Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Taking Exception to “Taking Care of Your Own”

A reader in Europe skimmed “Taking Care of Your Own” yesterday and found it to be racist. Here’s what he said in his email:

I’ve seen your recent posts on ‘taking care of your own’, and I debated whether to write you anything about it or not. Frankly, I’m shocked. Until now I truly believed that your blog was conservative, nationalist, patriotic, culturalist, but not racist. I thought you wanted people to fight Islamic encroachment and to look up to the Western liberal ideals of freedom, liberty and equality. In other words, I believed you. But now you say that there’s nothing wrong with racism, and that in fact, that’s the way to go. It’s truly disheartening. You accept that there are converts to Islam, at which point you will reject them, but you do not accept that there can be non-White converts to Western society.

If I have white and non-white neighbors, if I understand you correctly, then I should feel closely connected with my white neighbors, no matter what they think, feel or do, while feeling a ‘natural’ ‘not my type’ feeling towards my non-white neighbors, since they’re not my own?

As I’ve written on my blog in the past, if Western society cannot accept ‘converts’, it is at a terrible disadvantage. The nation-states of Europe were facing this problem without much success. In the past you’ve argued on your blog that ethnicism and nationalism were not racism. Sadly, I see you’ve now decided that it is.

I don’t see a problem with ‘taking care of your own’, but not when you define ‘your own’ based on the color of one’s skin or the place of birth of their parents or grandparents.

You claim you’re pro-Jewish, but the sad truth is that Jews have never been ‘one of your own’ in Europe and unless they assimilate and lose their cultural distinctiveness (i.e., disappear), they will never be ‘one of your own’.

It’s interesting that you wrote your post on the Jewish Tabernacle holiday, the holiday which Jews believe that in the End of Days will be the holiday where all nations will gather in Jerusalem to celebrate God together.

Those of you who actually read my post know that this person did not read my post correctly. Since his English is fluent, one has to assume that it was a failure to read closely, rather than a failure of comprehension.

Here’s what I wrote in response:
- - - - - - - - -
I think you must not have read my essay closely.

I said:

I propose the positive affirmation of “racism” as a natural human instinct which must be socialized and controlled, but which is not inherently evil.

I also said:

Each of these impulses can be destructive, but when humans are socialized properly, instinctual drives become subordinate to the will of the individual, and to the common good.

And so it is with racism. When completely socialized, the instinct that manifests itself in “racism” is transformed into taking care of your own.

And pay attention to my personal anecdote about my experience in the grocery store in Northern Virginia:

…Then when he spoke, it turned out that — thank God! — he was an American. I wanted to embrace him and thank him for rescuing me from the slough of Multicultural despond.

But it didn’t occur to me until I was walking out of the store a few minutes later that the soldier was black.

The definition of “your own” is an elastic one, and race isn’t always the deciding factor.

At that moment I experienced this black soldier as “one of my own”. That proved to me that I wasn’t a racist — as if I didn’t already know. But I refuse to go through the humiliating contortions required by PC orthodoxy to prove my lack of racism to others. People can judge me by the body of my work. Like you, they may come to an erroneous conclusion, but I can’t help that.

The unavoidable fact is that in many racially homogeneous communities — such as small towns in Norway and Sweden — “taking care of your own” does have a racial component, because the local communities with which people feel natural solidarity are all comprised of white people.

The shameful hypocrisy of our time is that we allow non-whites the luxury of choosing to form close-knit communities of their own ethnic groups, but we deny the same right to white people, and call it “racism” if they attempt it.

You have misread what I wrote, as so many other people have. Once again, I can’t help that; I write as clearly and precisely as I possibly can, and yet I still get misconstrued. I accept that, and I also accept the fact I get called a racist for what I say.

But I will continue to assert that the preference for one’s own kind — one’s race, culture, language group, religion, or however it might be defined — is a normal, natural human instinct, and not inherently evil. Like any other instinct, it can be turned towards evil ends — the Holocaust and slavery are proof of that — but it is not evil in and of itself.

I recommend that you re-read my essay with the above in mind, and see if you reach a different conclusion.

Thanks for writing.

— Baron B.

To be blunt about it, I don’t like it when people play the Holocaust card on me. It’s the Jewish version of mau-mauing, and I refuse to be mau-maued in any form. As I said in my post, the “racism” charge only sticks if you buy into it. Yes, it’s possible to lose your job because of racial intimidation — I’m fortunate to escape that dilemma — but when you knuckle under to racial smears, you lose your soul.

My great-great grandfather owned slaves, and he and his brother fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. But my daddy was a Yankee, and hundreds of thousands of his compatriots gave their lives to free the slaves.

So I have roots on both sides, and I refuse to repudiate any of them. These things that happened, happened. Deal with it.

The only way that the “racism” bogeyman can be defeated is for thousands upon thousands of us to refuse to accept the premises behind it.

Not to defend ourselves against it.

Not to prove our detractors wrong.

Not to demonstrate that we are not racists.

But to categorically reject the unexamined premises that lie behind the accusation.

That’s what “Taking Care of Your Own” is about. It’s just one little portion of the much larger project of taking back the culture.

“Racism” is the Albigensian Heresy of our time. That is, it’s a vicious doctrinal dispute that is terribly important to the people involved, and can be deadly for anyone who happens to be caught on the wrong side of the conflict.

But in five hundred years’ time — assuming that Western Civilization survives — it will be a historical footnote, and the people of that time will be puzzled that their forebears could expend so much energy and violence over such a trivial and mostly imaginary issue.

Just wait and see.

69 comments:

Natalie said...

Good for you, Baron. It's one thing to disagree with a person about something, but quite another to completely misconstrue the meaning of what a person says. What I mean is I have no problem with people disagreeing with me about what I say/write as long as they realise what I'm saying. I just hate when people put words in my, and in others', mouths, so to speak.

no2liberals said...

All I can say to your email is....WTF?
Someone didn't read your post in it's entirety, or is a reactionary.
Or both.

MauserMedic said...

The first of many, no doubt. Refusing to accept that you should feel guilty for your color and culture is, in itself, racist by the current standard. Judging people by the actions, wait, daring to judge anyone other than your own group is now "racist".

Where I am, you play the game, but know who sees BS for what it is.

On the other hand, sometimes the true believers get caught in their own web. I've seen it here with the military. Nothing like watching someone who spent their two weeks of military leave campaigning for "The One" have to answer a formal inquiry regarding racism for daring to publish history notes that mentions birthdays in the daily email. Around here, even the word "Confederate" will get you a nice re-education session, along with the opportunity to apologize for your cultural insensitivity. Interesting times.

Afonso Henriques said...

Oh Baron I am so apalled by this e mail... and you took such an effort to make your position clear, to give examples to calm down the racist cries. This email is simply nonesense.

Don't matter what you do, they will be biting the bottom of your leg (achiles thing, I forget the name, "calcanhares").

And I am also shocked by the "Jewish question". Please... There is always a special place to Jews in those peoples mind. And if I am correct, he said "you were pro-Jewish" WTF? How can a Christian be pro-Jewish?

Yes, I am pro-Zionist or a Zionist, I am not a Jew and I am (half) a Catholic but I am not pro-Jew, I am not pro-Budhist, I am not, well, I simpathise with Hinduism but I am not pro it.

I simply do not care about Jews, I want them to live happy for ever in their very own Nation, a nation they have built and worked hard (well, kind of. At least those who are there.) to get.

But I only support Israel out of what they have been through, out of "Humanity". I am not pro Jewish, I am simply impartial. That IS WHY I SUPPORT ISRAEL, out of my impartiality. (But I will not fight for it either).

And Baron, that kind of criticism could be aplied to me, but never to you. I am making an introduction of judo to small children, and one of my favourite children there, is a black boy (the only "foreigner"). I like the boy, he's a good kid. However, I know he is one kid and not the whole comunity. And I am not saying that black kids are evil, they're not, the problem is that for each comunity of black kids you help in Europe, there is a comunity of Native white (with all it entails) kids who are put back in their own homelands, in the NATIONS their forefathers helped to create.

So, if I take this black kid I like as part of "my Nation" I am opening a precedent and will have to allow all the black comunity to "my Nation" to the expanse of "the very kids of my Nation" so it is unproductive.

