Dave says, in part,
“But my concern is with white bearing and virility.
For example, 200 years ago, despite their defeats, the Scotts still had their “bearing” as a people. At the time of our Revolution, the world was full of Scotsmen who breathed only for the chance to kill an Englishman. They were “Scotts” true.
Look at what pathetic specimens of humanity the Scotts are today. The process of industrialization and English welfare utterly crushed them.
Now everything about them is phony. Their pride is phony. Their nationhood is phony. Their manhood is phony. They are utterly phony in all facets of their existence. It’s horrible. ”
ME:
I am still convinced that the Boere in South Africa are on their knees because of what I call The Sauron Problem. Sauron put most of his power in the One Ring,and when that Ring was destroyed, he fell. The Boere invested their nationhood in the reformed Church and the National Party. When those institutions betrayed Afrikaaner nationhood 51% of Afrikaaners vote Ja! to end the old South Africa.
I saw what happened to Southerners when their nationhood was invested in the Democratic Party. In 1948 the Deep South pulled out of the Democratic Party. But Georgia and the rest of the Solid South remained with the hard-left Democrats. I have seen first-hand how hard it is to get people to pry their loyalties away from an institution like the Reformed Church or the National Party or the Democrats.
The same thing happened to the Southern Nation in the Civil War. Too many Southerners like Andrew Johnson and Sam Houston and Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson had invested their loyalty in the United States. Our mountain and borfder regions sent more troops to the Union than to the Confederacy. If we had seceded at any earlier time, we wold be an independent nation, but too many Southerners were absolutely loyal to the New England commercial empire that was called The United States.
We have invested our nationhood in theocracy, like the Southern nationalist movement, which is basically just a Presbyterian theocracy. Jerry Falwell is about hte only national spokesman who says that if there were a war today between the North and the South, he would take the Southern side. But Jerry Falwell’s only REAL loyalty is to his Book. And in HIS Book the only nation he is loyal to is Israel.
But Falwell is not alone in this. People simply will not say, “I am loyal to my race. By definition, a melting pot is nothing specific. Anyone who is deeply loyal to nothing specific is in desperate need of psychiatric care.”
Everybody wants to be objective. The funniest example of this is Ayn Rand.
You see, all the word “freedom” means is that you do what YOU want to do. But this is not glorious enough for a wordist society. So we have to have Freedom, something that is a higher calling than freedom. So Ayn Rand called her philosophy, which is doing what YOU want to do, Objectivism. You can’t follow your subjective preferences without someone telling you how objective they are.
The fact that nobody but me laughs at this shows how mired we are in Wordism.
We keep looking anxiously at whether the Powers That Be are responding to the grassroots rebellion. We measure our success, not in expressing our views, but in whether CBS News is reporting on us. Is George Will mentioning us. Is Pat Buchanan mentioning us?
The Soviet Empire had ALREADY gone down before the media noticed it. They were laughing at cartoons about Ukrainian and Estonian secession that showed those countries in Confederate uniforms.
William Rusher was hit by this when he finally came over to my side and strated demanding a Reagan coalition with the South and “the Wallace Vote,” which the media now calls the deciding “Reagan Democrats.” It has been simply blanked out of history that this idea was attacked by everybody, including National Review, of which Rusher was publisher.
The media has forgotten those Confederate cartoons. Since 1980 everybody on National Review has forgotten their cover article attacking me personally. But in his book on the Reagan “Revolution” called “The Rise of the Right,” Rusher said, “The staff of National Review doesn’t believe anything that isn’t in the New York Times.”
Stormfronters are always talking about how a revolution is well financed.
It isn’t. When the Democrats really ruled America in the 1930s the money was Republican. In 1932 German cartoons showed Hitler sweating and trying to pay off the NSDAP debt. Money doesn ot LEAD power, money FOLLOWS power.
Afrikaaners invested their nationahood in institutions, their church and their National Party, just as Southerners invested their nationhood in the Democratic Party. But once you give your loyalty to an institution, once you give your CREDIBILITY to an institution, that institution begins to follow it OWN goals.
