ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 02, 2019

Darkstream: The rise of fake nationalism


If you're wondering why I selected Dennis Prager as the example of a Fake Nationalist in tonight's Darkstream, just read this paragraph from a column on "nationalism" he wrote in 2015.
In the United States, however, a national American identity has always been a major part of what it means to be an American. The three pillars of Americanism, constituting what I have called the "American Trinity" — are found on every American coin and banknote: "Liberty," "In God We Trust" and "e pluribus unum." The latter is Latin for "out of many, one." Because America has always been a nation of immigrants, it has no ethnic identity. Therefore, unlike almost all other nations, America could not depend on an ethnic identity to keep its people together. In fact, if all Americans retained their ethnic identities, America would simply splinter. So a non-ethnic American national identity had to be forged and preserved.
Count the lies. America was not, is not, and could never be "a nation of immigrants". The claim is as false for Americans as it is for the English, the Germans, or the Swedes. The British colonists did not emigrate to the American Indian nations of the New World. One might as reasonably declare that "Palestine is a nation of immigrants" and insist on referring to Israelis as "Jewish-Palestinians".

Fake Nationalists rely on the same sort of wizardry that the New Atheists and Jordan Peterson utilize. They substitute "nation" for "state", then declare that if you have the right piece of paper, that somehow eliminates every tie of blood, birth, and DNA that connects you to your actual nation. Of course, a Fake American is no more a genuine American than a fake woman is a genuine woman, no matter what the state-granted paperwork says.

The state does not define reality. The state does not define sex. The state does not define gravity. And the state does not define nationhood. It may defy these realities, but it will not do so forever.

Labels: ,

87 Comments:

Blogger John rockwell January 02, 2019 8:28 PM  

WWI where through the use of nationalism which ended up a very destructive war. As well as the conflation of nationalism with Nazi's that results from WWII.

Has successfully tainted the brand of nationalism.

Blogger VFM #7191 January 02, 2019 8:36 PM  

The latter is Latin for "out of many, one." Because America has always been a nation of immigrants, it has no ethnic identity.

If this were coming from some random nobody cuckservative, I'd just assume he was historically illiterate. But coming Prager, I'm going to assume he's just a bald faced liar.

Blogger Werekoala1066 January 02, 2019 8:43 PM  

Out of many STATES one NATION, I believe would be the correct intention of the phrase.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 02, 2019 8:52 PM  

It is my view that "America is a Nation of Immigrants," is at it's deepest corps an anti-rural meme.


It's interesting note how fast the "Nation of Immigrants" meme took off.

It was started pretty much overnight in 1971. Up until 1970, America was still referred to by everyone as "a Nation of Pioneers".

And in 1971 that was all banished by Freddy Silverman at CBS.
"It was the year CBS canceled everything with a tree—including Lassie".

Every rural themed show, whether it's ratings were good or not was canceled in favor of something urban themed at CBS.

1971 seems to be the year that city dwellers cut all their ties to the "country cousins" that got left down on the farm twenty years before.

Blogger VD January 02, 2019 8:57 PM  

It was started pretty much overnight in 1971. Up until 1970, America was still referred to by everyone as "a Nation of Pioneers".

No, it happened in 1915. That's when "nation of immigrants" passed up "nation of pioneers". But "nation of immigrants" didn't really take off until 1965.

Owen is right. It's all wizardry.

Blogger M Cephas January 02, 2019 8:58 PM  

Though I agree that the Nation is more than the state, I don't know if it's comparable to biological sex in the case of America.

The USA was created in 1776 and the founders chose what constituted being an American and created whatever naturalization act for future Americans. Wasn't this somewhat arbitrary not biology? If it was a matter of biology, how would Andrew Jackson, born to Irish parents, be an American, as opposed to Irish?

If he couldn't choose his Nation any more than his gender.

Wasn't America itself, from the beginning, a type of globalism, or similar to the EU?

I'm not American, so forgive me if my questions are uninformed.

Blogger John Best January 02, 2019 8:58 PM  

Are the Loyalists in Northern Ireland nationalists?

This is what the globalist do. They distort the truth. So they call the Irish Republicans nationalists, when they are really Irish imperialists, to make the Loyalists seem like they are trying to protect the British state. The truth is they are trying protect their people from being forced into the Irish state and driven out of Eire.

It looks like this what the globalists will try to do in the US. Make it seem like they are trying protect the American nation, while the true nationalists are trying to protect the state. This is why the white-nationalist racial imperialists are so useful to the forces of evil. So they talk about them all the time in the media. Its the same in Britain, they bang on about the alt-right or extremist right, who aren't nationalists, while they never talk about the Ulster-Loyalists or people who believe the same as they do, because they are true nationalists.

Also if people want to get into what British is, that is simple. British is those peoples from the realm of Albion. The kingdoms of England, Scotland and Wales. The counties of England and Wales, and the shires of Scotland. Within Britain the nations are actually the counties and shires, which the state and globalists are trying to destroy.

Blogger John Best January 02, 2019 9:12 PM  

@6 Andrew Jackson, given his name was likely Anglo-Irish or Ulster-Scottish, not Celtic Irish. There are three ethnic groups in Ireland, the Celtic Irish or native Irish. Then the Anglo-Irish and Ulster-Scottish settlers or planters as the Celtic Irish call them. So Andrew Jackson was ethnically British, not Irish. My mother is Anglo-Irish, so I am British and not Irish at all, even though my mother was born in Ireland.

Blogger tz January 02, 2019 9:21 PM  

Transgender, Transnational, no difference.

Prager though is a true and real nationalist, at least when it comes to Israel and the Jews.