Also, when he grows, he will feel he is different and will contribute, directly or not, consciently or unconsciently, to "change" "my Nation" in a form that I can only presume will be negative, especially me being a Nationalist.

That is the reason for me to exclude that black kid I like from "my Nation". I like the boy, but he is not "one of my own" in what the Nation is concerned. He is "one of my own" in that club but not one of my "Nation".

I strongly disagree with what Zenster said which was deeply something like: "I like some foreigners so they should all be "one of my own" fellow Americans, even though they are strangers, because I like them".

Well, I think you can make friends from other race/cultures without making them "one of your own", without mixing them with you and destroying those cultural dissimilarities (and racial, why not?) that were also a cause for you to like those persons.
Zenster thinks that as a Westerner but I bet the Taiwanese couple did not invited him to become a Taiwanese (even though those Taiwanese had some very European names...). They know who are their own, and who are not.

You Baron, of course, do not share my views. At least you do not share them to be applied to "your Nation" and "your own" and you left that clear in the other thread. That's why I am so appaled by that comment. It does not make any sense.

Sorry for my bad english.

Henrik Ræder said...

How can a Christian be pro-Jewish?

Just as easily as a Buddhist can be pro-Christian: By noticing that Jewish culture and tradition are deeply embedded in the best of European tradition, and that people of Jewish families have contributed highly disproportionately to culture and science. Jewish culture just seems to breed these extraordinary people as efficiently as Islamic culture inhibits them.

Afonso Henriques said...

At that moment I experienced this black soldier as “one of my own”. That proved to me that I wasn’t a racist.
/////////////////////////////////

Baron, here I must disagree. I think you and me are racists. I have been thinking about it and I came to a conclusion.

Nowadays, those who are whites and do care about the continuation of the so called white race are racists. That is the true meaning of the word racist nowadays, to be against the destruction/dissolution of the so called white race.

And note that I say so called because the white race lacks any scientific foundation. That is the Caucasian race and it includes half of the world outside of Europe.

There is something true in the concept of the white race, I mean, whites are indeed a biological seperated group, but that is not enough to be granted the status of race. Whites are first a cultural group and then a genetic group, never a race.

Meanwhile, because all of that, you and me will always be racists. Because we think the world would be worst without Europeans. That is the truth.

Afonso Henriques said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Conservative Swede said...

Excellent essay and splendid follow-up, Baron!

A core point of your interlocutor was:
but you do not accept that there can be non-White converts to Western society

But, as you pointed out, this is simply a result of careless reading of your article. The example with the black guy in uniform counters this interpretation, and so does this part of your article:

To take care of your own obviously implies a dedication to those people who are genetically most closely related to you. But, as anyone who has ever adopted a child from a different racial background can attest, the instinct to protect your own people is flexible, and is not solely determined by race or bloodline.

Just like you I often describe a nation as a form of extended family. This makes us understand its nature, its essence.

But the post-modern liberal dogma is completely opposed to that. Accepting "converts" is simply not just enough; "converts" has to be put at the core of what's holding the group together. There can be no single trace of family relations left in the civic identity; or that is racist.

The concept of "converts" is put as the most central one -- taking the enlightenment social contract idea to its furthest extreme, and conclusion. Thusly, America is described as a country of immigrants (i.e. "converts"), instead of a country of settlers (which is what it really was).

Of course there is no substance for a group which key common feature is to be "converts". The group cannot be kept together, there is nothing to assimilate to, it will disintegrate.

So between the two ideological extremes -- the one of racial purity and the purity code of mandatory racial mixing -- there is the simple reality based and balance concept of seeing a nation as a kind of extended family. The ideological extremists see, respectively, racially mixed or racially non-mixed societies as illegitimate features that must be eradicated.

From the common-sense "taking care of our" perspective there is no moral difference between such societies. Countries have simply developed differently depending on different conditions; on what people who happened to pass by.

Up in the cold north, such as Scandinavia, before industrial time, it was just a sh*t cold forgotten corner of the world, and nobody passed by, or even cared to invade. So we were left alone, and the result was ethnic homogeneity. In the European continent however, invasions have been going back and forth over the centuries, and people are heavily mixed. In Las Americas, and the new world in general, for natural reasons, the mixing is even higher.

Why should these differences make any difference from a moral point of view wen it comes to taking care of our own? Why must utopian ideologues come from this direction or the other to tell us that this or that sort of society must be eradicated to create the "New Soviet Man"?

Get rid of the ideologues; get rid of ideologies altogether!

Afonso Henriques said...

Henrik,

You got me well!

/noticing that Jewish culture and tradition are deeply embedded in the best of European tradition/

So, I must be anti Jewish... I am an anti Jewish zionist, is it not fun (question mark).

/and that people of Jewish families have contributed highly disproportionately to culture and science/

Well, now I am pro Jewish...

Your point is good but now I am confused. And your last statement is an undeniable truth.

I just want to say that I cannot say, by any means, that Jews are culturally superior. Now, if we are to talk about genes, then we will have a discussion. It apears that Jews are highly intelligent and that derives from their biology. Maybe that is because of the extreme pressions they had to underwnt in Europe (question mark). Maybe it is due to Natural Selection. However, it is like stating that the rich are better than the poor...

Henrik Ræder said...

Afonso: :)

Note the 'deeply embedded'. It is material like the 10 Commandments, the principle of the secular state and other philosophical principles that transferred quite directly into Christianity. Like the fish doesn't quite notice the water it swims in, we have much in our culture that has Jewish roots without us really taking note. Bat Ye'or alerted me to this.

However, it is like stating that the rich are better than the poor...

Well, what can I say? The rich usually are more responsible, more inventive and better educated than the poor. And usually with a more positive attitude to life, too.

Western Initiatives said...

Welcome to the club.

You see, these people are always creating trouble and causing doubt, where no trouble or doubt existed before. But I think you are starting to see the light. I see my prayers are working. Good for you.

Just because we are anti-Islam, does not mean we should be pro-Jewish or pro-Israel.

Maybe the members of the Counter-Jihad should start thinking in such subtleties, so that our opponents do not become confused.

EnglishBlondie said...

waythist
waythist

Afonso Henriques said...

Conservative Swede, Baron, et all.

Conservative Swede, from your comment I smelled some contradictions. You see, and please do not get me wrong, you want to be practical and tell the world to get rid of ideologies.

I have said it here, and influenced also by you and others, that the only legitimate ideology is an ideology which is /flexible/ in relation to the reality.

Cutting the crap, I think you have an ideology.

Be afraid of the converts! You see, in pratical terms, we had convets, called exactly that, conversos, after the Reconquista, both Jews and muslims, and then we got the Inquisition which main goal was to find and take action against those same conversos.

In Latin America, all of them are converts, however there is not a single Latin American country in which the more you go to the top, the less converts they are. And that has been a painfull process that North America will now embrace. It has lasted 500 years and it is far away from ending.

In the Balkans, the Bosniaks were converts, perfectly Europeanised some like to say, however we know what happened.

In Germany we had converts, however, the German people rose against them. Actually, virtually all European Nation rose against those converts.

So, pratically, without any kind of ideology, we can LOGICALLY conclude that the converts do not end well. I think we can even conclude that only when the children, or the children of the children... of the converts are indistinguishable from the mainstreem the converts are truly converted. Untill then they are simply more or less foreign.

I think that we can logically conclude also that the more the converts are tolerated, the greater the danger. This because then, the converts, or not that converted, will feel they have the same rights as the Nationals de sauche. You can see that in Africa, all the Europeans have fled but the more converted South Africans. Look at the Balkans. That is why the immigration problem in Europe will only get worst as the generations go by. And just wait untill the rurals start to sublevate against the degenerate cities... There will be many in the cities to line up with the rurals...

It is because of all this that I said a while back that I could never be an Englishman aka a convert, but that my children or grand children could, under certain conditions, be English aka converts. The same to people more distant from the English. Only the generations needed for that to happen are more.

Afonso Henriques said...

Henrik, well, I do feel that our Jewish heritage is not under attack. The European part of it, namely the Traditional Celtic, Roman, Germanic, Slavic, Greek, etc. but mainly Roman, that created this civilisation are being smacked in front of our eyes.

