. The American tradition of racial nationalism and European ethnic nationalism are two entirely different things. The former is incredibly more expansive than the latter.

I do dispute that they were utopian, pan-Europeanists with no ethnic identity beyond “white”.

“White” encompassed all European populations, even if Americans regarded some Europeans as being “whiter” or “more Nordic” than others. Again, if that was not the case, then Russians, Sicilians, Spaniards, Croats, Poles, Romanians etc. would not have been allowed to immigrate here in the first place.

I agree with you that there is such a thing as an American ethnos. The Americans were 1.) white in race, 2.) English in speech, 3.) Christian in religion, and 4.) republicans in political ideology . . . at least until the mid-twentieth century. That’s what it meant to be an “American.”


60

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:38 | #

Matra,

There may have also been an ethnic component. Historically the English and Scottish and their descendants in the New World had a low opinion of so-called native Irish. Sometimes it spilled over to Scotch-Irish Protestants though mostly just in New England.

Sure, I agree that there was an ethnic element to the American nativist movement of the 1850s, but it is still true that ethnic resentments were never their primary concern. They were motivated above all else by the fear that Irish Catholics would take orders from the Vatican and subvert the American Republic.

But the numbers of them were restricted. Prior to the 1920s most of the immigrants came from those countries so what caused the anti-immigration backlash in the first place? It couldn’t have been non-white immigration. Politicians at the time referred specifically to America’s Anglo-Saxon heritage.

1.) The immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were overwhelmingly non-Protestants. They also tended to reject temperance which the major political crusade of the 1920s.

2.) They were immigrating in such large numbers that it was feared at the time they wouldn’t assimilate. The American model is racial nationalism + Anglo-conformity. European immigrants were expected to assimilate and become WASPs.


61

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:59 | #

You argue that Italians, Greeks, Romanians etc. were not considered “white.”

Not what I said.

Southern Italians, Greeks, and Romanians are examples of groups that were basically absent from the U.S. prior to 1890. It would have been pointless for white Americans to distinguish themselves from these groups.

You acknowledge that immigrants were expected to assimilate to American norms (“Anglo-Conformity”). You acknowledge immigrants from northwestern Europe were preferred. These are the main points I wish to stress. America had its own race and culture.

You make too much of the fact that immigration from southern and eastern Europe wasn’t entirely eliminated by the 1924 Act. The key point is that such immigration was drastically reduced. Despite widespread liberalism, the country united in attempting to stop the shift in America’s ethnic balance. The Act gave a token quota to the Japanese; does this invalidate your “white nationalist” theory?

What is known today as “White Nationalism” is an idea as old as America.

Some modern “White Nationalists” hold views compatible with traditional American racialism. Some do not. The latter include those who identify with Germany or Ireland before America and those who cheer when Americans are killed in Iraq, as well as various “Pan-Aryan” types.


62

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:30 | #

Shocking. Democrats pandering for ethnic votes.

Yancey on the Know Nothings:

“Article 8 of the Philadelphia Platform, which called for the exclusion of all Catholics from public office, evoked almost as much of an outcry from Yancey as issues of sovereignty. Admitting that his religious education (largely influenced by Beman) taught him to view that faith as “anti-republican”,” Yancey argued that proscriptions like this never destroyed or even weakened religious groups. He reminded readers that those very sorts of prejudices drove many of their ancestors from Europe and toward America - Quakers, Puritans, Huguenots - who together built “a glorious temple to religious and political equality.” Nothing could prove more anti-American, “more European - in accordance with the antecedents of Kingcraft and despotism,” than religious tests and proscriptions. Therefore he concluded that this new party was “eminently federal, and Anti-American,” poised to attack both freedom of conscience for individuals and “the great States Rights creed.”

Walther, 186

Out of four grandparents, three had surnames originating in the British Isles.

Of Dutch ancestry, and famously proud of it, and equally famous for holding Americans in contempt who looked down on non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants. TR positively glorified the ethnic heterogeneity of America and the American tradition of racial nationalism which molded new immigrants into “white men.” He wrote extensively about this and devoted much of his life to recapturing the ideal of the backwoodsman, as with his Rough Riders regiment in the Spanish-American War, or how he fancied himself a rancher.

Half-English.

And half-Irish.

And what about the previous seven presidents? Anyway, the Dutch are extremely closely related to the English and Van Buren’s forebears settled in North America almost as early as the English.

What about them? I’m not aware of any of them endorsing this notion that only Anglo-Saxons could be Americans. How could Martin van Buren become POTUS in a nation narrowly based on Anglo-Saxon bloodlines?

“Large”? Maybe compared to the near-zero Catholic populations in the other colonies. According to Wikipedia (and this accords with everything else I’ve read on the topic), ”at the time of the American Revolution, Catholics formed less than 1% of the population of the thirteen colonies.”

About Maryland:

“By owning and governing a colony, Lord Baltimore sought to gain additional wealth and to provide refuge for his fellow Catholics. Harassed in England by the Protestant majority, some Catholics contemplated emigration to an American colony. As a Catholic sympathizer, King Charles I favored Lord Baltimore’s plan to demonstrate that a policy of religious toleration could permit Protestants and Catholics to live together in harmony. Tending to his estates and political interest, Lord Baltimore remained in England and entrusted the governorship of Maryland to his younger brother, Leonard Calvert. In 1634 the new governor led two ships laden with colonists, both Protestant and Catholic, across the Atlantic to Chesapeake Bay. On a tributary of the Potomoc River, Calvert established the first settlement and colonial capital at St. Mary’s City.”

Alan Taylor, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (New York: Penguin Books, 2001), 137

No. Jay was half Dutch. Randolph is obviously not “a Huguenot”, and I don’t even know that anyone has claimed he had any such ancestry. Revere’s mother was from Boston (i.e., most likely of English ancestry).

John Jay:

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

John Jay was born on December 12, 1745, to a wealthy family of merchants in New York City. His family, descended from French Huguenot stock, was prominent in New York City.

Paul Revere:

http://www.mwsite.org/papers/mwrevere.html

As you will see Paul Revere was the son of a French Huguenot immigrant; born in 1734, two years after Nathan Pushee; served in the French & Indian War as did Nathan, both were married in 1757; and Nathan’s son, Nathan Jr. served in the Revolutionary War as did of course Paul Revere.

About Randolph. I have always heard he was Huguenot ancestry, although I can’t remember the exact source where I read that. Maybe I confused him with Alexander Hamilton:

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

“Alexander Hamilton was born in Charlestown, the capital of the island of Nevis, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Leeward Islands, West Indies,[3] out of wedlock, to James A. Hamilton, the fourth son of a Scottish laird, and Rachel Faucett Lavien, of part French Huguenot descent. “

. . . or John Laurens:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~galauren/history.htm

One of these new counties was to be called and known by the name of Laurens in honor of John Laurens of Revolutionary fame. John Laurens, a native of South Carolina, was of Huguenot ancestry, and had the honor of being aide to General Washington.

. . . or Francis Marion:

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

“Marion’s family was of Huguenot ancestry. His parents were Gabriel Marion and Esther Cordes Marion, both first-generation Carolinians.”

. . . or Henry David Thoreau:

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

“David Henry Thoreau was born in Concord, Massachusetts to John Thoreau and Cynthia Dunbar. His paternal grandfather was of French origin and born in Jersey.”

Continuing with this theme, what about some other famous 19C Americans? Let’s start with Senator Pierre Soulé of Louisiana:

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

Pierre Soulé (August 31, 1801 – March 26, 1870) was a U.S. politician and diplomat during the mid-19th century. He is best known for his role in writing the Ostend Manifesto, which was written in 1854 as part of an attempt to annex Cuba to the United States.

In 1847, Soulé sat briefly in the United States Senate as a Democrat. He returned to the Senate from 1849 to 1853. He then resigned to take an appointment as U.S. Minister to Spain, a post he held until 1855.

What about General P.G.T. Beauregard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.G.T._Beauregard

Pierre Gustave Toutant de Beauregard (pronounced IPA: /‘bo?.??.?g??d/) (May 28, 1818 – February 20, 1893), was a Louisiana-born general for the Confederate Army during the American Civil War. He was also an author, civil servant, politician, and inventor.

Beauregard was the first prominent Confederate general. He commanded the defenses of Charleston, South Carolina, for the Battle of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, and three months later was the victor at the First Battle of Bull Run near Manassas, Virginia.

How about John C. Calhoun, of Scot-Irish background?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun

John C. Calhoun was the son of Scots-Irish immigrant Patrick Calhoun. When his father became ill, the 17-year-old boy quit school to manage the family farm in South Carolina.

. . . or one of the greatest of all Southerners, Stonewall Jackson:

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

Thomas Jonathan Jackson was the great-grandson of John Jackson (1715 or 1719 – 1801) and Elizabeth Cummins (also known as Elizabeth Comings and Elizabeth Needles) (1723 – 1828). John Jackson was born in Coleraine, County Londonderry, in Northern Ireland, of Scots-Irish descent.

And the President of the Confederacy himself, Jefferson Davis, who was of Welsh ancestry:

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-1737

Jefferson Davis was the 10th and last child of Samuel Emory Davis, a Georgia-born planter of Welsh ancestry.


63

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:34 | #

Again, if that was not the case, then Russians, Sicilians, Spaniards, Croats, Poles, Romanians etc. would not have been allowed to immigrate here in the first place.

Chinese, Japanese, mestizos and other non-whites have been allowed to immigrate at various points in U.S. history. The motive for allowing such immigration has generally been cheap labor, and the desire for cheap labor also seems to have been the driving force in allowing southern and eastern European immigration.

Southern and eastern Europeans are distinguished from most early non-white immigrants in that they were allowed to naturalize. But “white” is open to interpretation:

Following a long line of decisions of the lower federal courts, we held that the words imported a racial and not an individual test and were meant to indicate only persons of what is popularly known as the Caucasian race. But, as there pointed out, the conclusion that the phrase “white persons” and the word “Caucasian” are synonymous does not end the matter. It enabled us to dispose of the problem as it was there presented, since the applicant for citizenship clearly fell outside the zone of debatable ground on the negative side; but the decision still left the question to be dealt with, in doubtful and different cases, by the “process of judicial inclusion and exclusion.” Mere ability on the part of an applicant for naturalization to establish a line of descent from a Caucasian ancestor will not ipso facto and necessarily conclude the inquiry. “Caucasian” is a conventional word of much flexibility, as a study of the literature dealing with racial questions will disclose, and while it and the words “white persons” are treated as synonymous for the purposes of that case, they are not of identical meaning. . . .

In the endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the statute we must not fail to keep in mind that it does not employ the word “Caucasian” but the words “white persons,” and these are words of common speech and not of scientific origin. The word “Caucasian” not only was not employed in the law but was probably wholly unfamiliar to the original framers of the statute in 1790. When we employ it we do so as an aid to the ascertainment of the legislative intent and not as an invariable substitute for the statutory words. Indeed, as used in the science of ethnology, the connotation of the word is by no means clear and the use of it in its scientific sense as an equivalent for the words of the statute, other considerations aside, would simply mean the substitution of one perplexity for another. But in this country, during the last half century especially, the word by common usage has acquired a popular meaning, not clearly defined to be sure, but sufficiently so to enable us to say that its popular as distinguished from its scientific application is of appreciably narrower scope. It is in the popular sense of the word, therefore, that we employ it as an aid to the construction of the statute, for it would be obviously illogical to convert words of common speech used in a statute into words of scientific terminology when neither the latter nor the science for whose purposes they were coined was within the contemplation of the framers of the statute or of the people for whom it was framed. The words of the statute are to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man from whose vocabulary they were taken. . . .

They imply, as we have said, a racial test; but the term “race” is one which, for the practical purposes of the statute, must be applied to a group of living persons now possessing in common the requisite characteristics, not to groups of persons who are supposed to be or really are descended from some remote, common ancestor, but who, whether they both resemble him to a greater or less extend, have, at any rate, ceased altogether to resemble one another. It may be true that the blond Scandinavian and the brown Hindu have a common ancestor in the dim reaches of antiquity, but the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences between them today; and it is not impossible, if that common ancestor could be materialized in the flesh, we should discover that he was himself sufficiently differentiated from both of his descendants to preclude his racial classification with either. The question for determination is not, therefore, whether by the speculative processes of ethnological reasoning we may present a probability to the scientific mind that they have the same origin, but whether we can satisfy the common understanding that they are now the same or sufficiently the same to justify the interpreters of a statute—written in the words of common speech, for common understanding, by unscientific men—in classifying them together in the statutory category as white persons. In 1790 the Adamite theory of creation—which gave a common ancestor to all mankind—was generally accepted, and it is not at all probable that it was intended by the legislators of that day to submit the question of the application of the words “white persons” to the mere test of an indefinitely remote common ancestry, without regard to the extent of the subsequent divergence of the various branches from such common ancestry or from one another.

[. . .]

The words of familiar speech, which were used by the original framers of the law, were intended to include only the type of man whom they knew as white. The immigration of that day was almost exclusively from the British Isles and Northwestern Europe, whence they and their forbears had come. When they extended the privilege of American citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person,” it was these immigrants—bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh—and their kind whom they must have had affirmatively in mind. The succeeding years brought immigrants from Eastern, Southern and Middle Europe, among them the Slavs and the dark-eyed, swarthy people of Alpine and Mediterranean stock, and these were received as unquestionably akin to those already here and readily amalgamated with them. It was the descendants of these, and other immigrants of like origin, who constituted the white population of the country when § 2169, reënacting the naturalization test of 1790, was adopted; and there is no reason to doubt, with like intent and meaning.

[. . .]

Source: United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, Certificate From The Circuit Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit., No. 202. Argued January 11, 12, 1923.—Decided February 19, 1923, United States Reports, v. 261, The Supreme Court, October Term, 1922, 204–215.

And:

In Rollins v. Alabama (1922), an Alabama Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of one Jim Rollins, a black man convicted of the crime of miscegenation, on the grounds that the state had produced “no competent evidence to show that the woman in question, Edith Labue was a white woman.” Labue was a Sicilian immigrant, a fact that, this court held, “can in no sense be taken as conclusive that she was therefore a white woman, or that she was not a negro or a descendant of a negro.” Although it is important to underscore that this court did not find that a Sicilian was necessarily nonwhite, its finding that a Sicilian was inconclusively white does speak volumes about whiteness in 1920s Alabama. If the court left room for the possibility that Edith Labue may have been white, the ruling also made clear that she was not the sort of white woman whose purity was to be “protected” by that bulwark of white supremacism, the miscegenation statute.


64

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:10 | #

Roosevelt was 3/4 non-Dutch.

John Jay was Dutch on his mother’s side and part-Dutch on his father’s side; continuing your quote from Wikipedia:

Jay had numerous rich and prominent ancestors and relatives including his maternal grandfather Jacobus Van Cortlandt.

Moreover, he was rather assimilated:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

John Laurens’ mother was “Eleanor Ball, the daughter of another wealthy rice planter and slave owner” (Wikipedia); i.e., she was probably of British ancestry.

“David Henry Thoreau was born in Concord, Massachusetts to John Thoreau and Cynthia Dunbar. His paternal grandfather was of French origin and born in Jersey.”

That is, Theoreau was 1/4 French and about 3/4 British, if the pedigrees I looked at on rootsweb are accurate.

Are you seeing a pattern? Huguenots intermarried freely with the British and Dutch in North America, and were assimilated.

As for the rest of your examples, no one denies that British immigration to North America included English-speaking, Protestant Welsh and Scotch-Irish.


65

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:33 | #

Chinese, Japanese, mestizos and other non-whites have been allowed to immigrate at various points in U.S. history. The motive for allowing such immigration has generally been cheap labor, and the desire for cheap labor also seems to have been the driving force in allowing southern and eastern European immigration.

In both cases, restrictions were placed on Asian immigration: in the case of the Chinese, through the Chinese Exclusion Act (which wasn’t repealed until WW2); in the case of the Japanese, through TR’s Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan. If I recall correctly, the Immigration Act of 1917 restricted immigration from much of the rest of Asia. Both the Japanese and Chinese had to fight legal battles in court to naturalize as American citizens. The American Indians received citizenship through three laws passed by Congress in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Did the millions of Italians who settled in the United States ever face such obstacles?

Name me a single law which specifically excluded, say, Greeks or Sicilians or Russians. What’s more, there were anti-miscegenation laws in the West especially that specifically outlawed intermarriage between “whites” with Asians and Indians. Show me an anti-miscegenation law - from any state - that outlawed intermarriage between Anglo-Saxons and Italians. I would be knocked on my feet.

The links you post above are interesting, but they confirm my point: “whiteness” was the basis of American naturalization law, not being “Anglo-Saxon” or “Nordic,” and it was the statutes I referred to above that the Court was interpreting. “Nordic” is a term of much more recent vintage. Also, in the Alabama case, “whiteness” was the basis of our anti-miscegenation law, as I recall telling you above. If Italians were considered “nonwhite,” then all the various Jim Crow laws would have been enforced against them as they traveled throughout the South. That generally didn’t happen. Again, as your own link shows, the Sicilians were considered “white,” but less white than Anglo-Saxons, which is what I said above.

Re: Roosevelt. Are you aware of his views about European immigration? Please recount for us his position on that issue.

Re: the Huguenots. Laurens, Hamilton, Thoreau, Jay, Revere etc. all had French blood. Did anyone at the time consider them less of an American because of that?

Re: the Scot-Irish, Irish, Scots, and Welsh. Certainly, there was a non-Anglo-Saxon, Celtic element in their background. Actually, the Irish and Welsh aren’t Anglo-Saxons at all. So what? That stock has produced many fine Americans, probably our best fighting men.

Full Disclosure: by ancestry, I am 1/2 Southerner and 1/2 Austrian. I have no Southern or Eastern European ancestry that I am aware of. I have blue eyes and brown hair. My surname is “Griffin.” What does that make me? Welsh? English, what? A Teuton-Celt? :p

You acknowledge that immigrants were expected to assimilate to American norms (“Anglo-Conformity”). You acknowledge immigrants from northwestern Europe were preferred. These are the main points I wish to stress. America had its own race and culture.

Well, if you put it that way, I agree. The point I was stressing is that Americanism isn’t a tradition of narrow ethnic nationalism like, say, English or German nationalism. It is more expansive: European racial stock assimilating WASP norms.

You make too much of the fact that immigration from southern and eastern Europe wasn’t entirely eliminated by the 1924 Act. The key point is that such immigration was drastically reduced. Despite widespread liberalism, the country united in attempting to stop the shift in America’s ethnic balance. The Act gave a token quota to the Japanese; does this invalidate your “white nationalist” theory?

The Immigration Act of 1924 accomplished its purpose: to privilege immigration from “traditional sources” over Southern and Eastern European immigration, and to maintain America’s traditional ethnodemographic makeup which was being changed by mass immigration. If you want to call that keeping this country Nordic, fine. You must admit though that the architects of the Immigration Act of 1924 though were thinking in far broader terms than Anglo-Saxonism.

Some modern “White Nationalists” hold views compatible with traditional American racialism. Some do not. The latter include those who identify with Germany or Ireland before America and those who cheer when Americans are killed in Iraq, as well as various “Pan-Aryan” types.

Yes, I agree. Those confused people are ridiculous in much the same way that liberals are. Ever since the mid-twentieth century, the American ethnos has become disembowled - liberals rejecting racialism, racialists rejecting liberalism, racialists and liberals rejecting Christianity, etc. I have written about that in several threads here.

Pace Sunic, American racialists have been smashed between the pillars of two European ideologies: on the one hand, racially egalitarian cultural anthropology; on the other, the influence of Nazism. The last thing we need is more great European ideas of that sort. Success for us lies with rehabilitating the American racialist tradition and reacquainting our people with their own rich heritage which, I might add, in terms of racialism is without parallel.


66

Posted by John on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:13 | #

“Eureka! Fight fire with fire. I’ll give a fiver to who(m)ever (subject of the clause, therefore “whoever” (nominative case)) can name that behaviour or identify another.”

Poisoning the well.


67

Posted by Eureka! on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:17 | #

Svigor,
Yes, a study of the methods of propaganda would be very useful indeed. You are right that what we were talking about could best be named “guilt by association”. Unfortunately for our side the name does not immediately void the offending statement.

It’d be great if we were wll versed in the arts of deception and propaganda, to the point where individual techniques can be readily identified, labelled and discredited as deceitful and not true. My belief is that for any given set of media there can only be so many methods of succesful disinformation available. Repeated usage of such methods would allow (and most probably has allowed) patterns to be discovered.

Maybe this explains the large Jewish presence in the field of psychology. Working out what makes us tick. Maybe we can almost reverse engineer the sort of propaganda tools used everyday in the MSM.

Thoughts and rambings..


68

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:02 | #

Re: Roosevelt. Are you aware of his views about European immigration? Please recount for us his position on that issue.

Sure:

Our present immigration laws are unsatisfactory. We need every honest and efficient immigrant fitted to become an American citizen, every immigrant who comes here to stay, who brings here a strong body, a stout heart, a good head, and a resolute purpose to do his duty well in every way and to bring up his children as law-abiding and God-fearing members of the community. But there should be a comprehensive law enacted with the object of working a threefold improvement over our present system. First, we should aim to exclude absolutely not only all persons who are known to be believers in anarchistic principles or members of anarchistic societies, but also all persons who are of a low moral tendency or of unsavory reputation. This means that we should require a more thorough system of inspection abroad and a more rigid system of examination at our immigration ports, the former being especially necessary.

The second object of a proper immigration law ought to be to secure by a careful and not merely perfunctory educational test some intelligent capacity to appreciate American institutions and act sanely as American citizens. This would not keep out all anarchists, for many of them belong to the intelligent criminal class. But it would do what is also in point, that is, tend to decrease the sum of ignorance, so potent in producing the envy, suspicion, malignant passion, and hatred of order, out of which anarchistic sentiment inevitably springs. Finally, all persons should be excluded who are below a certain standard of economic fitness to enter our industrial field as competitors with American labor. There should be proper proof of personal capacity to earn an American living and enough money to ensure a decent start under American conditions. This would stop the influx of cheap labor, and the resulting competition which gives rise to so much of bitterness in American industrial life; and it would dry up the springs of the pestilential social conditions in our great cities, where anarchistic organizations have their greatest possibility of growth….

[State of the Union Message, 1901]

More:

The Immigration Act passed in 1907 updated the 1882 Immigration Act and 1891 Immigration Act. The head tax was increased to $5 and “imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, unaccompanied children under 17 years of age, and persons who are found to be and are certified by the examination surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such aliens to earn a living” were added to the excluded list. It was originally intended to exclude every male who had not $25 in his possession ($15 for women). However this clause was removed before it was passed by Congress.
[. . .]
The Immigration Service took form during an unprecedented rise in immigration to the United States. While Congress continued to strengthen national immigration law with acts such as the Immigration Act of 1907, a Presidential Commission investigated the causes of massive emigration out of Southern and Eastern Europe and a Congressional Commission studied conditions among immigrants in the United States. These commission reports influenced the writing and passage of the Immigration Act of 1917, which, among other provisions, required that immigrants be able to read and write in their native language. The Immigration Service then began administering literacy tests.

More:

Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN

Are we “SLOW LEARNERS” or what?

Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN

“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Theodore Roosevelt 1907


Comments: Theodore Roosevelt indeed wrote these words, but not in 1907 while he was still President of the United States. The passages were culled from a letter he wrote to the president of the American Defense Society on January 3, 1919, three days before Roosevelt died.

“Americanization” was a favorite theme of Roosevelt’s during his later years, when he railed repeatedly against “hyphenated Americans” and the prospect of a nation “brought to ruins” by a “tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

He advocated the compulsory learning of English by every naturalized citizen. “Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country,” he said in a statement to the Kansas City Star in 1918. “English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools.”

He also insisted, on more than one occasion, that America has no room for what he called “fifty-fifty allegiance.” In a speech made in 1917 he said, “It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us.”

Roosevelt may have been too liberal on immigration for my tastes, but he was unquestionably concerned about the influx of poor southern and eastern Europeans of doubtful assimilability.

Re: the Huguenots. Laurens, Hamilton, Thoreau, Jay, Revere etc. all had French blood. Did anyone at the time consider them less of an American because of that?

Do the English consider Brunel un-English? Again, I draw your attention to the numbers I posted above. In 1790, 90% of Americans had British surnames. Less than 1% had French surnames.

Actually, the Irish and Welsh aren’t Anglo-Saxons at all.

Few Catholic Irish arrived in America prior to the potato famine. The Scotch-Irish are an entirely different (Protestant, English-speaking) ethnicity. The Welsh never to my knowledge existed in America as a distinct ethnic group (having always assimilated into the larger culture). Don’t conflate the latter two groups with the former (Cantrell likes to do that).

Full Disclosure: by ancestry, I am 1/2 Southerner and 1/2 Austrian. I have no Southern or Eastern European ancestry that I am aware of. I have blue eyes and brown hair. My surname is “Griffin.” What does that make me? Welsh? English, what? A Teuton-Celt? :p

Hopefully American (see Harry Laughlin’s definition above), though I do seem to recall you had an anti-American phase during which you dreamed of moving to Europe and studying Carl Schmitt.  Having a possibly Welsh surname doesn’t make you Welsh. I would guess you are more English than anything on your dad’s side, but obviously that’s something for you to find out. 

The point I was stressing is that Americanism isn’t a tradition of narrow ethnic nationalism like, say, English or German nationalism. It is more expansive: European racial stock assimilating WASP norms.

Okay, but remember that intra-European immigration and assimilation has occurred as well (Poles to France, Walloons to Sweden, etc.). Immigration is in no way integral to the American identity as I define it. Yes, large numbers of southern and eastern Europeans were allowed to immigrate the U.S. Should they have been allowed to immigrate? Were they allowed to immigrate due to some sweeping racialist vision? I don’t think so.

If you want to call that keeping this country Nordic, fine. You must admit though that the architects of the Immigration Act of 1924 though were thinking in far broader terms than Anglo-Saxonism.

The English are themselves a mélange of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, indigenous Britons, Vikings, and Normans, with average ancestry proportions varying in different regions. I don’t think “Anglo-Saxonists” were ever too opposed to assimilating culturally and genetically compatible groups. Besides England, the “traditional”, “Nordic” sources of American immigration are largely the sources that went into peopling England in the first place (Scotland and Wales; the Netherlands; Germany, though some regions are less racially compatible than others; and Scandinavia). In other words, American “Nordicism” and “Anglo-Saxonism” are largely consistent with each other.

The last thing we need is more great European ideas of that sort. Success for us lies with rehabilitating the American racialist tradition and reacquainting our people with their own rich heritage which, I might add, in terms of racialism is without parallel.

I agree entirely.


69

Posted by required on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:41 | #

The links you post above are interesting, but they confirm my point: “whiteness” was the basis of American naturalization law, not being “Anglo-Saxon” or “Nordic,” and it was the statutes I referred to above that the Court was interpreting.

But what is “white”? We know what it’s not. But is there any reason to think the framers of 1790 Naturalization Act intended “free white persons” to include millions of destitute laborers from eastern and southern Europe? As you say, the word “Nordic” didn’t exist when the law was written; besides, the legislators had no way of foreseeing the social and technological changes that would allow that sort of mass, non-traditional immigration. As noted in the decision I cite above:

The immigration of that day was almost exclusively from the British Isles and Northwestern Europe, whence they and their forbears had come. When they extended the privilege of American citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person,” it was these immigrants—bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh—and their kind whom they must have had affirmatively in mind.


Again, as your own link shows, the Sicilians were considered “white,” but less white than Anglo-Saxons, which is what I said above.

No, the decision shows nearly the opposite: Sicilians were not automatically considered white.

I’m not all that interested in the “white/nonwhite” question, though. Southern and eastern Europeans were sufficiently distinct from native Americans to engender increased ethnic hostility relative to most earlier immigrants.

The Lynching of Sicilian Immigrants in the American South, 1886-1910
Author: C. Webb
DOI: 10.1080/713998981
Publication Frequency: 3 issues per year
Published in: journal American Nineteenth Century History, Volume 3, Issue 1 March 2002 , pages 45 - 76
Subject: American History;
Formats available: PDF (English)

Abstract
In recent years scholars have produced numerous important studies of white mob violence against African Americans. The lynching of white ethnics nonetheless remains a relatively neglected subject. This article looks beyond the black-white paradigm by analyzing the causes and characteristics of mob attacks on Sicilian immigrants. Between 1886 and 1910, southern lynch mobs murdered 27 Sicilians. The mobs were motivated by a number of factors, including racial enmity and economic competition. Sicilians were not passive victims of mob violence. In assessing the nature of Sicilian resistance, the article draws explicit contrasts with the experience of African Americans. Sicilians, especially the diplomatic representatives who lobbied Washington for redress, commanded stronger institutional resources than African Americans. It is this political leverage that explains the more sudden decline of anti-Sicilian violence in the South.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713998981~db=all


70

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:24 | #

“by ancestry, I am 1/2 Southerner and 1/2 Austrian.”  (—Scimitar)

You should have put that the Southern way( * ):

“I’m half-Austrian by birth, and half-Southern by the grace of God.”
______

( *  U.S. Southerners will say, “I’m American by birth, and Southern by the grace of God.”)


71

Posted by a Finn on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:49 | #

Scimitar: “During the 1950s, over 90% of white Americans disapproved of black/white miscegenation. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that a majority of white Americans were willing to say they approved of this. Even Yankees found this extremely distasteful in a way that most Europeans never have.”

- That of course, is not correct. Sweden is maybe the worst country in Europe today concerning the anti-native policies. It has been ruled after the WWII mostly by social democrats. Still, before the WWII, the social democrats had a strict Swedish ethnic and racial policy. Social democrats published books, where the Swedish ethnicity was defined to be used in politics. Miscegenation in all forms was disapproved by almost all the people, regardless of their political view. Same here in Finland. E.g. Finnish school books taught clear racial categories, where blacks were described as childlike idiots, incapable to create a civilisation. In wartime, when there was immigration to Finland, strict Finnish ethnic criteria were used in deciding who can enter. In Belgium people had the same kind of ethnic/racial views, as told by Herge, the creator of Tintin comics. His Tintin in Africa -comic book was the reflection of those views (Recently in news in England, some people want to ban it). Etc.

It must be understood about European ethnic nationalism; when it often placed strict borders between European ethnicities, it resisted more strongly marriages between races. Mixed race marriages were absolutely impossible.


72

Posted by GT on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:03 | #

Maguire has attempted to introduce contemporary material concerning where the white American sheeple have been getting their mental programming, but to no avail.  Once again a thread with potential is buried under reams of erudite, obscurantist musings on the 19th Century and earlier which have little relevance to the problems we face in the 21st.  It appears that some of MR’s commentariat have constructed a fascinating little world for themselves.  Unfortunately it bears a closer resemblance to the parallel universes occasionally featured on Star Trek episodes than the one we inhabit.

I am compelled to throw a few monkey wrenches into the works.  The fact is that the “Modernity” (or “Renaissance”) disliked by this group was the single biggest force in reviving study of “The Classics.” The surviving non-Christian “Classic” manuscripts from the Greco-Roman world are few.  None are older than AD 900 – AD 1000, same as the oldest existing Talmud.  To my knowledge the only exceptions are recent papyri unearthed in archeological digs and read with CAT scans and similar technology.  The general origins of “The Classics” are from Constantinople during the Crusades.  In quantity and age they pale in comparison to the surviving Christian Biblical manuscripts.

Considering the variation that exists between the more numerous and frequently older Biblical manuscripts, I shudder to think about what must have happened to “The Classics.”  Believing that we actually possess accurate original texts of most or even many of “The Classics” takes more faith than I can generate.  It’s very likely that some were redacted, some were edited down, others were amended, and some are probably outright forgeries from the Middle Ages.

Germanic and Nordic folklore plus the Bible played much greater roles in forming modern Europe than “The Classics,” and the only Bible version of significance for western and central Europe prior to the 16th Century was the Latin Vulgate used by the Catholic Church.  “The Classics” retained greatest influence in precisely those areas most peripheral to the modern West – the territories of the eastern Byzantine Empire and of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Now, let us return to the chapter on 21st Century …


73

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:09 | #

Thank you, GT.

