Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor (1897-1973) was the Public Safety Commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, during the civil rights struggles of the early 1960s, and his use of dogs and fire hoses against protesters made him an icon of American bigotry, particularly in the South.
Adolf “Der Fuehrer” Hitler (1889-1945) was the National Socialist leader of Germany prior to and during the Second World War, and his systematic attempt to exterminate European Jewry made him an icon of European racism.
For the past fifty years these two villains have been collaborating and have now merged into a single malign entity in the collective consciousness of the transatlantic West. Hitler represents the European branch of our common delusion, and stands ready confront the slightest resurgence of nationalist sentiment in any European polity. “Bull” stands ready to unleash the dogs of “racism” against guilty white Americans whenever they dare to question current racial paradigms. Together these two ghosts control the common political discourse in the West, supporting dogma that cannot be questioned and anathematizing any ideas that might run counter to it.
The modern multicultural regime is a continuous séance designed to summon the shade of “Bull” Connor and call down a revenant Adolf Hitler to strike fear into the hearts of the citizenry. The firehoses and the storm troopers await the first sign of deviation from politically correct orthodoxy. With his jackboots and whip, “Bull” Hitler keeps the masses in thrall, exterminating any sign of “racism” as soon as it appears.
How is it that we find ourselves in such an absurd situation? How can millions of supposedly intelligent people fall prey to such manifest nonsense?
It’s occasionally useful to step back from all the tumult and shouting and take a look at the meta-arguments that underlie heated political discussion. The raging conflict of our time is between politically correct Multiculturalism and other, saner ways of looking at the world.
But what are the deeper reasons behind all that bitterness and self-righteous invective? From what source does “Bull” Hitler derive his anti-racist mojo?
There are two different and apparently contradictory premises underlying PC ideology. In their simplest formulations, they are:
We’re nice, and They’re not.
We’re bad, and They’re good.
These premises are held as subliminal ideations. If they were to become fully conscious, their inherent dissonance would be apparent, and they would lose their effectiveness. Like the Morlocks’ machinery, they must remain deep underground if they are to continue to feed the innocent and doomed Eloi in their idyllic paradise.
First, a definition of terms:
“We” means the denizens of the West, the heirs of Western Civilization. It refers mainly to Caucasian members of the European diaspora, although other groups that have fully assimilated Western ways may become honorary members. Jews and Israelis are often included in “Us”, but not always.
“They” are everybody else in the world, with some exceptions and ambiguities. Africans, American Indians, Sumatrans, Eskimos, and Arabs all qualify as “Them”. Russians and Japanese don’t quite fit the schema, and have to be pushed to one side for it to work.
Now down to the details.
1. We’re nice, and They’re not.
– – – – – – – – –
We’re open and welcoming, but they’re hostile and antagonistic. We welcome them into our midst and open the benefits of our society to them.
We believe that our ways are so beneficial and appealing that they will adopt them. They are hidebound and resistant, so they don’t.
We’re tolerant, and they’re intolerant. So we allow them to continue their hidebound, backward, anti-Western customs, because what else can we do? We’re nice and they’re not, so we can’t expect them to cotton to us. All we can do is hope — in our reflexively well-meaning, tolerant way — that if they hang around us long enough, somehow our nice ways will rub off onto them, and they, or their children, or their children’s children’s children will become nice, too.
We are large-hearted and generous, and they are tribal and mean-spirited. We offer them all the benefits that a modern Western democracy can generate, paid for by nice hard-working taxpayers. They take all they can get, expecting it as their due, and then demand more, filing claims if their demands aren’t met, with the help of nice lawyers provided for them, once again, at the expense of those ubiquitous nice taxpayers.
We’re so nice that we even allow criminals, the unemployable, and terrorists to settle in our countries. They turn out not to be nice when they get here, but they might suffer if we send them home, so we kindly allow them to stay here. Not only that, we allow them to import their extended families to keep them company, in hopes that this will make them feel better so that they will act more nicely towards us in their gratitude.
We’re generous in our expectations of these newcomers, lowering the bar so their children are not stigmatized by performing badly in our schools, allowing them to retain their own languages so they don’t face the daunting task of learning a foreign tongue. When their children form themselves into violent predatory gangs that terrorize our own children, why, that is just one of the trials that nice people have to endure at the hands of those who are not nice.
When these not-nice children grow up and disproportionately occupy our prison cells, we nice people assume that it is our own inherent racism which must cause this unfortunate situation, so we let them out as soon as possible. They, however, are not nice, so they tend to return to their cells as soon as they can manage it.
Oh yes, we’re definitely nice. And they most obstinately are not.
2. We’re bad, and They’re good.
The evidence of our inherent badness is that they don’t turn into nice people. If we weren’t so bad, they would have the opportunity to become nice people. Since our badness is so apparent, we assume they must be inherently good, even if it is not at all obvious.
Our traditional Western culture — with all its racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. — is bad. Their culture is good, with its distinctive cuisine, its different forms of dress, its unusual customs, and its religion. Sometimes their culture seems to be a bit more racist, sexist, and homophobic than our own, but, hey — that’s the way it is with cultural differences. If we examine all their practices on their own terms, we discover that they are in fact better than our own. Hence we allow them to maintain their ancestral customs intact within the enclaves we allow them to establish in our cities.