Blogger Evan Hartshorn January 02, 2019 9:28 PM  

Ben Franklin was fretting that the Pennsylvania Dutch could not be Real Americans from the beginning. America adopted the French Canadians of Vermont from the beginning.

The struggle for primacy between nation and state has been with us from the founding. The sin of the civic nationalists is less the side they chose and more the lie they perpetuate that the struggle has never existed. Which lie increases the pressure and obstructs even the mere possibility of finding solutions.

Blogger D. January 02, 2019 9:55 PM  

test

Blogger D. January 02, 2019 10:07 PM  

>But "nation of immigrants" didn't really take off until 1965.<

Yea white European immigrants. (((They))) left off the white European part.

Blogger Kat January 02, 2019 10:08 PM  

It is self evident that America was largely British from the beginning (they rebelled against England and not some European conglomerate), but I have wondered the best rhetoric to use against those who point out the Dutch/Germans/etc who were present in the original states from the beginning. Any suggestions?

Blogger tz January 02, 2019 10:13 PM  

AmconMag joins in fake nationalism

I'm not bothered that I'm not American 1.0, but then the quesiton is more what we need to found and form NOW.

TK might want his CivNat idea of the preamble and posterity to be true but it simply isn't.

I might even have my old SR-52 calculator and PC-100 printer, but I can't easily graft it into anything, even an arduino or raspi.

You can't put new wine into old wineskins.

Maybe I could do something to use the old PC 100 thermal printer, but I would have to understand what it was based on the tech at its time.

Similarly I have to accept and figure out how to apply the Constitution - without pretending, altering or having illusions as to what it said - to the current world.

Trust must start with reality. It is often unpleasant or inconvenient. But it is often just context. But things can only be understood in context.

Only then can you go beyond.

Blogger Jill January 02, 2019 10:16 PM  

The funny thing about the Brits around the time of the American Revolution is they fought against unfettered free trade inside Britain. This extended to people: for the most part, their own peasants made up the slave class in Britain, while they sent Africans to the colonies. And the Irish, of course. And criminals. Yes, the US colonies were British and the government formed here was British. But sending the "undesirables" here changed the culture of the people. And then they had to go and do crazy stuff like fight a war with Mexico, which is why my state is largely composed of people who were originally Spaniards or Mexicans, depending on who was in power at the time. I agree with your definition of nation but find that the Brits didn't care much to preserve that here. Eventually, they decided not to preserve that in Britain either. Consequences of colonialism, a globalist design, a lack of future perspective? I don't know. I wasn't able to listen to your entire Darkstream and perhaps should go do that before asking you aggravating questions you've already addressed.

Blogger Tank January 02, 2019 10:31 PM  

Prager is good on so many issues, including being a big and consistent Trump supporter, but this is his giant blind spot and he is dishonest or ignorant about it to boot.

Blogger DanOConnell January 02, 2019 10:44 PM  

John Best, it was Ulster Scots and Anglo-Irish Protestants like Henry Grattan, Wolf Tone, Henry Joy McCracken, Napper Tandy, William Drennan, Robert Emmet, Thomas Davis, John Mitchel, Isaac Butt, Charles Stuart Parnell, Bulmer Hobson, and even Patrick Henry Pearse was the son of an Englishman, who founded the Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism you hate so much. We Irish Papists were waiting for the Prince to come across the water and restore the Stuarts to power in the Three Kingdoms before you Proddie heretics poisoned our minds with your Whiggish notions of Liberalism and Republicanism.

Blogger matveidaniilovich January 02, 2019 10:49 PM  

Vox.... What about ME?

Blogger DanOConnell January 02, 2019 10:52 PM  

@John Best, Wales is a principality not a kingdom, the Three Kingdoms are England, Scotland and Ireland, Northern Ireland is a mere province, only six of nine counties of the traditional province of Ulster.

Blogger Thad tuiol January 02, 2019 11:04 PM  

Squabbling petty nationalists, like the two Irishmen above me, play right into the Left's narrative of the need for a post-nationalist world. Seriously guys, knock it off.

Blogger DanOConnell January 02, 2019 11:11 PM  

John Best, globalism is destroying Ireland as much as Britain, only the Irish could have a centre right Christian Democratic conservative government of Fine Gael led by a Hindu homosexual sodomite that brings in same sex marriage, transgender birth certificates, abortion on the demand, compulsory organ donation, citizenship ceremonies for hundreds of thousands of Third Worlders from Paraguay to the Philippines, and plans to bring in one million more immigrants from the Islamic and Third World.

Blogger Watcher of the skies January 02, 2019 11:48 PM  

this breaks my heart... Vox is right. You can tell he's got it right
by the time you read the second sentence in this post. What the F happened to this country? Why did we CUCK so much?
It's like someone is hell bent on DESTROYING this nation
with a SPECIFIC purpose...
I look at all our politicians and really ask WHY after all TRUMP said
and done, THEY DONT GET IT.
Think about it...
Ron Paul calling Trump a conservative...
only a few of us saw that when Trump came down that escalator...

Blogger Rhys January 03, 2019 12:03 AM  

All the people arguing about who America "belongs" to are again mistaking nationhood for citizenship. The concept of all nations deserving a home is not related to the question of how to divide the land. Sometimes nations can agree which lands belong to who. Often times, they have to fight each other to establish boundaries. Regardless which method they use, the distribution of land isn't capable of invalidating the philosophical concept of nations and their right to a motherland.