Here’s a question:-

Since Americanism in the postmodern age is a force for evil throughout the European world - America included, of course - and since the cultural, political and religious foundations of Americanism are formative not only of public values but of the acquired particulars of the American personality, at what level is Dr Sunic’s commendation to American patriots to free themselves from Americanism to be understood?  At a merely political and institutional level, or somewhere in the soul of each American?


74

Posted by GT on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:57 | #

The American is a European in search of a soul, GW.  The European soul of our forebears has been lost.  Nothing has replaced it. To the extent that we have a soul it is jewish.  That is why, I think, some here are enamored with “The Classics” or in the case of my Southern brethren, the real and imagined history of the antebellum South. That we haven’t a soul is why I emphasize technical, as well as local economic, institutional, political, and yes, military solutions.


75

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:43 | #

I’m highly suspicious of the notion that 1.) there is something called “Americanism” and it is synonymous with materialism and 2.) this is something novel which has been introduced into Europe through American influence. This strikes me as a stereotype. Let’s run through European history. I would specifically enjoin the gallery to cast their gaze back to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

Does anyone remember how the Spanish conquered Latin America; how the Spanish plundered Mexico and Peru of an incalculable amount of gold and silver, decimated the native populations there, or how their efforts were plagued by English piracy, which was supported by the state, who wanted their own cut? What about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade - bringing millions of Africans to the New World, and organizing entire New World colonies like Barbados, St. Domingo, or Jamaica as purely economic enterprises? In fact, I seem to recall Europeans discovering the New World . . . looking for an alternative trade route to the East Indies.

Take a closer look at European behavior in the New World. The Dutch, for example, were almost exclusively traders. The French were in Canada after furs. The English fought several wars against the Dutch over trade. And what of China? It was literally carved up by Europeans for it could be economically exploited. Then you have all sorts of incidents in Africa like the Boer War (after diamonds) or King Leopold (after red rubber).

It is certainly true that Americans are too materialistic, but it is simply a self-serving myth that the greed, materialism, chasing after Mammon were introduced into Europe by Americans after the Second World War. Indeed, it takes an incredible ignorance of history to believe that.


76

Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:55 | #

To: the Finn

In 1957, the USIA did a survey of European attitudes re: American race relations. Here are the results:

USIA Survey of Foreign Opinion Regarding U.S. Race Relations, 1957

Do you have a very good opinion, good, fair, bad, or very bad opinion of the treatment of Negroes in the United States?

Brussels (Very Good, Good, 12%), (Fair, 13%), (Bad, Very Bad, 67%), (No Opinion 8%)

Copenhagen (Very Good, Good, 5%), (Fair, 11%), (Bad, Very Bad, 82%), (No Opinion 2%)

Helsinki (Very Good, Good, 2%), (Fair, 26%), (Bad, Very Bad, 63%), (No Opinion 9%)

Paris (Very Good, Good, 2%), (Fair, 12%), (Bad, Very Bad, 74%), (No Opinion 12%)

Frankfurt (Very Good, Good, 39%), (Fair, 23%), (Bad, Very Bad, 17%), (No Opinion 21%)

London (Very Good, Good, 13%), (Fair, 20%), (Bad, Very Bad, 59%), (No Opinion 8%)

Athens (Very Good, Good, 21%), (Fair, 23%), (Bad, Very Bad, 33%), (No Opinion 23%)

Italy (Very Good, Good, 12%), (Fair, 18%), (Bad, Very Bad, 34%), (No Opinion 36%)

Amsterdam (Very Good, Good, 4%), (Fair, 15%), (Bad, Very Bad, 79%), (No Opinion 5%)

Oslo (Very Good, Good, 5%), (Fair, 11%), (Bad, Very Bad, 79%), (No Opinion 5%)

Stockholm (Very Good, Good, 1%), (Fair, 7%), (Bad, Very Bad, 87%), (No Opinion 5%)

The bad press that the U.S. was getting abroad and the criticism of American race relations in the U.N., especially in Western Europe amongst the NATO allies, prompted the Eisenhower administration to push the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress - the first major piece of federal civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. Here is Eisenhower himself speaking about the subject:

“If we hope to strengthen freedom in the world we must be ever mindful of how our own conduct reacts elsewhere. No nation has ever been so floodlighted in world opinion as the United States is today. Everything we do is carefully scrutinized by other peoples throughout the world. . . In other areas of human rights - freedom from discrimination in voting, in public education, in access to jobs, and in other respects - the world is likewise watching our conduct. The image of America abroad is not approved when school children . . . are deproved of their opportunity for an education. . . By moving steadily toward the goal of greater freedom under law, for our own people, we shall be better prepared to work for the cause of freedom under law throughout the world.”


77

Posted by GT on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:17 | #

A suggestion, then back to work ...

Looking for a soul?  In my opinion we should replace the “Classics” with Germanic and Nordic folklore.  These were infinitely more influential in forming Northwestern European identity than the “Classics” from the Greco-Roman Empire. For well over a thousand years after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire the cultural influences among the Germans and Nordics were their own tribal ‘literature’ and the Bible as presented by the Latin Vulgate version and announced by the local Catholic priesthoods.

It was the Renaissance which revived Western interest in older pre-Christian “classics” from Greece and Rome.

As previously mentioned there’s an embarrassing little detail Classicists leave out of their sales pitches: the original manuscripts are few in number and no older than the first largely complete Talmud circa AD 1000. These are embarrassingly few in number compared to the surviving New and Old Testament manuscripts.

It’s sobering to consider the inconsistencies between the several thousand manuscript fragments that are the sources of the Bible. When contemplating the problem of original sources for the ancient “Classics;” however, belief in their “inerrancy” becomes an act of religious faith greater than that required for the King James Bible.  Yes, we have *some* of the original “Classics.”  Others undoubtedly became corrupted over the millennia as scribal errors crept in during the many cycles of hand recopying. Yet other manuscripts were censored by the simple process of discarding inconvenient parts.

Young American men should get high on Northwestern European folklore, Nikola Tesla, and the practice field.


78

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:41 | #

Germanic and Nordic folklore plus the Bible played much greater roles in forming modern Europe than “The Classics,” and the only Bible version of significance for western and central Europe prior to the 16th Century was the Latin Vulgate used by the Catholic Church.

Given a choice, would you rather see the Botticelli painting here at MR replaced by a St. George’s flag or some leonine heraldry?

Once again a thread with potential is buried under reams of erudite, obscurantist musings on the 19th Century and earlier which have little relevance to the problems we face in the 21st.

The two quotes from GT, above, echo the comments with which I began this thread: decide who you are as a blog, start culling the commentariat, stay on message and when all this is done, keep your better commnetors on topic, or if they stray into something interesting, break it off and make a new topic of it.

For the record, Scimitar’s discussion with required is an interesting one, and both sides are informed, intelligent, and polite. In addition, the discusssion is perfectly relevant - in many places on this blog besides the discussion of Mr. Sunic’s works and the promising opportunity readers here had to discuss those concerns - with the author!

However, since MR is three or more blogs more or less existing simulataneously, and since discussion seems to take place overwhelmingly on just a few blog items, the three or four blogs that exist here trip all over themselves in an attempt to express their concerns. Not only might these be better managed - why shouldn’t Scimitar and required duke it out on their own thread for everyone’s edification? - this would also allow those of us who have read or who are interested in Mr. Sunic’s book to discuss those questions here.

The Prindle summaries by Reis were also subject to the same pressures which lowered the tone of discussion and increased the non-responsiveness of posts (“the Snipe hunt”). The issues raised there, which are both numerous and of overwhelming importance to the commentariat, are not being responded to at the frontpage level of this blog. I make an exception for this post by GW on Sunic and Antiamericanism, which is on topic and is responsive to overwhelming reader interest, but now this thread, too, has been overwhelmed by a backlog of questions that have never been ironed out or properly given a hearing. I see a number of questions that desperately need to be addressed, and I predict that if they are not addressed in an orderly way, then they will continue to be half-addressed in a disorderly way, with much sniping, many digressions, and few conclusions on which we might agree and therefore be able to operate in the real world.

FWIW, the meta-strands I see at this blog are 1)Salterian - more honored in the breach than the observance 2)Antiliberalism - which is oft mentioned but not placed on a firm footing whereby it might be used against liberalism in the real world 3)English chauvinism bordering on solipsism, which might at least be used in a more positive way to shore up a BNP style blog 4)A vague but unpopular pan-Europeanism, symbolized by the heraldry in the upper left, but vociferously denied by mainly long-timers here, who belong more properly in category 3.

Finally, there is the question of the Anglo-America, hinted at by GW, made plain on the first Prindle thread, and above, wrestled to the ground by Scimitar and required, albeit in a very preliminary manner.

Organization here being what it is, that discussion has eclipsed a discussion already in progress, and a very important one, too.

I suppose this is as good a time as any to reprint my first post made to Majority Rights, made in December of 2004.

I did want to say that this was the first post at majorityrights.com that I have really, thoroughly, enjoyed. I’ve been reading since day one, nearabouts, waiting for this blog to take off - you’ve got a lot of interesting writers, but no voice yet.

I’ve also wondered if there is goal towards which the blog is working?


79

Posted by triad60 on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:11 | #

Fred Scooby -

I did not think ill of your comments on M Hoffman-
you express yourself well and politely.
Maguire had expressed some opinions I agreed with
and I was fishing for more understanding.
That said, this blog sight has a great deal of original
thinking and is a joy to follow.

triad60


80

Posted by triad60 on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:19 | #

Maguire

Thanks for your response to my ??? on M. Hoffman.

I do not know if you have read any better books about
the plight facing western civ. or not.  Douglas Reed’s
Controversy of Zion is one I’ve read.

You seem pretty sober in your assessments ( religion,
politics, rense and UFOs.).  I might add many on this
website are very astute concerning many problems
relating to Judaism.

Thanks

triad60


81

Posted by Tabula Rasa on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:27 | #

It is certainly true that Americans are too materialistic, but it is simply a self-serving myth that the greed, materialism, chasing after Mammon were introduced into Europe by Americans after the Second World War. Indeed, it takes an incredible ignorance of history to believe that.

Unfortunately, you are quite correct when you say this. You did leave off some important other examples in your post, notably the economic warfare conducted by England during the Hundred Years War (economic warfare being one of England’s preferred methods), the Condottieri phenomenon (one of my favourites and far better than any American soap opera), and the real biggy for medieval Europe namely the infamous history of the Venetian Republic symbolised by, but by no means limited to, the sack of Constantinople. For money. This coming from the repository of the body of one of the four Evangelists (and quite a few other sacred relics, mostly, like St Mark’s body, stolen). Indeed, given how St Mark was invoked in all Venice’s intrigues, and that St Mark represented the warrior aspect of Christ (symbol:Lion) one has to wonder whether this financial rapine did not have divine sanction. Rome itself was treated to more than one sack during the Middle Ages, which given its status as the Omphalos of the West is hardly a good sign.

It’s no accident, I am afraid, that Latin Christianity was more Judaised than its Hellenic predecessor, or that Protestantism continued the trend and was more Judaised still until one can now hardly tell the difference. One of the defining features of the West has been its materialism and, as I said earlier in this thread, the Jewish mentality is ideally suited to a materialist environment. As the great Rene Guenon pointed out, the sun sets in the West, so it is fitting that we as almost certainly the last civilisation should also be its most materialistic and least spiritual. Perhaps we’ll get lucky and there’ll be pole shift.


82

Posted by a Finn on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:29 | #

To Scimitar: The essential question is; who was sending “information” to Europeans about the treatment of blacks in America. People parroted the information they received. The most of the Europeans didn’t have any practical experience in their own countries of blacks. It was an abstract matter. Still, even though the times were in 1957 changing to the worse (liberalism/leftism) and the war’s end result had reduced the power of nationalism, the results would have been different if people would have been asked e.g.: Do you support/approve of miscegenation? Would it be wise for/Should White Americans (to) miscegenate?


83

Posted by wintermute on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:29 | #

Perhaps we’ll get lucky and there’ll be pole shift.

Tabula, you are lucky and there is a pole shift already underway. During the past century, the pole moved about 700 miles and its rate of acceleration is now increasing. It’s now moving about 25 miles a year, and will be in Sibera within 50 years.

From the New York Times story, “Will Compasses Point South?” from July 2004:

The collapse of the Earth’s magnetic field, which both guards the planet and guides many of its creatures, appears to have started in earnest about 150 years ago. The field’s strength has waned 10 to 15 percent, and the deterioration has accelerated of late, increasing debate over whether it portends a reversal of the lines of magnetic force that normally envelop the Earth.

During a reversal, the main field weakens, almost vanishes, then reappears with opposite polarity. Afterward, compass needles that normally point north would point south, and during the thousands of years of transition, much in the heavens and Earth would go askew.

A reversal could knock out power grids, hurt astronauts and satellites, widen atmospheric ozone holes, send polar auroras flashing to the equator and confuse birds, fish and migratory animals that rely on the steadiness of the magnetic field as a navigation aid. But experts said the repercussions would fall short of catastrophic, despite a few proclamations of doom and sketchy evidence of past links between field reversals and species extinctions.

Although a total flip may be hundreds or thousands of years away, the rapid decline in magnetic strength is already damaging satellites.

A computer simulation image of the magnetic chaos that would occur during to a reversal:

So, compasses will be briefly useless and then point south, while the Aurora will move to the equitorial regions. Migratory birds will probably take heavy casualties.

However, if you’ve been feeling glum because you thought no polar shift was around the corner, cheer up because it actually began long before you were born (I’m guessing). No news yet from NASA or the New York Times about the Hollow Earth, but then that’s just the sort of information they’d be keeping from us, no?


84

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 00:36 | #

WM,

Your ethnic interests are transparently German, and pre-1945 German at that.  All that you bring to discussions such as this present one is laid at the feet of those interests.  I’m not criticising that.  I think I understand particularism.  But your devotion to redeeming National Socialism is so toweringly dominant it presents a formidable challenge, at the very least, to your capacity to be a useful team player.  Like the Jew you disparage, you strive ceaselessly to condition our thinking, to render us more amenable to your great and sacred purpose, and convince us that it is our purpose too.

Were it not ironic - and few things are more redeeming to the English mind than irony - it would be unforgivably poor taste.

But let’s be charitable.  Let us conclude that it is the narrowness of your particularism which causes you to commend narrowness to this gathering of minds.  Let us put aside all thought of a malign motive behind your critique.  Let none of us contemplate the existence at the back of your mind of a design to shuffle us off to Burnley to rail at Moslems with Nick and Co, while you and Friedrich advance one more step towards the longed-for redemption of the little Despatch Rider.

Forgive this objectively impartial criticism of the life of a man. I prefer not to be attacked at all if possible.  But if I must be attacked I prefer it to be in plain sight.


85

Posted by Maguire on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:11 | #

“Antiliberalism - which is oft mentioned but not placed on a firm footing whereby it might be used against liberalism in the real world”

What I started to say, and will finish saying tommorow, is directly relevant to the issue of ‘Antiliberalism’ in the USA.  And I hope to shed some light on why antiliberalism has been so ineffective for 60 years that ‘Liberalism’ actually makes its greatest advances in the USA during what are advertised as ‘Conservative’ regimes.

Indeed, it’s one of the most relevant posts to ‘Antiliberalism’ and what’s really going on today - August 2007 - in the USA that will have appeared on M-R.

“Germanic and Nordic folklore plus the Bible played much greater roles in forming modern Europe than “The Classics,” and the only Bible version of significance for western and central Europe prior to the 16th Century was the Latin Vulgate used by the Catholic Church.”

The more common accusation is that Americans are ignorant of their own history.  However, this thread has at least proved that Europeans can substitute emotional fancies for historical reality just as readily as the Great Unwashed supposedly do on the Western side of the Atlantic.

It should not have been necessary for a pair of ‘Americans’ to make GT’s point about ‘European’ history.


86

Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:50 | #

@a Finn

During the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, many European news agencies had their own correspondents in the South, in particular the British, French, and Italians. I’m sure the wire services were also relied upon.

If you have any information about European race laws, I would find that highly interesting, and would like to archive the data. I know the Third Reich passed an anti-miscegenation law modeled on the Virginia Racial Integrity Act, but Germany appears to be an exception to the rule. My investigations haven’t turned up many parallels between European and American racial attitudes. The U.S. is more like Latin America which had more complex racial hierarchies, but racial hierarchies nonetheless.

The nation that most resembles the United States is South Africa, also a colonial nation, which did have a racial regime for many years. Also, I have recently become aware of a Jim Crow style regime in the Belgian Congo. I will have more to say on that in a few days. The British practiced something resembling white supremacy in their empire but, as a rule of thumb, racial attitudes seem to have been much weaker at home than abroad, even in the U.K.

I’m looking for evidence that a sense of the overwhelming importance of “whiteness” (W.J. Cash’s “proto-Dorian convention”) has ever been important in most European countries. The closest thing to this in Europe seems to be Sparta (which Cash explictly draws an analogy to) and to a lesser extent “volk nationalism” which is similiar, but really isn’t the same thing. In the United States, race became the central organizing concept of society, and the result was an incredible sense of racial solidarity and in-group egalitarianism that muted ethnic and class conflict. This peculiarly American cultural trait informs what is known as “White Nationalism” which I find doesn’t resonate as well abroad.


87

Posted by Maguire on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:06 | #

“It’s no accident, I am afraid, that Latin Christianity was more Judaised than its Hellenic predecessor, or that Protestantism continued the trend and was more Judaised still until one can now hardly tell the difference.”

No, it isn’t any accident.  However one can only discover why this is so by fast forwarding from 1000 B.C. outside the walls of Troy, or inside Helen’s boudoir, to the modern era.

The Latin Vulgate Bible was primarily the work of St. Jerome.  He was roundly criticized even during his lifetime for his judeophilia and close association with Jewish Talmudists.  And he conducted his principle translation work in a monastery in Palestine funded for him by an Imperial noblewoman.

For Protestantism generally and the USA in particular ‘the case is altogether different’, as James Madison said in a different context.  The English King James Bible is to America as the Latin Vulgate is to western Europe.  The Old Testament version used in the King James Authorized Version of 1611 and in all others since is the Talmudic Masoretic version.

This issue becomes important because the Old Testament used by early Hellenic Christianity,  including all the authors of the New Testament who quoted extensively from the Old Testament, is the Greek Septuagint version of the OT.

A good online discussion of the issues and relative credibility of the extant Septuagint and Masoretic texts is here:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

That analysis focuses on NT quotes of the OT and how they appear in the Septuagint and Masoretic.  When one extends the comparison to the two editions directly, it becomes obvious one is dealing with two essentially different books.  And almost needless to add here, the Jewish Masoretic version is infinitely more judeo-centric (and also less pious) than is the Septuagint.

For 1,600 years European ‘Christianity’ had no difficulty understanding that the ‘Church’ was spiritual Israel and that the OT prophecies about ‘Israel’ applied to the Church, and did not apply at all to the Jews.  And so far from being philosemitic, the New Testament is an extremely antisemitic, or rather Anti-Jewish, book

The introduction of the Jewish Masoretic into common usage was a significant first step in preparing white western man for subjugation to open Jewish rule.  And it’s fair to point out this monstrous swindle occurred at precisely the time “The Classics” that are claimed to be our salvation were coming back into academic vogue after a 1,000 year interregnum. 

Maguire


88

Posted by a Finn on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:23 | #

Scimitar: “My investigations haven’t turned up many parallels between European and American racial attitudes.”

- It is not surprising that there are not straight parallels, because the most of the European countries had not any significant racial minorities. Clear racialism develops mostly in those countries that have some practical connection to racial minorities. Ethnic nationalisms emphasis is on other ethnicities, because it is the question that must be dealt with in practice (E.g. can Russians be allowed to move to Finland). But in the background is of course even stronger resistance against e.g. blacks, if that threat ever materializes. Gypsies in Finland could be compared to blacks in many respects, and they were not accepted to be spouses (If they would have been available. They were not because they followed their own non-mixing rules). Also they were restricted out of inner circles of society.

Most of my information about this matter have come from tv and radio history programs, but I have read some texts also. They have been mostly in Finnish. I look into it, ask some questions here, and I can translate texts when I find something. This is not something I have concentrated on, so these information have accrued randomly.


89

Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:14 | #

To: Maguire, GT, all…

For Protestantism generally and the USA in particular ‘the case is altogether different’, as James Madison said in a different context.  The English King James Bible is to America as the Latin Vulgate is to western Europe.  The Old Testament version used in the King James Authorized Version of 1611 and in all others since is the Talmudic Masoretic version.

Thank God someone has cleared this up!

I am getting quite sick of the disparaging of my religion as a Jewish fantasy when Jesus Christ himself was the biggest “self-hating” and “anti-semitic” Jew/man/God to ever walk the face of the Earth!

His was condemning the usury of the Jews millenniums before Ezra Pound, Hitler, William Pierce and Dr. Duke ever thought about doing it.

Neither the Bible nor Christianity are philo-semitic or a source for deracination when interpreted correctly. (That is, Calvinistically and Reformed)

GT also brings up a good point that it is a much larger leap of faith to trust the “classics” then it is to trust the real classic that has had the largest imprint on American society bar none, that is, the Holy Bible in the form of the Textus Receptus.

Maguire takes it a step further in pointing out that there is near unanimity regarding the importance of the text.

  *  Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
 
* Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
 
* Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
 
* Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
 
* Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
 
* Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour’s miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
 
* Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

There is no other ancient book that compares, and no other book that has had a comparable effect.

The influence of the Jew should not go unnoticed (or unpunished) in this discussion. They have destroyed us from within and that is all there is to it.

This is what they did to Spain before they moved next door to Portugal. From there it was up to the “New Jerusalem” in Amsterdam where they fomented wars of attrition in Spanish colonies and became huge shareholders in the Dutch East India Co. Then onward to England, the newest and boldest thassolocracy on the block! Destroy D’Israeli and put glorious keeper of the flame in debt and in the pocket further of Jew financiers. Then across the Atlantic to America Emma Goldman and company. Sensing resistance from the left and the inability to fully penetrate the labor unions, they instead lingered in the halls of the National Review and destroyed what was left of American Conservatism. Now we have Pipes, Feith, Liebowitz (Libby), Pearle et al brandishing American hegemony in the name of Israel before their kin completely destroy the dollar and move on to the next green pasture of White productivity.

America is Yankee-Judea and Sunic should direct his criticisms of “American” culture at the cunning Talmudists that run the show. (Literally. Hollywood and D.C.)


90

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:41 | #

Between 1886 and 1910, [S]outhern lynch mobs murdered 27 Sicilians.

Lynch mobs kill; they don’t “murder”.  Why are we supposed to think these Sicilians were innocent?


91

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:44 | #

italics closed.


92

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:45 | #


93

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:14 | #

Clear racialism develops mostly in those countries that have some practical connection to racial minorities. Ethnic nationalisms emphasis is on other ethnicities, because it is the question that must be dealt with in practice.

The point is moot because they do not differ, they are birds of a feather, both fundamental principles of evolution. It is tribes or ethnies or whatever, as Darwin pointed out a century and a half ago, that conflict, compete and conquer. It is proximity that promotes that conflict. The Cracker culture, as McWhiney dubs it, was bound to compete for survival with the surrounding ethny because they had evolved into a virtually unique people. Natural competition was inevitable with black (or black Crackers as Sowell defines them) Ameri-Indians (Cherokee and Mexican mestizos) and first and foremost Yankees, another ethnic group distinct from their original Southern brethren.

The only distinction from the European theatre is the players are different.

Examine the last election in the UK. In England the big issue is race. Blacks and sub-cons pushing out/race-replacing whites. In Wales the BNP did well in areas of mass foreign immigration as well. Only in the Welsh case, the mass of foreign immigrants taking Welsh jobs were…Poles. The difference? Proximity.

The so called advance racialism of the South was just another story of ethnic competition by another name.


94

Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:45 | #

I ordered Mr. Sunic’s book this evening off Amazon and will read it for myself before saying anything further about it. I will post my own review on OCD in a week or so.


95

Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:48 | #

Something like 1,000 - 1,500 whites were lynched in the South through Jim Crow.


96

Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 09:07 | #

A response to Desmond and some thoughts on America’s founding myths:

I would argue that “tribalism” and “xenophobia” are natural. The “us vs. them” dynamic, “sacrificing for the group” and the “need to belong,” is the basic template and seems to be hardwired into the human brain. The expression of this feeling, however, is mediated by culture and can often take various forms. “Us” can be defined narrowly as the family unit, the family and immediate kin, more broadly, as an ethnic group, or even as an entire race.

The fixation point can become any number of things: a religious cult, a dynasty, a class, a nation, a professional organization, an ideological cult, etc. At the same time, “us” can be defined in several ways simultaneously. The human animal has all sorts of competing loyalties. “Us” derives its meaning from what does not belong - the “other.”

The sense of the overwhelming importance of whiteness, the feeling that “white people need to stick together,” or the “Proto-Doric convention” as W.J. Cash calls it, is not natural at all. Rather, it is a historically specific meme that is completely absent from the vast majority of European societies. And even amongst that minority, only in a few select cases, maybe only one or two, has that meme become utterly ascendant - the foundation of an entire culture.

Racial nationalism is hardly specific to the American South. It is a common American tradition that evolved out of the violence and the struggle for mastery between European colonials, his negro slaves, and the Indian aboriginies. The American West, for example, had Jim Crow laws until the aftermath of the Second World War. The Midwest had a Jim Crow regime until after the Civil War. Even the Yankees of New England had segregation and anti-miscegenation laws at one point. Massachusetts passed one of the first laws of that genre.

The difference is that New England annihilated its Indian population, rid itself of slavery, and then the negro. The region was also transformed by European immigration. As a consequence of this, New England became more homogeneous and egalitarian, full of people who didn’t have to struggle to win the land; its tradition of racialism atrophied. Another contributing factor was the ideology of the American Revolution, so popular in Boston. In other words, New England became more like Canada. A similiar process happened in the Midwest after 1865. The Midwest was once very racist - Illinois and Ohio adopted laws that prohibited free negro settlement altogether. Sherman, as noted above, was a racist. This changed largely because of European immigration.

The South went off in another direction. Like other Americans, Southerners shared the common tradition of racial nationalism, but the South was unique in that the menace of the negro was always present - the horror of slave rebellion, becoming another Haiti. Planters, the yeomanry, and crackers shared a common interest in preserving their racial dominance. A sort of racial egalitarianism based upon “whiteness” evolved between them and became the glue that held Southern society together. To quote Yancey, our “master idea” is that “every white man is the equal of every other. The second idea is that the negro is inferior.” During the Antebellum era, this was most commonly expressed in the slave patrols in which every able white man participated in.

Racialism became ritualistic in a way that it did not elsewhere - something of a rite of passage. The result was a society in which racial identity became incredibly salient. As Cash notes:

Moreover, it was this solidification before the Yankee, the universal concentration of Southerners on the will to victory in the struggle for mastery, that brought to full development the Southern passion for politics and rhetoric. Politics, it goes without saying, was the battlefield on which the contest would be waged for the thirty years before the ultimate resort to arms. And politics was also, so to speak, the temple wherein men entered to partake in the mysteries of the common brotherhood of the white man, to partake of the holy sacrament of Southern loyalty and hate. And the shining sword of battle, the bread and wine - if I may be permitted to carry out the theological figure - through which men became one flesh with the Logos, was, of course, rhetoric, a rhetoric that every day became less and less a form of speech strictly and more and more a direct instrument of emotion, like music.

What came to be known to history as the “Ku Klux Klan” was, in essence, nothing more than a postbellum version of the slave patrols.

Was this simply a form of Southern nationalism - a sort of ethnic nationalism - like the European variety? No, that wasn’t the case. If you may recall, the Confederacy was based upon a radical version of state’s rights. Each state was completely sovereign. Southerners went into the war as South Carolinians, Virginians, Texans, Alabamians, and so forth. It wasn’t until after the Civil War, reflecting upon the war experience and overthrowing Reconstruction, that a strong sense of Southern ethnic nationalism developed based on the myth of the Lost Cause. As noted above, racial nationalism was a common American tradition, not specific to the South.

Desmond insists that this phenomena belongs to the same genus as the various European nationalisms. I disagree. The focal point is different; it is race, not ethnicity. It is far more expansive - often too expansive for the European to grasp; at the same time, European ethnonationalism can smack the American as too narrow. The celebration of “whiteness” allowed Americans to mute ethnic and class conflict through racial sameness in a way that did not happen in Europe.

Robbing him and degrading him in so many ways, it yet, by singular irony, had simultaneously elevated this common white to a position comparable to that of, say, the Doric knight of ancient Sparta. Not only was he not exploited directly, he was himself made by extension a member of the dominant class - was lodged solidly on a tremendous superiority, which, however much the blacks in the “big house” might sneer at him, and however their masters might privately agree with them, he could never publicly lose. Come what might, he would always be a white man. And before that vast and capacious distinction, all others were foreshortened dwarfed, and all but obliterated.

Non-American examples of this sort of racial nationalism do exist. A good example would be the British colony of Barbados in the West Indies. There also a racial caste system based upon “whiteness” developed. South Carolina was founded by colonists from Barbados. The other Lower South states were colonized by South Carolinians. I have already mentioned South Africa and the Belgian Congo as two other examples.

Unfortunately, I have never read anything by Tomislav Sunic, so I find myself in the dark as to what exactly he is arguing for. If I was familiar with his writings, I would have more to say, but for now can only offer my own perspective.

Much of Europe was wrecked during the 20C by what George Fitzhugh would once have decried as class conscious mudsills. Hitler and Mussolini saved Germany and Italy respectively from it, but unfortunately Czar Alexander and his family were consumed by that whirlwind, not to mention much of Eastern Europe. This suggests to me that the American celebration of “whiteness” never had much currency in that region and is something else entirely.


97

Posted by triad60 on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 15:06 | #

Maguire, Daniel, All

Your discussion of scripture errancy is great - thanks for
putting forth.

Please check out Roger Hathaway’s site http://www.divinepageant.com
and find the article under theological writings about the
KJV.  He doesn’t put quite so much faith in the textus receptus.
He does believe that the greek translations are superior to
others.  Contrast this with Michael Hoffman’s belief that the
Douay Rheims translation is best. Pardon this yid expression -
whatevah.  For us sub-mensans, this is sticky wickets.

In looking at other folks thoughts, I’ve tried to find some
recurring similarities - don’t mean they’re perfect but
probably darn close.

1) Christ was born to confront the emerging Babylonian-Edomite
  -Judaic false religion devilishy contrived to lead men ( the
  “Jacob” side of humanity away from their Creator. Thus
  a Savior.

2)  Confronting the usurious moneylenders cost Christ his life.

3)  Chasing after material things is a waste of our life
    and diminishes our spiritual nature.

4)  “Got to get our selves back to The Garden” ( CSNY)
    our Creator did not intend us to make a living under
    fluorescent lights.  Working with our hands and/or
    keeping up His creation would keep us strong and
    healthy. Being a scrawny beancounter I am chief
    among sinners !

I’ve said enough. There are many equally good thoughts.

Peace to all

triad60


98

Posted by Maguire on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:07 | #

Triad60, Daniel et al

“Maguire takes it a step further in pointing out that there is near unanimity regarding the importance of the text.”

Let me make something clear.  I was agreeing with Tabula Rasa’s observation that “Hellenic Christianity” (i.e. various flavors of Eastern Orthodox) is least philosemitic and Western Protestantism is most philosemitic, with the Roman Catholic Church occupying a middle ground.  And I elaborated on one mechanism that has led to this.

I didn’t discuss Erasmus’ Textus Receptus.  I was talking about text sources used for Old Testament translations.  There are two generally used, these being the Greek Septuagint and the much newer Talmudic Masoretic.  FYI, the few fragments of genuine ancient Hebrew O.T. that were finally discovered at Qumran preserve a third variation, despite Talmudic claims to the contrary.

“He doesn’t put quite so much faith in the textus receptus.”