We are materialistic, and they are natural children of the earth. The fact that they tend to suck up a disproportionate share of our wealth is a contradiction we choose to ignore. They are the noble savages in our midst, and can teach us to live more authentic lives.
As a corollary, we are the ones who damage the environment, while they are simple folk who live in harmony with the earth. In order to believe this, we have to overlook the poisoned wastelands that many of them left behind when they came here, not to mention the backyards of the state-provided housing where they live now. But that’s not difficult, because all of the information about them is channeled through our media, which are fully convinced of our badness and hence are eager to present the “fake but accurate” picture of their goodness.
Our levels of achievement and excellence are an insult to them, and are a result of our racism. In our badness we have failed to ameliorate this problem, so we reduce the standards for everybody to allow them to achieve the same degraded results that we do, in the hope that out of their deep goodness they will no longer feel insulted.
Because we are bad, our presence in this world is truly an abomination, and we will limit our reproduction and subsidize theirs so there are fewer bad people and more good ones in the generations to come.
The above caricature serves both to highlight the apparent contradiction in our deep attitudes towards “The Other”, and also to explain why there is no real contradiction.
We are nice because we are superior. They are not because they are inferior.
Our treatment of them displays the condescension of an aristocrat towards his forelock-tugging tenants. Every time we show evidence of our niceness by being tolerant, generous, accepting, and open to cultural differences, we only serve to enhance our inherent — and correct — feelings of superiority. Every time they fail in school, burn cars, rape our teenage daughters, attack policemen, and put knives to the throats of our bus drivers, they demonstrate to us their inferiority.
The awareness of our superiority may remain subliminal, but it is always there, and every time our kindly hand reaches out to feed them and gets bitten in return, the feeling can only intensify. Since our niceness requires us to be generous in the face of ingratitude, and our increased generosity sparks an even more violent lack of reciprocity, we have entered a vicious circle which can only grow worse with each passing year. The average “nice” Westerner feels more superior to the fuzzy-wuzzies now than he did a generation ago, thanks to all those additional decades of increased but unrequited niceness.
However, “Bull” Hitler stands over us ready to remind us of the “sin of racism”, which is evidenced by our feelings of superiority towards those whom we have invited in, but who do not behave well. Our “racism”, which is assumed to generate this sense of superiority, proves our badness — from which it follows that those violent gangs and welfare parasites in our midst must somehow be good.
Hence we must be even nicer to make up for so much badness. And the beat goes on.
Sin is always with us, and modern secularists feel it as keenly as do the bible-thumpers in their revival tents. The reaction to secular sin is simply expressed differently — universal socialism, radical environmentalism, the purging of all “racism”, “sexism”, etc.
Unfortunately, secular orthodoxy, unlike Judaism or Christianity, provides no mechanism for repentance and absolution. Secularists are stuck with their sense of sinfulness, and can only expiate it by projecting it outwards onto others — onto the homophobes, racists, and bigots who cause all the badness in us to manifest itself.
Thus we created “Bull” Hitler as a perpetual reminder of our secular sin. He stands over us, ready to stamp out the first sign of our sinful racism whenever and wherever it appears. Our greatest fear is that without him to protect us, we face the likelihood that our sins will devour us.
Unless the West experiences another Great Awakening — which seems unlikely at this point — our civilization will have to find some secular way of exorcising “Bull” Hitler.
If we fail to do that, the insanity and irrationality of our collective obsessions will bring destruction down upon ourselves and all that we hold dear, as surely as Götterdämmerung came to that Berlin bunker in 1945.
I think that there is a special lack of ethnic assertiveness in the Anglo-Saxon and Northern-European character that has contributed to this syndrome. This is salient compared even to Europeans from other parts of the continent, and has been amply documented in novels and articles going back to the early 1900s. I’ve read it in Wodehouse, Waugh, Orwell, Fitzgerald and others.
I very seldom hear that the best of what makes America America has come from England and Scotland, but I happen to think it’s true. The Virginians whose thinking, service and toil created the United States could not have been German, Portuguese or Polish, let alone Somali or Korean. The traditions and ways of thinking about man, society and even God that they and people like Franklin or Morris bequeathed to the nascent United States could have been born only in the British Isles. And the farther away the U.S. has been getting away from those traditions, first by massive immigration of lower class continental Europeans and later by the importation of tens of millions of “people of color,” the more it’s been rotting at the core.
The fault lies mostly with the WASPs themselves. Gradually the WASP ruling class dwindled, got co-opted by Mammon or Marxism, and eventually lay prostate before the craven idiocy of Multiculturalism.
Baron, I think that your article is brilliant and exemplifies all that is good about this site. It certainly makes my meagre contributions seem ill-informed and somewhat tame. All is not lost, there is a rising tide in Europe concerning the Mools. Geert Wilders looks to be new president of the Dutch, the BNP is on the rise in Britain, Nationalist Parties of various hues are on the rise all over the continent. People are waking up as the reality of the betrayal of Western civilisation becomes more and more apparent. Just because people don’t express thier alarm in public it does not mean it does not exist. The coming election in Britain will be the last throw of the dice for the traditional parties and I have no doubt at all that whoever gets in we will have more of the failed policies of the past that will lead to the further radicalisation of increasing numbers of people who are sick of seeing thier countries turned into third world souks. We all know that Hitler and National Socialism was evil on a scale never envisioned before. But to equate any form Nationalism with Nazism is a trick that is rapidly losing its lustre. The real Nazis are those who have sold the birthright western civilisation down the river and to whom cultural relativism is normality as they have swallowed the poisons of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. On another related matter.