And as I see it, the Jews are to be blamed. Not the Jews as a people, much less as individuals, but the Jews as a group who have been influencing European culture. Jews are okay to be Jews, I am not against it. What I am against is when Europeans start to be Jews, or let Jews rule them. This is a very touchy ground and I cannot express myself as good as I wanted. I think Conservative Swede or even Bela could explain better than me what I am talking about. I just think that Jewish cultural, foreign, influence in Europe has been destructive. That is exacly the feeling that aloud Hitler to personify evil in the Jewish persons.
I am not doing that here, I hope all readers are mature enough to see it. But, please Henrik, it is too touchy and I will not divigate more, unless you ask for more or for some clarifications of my statements if they are too confuse.

Fjordman said...

Western Initiatives: Yes, being pro-Israeli is both natural and right. This is why I want to stipulate this as one of the preconditions for using my book. Those who don't support Israel suffer from very poor judgment, at best. You would be a good case in point.

Fjordman said...

Conservative Swede: It is quite possible that the United States signed its own death warrant when it decided to become a "universal" nation. There is no such thing. Just because Americans have previously managed to assimilate more or less successfully other Europeans into the established Anglo-Saxon culture does not mean that they can assimilate everybody. In these Multicultural days, they aren't even attempting to do so.

If present trends continue, I suspect the USA could become split and carved up into different countries. Maybe it will live just long enough to educate China's new scientific and technological elites and fund China's growth so that it can replace the United States as the preeminent global power.

Western Initiatives said...

Fjordman ~ This is where you're wrong, IMO. I respect the pro-Israeli position, as far as it goes. Which is not very far. And I'm a great admirer of your works, despite your filthy hostility towards me (don't worry, I forgive you).

I will proudly say, I am a white nationalist, or European nationalist, or freedom fighter (whatever you want to call it), but that does not mean I am pro-Jewish, or anti-Islamic, etc.

Nowehere does it say that Europeans, whites, or White Nationalists are required to take sides between the Jews and the Muslims.

Afonso Henriques said...

Fjordman,

While I am fiercely pro Israel, I think that it is not that difficult to understand the Palestinians - I mean, it is more difficult to understand Saakashvili - or the muslim side.

And I know that we Europeans are "too racist" (lacking a better word) to consider Jews as white, even though the majority of American Jews may have a lighter skin than mine. The problem is, the rest of the world is not that racist, they see the Jews as white Europeans.
They look to Israel and see the an European colony, a place where Europeans "dump their Jews" at the expanses of the local people. And you people have to agree that, in a non white, non Western prespective in general, and muslim in particular, it must be very annoying to see, in a period in which Europeans have abandoned their colonies - like, the whole world - to become colonised in their own lands... to see Israel gaining terrain as an European colony. Especially through so many wars, always with the help of others Europeans...

So I think your condition for using your book is not very elegant but it is your book and I know what you are worried about and as si I do think your attitude is legitimate, though not so elegant.

The problem to me is not to be or not to be (pro Israel) but the reasons for each position.
And please, don't be mad at me...

Henrik R Clausen said...

Afonso, the only Jews that worry me are those, like George Soros, who have jettisoned their cultural heritage but have enough power to cause significant damage.

I agree with Fjordman that being pro-Israel is natural and right, as it constitutes standing up for international law and democracy against a gang of deceitful and violent organisations and governments that surround her.

Reading The Nazi Roots of Palestinian Nationalism will give a few insights in why standing for Israel today is just as proper as standing for the Jews during the 30's and 40's. It's a question of solidarity in face of violent and racist injustice.

Afonso Henriques said...

Western Initiatives,

Me too am not anti-islamic (well I am but I don't want to put an end to islam and fight to the last man in Meca); I am impartal in relation to Jews, that is why I support Israel; I can also say that I am very sympathetic towards almost all European Nationalisms and that I am to a certain degree a white Nationalist in that light...

I just do not understand - and would very much like you to explain me - why you are against the existance of the Jewish State. Is it, as I said that you are against colonialism?
Seriously, you are an American who is against Israel out of colonialism? What's up?

Darrin said...

In a story related to what Baron said about the negro soldier, in Australia during the height of the White Australia Policy the government wanted to deport a Chinese man (who ran the local corner store) from a town in Adelaide, however the townspeople put a petition together to support the man and eventually the government relented. This is also an example of people seeing somebody of a different race as part of their community.

The counter-point to that story I guess is that if you had asked those same townspeople if they wanted their town to be Asianised, they would have protested strongly against the idea as there is nothing wrong with preserving ones identity, which what we really want in the West. I do not want Australia to be turned into some sort of Asian melting pot, our identity is primarily Anglo-Saxon I cannot see any good reason why it shouldn't continue to be so.

Fjordman said...

WI: Which is precisely why people like you cannot be trusted and should not be allowed to use my material. You are perfectly capable of siding with Muslims based on mutually shared hatred of others.

joeblough said...

No time right now to write much, but I will say this:

Baron, I have good and personal reasons to be plenty touchy about Israel, the Jewish people and racism in general.

I am with you on the subject of taking care of your own.

Just to cut to the chase ... taking care of your own, IMHO, is a natural extension of how the human value system and the emotions associated with it, really work on the inside.

All of our values and loves are intimately bound up with, indeed spring from our desires to live and prosper.

And our attachments and concern about the others around us are naturally tuned and tempered by those facts.

Our feelings toward those near us, whether near genetically, by physically proximity, or emotionally by acquaintance and agreement, are all assigned their valence by their value to us.

The further someone or something is to our own interests, the less emotional energy we will be able to honestly and naturally muster on their behalf. It's just simply how it works -- our allegedly idealist protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

And I'll add that I am far more willing to trust a member of an alien community who has a good, healthy and civilized sense of taking care of his own, than a member of my own who does not.

And I speak from experience.

We've got to pluck that baby out of the bath-water before we lose it altogether.

===========

BTW One can usefully think of George Soros as one who started out in life by betraying his own. He actually, factually did.

no2liberals said...

The old expression, near and dear, is well served with the Baron's essay.
I fail to understand how race is actually a factor in this scenario.
I also fail to see what this has to do with Israel, or Jews.
I do understand what this has to do with Islam, as it is the root cause for so many of the threats to our tribes in western civilization.
I have known, and befriended people of nearly every race and nationality, and while we recognized our differences, we celebrated what we had in common, and our positive attributes.
I have held many people near and dear, over the years. My default setting is behavior, not race, or country of origin.
I would gladly fight to rid the world of Islam, thus freeing their captives and providing them the opportunity to join the modern world.
I would gladly fight to insure the continued existence of the nation of Israel, and the Jewish people.
I have defended Black Americans against the wrongs perpetrated by White Americans. There is right and wrong, good and evil. Just as truth is the first perfection of God, so is it the first requirement before I allow someone into my sphere.
It's about behavior with me.

Evan said...

Baron,

I understand your concern about scoundrels crying racism from their last refuge, but I'm trying, as a long-time admirer of your writing, to get a handle on what you think.

Recently there was a post describing the experiences of a pastor practicing his vocation in Norway, although he was from Sierra Leone. The local Norwegian Christians rejected him.

Do you think these Norwegians sinned? What do you think is their moral obligation, as Christians - to see this man first and foremost as a Christian, or as a black African rather than a white Norwegian? Should those Norwegians see that pastor as "one of their own"? (Forget what you believe their evolutionary drive is telling them. What should they do? Christianity, and indeed most human ethical codes, are about overcoming our genetic compulsions.)

As a follow-up, do you think that Christianity places different obligations in this regard on Norwegians - historically a less ethnically diverse country - than on Americans?

Best,

Evan

Baron Bodissey said...

Evan --

I don’t have an opinion about the sins of those Norwegian Christians, or any other Norwegians, or the pastor, or anyone else whom I don’t know. It would be the height of presumption for me to issue such opinions about the sins of strangers.

What I do have an opinion about is the right of a local congregation, or township, or city, or province, to govern their own affairs and make decisions for themselves, rather than have them made by remote officials who have no organic connection to the community in question, nor bear the direct consequences for the decisions they make.

The decisions that local groups may make may be commonly viewed as “racist” by politically correct orthodoxy, but I don’t believe that it is generally true. In any case, communities need to make the decisions for themselves.