Neither do I.  Or in the laughable doctrine of Scriptural Inerrancy.  The worst place to learn about the Bible or about religion is inside a church from priests and pastors.  The T.R. was the Catholic monk Erasmus’ effort at textual criticism using the best sources available to him then.  Far more sources are available now, so why not use those, too?

But if anyone were to ask me what I thought was more significant for most people in Europe during 1,600 years of the Latin Vulgate, I’d answer German and Nordic folklore.

Jerome’s Vulgate was current when printing presses didn’t exist, all books were copied by hand by scribes and 90% or more of the European population was functionally illiterate.

Martin Luther’s career is a good example of reality back then.  He never read a Bible during his earlier career as a monk.  He didn’t even encounter one until he became a seminarian studying for ordination as a priest.  His seminary had one (1) Bible in the library, chained to a wall.  And few people even there read it.  Catholic theology of the period had almost no contact with the Bible, the same as Premillenial Dispensationalism today.

And it’s useful to observe here that “The Classics” at that time were vastly fewer in numbers of circulated manuscripts, and were read much less frequently than even the hand-copied Vulgate was.  And that only within the tiny circle able to both read Greek and ancient Latin and having handwritten manuscripts available.  The Vatican Library and a handful of other universities in Europe were the only places both these conditions were met.  The idea of “The Classics” exercising any influence in Europe between the 5th Century AD and the printing press belongs in the same world where Alice discourses with the Red Queen while running against the moving road.

Religion in that era was whatever the village priest, himself frequently illiterate, said it was.  Mass was pronounced in Latin to a population who couldn’t read or write in their native languages, let alone in Latin.  So long as Friar Tuck raked in the shekels and preached obedience to the church hierarchy and local aristocracy, the local archbishop left him alone to his own devices.

The proliferation of Gutenberg’s printing press technology is why the question of Bible translations became so critical during the 16th & 17th Centuries.  iow, precisely at the time a new mass media was birthing. 

I find it fascinating how the Jews in Holland managed to engineer the substitution of their Masoretic O.T. in the KJV for the partial Septuagint translation used in the Vulgate.  The corrupt Hebrew Masoretic is what the drunkards of the KJV translation committee used for their O.T.

The question of which Old Testament is used is one clue to explaining how Christianity in the west has become jewier and jewier.  But it’s not the only reason.

Maguire


99

Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:00 | #

Maguire:

Oh I see.

It was late last night and I completely misread you. You have sufficiently cleared your viewpoint up now.

I will need to do some research before I address the idea that the underlying text of the KJV is “jewier” than the Eastern Orthodox.

As you indicate, it might not matter much anyway (the underlying text) due to the widespread illiteracy of the times.

Although the pernicious influence of Cyrus S. and co. are certainly a worthy line of investigation especially since literacy was widespread in America at the time of the publication of his “Bible.”


100

Posted by danielj on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:24 | #

Additionally, my basic point was that there is certainly *thousands* more copies of texts and fragments of text, that are fare more antiquated, and far more in agreement of the Bible than there are of other ancient documents as I was echoing GT.

Secondarily, I would like to again state that Jews had infiltrated Western man form early on, including the Catholic church and their influence can not be overstated. I consider the Protestant Reformation an attempt at correcting the Judaification of the underlying text which is the heart of the matter.

What does it really say? and Is it true?

Young American men should get high on Northwestern European folklore, Nikola Tesla, and the practice field.

Tesla yes, but what good will folklore do for us? The Poetic Edda, gratifying as literature, does nothing for us. Those that would charge Christianity with being ineffectual because it is untrue fail to realize the same is true of any other fairy tale they would charge us with elevating to the position of the sacred.

What can we rally around spiritually that is true?

I think GW and Scimitar’s materialism (mind as an emergent property, love and altruism solely the result of genetic processes, et cetera) fail to save the day.

Bono certainly isn’t going to save us either, or any other “innovative” pop-music for that matter. On top of that, Jews control the music industry as well so nothing of worth will slip past the censors anyway.

Hasn’t it been proved that almost any piece of culture we had/have is capable of being co-opted by Jews and their shabbas Goy and diverted to do their dastardly deeds?


101

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:25 | #

“Young American men should get high on Northwestern European folklore, Nikola Tesla, and the practice field.”  (—GT)

I’m not sure why Tesla is singled out but his memory, together with that of Steinmetz, is certainly dear to those who love the stories of the American Heroic Age of Electrical Engineering:  these two giants were the twin heros of that age.  (Neither was American:  Tesla was Austrian (Bosnian) and Steinmetz, a hunchbacked dwarf, was a Prussian from Breslau.  Both were great geniuses.)


102

Posted by wintermute on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:41 | #

What can we rally around spiritually that is true?

[. . .]

Hasn’t it been proved that almost any piece of culture we had/have is capable of being co-opted by Jews and their shabbas Goy and diverted to do their dastardly deeds?

No. From Ralph Waldo Emerson’s 1841 essay, “Intellect”:

I shall not presume to interfere in the old politics of the
skies;—— “The cherubim know most; the seraphim love most.” The gods
shall settle their own quarrels. But I cannot recite, even thus
rudely, laws of the intellect, without remembering that lofty and
sequestered class of men who have been its prophets and oracles, the
high-priesthood of the pure reason, the _Trismegisti_, the expounders
of the principles of thought from age to age. When, at long
intervals, we turn over their abstruse pages, wonderful seems the
calm and grand air of these few, these great spiritual lords, who
have walked in the world, — these of the old religion, — dwelling
in a worship which makes the sanctities of Christianity look
_parvenues_ and popular; for “persuasion is in soul, but necessity is
in intellect.” This band of grandees, Hermes, Heraclitus, Empedocles,
Plato, Plotinus, Olympiodorus, Proclus, Synesius, and the rest, have
somewhat so vast in their logic, so primary in their thinking, that
it seems antecedent to all the ordinary distinctions of rhetoric and
literature, and to be at once poetry, and music, and dancing, and
astronomy, and mathematics. I am present at the sowing of the seed
of the world. With a geometry of sunbeams, the soul lays the
foundations of nature. The truth and grandeur of their thought is
proved by its scope and applicability, for it commands the entire
schedule and inventory of things for its illustration. But what
marks its elevation, and has even a comic look to us, is the innocent
serenity with which these babe-like Jupiters sit in their clouds, and
from age to age prattle to each other, and to no contemporary. Well
assured that their speech is intelligible, and the most natural thing
in the world, they add thesis to thesis, without a moment’s heed of
the universal astonishment of the human race below, who do not
comprehend their plainest argument; nor do they ever relent so much
as to insert a popular or explaining sentence; nor testify the least
displeasure or petulance at the dulness of their amazed auditory.
The angels are so enamoured of the language that is spoken in heaven,
that they will not distort their lips with the hissing and unmusical
dialects of men, but speak their own, whether there be any who
understand it or not.


103

Posted by Maguire on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:17 | #

Daniel,

“there is certainly *thousands* more copies of texts and fragments of text”

Yes.

“that are fare more antiquated”

Yes.

“and far more in agreement of the Bible”

This question is why Bible translation committees always take many years to finish their deliberations.

See here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030610035946/christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/toc.htm

Unfortunately offline now but preserved for posterity.  Just keep hitting ok on the server password window and it’ll come through.  One of the most objective studies of the sources and processes used for compiling “Bibles” I’ve ever read.  You’ll never look at the KJV the same way again after reading it.

“than there are of other ancient documents as I was echoing GT.”

Most assuredly.  Nor have these few sources been subjected to anything approaching the critical scrutiny that has been given to the “Bible”.  This is where faith-based Classicism comes in.

Still, the KJV is a critical document in the formation of “America”.  It was far more accessible to whites than Jerome’s Vulgate was to Europeans prior to the printing press.  Alexis De Toqueville reported in “Democracy In America” that Shakespeare’s plays and the KJV were very widely distributed, and commonly found even in the rudest of forest hovels on the frontier.

This is why I ascribe so much importance to the question of how the KJV came to be, and particularly to the novel use of the Talmudic Masoretic text for the KJV’s O.T. portion.

Another interesting question is why the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV.  It was originally included and contains much material unfavorable to Hellenic and Roman era Jews.

However, the KJV alone did not produce a general philosemitism in Americans.  Jews were legally disenfranchised in most states well into the 19th Century.  US Grant and Samuel Clemmons offer a window into most 19th Century Americans’ outlook on ‘Jews’.

The earliest exceptions are found in the ‘progressive’ multi-racial areas of the Antebellum South.  Here negro supporting workfare plantation owners were in intimate commercial intercourse with International Jewry in the City of London and elsewhere.  The slave state of Delaware was the first to remove its legal disabilities on Jews.

Maguire


104

Posted by danielj on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:47 | #

I have to admit I’m sort of stunned into silence.

I have never really thought about the doctrine of innerrancy before and must confess that I need some time to gather my thoughts.

I have had a realization equivalent with the ones that I had during my conversion to the Reformed faith from philo-semitic modern Christianity.

Thanks for the info Maguire, now I need a few weeks to read and mull over some things.

Signing off for now,
DanielJ


105

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 03:26 | #

“Steinmetz, a hunchbacked dwarf”  (—from my comment, above)

Yikes, I forgot to translate that into PC-speak!  I’d better do it quick before Morris Disease and the Anything-but-Southern Carpetbagger Poverty-Pimp Lawless Left-of-Center nails us for being a hate-site! 

So, change that to:  “Steinmetz, a differently-backed, height-gifted person” (persyn is actually the preferred spelling, in order to get away from any built-in masculine/Patriarchal biases; perdaughter also is used and is acceptable, for both sexes ...)


106

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:21 | #

Scimitar: “During the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, many European news agencies had their own correspondents in the South, in particular the British, French, and Italians. I’m sure the wire services were also relied upon. “

- When you answer the question; Who owns Reuters, Associated Press, United Press International etc., big news companies, and combine with them the liberal journalists of Usa and Europe, you arrive to the answer. Still, especially reporters from smaller countries didn’t run the “Suffering negro” -circus, although we too had annoying percentage of liberal reporters.

The dirty secret of European leftists who hate Americans is that they are dependent on American media’s lead, thinking and fashions. 60’s being the the main example.

I found something concerning the ethnic/racial policies of Sweden etc. Notice here that the parliament voted to finance the eugenics institute (click both pages):

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/images/1631.html

Eugenists’ “science” was rubbish, but what matters is that it produced the desired effects. Still the science should be made sound. It is too transparent, that noble and lofty looking people have been selected to represent Swedes and base and bad looking people other ethnicities. Same artificial divide in fairy tale descriptions in the texts. I sort out as an example the pictures that are meant to represent Finns; I number them in reading order:

1. Typical Swedish so called horse face 2. Swedish alcoholic type 3. Sometimes the type resembling that can be seen 4. Never, maybe he is Sami, strange.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=1638&printable=1&detailed=0

1. Funny. I would like to say it is Finnish type. I remember one person who resembled him. Very rare.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=1637&printable=1&detailed=0

1. That type is common, in various variations 2. Very rare type 3. Old woman, could be from Sweden or Finland, not common

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=1644&printable=1&detailed=0

Although I don’t want mixed marriages between Sami and Finns, the pictures of “Sami” did not represent them. It seems that the ugliest, even mutated Sami or non-Sami faces were selected.

Main page:

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/25.html

Here is in very short form/version with PC additives the Herge commentary about Belgians before WWII. He has commented it more and with less PC (As told in Finnish radio, Yle’s channel):

“Tintin in the Congo has often been criticized as having racist and colonialist views, as well as several scenes of violence against animals. Hergé has later claimed that he was only portraying the naïve views of the time.”

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

Short commentary with my addition about the situation in Sweden before the WWII:

“The first stage (1938 to 1948) spans the period just before and after World War II. Before the war, Jews from Nazi Germany sought asylum in Sweden. Although a few were accepted, the majority were rejected due to anti-semitism and discriminatory racial ideology prevalent in Sweden at that time. Afraid of the rise in anti-semitism, leaders of the Jewish community in Sweden supported a restrictive asylum policy. The most important reason (I add, Nazi influence in their decision is exaggerated) that many Jews were rejected was due to the fact that the Swedish government strove to avoid conflict with Nazi Germany.”

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=406

Addition: One of the Founding fathers, who decided the American independence vote, had Finnish roots:

http://www.colonialhall.com/morton/morton.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Morton_(politician)


107

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:24 | #

“The dirty secret of European leftists who hate Americans is that they are dependent on American media’s lead, thinking and fashions. 60’s being the the main example.”  (—Finn)

Exactly.  This stuff is coming from America.  That includes the ideology of race-replacement.  It’s not being independently invented in each European country.  Look for its source among those pumping it out here in The Great Satan.  Attack it at its source.  Strike at it at the root, and the branches on the other side of the Atlantic will die.


108

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:12 | #

Is there conclusive proof that the State Department, using the US Occupation Army as a bargaining chip, is actually behind these race-replacement policies in Europe (certainly, the US has been in support of EU integration from the start)? Or would the real momentum be coming through more unofficial channels such as the Trilateral Commission, or the CFR/Roundtable axis?


109

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:28 | #

Steve, I don’t have conclusive proof, no.  But I’m not blind.  I have two functioning eyes, and after thinking about this stuff a lot since roughly the year 2000 I know how to put two and two together. 

But I’m sure conclusive proof won’t be long in coming, now that people are starting to figure out exactly what to look for — starting to realize exactly what must be out there in terms of evidence.


110

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:46 | #

I agree that your hypothesis is the most likely - that DC is behind the disastrous developments in Europe* - but I would like to find a way to validate it.

*Some interesting material already exists linking Wall Street interests to the 1917 Bolshevik Coup (Antony Sutton researched this thoroughly), and former Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has shown how the EU was devised as a full-blown federal state behind closed doors in the mid-80s (it was hatched by the Trilateral Commission working in league with the Soviets).


111

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:54 | #

“former Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has shown how the EU was devised as a full-blown federal state behind closed doors in the mid-80s (it was hatched by the Trilateral Commission working in league with the Soviets).”  (—Steve)

Exactly.


112

Posted by GT on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:05 | #

“Young American men should get high on Northwestern European folklore, Nikola Tesla, and the practice field.” (—GT)

“I’m not sure why Tesla is singled out, …” (-Scrooby)

Hands-on physicists, electrical and mechanical engineers, technicians, and various tradesmen are required to design, build, and service the power generators, distribution systems, and manufacturing equipment necessary to sustain our microcommunities.  All must be technically “well-rounded;” for example, electrical engineers with more than vague knowledge of mechanical principles, electronic technicians with basic machine shop and welding skills, auto mechanics and welders capable of wiring homes, etc.

eBartering microcommunities require physically fit, technically well-rounded young men prepared to assume leadership roles from the ground up.


113

Posted by Rnl on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:38 | #

Maguire wrote:

The introduction of the Jewish Masoretic into common usage was a significant first step in preparing white western man for subjugation to open Jewish rule. And it’s fair to point out this monstrous swindle occurred at precisely the time “The Classics” that are claimed to be our salvation were coming back into academic vogue after a 1,000 year interregnum.

Maguire’s cranky account of how Jews and their Roman collaborators hijacked Christian translations of Jewish scriptures confirms part of Sunic’s thesis.

The Septuagint - the Old Testament in Greek, translated for the benefit of Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt - is a Jewish translation of Jewish scriptures. The Masoretic text is a Jewish edition of the same Jewish scriptures. Yet Maguire thinks that the former is somehow less Jewish than the latter. He also thinks that the sinister Masoretic text has corrupted Christianity, which would become less Jewish if only the Greek Septuagint once again become the basis of the Christian Old Testament. To summarize Maguire’s theory is to refute it.

In fact, a Hebrew edition of a Hebrew text is a better basis for the Christian Old Testament than an ancient translation of a Hebrew text into Greek. That’s what Jerome concluded. That’s also what most modern editors of the Old Testament have concluded. There is nothing sinister (no “monstrous swindle”) in that reasonable decision. Christian translators thought it better not to translate a translation.

No one, in my opinion, should attack Christians as Christians. Christianity is our historical religion, for better or worse. But if you are a Christian, you have to accept that almost all of your central religious text was written by Jews. No version of the Hebrew Bible is any less Jewish than another.

The impossible ambition to discover a non-Jewish version (or a less Jewish version) of the Hebrew Bible testifies to the kind of unhealthy fixation on Jews that Sunic is describing.

Jews have done us much harm, but corrupting the text of our Old Testament isn’t among their sins.


114

Posted by Rnl on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:44 | #

Maguire wrote:

The idea of “The Classics” exercising any influence in Europe between the 5th Century AD and the printing press belongs in the same world where Alice discourses with the Red Queen while running against the moving road.

As Wintermute has pointed out, though apparently no one was paying attention, Boethius’ _Consolation_ was a massively influential and widely circulated text. You can’t understand the intellectual life of medieval Latin West without it. That’s not an exaggeration.

To take another example among many, Ovid’s _Metamorphoses_ had a substantial effect on European literature. Since Ovid provided a compendium of classical mythology, medieval writers had a solid relationship with, and detailed knowledge of, Greco-Roman myth. They moralized classical myth as Christian allegories. They integrated classical myth into their own stories as learned allusions. They based the structure of their own narratives on classical models. This is also a matter of uncontested fact, well known to anyone familiar with the subject.

That classical texts were comparatively rare in the Middle Ages only increased the cultural significance of those that were available.


115

Posted by wintermute on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:00 | #

As Wintermute has pointed out, though apparently no one was paying attention, Boethius’ _Consolation_ was a massively influential and widely circulated text. You can’t understand the intellectual life of medieval Latin West without it. That’s not an exaggeration.

The Consolation is often referred to as “the book that saved the mind of the West”. Even Wikipedia calls it “the single most important and influential work in the West in Medieval and Renaissance Christianity.”

C.S. Lewis on Boethius: ““To acquire a taste for it is almost to become naturalised in the Middle Ages.”

As I’ve said above, Boethius is now understood as the means by which the Greco-Roman concept ‘providence’ was mapped onto the Nordo-Germanic web of all destinies, “the Wyrd”.

Translation of Boethius, for those at this site anxious to keep their Anglo-Saxonness clean, were made by Alfred the Great into Old English in the 9th century, by Chaucer in the 14th, and again by Queen Elizabeth in the 16th century. Dante, another medieval figure who we might expect people here interested in Western history and culture to know, quotes it constantly.

The idea of “The Classics” exercising any influence in Europe between the 5th Century AD and the printing press belongs in the same world where Alice discourses with the Red Queen while running against the moving road.

Here we can compare Maguire’s historical acumen against history itself, unless he wishes to argue that copies of the Divine Comedy have all been corrupted and rewritten.

Here is Dante’s first Canto of the Paradiso:

Benign Apollo! this last labour aid; 
And make me such a vessel of thy worth, 
As thy own laurel claims, of me beloved. 
Thus far hath one of steep Parnassus’ brows       15
Sufficed me; henceforth, there is need of both
For my remaining enterprise. Do thou  
Enter into my bosom, and there breathe
 
So, as when Marsyas by thy hand was dragg’d
Forth from his limbs, unsheathed. O power divine!      20
If thou to me of thine impart so much, 
That of that happy realm the shadow’d form
Traced in my thoughts I may set forth to view; 
Thou shalt behold me of thy favour’d tree
Come to the foot, and crown myself with leaves:      25
For to that honour thou, and my high theme
Will fit me. If but seldom, mighty Sire!

To grace his triumph, gathers thence a wreath
Cæsar, or bard, (more shame for human wills
Depraved), joy to the Delphic god must spring       30
From the Peneian foliage, when one breast
Is with such thirst inspired. From a small spark
Great flame hath risen: after me, perchance, 
Others with better voice may pray, and gain, 
From the Cyrrhæan city, answer kind.

Here is an odd thing: the supreme poet of Christendom, writing in (the last time I checked) the 13th century, and therefore long prior to printing presses, is praying to a god whose worship is supposed to be long gone, while he it at the very foot of Paradise itself.

Why no prayer to Jesus?

And, if “the Classics’ are as inconsequential as Maguire claims, then why pray to Apollo at all? Would that not tend to expose oneself to comment in the Magisterium?

Of course, the English have been enjoying Alfred’s translation of Boethius for four centuries at this point, and as has already been pointed out, Dante himself makes frequent allusions to Boethius. They classics seem to have had a very busy afterlife, prior to Maguire’s claimed birthdate with the origin of movable type.

But this is not an isolated incident. The second Canto of the Paradiso has barely begun when:

The sea I sail has never yet been passed;
Minerva breathes, and pilots me Apollo,
And Muses nine point out to me the Bears

Who is Minerva? Who are the muses? Will his audience understand these strange references to a foreign religion, or is this some private fancy of the poet?

Soon thereafter, Dante is comparing his journey to some fellow named Jason. And, let’s not forget his guide through the underworld, Virgil. Who is he? Dante is so full of these ‘esoteric’ references, we might be permitted to call him a Mason avant la lettre, if not an occultist outright.

All of this is not to mention the Ptolemaic system of the orders of the planets, whereby Dante ascends to the heavens. These continued directly into the mainstream of European tradition, often via astrology, and are extensively used by Shakespeare and other Elizabethans. Their medicine - mostly herbalism and the theory of the humours - also descend from Galen, whose temperaments are derived from the classical elements: earth, air, water, fire. These derive from Empedocles via Aristotle.

Dante created nine circles of Hell to mirror the nine orders of angels. From whence do these derive? Are they a Christian invention? No, not at all.

The orders of the angels derive from a very interesting author, now called the Pseudo-Dionysus, who purported to be Paul’s first convert in Athens. His three books, (The Divine Names, Mystical Theology, Celestial Hierarchy) are the bedrock and foundation for Christian mysticism and angelology. His work was examined, and found praiseworthy, by another medieval luminary, Thomas Aquinas.

Sometime after the discovery of print, it was discovered that Dionysus was not who he pretended to be. Rather he turned out to be an unknown author, of very late provenance, who had smuggled the work of the late Neoplatonism Proclus into the Christian camp, flying the false flag of “Dionysus the Areopagite”. There are modern scholars who have argued that Proclus himself authored the texts, though even those who deny this are forced to admit that long passages in his writing is simply copied directly out of the works of Proclus, and that even where Proclus ideas are not present, Procus’ ideas certainly are. When did Jesus mention the nine orders of angels? Oh, that’s right: never.

That angels and their orders are a pagan splice into the Christian genome is proved by the rapidity and disgust with which Protestents sought to abandon the whole schema. Catholic and Medieval civilization are quite another thing. They are getting Platonism coming and going.

In the case of Aquinas, this is especially amusing, as the Aristotle he thinks he is replying to in the Book of Causes (an Arabic text attributed to ‘Aristotle’) is actually Proclus, while the foundational text attributed to one of Paul’s earliest converts, is also Proclus. If western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, they are mostly footnoting the work of Proclus, the last successor of the Platonic Academy.

Do you begin to see how ‘the classics’ can transmit themselves, even without widespread literacy? How was the inner life of Europeans altered by the notion of a Great Chain of Being, a primary Platonic idea presented to Christians as the nine orders of Angels? Did anyone look up to the sky and not see the spheres, each guarded by a planet, which surrounded the earth? Did anyone do medical diagnosis without recourse to humour theory or treatment without ancient herbalism? What does it mean that Britons have been imbibing Platonism neat from the time of Alfred the Great, more than a thousand years ago? Did the common Englishman take anything from the poetry of Chaucer, which is very completely wound up with the ideas and strategies of Boethius? How about the influence of the Wyrd on Nordo-Germanic consciousness? And what about that odd duck Dante, praying to Apollo in the 13th century, or following Virgil into the underworld? Or the influence of Pseudo-DIonysus on all subsequent Christian mystics? How can all this be going on, when “the Classics” are deader than a doornail?

Epic poems about underworld journeys, called nekyia after the 11th chapter of the Odyssey, occur in Virgil, Dante, Milton, and Pound, each one self consciously building on, and commenting on, his predeccesor. I do not think that the continuity of European inner life could have a more powerful real world counterpart or illustration. When one adds that the great mystics were, almost to a person, either indebted to the ancients indirectly through Pseduo-Dionysus or directly, through authors like Plotinus, then you begin to get a real picture of just how wide spread and influential “the Classics” are - and how foundational. It is even a bit of a misnomer to claim that “Christianity” is the historical religion of the West, when you start looking at how the sausage of our common religion was actually manufactured, and what sorts of beast were slaughtered to fill its skin.

Think of the Rhineland mystics - Suso, Tauler, Eckhardt. All are dependant for their revolutionary ideas on exposure to late Neoplatonism, either directly via Plotinus or indirectly, via Pseduo Dionysus. You can ‘zoom in’ on any great flowering in the European tradition and find a similar kind of influence at the root of it. Kathleen Raine compared late Neoplatonism to a ‘hidden spring’ whose movements could be tracked by the sudden outpouring of creative activity left in the wake of one of its unpredictable upwellings in European society, most notably the Renaissance and English Romanticism. So keen was her sight on this issue that she successfully predicted that evidence would later be discovered linking William Blake to Thomas Taylor the Platonist, which decades later certainly did surface. How was she able to make such an amazing prophecy?

Outside of Dante, who are the major minds or influences of the Medieval period? Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Abelard, Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Scotus. We’ve already had a peek at the Rhineland mystics, though lines of development for any group of Christian mystics are going to be quite similar. Christian mystics for the most part, are the children and grandchildren of Orpheus, not Abraham. As for Aquinas and Boethius and Dante, we have discussed all of these.

Do you require instruction regarding Augustine, Anselm, Abelard, or Bonaventure? I leave off Scotus because he is understood by moderns as a Neoplatonist proper.

http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-9/epilogue.htm

In retrospect, medieval philosophy shows the decisive influence of two main systems of ancient thought: Neo-Platonism — especially its Augustinian and Pseudo-Dionysian form — and Aristotelianism. Neo-Platonism manifested an irrepressible vigor and persistence in shaping the medieval mind from the Fathers of the Church to Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499). Though Aristotelianism triumphed in the scholastic age of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to begin a new era in philosophy, both systems mingled freely in the minds of many schoolmen.

In fact, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas synthesized these two philosophies in different ways, the former Neo-Platonizing Aristotelianism and the latter Aristotelianizing Neo-Platonism, to create original systems of thought. In responding to the challenge of Neo-Platonism, Augustine christianized it, whereas John Scotus Erigena Neo-Platonized Christian ideas. Medieval philosophy was not an echo of ancient thought, but rather a voice speaking its own mind.

C.S. Lewis’ protagonist in The Last Battle, Professor Digory Kirke, exclaims, “It’s all in Plato, all in Plato! Dear me, what do they teach them in the schools nowadays?”

I can do no better than to reprint Lewis’ question. What do they teach them in schools nowadays?

I observe in parting, to Maguire, that in this realm, one must run merely to keep one’s place. I trust you did not take the Red Queen’s advice to be mere fantasy simply because it occurs in a fantastical work.


116

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:31 | #

The dirty secret of European leftists who hate Americans is that they are dependent on American media’s lead, thinking and fashions. 60’s being the the main example.

I have to disagree with you here. The U.S. and Western Europe went off in two different directions after the Second World War. From 1945 to 1965, the U.S. was at the peak of its world power and influence. The mood of the country was one of overwhelming, soaring cultural confidence. It was widely believed that Americans could do anything at the time. Americans had beat the Great Depression and conquered the Axis. It was precisely this mentality of overconfident utopianism that inspired everything from the Civil Rights Movement, to the Space Race, to LBJ’s Great Society, to Nixon’s War on Drugs. The nation that elected JFK was hopelessly naive, idealistic, youthful. Think back to the Eisenhower years of the 1950s. Many Americans are nostalgic about that period of history as our Golden Age.

In stark contrast, much of Western Europe was in ruins. For the first time since the fifteenth century, Western Europe had ceased to be the center of the world, and was occupied by non-European powers. Millions were dead. Historic cities had been obliterated. In the heart of Europe, Germans went hungry. The question on the mind of the European intelligentsia at that time was: why? With some justification, they blamed “racism” and “nationalism” and, as is often the case in history, overreacted. This would happen about 25 years later in the U.S.

The postwar period in Western Europe was a time of deep soul searching and pessimism. Europeans came to believe there was something deeply wrong with their civilization. Nowhere was this more true than in France. It was from France that what is now known as “postmodernism” emerged. Go back and read Sartre; his sympathies for the radical third wordlists.

Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, the Soviet Union pillored the U.S. in the third world and at the U.N. on the grounds of “racism”; how America was like Nazi Germany because of Jim Crow. The NAACP famously made an appeal there during the Truman years. This was especially problematic for Truman and Eisenhower because the Western European NATO allies often joined in the criticism and demanded that the U.S. jettison Jim Crow in order to maintain the “leadership role.” It was for this reason that the U.S. State Department started pushing desegregation in the federal courts, most famously in Brown, but also in several previous decisions.

The overwhelming priority of the U.S. at the time was maintaining the so-called “leadership role” in NATO and fighting world communism. Jim Crow got in the way of that. So, for example, in the aftermath of the debacle at Little Rock in 1957, the U.S. got extremely bad press in Europe. See the USIA poll posted above. In Sweden, for instance, something like 90% of the population strongly disapproved of American treatment of the negro. This pressure from abroad - as Eisenhower mentions, being flooded in the spotlight of world opinion - prompted the Civil Rights Act of 1957 in the United States.

Again, in the late 1950s/early 1960s, we see two different worlds in the Western Europe and the United States. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t browbeat Americans over the head as “racists,” as “civil rights activists” have done in recent years. On the contrary, MLK directed his appeals to the utopianism, the optimism of his times. He encouraged Americans to live up to their highest ideals. That’s why he became so popular. The only thing most people remember about him is a few lines from his famous “I Have a Dream Speech.” It was only later, in the 1970s and 1980s, that postmodernism (and the Western self-hatred so typical of it) crossed the Atlantic and became popular in America’s universities, amongst the aging baby boomers who had rebelled against the Vietnam War.

The all-consuming Western self-hatred, the radical anti-racism that we are familiar with, crossed the Atlantic from Europe to America, not the other way around. In fact, the United States has never completely bought into this in the way that, say, Germany has. Even in 2007, the United States is still very much a modernist nation. See the unbelievable wave of patriotard nationalism that crested over the country back in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. had its own “crisis of confidence” in the Vietnam years but recovered somewhat under Reagan. America’s triumph in the Cold War generated another wave of optimism and utopianism under Clinton in the 1990s. If you are looking for the origins of this sort of thing, look at Fanon, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Claude Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze and the rest of their ilk. Even the Frankfurt School originated, where else, in Europe.

You mention the eugenics movement in Scandinavia above. As it happens, I am very much interested in the history of eugenics, and agree with much of what you say. Did you know that the United States was the world’s leader in eugenics for about thirty years? In fact, the European movement, even in Germany, owes much of its inspiration to American ideas. Another example would be Nordicism which caught on in Germany after it had been popularized by Grant and others. There have been several recent books that explore the roots of eugenics in considerable detail.

One last thing: a Swede, Gunnar Myrdal, wrote the most influential book in the history of American race relations, An American Dilemma. This influence of this book over the Warren Court which handed down Brown cannot be overestimated.


117

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:04 | #

Exactly.  This stuff is coming from America.  That includes the ideology of race-replacement.  It’s not being independently invented in each European country.  Look for its source among those pumping it out here in The Great Satan.  Attack it at its source.  Strike at it at the root, and the branches on the other side of the Atlantic will die.

Scroob,

Boas, Montagu, the Frankfurt School, Gunnar Myrdal, Sartre,  and so forth were Europeans. Boas and the Columbia School of Anthropology carried on a famous quarrel with the “Americans” at Harvard, namely, Hooton and his students like Carleton S. Coon, not to mention other “Americans” like Madison Grant.

The notion that “culture” as opposed to “race” was a more salient factor in explaining human behavior comes from, where else, Germany. The Germans have been exaggerating the importance of “Kultur” since the days of Fichte and Herder. What is known as “cultural anthropology” originated in Germany during the 19C. The German school was racially egalitarian whereas hereditarianism (see Jefferson, Morton, Nott, etc.) predominanted in the United States. Cultural anthropology was brought to the United States by European immigrants in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century.