Reading a few of the British papers today I saw the BNP labeled as “eccentric”. The definition of eccentricity can be defined as “odd behavior on the part of a person, as opposed to being “normal”. The definition of normality is defined as “conformity with the norm”. Given the choice of being “eccentric” or normal I think I prefer to vote for a party that is “eccentric” . Being eccentric therefore means not liking the following; illegal wars, the theft of public money by elected politicians, being invaded by foriegners, the degradation of public services, multicult/PC ideologies that are ruining the country and encouraging alien muslim ideologies, Terrorism, giving away British Nationality like sweets and being proud of your countr. Being “normal” means sticking with the status quo or the conditions that led to “normalcy” in the first place. Can I suggest to all you “eccentrics” out there to vote for the any party that combats “normality” and make “eccentricity” the new paradigm.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In hoc signo vinces
I think, therefore I am a racist!
Would Europe have been a better place today if the Nazis had won WW2? Surely Western Europe wouldn’t have been overrun by third world immigrants if the official Nazi race ideology had been implemented in the aftermath of the war?
And surely their race doctrines and anti communistic fervour would have permeated the political strata in Europe had they been victorious?
Your comment is unusually irrelevant. Do you seriously believe that I wish the Nazis had won the war?
If not, what is the point of what you just said? And how is it relevant to this topic?
No, Baron I’m not suggesting that you wish that the Nazis had won the war.
My point is as follows;
A lot of commenters here display views on race that are very similar with the racial views of the Nazis (I’m not claiming that they vilify or advocate genocide on Jews). But, even so many commenters here suggest that Europe and America should repatriate by force all third world immigrants (people who’re not of our race). And some also wish to do away with the immigrants rights. So, yes I do believe that it’s a fair question to ask. Would Europe have been a better place if the Nazis won the war and their race ideologies had been implemented?
And to quote Takuan Seiyo ;
“And the farther away the U.S. has been getting away from those traditions, first by massive immigration of lower class continental Europeans and later by the importation of tens of millions of “people of color,” the more it’s been rotting at the core.”
That’s a very hateful remark to make and it clearly shows his disdain and displeasure for other races.
This is not your first tendentious misrepresentation of other commenters’ views.
As a matter of interest, your horror at their “views on race that are very similar with the racial views of the Nazis” is an example of “Bull” Hitler in action, who stands over your shoulder and whispers to you: “Remember, kritisk: any discussion of race which does not promote full race-mixing is evil, and exactly the same as what the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan did.”
The tactic is used to demonize any deviant thoughts about ethnic issues with the “Nazi” brush.
This is precisely what my post attempts to exorcise.
As to your tendentious readings of what others have said: Firstly, to believe that we would be better off if different ethnic groups stayed largely within nations that are the specific homelands of those ethnic groups is hardly “Nazi”. Nazism only rears its ugly head when when someone prescribes coercion, violence, and mass murder to achieve that end.
You are misrepresenting what most of your fellow commenters say. Very few of them, if any, ever say “suggest that Europe and America should repatriate by force all third world immigrants”. This is not the normal argument used here.
You have set up a straw man and then argued against it.
Secondly: to refer to Takuan Seiyo’s remark as “hateful” is insulting and inaccurate.
The mass importation of immigrants from vastly different cultures (and yes, that means many are from different races, too) has done immense harm to the United States, and was a mistake. For over a hundred years the success of our country was built on our successful integration of immigrants who were ethnically very similar — Europeans, and mostly Northern Europeans. In the 20th century we deliberately changed that sensible policy, and the deleterious effects are now apparent for all to see.
The exception to all this is, of course, African-Americans, whose ancestors were brought here against their will, most of them long before the ancestors of the current white population arrived.
That was a terrible, horrific mistake as well as a moral abomination, and it never should have occurred. But such is the situation we have inherited, and we must deal with the problems thus created as best we can.
kritisk, and it’s the truth, sadly, no matter how much your bleeding leftist heart hurts due to Takuan’s statement. By the way, Takuan, I consider moving to Japan too since the Japanese seem sane, from what I read of the country.
And yes, Europe would have been better if the Nazis would have won the war because their stupidity would have been destroyed in a decade tops, unlike Marxism who still is around. And I say this as someone who has relatives who fought the Nazis and who has some Jewish ancestry. Still, the best thing would have been for the first world war to be won by the other side and the US and all the liberal order to be defeated. This would have prevented the Nazis and second world war and also all the current insanity. Funny enough, my conutry was on the winning side of the WW1, so unlike you, I’m not biased. Hitler’s racial views were the genocide of the Jews. If someone doesn’t advocate that, they don’t have similar views on race with Hitler like you do on healthcare, for example. My views are actually completely different with the ones of Hitler – I don’t think Germans should conquer the whole world, for example. Or that the inferiority in some things of other races is an excuse for some destroying other people. That’s a moronic mania like most of Hitler’s views.
Also, Hitler was a socialist, his only beef with communists is that they were internationalists, not nationalists. That was his only problem with communism, he appreciated it otherwise. It’s funny to me that you think Takuan has Hitler’s views on race, considering that he is part Jewish.