Blogger John Williams January 03, 2019 12:03 AM  

In 1776, the Nation was 150 years old. 13 colonies from Great Britain (and a large German population in PA that Ben Franklin was worried Wouldn’t assimilate) all with 1 language, 1 culture, and 1 religion. It was the sense of nation, that they’d been self governing for all this time that gave them the sense of nation they exercised in 1776 after years of trying to work with the King failed.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf January 03, 2019 12:36 AM  

RE: "The three pillars of Americanism, constituting what I have called the "American Trinity" — are found on every American coin and banknote: "Liberty," "In God We Trust" and "e pluribus unum."

What on God's green Earth do these three 'pillars', found on the Federal "Reserve" fiat currency promissory notes, have to do with the founding principles of the United States of America?

One could argue, they're anti-American - given they're being used as propaganda in support of the 16A. An addition that would have seen a large number of the Framers kill you over attempting to insert.

Perhaps I'm over reacting, but this scoundrel-level Wizardry turns my stomach.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf January 03, 2019 12:40 AM  

As an aside, following my visit to Xi'an China, I suggest this as a place to visit. Unlike Nanjing and Shanghai (and etc...) there seems to be an attempt to retain some semblance of traditional Chinese culture there. In that sense, it reminded me a little Kyoto. Not to mention, the food was nice and old city was clean and well maintained (actually quite nice). The new city is extremely modern. I don't think you'll find a city in the USA this modern. Ironically.

Blogger S. Thermite January 03, 2019 1:00 AM  

Back when Vox Day was "only" weaponizing the written word but Dennis Prager and "Prager U" were doing video and selling recorded lectures...I recall paying a nominal fee to download a lecture Prager did on the Genesis creation story. It was pretty good, but man has my respect for him fallen since then...

Would be amusing to see Prager try to explain how the of "Out of many, One" is virtually 180 degrees different between Israel and the USA. Israel's strength is a common culture/identity/religion fleeing from many nations to form one...and I guess in his mind the USA's strength is our brainwashed acceptance of every culture so long as it dilutes our identity enough to accept and not be a threat to rich Jews like him who don't want to move to Israel...

Blogger Gail January 03, 2019 1:06 AM  

I tried to use your email link and got the following error when trying to send the email: "
Microsoft Outlook does not recognize 'voxday-at-gmail-dot-com"."

Do you have a better email address? You can reply to gspurlock@gmail.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Gail Spurlock

Blogger mike January 03, 2019 1:21 AM  

America wasn't settled by Englismen only it was settled by immigrants from many countries. It had however, ethnicity - white Christian Europeans. There's some truth to us being a nation of immigrants but no truth to america not having ethnic identity. His E plubrius unum interpretation is is garbage.

Can u make a vid on how new money is created by fed/treasury vs no debt fiat currency. I believe fed makes all of us slaves we need to pay 2 taxes, a tax to government plus tax on money (interest) bc money are created with debt. This is all done under the guise of controlling economy but it never made anything better and can b simply improved with fiat currency ( Lincoln's greenbacks). Thoughts. .?

Blogger DonReynolds January 03, 2019 1:30 AM  

Totally agree.
From 1619 at Jamestown to the end of the American Revolution in 1783, 164 years, there were no immigrants of any consequence. The 13 colonies were all part of British America, which was all the same country under the British Crown....and the Crown guaranteed every subject that their status would not be changed by going to or from the colonies and the UK. The same money, Church, laws, customs, traditions, language, and style of life.

Blogger mike January 03, 2019 1:35 AM  

Nation and state are separate concepts but in reality state is the expression of nation. The only way a nation can trully exist is via state. When poland was under 3state occupation, for more than hundred years it existed as a nation in the minds of its people but had no state and therefore was just a concept, a dream, without any say in anything that happened to its people. State is a true expression of nation and the problem becomes when its no more an expression of a nation rather expression of multiple tribes. That is the problem.

Blogger DonReynolds January 03, 2019 2:14 AM  

Kat wrote:It is self evident that America was largely British from the beginning (they rebelled against England and not some European conglomerate), but I have wondered the best rhetoric to use against those who point out the Dutch/Germans/etc who were present in the original states from the beginning. Any suggestions?

I have found the historical truth works pretty well.

The British were not the only Europeans to have colonies in North America.

Several countries had their own colonies, which were later part of the United States.

The French had New France (Quebec), which extended through much of what we know as the mid-west and the Great Lakes regions and down the Mississippi River. Much of it was bought by Jefferson as the Louisiana Purchase. Much of the rest had been lost to the British during the French and Indian War.

The Dutch had a large colony that extended from New Amsterdam (New York City) and either side of the Hudson River. That colony switched hands more than once between Dutch and British control due to frequent wars with the Dutch. The British managed to keep it.

The Swedes had a minor colony in the vicinity of what is now Delaware and Pennsylvania, which were taken over by the British and flooded with British colonists.

Spain had all of Florida, up to about a third of what is now Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and west along the Gulf coast of what was later Texas to what was later Mexico, which did not exist as a country until about 1820.

There was no German nation until Bismark created it in 1870. In the meantime, there was the Kingdom of Prussia and more than a score of principalities and dutchys. Austria was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Italy also became a nation about the same time. There was no Norway, it was part of Sweden. Denmark also had colonies in the New World. The US bought the last one and renamed it the US Virgin Islands.

Blogger APL January 03, 2019 2:20 AM  

"The British colonists did not emigrate to the American Indian nations of the New World."

Just suppose for a moment the assertion was true. Its a ringing indictment of uncontrolled immigration and a case in point of what happens if you allow masses of foreigners into your country.

Blogger S. Thermite January 03, 2019 3:35 AM  

"I tried to use your email link and got the following error when trying to send the email: "
Microsoft Outlook does not recognize 'voxday-at-gmail-dot-com"."