It’s time to take back the culture. One of the biggest parts of that is to take back control of our localities. We will not survive without decentralizing.

xlbrl said...

WHILE FOLKS GREED RUNS A WORLD IN NEED.
A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.
I HAVE BECOME A SYMBOL OF AMERICA RETURNING TO ITS BEST TRADITIONS.
A nations life is about as long as its reverential memory.
I AM A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD.
Civilizations in decline are constantly characterized by a tendancy toward standardization and uniformity.
A WORLD THAT STANDS AS ONE.
The last stage but one of every civilization is chaacterized by the forced political unification of its constituent parts, into a single greater whole.
If destruction be our lot, we must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
This sort of people are so taken up with their theories of the rights of man that they have totally forgotten his nature.
Ravel, Chambers, Toynbee, Lincoln, Burke, Obama

Joanne said...

At any given moment, there are only two types of people in this world - those who belong to God Almighty and those who belong to the Devil. God nor the Devil gives a care what or who you are, as long as you are one of their own.

latté island said...

Even though Jews are a tiny minority of the world's population, we are not monolothic. There are so many ways to be or not to be Jewish, that we don't agree on Who is a Jew. Different sects of Judaism have different definitions. I, a completely secular Jew, define it as partly ethnic, partly cultural.

So those who are pro Jew or anti Jew don't always make themselves clear to everyone, because there is no perfect definition of What is a Jew.

Hitler had his definition, but many of the people he murdered wouldn't even be considered real Jews by some religious Jews nowadays.

I am very much in sympathy with nationalists like Afonso who want to define their nation their own way. Now, assuming all patriots in every European country define their identity this way, this causes a logistical problem for the Jews who live in those countries, but it is not anti-semitism to want to exclude Jews from one's national family. We Jews, knowing and respecting what our neighbors want, should accept this and make our own arrangements.

I support Israel 100% as the home of many Jews, but it doesn't actually meet my needs. I think the history of Zionism is as confused as the history of feminism. Good ideas with mixed results.

Back to the drawing board for me. If only we could discuss this openly, without name-calling.

Armance said...

I have no idea why stating something so natural - a preference for your kind, family, community, nation - is considered racist. It's simply human nature. It doesn't mean that you despise or hate other people, by no means that you want to harm them in some way, but simply that you feel more related to those who are related to you. Regarding the "converts", the things are simple: it's up to them to accept the terms and the way of life of the community they enter, not to the community to change its ways for somebody coming from the outside. It's as simple as that. According to the dogma of multiculturalism, if one Muslim/foreigner comes into a town of 20.000 people, those 20.000 are supposed to accommodate themselves to his customs, not the other way round. This is unnatural and against common sense, a way of complicating things which are otherwise simple, it has never happened in human history until today.

Besides, it's only one group of people who are supposed to deny their natural impulse to care of their own: the Europeans or people of European descent. It doesn't apply to other groups. It's considered natural that, e.g., Nelson Mandela cares of his own. I consider it natural too and I appreciate him for that. On the other hand, you are a racist if you care about the white farmers killed in Zimbabwe. At best, you have to care only on the grounds of the violation of universal human rights. But I am asked to be hypocritical and to deny what I feel: I become emotional about it because those farmers are of European descent, as I am. It's in my DNA. Why should I suppress this feeling? What is so wrong about it - and only in my case, because other groups of people, the non-Europeans, are encouraged to care of their own?

Conservative Swede said...

Armance,

I become emotional about it because those farmers are of European descent, as I am. It's in my DNA.

Well, it's also the matter of them being killed and tortured for their skin colour. And when we see the horrible pictures of it, we feel in our skin, as it were, that it could happen to us too. So even a purely social-contract-no-DNA-connection-at-all-view-on-citizenship -enlightenment-man will be killed just the same if he's got white skin, and solely for that reason. So even he, if he's got any remaining life drive in him, will feel "it could have been me" when seeing such utterly terrible pictures.

For those concerned with such questions, this also helps us define who's white enough. Anyone who's white enough to get killed over his whiteness, had he been owning a farm in Southern Africa, is white enough.

Albert Lorenzo, commenting at Jihadwatch, implies that e.g. Robert Spencer is not white enough. But I can assure Albert that Robert is most definitely white enough to get killed, had he been a Zimbabwe farmer, for his whiteness.

CzC said...

I don’t see a problem with ‘taking care of your own’, but not when you define ‘your own’ based on the color of one’s skin or the place of birth of their parents or grandparents.

Maybe I've lived in South Africa too long, but this person isn't thinking straight.

You claim you’re pro-Jewish, but the sad truth is that Jews have never been ‘one of your own’ in Europe and unless they assimilate and lose their cultural distinctiveness (i.e., disappear), they will never be ‘one of your own’.

You say he is European the way he writes it doesn't soubd like it. eg. 'one of your own'

latté island said...

CS: this also helps us define who's white enough. Anyone who's white enough to get killed over his whiteness, had he been owning a farm in Southern Africa, is white enough.

This is a good enough definition of whiteness for me, just as Hitler's definition of Jewishness is also good enough for me. The problem is, neither definition is good enough for many in those respective communities. Also, many Europeans on this board have made the distinction between white nationalism (not appropriate for Europe) and the nationalism of each European nation (appropriate).

If this is how people define their own, then your or my more inclusive definition will be seen as intrusive. The only way to have peace is to let people be as particular as they really feel. If not, it comes out periodically in a bad way.

This is why the Norwegian congregation didn't "sin." They didn't accept an African as a Norwegian, so he and other Africans will not make the mistake of being complacent and moving in where they're not wanted, ultimately leading to future violence.

Conservative Swede said...

Latte,

The overall point here is:

If people are uniformly and intensely attacked for being "infidels", eventually this will become defining and formative for their group identity.

So what view on whiteness is likely to be most decisive for the future? Well, which definition is most often banged into our heads? The one of anti-white racism. So this is the definition of "white" that is most likely to penetrate people's minds.

People in Europe will continue to primarily identify according to nations (i.e. extended families, common language etc.). However, in an outer concentric layer, there is the common European decent as well as "whiteness" (which are largely overlapping). And unlike you seem to suggest, there's no contradiction in this. Quite as there is no contradiction in general with a concentric model.

You want to shoehorn Hitler's definition of Jewishness into this discussion too. So let me make use of it, and say that it here corresponds to the anti-white racism. And these are the only intrusive style definitions (as well as violently hostile).

Conservative Swede said...

WI,

I will proudly say, I am a white nationalist, or European nationalist, or freedom fighter (whatever you want to call it), but that does not mean I am pro-Jewish, or anti-Islamic, etc.

Nowhere does it say that Europeans, whites, or White Nationalists are required to take sides between the Jews and the Muslims.


Well, this makes it clear as a bell where you really stand. (Not like we didn't already know.)

And, sure, European nationalists are not, by definition, required to take any specific stand vis-a-vis Islam. But we ignore that threat at our own peril. And any nationalism, today, not taking a stand against Islam is uselessly ceremonial and simply won't survive.

Furthermore "white nationalism":

While it is fully natural to identify both with ones nation and as a white (compare my answer to Latte above), the term "white nationalism" is an aberration. The layers in the concentric model support each other, but they do not mix. There's no way to mix e.g. "self" and "nuclear family". Such mixing is a conceptual meltdown.

joeblough said...

I think that some of the confusion on these subjects derives from two conflicting facts.

On one hand, the collective, whatever collective we consider ourselves to belong to, derives its value (to us) from our own attachment to ourselves and our lives. Yet on the other hand, the whole of humanity has imagined, and taught each other from time immemorial, that the individual derives his value from the collective.

There is quite literally a world of difference between those two beliefs -- the difference between a world of tribal war, poverty and chronic oppression, and a world of freedom, wealth and ... well, relative peace.

It is a subtle difference perhaps. But a critically important one.

A paraphrase from Rand might clarify it a bit. She wrote (more or less) that the difference between a nationalist and a patriot is that the nationalist says "my country right or wrong" but the patriot says "my country because it is right".

One is unreasoning subservience to the collective for the sake of subservience to the collective, the other is deliberate loyalty born of earned respect and love.

It all comes down to a question of being a rational and civilized individual.