So yes, Hitler winning the war would have been good, only if you think his stupidity would have been overthrown and stopped after a few years, unlike the other type of socialism, which you are fond of which still is around.
To be honest, it’s deplorable that you can’t have an ignore option on blogger like forums do.
As far as I’m aware the general consensus isn’t to forcibly remove them but to make life uncomfortable enough that they’ll leave by themselves. It’s based on the idea that a very large proportion of these immigrants are coming here because they perceive they’ll have a better life (which one might consider to be being but not necessarily desirable) and another large proportion are coming here to, as they have put it, take over and establish Islam. This latter group could be considered malignant.
In the case of the former there are a multitude of reasons why they’re here. One recent example is interference by the EU in north Africa (such as allowing spanish-flagged fishing fleets to drive local fishermen out of business along the atlantic coast) create a situation where many north-west Africans feel that their only option is to move to Europe, where they perceive they can live the life of Riley. Another would be simply that EU countries provide what is seen as free money. How many immigrants come here to live on benefits? A lot.
The latter group, the malignant immigrants, are often indistinguishable from the former.
So what did I mean by making things uncomfortable? At the moment, non-native ethnicity is used as a means to gain privilege at the expense of native populations, and as a means to extract a living from systems that weren’t designed to cope with a massive influx of non-taxed participants. They exploit this privilege to either exploit the system for personal gain, or to prevent criticism of their supremacist activities in the case of the malignant group.
To make them uncomfortable, the privilege of ethnicity has to be taken away. To be uncomfortable means, they cannot come here expecting a free lunch, nor to be free of criticism and scrutiny when they act against the interests of their host nation.
In a situation where there is no longer privilege granted by non-native ethnicity, many will simply leave of their own accord. There is no need for any violence at all. Simply, treating them as equals, removing the protective barrier that shields them from any criticism and scrutiny, will force their activities out into the open where they can be dealt with in an effective manner. When the islamist goals are no longer hidden behind the shield of “racism” then they can no longer proceed towards them.
Any discussion of forceful deportation is either out of frustration or is brought up by people, like yourself, who believe that the choice is only between immigrant populations remaining or increasing and the forceful deportation of immigrant populations. That simplistic binary choice doesn’t address why they’re coming in the first place.
Recently a post here mentioned that immigrants to Denmark have begun to leave following legal efforts to reduce their privilege. It’s a perfect example. Make them uncomfortable and they leave. If they stay, then they have a damn good reason to stay. and they can be treated the same as any other citizen. That includes punishment for illegal activity (and illegal activity would include conspiring to overthrow the state and establish a supremacist alien ideology in its place).
No violence needed. Unless you consider taking away the privilege of ethnicity as “violence”, a position actually taken by some people I’ve spoken to in the past.
Denmark? Well maybe it was the netherlands, I’m not so sure now, I just remember the talk about some “asylum seekers” or what have you complaining as they left the country.
Baron, I have not advocated race mixing. As a matter of fact I haven’t even brought it up. I’ve simply observed that many commenters here have views on race that are more in tune with what was the norm in Germany before and during WW2. Is it your claim that this is not the case?
It’s no secret that certain views on race have been discouraged and vilified in western societies in the aftermath of the German defeat in WW2. Now would this have happened even if the Germans had won the war, or would these views have been considered mainstream? And would the Germans, had they won the war, been willing to import tens of millions of third world immigrants to Europe? And would the average commenter on GoV have preferred this option rather than the current one where there are large colonies of third world immigrants in the west?
I have not called anyone a Nazi or compared anyone with a Nazi; I simply asked a question about what would have been the best alternative for Europe after WW2, a German victory or an allied victory.
I think that’s a fair question all things considered.
Graham, you have to realize that to leftists, there is no difference in between what you said and pretty much killing every non-white on Earth. lol
Takuan Seiyo and Rebelliousvanilla, great comments as always.
Kritisk Borger, always interesting to see the effects of ignorance in real life.
This article sums up Multiculturalism better than I ever could. It is the ‘sin’ of the West that causes the worlds problems. Never mind that we’ve improved global quality of life, medicine, and everything else, not to mention being the only civilization/racial group to free our slaves. I’ve never heard of anyone else pulling that off.
I think it’s that attitude of sin that helped me to find the path I follow today. I don’t want to sound like a broken record of religion like Borger and EV do, but at least in heathenism we don’t have “sin” to hold us back. Just Honor and Shame. Honor comes from doing right by ones people, shame comes from letting them down. I think we could do with a bit more of that here in the West.
Baron, I think the machinations you described do not apply to Europe.
I acknowledge the effort and find it a good post, but not one of the best you’ve written. I don’t know exactly to what I’m against in your writting, I just believe that it’s not the way things work – at least here.
I think that social norm and plain multiculturalism and leftist just for the sake of it are the problem.
People are not attached to land, ethnicity and Traditions, at least at a counscious level that allows them to clearly state “This is what I am as a person and we are as a society, and this is derived from this so that this can happen”.
And also people are “rebels without reason” (leftist) just because they are told that is the write way to channel their “aggressiveness” or feelings of “unrighteousness”.
People also see the other as someone whi is inherently more in need than the we. And I think that is a cause.
All these… I don’t know… If you think in soccer terms, your post was a great shot, but it went against the post. A great, great moment though, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, it just went to the post.