The traitor head of the National Party got his Nobel Prize. The traitor Reformed Church got its recognition from the World Council of Churches. Southern Democrats did not have to pay the price for disloyalty to the National Party.
Media attention, like money, FOLLOWS revolution.
This is so obvious no one notices the logic of it. A REAL revolution depends on the sergeants in the field, and nobody will notice them until they have ALREADY won. This is why the constant tradingof headlines on Stormfront is so damned ridiculous.
#1 by DS1 on 10/07/2006 - 1:51 pm
NOT SPAM
Interesting to note that that the European Jews have fallen into a full blown “Wordist Decline”. All these different kinds of Judaism conflicting and fighting with each other. They are a mere image of their former self. The Aryan feedback loop of “is life worth living” and “what is true” is always corrupted by wordism. The Jews have been blinded by Wordism. The Irony is that they are the biggest Wordist in the history of Wordism.
Wordism is Wordism is Wordism and it does not matter what the WORD is.
Bw, Wordism is your magna opus. I am no Frodo Baggins. But when given the opportunity I will throw that ring into the fire.
#2 by Pain on 10/07/2006 - 3:25 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
It is a little known fact that the Scots conquered part of England and still hold this land today. Here are some notes that interest me.
My grandmother came from descendants of a Northern Irish family and since they were Protestant, they might be called Scotch-Irish.
The original Scotch-Irish came at the behest of the King of England to Northern Ireland from southeast Scotland and the far north of England. Earlier, this area had been the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria (or more specifically Bernicia). Starting around 330, what is now southern Scotland was controlled by the English, including the southwest, Strathclyde. Northumbrians spoke English, but in Strathclyde one spoke a dialect of Welsh. Sometime after the Irish nobles came to the west coast of Scotland, the English gave them control over their client state Strathclyde. They became known as Scots. “Scot” meant tribute and there was still no independent Scotland.
Eventually these noble Scots won control over the Picts of the Highlands, an area that the English never controlled. The Picts were a Caucasian people that had come to the British Isles before the Celtic Irish and Welsh. The Norse came later and settled the coasts and parts of the Highlands. Eventually the Scottish nobles were able to rule their own Kingdom of Scotland, although it was still formally a tributary of England.
Sir William Wallace changed all this by becoming a martyr. Shortly after his death the Kingdom of Scotland became completely independent for the first time in its history. The Scots also conquered parts of England. All of the borderlands, southeast Scotland from the English border to Edinburgh were once part of England. This is why most all the names of the towns have English names, and very many of the people have English surnames. The people were integrated into the clan system, so many of them have “Mac” in their surnames, too. The special language of Scotland, Scots, is the Northumbrian dialect of English. It is actually older than the English spoken in the south.
The English don’t like to be reminded of the Scottish conquest of the borderlands. But Wallace’s heroism made that possible.
However, this explains why men such as Thomas Carlyle, who was born and raised in an old family of southern Scotland called themselves English. This partially explains why those of out Founding Fathers who were Scotch-Irish complained of the British denying them their rights as Englishmen. (Revolutionary War speeches and pamphlets talk about the British redcoats and the ethnic “bonds of consanguinity” between England and North America.) This also explains why the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of Northern Ireland do not at all get along with the Catholic Irish. The Scotch Irish are descendants of Anglo-Saxon Northumbrians and the Catholic Irish are descendants mainly of “Celtic” Irish. Both groups are well aware of this. Catholic Irish Republicans like to say that the Scotch-Irish are foreigners and do not belong in Ireland, and the Scotch-Irish emphasize that they have remained loyal to the English kings.
As for me, this probably explain why grandmother’s forefathers came over the Atlantic. Her family name is Irish Catholic and from Northern Ireland. However they were Protestant. I imagine a Catholic man must have married a Protestant woman and they found that they had to leave.
#3 by Elizabeth on 10/07/2006 - 5:55 pm
There were Catholics who changed religion when they found that free land was available in some of the Southern colonies, such as South Carolina — to Protestants.