There is also, I detect in the thread of discussion, some confusion over the words "taking care" in "taking care of one's own". What does it mean to take care? I don't mean to be snarky. That's a sincere question.

I raise the issue because it goes to the question of values. All men may have, as BB asserts, an instinctual attraction toward their own tribe and clan. But the values asserted by that tribe and clan, and indeed the individual himself, radically affect the situation, the value of loyalty and the meaning of what it is to "take care".

Is taking care of one's own an act of subservience, or of self responsibility? It goes to a question of values. Does the collective uphold or degrade the value of the individual? Is loyalty an act of dignity or of self degradation?

Were the members of the resistance in nazi Germany traitors and ingrates? Cowards? Unfaithful people without honor? Or were they patriots? (Don't say it, I know all such situations involve a mix of people).

Are mohammedan apostates faithless, worthless individuals? What of Hirsi Ali and Walid Phares? They certainly don't display the level of fidelity that their correligionists display, demand and expect.

What of the "palistinian" mothers who encourage and celebrate the murderous suicides of their mad bomber offspring? Ia that "taking care"?

Don't we have to respect and sympathise with the mohammedan insistance of utter fidelity to their ummah?

Not so.

These seeming paradoxes disappear when one realizes that the collective derives its value from the individual, indeed the individuals that comprise it and the moral standards they uphold -- not the other way around.

Taking care has a great deal to do with defending and upholding the humanity of the people that one regards as one's own. To keep the door open to their potential enlightenment, decency and happiness. To be sure, defending their physical well being is part of that. Giving comfort is part of that. Extending "too much" forgiveness and understanding is part of it. But it all transpires within the boundaries of what it means to be fully and properly human, to be civilized, or at least decent.

I am not just talking about how it ought to be, I'm talking about how it works on the inside. And this is also why it is possible to pry people loose from their community, and why it is so important to the enemies of the west to pry the western peoples away from their traditions, nations and churches -- why it is so important to the enemies of the west to equate westerners' fidelity to their culture with racism. And why it is so easy too fool people about that.

In this context I very much like the Baron's idea that cultural loyalty is what you get when you tame and civilize brute tribal spirit.

I have some reservations about the line of reasoning, as it smacks somewhat, to my ear, of Freudianism, of which I am very skeptical.

But I think BB is really on to something of value here.

latté island said...

CS, White Nationalism is only an aberration from the point of view of Europeans, but Americans and other European colonial types can understand it easily, because most Americans, etc. have ancestors from several European countries, so we can't exactly be Norwegians, etc. like actual Norwegians can. For Americans, it would be an aberration to insist on Norwegian, French or whatever nationalism, as even the whitest Americans have complicated family histories.

Also, I'm not trying to "shoehorn" any Jewish issues here. I myself would have considered my previous comment off topic, but since it was raised by Afonso and others, it became relevant, and I am exactly the person who is most qualified to provide feedback on this issue, since I am specifically training myself to listen to and accept what people say, instead of calling the ADL every five minutes.

Also, the Jewish/Islamic thing is a red herring at this point. It's clear to me and most people here that Islam is invading the West, and if the West wants to fight Islam, that obviously isn't because of Israel, so people like WI are sort of wasting their energy on word games, because they'd rather score a point against the Jews than help the West prevail against the actual Islamic invasion.

Conservative Swede said...

Latte,

CS, White Nationalism is only an aberration from the point of view of Europeans, but Americans and other European colonial types can understand it easily, because most Americans, etc. have ancestors from several European countries, so we can't exactly be Norwegians, etc.

Yes, this is true. And I was going to bring it up myself. Americans, and other new-worlders, have lost contact with their original nation. But the important thing here is not how they lost contact with their respective Norways, but how they lost contact with what they originally was as a nation themselves, as a nation of settlers of mixed European descent (a more vulnerable concept than "Norways", since it's younger and therefore in need of much more nurturing to being able to grow into a stable national identity).

So now there are attempts to reconstruct this, where "white nationalism" could be seen as a first attempt at an approximation for a national identity; where obviously WASP would be catching the gist of it much better.

But thereby we see how "white nationalism" is something specific and exceptional, and not at all as general as the term itself want to suggest. A more correct term would be whites-in-exile-nationalism.

Armance said...

I guess there are many layers to identify yourself with a group (except the nuclear and extended family, where things are pretty clear): linguistic, ethnic, national, racial, religious, cultural. In some aspects the group identities overlap, in others they do not. The closest in this respect are the people who share with me all these layers, which means they belong to the same nation.
Regarding race: being a Romanian, we have people with all sorts of features - from those with dark complexion and black eyes to the blue-eyed blonds. That's why my concept of "whiteness" is very inclusive - for example I consider the Jews or the Greeks to be definitely whites, I cannot tell the difference between them and me. On the other hand, I am aware that maybe for a Dutch I am not white enough. I wouldn't feel "offended" by such a statement.

I want to stress that none of these layers can be dogmatically applied to communities in real life. Each of them has nuances and not-so-clear points. For example, I share the same religion with the Greeks or the Russians, but obviously I feel closer to a Protestant Romanian or a Romanian Jew - because we share the linguistic and national layers and the communication is easier than with a Greek. But this reality doesn't change dramatically the fact that I know who I am - nationally, ethnically, culturally, etc.

I don't equal "taking care of your own" with "tribal attachment". After all, in the very center of our identity is the self - which means our own judgment and discernment. I wouldn't support by any means my nation persecuting or using violence against other nations because it's "my kind". But what I know for sure is that I am not a "citizen of the world" and my loyalty, in normal circumstances, stands with those who are related to me.

I think that, traditionally, we used to know these things out of common sense. It was a matter of honor to care about your own people - now you are supposed to feel guilty or ashamed about it. People of the past found it naturally that Ulysses, after a long and complicated voyage, wanted so much to reach his dear home and die surrounded by his kind. According to postmodern relativism, Ithaca is just an island among others and Ulysses could have remained as well in the country of the Cyclops to celebrate diversity or maybe invite the Cyclops in Ithaca. But the fact is that, in spite of their brainwashing, we can still make the difference between our home and the land of the one-eyed giants.

Afonso Henriques said...

"I am very much in sympathy with nationalists like Afonso who want to define their nation their own way. Now, assuming all patriots in every European country define their identity this way, this causes a logistical problem for the Jews who live in those countries, but it is not anti-semitism to want to exclude Jews from one's national family. We Jews, knowing and respecting what our neighbors want, should accept this and make our own arrangements."

Thank you Latté Island, and you are indeed right, that may be a "logistical problem" for the Jews. But I really think that we do not need to pray on the Jews; "our" actions in relation to the Jews ought to be dependent on how the Jews react, that is, reactionary.

You see, that is why I support Israel, that way the Jews have a home of their own, their ancestral home; which luckily is on the Eastern most cost of Mediterranean, Israel and Lebanon thus could be a Western or semi Western border against the muslims; also they have fought so many wars for their lands and thrve so much - untill now - that is hard to say that those lands "were handled" to the Jews. In my opinion, the Jews have won the right for that lands. The problem is that probabily they might lose them soon. But, if it happens, let them lose it in battle, fighting for what they think is precious in a terrible - but somewhat loyal - war.

Concerning the definition of Jew, I have one definition: A person that derives from a ethnical and/or cultural origin "foreign" to Europe based on Jewish roots.

And a partially Jew or descendent of Jews is a person who does not identify culturally or ethnically with Jewishness but whose recent ancesters were Jews. This person will be (very) influenced by "Jewishness", as I can attest in great Portuguese Nationalists who loved the Nation but never trusted the people...

This of course, is the vision of a "goy" :) You have all the right to say who's Jew and who's not.

latté island said...

the Jews have a home of their own, their ancestral home

Afonso, this idea that Israel is "the" rather than "a" Jewish homeland is starting to be a problem for me. This topic isn't discussed in polite society, because it could be seen as giving talking points to Israel's enemies, which isn't my intention, but I've realized that the behavior of Diaspora Jews gives it away anyway.

Why do more Jews live outside of Israel than in Israel? There are many reasons that vary with individuals, but one possible and unmentionable reason is, we don't want to live there. For me, living in Israel would be a step backward. I think of Israel as a theme park based on the early Zionist fantasy that they could live where our distant ancestors lived. Religious Zionists, of course, are called to live in Israel for religious reasons, and that's a good reason indeed, but it has no appeal for secular Jews.