I’ve simply observed that many commenters here have views on race that are more in tune with what was the norm in Germany before and during WW2. Is it your claim that this is not the case?
Yes, this is my claim. The vast majority of commenters here hold no such views.
As I said before, you have set up a straw man and then attempted to demolish it. This is a persistent habit of yours.
To misrepresent the views of other commenters to make them “like Nazis” is a close cousin of trolling. As a matter of fact, it’s one of Nodrog’s favorite tactics.
Such ploys not worthy of serious commenters. And arguing with someone who repeatedly constructs straw men is pointless and a waste of time.
And that’s really all I have to say on the matter.
Kritisk, why are you persisting with this false dichotomy? It’s not an either/or question, a german victory would have been an absolutely disastrous consequence for Europe and the world in general.
The “certain views on race” that you keep talking about weren’t vilifiedas a consequence of the nazi defeat. The currently vogue movement didn’t get started until the 1970s, but it stemmed from another similar general movement that was already in progress at the turn of the 20th century, of the noble savage who was simply “misunderstood” and reacting against imperialist white invaders. The language has changed but modern conceptions of racial and ethnic conflict utilise the same basic belief that non-white and non-western ethnicities can’t cope without the help of “enlightened” westerners.
In fact it could be argued that the same demi-urge as I just described also drove the nazi movement, only on a more violent and more blatant level. The idea that certain ethnicities were less able to function or needed the help of westerner/aryans made them undesirable to the nazi regime and indicated their elimination. It’s the same basic concept that drove Sanger and the eugenicists.
We aren’t discussing eugenics. We aren’t talking about trying to breed the perfect man. We’re simply talking about preserving what we have and letting it grow naturally in it’s own land, the same way that you wouldn’t mix wheat and barley in a field.
I also think that Kristik blogger’s comment is an interesting one.
My country did not take part on WWII but I’ve came to realise that other Europeans and Americans have deep feelings regarding that conflict.
And, as long as one sees National Socialism as a Nationalistic expression instead of an Imperialistic expression, it’s *not that bad to me*.
I mean, what’s the problem with Marxism and Third World Immigrants?
The problem is the destruction of Europe.
What would be the problem with a Nazi Europe? Well, it would come down to a destruction of Europe as well.
But, what if we aloud Hitler and his Germany to thrive or decay on itself? Imagine there was no WWII? That would be the better situation.
Do you think that Communism would be as stronger if there was not a Great Patriotic War to Fight?
Do you think existentialism/nihilism and Sartre and Jacques Delors would rule Europe if it was not for the nothingness of the 50s, 60s and maybe also 70s that derived from what happened during the 40s?
The world would be completley different. Nowadays, Churchill would be closer to Hitler than to David Cameron or Obama (and probabily Bush). That’s how far we’ve got!
I think that Britain and France should not have invaded Germany.
And I don’t care much if a given Nation wants the Jewish population to leave or not.
I deleted your first comment on this thread because of the last sentence.
If you think we should’ve simply ejected our black citizens after freeing them following the Civil War, then you are in fundamental disagreement with the administrators of this blog on this issue of American history. In fact, you are on the side of Bull Connor, because that was also his “solution” to the tensions of race. You are on the side of people who offer simplistic solutions like “send them all back” as the way to solve the issues of radical Islamists in our midst.
It is comments like yours which permit the Professional Grievance Committees to flourish. Those people are poisonous and I won’t permit them to draw their ammunition from my blog. Thus, the deletion.
We live in a small place surrounded by black folks, descendants of the slaves who once populated the plantations in this area. Many of the manor houses have burned or fallen into ruin, but some still remain, as do the descendants of the white people who owned them.
Some of the former slaves moved on but many elected to stay and try to make a living off the land. Many succeeded. In fact, one of the biggest property owners in this area is a black man who was born dirt poor, thought strategically and slowly bought land as he could afford it.
We drove Mr. Black home from a Scout meeting last year (he’s too old to drive at night now) and he told us some history of the county and how it’s changed. When I asked him what about his life gave him the most pleasure he said it was his grandchildren all getting graduate degrees — the engineer, the doctor, the librarian, etc. I agreed with him: when your descendants flourish because of your efforts, then you have the satisfaction of knowing you’ve added good to the world.
Living in this milieu, the Baron and I decided to get married in the closest church, which happened to be the black church which abuts our property line. We walked down to the ceremony, which was my main reason for asking them if we could use the church. Sometimes we’ve attended services there.
We’re still feeling the effects of the Jim Crow laws, though we might not be so mired in it had not Lyndon Johnson imploded black culture with his giant giveaway. He didn’t do the white underclass any favors, either.
Outsiders will never understand race relations in this country. Even intelligent, thoughtful people don’t get it. I’m glad that 12% of our population is black; I’m sorry that the govt socialism eroded the values of many of them.
I’m glad we have a large Jewish population too — the largest outside of Israel. I’m also sorry that both groups repeatedly vote against their own self-interest. At least blacks never did that until LBJ bought them off.
In sum, yes, your ‘final solution’ is one I find deeply offensive.
I have noticed before that kritisk is a liberal. A sincere person, no doubt, but cast in here, he is a sweet water fish in a salty ocean. It has and will lead to no end of misinterpretation and charges on his part, and retorts by others. Much wheel spinning and time misspent.