As it happens, during the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, a reverse process happened in Germany. The Germans came under the influence of Anglo-American eugenics and racial theory (what had previously been decried as “materialism”). Darwinism was popularized in Germany by Haeckel.

Actually, it is the United States that has always been more influenced by Western Europe, not the other way around. Tens of millions of Europeans immigrated to the United States and settled here. They brought all sorts of ideas with them. Where should we start? Postmodernism, Nazism, Fascism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Austrian economics, Marxism . . . where?


118

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:15 | #

I should qualify the post above. It would be more accurate to say that Der ewige Jude causes mischief wherever he resides. Most of the destructive “Europeans” and “Americans” we are talking about are really nothing of the sort: Boas, Marcuse, Montagu, Claude Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Freud, Rand, Adorno, Horkheimer, Levinson, Morgenthau, Spingarn, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, etc.


119

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:21 | #

Scimitar, I disagree slightly with the view of leftist development in Europe you have, but I have to answer it later. It is not because you haven’t read, you just weren’t near enough and the books concentrate on the most visible aspects. It is was not the reality on the ground here, nor does it explain the root causes. I comment other things shortly also later.


120

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:32 | #

I wrote: “.... books concentrate on the most visible aspects.”

More accurately: .... books often concentrate on the most visible “intellectual” aspects.


121

Posted by GT on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:10 | #

Rnl, I’m a bit “crankier” than Maguire.  Ovid’s Metamorphoses is based on three eleventh-century manuscripts.  It stretches reasoning to equate the cultural significance of “The Classics” in western Europe between the 5th Century AD and the printing press to a medium of exchange.  Does an overabundance of “The Classics” explain their present insignificance?

Wintermute, the Alfredian Boethius is a translation of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy.  To my knowledge there are two surviving manuscripts: one from the tenth-century and another from the twelfth-century.

As a tradesman of low IQ, informal education, and poor character I haven’t time or ability to refute each and every objection raised by MR’s collection of Greeks and Masons.  I will say, however, that despite my limitations it appears my original statement, below, has withstood this latest barrage of obscurantist apologetics:

“The surviving non-Christian “Classic” manuscripts from the Greco-Roman world are few.  None are older than AD 900 – AD 1000, same as the oldest existing Talmud.  To my knowledge the only exceptions are recent papyri unearthed in archeological digs and read with CAT scans and similar technology.  The general origins of “The Classics” are from Constantinople during the Crusades.  In quantity and age they pale in comparison to the surviving Christian Biblical manuscripts.

“Considering the variation that exists between the more numerous and frequently older Biblical manuscripts, I shudder to think about what must have happened to “The Classics.” Believing that we actually possess accurate original texts of most or even many of “The Classics” takes more faith than I can generate.  It’s very likely that some were redacted, some were edited down, others were amended, and some are probably outright forgeries from the Middle Ages.

“Germanic and Nordic folklore plus the Bible played much greater roles in forming modern Europe than “The Classics,” and the only Bible version of significance for western and central Europe prior to the 16th Century was the Latin Vulgate used by the Catholic Church.  “The Classics” retained greatest influence in precisely those areas most peripheral to the modern West – the territories of the eastern Byzantine Empire and of the Greek Orthodox Church.”

Again, I recommend that our young men get high on Northwestern European folklore, Nikola Tesla, and the practice field.

Following Maguire’s response, I think we should return to the 21st Century and continue our work on practical matters.


122

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:14 | #

GT wrote:

As a tradesman of low IQ, informal education, and poor character I haven’t time or ability to refute each and every objection raised by MR’s collection of Greeks and Masons.

If you don’t know much about a subject, then you shouldn’t comment on it. Ovid was a major classical writer for medieval authors. They used the Metamorphoses as a handbook for Greco-Roman mythology. They alluded to it. They wrote commentaries on it. They translated it. They parodied it. They allegorized it. Chaucer knew Ovid backward and forward, better than a Christian fundamentalist knows his Bible. No one familiar with medieval literature would dispute any of this.

There’s no reason why you should be familiar with medieval literature. I’m sure there are many subjects you know well that I know next to nothing about. But don’t express dogmatic opinions if you don’t know anything about the subject of your dogmatism.

Ovid in the Middle Ages
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~aranar/ovid.htm

That’s one link. I could provide an avalanche of published documentation, just as an astronomer could provide an avalanche of documentation proving that the sun is hot. The fact you are disputing is indisputable.

Neither you nor Maguire has ever opened a copy of the Summa Theologica. I know that because I know that no one who had read even a single page of the Summa Theologica would write the nonsense you two continue to write. Again, there’s no crime in not knowing anything about the powerful influence the classics exerted on medieval intellectual life. But you shouldn’t continue to talk about what you don’t know.


123

Posted by danielj on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:32 | #

I haven’t opened a single volume of the Summa Theologica…

It is no shame…


124

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:58 | #

Until a few seconds ago Id never even heard of the Summa Theologica…


125

Posted by Robert ap Richard on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:51 | #

WM echoed, “What do they teach them in schools nowadays?”

Relatively speaking, nichts.  Good god, how on earth do you gentlemen know these interesting things, and so well?  I imagine that you must have long beards and give lectures in the town square!  I’m tempted to drop everything, move to your city, and hustle up students for you, just to be able to hear more.  Do you have any idea how ignorant are 99.99% of all Whites of their own culture and history, and how fascinated they would be to learn, if only it were given to them as do for this tiny audience here?  What a difference it would make, the roots of our very own culture, rich beyond comparison, rediscovered.  The energy unleashed would be unstoppable.


126

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:43 | #

“The energy unleashed would be unstoppable.”  (—ap Richard)

Exactly.  It’s not for nothing the post-modern school systems have conspired to keep it from them.  Our overlords are not stupid.  They’re a lot of things, but not that.


127

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:00 | #

In fact, the European movement, even in Germany, owes much of its inspiration to American ideas.

Even Grant aknowledged that Darwin/Galton were the originators of modern eugenics. Charles Davenport was a strict follower of Gregor Mendel after the re-discovery of the Austrian’s work in genetics.

American ideas???


128

Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:15 | #

That’s not true. “Eugenics” was known in America during the 19C as “stirpiculture.”


129

Posted by Steve Edwards on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:37 | #

It is outrageous enough that the very building blocks of intellectual competence - logic, grammar, rhetoric - simply aren’t taught in our schools. I had to leave school and start over from scratch. The obvious reason is that the elites DON’T WAN’T a population that can think for itself. That this is criminal neglect doesn’t appear to worry them. I see no argument why the elites (all politicians along with complicit academics, think-tankers and journalists) should not be charged en masse with the crime of high treason; the deliberate process of decivilisation alone should be an indictable offence.


130

Posted by GT on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 04:14 | #

Rnl: “If you don’t know much about a subject, then you shouldn’t comment on it. Ovid was a major classical writer for medieval authors. They used the Metamorphoses as a handbook for Greco-Roman mythology. They alluded to it. They wrote commentaries on it. They translated it. They parodied it. They allegorized it. Chaucer knew Ovid backward and forward, better than a Christian fundamentalist knows his Bible. No one familiar with medieval literature would dispute any of this.”

You’re absolutely right, Rnl.  Informally educated tradesmen of low IQ and character should not discuss something that is beyond their ability.  They should not be bothered by the fact that Ovid’s Metamorphoses was compiled from three eleventh century manuscripts that were, themselves, based upon fragmentary and repeatedly hand-copied text.  The veracity of the Metamorphesis and the Alfredian Boethius must be left to experts in the field.  Therefore, I have nothing more to say on the matter at this time.

Now, having conceded character, wit, and knowledge to MR’s obscurantists both professional and retired can we return to the 21st where Maguire can be poo-poohed, ridiculed, dismissed and shunned by thick-skinned intellectual warriors who are more adept at strategizing opposition to the jews?


131

Posted by Maguire on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 05:46 | #

“I observe in parting, to Maguire, that in this realm, one must run merely to keep one’s place. I trust you did not take the Red Queen’s advice to be mere fantasy simply because it occurs in a fantastical work.”

Absolutely Not. 

For instance, in this very thread another has seriously put forth the proposition that in post-Roman Europe until the Renaissance a work’s influence is best judged as an inverse function of the number of surviving manuscript examples.

It’s that sort of recurrent logic that led me to seek wisdom and understanding in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice In Wonderland” in the first place.  Everything became clear to me then.  For instance, I understood the Classical Greco-Roman pantheon’s importance to Europe expanded enourmously precisely because pagan temples ceased to be built and maintained begining in the 4th Century AD.

Christianity on the other hand was clearly of minor footnote importance precisely because tens of thousands of cathedrals, churches, chapels, monasteries, convents and roadside shrines began to be built all over Europe.  The nadir of the Roman Catholic Church’s influence was probably reached with the dedication of Notre Dame in Paris.


132

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:41 | #

“stirpiculture”

Plato put forth a virtually identical programme, which means 1) it’s still an idea of European origin and 2)making the argument that Plato directly influenced Nazi eugenics, is difficult to say the least.


133

Posted by GT on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:26 | #

“GT, please don’t smear trademen or low IQ persons with your own dishonesty.” -WM

Wintermute, please don’t feign concern for the integrity of low IQ tradesmen beyond their ability to provide exceptional service at the lowest possible price.  It demeans you.

I’ve conceded.  Rnl and you are absolutely correct.  However, until I’m able to comprehend Rnl’s logic further discussion would be non-productive.  Don’t you agree?

Of course you’re free to “poo-pooh,” “ignore,” and feel morally & intellectually superior to this dishonest tradesman of low IQ in the interim, if you like.

One favor to ask of you, sir.  Can we move forward to the 21st century?


134

Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:13 | #

Plato put forth a virtually identical programme, which means 1) it’s still an idea of European origin and 2)making the argument that Plato directly influenced Nazi eugenics, is difficult to say the least.

There was nothing particularly novel about the notion of breeding human beings to increase the frequency of desirable characteristics. It had been floated several times throughout European history. You mention Plato above. Thomas Campanella’s City of the Sun would be an example. The difference is that the Oneida perfectionists actually acted on the idea and implemented a positive eugenics program.

Note: Slaveowners had been breeding negroes for generations. There was nothing new about this:

http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/05/31/eugenics-is-over-right/

“Founded by reformer John Humphrey Noyes, the Oneida Community was a successful religious commune and one of the longest-lasting positive eugenics experiments of modern times. It arose out of the ferment of the Second Great Awakening and the Jacksonian Era (1830-1860) reform movements and predates the eugenics concept of British naturalist Francis Galton. Noyes underwent a religious conversion and gathered a group of followers who embraced perfectionism, the belief in obtaining a sinless life on earth. This small group organized more formally in 1841 and pooled their resources to create a primitive form of “Bible or Christian Communism,” in which property was shared. In 1846 “complex marriage,” meaning that each man each woman were married in common to one another, was instituted. To avoid prosecution for adultery due to this practice, Noyes had to flee to Putney, Vermont, but he and his followers reestablished the community in Oneida, New York, in 1848. In its new location it prospered after establishing an animal-trap business and other endeavors, some based on inventions of the commune members such as a mop wringer. Noyes made several attempts to establish similar communes, but only two were successful. In 1874 the Oneida group had 235 members, and one in Wallingford, Connecticut, numbers 40.

Community members considered themselves “saints” purified by religious experience, and they were committed to absolute fellowship among themselves. They saw incompatibility between communal relationships and the exclusive legal and physical bonds of conventional marriage, which they viewed as “slavery” for women, who were often overburdened with childbirth. Women and men were equal in business and social life; women wore their hair and skirts shorter than the custom of the day. Commune members lived together in one house, a “unity house,” which by the late 1860s had become a 300-room mansion with each adult member having his or her own small, narrow bedroom. For complex marriage, rigorous rules were established. Individuals were discouraged from becoming attached to one other person. Sexual intercourse was encouraged so long as the woman consented and the man did not reach orgasm when sex was solely for “amative,” not reproductive, purposes. The contraceptive practice of “male continence,” by which the man refrained from ejaculation, was required.

Until 1860 mutual consent between two people was generally all that was required for sexual interaction in the Oneida Community. However, by 1860 all requests of a sexual meeting had to be made through a third party and were recorded in a ledger. This led to a positive eugenics program with planned reproduction that Noyes termed stirpiculture. In 1869 a committee was formed to suggest scientific combinations of community members to become parents. Drawing upon Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics, Noyes believed that moral traits were passed on to children, and that the men and women selected should be the most spiritually advanced in the community, as well as physically healthy.

When only certain individuals were allowed to have children, the resulting resentments polarized the group and led to the disintegration of the Oneida communal marriage system. Discontent along with outside pressures against the community’s sexual practices persuaded Noyes in 1879 to abandon complex marriage, and many community members married conventionally. This in turn led to abandonment of communal property ownership the following year and formation of a “joint-stock company,” the Oneida Community Ltd. In 1881 Noyes and a few followers went to Canada to escape legal difficulties, and the Perfectionist community disintegrated within a few years. Many community members continued to work in the industries. Some residents lived in the mansion in apartments created from several bedrooms, which are still rented by some mostly elderly descendents of the Stirpicult children.”

Ruth Clifford Engs, The Eugenics Movement: An Encyclopedia (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2005), pp.167-168

Stirpiculture

The positive eugenics practice of selective breeding to improve the human race used in the Oneida Community was called stirpiculture. The term was coined by John Humphrey Noyes in 1869, founder of the community. The term had roots in agricultural breeding from the word stirp meaning to produce the best offspring or stock. The community’s “improvement of human beings through scientific breeding” originated in the Jacksonian Era’s health reform and hereditarian movement. It was undertaken over a ten-year period (1868-1879) to produce morally, mentally, and physically healthy children. This experiment in human breeding produced fifty-eight live children from eighty-one parents. About 100 prospective parents participated in the venture. A central committee approved or disapproved an application from two individuals to produce a child based upon their spiritual, intellectual, mental and physical characteristics. However, if a couple was not approved, the committee attempted to match the individuals with someone more suitable if they were considered “fit.” Noyes and the community’s leaders, like many health reformers of the era, subscribed to Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics and attempted to facilitate the best matings. In some cases the committee requested that two specific individuals mate for the purpose of child-bearing. Noyes himself fathered at least nine children.

In 1921 Hilda Herrick Noyes and George Wallingford Noyes, descendents of the community, presented a paper on the stirpiculture experiment at the Second International Congress of Eugenics. They reported that although Noyes first published his views regarding selected human breeding in 1849, well before British naturalist Francis Galton had discussed the concept, this positive eugenics experiment did not start until the foundation of community beliefs, practices, and financial resources had been fully established. The Noyeses reported that the mortality rate of stirpiculture children was lower than expected and the children were healthier than other children in rural areas. Parents of the stirpiculture children were reproted to have been unusually healthy, with about half surviving past age eighty-five. Of the forty men participating, eight were college graduates. Over time resentment by those not chosen to be parents led to internal problems within the community. Stirpiculture was halted and the community disbanded in 1881.”

Ibid., 209


135

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:48 | #

Therefore, I have nothing more to say on the matter at this time.

Good.

I’ll be far away from a computer for the next several days so I won’t be returning to this thread for a while either.

Ovid’s Metamorphoses was compiled from three eleventh century manuscripts

You’re misinterpreting your data.

_Beowulf_ exists in a single medieval manuscript. That doesn’t mean that there was only one manuscript of _Beowulf_ or that only one person ever read the poem. It means that only one manuscript survived, a very well read manuscript, badly decayed in the most popular section of the poem. Almost all of Anglo-Saxon poetry exists in single copies. From that we should not infer that only one copy of _Beowulf_ ever existed or that only one copy of any given Old English poem ever existed.

The circulation of Ovid is not reflected in the number of surviving medieval copies of Ovid’s poetry. We know the _Metamorphoses_ circulated widely because it was quoted regularly - very regularly. In the twelfth century Arnulf of Orleans wrote a philosophical commentary on the poem, which (to state the obvious, which is unfortunately necessary) presupposes (a) that he had a copy; and (b) he knew that other scholars had access to copies and would be interested in reading a neo-Platonic commentary on the text. We also know Ovid was read widely because Ovid was part of the standard school curriculum. Learning “grammar” in the Middle Ages included reading Virgil and Ovid, among other Latin authors. C.S. Lewis writes that “there are perhaps no sources so necessary for a student of medieval literature to know as the Bible, Virgil, and Ovid.” If you read Latin, you had some experience of Ovid. If you were a poet, you read Ovid often. If you were a poet who didn’t read Latin, you read Ovid in a translation, just as Latinless poets would do today. If you were a lazy poet who read Latin, you could read selections from Ovid in one of the many collections of sententious sayings from classical authors. Chaucer, who did read Latin but also read Ovid in an Italian translation, depicts himself (or his narrator) reading the _Metamophoses_ in the opening of one of his dream-visions, _The Book of the Duchess_, where he tells the Ovidian story of Ceyx and Alcione. His _Legend of Good Women_ is based on Ovid’s _Heroides_. His _Manciple’s Tale_ is based on Ovid’s story of Apollo and the raven in the _Metamorphoses_. He alludes to Ovid’s treatments of Greco-Roman mythology frequently. He thought of himself as an English Ovid and assumed his readers were familiar with his Ovidian allusions, as many of them certainly were.

That’s one of the effects of having a limited number of classical texts available. You read them often. Chaucer’s Clerk has twenty books “of Aristotle and his philosophie,” which he impoverished himself to accumulate. That was a large personal library. In a world where a large personal library is, by our standards, so small, the books you do possess become all the more valuable. They are objects of intense study. You lend them to friends. You learn them very well. You can quote long passages from memory. They become an important part of your mental landscape.

***

“The material from secular Roman authors alone quoted in the _Summa theologica_ [i.e. in a text where one might not expect to find secular authors] is remarkable: it includes Cicero, Juvenal, Ovid, Terence, Seneca, Boethius, Macrobius, Caesar, Livy, Sallust, Valerius Maximus, Varro, Vegetius, and Virgil. It is an immensely rich set of memories, but it can be paralleled in any number of medieval works. The point to realize is that Thomas’s experience was consciously made up from them all, a mighty chorus of voices able to be summoned at will from the tablets of his memory.”

Mary Carruthers, _The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture_ (Cambridge, 1990), 67.


136

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:57 | #

Maguire wrote:

Christianity on the other hand was clearly of minor footnote importance ...

No one is suggesting that, but if someone does, he is wrong. If you want to argue that the Christian Bible is a crucial text for the Latin West in the Middle Ages, you would only be stating the obvious. No one, hopefully, would disagree.

You didn’t, however, state the obvious. You chose instead to state the absurd:

The idea of “The Classics” exercising any influence in Europe between the 5th Century AD and the printing press belongs in the same world where Alice discourses with the Red Queen while running against the moving road.

You continue to pretend that you know something about this subject, and it is extremely clear that you don’t. It’s fine when we have strongly differing opinions about facts; it’s not acceptable to pontificate on subjects you don’t understand.

I don’t know anything about Chinese pottery. That means I shouldn’t ever express dogmatic opinions about Chinese pottery. You should follow the same rule.


137

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:54 | #

The difference is that the Oneida perfectionists actually acted on the idea and implemented a positive eugenics program.

The Spartans and who knows how many ancient tribes acted on the idea as well.


138

Posted by a Finn on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:23 | #

First part. My answers start with -, Scimitar answers are between ” ” (whole paragraphs).

“The U.S. and Western Europe went off in two different directions after the Second World War. From 1945 to 1965, the U.S. was at the peak of its world power and influence. The mood of the country was one of overwhelming, soaring cultural confidence.”

- The seeds of ruin were already growing in/among that overconfidence and naivety, like in Europe.

“In stark contrast, much of Western Europe was in ruins. For the first time since the fifteenth century, Western Europe had ceased to be the center of the world, and was occupied by non-European powers. Millions were dead. Historic cities had been obliterated. In the heart of Europe, Germans went hungry. The question on the mind of the European intelligentsia at that time was: why? With some justification, they blamed “racism” and “nationalism” and, as is often the case in history, overreacted. This would happen about 25 years later in the U.S.”

- PC-nonsense. First, wars don’t ruin minds in general, they strenghten them. I use Finland as an example. Those people who returned from the Finnish wars were self- confident determined and tough. They rebuild the country quickly, made many children, and build a good economy. There were large networks, my relatives included, who hid arms and ammunition in case there is new war with Soviet Union. Secret co-operation was arranged between Finns and US military. 50 and 60 were, like in the Usa, “golden” times of rapid development.  But there were many “small” problems. Because of maintaining artificial good relations with Soviet Union, war events, the preceding Finnish culture and history was not talked much publicly and in education, and in that atmosphere by parents in the homes to children. This last was the single biggest mistake/deficiency. Finnish culture should have been taught to the children by parents in the same way than in previous generations, somewhat less publicly, but with the same strength. 60 and 70 “revolutionaries” talked often about their tough, silent fathers. This reminds me of the importance of independent and autonomous culture of the people, that can withstand any change in the surrounding society and government.  Second problem was that when maintaining artificial good relations with the Soviet Union, Soviets and other radicals views were given more publicity in the media. International propaganda resembling this from the Usa and some European countries were also increasing. Large percentage of Finns have been leftists of various hues, but the most of them have been ethnic nationalists and patriots. E.g. after the war social democrats, the biggest leftist party, eliminated communists from important workplaces and labor unions by exclusionary practices and informing them to the authorities. Still, the reducing of the former ethnic nationalism and patriotism, and at the same time increasing the Soviet etc. views had a cumulative effect over time. The problem was that the Soviets and other radicals used fairly skillfully the former leftist rhetoric, approriated it, and gave it new international socialist content. It has existed before, but now, without adequately expressed counterforce it gained ground. Third problem was the increasing trade and consequent political relations between Soviet Union and Finland. As a part of creating and upholding good relations with Soviets, many entrepreneurers and people from the right parroted some of the socialist/communist rhetoric. At the time it seemed to all, leftists and rightist, like a good aid without side effects. It was easy to parrot about international unity of mankind etc., when there was no foreigners in Finland and no intention to let them in.

It is important to note, that all this didn’t sink the boat. On the surface it seemed to sail quite well. But there grew a purposeless, cultureless, aimless and ambivalently leftist youth, who has learned to imititate all the fashions coming from America without thinking. It was their surrogate to culture. It is the worst generation there ever was. Former fashions has been fairly harmless, but they degenerated morality, and therefore tilled the ground. The tipping point was the sixties culture fashion coming from America. Leftist “revolutionaries” were resisted and they didn’t form a large percentage of people, but in essence they educated one generation and especially the future elites. This was exacerbated by the fact that they were given support by many people who thought that this was somehow part of normal, but more lively, and maybe more effective leftist politics. So, people came from all over Finland with their requests, doctors needing better resources, prison guards needing better facilities, social workers suggesting changes to organizations and practices, etc. They were welcomed by the “revolutionaries” with open arms, and their needs and wishes were incorporated to “revolutionaries’ ” programs. From the “revolutionaries’ ” point of view, this had the effect of mixing their thoughts more into the mainstream and lessening it’s resistance. The generation, who has fought in the war, opposed, but was partly too understanding, at least initially, because “revolutionaries” advocated among other things “peace”. It didn’t sound so bad to those who have been in the war. And the many of the revolutionaries were their children. To “revolutionaries”, Soviet bombs and arms were “Peace arms and bombs”.

“Revolution” withered, but it left it’s core thoughts to culture, which has corroded the people, nation and culture ever since. Those who have been revolutionaries, whatever they are now, including capitalists, have often held onto their universal egalitarian etc. dreams and used them in their actions and spread them as much as they could. This have been more destructive than the “revolution” itself.

Radical “intellectuals” often advertised today in the media had close to zero effect. The masses were moved to tipping point by American media’s fashions, and those arranging the “revolution” concentrated to all kinds of practical matters, not to obscure theoretical ideas.

“The postwar period in Western Europe was a time of deep soul searching and pessimism. Europeans came to believe there was something deeply wrong with their civilization.”

- Not at all, referring to the previous answer. That was of course the product that radicals and jews were trying to sell to the resisting and cold masses. That was partly true in postwar Germany, were Americans and American jews installed radical leftist politicians, education and media, who have in essence destroyed German minds. But it was imposed from outside, it was not inherent. (E.g. Two points. Until 1955 a newspaper or broadcast media could be operated in Germany only if one had been licensed by the victors to do so. To be licensed, openly anti-national and anti-Fascist leanings were imperative (i.e. international communists and socialists) C. von Schrenck-Notzing, Charakterwäsche, Die Politiker der amerikanischen Umerziehung in Deutschland, Ullstein, Berlin 1993; G. Franz-Willing, Umerziehung, Nation Europa, Coburg 1991.

And their power has continued ever since. According to M. Behrens and R. von Rimscha, Politische Korrekheit in Deutschland. eine Gefahr fur die Demokratie, Bouvier, Bonn 1995; 48% of leading opinion makers describe themselves as leftist to leftist radical, 19% as liberal, and only 10% as Christian-socialist to conservative.)

“Nowhere was this more true than in France. It was from France that what is now known as “postmodernism” emerged. Go back and read Sartre; his sympathies for the radical third wordlists.”

- Yes, the sick Jean Paul Sartre, according to whom revolutionaries gain their lost innocence through bloodshed and third worlders have the right to massacre Westerners. These kind of people were not the major factors in Europe’s problems, but they were worsening little spices. Together with more important things they sometimes acquired some real damaging influence.

“Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, the Soviet Union pillored the U.S. in the third world and at the U.N. on the grounds of “racism”; how America was like Nazi Germany because of Jim Crow. The NAACP famously made an appeal there during the Truman years. This was especially problematic for Truman and Eisenhower because the Western European NATO allies often joined in the criticism and demanded that the U.S. jettison Jim Crow in order to maintain the “leadership role.” It was for this reason that the U.S. State Department started pushing desegregation in the federal courts, most famously in Brown, but also in several previous decisions.”

- I have lived in almost ethnically pure nation, you have not. If American media sends messages of horrible Jim Crow, and in Finland people thought it really was Americans’ media, why not repeat what Americans seem to be thinking and wanting to say. It was an abstact question here and didn’t mean anything, because Finns had no experience about blacks etc., and were not going to let them in. First small number of refugees were accepted from Chile in the middle of the seventies, at the time of ongoing “revolution”. The biggest Finnish medias had single correspondents in Washington, and they were not making those Jim Crow stories by themselves. They were relying on American media on those stories. Who were the owners of American media and who have an inclination to do such Jim Crow stories? It was sheer madness to ask Finns of those times anything about Jim Crow, and let alone to listen to them.

“The overwhelming priority of the U.S. at the time was maintaining the so-called “leadership role” in NATO and fighting world communism. Jim Crow got in the way of that. So, for example, in the aftermath of the debacle at Little Rock in 1957, the U.S. got extremely bad press in Europe. See the USIA poll posted above. In Sweden, for instance, something like 90% of the population strongly disapproved of American treatment of the negro. This pressure from abroad - as Eisenhower mentions, being flooded in the spotlight of world opinion - prompted the Civil Rights Act of 1957 in the United States.”

- You should have said to Swedes: “Well, if our support and secret protection is not good enough for you, we inform the Soviets that they can take you”, and watch the ensuing change of minds. Soviets never changed their core politics because of outside populations, or they lied and created illusions. You say that Usa was at the height of their power and confidence, but still they asked outside nations what to do. Contradiction. Because of the reasons I described previously, it was at that time dangerous to throw all kinds of mass media egalitarian propaganda to many European countries.

Continued…..


139

Posted by a Finn on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:26 | #

Continuation, second part.

“Again, in the late 1950s/early 1960s, we see two different worlds in the Western Europe and the United States. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t browbeat Americans over the head as “racists,” as “civil rights activists” have done in recent years.”

- No, but he was a communist/socialist and his rhetoric was attenuated to gain more widespread acceptance. He would have said “racists” if he could have. Many jews and blacks did.

“It was only later, in the 1970s and 1980s, that postmodernism (and the Western self-hatred so typical of it) crossed the Atlantic and became popular in America’s universities, amongst the aging baby boomers who had rebelled against the Vietnam War.”

- It was only in the sixties and seventies that “revolution”, initiated by American mass media, mass movement and their fashions, entered Europe. It was the tipping point, fire to the dry woods.

“The all-consuming Western self-hatred, the radical anti-racism that we are familiar with, crossed the Atlantic from Europe to America, not the other way around. In fact, the United States has never completely bought into this in the way that, say, Germany has.”

- Well, e.g. the Americans’ “re-education” of Germans after the war has come to haunt you.

“Even in 2007, the United States is still very much a modernist nation. See the unbelievable wave of patriotard nationalism that crested over the country back in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq.”

- We both know how empty that nationalism is, if it cannot stop and reverse the immigration and form real, permanent European-American communities. That “nationalism” before the Iraq war was stoked most influentially by neocon and other jews.

“If you are looking for the origins of this sort of thing, look at Fanon, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Claude Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze and the rest of their ilk. Even the Frankfurt School originated, where else, in Europe.”

and then you write:

“I should qualify the post above. It would be more accurate to say that Der ewige Jude causes mischief wherever he resides. Most of the destructive “Europeans” and “Americans” we are talking about are really nothing of the sort: Boas, Marcuse, Montagu, Claude Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Freud, Rand, Adorno, Horkheimer, Levinson, Morgenthau, Spingarn, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Feith, etc.”

- So they are either jewish or largely non essentials to the development in Europe. E.g. jewish Frankfurt school became influential after it had fled Europe’s “racism” to Usa, and gained access to American jewish and liberal mass media.

“You mention the eugenics movement in Scandinavia above. As it happens, I am very much interested in the history of eugenics, and agree with much of what you say. Did you know that the United States was the world’s leader in eugenics for about thirty years? In fact, the European movement, even in Germany, owes much of its inspiration to American ideas. Another example would be Nordicism which caught on in Germany after it had been popularized by Grant and others. There have been several recent books that explore the roots of eugenics in considerable detail. “

- It is natural, because Americans’ had racial minorities, Europeans’ mostly had not.

“One last thing: a Swede, Gunnar Myrdal, wrote the most influential book in the history of American race relations, An American Dilemma. This influence of this book over the Warren Court which handed down Brown cannot be overestimated.”

- Americans made a very important decision based on Swedish radical’s book from close to ethnically pure nation. They had existed long time in both sides of the Atlantic. Why you suddenly made that decision? It would not have been made, say, 20 years earlier. Radicals exist always, the surrounding society and system that handles them is important.

“Boas, Montagu, the Frankfurt School, Gunnar Myrdal, Sartre, and so forth were Europeans. Boas and the Columbia School of Anthropology carried on a famous quarrel with the “Americans” at Harvard, namely, Hooton and his students like Carleton S. Coon, not to mention other “Americans” like Madison Grant.

The notion that “culture” as opposed to “race” was a more salient factor in explaining human behavior comes from, where else, Germany. The Germans have been exaggerating the importance of “Kultur” since the days of Fichte and Herder. What is known as “cultural anthropology” originated in Germany during the 19C. The German school was racially egalitarian whereas hereditarianism (see Jefferson, Morton, Nott, etc.) predominanted in the United States. Cultural anthropology was brought to the United States by European immigrants in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century.

As it happens, during the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, a reverse process happened in Germany. The Germans came under the influence of Anglo-American eugenics and racial theory (what had previously been decried as “materialism”). Darwinism was popularized in Germany by Haeckel.”

- Yes, the jews and radicals again in Europe, but in the Usa too. When there was flowering of all kinds of ethnic nationalisms and racial nationalism in Europe, Americans threw themselves to war to defeat racial nationalist Germany at the side of racial egalitarians, the Soviets. That started the current degenerating process in Europe. Also, if you had let the Germans fight against the soviets in peace, Soviets would have been either defeated, there would have been a draw or the possible victory of Soviets’ would likely have been quite useless. Let alone if you have helped the Germans to fight against the Soviets. You would have saved many, many American lives. Although I don’t believe in the official holocaust fairy tale,  staying out of the war or let alone helping the Germans, you would have been able to pressure the Germans to send the jews where ever you would have wanted them, e.g. to Palestine, and thus reduced the mortalities from hunger and disease at the end of the war.