So, it seems to me that the concept of Israel as "the" Jewish homeland sets the bar too high for most Jews. If there were a Jewish state that was secular and not surrounded by enemies, I'd pack my bags right now, and maybe I'd have a lot of company.

The world is going to be very different from what it is now, and Israel may or may not be sustainable. I think it would be okay for everyone to consider the points I've raised, because, as the history of Zionism shows, there have always been alternatives, and Israel isn't the best option for all Jews, just some.

A really sustainable, secular Zionism could dovetail rather neatly with anti-semitism and/or European nationalism. And why is it so bad to say this? Should I resist accommodating people who don't like me, just to spite them? What if we all want the same thing?

Armance said...

Religious Zionists, of course, are called to live in Israel for religious reasons, and that's a good reason indeed, but it has no appeal for secular Jews.

I guess in a few generations the secular Jews in Europe or the US will be completely absorbed - not because they necessarily want to or because the majority wants to, but practically they will be eaten up by their own liberalism. Only the religious Jews and the state of Israel will survive. Maybe the Zionists like Herzl got it right: it just takes a few generations of peace and tolerance and the Jews will disappear in the background, fully assimilating. Or perhaps more or less consciously this is what the secular Jews want.

watling said...

I live in a predominantly white neighbourhood in England although more and more first and second generation immigrants from the Indian sub-continent are moving in. Some of these newcomers do not speak English at home.

If I woke up one morning and found that ours was the only white family left in the street then I would be alarmed and feel intimidated. There would be no logical reason for me to fear law-abiding neighbours of Indian origin but my instincts would not listen to logic. As I have no control over my instincts then there would be little I could do to allay my fears.

Are my instincts my fault? No.

Of course there are white people who do live in parts of England where they are a minority. Do they mind? I expect some do and some don't.

Did those white people actively seek to have non-white neighbours? No.

Can they be blamed for not wanting their children to go to a local school where most of the other children are non-white and some of whom do not have English as their mother tongue? No.

Are they justified in feeling angry that they cannot therefore send their children to the local school but instead have to inconvenience themselves by travelling several miles to a school where their children are not in a minority? Yes.

Are they racists? No.

Who is to blame for this unnatural state of affairs? The white people? No. The immigrants? No. Politicians? Yes.

latté island said...

Armance wrote: Or perhaps more or less consciously this is what the secular Jews want

Not really. I think moving to Israel is too much of a stretch for secular Jews who are living in pleasant, peaceful surroundings compared to the Middle East. It's very obvious that even the most assimilated and secular Jews enjoy the company of other Jews. There's something special about hanging out with people who are so alike. Ashkenazi Jews have so much in common, most of the ones I meet could be my cousins, and maybe they are!

This is a wonderful thing. It would be too bad if we lost that and faded into the non-Jewish populations we live with. What I'd like is to keep our genetic and cultural distinctiveness, just as every other people wants to keep theirs. The only reason this is difficult is that our real estate situation is impossible.

Once upon a time, the British offered us Uganda, but the vain, perfectionist Zionists said no. Do you realize, if we'd had Uganda, there would have been no Holocaust?

I would like the world's secular Jews to have their own country outside of the Middle East, so that we can be a people like any other, like Italians, Norwegians, etc. No one expects Italians to be at war all the time. Why do Jews have to be at war all the time?

I understand this is offensive to many Jews, but why should it be? If we think these issues through together, without casting aspersions, it will actually ensure that more Jews will survive as Jews, as opposed to Americans and Europeans.

The competitiveness among Jews to see who can sacrifice the most and work the hardest to be an authentic Jew is counterproductive and annoys me as much as anti-semitism.

Armance said...

Once upon a time, the British offered us Uganda, but the vain, perfectionist Zionists said no. Do you realize, if we'd had Uganda, there would have been no Holocaust?

Yeap. If I an not wrong, there were a few choices, like Madagascar, Uganda, even South America.

But on the other hand, I don't understand: don't you consider the religious Jews to be your people and your kind? Wouldn't you live in the same country with them? Supposing that Israel was not at war - and taking into account what you say, that you want your own country as a Jew, like the Italians, etc. - wouldn't you share the same land with them? As far as I know, in Israel there are a lot of secular Jews, too. What is your objection against Israel as it is today - the fact that it is not as secular as you want or the fact that it is a dangerous country to live in?

latté island said...

Armance, it's so many reasons. A lot of it has to do with the way the Zionists set up Israel. They revived a difficult dead language and deliberately suppressed the real language of modern Jews, Yiddish. This was ethnic cleansing! Just one example of how Israel is founded on things that are foreign to European Jews.

Of course everyday life in Israel is probably similar to everyday life in California, not more dangerous. I work in Oakland--this is almost as bad as Sderot. I deal with crackheads instead of terrorists.

No, the real problem is that I'm American, and I want a Jewish state that is like America, Australia and Europe, not the Middle East, and not the deliberately far-fetched project of Zionist fanatics. I just now had the image of Israel as a health club I belong to but never go to. That's the best answer I can think of, but it's very real. I'm very Anglo, not the least bit middle-eastern, and the whole thing just isn't compatible, and this is true for many Diaspora Jews. And then, the fact that the world is arming the Arabs doesn't help.

As for religious Jews, sure they're my people and I'm concerned about them, but in real life, the Orthodox aren't all that easy to live with, and in my entire life, I've only met a few, and have never had an Orthodox friend, so if they didn't want to move to my imaginary secular Jewish state, that would be okay.

Armance said...

No, the real problem is that I'm American, and I want a Jewish state that is like America, Australia and Europe, not the Middle East, and not the deliberately far-fetched project of Zionist fanatics.

One more question: do you consider that in America you can protect your cultural and genetic distinctiveness, which you want to preserve?

latté island said...

Oh, and it's really about culture shock, I have more in common with Americans than I have with Israelis. I don't have kids, but I really can't imagine bringing up my kids as sabras. Even though I'm over 50 and kids aren't an issue, it's such a great thought experiment. If I were young and thinking about starting a family, I'd want my kids to be Americans but with a Jewish identity, and I don't know what that is, except for physical appearance and a slightly different take on European-American culture. Jews have lived in Europe for so long, this middle-eastern stuff is like dressing in drag, that's the problem.

latté island said...

One more question: do you consider that in America you can protect your cultural and genetic distinctiveness, which you want to preserve?

Yes, I think so. American culture lets us get away with it. But to be more clear, it's just an attitude. My actual track record is that most of my friends and boyfriends have been non-Jews. I actually don't hang out much with Jews, so my comments here shouldn't be taken to mean that I want to live in a shtetl. Keeping a Jewish identity isn't a lifestyle, it's more like having a secret drug habit, so people like me are actually real Americans, but when we run into another Jew it's like, we're on the same drug, but we don't have to say anything about it. This can go on forever in America, but it's a bit infantile and obviously this attitude is resented by others who know we're high on something and we're not sharing. (I'm at work now and have to go. Thanks for asking such good questions, it's important for people to know this stuff.)

Afonso Henriques said...

Joeblough,

"She wrote (more or less) that the difference between a nationalist and a patriot is that the nationalist says "my country right or wrong" but the patriot says "my country because it is right"."

I honestly do not care what she wrote, I care about what "is real and the truth".

"Nationalism" evolves mainly 5 aspects:
1) A people;
2) A Homeland, that is, a Patria (from the Latin Pater+ia (Father+land) which is the root of the English word Patriot);
3) A History;
4) A Culture;
5) A Spirituality;

Now let's see what a "Patriot" is. A Patriot, "Patriota", something like, "the one who loves/vallue the home land", from the Latin "Pater+ia" plus an English suffix (or any other language's suffix), in this case "ot".

In latin languages, there is a difference between the "Patria" (Pater+ia) and the "Patriota" (Pater+ia+ota).
The "Patria" is the Homeland;
The "Patriota" (Patriot, in English) is the one who loves/vallues the Homeland.

As you can see, a Patriot is someone who cares about his land. A small but important part of Nationalism. A Patriot does not have to be a Nationalist but a Nationalist has to be a Patriot.