2/10. Troll harder.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore January 03, 2019 3:39 AM  

The definition of the term "posterity" is clear, it means bloodlines and DNA. My bloodlines were here since the founding of America. When Preamble was written, the Founders did not mean my ancestry in any way, shape, or form (we were the "help"..... LMBAO). It's not a big deal.

There is some British in my bloodlines but I have no concept of that lineage, and I know nothing about that part of my family (I believe that member of my family was disowned but that's another story).

At any rate, the intent of the Framers is quite clear. America is a nation formed by people from the British isles who settled the east coast of what we now know as the United States. I'm happy to be in this portion of Anglo-America and that does not mean I think slavery is a good thing. However, I'd rather be here than, say, Senegal.

Blogger Dire Badger January 03, 2019 3:47 AM  

It ticks me off the way they rewrite what "E Pluribus Unum" means.

Originally it stood for many states combining together for common defense whilst still retaining their original identity. I am sick to death of Liberals wearing conservative skinsuits

Blogger Dire Badger January 03, 2019 3:57 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey January 03, 2019 3:59 AM  

E pluribus unum was always a confusing and bastardized thing, from the beginning. I was taught early on that it was taken from a passage from Vergil, describing a salad not a melting pot.

But it's not, really. It's a stretch to assign it to anybody or any great passage from Latin with any authority.

It's a trademark 'Bad Latin' quote that was in fact endemic in times such as the 18th century. And it's embarrassing pseudo-intellectual stuff even for those times.

Blogger Dirk Manly January 03, 2019 4:07 AM  

@1

"WWI where through the use of nationalism which ended up a very destructive war. As well as the conflation of nationalism with Nazi's that results from WWII."

Bulllllllllllllshit.

I don't know who taught you that lie, but it's a popular myth.

NONE of the nations involved in WW1 were acting in their national interest except for the Austrian Empire, which was acting in self-defense from the irrational invasion by Russian troops, who were sent there out of sentimentality for "our little brothers" (as the Russians call them), the Serbs.

EVERY OTHER COUNTRY FIGHTING IN WW1 was drawn in due to alliances (INTERNATIONALISM), *****NOT***** Nationalism.

Quit repeating that damned lie. It doesn't help things, and it supports the globalists, by blaming you and me, and deflecting the blame from the real cause and the ideology behind it.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey January 03, 2019 4:11 AM  

According to Infogalactic, at the time of the American Revolution the phrase 'e pluribus unum' was most famous as a slogan for a popular men's magazine. It's as if Hugh Hefner slipped in a phrase on our coins.

It didn't mean much even then, and nobody really knew what it really meant, really. I betcha wizards of the day sold them on the Vergilian origin of it (which is shaky). It just cool, man.

And I guarantee you, all the Freemasons loved it.

Or it wouldn't be there.

Blogger Dirk Manly January 03, 2019 4:15 AM  

@6

"I'm not American, so forgive me if my questions are uninformed."

The Irish came here in droves during the Potato Famine 155 years ago, and they still haven't come close to understanding the basic principles of this country. They still think that the primary reason to have a government is to own the police force, so that you can protect your own gangs, so that they can freely roam about and cause problems for the rest of the city.

Blogger John Best January 03, 2019 4:27 AM  

@17. I am a High Tory Jacobite myself. Puritanism is evil. The Irish nation rightly opposed it, but you were led astray by globalist false brethren to create Irish Republicanism which has distorted and ruined Ireland. So I support Irish nationalism, I hate all forms of globalism.

Blogger John Best January 03, 2019 4:34 AM  

@41 where I live in Cumberland, all the criminal elements are Celtic Irish. They are the same everywhere they go. They were a harbinger of what was to come with the Asians and Africans.

Blogger Dirk Manly January 03, 2019 4:39 AM  

@13

"I have wondered the best rhetoric to use against those who point out the Dutch/Germans/etc who were present in the original states from the beginning. Any suggestions?"

The flavor of the cake isn't determined by the confectionary flowers stuck in the icing.

Or...to really drill it home to (((some people))):
A Bar Mitzvah is a Jewish event, *EVEN IF* a couple of the boy's non-Jewish friends were invited and show up.

Blogger Not Important January 03, 2019 4:52 AM  

America is a propositional and creedal nation. Yet nobody ever checks whether the immigrants old and new bother to agree with the creed or proposition.
And even if they obviously don't do, say by importing and spreading radical ideology, there is zero sanction.
A system without internal self-defense mechanism will inevitably fail.
Funny how this never features in the writings of big brained conservatives.

Blogger John Best January 03, 2019 5:01 AM  

@21 Yeah. I often say that soon enough the IRA and UVF will be fighting side by side to remove the globalists from Dublin. Thank God the Loyalists won the Troubles and defeated the globalists in Ulster. Ireland is in a bad way because of the Anglo-Irish in group preference which is similar to the Jews in other nations. So the Irish state is overthrowing the Irish nation, and the Irish nation must rise against it. It is hard for most people to understand this though. I heard a Muslim guy tried to blow up Trinity college and they now have their own problem with Asian/African grooming gangs. The Loyalists burn the not-British population out of their area's of Ulster. Heck the UVF hijacked a bus and burned it, because the British state took away their bonfire. Another interesting thing to me is the alliance between the criminal elements in Ireland, the Irish state and the criminal foreigners. Which the IRA has been fighting an underground war with for decades. Its the same in Britain. The criminals support the mass immigration and their own people being brutalized if they get some cash from it. It is the globalists creating their enemy so people can't see the truth.