National socialism has many problems, but European nations would have applied their own ethnic nationalisms, whatever the position of national socialists. Thus e.g. Finns would have had a different political system in all cases.

“Actually, it is the United States that has always been more influenced by Western Europe, not the other way around. Tens of millions of Europeans immigrated to the United States and settled here. They brought all sorts of ideas with them. Where should we start? Postmodernism, Nazism, Fascism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Austrian economics, Marxism . . . where?

- Americans are Europeans’ children in good and bad, and children are influenced more by their parents than the other way around, although you include those politics created by jews and those that wouldn’t have existed without their influence. You gave me one sided account, maybe hoping to externalize all the bad things outside America. I gave you the other side to give balance. Reality is that both of our continents have often been intertwined in bad influences. The only enduring politics follow from healing the inside and helping our racial brothers heal in other countries too.


140

Posted by ff on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:27 | #

Finn,

Addition: One of the Founding fathers, who decided the American independence vote, had Finnish roots:

What point are you trying to make here? The Wikipedia entry claims:

Swedish colonial news (1997) has published a study according to which Morton’s great grandparent Martti Marttinen was from Finland.

The claim is that one of Morton’s great grandparents was born in Finland and had a Finnish name, the implication being that Morton was about 1/8 Finnish. Yet, when we look at the linked source for this claim, we find that the great grandfather’s name is said to be “Mårten Mårtensson” (not “Martti Marttinen”), which suggests to me he may have been an ethnic Swede. About the supposed “Marttinen” connection, I find this:

> >The problem has been to determine which Morton Mortonson was John’s great
> >grandfather. It was believed he was Martti Marttinen from Rautalampi in
> >central Finland, but no evidence has ever been found to support this
> >belief
. Another theory is that the elder Morton came from Ostrobothnia.
> >The mystery has been compounded by the fact that Morton Mortonson was a
> >common name in the 1600’s. Genealogist Harry Norrgard of Vasa, after much
> >research in church records, has a theory that the elder Morton came from
> >Storkyro, Vasa province. In Topparla village at Storkyro in 1627 there was
> >a Mårten Mårtensson, age 20, who was discharged from service to a farmer by
> >the name of Mårten Hindersson. Thus, the age would match very well with
> >the 100-year-old Morton Mortonson, buried in 1706 in Wicaco
.

The “Marttinen” claim appears to be the result of sloppy research and wishful thinking. Ostrobothnia, where the more plausible candidate originates, was apparently settled by Swedes and is majority Swedish-speaking down to the present.

The settlers of New Sweden included some ethnic Finns. In fact, it seems the colony came to include a large proportion of Finns from Värmland (many of them criminals). But, in 1790, only 0.26% of Americans had Swedish surnames. Presumably, the number of Finns was even less. I think it’s fair to say Finns did not play a major role in settling North America or founding the United States. You’re welcome to search out historical minutiae about Finns. But, if you’re going make claims like the above, (1) make sure they’re accurate, and (2) keep them in perspective.

I’m used to this sort of behavior from “Italian-Americans”, but I haven’t seen it from Finns before. “Italian-American” groups try to “claim” two signers of the Declaration of Independence—William Paca, for whom there is no absolutely no evidence of Italian ancestry<sup>*</sup>, and Ceasar Rodney, who apparently had one great grandparent from Treviso—along with Robert Taliaffero, an early immigrant to Virginia whose grandfather was from Venice and had settled in London 60 years before Robert was born. It’s informative that after decades of searching for some link with early America, the best southern Italians can do is cite two individuals of fractional Northern Italian ancestry and an Englishman with an “Italian-looking” surname.

* See here, for example. Also, see this hilarious thread, which features an Italian ranting about “anglophile authors” with “flimsy evidence” while making clear his own “evidence” consists of nothing more than the spelling of Paca’s surname. (Anyone who has actually done genealogical research in England in this time period knows that spellings change and rare surnames exist.) Also entertaining are the Italian of Bohemian descent who claims to be related to Paca based on a family story, as well as the Albanian who “claims” Paca while saying:

Why is it that all of a sudden everyone is so eager to grab William Paca as their own? We as his family never wanted to come out and claim him. All because of a dying wish which his great grandfather left. They were all very unhappy about him leaving for America at the time it was seen as betraying the family and the motherland.


141

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:52 | #

“The claim is that one of Morton’s great grandparents was born in Finland and had a Finnish name, the implication being that Morton was about 1/8 Finnish. Yet, when we look at the linked source for this claim, we find that the great grandfather’s name is said to be “Mårten Mårtensson” (not “Martti Marttinen”), which suggests to me he may have been an ethnic Swede.”

- That in itself doesn’t mean anything. 3/4 of Finns with Swedish names are in reality ethnic Finns. They took those names mostly to make business with officials easier. Sometimes the new Swedish names were formed from previous Finnish names, sometimes they were names of occupation, sometimes they were completely new names, etc.

I bumped into that site accidentally. I thought it was nice detail. I don’t care which way turns out to be right.


142

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 05:57 | #

Scimitar,

A view of Julian Huxley’s liberalism, as described by Elazar Barkan, illuminates the impact of proximity, which is essentially the only difference that attributes Huxley’s distain for the “Other”, “be they the races of the Empire, the lower classes in England, or blacks in the American South.”

Huxley’s liberalism in these early years was a reflection of elitist English upper-class attitudes toward the others, be they the races of the Empire, the lower classes in England, or blacks in the American South. Huxley’s ambiguity represented great trust in the existing social order, of which he was a major beneficiary, combined with pessimism toward the growing numbers of others: non-Europeans and poor alike. This reflected the pessimistic side of his eugenics. His fear of the population explosion was not based on sheer numbers, rather—as Allen justly showed—it stemmed from the composition of those who multiplied so fast. The “economic, technical and cultural progress” of the human species was threatened in Huxley’s view “by the high rate of increase of world population,” especially “the high differential fertility of various regions, nations and classes.” The essence and the target of Huxley’s negative eugenics never changed.1

Huxley’s concepts of race and eugenics developed simultaneously, moving from a focus on a simplistic group dichotomy of superiority and inferiority to a hierarchical system of genetic quality among groups and individuals. In later years, Huxley paid greater attention to the environment and to the importance of social policies of “leveling up” as a preliminary eugenic measure. However, Huxley continued to emphasize the marginal superior genetic endowment that gave the edge to some groups—Europeans over non-Europeans; patricians over plebes—an advantage that was manifested primarily in a small, elite minority.

The influence of Huxley’s years at Rice on his racial views is documented in an unpublished and unfinished manuscript from 1918 entitled “The Negro Minds.” He referred to his Texas sojourn:

I had grown up in the transplanted Bostonian conviction, so common in Liberal circles in England, that the negro being a man is therefore a brother, being a brother is therefore an equal. . . . A little life in the Southern States soon taught me more about their minds, more about inborn differences of race. 2

This presented a conventional misconception about English (and Bostonian) egalitarianism, since many shared Huxley’s racial aversions. But the significance of Huxley’s confession lies in elucidating the liberal stand on racial differences at the end of World War I.3 It is important to realize when we speak about a shift from mainline to reform eugenics that a decade earlier the reform leaders shared the determinism of the mainliners. Huxley recognized these ambiguities in his work, and was aware that his liberal humanism had suffered a humiliating defeat from southern racism. Returning to the United States in 1924, Huxley revealed glee at the Yankees in his comments on the blacks’ migration to the North:

  The Middle Westerner and to a lesser extent the Yankee are for the first time experiencing the negro at baulk and at first hand; and there is a certain grim humour in seeing their high moral principles and lovely theoretic equalitarianism dissolving under the strain.4

Having shared the shame, Huxley was uninhibited in illustrating his own distaste for blacks:

  You have only to go to a nigger camp-meeting to see the African mind in operation—the shrieks, the dancing and yelling and sweating, the surrender to the most violent emotion, the ecstatic blending of the soul of the Congo with the practice of the Salvation Army. So far, no very satisfactory psychological measure has been found for racial differences: that will come, but meanwhile the differences are patent. 5
[...]
Among Huxley’s most revealing accounts of his views on the masses, and on alien races, is the chapter titled “Racial Chess” in his book Africa View. Here Huxley recounts how he had first come to fear blacks:

I remember once, in central Texas, arriving by car in a little town whose streets were crowded . . . almost wholly by negroes; there were hundreds of black men to tens of white. I am bound to confess that this first   experience of mine of being in a small minority among human beings of another physical type gave me an emotional jolt; and I began, without any process of ratiocination, to understand why white men living in such circumstances generally took to carrying revolvers and developed a race complex.  9   experience of mine of being in a small minority among human beings of another physical type gave me an emotional jolt; and I began, without any process of ratiocination, to understand why white men living in such circumstances generally took to carrying revolvers and developed a race complex.  9

This race complex never left Huxley, who admitted that “one could doubtless get over such feelings; but the point is that they arose unbidden.“10

The fear that whites felt in the South, fear of insurrection, fear of an ever burgeoning population of “others” that may displace then, ultimately cemented by the Nat Turner revolt, differs little from Huxley’s anxieties. Further, the Manumission Law, private emancipation, on the books in Virginia from 1782 to 1806, reveals cracks in the theory of an enduring Southern racialism, that arguably, did not really solidify until after 1830.

The fear of the “other”, is uniform, it is the proximity to the other that differs.


143

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:31 | #

As we bid what is to be hoped a temporary farewell to wintermute, perhaps Oliver Goldsmith can provide a fitting and irony-free valediction :

” And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew,
  That one small head could carry all he knew”.


144

Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:12 | #

- Americans are Europeans’ children in good and bad, and children are influenced more by their parents than the other way around, although you include those politics created by jews and those that wouldn’t have existed without their influence. You gave me one sided account, maybe hoping to externalize all the bad things outside America. I gave you the other side to give balance. Reality is that both of our continents have often been intertwined in bad influences. The only enduring politics follow from healing the inside and helping our racial brothers heal in other countries too.

We have been discussing this matter on my blog as well. I have been compiling a list. Here is the latest version:

I would say that I am being reasonable. We’re talking about meme swapping or how the two continents have influenced each other, right?

Guilty, to the charge of:

1.) McDonald’s, Walmart, Coca-Cola.
2.) Tobacco, Smoking, Chewing Gum.
3.) Jazz, Rock & Roll, Rap, Hip Hop, etc.
4.) Hollywood.
5.) Racism/Nordicism/White Nationalism.
6.) Pragmatism.
7.) Mormonism.
8.) NASCAR.

^^ The above have their origins in North America.

Innocent, to the charge of:

1.) Nazism/Neo-Nazism.
2.) Fascism.
3.) Communism/Marxism.
4.) Christianity.
5.) Capitalism.
6.) Liberalism.
7.) Postmodernism/Deconstructionism.
8.) Existentialism.
9.) Utilitarianism.
10.) Political Correctness.
11.) Austrian economics.
12.) Objectivism.
13.) Feminism.
14.) Socialism.
15.) Social Democracy.
16.) Anti-Racism.
17.) Humanism.
18.) Anarchism/Anarcho-Syndicalism.
19.) Abolitionism.
20.) Psychoanalysis.

. . . compiling this list is becoming a bit tedious.

21.) The Frankfurt School/Critical Theory.
22.) Multiculturalism.
23.) The Skinhead movement.
24.) Romanticism.
25.) Nihilism.
26.) Libertarianism.
27.) Cultural Anthropology.
28.) The avant-garde/art decadence movement.
29.) Expressionism.
30.) Impressionism, Post-Impressionism.
31.) Atonal music.
32.) Futurism.
32.) Phenomenology
33.) Structuralism/Poststructuralism.
34.) Historicism

I’m sure there is more. My list has more than doubled over the past few days.


145

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:57 | #

What’s wrong with Scimitar’s list is no matter who first “thought up” anti-racism, no matter who first “thought up” race-replacment, no matter who first “thought up” multiculti, no matter whether that person was in Europe or America the post-WW-II world in which all these theories have been imposed as realities on the Eurosphere was created by the United States.  Who cares if race-replacement was first “thought up” by some nutcase in Austria-Hungary in the 1790s or some asshole in England in the 1640s or some weirdo in Holland in the 1850s or some jackass in Poland in the 1920s, or whatever the claim of “priority” is.  What matters is the United States acted on that and imposed actual, real-time, living, breathing forced race-replacement on itself and the rest of the Eurosphere in WW-II’s aftermath.  If what Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy did was first thought up by someone else we’re not too concerned about that other person who “thought it up,” we’re concerned about Dahmer and Bundy putting it into practice.  The multiculti and race-replacement that are killing the West today are an American export no matter who originally “thought them up.”

Incidentally, can we do a balance sheet like that for Jews?  What have they given us that’s been good since, let’s say, the era of the French and American Revolutions, i.e., since their emergence in large numbers into the Euro world a little over two centuries ago, and what that’s been bad?  Atonal music, for example, which is bad, was a Jewish creation.  Jewish-produced Hollywood films until the tenure of Jack Valenti were good.  (Jack Valenti, who was bad, was just a front man for Hollywood Jews who wanted the film codes changed so they could start churning out crap which they thought would make them more money in the era of competition from television.)  Bolshevism of course was Jewish and was bad.  My point is, 1) what would a balance sheet for the Jews look like, and 2) the po-mo “whites are evil, are the cancer of history, and have to be eradicated or at least cut down to size and put in their place by non-whites” propaganda being taught to white college students by their Jewish professors ever since Susan Sontag and before, comes from Jews and is an attack not on whites, since Jews are white and are not attacking themselves in this matter, but on Euros:  it’s simply a tribal attack by a tribe on another tribe it views as an enemy, and has no more basis than that.  Go to Africa and see how one tribe attacks another, trying its best to wipe it out.  The “whites are the cancer of history” propaganda is simply one of those tribal attacks you see going on in Africa, and has no more basis than one of those, but instead of the Hutu tribe attacking the Watusi tribe and trying to wipe it out, it’s the Jewish tribe attacking the Eurochristian tribe and trying to wipe it out.  That’s it.  Nothing else is going on with that.  (What makes Euros the enemy in Jews’ eyes is their historic Christianity; if they were Jewish instead of Christian the Jews wouldn’t see them as the enemy, something that may or may not seem obvious though it’s obvious to me.)  Eurochristians shouldn’t allow themselves to be attacked with impunity the way the Jews are doing, but should at the very least counterattack.  One way of counterattacking would be to compile a balance sheet showing a significant amount of unflattering crap the Jews have been responsible for since their first emergence in large numbers into the Euro world starting about two-and-a-half centuries ago.  Let that list percolate through the university milieu a while and see if it shuts up the academic Jews who are constantly on the attack with “whites [left-wing-Jewish code for Eurochristians, not Jews] are the cancer of history.”  At the bottom of the list should be appended an old Euro proverb:

“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” ... in Yiddish translation ...


146

Posted by second class citizen on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:58 | #

“Informally educated tradesmen of low IQ and character should not discuss something that is beyond their ability.”

GT, if you are going to pretend to have low IQ, the very least you can do is insert some spelling and grammatical errors in your posts and stop using big words like “e-bartering microcommunities”.


147

Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:20 | #

On closer inspection, the theory that the Europe has “degenerated” because of American influence falls apart. It is a classic example of Anti-Americanism. The degeneracy theory was already popular in Jefferson’s day and he spent several decades of his life debunking this nonsense. The complaints are transparently ridiculous:

1.) The Frankfurt School/Critical Theory.

This is the complaint most frequently made: a handful of radical Jews left Europe and took refuge in North America to escape from Nazism. Later, after the war is over, they go back home to Germany. These people are counted as “Americans” when they were nothing of the sort. They were European Jews and always thought of themselves as such.

No thought is given to the fact that these people came from Europe to North America. How many Jews are we talking about in total? Enough to fill the inside of a small classroom. What incredible lack of perspective. Europe exported MILLIONS OF JEWS here and they never went home. How do you suppose that affected our society?

2.) “Imposed on the Eurosphere by the United States”

False. Nothing of the sort occurred. It is a legend. How did America impose anti-racism on the Soviet Union or its satellites? How did we impose all of these things on Sweden - the most liberal country in Europe according to the USIA poll? How, pray tell, are we responsible for the anti-racist, Marxist scum in the IRA?

If you look at the USIA poll, an incredible fact will strike you. In 1957, at the time of the Little Rock incident, the most racist country in Europe was, believe it or not, West Germany - the one nation most influenced by the postwar military occupation. The most liberal was Sweden - which was neutral in the war - and which was never occupied by the United States. Explain that for us.

The degeneracy theory is refuted by Japan. In the aftermath of WW2, Japan was occupied by the U.S. military. The Japanese accepted their loss in the war and sought to imitate their conquerers. Japan became a demilitarized constitutional democracy. Yet Japan didn’t start wallowing in self-hating, anti-racist nihilism. In contrast, France which has never admired American culture and which has never seen America as a model to imitate ultimately did.

3.) The list above.

As I have shown, virtually all the ideas that Europeans complain so much about originated - where else - in Europe. They were exported here, in our direction, not the other way around.

Even today, just as before the Second World War, we find that communism, socialism, and social democracy enjoy a certain respectibility in Europe that is unknown here in the United States. When Hitler came to power in Germany, communism had incredible appeal there. In the aftermath of WW2, the communists came close to taking over in Italy and France.

4.) The American Civil Rights Movement.

Why did the Truman administration, and not FDR, wholeheartedly embrace civil rights reform? Because of changes in the postwar international system and America’s role within it. As I tried to explain to a Finn above, the executive branch of the U.S. federal government started supporting desegregation out of Cold War concerns.

The Soviet Union and its European satarps were making much of American racism in the U.N. and third world. This was creating incredible problems for the State Department which was charged with the task of containing communism in postwar Europe. “Racism” got in the way of that. Why? Because America’s European allies - having embraced anti-racism after WW2, in disgust with the Third Reich - put pressure on the U.S. government to abolish “racial discrimination” (get with the program) for the U.S. could continue to play the so-called “leadership role” in the NATO military alliance.

America was backward on the race issue by European standards. It wasn’t until a generation after WW2 that anti-racism completely triumphed in the United States. There was a protracted fight over the matter - Little Rock, Oxford, Birmingham, Selma.

The notion that Sweden was racially corrupted by the anti-racism of a Mississippi or a South Carolina is, quite frankly, absurd. Have you ever read MLK’s fan mail? Do you know where most of it came from? Where else, from Europe.


148

Posted by .... on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:40 | #

Scimitar’s list primarily concerns Jewish ideas and programs - not European or American.

It’s predictable that the earliest vectors are geographically European and their later - and thus more virulent - manifestations are mostly geographically American.


149

Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:04 | #

If not from the United States, where did the self-hating, militant, anti-racist, anti-Western breed nihilism of postwar Western Europe come from? I have long found myself impressed with the following two examples:

In September 1949, the steamship S.S. Jamaique made its way across the Indian Ocean, through the Red Sea and the Mediterranean to the French port of Marseilles. Among its passengers were twenty-one Cambodian scholarship students bound for France and an education in useful trades. One of their number, a sweet-tempered, polite youth of provincial origins named Saloth Sar, was destined for Paris and courses in radio electricity. Although Sar managed to apply himself in his first year, he took no examinations and eventually lost his scholarship. During more than three years in the French capital, however, Sar would experience a profound political transformation that would have momentous consequences for his country and the world. For in the smoky bars and cafés of Paris’s Latin Quarter, he became a Communist and almost certainly joined the ranks of the French Communist Party. It was an ideological commitment from which he never strayed.

By April 1976, Sar had become the leader of the so-called Democratic Kampuchea and had embraced a new revolutionary pseudonym: Pol Pot. The genocide that would ravage his tiny country of seven million people had been in full swing for many months. In all, one million men, women, and children would be executed and another million would succumb to starvation and disease in the nightmarish work camps of the world’s newest “Utopia.”

The evil dream of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge comrades - most of them former schoolteachers who had also studied in Paris, including three Ph.D’s from the Sorbonne - was to orchestrate a “total” revolution. By razing Cambodian civilization to the ground and returning it to the “Year Zero,” the Communists believed they could achieve a level of ideological purity that would surpass their revolutionary predecessors in the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea. . . .

Pol Pot was not the only tyrant to find inspiration in the “Ville Lumiere.” In 1918, a young man named Nguyen Sinh Cung traveled to Paris and spent six years there. “I am eager to learn and serve France among my compatriots,” he wrote on a job application. Like Saloth Sar, he joined the French Communist Party and began writing for several left-wing and nationalist papers, including L’Humanité, the French Communist Daily. Thereafter, Ho Chi Minh - as he came to be known - turned into a professional revolutionary. Although he would always have a soft spot for the beauty of Paris, his rage against the French for their brutal colonial rule in Vietnam led him to found and direct a regime many time smore despotic than that of his former masters.


150

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:43 | #

Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Mao, and Kim Il Sung were all the direct of the U.S. intervening in the German war against the Bolsheviks on the side of the latter.  Their advent was the fault of the U.S. which should have stuck its nose out of Continental Europe’s business.


151

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:48 | #

Lots of assholes went to Paris and to lots of other places and became “communists” there.  That interests no one.  What is of interest is how did these same assholes come to control entire countries and invade third countries.  The U.S.‘s foreign policy had a hand in bringing all that shit about — in elevating these assholes.  Had Roosevelt not stuck his nose in the affairs of Continental Europe Ho Chi Minh would have rertired a pastry chef in some Paris hotel after failing utterly to foment revolution in Indochina.


152

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:31 | #

Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Mao, and Kim Il Sung were all the direct of the U.S. intervening in the German war against the Bolsheviks on the side of the latter.

Both Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot were French speakers who became communists in Paris. The former had become a communist long before the Second World War. It is utterly absurd to blame postwar French intellectual culture on the United States. I posted a new thread about this at OCD. Sartre and his clique of third worldists hated the United States and considered Americans “bourgeois” and their “enemy.” They were not the product of American influence at all. No, they were great admirers of the anti-racist Soviet Union.

This is really nothing more than standard fare, tiresome Anti-Americanism - everything wrong with Europe traces back to America, even when the facts show the opposite to be true. The United States supported the French effort to reestablish control over their little Indochina colony. That’s how we got drawn into Vietnam in the first place. We also fought the Korean War and attempted to overthrow Kim Il Sung’s communist regime. You make it sound as if Communist Vietnam, Cambodia, and North Korea were some how allies of the United States.

What next? Is America to blame for Castro and Che as well?

As I pointed out above, the degeneracy theory (an old legend from the eighteenth century) is refuted by American influence in East Asia. Tell me something. Why aren’t Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan suffering from the problems of Europe? If anything, American influence has been greater there than it has been in most European countries, especially France. The truth is that East Asia doesn’t have this disease is because it is internal to Europe.

Their advent was the fault of the U.S. which should have stuck its nose out of Continental Europe’s business.

That was sort of hard to do when Hitler and his fascist allies declared war on the United States. Oh, but wait. I know what you are going to say: Italy had no choice but to attack Albania and Ethiopia; Germany had no choice but to attack Greece and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the latter posed an ENORMOUS threat, and it was understandable that the Germans removed it in self-defense; Japan had no choice but to invade Indochina and the Philippines.

Lots of assholes went to Paris and to lots of other places and became “communists” there.  That interests no one.

I find it highly interesting. The radical, anti-white, self-loathing, anti-Western version of anti-racism can be traced back to 1.) communism and 2.) postmodernism. The confluence of the two into a single noxious brew happened in postwar France. It was from there that this disease spread to the rest of the world.

What is of interest is how did these same assholes come to control entire countries and invade third countries.  The U.S.’s foreign policy had a hand in bringing all that shit about — in elevating these assholes.  Had Roosevelt not stuck his nose in the affairs of Continental Europe Ho Chi Minh would have rertired a pastry chef in some Paris hotel after failing utterly to foment revolution in Indochina.

???

For over fifty years, the overriding goal of U.S. foreign policy was the containment of communism. Actually, there were two Cold Wars between the U.S. and USSR. From Wilson to FDR, the U.S. federal government didn’t recognize the Soviet Union. It makes utterly no sense to blame America for communism. Coca-Cola, Walmart, McDonald’s, yes. Castro and Che Guevera, no.

Communism has always been a European problem. They created communism (Marx and Engels), supported communism (Lenin and Stalin), made apologies for communism (Sartre), and tried to spread communism throughout the world (Internationale). Communism was already an enormous problem in Germany before Hitler even came to power there.

This theory you propose is interesting, Scroob. It was necessary for some reason for Hitler to conquer all of Europe . . . to save Europe from itself, from its own degeneracy, which is somehow our fault.


153

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:32 | #

How did Pol Pot take over Cambodia?  With the backing of Hanoi, Moscow and Peking.  How did Hanoi take Saigon?  With the backing of Peking and Moscow.  How did Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il Sung install themselves?  With the backing of Peking and Moscow.  How did Mao defeat the Nationalist Chinese? With the backing of Stalin.  What kept the German General Staff from sorting Stalin out and getting rid of the Red Menace in the east so that none of the above could’ve taken place?  Franklin Roosevelt.  Who made it that the world came to hear of Ho Chi Minh instead of his “fame” being strictly limited to the pastry kitchen chez Maxim in Paris?  Franklin Roosevelt.

The United States is the most evil country in the history of civilization, the reason being race-replacement:  forcing it on America’s population and the rest of the Eurosphere.  Nothing can make amends for that crime.  Nothing.


154

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:34 | #

You’re talking about a race that was four hundred thousand years, seven hundred thousand, a million years in the making, that D.C. is destroying right now before your eyes.  You think something can make amends for that crime?  What can?  What?


155

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:21 | #

Roosevelt and Stalin Discuss the Future of French Rule in Indochina, Teheran Conference, November 28, 1943, from Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Volume II: Since 1914, 4th edition, edited by Thomas G. Paterson and Dennis Merrill (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), p. 189.

The President [FDR] said that Mr. Churchill was of the opinion that France would be very quickly reconstructed as a strong nation, but he did not personally share this view since he felt that many years of honest labor would be necessary before France would be re-established. He said the first necessity for the French, not only for the Government but the people as well, was to become honest citizens.

(Whatever did FDR mean by honest citizens?)

Marshal [Josef] Stalin agreed and went on to say that he did not propose to have the Allies shed blood to restore Indochina, for example, to the old French colonial rule. He said that the recent events in the Lebanon [where the French ended their mandate] made public service the first step toward the independence of people who had formerly been colonial subjects. He said that in the war against Japan, in his opinion, that in addition to military missions, it was necessary to fight the Japanese in the political sphere as well, particularly in view of the fact that the Japanese had granted the least nominal independence to certain colonial areas. He repeated that France should not get back Indochina and that the French must pay for their criminal collaboration with Germany.

The President said he was 100% in agreement with Marshal Stalin and remarked that after 100 years of French rule in Indochina, the inhabitants were worse off than they had been before.

It’s interesting that FDR was bent on destroying the French racialists. The mythical ‘free French’ were commies afterall.


156

Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:54 | #

Fred forgot to add: Who funnelled well over a $100 billion in loans, war supplies and technological transfers to Stalin?


157

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:42 | #

My comments after the dots:

Scimitar wrote: Guilty to the charge of:

1.) McDonald’s, Walmart, Coca-Cola. Global capitalism and liberalism in other words
2.) Tobacco, Smoking, Chewing Gum.
3.) Jazz, Rock & Roll, Rap, Hip Hop, etc.
4.) Hollywood. You blame yourself thus about those things, that jews direct and control.
5.) Racism/Nordicism/White Nationalism. Americans did not invent racism. It has existed in Europe thousands of years, Greeks recorded it first in Europe. The first recorded racists were Egyptians, and jews learned racism from them.
6.) Pragmatism. Are you kidding.
7.) Mormonism. Form of Christianity.
8.) NASCAR. Strong man contests.

Innocent, to the charge of:

1.) Nazism. From Europeans; national socialism is the first time ethnicity and race was put to the center stage. In America race had been important pillar of society, but not at the center stage. If I skip many problems about national socialism, it’s problem with ethnicity and race was that it installed it from top down, not from communities to the top, like it should have. But race and ethnicity at the center stage had to start somewhere. Also, Soviet racial egalitarians were a murderous threat.
2.) Fascism. Relative to national socialism.
3.) Communism/Marxism. Jews, especially in international form. Karl Marx, a jew. France before and after French revolution.
4.) Christianity. I am inclined to believe this came from Israel. By the way, weren’t Americans devout Christians from the beginning.
5.) Capitalism. No matter who invented them first, jews made limited companies, stocks, leveraged buying, usury, stock exchanges, subprimes, speculation, monopolies, globalism, artificial constricted supply when crucial demand etc. practical realities in Europe. Usa is the most globalist capitalist country in the world. Still, I condemn some aspects of capitalism selectively, not all of it. Capitalism was invented in Babylonia and jews were heavily represented among capitalists there.
6.) Liberalism. From the British global capitalist empire, from it’s most avid and unthinking capitalists.
7.) Postmodernism/Deconstructionism. Tool of international communists/socialists. Artificial increase of these.
8.) Existentialism. Tool of international communists/socialists.  Artificial increase of these.
9.) Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill, England, mix of hedonistic liberalism and leftism
10.) Political Correctness. Leon Trotsky, a jew, Soviet Union.
11.) Austrian economics. Form of more extreme capitalism. Ludwig von Mises, a jew. Usa has many theorists and advocates and practioners of these.
12.) Objectivism. Form of more extreme capitalism. Ayn Rand, a jew. Revered by many in the Usa.
13.) Feminism. Bella Abzug, Betty Fiedan, Heather Booth, Gloria Steinem, Bu Greenberg, Phyllis Chesler etc., American jews. Feminism is different than women’s reform movements in Europe.
14.) Socialism. France. Although I don’t advocate or want socialism, I can see some potential for the better in the original ethnic nationalist form.
15.) Social Democracy. I can tolerate the original ethnic nationalist form, if it is a part of the ethnic nationalist whole.
16.) Anti-Racism. Leon Trotsky, jew, Soviet Union.
17.) Humanism. Tool of international socialists and communists. Artificial increase of these.
18.) Anarchism/Anarcho-Syndicalism. France and Russia. Tool of international communists and socialists. Artificial increase of these.
19.) Abolitionism. England.
20.) Psychoanalysis. Sigmund Freud, a jew, he stole the ideas and changed them to psychological warfare tools.
21.) The Frankfurt School/Critical Theory. Jewish school, had to escape Europe’s “racism” to United States, where it gained real global influence in jewish American media. Form of international communism/socialism.
22.) Multiculturalism. See Frankfurt school. Communism in new package.
23.) The Skinhead movement. Who cares?
24.) Romanticism. Very important in creating the cultural and artistic base of nationalism. Good.
25.) Nihilism. Russia. Form of anarchistic communism. Artificial increase of these.
26.) Libertarianism. Are you referring to the Ron Paul Variety?
27.) Cultural Anthropology. Boas, Montagu, Gould, Diamond etc., jews in America.
28.) The avant-garde/art decadence movement. Tool of international communists and socialists. Artificial increase of these.
29.) Expressionism. Creative art form.
30.) Impressionism, Post-Impressionism. Creative art form, when non-political.
31.) Atonal music. Who cares?
32.) Futurism. Art and architecture. Good, when non political and non rigid. Bad when used as a tool of international communists and socialists.
32.) Phenomenology. When non-political, then it is philosophy among others. When used by international communists in dialectical materialism, then it’s bad.
33.) Structuralism. Good when used non-politically in science and philosophy. Bad when used as a tool of international communists and socialists.
34.) Poststructuralism. Tool of international communists and socialists. Artificial increase of these.
35.) Historicism. Good, when used non-politically in science and philosophy. Bad when used as a tool of international communists/socialists.

“I’m sure there is more. My list has more than doubled over the past few days.”

- I’m sure you would repeat the same than here. Finns crushed communists and socialists (who were mostly ethnic nationalists) in civil war. Two of my relatives were lured with lies and deceptions by agitators “To earn riches” etc. in the Soviet Union. They were murdered. Same happened to many other Finns. 3 million Finns fought life and death all out war against 180 million communist Soviet Union.

You didn’t mention Europe’s 1) ethnic nationalism and 2) nationalism.