----------------------------------

"the nationalist says "my country right or wrong" but the patriot says "my country because it is right"."

Actually, it is exactly the opposite. A good and learned Nationalist will only become a Nationalist when he sees that those five aspects I mentioned are "right" are a good in itself and must be protected at any cost. In fact, a good Nationalist only becomes a Nationalist after recognising vallue (a great vallue, I must tell you) and "rightness" in everyone of those five main elements, or at least in a majority of those elements.

The contrary is true for the Patriot. The Patriot only vallues the Homeland. And the homeland is subordinated to the people. Yes, it is important but is less important.

For instance, we can see that the Jews have survived without homeland, but the Jews could not have survived without Jews.

We see that in certain areas of the Americas, the Natives have disapeared whether completeley or have miscegenated. Well, the Jews have also miscegenated and I do not know what those two groups think about the result, but I honestly do not believe that we would gain a lot with miscegination as Europeans. And no, I am not talking of individuals, I am talking about Human groups.

In a sense, many Communists were great Patriots but none of them was a Nationalist. Sometimes Stalin is seen as a Nationalist because he saved "Mother Russia" from the Nazi armies. But we can see that he, contrary to Hitler, did not had the Russians in great esteem. In fact, he was a Georgian.

Also, immigration starts to be a great problem, when the immigrant group starts to become a patriot. That is, after few generations, the immigrants start to love/vallue the lands they were born to. No white South African can be a Nationalist (of this new black South Africa), he can however support the State (due to various reasons) and I do not have any doubts that those who stayed are Patriots.

--------------------------------

"One is unreasoning subservience to the collective for the sake of subservience to the collective, the other is deliberate loyalty born of earned respect and love."

Untrue. "Patriotism" is something easy, its origins are at the animal level instinct, it has nothing to due with loyalty or earened respect. We could even say that some stains of Patriotism are "unreasoning subservience to the" place one was borned to "for the sake of subservience to" that place.

Nationalism on the contrary, is an all different way. "Patriotism" is just a "good citizen" medal.

----------------------------------

You have proved you know nothing about Nationalism and Patriotism and that is a shame. Especially if you are European.

If you are an American, it is different once "patriotism" has been putted in front of "nationalism" not only due to multiculturalism! You founding fathers made it clear to use the word "patriotism" a lot instead of "Nationalisn", why? Well, because there was not an American Nation (yet?) and because their acts of "patriotism" were acts of betrayal to the "English Nationalism" they should have subverted to. They were (mainly) English people who took away part of England from the crown, due to patriotism and a lack of Nationalism, and please, I do not want to debate colonialism.

Afonso Henriques said...

"Afonso, this idea that Israel is "the" rather than "a" Jewish homeland is starting to be a problem for me."

Well, Latté Island. The Portuguse also immigrated in large numbers, there are 5 million of "us" who live outside Portugal and have frequent contacts with Portugal. However, regardless of the nearly two million Portuguese who live in France, France is not their land. Portugal is "the" Portuguese homeland as Israel "has became the" Jewish homeland.

Be aware that I am not calling for the mass depotation of Jews or Portuguese to both Portugal or Israel. But, Israel has now the capability of helping the Jews so that what happened during the War is most likely not to happen again. Of course, it is not ideal, but is better than not having a state at all. It is "the" becaust there is not "a" Nation besides it to defend Jewish interests worldwide.

"I would like the world's secular Jews to have their own country outside of the Middle East, so that we can be a people like any other"

It will not happen. No one wants to give you Home, especially a second Home. I think the Gypsies are first, but they are too stupid(?) to have it. If you need that so badly as a comunity, why not invade and make an ethnic cleansing (only by over-breading the locals) in the less densley populated carabeean state? I'd like to visit you there :) ...

Bela said...

The unique and extraordinary aspect of the Jewish dichotomy is that Jews are the only ones capable holding two, mutually exclusive and contradictory ideas without the slightest embarrassments or a blink of an eye.

1. The Communism was invented, spawned by Jews and the most famous purveyors of that ideology were then and are todays Jews. The central point of their effort is to call to arms for the destruction of the Capitalism and Western civilization.

2.The development - or "invention" of Capitalism also a Jewish influenced endeavor since without sound monetary, banking institution modern Capitalistic societies could not have emerged.

Here you can see two, mutually exclusive concept can easily flourish in the Jewish personality:

Jacob Schiff a wealthy Jewish New York City banker had no qualms to financially support Lenin's Bolshevik revolution.

So does G. Soros and many rich Jew today who take advantage of the Capitalist system and simultaneously financing its destruction with their proceed.

Thus no matter what is your ideological stand you will bump into a Jew on your path both as friend and enemy - all in one.

I believe this is one reason no one trust the Jews because they are on the both side of every subject: selling and buying every ideological paradigm of the day; they body is yearning for the goodies Capitalism can offer but deeply in their soul the majority, - of course not everybody - revert to the merciless hatred of the West and the pursuit of Utopian world order which stated in Hebrew:
Tikkun olam - Repair the world.

Bela said...

Latté island:

Yiddish is a distorted German dialect of Eastern the European ghetto, akin to gettho English today in Watts of L.A. Do you prefer Sambo's utterances to Shakespeare tongue?

you wrote:
"Afonso, this idea that Israel is "the" rather than "a" Jewish homeland is starting to be a problem for me."

There were many assimilated yet confused Jew in wartime Europe; many had a different and confused idea about themselves - like you have today - and very few came back.
Tony Judt thinks like you but here he feels protected so he is permitted to spout off hot air.
Wiesenthal could give you better ideas on this subject or other Holocaust survivor than my buddy Afonso.

Afonso Henriques said...

Bela,

"2.The development - or "invention" of Capitalism also a Jewish influenced endeavor since without sound monetary, banking institution modern Capitalistic societies could not have emerged."

No, Jews have not created Capitalism or banking. Look to the Knight Templars and other Christian European Religious Orders.

Jews went to banking because it was considered "tainted" and immoral for the members of nobility and because it was better to galvanize the people to hate the Jew aka the other than a member of the royalty.

Bela said...

afonso h:
You are spitting hairs: anyone who denies the primordial and leading role the Jews played in the transformation from feudalism to capitalism and pertaining money matters - which is the key - (read the news!) is lacking historical education.

Your statement:
"Look to the Knight Templars and other Christian European Religious Orders."

is off the mark for those people still belonged to the feudal social order and had nothing to do with the evolution of capitalism.

Nowadays there are many info available on this subject why don't you read a little more before you hit the keyboard.

latté island said...

Tony Judt thinks like you but here he feels protected so he is permitted to spout off hot air.

Bela, my goodness! Even though this thread is dead, I have to object to this slander. I just now looked up Tony Judt, and apparently he believes Israel should be dismantled. Did you read what I said? Please find where I said anything like that. I said I don't want to live in Israel because it doesn't meet my needs, but that it does meet the needs of many other Jews, and I support it. I think you owe me an apology, but I'm not holding my breath.

Oh, and my grandparents spoke Yiddish. I know it's not Shakespeare.

Bela said...

latté island:

You expressed an overwhelming rejection or aversion towards Israel no pun indeed - read your post again - just like (I mean LIKE!) many self-loathing Commie Jew (Chomsky): in an oblique way you say that you want to be somebody else than what you are and where you are..
Even the resurrection of the language of the Bible and Historical artifact is objectionable to you and embracing a German mongrel language looks attractive.

"From Wiki:
The yiddish language originated in the Ashkenazi culture that developed from about the 10th century in the Rhineland Germany"

Please tell us about your linguistic preferences for the Mizrahi (Mid. Eastern) and Sephardim (Spanish) Jews and the Jewish natives of historical Palestine.
I am interested to read your thought.

Unless you change your mitochondrial genome your geographical preferences are meaningless.

Lucille said...

Bela - do you know what the word "Ashkenazi" means? Do you imagine there's been no intermarriage between them and the surrounding population in centuries of living in Europe? Do you imagine you can know what Latte Island's "mitochondrial genome" is by a few posts on the internet?

Bela said...

lucille

I am Eastern European where the Jewish saga of modern times originated so please dont try to test my knowledge.
Given the fact the Jews lived in closed ghettos, - or shtetl - intermarriage was minimal.
Are you completely blind? Cant you recognize typical ethnic facial features on people?
Most of the time - but not always- we can guess each other's origin because it is engraved on our countenance.