Blogger Shimshon January 03, 2019 5:22 AM  

That was the coolest Darkstream ever! What a great surprise. I didn't expect to see the Zehut shirt again.

FYI, not that it matters to you or your audience, or your point, the pronunciation is Zeh-hoot (like skoot).

Blogger Duke Norfolk January 03, 2019 6:55 AM  

Not Important wrote:Yet nobody ever checks whether the immigrants old and new bother to agree with the creed or proposition.

Yes. It would take a Big Government of epic size and power to effectively enforce their "Proposition Nation" nonsense. A veritable inquisition that would be much worse than the Inquisition.

And even that would eventually fail, of course.

Blogger Unknown January 03, 2019 7:27 AM  

Definitions according to Wikipedia

*E pluribus unum*

"The meaning of the phrase originates from the concept that out of the union of the original Thirteen Colonies emerged a new single nation.[8] It is emblazoned across the scroll and clenched in the eagle’s beak on the Great Seal of the United States.[8][9] "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum

*The Thirteen Colonies*

"The Thirteen Colonies, also known as the Thirteen British Colonies[2] or Thirteen American Colonies,[3] were a group of British colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America founded in the 17th and 18th centuries. They declared independence in 1776 and formed the United States of America. The Thirteen Colonies had very similar political, constitutional, and legal systems and were dominated by Protestant English-speakers. They were part of Britain's possessions in the New World, which also included colonies in Canada, the Caribbean, and the Floridas."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies





Blogger Uncle John's Band January 03, 2019 7:32 AM  

E pluribus unum always smelt of alchemy. There's an anti-nationalist thread in there that runs back to the Masonic Deism of the founders.

Blogger Uncle John's Band January 03, 2019 7:33 AM  

Smelled. Though if the smelt were old enough, it would work.

Blogger Blaidd January 03, 2019 7:50 AM  

E pluribus unum always smelt of alchemy.

It's in reference to the several states, not about uniting nations. It's ultimate failure proved it was a pipe dream to think that making a single nation out of the disparate regions was possible but it wasn't due to malevolence on the part of the founding fathers.

Blogger Die Fledermaus January 03, 2019 7:53 AM  

Well, you may be surprised, but inverse phrases "Israel is a nation of Immigrants" and the term "Arab-Israelies" (for Arabs who have an Israeli citizenship and reside within the '67 line) are quite common in Israeli political discourse.

Blogger English Tom January 03, 2019 8:05 AM  

@John Best

I suppose you don't have many good things to say about Scousers then!

Blogger VD January 03, 2019 8:11 AM  

common in Israeli political discourse

You mean Neopalestinian discourse, of course. THAT is the more relevant parallel, since it is Palestine that is a nation of immigrants....

Blogger Stilicho January 03, 2019 8:15 AM  

I am continually amazed at the short-sighted stupidity of Jews who want to destroy this nation in order to create what they think will be a safe space for themselves. Outside of Israel, there was no country on Earth that provided a more friendly place for Jews to live and worship, but Jewish leaders were so afraid of being identified as "other" that they consciously decided to attack their host nation in order to adulterate and destroy the ethnic nation via immivasion and immigration myth so that the Jews would appear less alien than the third world hordes they were helping invade.

In the end, Americans will hate and despise Jews for trying to destroy America and the third world hordes already hate and despise Jews. The Jews are crapping in their host's living room in the hope that it will prevent the host from noticing that a Jew farted in the kitchen.

Blogger Dirk Manly January 03, 2019 8:30 AM  

@15

"Eventually, they decided not to preserve that in Britain either. Consequences of colonialism, a globalist design, a lack of future perspective? I don't know."

Other than the Stuarts, No Britons have ruled England since bunch of Normans (Norwegians who had settled in France) invaded in 1066 and literally took over. Even then, the Angles and Saxons had already taken over the eastern counties such that the majority of Britain was ALREADY called England (Angle-land).

Devon, Corwall, Wales, and Scotland eventually fell, too.

William I
William II
Henry I
Stephen
Matilda
Henry II
Henry the Young King
Richard I
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Richard II
Henry IV
Henry V
Henry VI
Edward IV
Edward V
Richard III
Henry VII
Monarchs of England before 1603
Henry VIII
Edward VI
Jane
Mary I and Philip
Elizabeth I

Blogger Dirk Manly January 03, 2019 8:39 AM  

@19

"@John Best, Wales is a principality not a kingdom, the Three Kingdoms are England, Scotland and Ireland, Northern Ireland is a mere province, only six of nine counties of the traditional province of Ulster."

Wales was once a Kingdom.
In fact, At one time there were the Kingdoms of Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria, Dumnonia (now Devon and Cornwall), Gwent, Dyfed, Powys, Gwenydd (the last 4 all in Wales), and Strathclyde, Dal Riata, an Fortriu (all in what is now Scotland).

And THOSE Kingdoms are consolidations of even earlier kingdoms. Britain was awash in kingdoms. My casual research into the subject has turned up approximately 30 or so original kingdoms. And those are only the ones for which documentation has survived to the present day.

And

Blogger Dirk Manly January 03, 2019 8:43 AM  

@21

"and plans to bring in one million more immigrants from the Islamic and Third World."

SINK THE SHIPS, and it will stop as quickly as it started. Actually, all you need to do is sink one. The owners want them to be making money, not sitting on the bottom of a harbor, needing to be raised, and then have the entire engineering spaces completely overhauled due to mud getting into the engines.

Sink just one, and NOBODY will transport any more Turd Worlders to Ireland.