You didn’t mention America’s crushing of ethnic nationalism all over Europe at the side of racial egalitarians, Soviet Union, which started the current ongoing liberalism, multiculturalism, international leftism and immigration.

You didn’t mention that Usa is a world center of global capitalism, liberalism, “fashionable” leftism etc., and emits them with all of it’s power to all over the world. (See e.g. John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Ebury Press, 2006).

To talk of these in terms of guilty/not-guilty is inappropriate, because neither of us is using or advocating these. What is appropriate is to acknowledge our entwined problems, and do that which has the most effect to solve them. Closing eyes at home makes this impossible.


158

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:35 | #

It’s interesting that FDR was bent on destroying the French racialists. The mythical ‘free French’ were commies afterall.

French racialists? You’re joking, right? Even before the Second World War, negroes and Arabs from Francophone Africa sat in the French parliament. They were considered an integral part of the so-called “Union Française.” Léopold Senghor of Senegal even had a French wife. There was no “fall” of racialism in France. There had never been a “rise.”

About Yalta. Yes, FDR was of the view that the French had “milked” Vietnam for all it was worth. His visit to Gabon during WW2 didn’t impress him with the merits of French colonialism either. You’re leaving out two crucial details though:

1.) FDR died in 1945 before the end of the war, and so his policy was never implemented.
2.) Ho Chi Minh was originally a pro-American nationalist.

With the death of FDR, Truman became president, and later with the Truman Doctrine the Cold War started. The containment of communism became the overriding priority of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. supported the French effort to restore their rule in Indochina. The U.S. would spend the next decade trying to prop up the flagging French Empire, which is how we were drawn into the muck of Vietnam in the first place.

By 1954, the U.S. was paying for 80 percent of French expenses in Vietnam. So much for “destroying French racialists.” Nothing of the sort happened. The CIA did attempt, however, to prevent the French Communist Party from taking over in postwar France (something Sartre and his ilk bitterly resented).

My take on the matter is that it was an enormous waste of American resources . . . and lives. As noted above, propping up French colonial ambitions is how we became embroiled in Vietnam in the first place.


159

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:57 | #

How did Pol Pot take over Cambodia?  With the backing of Hanoi, Moscow and Peking.

To my knowledge, Moscow isn’t anywhere near North America. In fact, I seem to recall that city being in Europe.

How did Hanoi take Saigon?  With the backing of Peking and Moscow.

Certainly not because of lack of American effort to prevent that from happening. There was this incident called the Vietnam War. The U.S. spent over thirty years trying to fight Communism in Southeast Asia.

How did Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il Sung install themselves?  With the backing of Peking and Moscow.  How did Mao defeat the Nationalist Chinese? With the backing of Stalin.

Stalin, another American. Tito would be another. And Castro and Che, both Americans, and allies of the United States. Dont’ forget “we will bury you” Khrushchev either and the ANC scum the Soviet Union was backing in South Africa.

What kept the German General Staff from sorting Stalin out and getting rid of the Red Menace in the east so that none of the above could’ve taken place?  Franklin Roosevelt.

FDR found himself in a difficult situation. See, Germany had formed a hostile military alliance with America’s major enemy in the Tripartite Pact. I’m referring of course to Japan here. Guess what happened next? Germany and Italy declared war on the United States after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

Thus, I would say it is understandable that the U.S. government wasn’t exactly pro-German enough for your tastes. As for Hitler’s invasion of the USSR, it wasn’t inspired by anti-communism at all. That was nothing more than a pretext. His views about the matter are made plain in the Table Talk where he discusses his intentions in his own words. It was nothing more than a crude land grab.

Who made it that the world came to hear of Ho Chi Minh instead of his “fame” being strictly limited to the pastry kitchen chez Maxim in Paris?  Franklin Roosevelt.

Ho Chi Minh became a radical communist in France over a decade before FDR became POTUS. He also started a Vietnamese rebellion against the Japanese after their occupation of French Indochina. After the war, Truman was president, backed the French attempt to reinstall themselves in Indochina, and got the U.S. embroiled there for the first time in American history.

The United States is the most evil country in the history of civilization, the reason being race-replacement:  forcing it on America’s population and the rest of the Eurosphere.  Nothing can make amends for that crime.  Nothing.

That’s hilarious. No, it is hysterically untrue, delusional even. We are to blame for communism, postmodernism, fascism . . . all sorts of ideas that Europeans themselves created and implemented in their own societies which, in fact, they exported here, not the other way around.

During the Civil Rights Movement, as I pointed out above, Martin Luther King, Jr. was despised in the American South, and was held in suspicion in the North until Birmingham (Kennedy didn’t embrace King until after Birmingham). In Europe, he was a rock star like Gandhi and Mandela. He was so popular, especially in the Soviet Union and Scandinavia, that his movement became a problem for the U.S. State Department, which began to support desegregation as a consequence.


160

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:41 | #

“I would say it is understandable that the U.S. government wasn’t exactly pro-German enough for your tastes.”  (—Scimitar)

Not pro-American enough for my tastes.  Which is irrelevant now, since the race-replacement world the United States created and forced down the throats of the entire Eurosphere in WW-II’s aftermath has done away with the United States.  D.C. spouts off constantly about what it calls “failed states.”  The U.S. is a failed state.  It spouts constantly about “rogue nations.”  The U.S. is the world’s leading rogue nation.  It spouts off constantly about the “Axis of Evil.”  The U.S. is the evilest nation that ever existed in world history.  Rather than allowing ourselves to be mired in bitterness and regret over what the Demented States of Moronica has done, we need to get on with the task, now lying before us, of constructing what will replace it, an entity in which never again will there be the possibility that a communist/capitalist/Eurohating-Jewish alliance such as we’ve seen since WW-II’s outbreak be able to literally destroy entire traditional nations and their races through the mailed-fisted imposition of liberal insanity, PC, and forced race-replacement.


161

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:49 | #

My comments start with -.

“How did America impose anti-racism on the Soviet Union or its satellites?”

- To the Soviet Union, no. It was jewish business. Over 300 of the 384 comissars were jews.

To the Soviet satellites, yes. Usa fought against Germany. Usa made it spread it’s forces too thin, to too many war theaters. Usa gave all kinds of war material and other support to Soviet Union and other opponents of Germans. This enabled Soviet Union to conquer half of Europe and sicken the rest.

“How did we impose all of these things on Sweden - the most liberal country in Europe according to the USIA poll?”

- Sweden can be thought as nation with weak immune system. Before the war it was strenghtening with ethnic nationalism, racialism and eugenics. Leftists advocated these, but without enough time to grow deep roots and traditions, leftism in wrong environment could mutate to dangerous form. The war result broke the good development too soon. The bad influences were:

1) Swedes feared immensely the Soviets. To give you an example; During war some voluntary Swedes came to Finland to fight. Over 100 of them had been in training some time and Viljam Pylkäs was training them one day. Suddenly Finnish scout comes and informs that 110-115 Soviets are coming. Swedes start to scream and run in panic to all directions, except towards Soviets. Pylkäs and other man gather all the clips and ammunitions. Pylkäs orders the man to fill those clips that are empty or become empty. Soviets come and battle ensues. Pylkäs shoots frenzied, accurate murderous short sets of fire. When it is over, 83 Soviets lay dead, the rest of them escaped. The escaped Swedes had to be sent to Sweden. This kind of fear was prevalent in their society. They knew that if Soviet Union conquers them, it is the end of Swedes, literally. Controlled fear might be good servant, but fear is evil master and gives wrong counsel. This made them subordinate in mental level too much to Soviets after the war. Finns played more political games, despite the pressure and threat being much harder on the Finns.

2) Soviets immense victory increased their political, economical and military power immensely. On the other hand this increased all kinds of real pressures to Swedes. On the other hand it seemed to prove the superiority of international communism.

3) Swedes were hopelessly naive, because they had always lived in homogenous country and they didn’t understand the consequences of their new policies. Also, long time after the war it seemed, despite starting immigration, that their policies are good (Most of the Swedes lived in all Swede areas. Talking, writing, doing etc. socialist idioticies did not seem to have negative consequences).

4) At the same time other Western countries started to move to the same direction. Reinforcing effect.

5) Swedish leftist policies before the war had many similarities to Soviet leftism, despite their crucial differences; E.g. use of certain words, some goals, similar work laws, etc. This created false security and false feel continuity.

The full price started to become due, when after the war new generation had been growing all their life in that new sick environment and started to influence society politically.

“How, pray tell, are we responsible for the anti-racist, Marxist scum in the IRA?”

- Much less in the case of IRA, but some parallel influences can be seen with Sweden.

If you look at the USIA poll, an incredible fact will strike you. In 1957, at the time of the Little Rock incident, the most racist country in Europe was, believe it or not, West Germany - the one nation most influenced by the postwar military occupation. The most liberal was Sweden - which was neutral in the war - and which was never occupied by the United States. Explain that for us.

- Germany was occupied by Usa. They had installed mostly communists and socialists to power. As much as these wanted to drown Usa to hate propaganda, they had to moderate themselves when writing about conquerors. Instead they concentrated on other leftist propaganda. Germans had not forgot the powerful former racial lessons. Also they were bitter about the war’s results and aftermath. In 1957 there had not been time to grow fully brainwashed generation, whose brains would have been washed all their life to adulthood. This came in the end of sixties.

“The degeneracy theory is refuted by Japan. In the aftermath of WW2, Japan was occupied by the U.S. military. The Japanese accepted their loss in the war and sought to imitate their conquerers. Japan became a demilitarized constitutional democracy. Yet Japan didn’t start wallowing in self-hating, anti-racist nihilism.”

- Japan suffered in war, but it’s infrastucture and traditional social networks were fairly intact. Most of those who gained power after the war were people with traditional views. The kaiser remained in non-political position despite being the former leader of the country. Americans didn’t install the same kind of re-education program than in Germany, nor they could have, because of large language and cultural differences. Also because of the previous reasons they could not observe Japanese to the same extent than Germans. Japan had not same kind of reinforcing surroundings than Europeans. Most of the countries surrounding it were non-leftist. Those which turned to communism, though dangerous, were fairly turned inward. Americans were in the most of the cases happy to just observe that Japan don’t try to militarize. Despite these, they have had their own communist/socialist problems and have started to increase the immigration.

“As I have shown, virtually all the ideas that Europeans complain so much about originated - where else - in Europe. They were exported here, in our direction, not the other way around.”

- In itself it doesn’t matter where something originates. Capitalism originated in babylonia, but it’s not Iraq with global capitalism we have to worry about. It is the Western and Asian countries. My friend, we had been fighting almost 200 years against the communist and socialist satans with our hands bleeding. We were finally beating them to death, but you started to fight for the satans and giving them help. After the war the satans have repaid you by raping you ever since. Under twenty years after the war you had the same disease than we. I am sad to say your disease will get worse and your prognosis is threatening.

“Even today, just as before the Second World War, we find that communism, socialism, and social democracy enjoy a certain respectibility in Europe that is unknown here in the United States.”

- Communism and socialism are often the most dangerous when they don’t say their names. When curing a disease with antiobiotics course and the course is stopped prematurely, the disease will become stronger than before the course. This has happened both in Europe and Usa. Immigration is one of the symptoms.

“.... the executive branch of the U.S. federal government started supporting desegregation out of Cold War concerns.

The Soviet Union and its European satarps were making much of American racism in the U.N. and third world. This was creating incredible problems for the State Department which was charged with the task of containing communism in postwar Europe. “Racism” got in the way of that. Why? Because America’s European allies - having embraced anti-racism after WW2, in disgust with the Third Reich - put pressure on the U.S. government to abolish “racial discrimination” (get with the program) for the U.S. could continue to play the so-called “leadership role” in the NATO military alliance.”

- I explained already how empty and meaningless those “anti-racisms” and “disgusts with the Third Reich” were. But, let’s see, European countries are sick because of socialism and communism, and in their delirium they repeat the slogans of the sicknesses. Usa listens to this and wants to stop the spread of the diseases. Usa already has symptons of the diseases, and it has a bright idea: “We have to infect more of these diseases to ourselves!”

“They created communism (Marx and Engels), supported communism (Lenin and Stalin), made apologies for communism (Sartre)....”

- Jew, idiot, mongrel, Georgian and madman.

“It was necessary for some reason for Hitler to conquer all of Europe . . . to save Europe from itself, from its own degeneracy, which is somehow our fault.

Tell me something. Why aren’t Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan suffering from the problems of Europe? If anything, American influence has been greater there than it has been in most European countries, especially France. The truth is that East Asia doesn’t have this disease is because it is internal to Europe.”

- No, our problems began with the jews. They are not the only influence, but they are the ones who time after time created the tipping points. Once the disease memes have been created and established in the populations, they become self-generating and self-spreading with or without jews, like you will notice. Taiwan, South-Korea and Japan don’t have jews. Although the diseases have spread there, they been have milder. Not so in China (Soviet Union’s neighbor) and Kamputsea.

“Their advent was the fault of the U.S. which should have stuck its nose out of Continental Europe’s business.”

- No, their advent was not Usa’s fault. I explained this already.

“That was sort of hard to do when Hitler and his fascist allies declared war on the United States. Oh, but wait. I know what you are going to say: Italy had no choice but to attack Albania and Ethiopia; Germany had no choice but to attack Greece and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the latter posed an ENORMOUS threat, and it was understandable that the Germans removed it in self-defense; Japan had no choice but to invade Indochina and the Philippines.”

- Usa was already in practice in war against Germany. But I don’t try make things more beautiful. National socialism was bad tasting and toxic medicine, although in those countries Germany conquered, people normally could go on living comparatively normally. Italy was sidekick. Japan was a separate case. I have not heard about any German attack to the United States.

Think about the situation if Usa would have said to Germany; We help you to destroy communism, and then set some rational conditions.


162

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:17 | #

Look at this:

“During WWII, for example, according to military historian John Keegan the Italians were probably the worst soldiers in Europe and the Finns the best.”

Now look at this:

“During war some voluntary Swedes came to Finland to fight. Over 100 of them had been in training some time and Viljam Pylkäs was training them one day. Suddenly Finnish scout comes and informs that 110-115 Soviets are coming. Swedes start to scream and run in panic to all directions, except towards Soviets. Pylkäs and other man gather all the clips and ammunitions. Pylkäs orders the man to fill those clips that are empty or become empty. Soviets come and battle ensues. Pylkäs shoots frenzied, accurate murderous short sets of fire. When it is over, 83 Soviets lay dead, the rest of them escaped.”  (—a Finn)

Looks like Keegan knew a thing or two, doesn’t it ...


163

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:24 | #

“As for Hitler’s invasion of the USSR, it wasn’t inspired by anti-communism at all. That was nothing more than a pretext. His views about the matter are made plain in the Table Talk where he discusses his intentions in his own words. It was nothing more than a crude land grab.”

- That is just keeping eyes on the prize. Hitler had to destroy the communist power. He could not have let it grow in another area. His practical war efforts show that.

By the way, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, researchers have found out that Stalin had ready plans to murder all the Finns in concentration camps and replace them with the Soviets. Just like the Finns suspected.


164

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:38 | #

@ a Finn

Global Capitalism/Multinational Corporations. Those are three U.S. multinational corporations that I dislike. Europeans have their own multinational corporations. The multinational corporation wasn’t introduced to Europe by the United States. In the Belgian Congo, for example, Belgian corporations were making a killing exploiting the mineral wealth of Katanga long before WW2. The corporation has been a feature of European life ever since the High Middle Ages. European corporations were involved in the slave trade, colonizing the New World, setting up shop in India, etc.

Capitalism. “Capitalism” is a theory of economics that was formulated by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Jean-Baptiste Say - none of whom were Americans. Actually, Smith and his colleagues were merely diagnosing a phenomena that had already long been in existence in Europe. The roots of capitalism trace back to Early Modern Britain and the Netherlands. “Global capitalism” was established by these two nations.

Liberalism. “Liberalism” is a political theory based on radical individualism. John Locke is widely recognized as its founder. See also John Stuart Mill, Hobbes, Humboldt, Condorcet, Kant, Hume, and Smith who made various contributions to liberal political theory.

Hollywood. I was being incredible generous in the spirit of fairness. Hollywood wasn’t established by Anglo-Americans at all. It was created by European Jews who had recently immigrated to the United States.

Racism/Nordicism/ White Nationalism. See Issac’s The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. The Greeks and Romans were aware of racial differences, but attributed them to the environment. This theory was initially popular in the American colonies (it was brought here from Europe). The racial characteristics of the negro were a mystery and Americans spent centuries speculating about them.

By the late eighteenth century, what we would recognize as modern racialism had developed in the United States: racial differences are natural, hereditary, immutable like the differences between other species; there are hierarchies of races with whites on top. This doctrine was exported back across the Atlantic.

Pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only major American school of philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

Mormons. Yes, the Mormons are one of the few Christian sects indigenous to the United States. To my knowledge, Mormonism has no appeal in Europe. That reminds me. Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses also got their start here. Are they influential in Europe?

NASCAR. NASCAR is popular here in the American South. I’m not sure of its appeal in Europe. Don’t you have Formula One?

Re: National Socialism/Neo-Nazism. Race had long played a central role in American history. The very borders of the United States have been influenced by racialism. In the aftermath of the Mexican War, when the U.S. Army was in control of that country, there was a movement to annex all of Mexico. It fell flat. Why? Because the Mexicans are nonwhites. We annexed the territories that were sparsely populated with mestizos.

Hawaii was annexed, but didn’t become a state until the 1950s because Hawaiians were nonwhite. In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, Cuba was given its independence. Why? Because Americans weren’t interested in annexing a nonwhite population. Also, Puerto Rico.

That said, I don’t think any reasonable person would deny that National Socialism was an indigenous European creation, and that National Socialism and Neo-Nazism were exported to North America.

After 1965, Neo-Nazi groups like George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party turned American racialism into something of a joke. It has yet to recover from this.

Re: Fascism. Fascism is also indisputably a European creation. It’s founder Benito Mussolini was an Italian.

Re: Marxism/Communism. Communism has never had much appeal in the United States. Again, it is indisputable that Communism originated in Europe. Jews and Gentiles were involved in this process. Marx and Engels, Stalin and Lenin, etc.

Re: Christianity. Yes, Christianity got its start in the Levant. It is indisputable that Christianity was brought to North America from Europe.

Re: Postmodernism. It is indisputable that “postmodernism” originated in postwar France and only later came to the United States.

Re: Existentialism. Heidegger, Sartre, Husserl, Nietzsche, Camus, Kierkegaard - all Europeans, not Americans. Again, it is indisputable that existentialism got started in Europe.

Re: Utilitarianism. Yes. Utilitarianism has its origins in Britain. It was introduced to the United States from there.

Re: PC. Political Correctness, or Cultural Marxism, comes from the Italian Maxist Antonio Gramsci. PC was brought to the United States by communists and their sympathizers.

Re: Austrian economics. Well, that one is sort of a give away. Brought to North America from Europe, mostly by Viennese Jews.

Re: Objectivism. Ayn Rand, or Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, was a Russian Jewess who immigrated to North America at age 21.

Re: Feminism. An interesting timeline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women’s_suffrage

^^ As the gallery can see, the USA was a latecomer in the women’s rights movement. Australia/New Zealand and Scandinavia were the trailblazers in this.

Re: Socialism. Agreed. From France.

Re: Social Democracy, Humanism, and Anti-Racism. Got their start in Europe. Agreed. Humanism dates back to the Renaissance and later Immanuel Kant. “Anti-Racism” is a movement that got started amongst communist anti-fascist resistance groups in continental Europe. “Social Democracy” is a milder form of Marxism.

Re: abolitionism. Yes, the modern abolitionist movement got started amongst the Quakers in Britain.

Re: anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. Proudhon and Bakunin. See the Spanish Civil War for the greatest hurrah of “anarcho-syndicalism.“During the early twentieth century, “anarchism” was becoming a problem in the United States. A European anarchist shot and killed President William McKinley. Several immigration acts were passed which specifically excluded “anarchists” and those suffering from “insanity” and other “psychopathic” delusions from immigrating to the U.S.

In the two decades before the October Revoluton, “anarchism” was the spectre that had Americans worried. See the Italian anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti.

Re: Psychoanalysis. Freud and Jung, neither were Americans.

Re: Frankfurt School/Critical Theory. European Jews, briefly stayed in America, most went back to Europe.

Re: Multiculturalism. Horace Kallen, European Jewish immigrant.

Re: Skinhead movement. I believe it got started in England. See the Combat 18 forum for more on that.

Re: Romanticism. Also indisputably European. Crossed the Atlantic in the 19C, Walter Scott books influenced Southern secessionists.

Re: Nihilism. Nietzsche and Turgenev.

Re: Libertarianism. John Stuart Mill, formulated the libertarian non-aggression/harm principle.

Re: Cultural Anthropology. Got started in Germany during the nineteenth century under the influence of Fichte and Herder. German anthropology was racially egalitarian during this period. Brought to North America by the German Jewish immigrant Franz Boas. See also Lowie, Kroeber, and Herskovits.

Re: the avant-garde/art decadence movement. Another give away. Got started in late nineteenth century France. Crossed the Atlantic in the early twentieth century.

Re: Expressionism, Impressionism, and Post-Impressionism. All European schools of art. Condemned by the Third Reich as degenerate art.

Re: Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. Both came from mid-twentieth century France, crossed the Atlantic.

Re: Historicism. See Hegel, Nietzsche, Foucault, etc. Completely undermined the European sense of the superiority of their own civilization.

You raise several issues. You claim the United States crushed European nationalist movements. This isn’t true.

- Irish Nationalism. Long supported by the United States, suppressed by the British until the early 20C.

- British Empire. Propped up by the United States in WW1 and WW2.

- Spanish Nationalism. Franco was left alone.

- French Nationalism. The U.S. and France were allies in WW1 and WW2. In fact, it was the U.S. that put de Gaulle in power in France, and it was the U.S. that supported the French effort to hold onto their rattled Empire.

- Italian Nationalism. The U.S. helped put ex-fascists back in control of Italy after WW2, CIA subverted the Italian communists.

- Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway. Owe their independence largely to the United States.

- German nationalism. The U.S. supported the unification of Germany under Bismarck and supported Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.

- Czechs and Poles. Owe their existence as independence states to Versailles. The U.S. opposed the Soviet Union’s attempt to crush the Czechs in the Prague Spring.

- Croats. U.S. supported their secession from Yugoslavia.

- Serbs. Supported by the Allies in WW2. Have legitimate complaints against the U.S. The bombing of Serbia was a disgrace.

- Hungarians. U.S. supported the Hungarian Revolution.

- Albanians. Wildly pro-American for obvious reasons.

- Greece. U.S. opposed the Greek communists there and assisted nationalist movements.

- Balts. U.S. supported their secession from the USSR.

- Ukraine. U.S. has long supported Ukrainian nationalism.

You didn’t mention that Usa is a world center of global capitalism, liberalism, “fashionable” leftism etc., and emits them with all of it’s power to all over the world. (See e.g. John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Ebury Press, 2006).

The U.S. took over this role from Britain after WW2 which had taken it over from the Dutch before them.

To talk of these in terms of guilty/not-guilty is inappropriate, because neither of us is using or advocating these. What is appropriate is to acknowledge our entwined problems, and do that which has the most effect to solve them. Closing eyes at home makes this impossible.

You claim that Europe has been degenerating because of American influence. The list above shows otherwise. Almost all of these destructive ideas originated on your continent. They were exported here to North America.


165

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:53 | #

- That is just keeping eyes on the prize. Hitler had to destroy the communist power. He could not have let it grow in another area. His practical war efforts show that.

If Hitler was so interested in destroying communist power, why did he ally himself with the Soviet Union to carve up Eastern Europe? Hitler’s views are made plainly clear in Mein Kampf, the Zweites Buch, and the Table Talk. I have read those sources for myself.

His goal was to conquer much of Eastern Europe and annex that territory to the Reich. He wanted the Ukraine in particular. This area was to become a German sphere of influence that could be colonized like the American Wild West or India. His actual policies on the ground in Poland and Ukraine remove any doubt about that.

By the way, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, researchers have found out that Stalin had ready plans to murder all the Finns in concentration camps and replace them with the Soviets. Just like the Finns suspected.

Where was Hitler for the Finns, Balts, or Poles in 1939? I don’t have any doubt that Hitler wanted to get rid of Communism in the USSR, or that Stalin was suspicious of Germany and was building up his military forces. Stalin wasn’t a fool. He knew Hitler would attack at some point. That said, it is undeniable that pure territorial greed was the driving motive behind his Eastern policy, as we can see in Poland in 1939 and later during the war in the Ukraine.


166

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:09 | #

Not pro-American enough for my tastes.  Which is irrelevant now, since the race-replacement world the United States created and forced down the throats of the entire Eurosphere in WW-II’s aftermath has done away with the United States.

That’s a myth. There is utterly no evidence for that. Europe developed an immigration problem by importing guest workers to work in its postwar economy. Repeating this legend doesn’t make it true.

Take France for example. Nonwhites like Ho and Pol Pot were already coming to France long before WW2. In fact, Francophone Africa had negroes and Arabs that sat in the French parliament itself before WW2.

D.C. spouts off constantly about what it calls “failed states.” The U.S. is a failed state.  It spouts constantly about “rogue nations.” The U.S. is the world’s leading rogue nation.

Yeah, I know. Racialists like Castro, Che, Ho Chi Minh, Brezhnev, and the like have been saying that for about fifty years now.

It spouts off constantly about the “Axis of Evil.” The U.S. is the evilest nation that ever existed in world history.

That’s a rather odd view. The U.S. was a racialist nation for three centuries. Was Ireland, Poland, or Sweden?

Rather than allowing ourselves to be mired in bitterness and regret over what the Demented States of Moronica has done, we need to get on with the task, now lying before us, of constructing what will replace it, an entity in which never again will there be the possibility that a communist/capitalist/Eurohating-Jewish alliance such as we’ve seen since WW-II’s outbreak be able to literally destroy entire traditional nations and their races through the mailed-fisted imposition of liberal insanity, PC, and forced race-replacement.

You’re losing me here. It was Britain and France, along with Israel, that attacked Nasser’s Egypt during the Suez Crisis. Jew-controlled Dwight Eisenhower forced them to withdraw and was wildly applauded for that in the Arab world. In fact, Eisenhower made Anthony Eden cry, who wanted to kill Nasser, but that’s another amusing story I will save for a later day.

Israel was founded by socialists and won its independence with arms supplied by Czechoslovakia. The first nation to recognize Israel? The USSR. And who was it that opposed the creation of Israel? The U.S. State Department led by Jew-controlled George Marshall. :p


167

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:20 | #

“You claim that Europe has been degenerating because of American influence. The list above shows otherwise. Almost all of these destructive ideas originated on your continent. They were exported here to North America.”  (—Scimitar. 1:38 PM)

Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of porn magazines he’d read — they gave him ideas.  Therefore he’s off the hook.  The blame for what he did lies with those porn magazines he read.


168

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:35 | #

- To the Soviet Union, no. It was jewish business. Over 300 of the 384 comissars were jews.

That’s right. The world epicenter of anti-racism for 70 years was the USSR, a European country, not the USA. In fact, the Wilson administration supported the Whites in that conflict and directly intervened with military force to help prevent the Bolshevik takeover.

I forgot to mention that above as another example of the implacable U.S. hostility to European nationalist movements.

To the Soviet satellites, yes. Usa fought against Germany. Usa made it spread it’s forces too thin, to too many war theaters. Usa gave all kinds of war material and other support to Soviet Union and other opponents of Germans. This enabled Soviet Union to conquer half of Europe and sicken the rest.

No, the U.S. Army was never in control of any of these states. They were overrun by the Red Army. In the areas where the U.S. Army did occupy, Communism was kept out. In Yugoslavia, Tito came to power on his own accord and exported Communism to Albania and Bulgaria. The conflict between Nazi Germany and the USSR was initiated by the former state for its own reasons. The USSR defeated Nazi Germany largely on its own. . . which had underestimated Soviet industrial and military power. It was only in 1944 that the Allies landed in Normandy.

You complain that the U.S. gave material aid to the Soviet Union and through some creative reasoning is thus responsible for Communism in Eastern Europe. That’s false. As noted above, in Yugoslavia, it was the resistance of the partisans to the occupation that made them popular. In Czechoslovakia, also.

Communism is a European idea. What if Europeans had never thought up Communism or were never attracted to Communism? There never would have been a problem with Communism in Europe: no Soviet Union; no Tito; no Paris Commune; no Hoxha. Don’t blame us for your own bad ideas.

We got involved in your Second World War because Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on us. Our policy before that had been material aid to friendly states and keeping U-Boats out of the Western Atlantic.

- Sweden can be thought as nation with weak immune system. Before the war it was strenghtening with ethnic nationalism, racialism and eugenics. Leftists advocated these, but without enough time to grow deep roots and traditions, leftism in wrong environment could mutate to dangerous form. The war result broke the good development too soon. The bad influences were:

I mentioned above that it was the Swede Gunnar Myrdal who wrote The American Dilemma, the most influential book in the history of American race relations. Obviously, Sweden had a problem with naive anti-racism before WW2, and in fact in no small part contributed to its rise over here.

- Much less in the case of IRA, but some parallel influences can be seen with Sweden.

I advance it as a hypothesis only that Europeans are capable of creating their own destructive ideas and falling under the influence of them. The infatuation of the Irish with Marxism and Anti-Racism being a textbook example.

- Germany was occupied by Usa. They had installed mostly communists and socialists to power.

No, Communism was outlawed in West Germany along with National Socialism. It was East Germany where Communism was institutionalized.

As much as these wanted to drown Usa to hate propaganda, they had to moderate themselves when writing about conquerors. Instead they concentrated on other leftist propaganda. Germans had not forgot the powerful former racial lessons. Also they were bitter about the war’s results and aftermath. In 1957 there had not been time to grow fully brainwashed generation, whose brains would have been washed all their life to adulthood. This came in the end of sixties.

That’s an interesting theory. It wasn’t until the sixties that the Germans gave up racialism and became guilt-ridden nihilists - in other words, after the occupation was over and after its sovereignty had been restored. The Holocaust wasn’t invented until the late 1960s/early 1970s, more specifically, in the aftermath of the Six Day War when Israel needed a reason to justify its occupation of the territories.

In any case, we have established as an empirical fact that the Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians were far out in the front of the European pack in embracing anti-racism. The laggard in this regard was West Germany, which was most influenced by America. Sweden, which wasn’t occupied by anyone in WW2, led the way. This refutes the argument that American influence is responsible for this trend.

- Japan suffered in war, but it’s infrastucture and traditional social networks were fairly intact.

Japan was more heavily firebombed, suffered more from aerial bombardment than even Germany. Japanese homes were made of wood and went up in flames. Two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, unlike Germany.

Most of those who gained power after the war were people with traditional views. The kaiser remained in non-political position despite being the former leader of the country.

In postwar Japan, the divine emperor was reduced to the status of a figurehead. The Japanese Army and Navy, which had long dominated the government, was emasculated, and secular civilians were put in control of a constitutional democracy. The changes in Japan were even more revolutionary than those in Germany.

Americans didn’t install the same kind of re-education program than in Germany, nor they could have, because of large language and cultural differences.

This is false. There were war crimes trials in Japan as well. Tojo and his clique were put on trial and executed or thrown in prison. Japanese militarists were removed from power in much the same way that Denazification had been implemented in Germany.

Also because of the previous reasons they could not observe Japanese to the same extent than Germans. Japan had not same kind of reinforcing surroundings than Europeans. Most of the countries surrounding it were non-leftist. Those which turned to communism, though dangerous, were fairly turned inward.

Unlike the French, the Japanese wholeheartedly embraced their conquerers, and even romanticized them. It was as if the authority of the Emperor had been transferred to MacArthur. That didn’t happen in Germany or elsewhere in Europe, especially in France, as noted above. The Japanese set about modeling their society on the United States and trying to compete with America in business.

You’re right. Germany ended up the way it did because it was surrounded by other liberal countries like Sweden and France.

Americans were in the most of the cases happy to just observe that Japan don’t try to militarize. Despite these, they have had their own communist/socialist problems and have started to increase the immigration.

Exactly the opposite happened in Germany. West Germany was rearmed and brought into NATO.