What is you beef with my statement about the Yiddish language?
Ashkenazi (Eastern Europeans) spoke pidgin German what latté island prefers to Hebrew.
Since Sephardim are from Iberia they spoke no German so I was curious to know what language he/she would assign to Yemeni Jews instead of Hebrew.
How about Jews of Historical Palestine? German?

You are picking fight for nothing:
let's stay clear from that poster's emotional confusion and don't delve into it.
He/she got pissed because Israel is located in the M.E. instead of her liking - do you really want to get into this?

Lucille said...

Assume for the moment I am. Explain to me what Latte Island's "mitochondrial genome" or physical features are.

Bela said...

lucille:

If you want to learn more about this poster, please address all you questions to that person and leave me out.
OK?

That person expressed a string of animosity toward Israel/Jewish issues in her/his post above:

This an excerpt from latté island convoluted mindset:

"They revived a difficult dead language and deliberately suppressed the real language of modern Jews, Yiddish." This was ethnic cleansing!
Modern Jewish? 10.Century high German?- as modern REAL language?

Got problem with identity, physical appearance:

"I'd want my kids to be Americans but with a Jewish identity, and I don't know what that is, except for physical appearance..."

I support Israel 100% as the home of many Jews, but it doesn't actually meet my needs.

Read more of Jabotinsky to enlighten your mind!

Got problem with the geographical location:
"I want a Jewish state that is like America, Australia and Europe, not the Middle East"

Lucille said...

Yes, it was a modern language/dialect (I'm not going to argue the point of where one ends and the other begins), spoken by millions until the later half of the 20th century. It was killed, largely, by outside efforts - assimilation efforts in Israel, Russia, and America, and by the Nazis'.

Describing Hebrew as "hard" is subjective, to be sure, but for a native speaker of English, raised in the US which puts relatively less emphasis on learning second languages in the school system, it could well be perceived as hard.

Bela said...

lucille:

I cannot follow you logic:
If Yiddish is your favorite choice for the Jewish people then what do you suggest for the Mizrahi or Sepharim Jews?

Yiddish?

Were the non-Askenazi Jews deaf and mute outside E.Europe after Titus sacked Jerusalem for they spoke no Yiddish?

"assimilation efforts in IsraelRussia, and America, and by the Nazis'".

Do you mean that Israel forced to assimilate the Aliya making Jews to themselves in Israel?
Why? They didn't want to be Jewish anymore? Did they want to be Gothic Germans?

Americans, Russians, Nazis!!!!
What a bouquet of horse crap!

You are not making sense at all, please get off of me.

Are you OK?
Got you medication today?

Watchful said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watchful said...

Bela,

One shouldn't have to state the obvious, but here goes: anyone who knows anything about Jewish culture knows about the great emphasis they placed upon education. (I'm sure there are reasons for this). So Jews and people of Jewish heritage are well-represented within the ranks of academics and the well-educated classes. It's common knowledge that it is these classes who contribute the most to avant-garde movements, whether they be political, economic, social, or artistic. QED.

You write: "The unique and extraordinary aspect of the Jewish dichotomy is that Jews are the only ones capable holding two, mutually exclusive and contradictory ideas without the slightest embarrassments or a blink of an eye."

Clearly this state is factually incorrect. Apparently your Jew-hatred prompts you to make it. I apologize if I have this wrong, but I can see no other explanation for such an obviously fallacious statement. Clearly there are many, many Christians and people of Christian heritage who hold "mutually exclusive and contradictory ideas."

In the U.S. today, academics and the well-educated disproportionately support Obama. These supporters include many rich Americans who became rich in the capitalistic (or quasi-captitalisc) system that we have in our country. Most of these rich Obama supporters are Christian (or of Christian heritage) and support Obama despite the fact that Obama is a man of the hard left who prefers income redistribution and who has made no secret of (some of) his economic plans. I personally know a number of these people. Their thinking is illogical (as is yours). Clearly, they too are capable of entertaining contradictory and mutually exclusisve ideas. I know this for a fact because I live in an Obama-supporting area and I know how these people think. And when engaged in conversation, they contradict themselves continually--often with mutually exclusive ideas.

Many, many other examples could be cited. It is unfortunate that your apparent Jew-hatred sends you around the bend. (It's immaterial whether or not you have a Jewish ancestor--unless this puts you into the category of "self-hating Jew."

Bela said...

watchful,

you said:

"In the U.S. today, academics and the well-educated disproportionately support Obama."

Ever since disciples of H. Marcuse took over the Universities they became the hotbed of hardcore, radical Antisemitic, Marxist ideas of which you must be well aware but prefer to ignore. You see more danger in my emotionless, factual statement than the Harvard educated elite adulation with Ahmadin. or the Irvin Ca. Campus Jihadist rage against the Jews.
Those are your beloved "intellctuels" - dit les Francais.
This is common knowledge so what is you point?
Noel Ignatiev a famous Univ. professor (well deducted and Jewish!)wants to abolish the white race, - these guys are for Obama, so according to you, half of the nation is illiterate because doesn't wants the mulatto Messiah.

Here is today Israel's Haaretz (hard left) paper bragging the Jewish tribal (they use that word) support for Obama:

"Members of the tribe / 36 Jews who have shaped the 2008 U.S. election By Bradley Burston and J.J. Goldberg
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1029302.html

Jews have helped to shape the campaigns. Thirty-six of them are mentioned below. This list is by no means all-inclusive, and, for considerations of space, many Jews who have played active parts in the campaigns do not appear - among them Obama surrogate U.S. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, and Obama advisor and ex-California congressman Mel Levine."

I may add Soros, Sandlers who brought down WaMu, Pritzker of Hyatt, P. Lewis of Progressive etc. rich capitalists all Jewish financing hard left Communists.

Care to present similar, non Jewish individuals acting like Soros?
Please name a few.
Very few gentile - who are holding contradictory, mutually exclusive ideas like those in your neighborhood - having the same influence, power, money, connections than those listed by Haaretz.

You appear to be a typical leftist: anybody who is against the Bolshevik Jews is Jew-hater.

You are off the mark:
Read Caroline B. Glick, Dennis Prager and the Jewish World Review, Arutz Sheva and for a while put aside the N.Y. Times leftist propaganda trash.
There are Jewish Republicans as well, ready to be sent to your reeducation camps.

Bela said...

watchful;

Did you see on youtube those little children singing Hail Obama! Hail Obama!
It's moving experience akin to Hitler Jugend or the Pioneers of Stalin's Komsomol.
I wager it warmed your heart for those people are very educated some are "academic!- ah!"; please check them out because they could be removed at any moment.

here is the link:

BARACK OBAMA KIDS AND HITLER YOUTH SING FOR THEIR LEADER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM
__________________________________________

This the original Jewel, do not miss it out:
Sing for Change Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFLr8XI4XS0&watch_response

Queen said...

Always with the Jews, give it a rest already, people! Baron: I know the area of California that latte island lives in. It is a picture perfect slice of Americana, a living movie set straight out of Frank Capra. It breaks my heart to hear that it is being over-run by Third Worlders. When are we going to stay somewhere and fight? We can't continue to run away. We give up beautiful slices of our history to barbarians who had nothing to do with building them, and escape to tacky suburbs full of ticky-tacky boxes that all look the same. You've probably never seen those beautiful Craftsman bungalows in Alameda, with their neat square lawns, all different, all unique, built long before tract houses. Cede them to the Third Worlders? It's a crime.

Lucille said...

I never said it's my favorite choice. It's no concern of mine what language Israel, or Latte's hypothetical secular Jewish state, uses.

Do you mean that Israel forced to assimilate the Aliya making Jews to themselves in Israel?

Yes. New arrivals were taught Hebrew and only Hebrew. Yiddish was discouraged.

Americans, Russians, Nazis!!!!
What a bouquet of horse crap!


Not at all.

Were the non-Askenazi Jews deaf and mute outside E.Europe after Titus sacked Jerusalem for they spoke no Yiddish?

Huh? I don't get your ramblings.

Got you medication today?

I might as well ask the same of you. You seem to be getting bent out of shape.