I made a little comment here extolling the vanished Anglo-Saxon nature of the U.S. and England, and pinpointing massive immigration as the causal agent not only to the vanishing of that Anglo character of the culture but to the general deterioration of both countries. Let’s revisit kritisk’s remark as to how my comment shows disdain and displeasure for other races, and then his imputing Nazi sympathies to people in this thread.
Now I hate talking about myself, but since I frequently write about sensitive topics like race, Jews and those who hate them, IQ differences, immigration and “diversity,” I make it a point to disclose personal details that could be construed as influencing my opinions. The details below are referenced in different forms in my profiles at The Brussels Journal, and in other print or Web venues where I write. But since kritisk has probably not seen my writing elsewhere, let’s revisit those details as they bear on this discussion and on his reaction to my comment.
1. I am not Anglo-Saxon.
2. I am an American immigrant.
3. I did not know a word of English until I was 21. I was raised in three other languages and 1950s European cultures on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Either one was vastly different from what America’s was then or is now.
4. I am half Jewish and half Slav, with a little Austro-Swiss admixture — but for sure nothing Anglo-Saxon or Nordic.
5. Both races were considered inferior not only by the Nazis but also by the Anglo-Saxon ruling class both in England and in the US. The difference was – and it’s a telling difference – that for the Anglos that disdain was expressed as a slight dilation of the nostrils, whereas for the Nazis it was expressed with Zyklon B.
6. My family — the Slavs as well as the Jews — except for my parents, was wiped out by the Germans (some of whom were Nazis).
7. I am married to a pure Japanese.
The problem with liberals is that they never let facts get in the way of a theory that feels good. It’s all about the feeling, not about the thinking.
Kritisk and others,
Europe wouldn’t be better if the nazis had won the war. For god sake! Am i reading from a portuguese whom europeans think are partly black this?!? Am i reading from a Romenian whose country lost part of their ethnic homeland because of pressure!?!?
The real disaster was the outcome of WWI, it could have ended really well but Greece, Germany, Hungary and Russia were all trashed. The first three in their living space and Russia was raped by civil war and then commies.
Now the nazis, while i do not believe Hitler’s Germany was an imperialistic country in prewar time since all Hitler moves except for Bohemia (wich was surrounded by three sides by Germany) were for german territory, the moment war started it become imperialistic and if won Poland, Czechia, Ukraine, Belarus and probally Slovakia would have perished, the rest of europe would live to serve Germany (how can you really deal wich so powerful power).
So i would not be good to europe. That’s not a excuse for what was done to it after the war (silesia, prussia, pommerania, alsace-lorraine and sudets).
About eugenics, when eugenics developed there were two branches negative eugenics and positive eugenics, positive eugenics was pratised in the USA and negative was a mark of europe (USA had it’s negative brach two, Margareth Sanger is one of the major expoents of negative eugenics in america), but with the advent of WWII and the Holocaust not only all the branches of Eugenics were throwed aside but almost all the european right was killed in the battlefield.
with the european right dead or discredited it opened the can of worms that led to our situation today. So WWII was for europeans (all over the world) a lose-lose situation.
As for blacks in america yes it was a mistake that america had not invested more in the liberian option. But mandatory replacement?
No, i don’t think so.
Dymphna, I do not think Rebelliousvanilla comment was in anyway meant to espouse the Nazi view of minorities, though I don’t have it in front of me. As for the case of deporting African American’s back to Africa, this was an actual movement in history and one should not ignore the possible implications on the modern world if we had avoided over a hundred years of oppression post-civil war by enacting it. While the morality of such action is questionable, one must ask how much harm could have been avoided to all parties.
Speaking as an “insider” in race relations in this country, I am aware of the bad blood, hate, misunderstanding, and racism on both sides. As a student of history, I know the pain and suffering the Nazi Party caused. I also know that in comparison to the USSR and Communist China, each with a respective body count of 60+mil and 70+mil. Hitler is a vicious little fish in a very large pond.
I believe Rebeliousvanilla’s comment on Europe being better had the Nazis won is more analygous, though just barely and I hate to use this example, as to the idea that America would have been better off had the South won the Civil-War rather than the North. I’ve seen work on the idea of the South winning, much of which is considered “racist”, yet indicates that slavery would have been cast aside as the South underwent industrialization, and that the States would have retained more individual rights, as opposed to the massive, single, federal government gaining vastly more power than originally intended.
If you find my comments racist, I am sorry, for that is not their intention. Arrogant and cruel though this may sound, I seek to look beyond race and view the true nature of things. This rarely leads to a polite and kind view of the world, but everything has its price in this world. It seems that in the last century, people have lost their willingness to pay a price, and that has led to the very nature of the above article.
I thank you for your time.
The Baron said…
“You are misrepresenting what most of your fellow commenters say. Very few of them, if any, ever say “suggest that Europe and America should repatriate by force all third world immigrants”. This is not the normal argument used here.”
I don’t know about that Baron, both Fjordman and El Ingles have advocated mass deportation of third world immigrants from the west, and so have several commenters. Fjordman in particular stresses about the superiority of the white race and that whites are entitled to have Europe to themselves.
And if I’m not totally mistaken El Ingles also hinted that Genocide might be an option to solve Europe’s demographic problems in one of his essays. And I clearly remember that another guest essayist on GoV suggested some time ago that nuking Mecca might be a good option to “solve” the problems of the west.