- In itself it doesn’t matter where something originates. Capitalism originated in babylonia, but it’s not Iraq with global capitalism we have to worry about. It is the Western and Asian countries. My friend, we had been fighting almost 200 years against the communist and socialist satans with our hands bleeding. We were finally beating them to death, but you started to fight for the satans and giving them help. After the war the satans have repaid you by raping you ever since. Under twenty years after the war you had the same disease than we. I am sad to say your disease will get worse and your prognosis is threatening.

No, it matters quite a lot. Coca Cola originated in the American South and is consumed more here than anywhere else. Walmart and McDonald’s originated here. They are more widespread in America than they are abroad. When Europeans complain about Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Walmart and the like, I can sympathize, as these are legitimate American creations.

In much the same way, Communism originated in Europe and has long had appeal there. Even today, Communists are mainstream in France; Social Democrats in Germany, as well as Socialists and Communists.

Americans are absolutely not responsible for your Communism problem anymore than you are responsible for our tendency to consume fast food and soft drinks. What if Communism had taken the same course in Europe that it did in North America? What if Communism had simply never been popular there. . . just as it was never popular here?

- Communism and socialism are often the most dangerous when they don’t say their names. When curing a disease with antiobiotics course and the course is stopped prematurely, the disease will become stronger than before the course. This has happened both in Europe and Usa. Immigration is one of the symptoms.

Again, Communism/Socialism/Social Democracy is not popular on this side of the Atlantic. This is perhaps one disease we never caught. Fortunately, we seem to be immune to it. If Europe had really been so influenced by America, as you say, then Communism would never have been popular there.

- I explained already how empty and meaningless those “anti-racisms” and “disgusts with the Third Reich” were. But, let’s see, European countries are sick because of socialism and communism, and in their delirium they repeat the slogans of the sicknesses. Usa listens to this and wants to stop the spread of the diseases. Usa already has symptons of the diseases, and it has a bright idea: “We have to infect more of these diseases to ourselves!”

Which doesn’t make any sense. If that had been the case, and anti-racism had not been so influential in Europe in the late 40s/50s/early 1960s, the State Department wouldn’t have had any reason to push desegregation. This isn’t true. Europeans were highly critical of the U.S. at the U.N. because of “racism” and “segregation.” Martin Luther King, Jr. was wildly popular there too.

- No, our problems began with the jews. They are not the only influence, but they are the ones who time after time created the tipping points. Once the disease memes have been created and established in the populations, they become self-generating and self-spreading with or without jews, like you will notice. Taiwan, South-Korea and Japan don’t have jews. Although the diseases have spread there, they been have milder. Not so in China (Soviet Union’s neighbor) and Kamputsea.

So, Europe was degenerating for its own reasons, and not because of U.S. influence after WW2?

- Usa was already in practice in war against Germany.

By “practically in a war against Germany,” I suppose you mean firing on U-Boats in the Atlantic Ocean, in the Western Hemisphere, off the East Coast of North America. Germany’s naval activity in the Western Hemisphere would have aroused the ire of any American president whatsoever. The U.S. almost went to war with the USSR under Kennedy over the Cuban Missle Crisis.

But I don’t try make things more beautiful. National socialism was bad tasting and toxic medicine, although in those countries Germany conquered, people normally could go on living comparatively normally. Italy was sidekick. Japan was a separate case. I have not heard about any German attack to the United States.

Has it occurred to you that maybe Europeans resented the German occupation and were glad to have their independence back? Do you suppose there may have been a reaction against National Socialism, and by extension racial theory and imperialism, due in large part to German foreign policy?

Think about the situation if Usa would have said to Germany; We help you to destroy communism, and then set some rational conditions.

What if there had never been any Communism? What if Communism had never been popular in Europe? It wasn’t popular here in the United States.. The Communist Party USA was always a fringe group, a joke, composed largely of European Jews. It had no appeal and wasn’t a problem.


169

Posted by Matra on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:43 | #

You can’t blame Europe or the US solely for what has happened. I’ve now read Sunic’s book and though it’s a good read and he makes the case that the US forced leftist Jewish ideas on Germany, I think he makes too much of it.

Scimitar makes some good points but some strange ones as well:

The U.S. was a racialist nation for three centuries. Was Ireland, Poland, or Sweden?

These countries not only did not consider non-whites to be their countrymen they did not even include whites of other ethnic backgrounds, so they were far more exclusive than the more liberal, universalist American identity which eventually came to include everyone. Common race alone is rather thin, it isn’t enough to define a people, except maybe when all else is lost; a nation requires an ethnic and cultural base that has meaning to the ordinary person. I’m quite confident that the average Pole, Swede, and Irishman of even today is less likely to accept non-whites as full-fledged members of their nations than are North Americans.

Re: Libertarianism. John Stuart Mill, formulated the libertarian non-aggression/harm principle.

But it was only Jews and Americans who created an ideology out of it. Before the internet libertarianism was virtually unheard of anywhere outside the US. Even today the vast majority of Europeans and, even, Canadians have no idea what it is. Radical individualism and freedom from the state is very American.


170

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:53 | #

Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of porn magazines he’d read — they gave him ideas.  Therefore he’s off the hook.  The blame for what he did lies with those porn magazines he read.

Unlike some Europeans, I don’t blame Europeans for America’s degeneracy. No matter how many bad ideas have come from Europe, and on balance, more have come from there than from here (see above), it is completely our fault for embracing them.

Europeans dislike Hollywood movies, Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Walmart, etc. Okay, I dislike these things too, and understand their resentments. The solution is to maintain your own virtue and avoid developing bad habits. If you don’t like American films, place quotas upon them, as the French did after WW2, or ban them altogether like the North Koreans and Iranians, or just don’t watch them.


171

Posted by Matra on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:06 | #

DJ:It’s interesting that FDR was bent on destroying the French racialists

FDR was bent on destroying both the French and British empires. FDR’s son Elliott was an aide to his father two of the “Big Three” conferences during the war. In his book he wrote of the meeting with Churchill in August 1941:

It must be remembered that at this time Churchill was the war leader, Father only the President of a state which had indicated its sympathies in a tangible fashion. Thus, Churchill still arrogated the conversational lead, still dominated the after-dinner hours. But the difference was beginning to be felt.

And it was evidenced first, sharply, over Empire.

Father started it.
‘Of course,’ he remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, ‘of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.’

He paused. The P.M.‘s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.

‘No artificial barriers,’ Father pursued. ‘As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.’ His eye wandered innocently around the room.

Churchill shifted in his armchair. ‘The British Empire trade agreements’ he began heavily, ‘are—’

Father broke in. ‘Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.’

Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. ‘Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.’

‘You see,’ said Father slowly, ‘it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.

‘I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now—’

‘Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?’

‘Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.’

Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.

‘You mentioned India,’ he growled.

‘Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.’

‘What about the Philippines?’

‘I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down….’

‘There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.’

‘They’re artificial….’

‘They’re the foundation of our greatness.’

‘The peace,’ said Father firmly, ‘cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?’

It was an argument that could have no resolution between these two men….

At Casablanca 1943:

‘Churchill may have thought I wasn’t serious, last time. He’ll find out, this time.’ He looked at me thoughtfully for a moment. ‘How is it, where you are? How is it in Algeria?’ he asked.

I told him it was the same story. Rich country, rich resources, natives desperately poor, a few white colonials that lived very well, a few native princes that lived very well, otherwise poverty, disease, ignorance. He nodded.

And then he went on to tell of what he thought should be done: France to be restored as a world power, then to be entrusted with her former colonies, as a trustee. As trustee, she was to report each year on the progress of her stewardship, how the literacy rate was improving, how the death rate declining, how disease being stamped out, how…

‘Wait a minute,’ I interrupted. ‘Who’s she going to report all this to?’

‘The organization of the United Nations, when it’s been set up,’ answered Father. It was the first time I’d ever heard of this plan. ‘How else?’ I asked Father. ‘The Big Four—ourselves, Britain, China, the Soviet Union—we’ll be responsible for the peace of the world after….

‘...It’s already high time for us to be thinking of the future, building for it…. These great powers will have to assume the tasks of bringing education, raising the standards of living, improving the health conditions—of all the backward, depressed colonial areas of the world.

‘And when they’ve had a chance to reach maturity, they must have the opportunity extended them of independence. After the United Nations as a whole have decided that they are prepared for it.

http://tinyurl.com/2dpzft

FDR’s reference to the 18th century was probably influenced by the US war of independence which many Americans saw as a colonial struggle not unlike those of the 20th century. JFK made that point in bringing France’s war in Algeria to the public’s attention at the UN. The US had won its independence from the British so surely the US, especially during the Cold War, couldn’t ignore supposedly similar independence movements in the 1940s and 50s? Such was the logic from many a white American. (Not that the US alone was to blame for the collapse of the European empires. Obviously WW2 made them weak in the first place).


172

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:38 | #

You can’t blame Europe or the US solely for what has happened. I’ve now read Sunic’s book and though it’s a good read and he makes the case that the US forced leftist Jewish ideas on Germany, I think he makes too much of it.

I ordered Sunic’s book a few days ago. It hasn’t arrived yet from Amazon. I ordered it along with a few other books which seem to be holding it up.

About the U.S. forcing leftist Jewish ideas on Germany. The “Frankfurt School” like “Austrian economics” or the “avant-garde” is sort of a giveaway. Frankfurt is a nice German city. These people were German Jews who only briefly lived here in the United States, never considered them Americans, and identified with Jewry and Europe completely. In a response to a Finn which I never posted, I noted that Red scum like Bertolt Brecht also went back there after the war.

I have yet to read Sunic’s book, but I wonder: does he take into consideration the MILLIONS OF JEWS that Europe exported to North America? What about the European Jews who penetrated our universities and changed our society for the worse? It was German Jews like Boas and Lowie and Germans like Kroeber who started the whole cultural anthropology movement in America.

Who opposed them? The real Americans, the natives like Madison Grant, Charles Davenport, Carleton S. Coon, and Hooton. Surely, our society was 1000x more influenced by Europe than the other way around.

These countries not only did not consider non-whites to be their countrymen they did not even include whites of other ethnic backgrounds, so they were far more exclusive than the more liberal, universalist American identity which eventually came to include everyone.

There was no liberal, universalist America until the 1950s, or really until the culmination of the Civil Rights Movement with the Voting Rights Act and Immigration Act of 1965. From 1790 until 1952, “whiteness” was a criterion of U.S. immigration law. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that the majority of white Americans approved of miscegenation. Actually, I take that back. Even Ted Kennedy promised in 1965 that the Immigration Act of 1965 would not radically change the demographic makeup of the country.

MLK and Bob Moses were under no illusions that Mississippi or Alabama was “liberal” or “universalist.” My friends from South Carolina would be highly amused at the notion that they are more “liberal” than Europeans.

Over in Europe, in the Netherlands and Spain, homosexuals can marry each other and adopt children. Prostitution is legal. You can smoke marijuana or commit physician assisted suicide. There are laws against things like “denying the Holocaust” or “inciting racial hatred.” In the U.K., the charge of “Islamophobia” is taken deadly seriously; over here it is laughed at. In the United States, abortion is a divisive issue. There are mainstream debates about things which are simply accepted by almost everyone in Europe, except maybe for the Poles or Irish.

It is really bizarre if you ask me: this idea that Europe, which is deeply Anti-American, in fact models itself on the United States. The French want to be like us? Over in France, they have elections where there are run offs between conservatives and socialists like Ségolène Royal. You have Social Democrats like Schroeder. Outright communists were in control of much of Europe until recently. People like that could never get elected over here in “liberal, universalist” America.

Racial homogeneity is no indicator of strong racial attitudes. Actually, it tends to be the other way around. Wherever you look, the most liberal whites live in the most homogeneous areas, and the most racialized in the most diverse areas. Look at Canada, your country. It was the terminus of what was known in America as the “Underground Railroad.” That was over 150 years ago.

Common race alone is rather thin, it isn’t enough to define a people, except maybe when all else is lost; a nation requires an ethnic and cultural base that has meaning to the ordinary person.

That’s Romanticism. My life is hardly meaningless because I don’t dress up like an inebriated Medieval peasant and dance around to a fiddle. I suspect you don’t either. In fact, I am willing to wager that no one here does.

I’m quite confident that the average Pole, Swede, and Irishman of even today is less likely to accept non-whites as full-fledged members of their nations than are North Americans.

I would love to see polling data like that. We have it here in abundance in the U.S. because such things have always been controversial. In Sweden, Poland, and Ireland, the theory of racial equality seems to be universally accepted.


173

Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:01 | #

FDR was bent on destroying both the French and British empires. FDR’s son Elliott was an aide to his father two of the “Big Three” conferences during the war. In his book he wrote of the meeting with Churchill in August 1941:

That’s true. FDR disliked imperialism. His hostility to German, Italian, and Japanese imperialism extended to the French and British versions as well. One of his better accomplishments was putting an end to U.S. imperialism in Latin America with the Good Neighbor Policy.

I’m not an imperialist myself. I don’t want my country involved in “entangling alliances” like NATO, or American troops everywhere from Germany to Kosovo to Iraq to Okinawa.

FDR’s reference to the 18th century was probably influenced by the US war of independence which many Americans saw as a colonial struggle not unlike those of the 20th century.

FDR died before the end of WW2. His successors propped up the Western imperialists. I mentioned the French in Vietnam above who were almost completely subsidized by the U.S.

JFK made that point in bringing France’s war in Algeria to the public’s attention at the UN.

The French fought for eight years to hang onto Algeria with half a million soldiers; the largest force ever committed by France to over an overseas venture (actually, Algeria wasn’t really a colony, it was considered part of France itself). The only reason the French left Algeria is because they lost. de Gaulle pulled them out of there - in spite of several assassination attempts and an outright rebellion by the pied noirs.

The US had won its independence from the British so surely the US, especially during the Cold War, couldn’t ignore supposedly similar independence movements in the 1940s and 50s? Such was the logic from many a white American. (Not that the US alone was to blame for the collapse of the European empires. Obviously WW2 made them weak in the first place).

The U.S. had nothing to do with the collapse of the European empires in Africa. The first colony to gain its independence was Ghana under Nkrumah in 1957. That was long after WW2. The hassle of dealing with indigenous nationalist movements was the major problem. Belgium, for instance, wasn’t interested in hanging onto the Congo at the expense of it becoming another Algeria.


174

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:05 | #

Racial homogeneity is no indicator of strong racial attitudes.

That’s because it does not exist. It’s fictional.

South Africa is a perfect example (and the Southern US, however, we’ll leave that alone for the moment). For the better part of a century, after the openning of SA’s mines, blacks from all over the African continent were encouraged to migrate to SA in the interest of keeping labour costs down. Where was the racial homogeneity? White elites were quite willing to bring blacks into the pool of labour and compete directly with whites to ensure the best possible cost of labour. However, once trade unionism was introduced in the late 19th century by British miners, elites offered a sweetheart deal;

“It was a struggle of white men, striving for a higher standard of life and inbred with a fiery belief in their cause which carried them into bloody strikes, violence and rebellion. Their main enemy was the Chamber of Mines, a body of men who owned the rich gold mines. The quarrel revolved around the Chamber`s low-wage policy. This conflict greatly influenced the pattern and direction of trade unionism in South Africa. It introduced the race factor into labour economics and steered white workers into support of an industrial colour bar, with all its damaging effects on workers` solidarity.”

Thus a yeoman white working class was created as a buffer to workers solidarity. When the African Miners Union struck in 1946, the Smuts government introduced apartheid, and anti-miscegenation laws. Apartheid, in the end only served the white/Jewish elite. If whites elites really had the interest of their fellow countrymen at heart, a separate white nation would have been formed. Instead they chose to construct a system that ensured cheap labour and ultimately worked against white labour when demands to end apartheid grew.


175

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 00:55 | #

As for Matra’s comment quoting passages from the book of Roosevelt’s son:  if Churchill had had half a brain, immediately upon hearing Roosevelt’s wacko Marxoid ideas at that 1941 conference he’d have realized what a mentally-defective Red he was dealing with, would’ve walked out and entered into secret negotiations the next day with von Ribbentrop aimed at quickly concluding a negotiated peace between the Third Reich and the British Empire, a peace as unfavorable as possible to the United States from the point of view of trade and in every other way.  It couldn’t be clearer that Roosevelt was a dangerous comsymp and unprincipled Stalin-groupie from start to finish.  Roosevelt joins Stalin in being one of the most evil men of the XXth Century.

“Apartheid, in the end only served the white/Jewish elite. If white elites really had the interest of their fellow countrymen at heart, a separate white nation would have been formed. Instead they chose to construct a system that ensured cheap labour”  (—Desmond)

This is what’s happening with Israel today:  she’s keeping the Palestinians in close proximity instead of distancing herself from them, presumably out of cheap labor needs.  Israel is being run in an extremely odd way.


176

Posted by Matra on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:07 | #

Matra:

Common race alone is rather thin, it isn’t enough to define a people, except maybe when all else is lost; a nation requires an ethnic and cultural base that has meaning to the ordinary person.

Scimitar:

That’s Romanticism. My life is hardly meaningless because I don’t dress up like an inebriated Medieval peasant and dance around to a fiddle. I suspect you don’t either. In fact, I am willing to wager that no one here does.

That’s not what I meant and I doubt many Europeans reading it took it the way you did. I meant folkways - habits, accent, historical points of reference, things that make your ethnic group/nation different from the rest of the world, etc.

A North American is far more likely than a European to accept an outsider as one of their own. I don’t base that on polling data but on personal experiences and observations. North American identity - particularly outside the South - has been universalised, especially in the suburbs. It’s not easy for an immigrant to become a part of the Irish or Polish nations because these places are not as homogenised as North America (well, not yet), and often the particularities of their local and regional cultures cannot be accessed through mass media. You need to live it and usually you need to be one of them. (I suspect it is the same in rural Alabama but it isn’t in Anaheim or Westchester).

Remember most of those foreigners in Europe, particularly Muslims, are not integrated into the host society.  Don’t confuse elite opinion with that of the man on the street. Unfortunately, at present that man on the street doesn’t make identity the main priority when voting.

Somewhat on topic. Yesterday I watched thousands of mostly white (I’m guessing suburban) Oklahomans give fist pumps and cheer on Tiger Woods against a white American golfer (and a white South African).


177

Posted by a Finn on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:52 | #

Part one. My answers start with -.

“Global Capitalism/Multinational Corporations. Those are three U.S. multinational corporations that I dislike. Europeans have their own multinational corporations. The multinational corporation wasn’t introduced to Europe by the United States.”

- I didn’t say that anything about introduction. I was talking about global capitalist power. Today Usa has the most of it, partly because it’s rapacious internationalist ideology. That doesn’t take away the problems with European global corporations. The situation is the same when one man is surrounded by a group of hostile men; always strike the strongest, meanest and the leader first.

“Capitalism. “Capitalism” is a theory of economics that was formulated by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Jean-Baptiste”

- I talked about practice. First fairly modern capitalism emerged in Babylonia. Banks; shared stock companies; witnessed and signed contracts and deals, enforced by state (with death penalty if necessary); bankcrupty laws; bank accounts; payments through banks or with bank notes; standardized measures in businesses etc.

““Liberalism” is a political theory based on radical individualism.”

- It was in essence radical capitalism.

“Hollywood. It was created by European Jews who had recently immigrated to the United States.”

- If jews are European, the somalis in the Usa are European Americans. Jews are a tribe of their own, everywhere.

“Racism/Nordicism/ White Nationalism. See Issac’s The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. The Greeks and Romans were aware of racial differences, but attributed them to the environment. Racial chacteristics of the negro were a mystery and Americans spent centuries speculating about them.”

Although my sources about Greek and Roman racism are not as thorough I would like, I question that by referring mainly to the jews. Moses was tribalist (about=racialist) with his “Don’t accept them even from the tenth generation” for tribal non-relatives and “From the third generation you can accept them” for tribal close relatives, brothers, as he calls them (The fifth book of Moses, 23:3-9).

Still, when reasoning these they use most often cultural (environmental) explanations. It is understandable, because genes and heriditary laws were not known, people in general have to be talked in a way they understood, and cultural reasons were important, of course, too. This does not reduce it’s tribalism one bit. Is the same true concerning Greeks and Romans; reasoning mostly environmental/cultural, but the practice tribal/genetical? I have read that many Greeks follow also in modern times expressly tribalist=genetical non-mixing rules.

Americans, who had negroes living with them, spend centuries speculating about negroes, before inventing racialism. Beginning from the nineteenth century, Europe was turning towards racialism/ethnic nationalism, despite very few or none outside ethicities/ races amongst them. This was disrupted by WWII. It would be reasonable to assess the comparisons from this base.

Americans racialist influence was favorable and much appreciated. But you forgot to mention Charles Darwin and Arthur de Gobineau, Europeans who were essential in the development of racialism.

“Pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only major American school of philosophy.”

- Pragmatism has been used everywhere in one form or another.

“Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses also got their start here. Are they influential in Europe?”

Some Jehovah witnesses exist in Finland. They are despised by nearly all, because of many reasons (Their beliefs and doctrines, customs, avoiding military, annoying way of mongering their religion, etc.). Some Mormons exist in Finland. Everybody likes them. They seem to be very White, which is excellent. They dress in style, their clothes are always shiningly clean and their behaviour is impeccable. Too many Americans in Finland seem to be half negroes. Some of them say they are White. I hope American racialist don’t fall into this inflation of Whiteness, although the definition is and should be larger than in Europe’s ethnic nationalism. I have heard that Mormons are slowly increasing their followers numbers here, which is good. Some Mormons have given me their religion’s book.

“Don’t you have Formula One?”

- Who cares.

“Neo-Nazi groups like George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party turned American racialism into something of a joke. It has yet to recover from this.”

- A couple of neo-nazis exist here also, but are inconsequential.

“Again, it is indisputable that Communism originated in Europe. Jews and Gentiles were involved in this process. Marx and Engels, Stalin and Lenin, etc.”

- Engels is an Englishman. Stalin is from Caucasus, Georgia. It is not in Europe. Lenin is a mongrel, consisting of Caucasian, Mongol, jewish, Russian, Swedish etc. heritage. Marx is a jew. “Originated in Europe” in general has some merit to it in good and bad, but I am starting to believe that you are putting too much weight in it because of your natural American pan-European outlook. Practical reality here is somewhat different, with our varying cultures, ethnicities, borders, languages, customs and today’s races.

Mexico and Mexicans originated in North America. smile

“Yes, Christianity got its start in the Levant. It is indisputable that Christianity was brought to North America from Europe.”

- On other points you say the origin is important, now you say it is important that it was brought from Europe to United States. Which is it? Jesus was tribalist, so a good base for ethnic nationalism and racialism. See e.g. Jesus’ heritage list, Matthew 1:1-17, which shows that Jesus followed tribal non-mixing rules, and his thoughts about tribal outsiders, Matthew 15:22-28.

Those of his orders, which are incompatible with reality, were just practice for the heaven, and Jesus made them temporarily possible. He cancelled them before his death, Luke, 22:35-36. Also, people are one, but only after death in Jesus’ name.

——————

If you want to inflate the communists and socialists with the tools they use and not put them under one header, why not use the same inflation regarding United States. So sixties culture can be divided to decadent comics, decadent books, drug culture, infatuation with pseudo meditation religions, immoral sexual practices, new forms of political leftism, feminism etc. etc.

“PC. Political Correctness, or Cultural Marxism, comes from the Italian Maxist Antonio Gramsci.”

No, practice was the first. It was used the first time in Soviet Union, installed by Leon Trotsky.

“Well, that one is sort of a give away. Brought to North America from Europe, mostly by Viennese Jews.”

- So do you consider jews to be Europeans or not? If yes, you obviously have no problem of them belonging to your racial organizations.

“Objectivism. Ayn Rand, or Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, was a Russian Jewess who immigrated to North America at age 21.”

- I have nothing to add.

“Feminism. An interesting timeline:”

- You have confused immoral and destructive radical feminism with women rights movements, which advocated modesty, good motherhood qualities, good manners, abstaining from alcohol, good morality, learning useful skills, etc.

“Socialism. Agreed. From France.”

- Why France has produced so much communist and socialist theories and movements, it is the question.

“Social Democracy”

- Give me the pre WWII ethnic nationalist variety among larger whole and it’s ok.

“Humanism dates back to the Renaissance and later Immanuel Kant.”

- it is nothing but misinterpretation of Christianity, and one version of socialism and communism.

“Anti-Racism is a movement that got started amongst communist anti-fascist resistance groups in….”

- It was first used in practice by Leon Trotsky, who made it into laws in Soviet Union. Trotsky invented the name “racism”.

“Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. Proudhon and Bakunin.”

- Like I said, from France and Russia. Russia is culturally only partly European. Time and time again the core has been non-European.

“Psychoanalysis. Freud and Jung, neither were Americans.”

- And Freud was not European. Jung is good. He repaired much of the damage Freud created.

“Frankfurt School/Critical Theory. European Jews, briefly stayed in America, most went back to Europe.”

- Yes they were part of the jewish “re-education” we need less than drug resistant bubonic plague. And American jewish media put it into practice.

Re: Multiculturalism. Horace Kallen, European Jewish immigrant.

- Are jews Europeans to you?

“Re: Romanticism. Also indisputably European.”

- And proudly so

“Libertarianism. John Stuart Mill, formulated the libertarian non-aggression/harm principle.”

- You didn’t answer the Ron Paul question.

“Cultural Anthropology. Got started in Germany during the nineteenth century under the influence of Fichte and Herder. German anthropology was racially egalitarian during this period. Brought to North America by the German Jewish immigrant Franz Boas.”

- Certain parts of Germany’s science, economy, cuture etc. were heavily judaized. It caused strong reaction against it, and it had strong influence to rising nationalism and ethnic nationalism. See e.g. Eugen Duhring, The Jewish Question, A racial, moral and cultural question with world historical answer, 1881. Houston Steward Chamberlain, Die Grundlagen des 19. Jahrhundrets, 1899. Paul de Lagarde, Deutsche Schriften, 1876-81; excerpt: “Every foreign object causes in another living being uncomfortableness, disease, often purulence and death. [....] The foreign object could be a jewel, but it’s effect would be the same if in it’s place would be a piece of rotten wood. [....] Jews as jews are in every European state just advancers of rottening. [....] The law of Moses and the bitter overconfidence originating from it keeps them foreign race in our midst: but absolutely we cannot tolerate a nation within a nation. Heinrich von Treitschke, Deutsche Gesichte im 19. Jahrhundert, Verlag Hirzel, Leipzig, 1879-94. Theodor Fritsch, Antisemiten-catechismus, 1887.

“Historicism. Completely undermined the European sense of the superiority of their own civilization.

- These are the kind of sweeping comments that undermine your comments. First, historicism in itself is one fairly neutral scientific way of observing things, but it has problems from scientific point of view, because it didn’t, at least originally, recognize universal laws. But the damage comes when communists and socialist use it, e.g.: “The term has developed different and divergent, though loosely related, meanings. Elements of historicism appear in the writings of the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, influential in 19th-century Europe, as well as in those of Karl Marx, whom he heavily influenced. The term is also associated with the empirical social sciences and the work of Franz Boas.” So if historicism completely undermined Europeans’ sense of superiority, how do you explain the subsequent birth and move to power in almost every country ethnic nationalists, who believed in the superiority of their civilization. It was taught in schools. It was official policy in every related matter. It was the belief of average citizens.

Continued….


178

Posted by a Finn on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:53 | #

Continuation, part two.

“You raise several issues. You claim the United States crushed European nationalist movements.”

- No, I said Usa’s actions led to the withering of them, although Usa was member of coalition with “anti-racist” Soviet Union crushing German nationalists. Usa created tipping points. It’s actions led to the huge Victory of “anti-racist” Soviet Union. E.g. Patrick Buchanan, an American politician, has criticized this.

Americans influenced Europeans at the worst possible time in wrong way. It is just a historical fact and we cannot change it. England was equal partner in this mistake trying to protect it’s dying and decaying empire. But we can learn from it. Like we can learn from Europeans mistakes in general. If victory was so good and sweet, why Usa and England has gone evenly straight to hell after it. After declaring war when Germany invaded Poland, England had to defence against German invaders. Now after “winning” this war, it lost it’s empire it tried to protect and cannot keep anybody out. Greeks had a name to this; Pyrrhic victory.

I don’t criticize Americans helping England in itself or England defending itself, of course.

Think about what would have happened if England and Usa would have joined Germany and others in crushing communism. Hitler tried several times to form this alliance. You could have set moderating conditions to Germany and thus control and reduce it’s bad sides, which were real.

This would mean after the war:

- Ethnic and racial nationalism reigns supreme everywhere. Flourishing of European peoples and their cultures.

- Lands cannot be conquered indiscriminately, Like Soviet Union did. People cannot be slaughtered, like Soviet Union did. All peoples would have to have protected lands.

- Communism and socialism are dead as a practical force.

- Jews are in Palestine/Israel.

- No immigration. No multiculturalism. No political correctness. No current moral evils and degeneracy. No dispossession of Whites everywhere. No affirmative action. Etc.

What a wonderful world it would be.

“Spanish Nationalism. Franco was left alone.”

- Usa didn’t care. Franco was stiff stagnant dictator, lacking dynamism.

“French Nationalism. The U.S. and France were allies in WW1 and WW2. In fact, it was the U.S. that put de Gaulle in power in France, and it was the U.S. that supported the French effort to hold onto their rattled Empire.”

- Gaulle cared about his empire, not the French. He started the immigration from North Africa and other places.

“Italian Nationalism. The U.S. helped put ex-fascists back in control of Italy after WW2, CIA subverted the Italian communists.”

- Certainly better than the communists.

“Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway. Owe their independence largely to the United States.”

- Whatever bad sides there was in Hitler, he was German nationalist and he at the same time admired the British empire, wanting to install system somewhat resembling that. This means that he didn’t want to assimilate Danes, Norwegians etc. He would have left them in their own lands to live in their own way and Germany would have been the central power in Europe. This can be seen in the case of Norway. It was conquered, but hardly anybody resisted except communists. This was because Norwegians were left to live like they always had lived. After the war it has been tried to explain away, in vain.

“German nationalism. The U.S. supported the unification of Germany under Bismarck and supported Germany in the Franco-Prussian War.”

- This is good.

“Czechs and Poles. Owe their existence as independence states to Versailles. The U.S. opposed the Soviet Union’s attempt to crush the Czechs in the Prague Spring.

- Poles and Czechs were conquered Soviet Unions communist satellites with all the subsequent consequences. They gained their freedom only when Soviet Union started to decay.

“Croats. U.S. supported their secession from Yugoslavia.”

- Yes, this is good, anything to separate them from the muslims.

“Serbs. Supported by the Allies in WW2. Have legitimate complaints against the U.S. The bombing of Serbia was a disgrace.”

- Yes.

“Hungarians. U.S. supported the Hungarian Revolution.”

- After they had been conquered by the Soviet Union after the war. Even Finnish communists, excluding pro-Soviets, supported Hungarian revolution. 

- Greece. U.S. opposed the Greek communists there and assisted nationalist movements.

- This is good.

“Balts. U.S. supported their secession from the USSR.”

- After Soviet Union had conquered them with all the subsequent slaughter, deportations, concentration camp deaths, betraying the guerilla fighters, who have been promised support by Usa, etc.

“Ukraine. U.S. has long supported Ukrainian nationalism.”

- Usa has just tried to monger it’s version of liberalism, including jew George Soros with his Open society institute.

“- You didn’t mention that Usa is a world center of global capitalism, liberalism, “fashionable” leftism etc., and emits them with all of it’s power to all over the world. (See e.g. John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Ebury Press, 2006).

“The U.S. took over this role from Britain after WW2 which had taken it over from the Dutch before them.”

- If we would live in those times, we would resist Dutch and English, especially if they would try to internationalize and mix peoples, dissolve borders, outsource etc. Now we have to work especially against Usa’s globalism. I suspect that you, as a nationalist, don’t love it either.

“You claim that Europe has been degenerating because of American influence. The list above shows otherwise. Almost all of these destructive ideas originated on your continent. They were exported here to North America.”