Blogger The Cooler January 03, 2019 8:45 AM  

What boggles the mind is that we're talking about recent history. We are talking about America, not fucking Atlantis. And yet, people like Prager just flat-out make shit up as if their nonsense cannot be brought to literal book.

America [...] has no ethnic identity.

It is now a common tactic of the Left and (((the Left))) to erode an Ethnos so completely that it can be denied to ever have existed. Since much of the Left's rhetoric relies on the leveraging of the common ignorance they created, they are effectively able to supplant truth with lies-as-truth to the masses via their wholly-owned information dissemination machine.

O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee,
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife,
When once or twice, for man's avail,
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain,
The banner of the free!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!

Blogger The Cooler January 03, 2019 8:52 AM  

*Atlanteans

Blogger Die Fledermaus January 03, 2019 8:54 AM  

VD wrote:common in Israeli political discourse

You mean Neopalestinian discourse, of course. THAT is the more relevant parallel, since it is Palestine that is a nation of immigrants....


Indeed "Palestinian" used to be a non-ethnic designation and was used to refer to anyone living in the region before the formation of the state of Israel. Arab language does not even have a "P" in it and therefor most Palestinians (In the current sense of the word) can't even pronounce "Palestine" properly. Neo-Balestinian, then ?

Blogger Stilicho January 03, 2019 9:55 AM  

@62 in Arabic it is pronounced "Filistini" as in "Philistine" in the singular to refer to an inhabitant of Palestine.

Blogger Unknown January 03, 2019 10:16 AM  

@38 E pluribus unum was always a confusing and bastardized thing, from the beginning."

@40. "at the time of the American Revolution the phrase 'e pluribus unum' was most famous as a slogan for a popular men's magazine"

@52. E pluribus unum always smelt of alchemy. b "It's in reference to the several states'"



E pluribus unum refers to the amalgamation of the original 13 British colonies into a single nation - as Vox says.

E pluribus unum: "The meaning of the phrase originates from the concept that out of *the union of the original Thirteen Colonies emerged a new single nation*.[8] It is emblazoned across the scroll and clenched in the eagle’s beak on the Great Seal of the United States.[8][9] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum

And the "Thirteen Colonies" were:

"The Thirteen Colonies, also known as the Thirteen British Colonies[2] or Thirteen American Colonies,[3] were a group of British colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America founded in the 17th and 18th centuries. They declared independence in 1776 and formed the United States of America. The Thirteen Colonies had very similar political, constitutional, and legal systems and were dominated by Protestant English-speakers. They were part of Britain's possessions in the New World, which also included colonies in Canada, the Caribbean, and the Floridas."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies


Blogger English Tom January 03, 2019 10:24 AM  

@Dirk Manly

Sink just one then pillage the bank accounts of the (((charities))) bringing the muds in and it will stop.

FIFY

Blogger cmbaileytstc January 03, 2019 10:45 AM  

Can there ever be enough commonality that peoples of *somewhat* diverse origins can function as a nation? Could the descendants of English, German, French etc. effectively unite aroubd Whiteness, Christianity, the English language, and respect for the Constitution as written? Or is the White population of the former United States itself destined to be divided into several nation-states?

Blogger Seth January 03, 2019 11:07 AM  

Can there be vassal nations?

When America let in enough Germans to settle an area and have German be a common language there. Is that a new nation that is a vassal to the British American nation-state?

Blogger Blaidd January 03, 2019 11:10 AM  

Could the descendants of English, German, French etc. effectively unite aroubd Whiteness, Christianity, the English language, and respect for the Constitution as written?

It didn't work in the US, it's currently failing in Europe, and it's failed numerous times in Europe before. That doesn't mean it's impossible but the wealth of evidence suggests it's absurdly unlikely. The question is, why are you so attached to the idea that whites need to be united into a single nation in the first place?

Blogger VD January 03, 2019 11:24 AM  

Could the descendants of English, German, French etc. effectively unite aroubd Whiteness, Christianity, the English language, and respect for the Constitution as written?

Almost certainly not.

Can there be vassal nations?

That's called imperialism.

Blogger The Cooler January 03, 2019 11:53 AM  

Can there ever be enough commonality that peoples of *somewhat* diverse origins can function as a nation?

The South is peppered with Moravian "German Towns." Has been since the 18th century. It's current year and guess who still lives there, keeping to themselves.

Function as a Nation? No. Live in relative peace and harmony? Sure, but because Jesus.

Blogger Lance E January 03, 2019 12:21 PM  

Stilicho wrote:I am continually amazed at the short-sighted stupidity of Jews who want to destroy this nation in order to create what they think will be a safe space for themselves.

Israeli Jews and Diaspora Jews can be understood as separate nations, and the differences will continue to grow over time. Most Diasporans are just Progressive atheists, but even the "good" ones who act and vote conservative have utterly retarded ideas about what's good for Israel, let alone America.

Demographically, they're quite literally different nations, with American Jews being over 90% Ashkenazi and Israeli Jews being less than 50%. It's like the difference between Spain and Mexico, except that Mexicans actually speak a form of Spanish while Diaspora Jews mostly don't speak any Hebrew.

Diasporan Jews take roughly the same position on Israel as liberal whites take on non-whites: that due to some historical injustice which was probably exaggerated and definitely isn't relevant today, they lack agency; therefore, they can't be criticized, and we are somehow responsible for protecting them from the consequences of their own actions.

Nothing to be amazed about. These Jews never plan to move to Israel, and don't believe that they're creating a safe space for themselves. They just think they're "helping".

Unknown wrote:E pluribus unum refers to the amalgamation of the original 13 British colonies into a single nation - as Vox says.

How many times must people be corrected on the difference between "nation" and "state" before they'll get the hint?