But if you believe that I’m guilty of misrepresenting fellow commenters views, fine that’s your choice, but I don’t agree with you on that one.
“Kritisk Borger, always interesting to see the effects of ignorance in real life.”
And then in the next comment;
“I believe Rebeliousvanilla’s comment on Europe being better had the Nazis won is more analogous, though just barely and I hate to use this example, as to the idea that America would have been better off had the South won the Civil-War rather than the North.”
Norse, that wasn’t exactly a brilliant display of logic. You accuse me of being ignorant for merely asking whether Europe would have been better off if the Germans had won the war, but in the next comment you attempt to espouse RebelliousVanilla for wishing that the Germans would have won the war.
Interesting thread. I think kritisk is more right than people want to admit. The Left knows the Right better than the Right knows itself. The Left tries to label the Right’s characteristics as unethical, and the only reason the Right accepts that is because it accepts the Left’s premises.
I copmletely agree that a redefinition of nations based on primarily ethnic and national ties would be a good thing, and if/when the blood starts flowing in the streets of Europe, I will completely support any decision made to expel nonwhites. I expect such a redefinition to occur regardless of what anyone does, and any attempt to retain propositional nations will increase the eventual butcher’s bill.
If Hitler had won, white ethnic nationalism would not be discredited. There would have been political problems – as a Frenchman, I bear no great love for the Germans – but this nonsense of abasement before anything we’re not wouldn’t have been nearly as likely, and political situations can change. Look at the Soviets, and the Eastern Europeans; Stalin’s empire fell quickly enough in the end, and the only liberalism they have is in imitation of ours.
There is no moral problem with rounding up all the blacks and shipping them to Liberia by 1868 or so. That wasn’t done. Now we have a permanent underclass, with permanent differences in IQ, differences in criminal tendencies, behavior, and many other characteristics. Dymphna’s heart-warming story about the old black landowner is precisely the sort of story that means absolutely NOTHING in the broader context. You can always find exceptions and heart-warming stories; they have no effect on the statistics. You can find moderate Muslims too. Black Americans and white Americans are simply not the same peoples: they live differently, think differently, create differently, and choose different sorts of government. Most whites prefer not to live in black-run cities if they can avoid it. This is not an accident. Blacks could live in the USA while there was an enduring 90% white majority that thought of itself and acted like one ethnic group: a certain standard could be imposed. It wsa implicit force, nothing else. Now that’s broken, and “acting white” is an insult.
All of this is based on the exact same moral principle by which we can expel or refuse entry to Muslims: the right of a people to determine for themselves who they are and what the rules governing their nation shall be. This is absolutely inviolable. It is the fundamental principle that has been raped since 1945, on the basis that if whites start thinking nationalistically again they’ll start rounding up the Jews again. I personally have no intention of rounding up Jews and don’t think I’d care to live in a place that did, but if a nation populated by people of European descent wishes to do so, I insist that they absolutely have every right in the world to do so. Same way I insist that any European nation that wishes to round up all the Muslims so as to make them stop raping the native daughters has every right to do so. Or rounding up the Africans to get them to stop rioting in the train stations.
Any nation has the right to govern itself. This is sacrosanct. There are no exceptions. There may be punishment, but that is not for you to decide.
I understand where you are coming from and share the same frustrations, the same feelings of disgust and alienation relative to the colored minorities, and the same feelings of betrayal by the white ruling class. But I think that the solutions you provide are wrong morally and wrong in the eyes of God too, if that matters to you.
What justification can you produce for America to “ship back” its blacks, or for a European nation to “round up” its Jews? The blacks have much older roots in America than 80% of America’s whites do. And they were brought to America against their will. The Jews have been in Europe beginning in 3rd century BC, and in great numbers – involuntarily too – since 70 AD. That is far longer than entire nations such as the Hungarians have been in Europe.
Let’s accept your premise that bringing the Africans to America was a mistake, and bringing the Jews to Europe was a mistake. On what basis can you claim the right to punish the Afro-Americans for the mistakes of the Anglo-Americans, and the Jews for the mistakes of the Romans? Likewise, punishing the good and just (black or Jew, Wafa Sultan or Thomas Sowell) for the sins of the wicked is something that would bring a curse on us, just like there was a curse imbedded in slavery that people refused to see then, but are paying for now.
We do need self-defense mechanisms and a return-to-sanity plan, but I believe it does not lie within the coordinates you delineated.
Kritisk, I see you’re falling into the trap of failing to distinguish between prescriptive and descriptive writing. El Ingles essays didn’t “hint” at anything, they weren’t advocating anything; nor were Fjordman’s writings. They were describing the possible outcomes of the current path the west is taking. They were saying, in essence, “this is what will happen”, not “this is what should happen”.
I have just read Pat Buchanan’s revisionist Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War and do recommend it for all GoV-ers (and Buchanan’s website too). He says that the Holocaust was not a cause of the war “but an awful consequence of the war,” and that WW2 was the result of British blundering on a colossal scale. Even Churchill is quoted saying there were “even worse perils” than Nazism (Stalinism).
Had America and the British Empire let the Germans conquer the Soviet Union, according to the revisionist the Holocaust itself could have been avoided—as well as mass immigration of primitive Third World jihadists into the West.