The Catholic church didn’t get organized in the English-speaking South until about 1860, and then didn’t get terrifically established outside the big port cities, like Savannah, Baltimore and Charleston, and interior distribution centers, like Nashville, Birmingham and Richmond.
#4 by Shari on 10/07/2006 - 7:12 pm
Not Spam
This comment by Pain is so interesting to me. It might be some very good clues to the orgin of my husband’s surname as it would make some sense of information my mother-in-law showed me. Hmmm? Does any other race have so much interest in history? I can’t think that they do.
#5 by Tim on 10/07/2006 - 11:19 pm
The name “Scot” comes from Scota. Queen Scota named Scotland. Not alot is known about here other than she was married into the Milesian dynasty of Northern Spain and then came to Ireland. I will not go into the differences between Scotch-Irish and Irish. You did a ‘modern’ overview. There is very little genetic difference between the two. Ancient Scots and Irish nobility intermarried long-long ago. They share a common history. There has been much written about the Ulster Scots/Scotch Irish. But to be frank, they are simply all cousins. The vast majority of them (including the Scots and Brittains) descend from just a handful of mothers and fathers. The additions of Anlgle and Saxon into the UK gene pool was alot less than originally thought. Look up all the recent studies of greater UK and Ireland genetic research.
In regards to ScotsIrish, most of them are simply Irish. The vast majority of the US Irish or Scots Irish (or Scots) have changed religions. Many of the Scots Irish in the South were simply Irish Catholic that moved to the South to get cheaper land and did not care enough about Catholicism to stick with it.
#6 by kane on 10/08/2006 - 2:56 am
Not Spam
“I saw what happened to Southerners when their nationhood was invested in the Democratic Party. In 1948 the Deep South pulled out of the Democratic Party. But Georgia and the rest of the Solid South remained with the hard-left Democrats. I have seen first-hand how hard it is to get people to pry their loyalties away from an institution like the Reformed Church or the National Party or the Democrats.”
It is really pathetic, and this applies to northerners also, how people will just follow a brandname instead of actually analyzing the product. It’s so pathetic how people will just vote for the party their parents voted for without looking at it, go to the church their parents went to without actually agreeing with it, how people can be tricked so easily. Unfortantely, the majority of people are lemmings, with a few questioners, which probably include people who post here.
#7 by Mark on 10/08/2006 - 9:30 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Bob, have the white africans pulled together since the black regime is intent on killing them off?
I’m especially interested in your answer to this as this as their past failures are America’s future failures and I’m wondering if modern day whites have enough gumption to stand up for themselves in a cohesive form as you have predicted. Is there any serious resistance going on in south africa?
#8 by Al Parker on 10/08/2006 - 1:27 pm
NOT SPAM
Bob, can you link the WOL logo to your main blog page so we can get back there easily?
#9 by Pain on 10/09/2006 - 3:52 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
I see, the “Sauron Problem” = keeping all your eggs in one basket.
Hitler said it was the German Army that ruined Germany in 1945. They had put him in power and the Germans put too much faith in them, but they were loyal more to themselves than to Germany, and so proved unreliable when the going became rough.
#10 by Pain on 10/11/2006 - 11:39 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Thanks Shari!
There is a beauty in writing briefly without footnotes and bibliography. The problem is that it hides the massive investment of hard work and solid research that went into it. Obviously, since I am part Irish I would love to believe that Irishmen control Hollywood or High Finance in New York City or saved Western civilization from Muslim hordes or perhaps that the South is really a race of lapsed Celtic Catholics who converted to Presbyterianism — all things I have heard, but none of which is actually true.
This is why some people write complicated prose: they found out that some people think them intelligent if they are hard to understand. That might be what Bob means when Bob complains about wisdom — they cloak nonsense with magic words. (I don’t know, sometimes Bob is hard to understand 😉 .) But Bob has mastered the art of writing simply and briefly and he knows its beauty.
Anyway, I love all you ladies here. We rough and tumble men need the different angles y’all bring.