Blogger cmbaileytstc January 03, 2019 12:49 PM  

In the case of the United States because we are in danger of being outnumbered already, and because it seems like White Americans don’t really consciously attribute a lot of cultural difference to being of British, French, German descent. Also many if not most White people in America are a mixture of European origins. I’m not sure how we’d ever parse things out along those lines. I’m not saying all the distinct nations in Europe should amalgamate or anything of that nature.

Blogger John Best January 03, 2019 12:49 PM  

@58 The British state brought together then counties of Cumberland, Westmorland and part of Lancashire to form a new county of Cumbria, they then started pushing this Welsh Kingdom called Rheged and the old name for Wales is Cambria. Whereas Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire are English counties, they are trying destroy those nations and people, to destroy our legacy to weak us before they flood us with the not-British population. So talking about ancient kingdoms is all well and good, but the forces of evil are using them against us. I mean the Normans wiped out the Danelaw and you still have people thinking that most of northern England is Vikings, when it is English. Anything to weaken our legacy and make us doubt our ancestors.

Blogger John Best January 03, 2019 12:51 PM  

@59 I recently got banned from Facebook for saying sink the boats and hang the NGO's. This is the only options.

Blogger cmbaileytstc January 03, 2019 1:06 PM  

True. But I also live in the South (East Texas) and it there are people here with names of multiple European origins (Bailey, Ritter, Morris, various Macs, you get the idea) who are culturally identical, or appear so. Whereas the Blacks who have also been here hundreds of years remain distinct in behavior and values.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 03, 2019 1:59 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Cooler January 03, 2019 2:20 PM  

I also live in the South (East Texas) and it there are people here with names of multiple European origins (Bailey, Ritter, Morris, various Macs, you get the idea) who are culturally identical, or appear so.

Setting aside the fact that Southerners East of Mississippi would not consider Texas Southern Proper -- we consider y'all North/South/East/West Texans, and Okies Okies, Arkansawyers Arkansawyers, Loosianians fuckin crazy, so on and so forth -- Texas does not function as a nation. East Texas does not function as a nation, either, but arguably more so as a near-extinct sub-nation of the South; alive at the cultural nexus of Deep South, Appalachia and economically incentivized diversification.

You'll figure all this out when the lights cut off. What I'm trying to say is: Go East, young man, and grow up with the country.

Blogger Seth January 03, 2019 2:46 PM  

"Can there be vassal nations?

That's called imperialism."

So was America founded under imperialism? Other people groups were allowed to found towns and cities but submitted to British rule.

"There is a "German belt" that extends all the way across the United States, from eastern Pennsylvania to the Oregon coast. Pennsylvania has the largest population of German-Americans in the U.S. and is home to one of the group's original settlements, Germantown (Philadelphia), founded in 1683.

Germantown was founded on October 6, 1683, by German settlers: thirteen Quaker and Mennonite families from Krefeld. Today the founding day of Germantown is remembered as German-American Day, a holiday in the United States, observed annually on October 6. On August 12, 1689, William Penn at London signed a charter constituting some of the inhabitants a corporation by the name of "the bailiff, burgesses and commonalty of Germantown, in the county of Philadelphia, in the province of Pennsylvania."

Blogger VD January 03, 2019 3:17 PM  

So was America founded under imperialism? Other people groups were allowed to found towns and cities but submitted to British rule.

Yes, and the smarter Founding Fathers, such as Ben Franklin, worried about the consequences, particularly as concerned Pennsylvania.

Blogger cmbaileytstc January 03, 2019 3:57 PM  

Your reckoning is that the some of the South east of the Mississippi will remain as a majority White, Christian polity? Sounds good.

Blogger Blaidd January 03, 2019 4:34 PM  

cmbaileytstc wrote:White Americans don’t really consciously attribute a lot of cultural difference to being of British, French, German descent.


The key word has been highlighted. The South, by far the region with the greatest percentage of British stock, is different culturally from even the Mid-Atlantic, with its heavy influence from Irish and Italian immigration. Even within the South, Cajuns aren't the same as the rest of us. However, the most glaring example can be found by looking at how similar Minnesota and Wisconsin, with their high prevalence of people of Scandinavian descent, is tracking with the decline of Sweden. In both places they've decided to give up their governments to Somalis. It doesn't matter what anyone consciously attributes to anyone else, what matters is the unconscious actions that set each group apart. That's where the most friction occurs.

cmbaileytstc wrote:In the case of the United States because we are in danger of being outnumbered already,

What does it matter if combined we outnumber the enemy, if we go on to kill each other later because we still can't get along?

Blogger Mark Stoval January 03, 2019 6:27 PM  

A nation is a community of people who share a common language, culture, values, traditions, ethnicity, descent, and history.

It is in the DNA as well as the culture and language.

Someone up-thread asked if different "white" nations could join together and Vox said no. I also say no.

But, if the USA got rid of all "groups of color" and then enforced freedom of association and strict property rights we would see the nations self segregate themselves into various areas. Then the white peoples might join together for various things on a purely voluntary basis. It could give REAL meaning to "national football teams".

God created nations for some reason that I am not sure of; and I don't think we should try to mix them all together. Don't break apart what God joined together. (God always wins in the end)

Blogger cmbaileytstc January 03, 2019 7:23 PM  

The distinction between living in some variation of a European civilization and any possible variation of a Mestizo/African/Middle Eastern society is clear enough that I hope even significant numbers of Scandinavians will eventually see it as something we can unite around.
What’s up with the Scandis and this behavior pattern anyway? I don’t see an implicit reason they would be the cuckiest of all, yet here we are.
I understand that there are differences in variations on European stock, but I’ve never lived around a European group whose proximity guaranteed the theft of unattended bicycles and constant insufferable levels of noise. You get my drift. I think there might be in the case of America some utility in focusing on the things the various American Whites generally have in common. In the European case I can see why it is much more practical to focus on British, French, Polish, etc.