- No, I did not. I said we have been been sick because of it nearly 200 years and fought against with bloody hands, sometimes brother against brother. When we were healing and had an critical opportunity to cure it permanently, Americans sided with the disease. Because of it we are both sick and heading towards destruction. If responsibility has to be assigned it means that especially some sick Europeans, many jews, and American WWII government with it’s stringpullers are black sinners, who fell into the hell.


179

Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:50 | #

That’s not what I meant and I doubt many Europeans reading it took it the way you did. I meant folkways - habits, accent, historical points of reference, things that make your ethnic group/nation different from the rest of the world, etc.

European nationalism was strongly influenced by the Romantic movement of the 19C. The Romantics glorified the primitive; lionized the Middle Ages out of disillusionment with Modern Europe and the Enlightenment.

During the 19C, “culture” was democratized by the Romantics and was given a new meaning. More accurately, it was inverted. Previously, “culture” was synonymous with “men of refinement” or urbane elites. To have “culture” was to be unlike the the peasant, the rube, the folkish parochial; to be broadminded, cosmopolitan, enlightened, learned.

The Romantic movement was less influential in North America than it was in Western Europe. Americans clung more to the Roman ideal of civilization whereas Europeans, especially the Germans, revolted against civilization led by Rousseau, Herder, and Fichte.

A North American is far more likely than a European to accept an outsider as one of their own.

That would depend upon what sort of “outsiders” you are referring to. Expanding upon the Roman theme, Americans have traditionally welcomed “white” immigrants to the United States who could assimilate, add value to our nation, and become like us over a few generations. We also owned negroes as slaves; the Roman economy was also based upon slavery.

Once again, North America was less influenced by the Romantic movement of the 19C. That single fact explains quite a lot of the differences that divide Americans and Europeans. Europeans glorify the things like “favorite beers” and peasants dressing up and dancing around to a fiddle that I mentioned above. They call that folk nationalism. It doesn’t resonate as well here in the U.S.

In 2004, I visited Canada to meet a girl I was acquainted with there from my old forum. In Winnipeg, there is this festival, I am not sure you are familiar with it, but it is called “Folklorama” or something like that. All around Winnipeg each ethnic group put on its own little show. I went to several of these. These people would dress up in peasant outfits and dance around to folkish music. You could sample the cuisine and alcoholic drinks of each nation; purchase cultural items and so forth. I had a great time; enjoyed myself thoroughly.

They took great interest in the fact that I was from Alabama, especially my accent. It was something they were unfamiliar with. I had never seen anything like that before in the United States. It left an impression upon me. I found myself thinking: what we call “racialism” in the U.S. and “volkishness” are not the same thing.

I don’t base that on polling data but on personal experiences and observations. North American identity - particularly outside the South - has been universalised, especially in the suburbs.

I’m well aware of that. There was no “universal” America though before the 1950s. Americanism had a racial, religious, and cultural component. There was a long, bitter, protracted struggle that went on from about 1945 to 1968 in which the racial element of Americanism was expunged from our national identity. It is known in the United States as the “Civil Rights Movement.”

As I have pointed out in previous threads, I am only half-American myself, although I was raised here. My mother is Austrian. My grandparents live in Austria. I often traveled to Europe as a teenager. What I remember most about that experience was how Europeans have nothing resembling our sense of racial consciousness which, growing up in Alabama in the 1980s and 1990s, still existed in my area. It is completely foreign to them. There was no sense in Europe of being “white.” There was complete ignorance of the racial differences between whites and the negro.

It’s not easy for an immigrant to become a part of the Irish or Polish nations because these places are not as homogenised as North America (well, not yet), and often the particularities of their local and regional cultures cannot be accessed through mass media. You need to live it and usually you need to be one of them. (I suspect it is the same in rural Alabama but it isn’t in Anaheim or Westchester).

Southerners tend to frown on ethnic bigotry. We are renowned for our hospitality to outsiders. The Know-Nothing movement of the mid-19C, for example, had little popularity in the South. The European immigrant was usually seen as something of a novelty here and was welcomed. The Irish who settled throughout the South even became exaggerated Southerners and rioted against forced integration during Reconstruction. If the European immigrant is female, this often makes her more desirable than natives.

What matters in the South, even today, is whiteness. Southerners greatly resent Hispanic immigration because Mexicans are not perceived as being white. In contrast, immigrants from the North or from Europe are rarely stir up the same sort of hostility.

This happens to be the major reason Southerners are so often blind to the Jewish Question. Jews are seen as being “white” and as major contributors to Christianity. This, along with the welcoming attitude towards the European immigrant, explains why Southerners (not unlike the Boers) are amongst the most pro-Jewish populations on earth.

Remember most of those foreigners in Europe, particularly Muslims, are not integrated into the host society.  Don’t confuse elite opinion with that of the man on the street. Unfortunately, at present that man on the street doesn’t make identity the main priority when voting.

Even amongst European commoners, there is no sense of “being white” like there is in the United States, nor is there a similiar awareness of the existence of racial differences. There is probably some xenophobia, but it is not the racialized version that I am familiar with.

Having lived in the South almost my entire life, and having traveled to Europe frequently, I can assure you that Southerners are nowhere near as “liberal” or “universalist” as Europeans are. Europeans are overwhelmingly more likely to be anti-racists.

I happen to be back in Alabama for personal reasons at the moment. Just last night I was at a friend’s house and was introduced to some new people, younger locals, I was unfamiliar with. We had a long conversation which eventually turned to race, about a dozen of us, as often happens here. These people whom I had never met before were in complete agreement with my racial views. In Alabama, I can openly talk about things like “Mexicans need to go back to Mexico” or “such and such is a disgusting ni***r lover,” or “whites should stop sucking up to the negro.” You can’t do that elsewhere.

Somewhat on topic. Yesterday I watched thousands of mostly white (I’m guessing suburban) Oklahomans give fist pumps and cheer on Tiger Woods against a white American golfer (and a white South African).

That’s sports. You shouldn’t read that much into it. Even I will be attending the Iron Bowl this fall, and anyone here can see my racial views. I might be a racialist, but Auburn vs. Alabama is still Auburn vs. Alabama and so is SEC football.


180

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:04 | #

Southerners tend to frown on ethnic bigotry. We are renowned for our hospitality to outsiders. The Know-Nothing movement of the mid-19C, for example, had little popularity in the South. The European immigrant was usually seen as something of a novelty here and was welcomed.

That’s because the South, between 1850-1910, was virtually devoid of immigrants, European or otherwise. The highwater mark of foreign born, in the South, was 4% and that largely was centred in DC, Baltimore and New Orleans.

If there was this great “white solidarity” in the South, why were the Confederacy’s leaders willing to sacrifice the South’s independence and hundreds of thousands of fellow Southerners for the sake of what, 10-20% of the population that actually owned slaves?

In December 1863, after numerous Confederate military defeats, Gen. Patrick Cleburne, an Irish-born Arkansan, presented a stunning memorandum to his fellow officers in the Army of Tennessee. Cleburne judged the Confederacy to be in dire straits, “hemmed in” by “superior forces” on virtually all fronts. The South faced a “fatal apathy” in its own ranks, he warned, and would in time be “subjugated” by the federal armies unless Confederates took the radical step of arming slaves. Cleburne assumed widespread slave loyalty to the Confederacy, yet he admitted that black battlefield service could be purchased only by promising freedom to soldiers and their families. The Confederacy faced a desperate choice, according to Cleburne: “the loss of independence” or the “loss of slavery.” The true Southern patriot, he contended, must “give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself.” Although largely suppressed, this memo made it to President Jefferson Davis and his cabinet, which rejected it almost unanimously. But in 1864, after further military setbacks, the idea of arming slaves developed an influential following among a small group of white Southerners, especially Judah P. Benjamin (Davis’s closest cabinet adviser), Gen. Robert E. Lee and Davis himself. Public calls to enlist slaves emanated from Union-occupied sections of Mississippi and Alabama, and in the wake of the fall of Atlanta in September 1864, five Southern governors supported some kind of black-soldier policy. When Davis finally embraced the idea two months later, he did so gingerly, first suggesting the outright purchase of slaves from their owners. Levine illuminates a “wide-ranging public dispute [over arming slaves] that dominated political life during the Confederacy’s final six months.” Once unleashed, especially in newspapers, the idea of slave soldiers and Confederate emancipation met fierce opposition. Critics repeatedly labeled any form of the plan an “insult” to white soldiers and “embarrassing” before the world. Some raised the specters of slave revolt and miscegenation; other critics rehearsed familiar proslavery arguments about the inherent inferiority of black people and the benign, natural character of racial slavery. Levine demonstrates, in one crisp, convincing quotation after another, that to Confederates the war was all about preserving their “property” in slaves. For example, plantation mistress Catherine Edmondston condemned any attempt to arm slaves because it would “destroy at one blow the highest jewel in the Crown.” “Our independence,” chimed in North Carolina Gov. Zebulon Vance, “is chiefly desirable for the preservation of our political institutions, the principal of which is slavery.”

[...]

In the increasingly embittered debate of 1864-65 over black enlistment, the proposal’s advocates charged that their fellow Southerners would, in the words of a Georgia congressman, “give up their sons, husbands, brothers & friends, and often without murmuring, to the army; but let one of their negroes be taken, and what a howl you will hear.”

I might be a racialist, but Auburn vs. Alabama is still Auburn vs. Alabama and so is SEC football.

Appropos to a question raised just last night. “Why do white men like to watch blacks play football?” It’s quite the anomally, that a racialist supports the caste system in college and pro football in America that openly discriminates against the recruitment and development of white athletes at the colloege and pro level.


181

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:09 | #

That’s because the South, between 1850-1910, was virtually devoid of immigrants, European or otherwise. The highwater mark of foreign born, in the South, was 4% and that largely was centred in DC, Baltimore and New Orleans.

There were lots of immigrants in the Southern cities like New Orleans, Savannah, Baltimore, Memphis, and Charleston. Much of Texas and Missouri were settled by Germans. South Carolina had plenty of Huguenots. Louisiana, of course, was a French colony. Florida and the Alabama and Mississippi Gulf Coast were possessions of Spain and only later became part of the United States. Cities like “Mobile” and “Biloxi” and “St. Louis” and “New Orleans” and “Natchez” were not exactly founded by Anglos. The Southern backcountry was settled by the Scot-Irish.

Today, the South is being flooded not only by immigrants from Latin America, but also by whites from the American North and Europe. Insofar as ethnic resentments exist though, they are directed almost entirely towards “illegal aliens,” almost all of whom are Hispanics. Throughout the 19C, the South was represented by the Democratic Party and was pro-immigrant. Indeed, the South was pro-immigrant well into the 20C.

If there was this great “white solidarity” in the South, why were the Confederacy’s leaders willing to sacrifice the South’s independence and hundreds of thousands of fellow Southerners for the sake of what, 10-20% of the population that actually owned slaves?

The Confederacy wouldn’t have maintained its independence even if every negro slave in the entire South had been armed. Davis was justifiably criticized by Rhett and others on that point. Arming negroes was an absurd idea. It was a pipe dream. Look at the sheer amount of them that fled into the Union lines. We later found out what happens when negroes are armed during Reconstruction. The first Klan had to put them down.

I’m also intrigued, but in no way surprised, that you would cite one “Levine” to prove that the Civil War was about slavery. You have a knack for peddling odd theories like that, whether it is Christianity or the idea that “whiteness” has never been important in American history. Let’s examine it a little more closely.

1.) Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, was one of the biggest planters in Georgia. He opposed the secession of Georgia from the Union.

2.) Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, one of the bigger Mississippi planters - he was a Washington insider in the Directory behind the Buchanan administration. He loved the Union and was in no way a leader of the secession movement in the South. In fact, he was moved to tears after he was recalled to Mississippi after its secession. He was the one in favor of arming the slaves.

The inverse was actually true. The New Orleans urban imperialists, the faction in the South most bent on expanding slavery to new territories, were pro-Union. The most radical fire-eaters, the South Carolinian ultras like Rhett, were either lukewarm or outright hostile to the idea of territorial expansion. Calhoun had opposed the annexation of Mexico over a decade earlier. The people most opposed to arming slaves were non-slaveholding whites.

Appropos to a question raised just last night. “Why do white men like to watch blacks play football?” It’s quite the anomally, that a racialist supports the caste system in college and pro football in America that openly discriminates against the recruitment and development of white athletes at the colloege and pro level.

Probably because football has long been a part of our culture as well. That was true before the SEC was integrated. I’m not such a petty racist ideologue that I can’t enjoy a football game with a few friends.

That’s because it does not exist. It’s fictional.

Yes, as you were telling us earlier, “whiteness” has never been of any importance to American history. See the quotes I provided you with above.

Where was the racial homogeneity?

Russia is more or less racially homogenous. During the 20C, it was known as the “Soviet Union.” No thanks.

If whites elites really had the interest of their fellow countrymen at heart, a separate white nation would have been formed. Instead they chose to construct a system that ensured cheap labour and ultimately worked against white labour when demands to end apartheid grew.

A racially homogeneous “white nation” is an oxymoron. “Whites” who live in racially homogeneous nations rarely have anything resembling racial consciousness or a sense of solidarity with othr “whites.”

In contrast, a multiracial state in which a division of labor is based on racial lines promotes in-group racial egalitarianism like no other system. That’s why “White Nationalists” tend to be Southerners or other colonials while Europeans tend to subscribe to fascism or other forms of petty nationalism.


182

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:09 | #

“I said we have been been sick because of it nearly 200 years and fought against with bloody hands, sometimes brother against brother. When we were healing and had a critical opportunity to cure it permanently, Americans sided with the disease. Because of it we are both sick and heading towards destruction. If responsibility has to be assigned it means that especially some sick Europeans, many Jews, and American WWII government with its stringpullers are black sinners, who fell into the hell.”  (—Finn, 6:53 PM)

Well put, and of course one hundred percent correct.


183

Posted by a Finn on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 02:51 | #

My comments start with -.

“The world epicenter of anti-racism for 70 years was the USSR, a European country, not the USA. In fact, the Wilson administration supported the Whites in that conflict and directly intervened with military force to help prevent the Bolshevik takeover.”

- Let’s see, Finns have country beside them that have foreign Asiatic culture and different people. There was jewish bolshevik revolution and Soviet Union was created. It was always deadly threat to Finland and we fought all out life and death war against it. 20 million Europeans were mercilessly murdered in “peacetime” there, including tens of thousands of Finns. More millions were murdered in other European countries it controlled. If you try to sell this to me as what European is, I have this to say:“I despise Europe. I don’t want anything to do with it. I hate the concept of Europeannes. It is not my connection and they are not my kin in any way.”

If Soviet Union has any relation to Europeans, it is same as aggressive spreading cancer’s relation to body. It is deadly hostile mutation.

Fortunately there are many European things that are healthily European. But the European concept has it’s limits. At it’s worst it is just an artificial, non-existent concept.

“No, the U.S. Army was never in control of any of these states. They were overrun by the Red Army. In the areas where the U.S. Army did occupy, Communism was kept out.”

- No it was not. Communism and socialism infiltrated those areas from top to bottom, from side to side, often not saying their names. Immigration and PC and affirmative action are examples of it’s manifestations.

“The USSR defeated Nazi Germany largely on its own. . . which had underestimated Soviet industrial and military power. It was only in 1944 that the Allies landed in Normandy.”

- Add constant bombing etc (bombs, soldiers, bombers, fighter planes, flyers etc.), support to communists and other guerillas everywhere, support to Soviet Union, which e.g. saved it during Leningrad’s siege (crucial), preventing Germany’s supplies etc. Enough to create tipping points.

“Communism is a European idea. What if Europeans had never thought up Communism or were never attracted to Communism? There never would have been a problem with Communism in Europe: no Soviet Union; no Tito; no Paris Commune; no Hoxha. Don’t blame us for your own bad ideas.”

- If blaming is wanted, I blame those directly responsible for making destructive decisions in Europe and Usa, not blanket accusations of Usa, Us citizens, Europe and Europeans. Do you blame Europeans in blanket way? Comparing numbers etc., Finns have fought relatively more against communism/socialism and sacrificed more in that fight. Do you blame all the Finns in blanket way?

By the way if you blame Finnish communist and socialists, it is warmly welcomed by me. The more the better. If you can do anything against them, I appreciate it even more. I thank you beforehand.

The problem with this, “What if Europeans never thought up communism or were never attracted to it” is this: Communism and socialism in different forms are the most powerful memes there ever was. They attach themselves to most crucial needs of humans. They are the most deceptive and lying memes there is. They are direct by product of intelligence, our needs, life and sufficiently advanced societies, and they will born sooner or later, in some form or another, and start automatically evolution to more destructive forms (Because they are more efficient). It is like cancer and if there is life, there is cancer. Hostile jews help the creation of it and it’s mutations to more malignancy. Only way to prevent this cancer totally is not to live. This meme has also been created independently in ancient China and Middle East and probably elsewhere too. Only way to deal with this is to fight against it with all our might everywhere, in co-operation with large numbers of people, with great intelligence, with great craftiness, with developing powerful contrary memes, with enticing and crucial good things and with merciless ruthlessness when necessary.

My friend, you are as “responsible” as me. You have the necessary intelligence, you are part of advanced civilization and you have the same basic needs than I do. On the basic level you are just as susceptible to falling ill, developing cancer, than I. Powerful counter memes protect both of us, maybe together with some genetic inclinations. It can be seen that your country is getting sicker because of mutated deceptive variations and faster than my country. Immigration, PC, affirmative action, self hatred etc. are part of it. Capitalism or right wing politics does not protect you from it. Global capitalism is part of communist/socialist cancer memes, doing their work. Americans were sick from the beginning and it is written into your constitution, even if the founding fathers didn’t mean it exactly: All men are created equal etc.

“We got involved in your Second World War because Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on us. Our policy before that had been material aid to friendly states and keeping U-Boats out of the Western Atlantic.”

- That material aid was part of the reason for war declaration.

“I mentioned above that it was the Swede Gunnar Myrdal who wrote The American Dilemma, the most influential book in the history of American race relations. Obviously, Sweden had a problem with naive anti-racism before WW2, and in fact in no small part contributed to its rise over here.”

- Sweden was very susceptible and had many radicals. E.g. experiencing war would had relieved their susceptibility somewhat. Before the WWII they had many powerful countermemes, which unfortunately didn’t have enough time to establish themselves.

“I advance it as a hypothesis only that Europeans are capable of creating their own destructive ideas and falling under the influence of them. The infatuation of the Irish with Marxism and Anti-Racism being a textbook example. “

- Your country is self-destructing faster than mine, and we are both here because of this self-destruction. Your competition with Swedes is close, but I would bet that you self-destruct sooner than Sweden. Unless there are profound changes, of course. E.g. better free speech meme is giving you some protection, but even it is now threatened.

“No, Communism was outlawed in West Germany along with National Socialism. It was East Germany where Communism was institutionalized.”

- You cling to the name. Cancer memes loves it and it helps the cancers immensely. West Germany has worse cancer than East Germany. East Germany gained some immunity during communism and luckily there was not much immigration during it.

“That’s an interesting theory. It wasn’t until the sixties that the Germans gave up racialism and became guilt-ridden nihilists - in other words, after the occupation was over and after its sovereignty had been restored.”

- No racialists were, those that were left, were weary from decades of propaganda. At the same time new brainwashed generation became to influential age, and wearied them more. When there was resistance to brainwashing etc., it was of course compelled to non-racial, non-ethnic channels. They were forbidden subjects.

“The Holocaust wasn’t invented until the late 1960s/early 1970s, more specifically, in the aftermath of the Six Day War when Israel needed a reason to justify its occupation of the territories.”

- Yes, nutrients to the cancer.

“In any case, we have established as an empirical fact that the Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians were far out in the front of the European pack in embracing anti-racism. The laggard in this regard was West Germany, which was most influenced by America. Sweden, which wasn’t occupied by anyone in WW2, led the way. This refutes the argument that American influence is responsible for this trend.”

- The question in 1957 was not about anti-racism in their own countries (If they could have answered honestly and known enough about it). It was an abstract and meaningless question about distant nation. Also, it just means that Germans were not told about Jim Crow so much and in too negative way (Conquerors don’t want too much critique. Those in “power” knew it. All the medias were controlled). Still, former strong racial memes, war and the deprivations of occupation might have given them some protection over Swedes.

“Japan was more heavily firebombed, suffered more from aerial bombardment than even Germany. Japanese homes were made of wood and went up in flames. Two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, unlike Germany.”

- Atomic bombs in essence take almost whole cities out, they don’t leave crippled systems behind. My sources have told me that the worst firebombing in WWII was in Germany, e.g. in Dresden. The killing of people anywhere doesn’t automatically tell anything, if people know already what to do and then take the vacant positions from the dead. You “craftily” avoided my other questions. Still the Japanese hierarchy-traditionality memes give them some protection. They had racial policies like in Germany, that protected too. Still, especially starting in the sixties they had violence, politicized strikes, moral degeneracy efforts and other leftist problems. Muslims and South Americans have been problem in Japan for years. Africans are increasing too, although their absolute numbers are small. Japanese have taken mostly Koreans and Chinese, and even they are not integrated.

“In postwar Japan, the divine emperor was reduced to the status of a figurehead. The Japanese Army and Navy, which had long dominated the government, was emasculated, and secular civilians were put in control of a constitutional democracy. The changes in Japan were even more revolutionary than those in Germany.”

- If Hitler would have been alive, he would have been executed. Many national socialist leaders were executed. In Japan there was never such restrictions, secret prisons, torture, threats, manhunts, manipulation, propaganda etc. than in Germany, nor could have. Army don’t make people.

“Americans didn’t install the same kind of re-education program than in Germany, nor they could have, because of large language and cultural differences.

This is false. There were war crimes trials in Japan as well. Tojo and his clique were put on trial and executed or thrown in prison. Japanese militarists were removed from power in much the same way that Denazification had been implemented in Germany.”

- You ducked my point altogether. Executions and trials are not the same thing as e.g. cultural and language differences

“Unlike the French, the Japanese wholeheartedly embraced their conquerers, and even romanticized them. It was as if the authority of the Emperor had been transferred to MacArthur. That didn’t happen in Germany or elsewhere in Europe, especially in France, as noted above. The Japanese set about modeling their society on the United States and trying to compete with America in business.”

- It is Japanese peculiarity. They devote themselves energetically to something, like when being a fan of some musician, they learn his language. Still, it is skin deep. When Japaneses’ and outsiders’ interests are opposite the underlying truth is revealed.

“You’re right. Germany ended up the way it did because it was surrounded by other liberal countries like Sweden and France.”

- Sweden, who pre- WWII had ethnic nationalist, racialist and eugenics policies. I don’t of course say surrounding countries emit necessarily decisive effect, but they have effect.

“Exactly the opposite happened in Germany. West Germany was rearmed and brought into NATO.”

- German army has very strict anti-nationalist-racialist etc. laws, and they are observed very accurately. Couple of years ago they found some racialism, and there was huge public oppression.

“No, it matters quite a lot. Coca Cola originated in the American South and is consumed more here than anywhere else. Walmart and McDonald’s originated here. They are more widespread in America than they are abroad. When Europeans complain about Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Walmart and the like, I can sympathize, as these are legitimate American creations.”

- With the same method we should see more capitalism in Babylonia (current Iraq), but, oops, we do not. The Usa has the most of it.

“In much the same way, Communism originated in Europe and has long had appeal there. Even today, Communists are mainstream in France; Social Democrats in Germany, as well as Socialists and Communists.”

Well, you say that communism originated in Europe, so any country will do. I take ex-communist Soviet satellites. They have much less PC than you, they have much less immigration than you, they have less global capitalism than you, they don’t have affirmative action at all like you, they don’t have minority slums like you, they don’t have busing like you still have in milder form than before, they don’t have integrated schools like you have, etc. You are much more communist than they and communism has much more appeal in America. Don’t let the names fool you, the communist/socialist memes like it. My friend, Americans are communist to the core.

”Martin Luther King, Jr. was wildly popular there too (In Europe).”

- First, please show me the polls. But Martin Luther King could not be in real sense popular in e.g. country like Finland. It is like asking, if space alien Funny-funny, who lives in Andromeda galaxy, is popular in Usa. The real popularity is decided, when Funny-funny lives in the Usa, and is a real, concrete reality. Otherwise it is meaningless talk, which is highly likely based on meaningless things.

“Has it occurred to you that maybe Europeans resented the German occupation and were glad to have their independence back?”

- Yes, occupation is always resented and indepence appreciated. Still, those occupied countries would have long, long time been independent, if Germany had won, although Germany probably would still be central power.

“Do you suppose there may have been a reaction against National Socialism, and by extension racial theory and imperialism, due in large part to German foreign policy?”

- That does not explain it. Norway and Sweden are very similar countries. Norway was occupied by Germany, Sweden was not occupied by anybody. Sweden has much more all the cancer meme problems, although Norway has problems too.


184

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:06 | #

“No, the U.S. Army was never in control of any of these states. They were overrun by the Red Army. In the areas where the U.S. Army did occupy, Communism was kept out.”  (—Scimitar)

The D.C. communists and agents of Moscow didn’t allow Patton to advance eastward to the Russian border, which he could easily have done and badly wanted, but ordered him to halt where he was and wait till the Red Army came into Germany from the east.  The reason the U.S. Army “wasn’t in control of these states” was Roosevelt’s communists (who were kept on by Truman) wanted the Red Army to control them instead, and had General Patton assassinated when they feared he might thwart their plans for dividing Europe up in ways greatly advantageous to Stalin and disadvantageous to everyone else including us.  The assassination was disguised as a motor vehicle crash; in fact it was a strafing of his staff car witnessed by a number of soldiers.

“The USSR defeated Nazi Germany largely on its own. . . which had underestimated Soviet industrial and military power. It was only in 1944 that the Allies landed in Normandy.”

What year did they land in North Africa?  When did they land in the Italian boot?  And what was the importance of the Russian Pacific port of Vladivostok?


185

Posted by Anonymous species-hater on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:13 | #

The USSR defeated Nazi Germany largely on its own

In a one-on-one matchup between Germany and the USSR, with no lend-lease, no warmongering England tying up ~80 divisions (50 in France, 10 in Scandanavia, 4-8 in N.Africa, a dozen or so in Yugoslavia, others in air defense units) the USSR probably would have disintegrated in 1942 or 1943…  there is no way the USSR could’ve withstood the full might of Nazi Germany.


186

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:56 | #

Arming negroes was an absurd idea. It was a pipe dream.

Don’t rely on Levine. The pipe dream was also supported by Robert E. Lee.

Headquarters Army of Northern Virginia
January 11, 1865
Hon. Andrew Hunter
Richmond, Va.:

Dear Sir:

I have received your letter of the 7th instant, and without confining myself to the order of your interrogatories, will endeavor to answer them by a statement of my views on the subject.  I shall be most happy if I can contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel an interest commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness of our people.

Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both.  I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe.  But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population.

Should the war continue under the existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population.  It is his avowed policy to convert the able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all.  The success of the Federal arms in the South was followed by a proclamation of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect of which will be to stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for their own people negroes thus brought within their reach.  Many have already been obtained in Virginia, and should the fortune of war expose more of her territory, the enemy would gain a large accession to his strength.  His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people.  Their negroes will be used to hold them in subjection, leaving the remaining force of the enemy free to extend his conquest.  Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races.  I think, therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which must be produced upon our social institutions.  My opinion is that we should employ them without delay.

No doubt Lee’s desire to preserve the welfare of his people was also petty. It was not really about arming black slaves, it was about who should conduct the emancipation of the black race, Lee et al, with the best interest of his people in mind, or the Northern enemy.

There were lots of immigrants in the Southern cities…

How many is lots? Peanuts compared to the North Atlantic, Midwestern and Western states like California. Over 1/3 of the population in 7 of 11 western states wers foreign born by 1870. The South saw nothing like that influx of immigrants.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/3067941?n=421&res=3&imagesize=1200

I’m not such a petty racist ideologue that I can’t enjoy a football game with a few friends.

I see. The boys at Caste Football, who argue that great white athletes are being discriminated against by the South’s beloved game of football, and its sytem of development, to the advantage of blacks, are petty racist while, you, dear sir, are definitely a racist of consequence.

You have a knack for peddling odd theories like that, whether it is Christianity or the idea that “whiteness” has never been important in American history.

Odd theories like evolution and the role Christianity in the evolution of Europe and ultimately its adaptiveness?

Racial consciousness is not a pre-requisite to homogeneity. Where did you ever get that idea? Homogeneous means “all of the same or similar kind or nature; “a close-knit homogeneous group”. The Soviet Union was not homogeneous. The reason the evil empire broke apart is because it discovered, as all multi-national empires discover, that ethnocentrism is the default mode for humanity.

It appears that you cling to this false theory of whiteness that allegedly emanated from the South because of a fear of being excluded because of your ethnicity. However, the truth about the “unalloyed” nature of the US population in 1850, does not prohibit moving forward with a strategy of white racial consciousness. US demographics have forever changed with the Germans now being the largest US ethnic group. Build on that rather than trying to distort the demographics of the past to support future white racialism.


187

Posted by second class citizen on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:01 | #

Scimitar:“We got involved in your Second World War because Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on us. Our policy before that had been material aid to friendly states and keeping U-Boats out of the Western Atlantic.”

War supplies are fungible. “Getting involved in” the second world war started much earlier than the declaration, beginning with the Destroyers for Bases Agreement (September 2, 1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement), the McCollum Memo (October 7, 1940, declassified 1994) and then the Lend-Lease Act of 1941.

Scrooby is spot on about President Rosenvelt. He truly was one of the most evil men of the twentieth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo
“If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.”


188

Posted by PF on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:35 | #

Bravo Finn!! Excellent rebuttal!

Addressing Scimitar:

A racially homogeneous “white nation” is an oxymoron. “Whites” who live in racially homogeneous nations rarely have anything resembling racial consciousness or a sense of solidarity with other “whites.”

I think that bit of theory needs to be cleaned up. Nordics, like Englishmen for example, know that they are white-skinned. Its just they never came up with the idea of emphasizing this aspect of ethnic identity as the ‘catch-all’ for kinship determination. Simply put, being white doesn’t make you English, but you have to be white to be English. English is a subset of ‘white’.

Just as the era of real internationalism was dawning, it became illegal to discuss race- thats why Europeans appear to have no knowledge of it. They arent stupid. They know they are white. In eras when they were allowed to strategize about their interests, their greatest enemies were fellow whites. In the present era when their enemies are non-whites, they are not allowed to strategize.


189

Posted by a Finn on Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:53 | #

Thank you Fred Scrooby, PF, and Anonymous species hater for your important comments. Quantitative comment by Anonymous species hater sums up the situation well, although there was of course additional influences. And, I thank my good opponent Scimitar.

I will comment in a couple of threads and then I have to start using more of my extra time to reading and writing in Finnish. There are many things in Finland that need to be addressed. But I will be back and I might write something here now and then.


190

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:36 | #

“But I will be back and I might write something here now and then.”  (—Finn)

Don’t stay away long.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: The “Fjordman” Project
Previous entry: Prindle’s America: An Appreciation, Part 2

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement 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

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 04:15. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:57. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sat, 02 Nov 2024 03:40. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:03. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:27. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Thu, 24 Oct 2024 23:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:37. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:54. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:23. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Dutch farmers go where only Canadian truckers did not fear to tread' on Fri, 18 Oct 2024 17:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:19. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:59. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Mon, 14 Oct 2024 00:28. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sat, 12 Oct 2024 23:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Fri, 11 Oct 2024 00:50. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Thu, 10 Oct 2024 18:52. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Mon, 07 Oct 2024 22:28. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Doing the Basic Math For Net Asset Tax As Proposed by Bowery In 1992' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 23:57. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 11:46. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 11:11. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 05:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 05:28. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Sun, 29 Sep 2024 05:24. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Sat, 28 Sep 2024 11:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Sat, 28 Sep 2024 10:26. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Reich and Rangel reveal the new anti-white, anti-middle-class agenda' on Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:49. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'What can the Ukrainian ammo storage hits achieve?' on Tue, 24 Sep 2024 23:09. (View)

affection-tone