“What justification can you produce for America to “ship back” its blacks,”
Now? Less than in 1865, certainly. The question then was what was the nature of the nation. The decision was made to identify “American” as being both black and white – and in fact the specific method for doing this is what permits “anchor babies” – in short, the denial of any American ethnicity at all. It would have been possible, at the time, to say “Americans are whites of primarily Anglo-Saxon and Germanic descent,” – which, at the time, they were – “these people are not, therefore although slavery is wrong they are not citizens either” and from there to conclude that a large foreign population within the borders must either be given its own territory or moved to another location. Actually it is suicidal delusion to conclude anything else. Of course it would not have been fair to people who were born and grew up and lived their whole lives within the USA. Is it any less unfair, a hundred years later, for poor whites living in or near black ghettoes, or for (as per that 2005 DOJ report Auster got in trouble for) the thirty thousand or so white women raped each year by blacks? Add up the crime differential over the decades, mass deportation in 1865 starts looking comparatively minor. There is a very distinct difference in crime rates between poor whites and poor blacks, and that is the price we have paid and continue to pay for “being nice” and insisting that whites and blacks are the same.
There’s ALWAYS going to be some injustice to somebody. Perfect solutions don’t exist.
Now, we have another hundred fifty years of established fact to deal with, and people being people, that sort of deportation isn’t going to happen. Instead we have balkanization: whites move out of black neighborhoods. It is always a one-way process. Is that fair? Detroit was ruined by socialism, but who was electing those socialists? Some of the most beautiful houses in America were built in Detroit, and now are falling into ruin. Is that fair? California is being ruined by socialism, but when it was overwhelmingly white it was a conservative stronghold. We still have the issue that whites and blacks and American Indians (which is a major part of the heritage of our Mexican immigrants) are not the same peoples and will not be until/unless thorough mixing takes place, in which case America becomes a mulatto society like Brazil. I don’t see that as a desireable outcome. Saying that white Americans and black Americans are the same people denies the very meaning of the word “same” and makes “Americans” mean nothing more than subjects of the same state.
I may be wrong. It may be still possible to construct a propositional nation of creed and not ethnicity. I see no sign of it.
More generally – and as regards the Jewish issue, which I knew was going to trigger a response – the justification isn’t for me to decide when it isn’t my country at stake. We could just as well say that the activities of Muslims in Belgium do not justify any mass expulsion from there either. We could say that, but we’d be wrong, if the Belgians disagree. It’s not up to us to decide. If a nation decides – for WHATEVER reason – that a particular ethnic group has made itself unacceptable and needs to be expelled, that is part of what government is for: to make exactly those sorts of decisions even if the rest of the world thinks it’s crazy. The justice or lack thereof is entirely beside the point and is not for anyone else to decide. If you REALLY want the right to make that decision, that is what war is for – and that should not be a decision taken lightly.
The principle that one nation has the right to tell others that they are not behaving morally and MUST change their behavior leads in a completely straight line to forbidding white ethnic pride of any sort.
Maybe you think it’s not justice to engage in mass deportations. Maybe someone else thinks it’s not justice that Al-Andalus is in the hands of the infidels. Why are you right and he wrong – or more importantly, what gives either one of you the right to make the decision about what is moral or not, and to dictate that to other peoples? I am not saying that there is no absolute moral standard; I happen to be convinced there is. I also happen to be convinced that human beings who can understand it and know what it should be 100% of the time are practically nonexistent, and anybody who thinks they DO know what it is, is mistaken and likely to cause disasters – that is why we are where we are; everybody KNOWS what “good” is, and they’re wrong.
Better to lead by example as well as possible, allow people and nations to make their own mistakes, and learn from them. Same way I would tell a friend I think he’s doing the wrong thing, but would let him go ahead and do it anyway. Which, incidentally, is exactly how my parents have always treated me.
“The friends of liberty everywhere but the guardians only of our own” – J.Q. Adams
Our civilization is based on certain notions of justice. Not phony “social justice” but real justice. America is based on the notion of natural and inalienable rights. What you have expounded here departs from those norms. Punishing the Blacks as a group for the harm that 75% of them bring on their country is a no no by the tenets of our civilization. And treating them as an “exportable” group after they were brought here involuntarily and before most whites is not our justice, except if you consider Hitler “our.”
As to antisemitism, I don’t condemn you for it. Anyone has a right to some reasonably beheld preferences, and that includes disliking Jews and not wanting to live with them. What you don’t have, what your nation does not have in case either you or it are hostile to Jews, is the right to punish them as a group for (what you perceive as) the error of having them there. Because it’s the Romans’ error, not the Jews’.
Nor do you have the right by the standards of our morality to disregard to what extent Jews have built up your nation over the last 200 years to the extent of being its veritable stakeholders now, rather than some foreign and far less useful graft like 600 years ago. If you are French, I don’t need to give you a lesson in French history since Napoleon, but I could if that’s necessary, including in the sciences, industry, literature and the arts.
You insinuate that I believe in a “propositional nation” as though I have not ridiculed this very notion on several occasions in print. There are ways for dealing with hostile or harmful minorities without violating either our founding ideas or conscience. As I am in the course of writing them up for publication, I’ll omit the effort here. But I would counsel you to think in terms of “solutions” rather than “final solutions.”
@ “What justification can you produce for America to ‘ship back’ its blacks?”
Some GoV-ers have already discussed it in another blog.