Blogger John rockwell January 04, 2019 2:00 AM  

@39

I agree. But you are arguing against a strawman.

I did say that nationalism was used. WWI is what haens when nationalist soldiers are maniulated into fighting each other. Its no coincidence the League of Nations is establish not long after(or before)

Blogger Dirk Manly January 04, 2019 3:05 AM  

@73

"The British state brought together then counties of Cumberland, Westmorland and part of Lancashire to form a new county of Cumbria,"

The Brits didn't do that. The Normans did.

The Kingdom of Wessex eventually managed to merge the kingdoms of Essex and Northumberland which were solidly solidly under the Danelaw and under the control of the Angles and Saxons. While I'm not sure if Cumbria was formed from the unification of the 3 prior kingdoms which you mentioned, it definitely was NOT under the control of the House of Wessex, and several of the Kings from the House of Normandy, and even the House of Plantagenet never ruled over Cumbria, let alone Wales. What you're speaking of occurred around the time of Edward Longshanks. Longshanks ancestors never intermixed with the native population of the British Isles. He was fully Norman, which is to say, a son of Norway by way of the French coast.

Blogger Dirk Manly January 04, 2019 3:24 AM  

@73

" I mean the Normans wiped out the Danelaw and you still have people thinking that most of northern England is Vikings, when it is English. Anything to weaken our legacy and make us doubt our ancestors. "

Sweyn Forkbeard, King of Norway, successfully captured the English crown from the Aethelread the Unready, of the House of Wessex in 1013. Aethelread recaptured the crown in 1014, and Forkbeard returned to Norway.

Then, before Aethelred died, Cnut the Great (who succeeded Sweyn as the King of Norway) invaded. Aethelred died of natural causes. His son Edmund II, known as Edmund Ironside, for his stiff resistance to Cnut, fought Cnut's forces to a draw. Out of respect for Edmund (or more likely, out of fear that continuing hostilities could very well lead to a Phyrrhic victory and losing all of the territory gained) extended an offer to Edmund that hostilities be ended, as long has he would be allowed to retreat to Mercia and Northumbria, and keep those lands.

Edmund died in 1016. Accounts vary as to whether he died of wounds suffered in prior combat, infection from one or more battle wounds, or if he was assassinated. In any event, Cnut the Great then became King of England (which still did not yet include Cumbria, nor Devon and Cornwall, nor the coast opposite Ireland). He was succeeded by his son Harold I (Harold the Harefoot, who died at age 24 of unknown disease) and then his grandson Harthacnut, who died suddenly at a friend's wedding at age 23 or 24. His cause of death is unknown, suspected of being either alcohol induced stroke, or poisoning by Aethelred's ~40 year old son, Edward the Confessor.

In any event, in the wake of Harthacnut's untimely demise, Edward the Confessor was crowned King the next day. But by that time the Norwegians/Vikings of King Cnut's invading army had become, genetically, part of the Mercia and Northumbrian populations.

So those who say that the northern counties are full of Vikings are correct. They're not pure vikings, but they have a significant amount of Viking genetics.

Blogger Dirk Manly January 04, 2019 4:03 AM  

@84

"I did say that nationalism was used. WWI is what haens when nationalist soldiers are maniulated into fighting each other. Its no coincidence the League of Nations is establish not long after(or before) "

Only AFTER each of the treaty-affectionados has ALREADY committed his nation's military into the ever-growing war. There was no popular support among the public in the German states for fighting the Russians over Tsar Nicholas's decision to send troops into Galacia (Part of the Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire. It was only AFTER Kaiser Wilhelm's Generals mobilized troops (accidentally to both the Russian and French Borders), and German troops were engaged with the Russians that the German public really took any interest in the ever-widening war. Remember, at this time, just as in the U.S., the vast majority (>> 90%) of the Germans, were rural farmers.

The only people who really had any cause to be "enthusiastic" about "winning the war" from the outset were the Hungarians (as Galacia was part of the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary at the time), and the French. And both because their lands were being invaded.

The decision of the German General Staff to mobilize to both fronts was irreversible (they had put man-years worth of work into the a set of orders for railroad movements, etc. which were extremely intricate ... and typical of German design -- extremely "brittle" and prone to catastrophic failure if anything fell outside of very narrow tolerances. Thus, once the mobilization orders for both fronts had been actually initiated, they could not be revoked, as under the two-front mobilization plan, trains for the east-front mobilization specifically relied upon trains for the west-front mobilization NOT BEING on the tracks being used by the east-front army's trains (There was overlap between the two). The mobilizations for only the Western Front or only the Eastern Front were completely different.

When the Kaiser found out, and complained, one of the Generals replied, that the mobilization plans could not possibly be modified to limit the mobilization to only the Eastern Front because that was a completely different railroad schedule, and added a comment to the effect of, "you wanted a war, and a war you will get."

In hindsight, as soon as German troops attacked the Russians, the French probably would have mobilized to attack Germany anyways, and so German would have suffered invasion from the French, rather than the other way around. However, with regard to the western front, they lost the moral high ground by invading Belgium and France without any concrete provocation, or even statements from the French warning against German military support for the Austro-Hungarian Empire against the Russian Army.

The Kaiser had only wanted mobilization to the Eastern Front, but the General Staff (aware of France's alliance with Russia)

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts