Masters of the Pacific Coast

Masters of the Pacific Title Card

I first became aware of Jago Cooper from Lost Kingdoms of South America, a series he presented in 2013 on the developed cultures of South America, besides the Inca, that are largely unknown in the Anglosphere. Overall, I found it an interesting program – although I was not particularly impressed with Cooper as a presenter. Cooper is an archeologist whose main focus is pre-Columbian South America, but in 2016, he released a two-part documentary series concerning the Amerindians of the northern Pacific coast of North America; from roughly the Alaska panhandle in the north to Oregon in the south.

In his earlier series Cooper on South America, Cooper seemed eager to point out egalitarian aspects of these societies – even when having to admit they weren’t beacons of equality, for example the existence of aristocracies, hierarchical societal structures including attempts by ruling classes to distinguish themselves physically from the masses, for example the Tiwanaku practice of binding their infants’ heads so that they would develop elongated skulls and thus forever be set apart from the lower orders – and this plus the general trend in academia and the media over the past several decades gave me no illusions as to the liberal nature of Masters of the Pacific. That said, this series is not a total write-off.

One theme present in many programs on non-European cultures and one which Cooper was keen to bring up in Lost Kingdoms of South America as well as Masters of the Pacific, is that of the ignorant White man.  I wonder if Cooper felt annoyance or even jealousy at his peers who had chosen to focus on the histories of more advanced peoples and so feels it always necessary to make these comparisons with Europe? For example, Cooper notes how the Amerindians of the northern stretch of the pacific coast were able to form settled communities, as opposed to most other Amerindians north of Mesoamerica, thanks to their ability to create smokehouses. Fish could be stored in these houses and dried ensuring that they would not just rot and as such people could stay settled in one area during the winter months when hunting and fishing became scarce. Cooper also states that they practiced a form of aquafarming. This is presented as defying European conventions, but given that most settled communities the world over (including Amerindians ones like those of the Mississippi or the Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations) have been ones that farmed, it is reasonable and understandable that Europeans would have held such conclusions about social development. I always find it interesting how in Cooper’s programs, and indeed many such shows, there are these distinctions made between Europeans and others. Much effort seems to go in to discussing difference and uniqueness, but wait I thought we were all exactly the same? “The human species is one race!”

One of the worst aspects of any program concerning peoples who did not develop sophisticated civilizations is that it very easily denigrates into a simple ‘noble savage’ narrative. To his credit, Cooper generally avoids falling into this trap. However, throughout this two-part series Cooper interviews a number of individuals of Amerindian descent (most of whom look to be mestizo) many of whom do promote this narrative, particularly in terms of environmentalism; the old Amerindians have a special connection to the land trope. But, as we know Amerindians as a whole do not have any greater or special connection to the natural world. When their societies reached levels of complexity even greater than those of the northwest which it must be noted were quite complex for Amerindians. Cahokia is generally believed to have disappeared because of environmental mismanagement (although another theory is that they were destroyed by diversity!) and the civilizations of Mesoamerica and the Andes were more than willing to impact the environment in major ways: the building of temple complexes, cities, roads and mines. Going back to the program, Cooper notes also that the Makah people are one of the few allowed to whale in the United States, but have only done so once in the last 80 years for environmental reasons. He then makes the comment that why should the Makah not be allowed to whale when they have done so sustainably and others have not; why should the Makah stop “because of the failings of others?” the only reason it was sustainable is because they lacked the technology necessary to whale on a mass scale.

Another common feature of the ‘noble savage’ myth is that those ethnies that did not develop complex civilizations are somehow less violent and warlike and more prone towards pacifism. To his credit, Cooper does discuss organized violence and its prevalence. For example, he talks with a Tlingit chief who specialises in recreating Tlingit armour and this chief tells Cooper about battles between his people and the Russians. Interestingly enough, the Tlingit and others are known to have acquired Chinese coins from White traders which they used specifically in the making of chain mail armour. Interesting how they thought to use coins in such a manner as opposed to for some other purpose. The Tlingit and their fellow Pacific coast Amerindians were warrior cultures. Cooper also interviews a Makah historian who notes that her people were head-hunters and that warfare was often for slaves (mainly women and children as the men were killed – he also mentions that indentured servitude existed as well as slavery and that by the 19th century it is estimated some 15% of the population of this area were slaves).[i] We also learn that there were conflicts over women, honour and material goods.

Although it is not mentioned in this documentary, I think it is interesting to note that many groups used to raid up and down the coast. The Haida in particular were feared because of their use of ‘stone-rings,’ weapons designed to destroy enemy ships – arguably they were the Vikings of the Pacific coast. Again, this is not mentioned in the series, but these groups often reacted in a violent manner when dealing with foreigners, even if said foreigners were peaceful. For example, Spanish explorers noted that the Tlingit attacked them even though they’d only the day before been cordial.[ii] The Tlingit also showed complete disregard for the Spanish, stealing their clothes and any metal objects they could find.

MP Louis S. Glanzman - Battle of Sitka. Note how the Tlingit utilized wooden armour

Louis S. Glanzman’s depicition of the Battle of Sikta between Russian and Tlingit forces

Interestingly, Cooper does not want to entertain the thought that they fought for territory like Europeans. However, one Makah woman he talks to mentions that wars were fought for resources and that tribes would often split apart and fight in civil wars; in other words, there were wars over territory. Clearly, there were acts of conquest as well, that is, for example, how the Kwakwaka’wakw came to gain control of Quadra island in BC. Although I am left to wonder, how going to war over slaves, material goods or honour is really that much better.

Although they never developed complex, sophisticated civilizations like those of Mesoamerica or the Andes, these groups were more developed than most other Amerindian groups. The Spanish, for example, noted that these peoples possessed higher cultural qualities than Amerindians living to the south of them, particularly those in California.[iii] Part of this higher development can be seen also in their development of gold jewelry and ornaments and also in the development of organized/ritualised modes of social interaction. The most famous example of this is being the potlatch festival.

MP James G. Swan's depiction of a potlatch. In this case that of the Klallam people

James G. Swan’s depiction of a potlatch, in this case of the Klallam people

The potlatch was a ceremony in which those of high social standing would exchange gifts with each other. Cooper has a mostly positive view of the potlatch and sees it as a practice of wealth redistribution, but in fairness he also notes negative aspects of it. The biggest issue that missionaries had with it was how the potlatch could be used to ruin rivals by forcing people to one up each other. Potlaches could easily become a huge waste of resources and could end up bankrupting (as it were) whole tribes. Cooper goes with the view that the banning of the potlatch by the US and Canadian governments was entirely for malicious reasons. Although certainly it makes sense to break major cultural practices as a way to spread control, Cooper largely ignores the liberal aspect of trying to change and Westernize these people. He even makes a really strange comment that potlatch and other practices were seen as an affront to European civilization and furthermore as a threat! This reminds me of the ‘White fragility’ narrative from the left. Despite being a ‘privileged’ and ‘oppressive’ race which others should fear, Whites are also ‘fragile’ and act erratically out of this weakness.

He ignores how the missionaries, who began the anti-potlatch campaign, were motivated by a desire to save souls and truly help the Amerindians. They saw the potlatches as being to the detriment of the community as a whole as the tribe as wealth goes from chiefs to chiefs. Indeed, the liberalising policies of Christian and secular leaders was a major reason for Westernization and the infamous residential schools (which Cooper describes essentially as evil, genocidal institutions); they wanted to uplift and progress the Amerindians the way Europeans and other peoples had been. It was a progressive project not a conservative one. I am all for aristocracies for the Amerindians and indeed all racial groups. I could care less if the aristocracies of other peoples bankrupt their own people, that is not my concern, however, it is the left that lays claim to being against any un-egalitarian and un-democratic system and which claims to care about the well-being and progress of all humanity. Yet when it comes to the potlatch, we see an example of how they are supporting systems which do not mesh with their ideologies, what matters most of all is that these ceremonies are not Occidental in origin. To me this is further proof that they put the desire to undermine the Occident over ‘equality’, ‘democracy’ or any of their other overused buzzwords.

One controversial aspect of the cultures of the Amerindians of the Pacific coast is the presence of cannibalism. This issue is highly debatable and I’m actually surprised Cooper made no mentions of it as it would have been the perfect opportunity for him to condemn Europeans for being so ignorant as to believe cannibalism was a widespread practice when the general consensus is it was probably limited to ritual reasons (and possibly to vanquished enemies). In the case of the Kwakwaka’wakw, cannibalism was accepted in a spiritual manner in the form of the Hamatsa cult, which involved an acting out of cannibalism, as the cult revolved around worship of a cannibal spirit. Evidently, the tribes of the Pacific coast liked to collect body parts of their defeated foes as trophies and this wasn’t limited to heads but included hands.[iv] Arguably, that in itself is still disturbing.

One of the most unexpected parts of Cooper’s series is how at one point he goes so far as to say that it would be wrong to see these people as solely victims of colonialism as they benefited from trade (for example there was an increase in the number of totem poles after trade opened with Europeans because chiefs now had the wealth necessary to fund building projects) and they also were able to fight back against foreign intrusions; they were not completely helpless. I found this a refreshing take given that so much discussion today on groups that were conquered by this or that European empire is on portraying the non-Whites as eternal victims completely lacking in agency. That said, Cooper sets out plenty of time to discuss the impact of colonialism and chastise European peoples for their actions along this stretch of the Pacific coast of North America.

As with any discussion of European-Amerindian relations the issue of disease makes an appearance. It is well known that Amerindians had no immunity to the Old-World diseases inadvertently brought by Europeans and as a result vast swathes of Amerindians were destroyed. However, it is commonly held that on occasion disease was spread purposely. Cooper entertains a theory from an elderly Haida who with no proof states that the British purposely spread smallpox among Haida. Given other supposed examples of biological warfare have been disproved, I have no doubts that the old Haida was spouting complete falsehoods. Yet another example of people trying to apply the statements of Lord Jeffery Amherst to the entirety of European-Amerindian relations.[v]  Although the Amerindians had no way of combating infectious diseases, perhaps we can still learn from their example. Seems particularly important now given the number of diseases in the third world including ones that only seem to have developed (or at least gained ground) recently, like ebola and the new Madagascar plague which evidently has the likelihood of mutating. Evidently the Canadian government is worried about the possibilities of pandemic. Maybe they would be wise to look at how immigration and globalisation would play a role in such an outcome.[vi]

Cooper labels Canada and US as colonialist[vii] which is a typical leftist talking point. With the end of the European empires in Africa and Asia decolonization didn’t die, but it imploded; the radical left decided to use the same narratives but just use them for their home countries. Part of this strategy is to deny Canadians and Americans any rights to the Americas by treating them as if they are transitory rulers of the land just as the British and French were in Africa. The decolonization crowd are quick to condemn the older assimilation strategy of Canada and the US and their promotion of European immigration, but then they generally support non-White immigration and, arguably, the new policy of multiculturalism which they are so enamored with, is just a continuation of the older assimilation strategy, albeit in a different form. Seemingly, every group is free to practice their own cultures, but in reality, all are still being molded and melded together as a new collective of individuals that are outwardly different in appearance or language, but in reality, are all adherents to a secular liberal order. In the past, racial nationalism and a belief in the superiority of Occidental civilization were at the forefront of the melding process of Canadian and American citizenship, but now these are out the window in favour of an all-encompassing model which places all emphasis on a subservience to liberalism. All are to be united under one liberal legal and economic system which cares not for racial, ethnic, religious or other differences and autonomy is to be in name only.

On that note, I wonder if we could strike a deal in which these groups give up claims to major urban areas and their environs (which barring a major catastrophe will never be there’s again) and if we can get these people to agree to submit to our suzerainty to ensure that their lands cannot become bases for foreign powers or in any way undermine our ultimate authority on this continent. In that case, I am perfectly fine in letting these groups going back to live in the ways of their ancestors. Much of the region is not really suitable for the settled communities that we have developed as it is largely just forest, beyond the bounds of civilization. With the exception of military bases, I see no reason why Canada or the US need to promote mass settling of the area.

Of course, this is a pretty LARPy vision of mine and one that is largely threatened by the fact that in terms of suzerainty, it almost doesn’t matter now given that we are more than willing to sell our lands (great example being the Greater Vancouver region where the Chinese are now very open about their colonization thanks to our submission), government and economy out to the Chinese, to open our borders to mass migration from the third world, and to give in to self-loathing. Then there is the issue of how all land is just unilaterally claimed as Amerindian, regardless of the fact that the cities were built by and for Europeans; so too were the agricultural areas because as Cooper notes, it is a foreign concept to them.

When it comes to the Amerindians, ‘masters of the pacific’ or otherwise, the answer is either the much-reviled policy of separation or the much-reviled policy of assimilation. What we have now is a halfway house which ultimately will fail. What makes it even worse, however, is that this flawed system is imbued with official policies of pushing anti-White degradation on the one hand and an increasingly militant Amerindian nationalism on the other.

 

 

 

[i]Europeans were sometimes enslaved and an Englishman by the name of John Jewitt wrote of his time as a slave with the Nootka (he was eventually freed by American traders). He noted the often-brutal treatment of POWs and women who had given their husbands a cuckold’s horns.

[ii]Christen I. Archer, “Cannibalism in the Early History of the Northwest Coast: Enduring Myths and Neglected Realities.” The Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, (December 1980), pp. 458

[iii]Ibid

[iv]Ibid, 464

[v]Lord Jeffery Amherst was head of British forces during Pontiac’s War and it is known he discussed the use of smallpox as a weapon, but there is debate as to whether smallpox was actually weaponized and if so to what extent it was effective. I think it worth noting that Pontiac’s forces were motivated by a desire to ethnically cleanse the region of English-speaking Whites. This was a racial war and atrocities were committed by both sides.

[vi]It is debatable as to how large the population of Amerindians on the west coast were. I have seen anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 for the whole region. It often seems as if this number keeps being revised to be higher and higher. But what does that matter? Does that mean Europeans have no claims? If it was a tragedy that the Amerindian population of this coastal region was so drastically reduced from diseases and lower birth rates compared to Europeans, than would it not also be a tragedy that the European population of this area is being reduced due to migration and lower birth rates compared to Asians and mestizos?

[vii]Part of this includes mentioning of the left’s newest narrative meant to undermine White Canada: the residential schools. As it turns out the supposed architect of the residential schools was actually a supporter of the non-White indigenes.

 

Advertisements
Posted in Films/TV | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Carthago Delenda Est

CDE Child Sacrifice

There is a common saying about how the children are the future. Well as lame and prosaic as that sounds it is true. In traditional societies the elders would seek to ensure the maintenance of society for the upcoming generations who in turn would grow up to build upon their forebears legacy. Currently in the Occident this seems to have all been discarded. Our civilization has been in the decline for a while now and with each passing decade it seems to become more hyper-individualistic and nihilistic. Nothing seems to matter save fleeting personal pleasure. Even the young are to be sacrificed for such ends.

The most obvious example of how Western society has abandoned the young is in the realm of sexual politics. Males and females of all ages are meant to deny their natures and the hardest hit are the most vulnerable, namely children. Boys are feminized and girls are made masculine and in the end, both are sexualized. This process is most notable with girls as we can see with pop-culture whores particularly in the music industry who are looked up to as idols. As with Hollywood (which is more than just perverted old men going after women, as men and children are victims too) the music industry is completely lacking in morals and will do whatever it can to push sexualisation. As such it is no surprise that the media in general has been such a major promoter of promiscuity and homosexuality and would be so corrupted by such predators; including pedophiles whose sole target are children. It should be noted that certain sectors of the media and I presume academia as well, are actively promoting a normalization of pedophilia.

CDE An example of the paedophilia apology in the mainstream media

Recent articles from the BBC and elsewhere which offer sympathy to pedophiles are actually tame in comparison to the open support for the sexual use of children by the left several decades ago; take for example the German ’68 student movement or famed French post-modernist writer Michel Foucault and Jewish poet Allen Ginsberg, or even the British Labour party. Regular people are, thankfully, outraged at any positive talk of pedophilia and so the movement has not as yet had much success. Tactics had to be changed, with the focus now on tolerating pedophiles who don’t act out their degeneracy, although evidently there are still organizations on the left with connections to those who openly advocate for sexually active pedophiles.[i] It is unfortunate that there are people who have such deviant desires but they should not be normalized or otherwise treated as being equal to the majority. Given all this plus the endless desire to achieve ‘equality’ and the left’s obsession with sexual identities, I can’t help but think that this is yet another slippery slope. We saw what happened when homosexuality was tolerated! Now we have to throw out all basic understandings of sex in the name of trans acceptance; why we even have to impose this dogma upon children regardless of how this may negatively impact them.

CDE Imposition of trans-agenda on helpless children

Its almost as if they embrace being demonic

Pedophilia normalization will not only be pushed because of the fact that there is no end to revolution, but also because it would be ‘racist’ not to turn a blind eye to the mistreatment of children. Not all cultures are equal and many Afro-Asiatic ones have no qualms with children being used for sexual purposes. Child marriage was more or less eradicated from Europe but is making a comeback thanks to the mass importation of Afro-Asiatic peoples, something that the elite doesn’t know how to respond to, but evidently some courts  and governments are respecting this (and of course leading members of foreign communities support the practice). The raping of children and teenagers is also ignored when the rapists are foreign as we have seen, for example in the many covered-up cases of the raping of White girls by Pakistanis in Rotherham, Rochedale and Telford.[ii] The topic of immigration and culture clash leads me to look at yet another example of how our civilization misuses children. Whenever children are killed in mohammadan terror attacks, these images are suppressed and we are told ad nauseum about how there is nothing to worry about from having such complete foreigners in our lands. However, images of the dead – young or otherwise – are plastered everywhere when it comes to ‘refugees’ or the enemies of Assad. Take for example, the staged image of Alan Kurdi, who died thanks to the reckless nature of his father, it has since become iconic. Death is a great seller of political ideas.

Then of course there is the realm of education: we teach foreigners to hate us and this is a form of abuse to the next generation (increasingly we see the effects of this on children) who will have to endure the taunts and diatribes of worked-up aliens. Western societies are also teaching our own to hate themselves which is yet another form of abuse. Given how many mohammadan terrorists seem to be second generation immigrants, I suspect the degenerate nature of the modern West plays a role. As such, it is not just our own who are being abused.

CDE One of the many victims of the 2016 Nice attack. A young girl. Unlike Kudi her corpse was not plastered all over the media

A child victim of the July 2016 Nice attack

And of course, there is the near universal support for abortion from Western elites. It is pushed officially by many governments and certainly unofficially in the form of educators, members of the media, business figures, et al. Why, even the UN human rights commission has made abortion a right and is now pushing this cult of death upon member states. The creation of new life used to be seen as a blessing, but now it is simply an inconvenience, something that holds down women from being free to become busy cogs in the liberal machine.

All of this malevolent behavior seems incredible, but, perhaps, it is the childlessness of  many of our leaders which plays a role in the continued denigration of the Occident. Regardless, for the left the ultimate goal is a complete destruction of the Occident and a replacement of our civilization with some new utopian world. Part of this replacement means the destruction of the family, of nation, of Christianity and anything else that acts as a bulwark against such radical restructuring of society. As for the ‘conservatives’, well they don’t care what happens on the social front so long as they get their free market. The two factions have proven to be – contrary to what one might think given their depiction in the mainstream media – opposite sides of the same coin.

Children have become disposable in this brave new world of ours, to be used as tools or to be sacrificed. Certain ancient cultures like the Carthaginians, practiced child sacrifice in a twisted and misguided form of worship. While we don’t literally murder children (unless you want to count abortion), we instead sacrifice the well-being of future generations to new idols, namely immigration, equality, liberty and unending social revolution. To quote that staunch Roman patrician Cato the Elder: Carthago Delenda est!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[i]Much to the chagrin of the pro-homosexuality lobby, as it turns out there are connections between homosexuality and pedophilia: namely that many who identify as one are also the other. Gay rights activists have traditionally been supportive of pedophilia or as a way of making their own degeneracy seem more ‘normal.’ It should also be noted that both Foucault and Ginsberg were homosexuals.

[ii]Turns out ‘our greatest ally’ is a haven for pedophiles – well so long as they are in the tribe.

Posted in Cultural Struggle | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Οχι Day

Today marks the anniversary of the beginning of one of many forgotten little wars that ended up becoming swept up in the Second World War which raged on at the same time. As with the First World War, the 1939-1945 war was one of those terrible confrontations which swept up so many nations in its wake no matter how unrelated they were to the initial conflict. In the case of the event that is remembered on October 28th, it was the beginning of the Greco-Italian War in 1940. A relatively contained conflict that quickly became part of the wider European conflict that was then ongoing.

Greece at that time was a constitutional monarchy, but decades of political strife between competing conservative and republican Venizelist factions had led to one to many incidences of instability for George II to tolerate. As such in August of 1936, he named the former military man and staunch royalist, Ioannis Metaxas the new head of government and in no time Metaxas did away with parliamentary politics. Metaxas set about solving the economic crisis then facing Greece. In 1936, Greece was running a budget deficit of 844 million drachmas and dependent on ever-growing foreign loans. The rate of unemployment was high (135,000 of a country of 5 million were unemployed), moreover, loan sharks were having a field day with ruralites and added to this were the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Greek refugees from Asia Minor who were living in hovels. Moreover, laissez-faire policies had only exacerbated the problem further.

 

Ioannis Metaxas

Ioannis Metaxas

 

Metaxas also reorganized the army, had fortifications built along the border with Bulgaria (the Metaxas Line), began extensive reforms to benefit the lot of the workers and farmers which included, among other initiatives: an 8-hour work day, paid vacations and banning of child labour. His ultimate goal was an end to class struggle, a rejuvenation of the upper strata of society into a group which was truly devoted to the nation as a whole and the realization of his dream of the ‘Third Hellenic Civilization’ – the preceding two having been pre-Roman Greece and the Byzantine Empire – which would incorporate the best qualities of the former two. Metaxas hailed from noble stock, being the descendant of an aristocratic family from the island of Kefalonia; a lineage that traced back to the period of Venetian rule over that island and back further still, to the Byzantine Empire.

There is much debate as to whether Metaxas’ regime can be called fascist or not, although most historians seem to agree he was not actually one. It is difficult to exactly pin down what is and isn’t fascism especially in our day when that word is thrown around so much it essentially has no meaning. One reason for this debate is because of how heterogeneous fascism is. To quote Francisco Franco, another figure who is often labeled fascist, but like Metaxas was not,

Fascism, since that is the word that is used, fascism presents, wherever it manifests itself, characteristics which are varied to the extent that countries and national temperaments vary. It is essentially a defensive reaction of the organism, a manifestation of the desire to live, of the desire not to die, which at certain times seizes a whole people. So, each people reacts in its own way, according to its conception of life.

Metaxas never went as far as Sir Oswald Mosely in Britain or Eoin O’Duffy in Ireland and call his politics fascist, and nor was he was primarily influenced by fascism as the Spanish Falangists and German National Socialists were. Metaxian Greece was much like Salazar’s Portugal, Horthy’s Hungary, Antonescu’s Romania or Franco’s Spain: more reactionary conservatism with the trappings of fascism, so as to tap into popular foreign trends on the one hand and to better mobilize and secure the loyalties of the people on the other. Indeed, it should be noted that Salazar’s Estado Novo was a particular influence upon Metaxism.[i] The idea of corporatism was embraced (at least publicly) as it was by say the Falangists in Spain and fascists of Italy, Britain and Ireland; a militarized national youth organization was created and the fasces were adopted as a symbol – although they had also been adopted by liberals in the 18th century, most notably the American founding fathers. However, there was no leader-principle as was the case with the Falangists and the National Socialists and nor was there any strict ideological conformity that was imposed.

Flag of the E.O.N

Flag of the national youth organization E.O.N

Metaxas generally put the nation above religion although he also saw religion as a central tenet to his Third Hellenic Civilization project, especially because of the centrality of the Church to the Byzantine Empire – aka the Second Hellenic Civilization.[ii] Christianity was seen as having been an important actor in the Greek struggle for independence in the 1820s and the nucleus of Metaxism was to be nation, fatherland and religion.[iii] It should also be noted that Metaxas was himself a pious man and did not harbour any anti-Christian views, as Hitler and many fascist leaders did. However, in the end Metaxas’ writ ran large as he was able to influence the outcome of the 1938 Holy Synod election.[iv] In conjunction with his religiosity was Metaxas’ royalism. Unlike Mussolini who put up with a monarch because he had to, Metaxas was a staunch defender of monarchy and did his level best to unite the monarchy with his ‘4th of August’ regime and the Orthodox Church.

Kallis argues that an actual fascist or fascist derivative movement could not have succeeded in Greece because the country had experienced an ‘incomplete modernization and uneven liberalisation’ and also because the traumas it had experienced in the interwar period were blamed by the Greeks on their own nation.[v] Moreover, Metaxas’ regime was not a populist one despite certain populist reforms that were undertaken. But that does not mean he faced widespread resistance. In the end the vast majority of Greeks assented to Metaxism even if they weren’t overt promoters of it, largely because of the way he brought back stability and improved the economy.[vi] Metaxas’ regime was also largely focused on traditional values and upholding Greece’s glorious past.

Clearly, aspects of fascism, or at least the original Italian variant, had an influence and yet it was to be with fascist Italy that Metaxian Greece would end up warring with in October 1940. Throughout the 1920s Greece and Italy had had a cool relationship at best. After the First World War, the two countries had come to loggerheads over the fate of Anatolia as the Italians had hoped to include much of that region into their sphere of influence while the Greeks had hoped to fulfill the Megali idea of reuniting all majority Greek inhabited lands. This frosty relationship continued even after the Turks pushed both out of Anatolia and Mussolini took power in 1922. In 1923 Italy even went so far as to bombard the island of Corfu after a progressively worsening relationship brought about initially by Italian arbitration of a border dispute between Greece and Albania.

That said, the relationship did begin to warm in the late 1920s as successive governments strove to obtain peaceful relations with all of Greece’s neighbours in order to break free of diplomatic isolation. In the case of rapprochement with Italy this was largely driven by their mutual distrust of Yugoslavia and Greece’s distrust of Bulgaria. However, Greece remained closely tied to Britain and France and so had to be careful about how closely it moved towards Italy. In 1934, Greece also signed the Balkan Pact which was meant to be a bulwark against Bulgarian irredentism and as such came to include Yugoslavia. It was rejected by the Italians. In the end, though, it was the rise of Hitlerian Germany to prominence in Central and Eastern Europe which truly began the return of Italian hostility towards Greece. The Italians feared German intrusions into the Balkans which they hoped could be turned into their sphere of influence, indeed, in the case of Greece, Germany did begin having a greater role in trade after 1933. Shortly after Anschluss – which Mussolini had initially been against, only changing his mind after his former allies decided to diplomatically isolate Italy for its conquest of Ethiopia – the Italians began an absorption process of their own: they conquered Albania. This country had only come into being in 1913 and since then had been racked by rebellions, internal political strife, foreign intrigue and general instability. It was essentially a failed state until Ahmed Muhtar Zogli came to power. But even then, the country remained in dire financial straits and was indebted to Italy. Zogli’s attempts to break free from Italian influence backfired dramatically.

Having Italy now share a land border with Greece raised concerns of the future of Greco-Italian relations especially as the Italians began to foster Albanian nationalism and irredentism. Although this was primarily aimed at Yugoslavia given it had a far larger number of Albanians than Greece, it still had the potential to cause problems in Greece given the existence of its small Albanian minority. There was also the added issue of the Greek populace of Northern Epirus which was (and still is) part of Albania. Another issue seems to have been Mussoini’s mixed messages: he would tell the Greeks one thing but then tell his own ministers another regarding Italy’s intentions with Greece.

The Italians facilitated Albanian expansionism in Yugoslavia but ultimately not in Greece. The Germans would uphold this after they took over from the Italians after the Italian armistan

During WWII a Greater Albania was created under the aegis of Italy and continued after the Germans took over in 1943. In the end it did not include Greek territory.

After Italy joined in the Second World War a further complication arose in that Greece remained heavily pro-British and of course Italy and Britain were now at war. The Italians were wary of Greece because British vessels were cruising through Greek waters, however, this was not done with the permission of Greece. The Italians began countering this by deciding to also completely ignore Greek neutrality and send ships into its waters. The most blatant act against Greece was when the Royal Hellenic Navy cruiser Elli was sunk by the Italians in August of 1940. The Greek government chose to ignore the sinking in order to keep neutral. Ultimately, as much as he feared war would come, Metaxas did not want a war. Furthermore, there was the continued problem of German economic penetration of the Balkans. After the Second World War began this only picked up speed and now included a military component. On the 7th of October 1940, the Romanians allowed the German military to station troops in its borders and take up patrol duties for its oil fields. Hitler did not tell his ally of this before hand; he waited until the 11th to let Mussolini know. It seemed to Mussolini that Hitler was trying to out manoeuvre him in the Balkans and halt any potential Italian hegemony of the region. Although the British remained the greatest influence on Greece the Germans also played a leading role. Again, further evidence for Mussolini that the Germans were trying to halt any expansion of Italian influence in the Eastern Mediterranean.[vii]

In the summer of 1940 Italian forces invaded British possessions in East Africa, completely overrunning British Somaliland and driving the British back in Sudan and Kenya. That September, Italy invaded British controlled Egypt. Overjoyed with success and feeling the time now was ripe for further gains elsewhere, on the 28th of October the Italian Ambassador Emanuele Grazzi presented Metaxas with an ultimatum, demanding free passage for Italian troops to occupy unspecified strategic sites within Greek territory. Accepting such an ultimatum seemed tantamount to treason especially as it seemed increasingly clear to Metaxas that the Italians intended to stay. As such he rejected the ultimatum. There is a widely held belief that Metaxas replied to Italy’s ultimatum simply with όχι (no) and it is from this legend that the day gets its name. However, in reality it is believed he actually made a slightly longer reply and in French – a still common language for the educated classes at that time – saying ‘Alors, c’est la guerre’ (then it is war). Both could be considered Spartan replies – that is to say short and to the point – but the former has the added benefit of being more direct, terse and of course is in Greek. Shortly after Metaxas took to the radio to tell his people,

Greeks, the time has come for Greece to fight for her independence. Greeks, we now must prove worthy of our ancestors and the freedom they gave us. Fight for the Fatherland, for your wives, for your children and for the sacred traditions. Now, above all, Fight!

The Greeks were able not only to halt the Italian invasion which came shortly afterwards, but turn them back! In fact, the Greek counter-offensive managed to drive deep in Albania, taking over the traditionally Greek region of Northern Epirus. Churchill famously said of the Greek war effort that, “Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks.” Adolf Hitler also lauded the fighting skills of the Greeks stating to the Reichstag in May of 1941, “For the sake of historical truth I must verify that only the Greeks, of all the adversaries who confronted us, fought with bold courage and highest disregard of death.” Although there are some who erroneously try to make it seem as if the war was an Italian victory, these individuals have I think rightly, noted the long-term favoured the Italians because the Greeks did not have the men or material to push any further. There were very real fears also that Greece would not even be able to hold the gains it had made. Ultimately, however, I think it is fair to say it was the Germans who won the war, but was their involvement a foregone conclusion?

Metaxas let the British know that Greece would need greater aid if it were to conclusively defeat Italy, but the British offer of a few paltry reinforcements was not to Metaxas’ liking. Their offer was problematic because the forces offered were not enough to have been of any real assistance but would certainly get the attention of Germany and could very well lead to a German intervention. As such Metaxas refused the offer of troops from Britain. The British did supply the Greeks throughout the conflict, however. In November the British occupied the islands of Lemnos and Crete as a pre-emptive move to keep them out of the hands of the Italian navy. In no time Greece, which had been trying its best to present its war with Italy as having nothing to do with Germany, came into Hitler’s sights. Hitler had no intentions of becoming involved in the Balkans, but sadly this happened anyways, largely because of Mussolini’s ill-thought out invasion, but one cannot help but shake one’s head over the role of London also. The British its true were giving aid to the Greeks but they had previously violated its waters[viii] and their offers of troops[ix] were only enough to enrage Germany; not to defend Greece.

Looking back its clear that όχι day is one of those days in history which should never have happened. Mussolini really should have just concentrated on seeing through the campaigns he had begun in Africa. Its obvious that Mussolini under-estimated the Greeks just as he had earlier under-estimated the French in June of 1940. Or better yet Italy could have stayed out of the war in the first place. Mussolini did not join Germany when war broke out in 1939 and really, he should have stayed out as his military just was not prepared for war. There is a common myth that Italian troops were poor soldiers and cowards, but that is not true; the military in general was simply not ready for a war at that time. Britain and France shouldn’t have got involved in what was originally a German-Polish conflict, but neither should have Italy. Mussolini refused to take part in the war in 1939 and there was no reason for him to embroil his country in the conflict in 1940. Or perhaps Hitler could have stayed out of Poland.

Metaxas is a figure of mixed reception by Greeks today. On the one hand they celebrate his decision to stand up for his country in 1940 but on the other hand the cult of liberalism and egalitarianism that so dominates today’s globalized world means he is often portrayed as some horrid little despot. There is at least one group which upholds Metaxas as the figure of worth which he really is, Golden Dawn – of course Golden Dawn’s reverence for Metaxas is used as somehow being evidence of him having been a fascist. There are many problems with Golden Dawn, primarily the way they have sadly attracted neo-nazi skinhead elements, but it must be said that they are actually a Greek party as opposed to most of their political rivals who are your average globalist shills. For example, Golden Dawn has run foodbank services to impoverished Greeks and also has offered security for Greeks living in areas that have been colonized by foreigners. Compare this to the ruling SYRIZA party, for example, whose leader (Prime Minister Alexis Tspiras)[x] is an anti-Christian, eager to promote the newest fashionable views on trans, homosexuality, feminism, et al. The current government is also promoting anti-patriotic education policies such as ending traditional flag raising and the singing of national anthem at primary schools. Plans are also underway for ending morning prayers and religious education which as with other unnecessary SYRIZA social policies is unpopular. Golden Dawn doesn’t seem to be overly concerned with Christianity and from what I gather they have neo-pagan elements as well; I would like to see them and other rightists actually make greater overtures to the faith.[xi]

With any luck there is a silver lining to the problems which beset contemporary Greece, that they can have a revival of Orthodoxy, that the left can be relegated to the dustbin of history and populist organizations can give way to a revived traditional right-wing in Greece that can bring about a renaissance, as Metaxas did his best to achieve. Until then let us honour men such as Metaxas, who, unlike our leaders today, actually cared for their countries and put them first.

 

 

 

[i]Aristotle A. Kallis, “Fascism and Religion: The Metaxas Regime in Greece and the ‘Third Hellenic Civilisation’. Some Theoretical Observations on ‘Fascism’, ‘Political Religion’ and ‘Clerical Fascism.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 8, No. 2, (June 2007), pp. 229-246.236

[ii]Ibid 237

[iii]Ibid 238

[iv]Ibid 240

[v]Ibid 241

[vi]Interestingly enough the largest industry in Greece became the arms industry! Something one generally does not associate Greek exports with. Anyways, it appears that Greece became an important supplier of arms to Chiang Kai-Shek in China and to both sides during the Spanish Civil War.

[vii]France had also played quite an important role in the Greek political and economic spheres from the time of its independence. However, this influence was shattered in the post-1918 period as the French refused to fully back Greece in its struggles with the Turks and the Italians. Whatever influence France had left was finally snuffed out after the German conquest in the summer of 1940.

[viii]British violations of Norwegian waters had led to a German invasion in 1940 while a British backed coup against the pro-neutrality Prince-Regent of Yugoslavia ultimately led to the Axis conquest and division of that kingdom. As with Norway, British actions in Greece were not, I don’t think, about undermining the state. British machinations in Yugoslavia, on the other hand, do come across as a malicious action.

[ix]In the end, over 62,000 British, New Zealand and Australian troops were sent to Greece to help fight the Germans but ultimately this did not prove enough to turn the tables.

[x]It would seem that many members of Golden Dawn were or still are sympathetic to Hitlerism and of course this is continually brought up whenever they are in the news. However, SYRIZA is filled with all sorts of communists and former communists including Tsiparis. This is never a problem, however. On a side note, it should be mentioned that many of SYRIZA’s members were radicalized whilst attending British universities. Interesting, how so many hard-left types develop their ideologies in Western European and American centres of ‘higher education.’ It may also explain why SYRIZA is more cosmopolitan than the more outright communist KKE which still holds certain politically ‘incorrect’ views regarding gender and sexuality.

[xi]With any luck their Cypriot counterparts ELAM will, given that the archbishop of Cyprus was ‘satisfied’ with their gaining seats in parliament.

Posted in Greece, History | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Visegrád Union

Visegrad-Group

The European Union is proving itself to be an anti-European, internationalist organization which is seemingly hellbent on flooding the continent with peoples who are completely foreign in every conceivable manner from the indigenes. However, many will argue that some form of union is necessary given how small a continent Europe is. Well, instead of one massive union why not a series of smaller ones? Already, it would appear that there is a potential one in the making: Visegrád.

The Visegrád Group or Visegrád Four, consists of Poland, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia. It has become famous (or infamous depending on how you look at things) for its refusal to kowtow to pressure emanating from Germany, France and the EU leadership to open borders to the recent influx of foreign hordes from the Middle East and Africa. Although all members are part of the EU, the four also have their own military, energy, economic and other joint initiatives. Given the hostility the rest of the EU is showing the Visegrád Group one wonders if they would not be better off leaving and forming their own union? Of course, that could mean a loss of aid which sadly these countries need given their past as inept communist states. But really, it’s not such a bad idea for these countries to ponder, especially as the fate of their people is more important than money. Sadly, there are other potential roadblocks including the greater ties the former Czechoslovakia has with Germany. Benjamin Cunningham notes that Poland is one of the most religious countries in Europe while Czechia is the least and while the other three have a friendly view of Russia, the Poles do not. However, such differences exist already within the EU so it is hardly as if these differences of opinion would be unique to any potential Visegrád Union.

A Visegrád Union (VU) would not be such a strange entity as unlike the EU there is a history of large states in Central Europe. The Austrian and later Austro-Hungarian empires covered much of the territory now made up by the potential VU and so did the Kingdom of Hungary at its height, under the rule of king Louis the Great. Should the VU open itself to expansion the way the EU has then we could include as well Poland-Lithuania as another predecessor. Granted, these were not unions based upon equal cooperation, but it does show that this area of Europe has a history of some degree of unity. However, if the VU did become a reality and did commit itself to expansion it should have stricter limits of membership. I would argue they should limit who they allow in to countries that are traditionally Catholic. Thus, Lithuania and Austria could join if they were to move further away from the soulless internationalism of the EU (given most recent legislative elections in Austria it looks like this is thankfully happening; especially with the young).

Perhaps Lithuania’s Baltic neighbors Estonia and Latvia could become associates; perhaps Romania which is also resisting EU migrant policies could as well. However, I would again stress that there should be a greater overarching rule for membership other than being part of the continent of Europe. A shared cultural-religious heritage not to mention geography should be stressed. Another problem with potential Latvian and Estonian membership is the presence of substantial Russian minorities brought in by the Soviets in an act similar to current plans of many EU states to elect a new population. It would be advisable for the VU to have friendly relations with Russia and taking in members who could have potential conflicts with Russia would be unwise. Given Catholic heritage of Croatia and its historical connections to Hungary perhaps it too could be included.

The Kingdom of Hungary and its vassals during the reign of Louis the Great

Kingdom of Hungary and vassals during the reign of Louis the Great

Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and much of Poland were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire

Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and much of Poland were all part of Austria-Hungary

I’m aware that this a particularly LARPy piece on my part, but regardless of what the future of Visegrád is, I still think it advisable to scrap the EU and replace it instead with pan-European bodies which are not promoters of every conceivable anti-Occidental  policy in favor of globalist insanity. If a body that includes most if not all of Europe is too unworkable than I contend that smaller regional ones should be considered instead.

Posted in Europe | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Petty Nationalism in Spain and the UK

In 2014 the Scots held a referendum concerning the future of Scotland’s relationship with the UK; would it separate or would it remain? It was a close call but in the end the results came back with a unionist victory. Catalan separatists have also been pushing hard for a similar referendum to take place and actually held one the same years as the Scots, but as per the Spanish and Catalan constitutions such a referendum is illegal. Any future referendums would also be deemed illegal, however, another one was unilaterally held on October 1st and it saw a huge victory for the separatists. Of course, Madrid refuses to except such a referendum and now violence has erupted between unionists and the Spanish state on the one hand and Catalan separatists on the other. Across the globe people are taking to social media to decry the Spaniards for not accepting a unilateral declaration of independence from Catalonia. Funny, I doubt the vast majority of these people would have accepted Rhodesia’s UDI!

I have mixed feelings about these separatist movements in Europe. On the one hand, I fully understand the desire of a people to have their own nation-state, but how necessary is that really? The ‘it’s the current year!’ meme is largely false, but, as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. If this was 1617 or 1717 I would fully support Scotland or Wales or Vasconia, for example, being separate from the larger entities they are now fully integrated into, but in 2017 it just seems unimportant. Continued advances in Western technology not to mention a few hundred years of political union have made disparate regions incredibly closely connected. Moreover, there is the issue of gargantuan and unwieldy international unions like the EU and NATO hanging over Europe. What is the point in splitting up already small countries if they will only become even easier prey for these predatory internationalist bodies? In the case of Great Britain there is also the fact that it is a small island. Is it really prudent to be splitting up an island?[i] Arguably, given the presence of the Pyrenees to the north and large bodies of water to the east and west, Iberia is also an island, but that is a topic for another time.

Their views on the EU are also questionable and raise in me doubts about this bid for independence. As with Scottish separatists, the Catalans are determined supporters of the EU, but as with the Scots, they don’t seem to understand that they will not automatically become members of EU. Wanting to join begs the question of how much of a separatist one really is. However, the biggest concern I have with these separatists in Catalonia and Scotland and the rest of Spain and the UK, is that they are so incredibly insane on issues of culture and migration. The leading separatist parties in Catalonia are leftist and advocate all the usual views that one would expect from leftist internationalists including increased migration. The same is also true of separatist parties in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Galicia, Asturias and – with the exception of the Partido Nacionalista Vasco (PNV) – Vasconia. Although, in the case of the PNV they are hardly all that right from what I can gather. They are like a separatist version of your run-of-the-mill conservativism inc. style party. It should be noted that there are right-leaning Catalan separatist movements, but like the PNV they are at best conservativism inc.

Catalan Nationalists -- interesting choice of flag there

Interesting choice of flag

One is accustomed to a whole range of unconvincing and rather bland arguments in favor of multiracial societies (well at least for Occidental countries, rarely do advocates of multiracialism demand it for the whole world, although I have come across a few so they are out there). I’m sure we’ve all come across them: we all evolved from same ancestor so we are exactly the same, race is just skin colour, historically European nations fought and conquered one another so what does it matter if complete strangers flood in (my personal favourite!), etc. etc. I expect this from internationalists, but nationalists? Evidently, they are no different in their views. Added to that, of course, are other eye-rolling egalitarianist views regarding feminism, homosexuality and republicanism, but these are more expected given the left-wing origins of modern nationalism. But the multiracialism is really quite mind-boggling. What is the point in advocating for the creation of a distinct nation-state centered around a particular language and culture if the people who created and perpetrated said language and culture are beset with a multitude of completely foreign peoples from all corners of the globe? You would think that they at least would understand and support indigenous rights of Europeans even if it was only limited to themselves, but no they have been just as deracinated as any other group of Whites.

What makes it particularly sad is that these regions were often centres of traditional, reactionary conservativism. For example, Wales and Cornwall were both strongly Royalist during the English Civil Wars which pitted the Puritanical, proto-Whigs on the one hand and traditionalists on the other. Jacobitism remained strong in both these regions (more so in Cornwall which almost rebelled became the site of a Jacobite rebellion in 1715) and of course Scotland as well. Non-Castilians – and the Basques in particular – were often found in the ranks of the Carlistas, a traditionalist, Catholic movement which launched three wars against ruling liberal governments during the 19th century. Saunders Lewis, the founder of the Welsh separatist party Plaid Cymru, was very reactionary in his outlook in life, being heavily inspired by Charles Marraus. Similarly, Sabino Arana, the founder of the PNV, was quite conservative. He came from a staunchly Carlist background and only turned towards Basque separatism when he felt that Carlism had finally failed.[ii] Franco’s policies concerning centralization and non-Castilian languages greatly angered many who I’m sure otherwise would not be leftist today. Strangely, for a rightist he adopted policies which were akin to those of French revolutionaries. That said, when it comes to centralization, I suppose that was unavoidable, especially as it was a process begun long before him, but the destruction of native languages wasn’t. Certainly, it has had a major impact in fueling anti-Spanish mentalities outside Castile.

Centers of Puritan Fervor. Note its non-existence in Wales, Cornwall and what was yr hen ogledd

Note how Puritanism was essentially limited to the most English parts of England. Note also how during the Civil War the most Brythonic areas remained staunchly Royalist

Now granted the Jacobites and Carlists were not nationalists but they managed to tap into the national spirit of the non-English and non-Castilians, respectively. One would be tempted to think that these attitudes would have remained strong for separatists but sadly this was not to be.

A major problem with all these petty nationalisms is that they are far too obsessed with old and seemingly redundant conflicts with their ruling neighbours than they are with anything else. As a result, it does not take much for these separatists to take positions out of spite. The English and Castilians are generally viewed as being more right-wing and so the other inhabitants of the UK and Spain take leftist positions.[iii] Another issue is that the left has long championed an oppression narrative which calls upon national liberation against colonialism. It is an easy narrative to grasp and sympathize with. And finally, we can see impact of the general long march through the institutions that has occurred throughout the Occident. As a result, it did not take long for organized separatist movements to be undermined. For example, some of the earliest members of Plaid Cymru were social democrats and with Lewis’ death Lewis they completely took over. Now they are lead by a woman who clearly is more concerned about pushing an internationalist left-wing agenda than defending the cultures and traditions of Wales. Its why she calls for the destruction of Wales and uses her social media as platforms to falsely connect modern Western political theories with violent faiths that have no concept of left and right.[iv]

https://twitter.com/LeanneWood/status/898239443676561408

https://twitter.com/LeanneWood/status/898241183989862400

The SNP was also quickly undermined because it began life as a merging of a rightist party and a leftist one. It didn’t take long for the leftists to overpower the rightists, especially as it kept attracting former Labourites and Liberals, although it was not until the 1970s-80s that the last rightist elements were finally expunged. They now exist as small, fringe groups like the shadowy Siol nan Gaidheal. In all cases, the leftist views of these separatists have increased dramatically which is why we now have men and women worshiping foreigners and the cult of migration and lending support to every sort of feminist-backed degeneracy under the sun.

This does not hold true, however, for two groups of fairly unknown separatists: English and Ulster Scots. Unlike their  counterparts elsewhere in the British Isles, they seem devoid of left-wing politics. Although unlike their counterparts they are not as yet a potent political force as most of these nationalists identify with the continuation of the union.

In the case of Wales and Scotland, the large socialist, working-class cultures that sprang up around their respective industrial areas must also have played a role in the turning of organized nationalism. Although, in the case of Wales at least, the Plaid Cymru grew out of the largely agrarian north away from that culture. However, the bulk of the population is not to be found there and of course in politics it is all about getting as many votes as possible. As such it doesn’t take much for a party to be coopted and radically transformed.

Irish and Catalan nationalisms have, however, a longer history of liberal influences. For the Irish, the biggest problem is the obsession with republicanism and French revolutionary ideals that go back to the United Irishmen.[v] In the case of Catalonia, it would seem industrialization was a key factor. Catalonian nationalism became increasingly liberal during the 19th century as Catalonia industrialised at a faster rate than the rest of Spain and industrial bourgeois class arose which was naturally partial to classical liberalism. It was they who fused traditional concerns regarding autonomy (something the Carlists had been champions in the form of the fuero system) with a general liberal philosophy.[vi] In time, this liberal nationalism would become more popular and with the increasingly radicalisation of politics in the 1920s and 1930s, it moved even further to the left. Catalonian nationalism has only continued this leftward drift in recent decades, as a knee-jerk reaction to Franco’s centralization and language policies. Again, economics plays a role in that Catalonia is generally wealthier than the rest of Spain and this is particularly true of Barcelona which just so happens to be the premier hotbed of leftist politics in Spain – much like New York and Los Angeles in America or Toronto and Vancouver in Canada.

Today, Catalonians are completely pozzed on social issues and they also happen to be a fifth column in Europe for mohammadan invaders. Barcelona is the birthplace of the ‘Refugees Welcome Tourists Go Home’ movement that has now spread across Europe but in particular other parts of Spain. Tourists can be a problem, but nothing like the migrants from Africa and the Middle East flooding in.[vii] Barcelona’s mayor (who is a woman by the way; surprise surprise!) is hellbent on making his city a ‘refugee’ city and is angered at the fact the Spanish government is not as devoted to suicide as he is. Hundreds of thousands of her fellow Catalans seem to agree, as earlier this year they took to the streets to protest the Spanish government not flooding the kingdom with foreign hordes. Nevermind that an open-door policy will only make more people risk their lives to come to Europe or that many of these ‘refugees’ are part of terrorist cells, something Barcelona learned this past summer. Instead, they continue to demand more.

It should also be noted that it is hardly as if the rest of Spain is really all that much better. Support for migration seems to be almost as high in the rest of Spain as in Catalonia,

A recent BBC World Service poll also found Spain the most welcoming of all countries, with 84 percent of the population agreeing to take in Syrian refugees. Along with this accepting attitude of immigration, Spaniards appear less fearful of terrorism inspired by Islamic extremism, a cultural attitude political scientists say stem from its own experiences [with far-left Basque terrorism]… A 2013 study by the Migration Policy Institute, a migrant think tank in Washington, also attributed Spain’s immigration attitudes to three factors: a belief that immigration both bolsters economic growth, a perception that it is representative of democracy, and the low visibility of immigrants, which makes them less of a perceived threat to national identity.[viii]

Demographically, it would seem Spain as a whole is about as badly off as any European state, but I guess that is not enough for the altruistic Catalans! On social issues, Spain has a long history of supporting leftist campaigns like gay marriage and abortion, because since Franco Spain has largely been ruled by socialist parties. Again, it would seem that this is still too ‘reactionary’ for those progressive Catalans! The revolution has no end!

It is a sad twist of fate that those who should be the most concerned about the impacts of the mass movement of peoples so completely alien from Europeans are the same ones pushing for greater migration intakes. Said individuals should also be wary of leaving one type of union for an even greater one which has more ominous views on Europe’s future. But then again, these separatists are Western and the Occidental world today is also one which promotes every form of degeneracy, for unfortunate souls to become ‘trans’, and of course the continued destruction of Christianity and our civilization more generally. The Occident truly is reaching peak clown-world.

It remains to be seen if Catalonia will become independent but if it does I suppose the best we can hope for is that this sees a rightward shift in the overton window in the rest of Spain and that Catalonia’s continued march down the leftist path will lead to a sharp volte face once it becomes glaringly obvious how untenable it is.

 

 

Post Script: Although this article is concerned with Spain and the UK, I feel I would be remiss if I did not mention my kinsmen in Breizh. The Bretons were some of the staunchest opponents of the French revolution, indeed Brittany was one of the view regions of France to actively rise up in defence of tradition. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries Brittany remained a staunchly Catholic and royalist region, something which republican governments were concerned about and tried to stamp out. Breton nationalistic movements of the early 20th century were also largely to the right, however, there has been a ‘quiet revolution’ of sorts in Brittany, much as elsewhere in the West and as such Breton nationalism is now akin to what we see with the parties described above. In the case of Brittany this change is not only because of the same forces of leftist colonization of the commanding heights of society; and not only because of the successful connection of the Breton national struggle with that of a more general leftist victim/oppression narrative; but also because of connections between the Breton national movement and the Germans during the Second World War. Of course, any connections with Hitler’s Germany, no matter how superficial and no matter how unrelated to his anti-Semitism or campaigns in Eastern Europe, is a death-sentence post-1945. There is still at least one ethno-nationalist party in Brittany, Adsav, but it is very much over shadowed by leftist ones.

 

 

 

 

[i]The same could yes also be said of Ireland. However, my support for Irish unionism comes with a major asterisk. Namely, the cult of republicanism needs to go and so too does the romantic idea of having a four province Ireland. Unless the Ulster Scots are going to be forced out they will always be a fixture of the emerald isle. Some type of accommodation should be made for them, allow them their own devolved communities in Ulster. I’m also concerned about unification in that the Ulster Scots are so much more rightist than the Irish and I fear Dublin rule would crush this entirely.

[ii]He was also a hardcore racist, thinking that even non-Basque Spaniards were sub-human!

[iii]This is pretty amusing in terms of the English when we remember that they were the leading proponents of liberalism for much of the preceding few centuries. Moreover, they are hardly that much more conservative than the Scottish or Welsh. When it comes to immigration, for example, the Welsh don’t seem to be all that thrilled about greater migration levels.

[iv]And of course, she does not receive any flak for this.  Instead, she doubled down on her nonsense because she can; the entire political system is a nexus of socialist and neoliberal ideologies. Even the most nominally of rightist politician receives great scrutiny for what they say and do. Only critiques Wood and other separatists get is that they are not supporters of the union. There is no reason to criticize them for anything else because they believe in all the ‘correct’ things. They are products of the new left’s long march through the institutions of Western society as much as their unionist counterparts in the press, universities and bureaucracy.

[v]Although I’m sure the likes of Wolfe Tone and even James Connolly would not have stood for the open borders madness we see now (although I can’t imagine they would have cared much about the continued march of atheistic nihilism). Certainly, Padraig Pearse would not have cared much for the cult of migration and worship of the other; nor would he have cared much for the attacks on the family.

[vi]On a side note the first two presidents of the First Spanish Republic were Catalans:  Estanislao Figueras and Francesc Pi i Margall. Margall is interesting in that he was heavily influenced by anarchism and attempted to enact an extreme decentralization policy in Spain which ultimately backfired.

[vii]Most of them aren’t even refugees but the EU seems to have given up any pretense of being concerned about refugee rights. Its become too obvious that they are pushing for mass migration from Africa so they’ve admitted to it, shrugged off the criticism and carried on with their ethnic cleansing immigration policy.

[viii]Just look at how far Spain as a whole has fallen if a majority believe those first two factors. The last point is interesting: the low visibility of immigrants. So perhaps that simply means Spain’s welcoming attitude is because they are not ‘diverse’ enough yet to know any better.

Posted in Cultural Struggle, Europe, Immigration, Spain, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Petliura and the Pogroms in Interwar Ukraine

Originally posted at The Occidental Observer in two parts (1 and 2 )

The fall of the Romanov dynasty saw Russia descend into chaos and even as the First World War was raging, yet more conflicts would spring up. In Ukraine, the violent confusion that came with the end of the Romanov’s empire has become particularly controversial because of the impact it had upon Jewry living there. One figure in particular is contentious, Symon Petliura, who for much of the last century has been vilified as a murderer of Jews. His death and its aftermath have had an impact not only in Ukraine but elsewhere in Europe, particularly France, where the trial of his Jewish assassin would have effects still felt to this day.

Симон_Петлюра

Symon Petliura

After the first Russian revolution ended the monarchy, leading members of the Ukrainian intelligentsia came together to form the Central Rada. The Rada was not initially in favour of independence, but began acting almost immediately as if they were an independent government. With the rise of the Bolsheviks, however, they would proclaim an independent Ukrainian People’s Republic. The leader of this new entity was the historian and socialist Mykhailo Hrushevsky. Indeed, all the members of the Rada were socialist to some degree or another, including Symon Petliura. The first incarnation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic would prove short-lived thanks to the Bolsheviks, who, in January of 1918 successfully captured Kiev. With the help of the German and Austro-Hungarian armies, the Bolsheviks were driven out shortly thereafter. However, instead of the Rada the new Ukrainian government was that of the conservative Pavlo Skoropadskyi. He was proclaimed Hetman, but his Hetmanate did not last the year. His government was overthrown by the Directory, which was led by Volodymyr Vynnychenko, Fedir Shvets, Andrii Makarenko and Symon Petliura. The Directory was in many ways a continuation of the Central Rada as both were socialist, both claimed leadership of a People’s Republic and many of the leading figures in the Directory, like Petliura, had been part of the Central Rada in 1917.

Even after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the end of the Great War in Eastern Europe, conflict raged on. The Bolsheviks saw their chance to once again strike at Ukraine, but they were not the only rivals the Directory had to face. So-called White armies  — conservative forces loyal to an autocratic Russia of some description, often monarchist but not exclusively — and even an army of anarchists led by the Ukrainian Nestor Makhno were also vying for control of Ukraine.

Certain Cossack hosts like the Kuban and Don also attempted to form their own states, but unlike the Ukrainian People’s Republic, these were generally in alliance with or at least sympathetic to the White movement. Attempts were also made to create Ukrainian states in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire[i] of which the most important of these was the (ZUNR) which had an uneasy relationship with the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Though both were heavily influenced by socialist thought, the ZUNR was more inclined towards less radical social democratic teachings. ZUNR was also under assault although in its case the threat was from Poland.

In February 1919 Petliura had became the leader of the Directory and in this capacity, he tried his best to unify the republics and to focus on the Bolsheviks, as he correctly saw that they were the gravest threat. As such Petliura sought an alliance with the Poles as they were also threatened by Bolshevik incursions. However, given the long history of Polish-Ukrainian animosity and the fact that at this time ZUNR was at war with Poland, they thought otherwise. For them, Poland was the greatest threat. Another point of contention was the more radical socialism of the Directory which bred distrust in ZUNR about how trustworthy their kinsmen to the east really were.

Petliura had also attempted to win support from the French who had forces stationed in Odessa, but they refused to help him as they had ties to the forces of the general.[ii] Although, French support probably would not have been all that effective, as they do not seem to have done much for Denikin. It turned out that the end of the Hetmanate meant an end to foreign backing of Ukrainian nationalists until April of 1920, when a treaty was signed between Petliura and the Poles which saw them officially become allies. But by this time, it was too late. The Poles were able to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat, but unfortunately for the Directory, the Polish victory only secured Poland’s independence as by this time Ukraine had been completely overrun by the Red Army.[iii] As such Petliura was forced to leave and ended up in France, where, on May 25th 1926 he was shot to death in broad daylight by a Jewish anarchist named Sholom Schwartzbard.

Schwartzbard’s reasoning for killing Petliura was that it was revenge for the treatment of Jews in Ukraine during the chaotic days of 1918 —20. Schwartzbard may very well have been a Soviet agent and certainly that is what the prosecution set out to prove. The defense rested their case on pulling at the heart strings of the court by bringing up cases of pogroms that had happened in Ukraine, none of which could be connected to Petliura, but that did not matter. At the trial, the defense did not actually seek to prove that Petliura had been responsible for any pogroms, but simply that they had taken place. Evidently this was enough for Schwartzbard to be acquitted.[iv] The defense was helped by the fact that in France the intelligentsia was very much Philo-Semitic and French society in general had been shamed by the Dreyfus Affair, enough to decide that this time they would not turn against a Jewish defendant. Moreover, prior to Petliura’s murder, the international press had largely denigrated the man, casting him as some horrid bigot who purposely went around targeting Jews. The truth, however, is far different.

During the anarchic period in which the Directory existed, the Jewish population was subject to acts of violent persecution. The exact number of people who died from this is debatable. One estimate is that in 1918–19 some 1,236 pogroms took place in Ukrainian provinces with around 40% taking place in the area controlled by the Directory.[v] Orest Subtelny states that 1919–20 saw the murder of 35,000–50,000 Jews.[vi] Soviet Jewish organizations claimed in 1920 that 150,000 Jews were killed by the actions of Ukrainians and Poles.[vii] Given the source for this number I’d say one has every right to be skeptical. One important point to note is that it was not just forces loyal to Petliura that went after Jews but also White armies and perhaps even Makhno’s forces as well. As we will see, the Directory and its predecessor were very much Philo-Semitic,[viii] but before I discuss that, I think it is important to make a few points regarding the targeting of Jews during this time.

As if often the case with such outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence, the prevailing narrative is that it was for no reason; a scapegoat was needed and Jews always just happen to be that scapegoat. Reality, of course, is far different. Its important to note that there had been a long history of animosity between Jews and Ukrainians largely stemming from the high-handed treatment of the latter by the former. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Ukrainian revolts against their Polish rulers saw violence inflicted upon the Jews as a result of their attitudes to Ukrainians and the privileged position in society they held.[ix] Animosity between Jews and Ukrainians, then, was not something recent or contrived for political expediency, but was something which had existed for centuries. It was also not simply the case of perpetual Jewish innocence and Ukrainian villainy.

According to Orest Subtelny, attacks on Jews by White forces were more systematic than those of other armies.[x] Given the heavy presence of Jews in the Bolshevik movement and other socialist movements that were firmly against the Russian Empire (Subtelny also notes that the bulk of Jews in Ukraine at least, were supporters of the Mensheviks; however, he also notes that most prominent Bolsheviks and in particular Chekists and tax officials in charge of collecting taxes and grain were Jews — Denikin’s chief propagandist, Vasilli Shulgin, called Jews ‘executioners’ due to their involvement in the murderous Cheka.[xi]) It is no surprise that anti-Semitism was higher among the White movement which was a successor to the fallen empire. I suspect Ukrainian anti-Semitism was not as systematic or structured given that the Ukrainians weren’t as devoted to the old system which many Jews were actively destroying. During this time, there were many examples of the active role Jews were playing in militant, revolutionary socialist movements throughout Europe which must have helped determine the violent events in Ukraine. In Hungary and Bavaria in 1919, Jewish-led communist groups had briefly taken over, and during their short stints in power they had unleashed a Red Terror upon their subjects. In the case of Hungary, the terror was lead by a militia known as ‘Lenin’s Boys.’ Regular readers will already be aware of how Jewish the Russian Bolsheviks were, especially among the lower echelons of the Bolshevik organization, in particular the Cheka. (For example, the man responsible for the execution of the royal family was the Jewish Chekist Yakov Yurovsky.) And of course, many members of the higher ranks of Bolsheviks were Jews — Yakov Sverdlov, for example, or Karl Radek, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, and Leon Trotsky. Because of perceptions of anti-Jewish pogroms and discrimination, international Jewry as a whole, seemed to be against the traditional society of the Russian Empire. A good example was he leading Jewish-American banker, businessman and notorious Russophobe, Jacob Shiff. Anti-Semitism was not something made up in the name of finding scapegoats.

In the case of the outbreaks of violence by soldiers loyal to the Directory it is important to note that the bulk of them were peasants — the same people who had also been the most negatively impacted by the economic activities of Jews in the days of Polish rule. The refusal of organized Jewry to support independence undoubtedly also played a role:

The Ukrainians viewed the Jewish concern for a ‘one and indivisible Russia’ with suspicion; it appeared to them as a lack of regard for the Ukraine despite the privileges the country gave them. The Jews, on the other hand, apprehensive of the growing national consciousness of the Ukrainian masses, remained either neutral during the initial phase of the Russo-Ukrainian struggle or eventually, in many cases, moved to the side of the enemies of Ukrainian statehood.[xii]

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn  also noted that Jews were often the targets not so much because of their ethnicity but because they happened to be the most promising targets. They were generally wealthier than the peasant soldiers fighting in the civil war, so it made the most sense to target them. The influence of alcohol is yet another factor which needs to be remembered. Soldiers fighting for the Whites, Ukrainian People’s Republic and Makhno were often undisciplined and easily succumbed to drunken depravity. All armies engaged in these hostilities found it hard to maintain discipline and it would seem that this was especially true for Directory forces whose generals often acted as if they were independent war lords.

On a side note I think it worth mentioning that as is often the case with such outbreaks of ethnic cleansing, it was not simply a case of everyone targeting Jews and Jews alone. In particular, consider the Germans. During World War I, the Russian government had deported Germans living in Volhynia for fear of them becoming a fifth column, but it was during 1919 that the worst acts of violence were committed against them. Many Germans were Mennonites and their prosperous communities, which were pacifist, were the preferred targets. There were 750,000 Germans in Dneiper Ukraine in 1914 but as a result of the deportations and later the attacks on their communities which saw them either killed or forced to flee, the number of Germans was reduced to 514,000 in 1926.[xiii]  In regards to the Mennonites, attacks on them, which were largely from Makhno’s anarchist army, became so bad that they actually abandoned their pacifism and took up arms in self-defence.[xiv]

Despite all the negative portrayals of Petliura and his associates, at that time especially, Ukrainian nationalists had gone out of their way to provide representation for non-Ukrainians and Jews in particular. When the Central Rada was formed, it took control  — or at least claimed sovereignty over  — a mostly homogenous region, at least in the countryside. The rural portions of their new state were largely Ukrainian although there were areas in which Ukrainians were a minority. As for the cities, these were largely non-Ukrainian in make-up, mostly inhabited by Jews, Russians and Poles — groups which the Rada felt had to be won over just as much as their fellow Ukrainians. Given this, laws were passed with the well-being of non-Ukrainians in mind. Jews, like other minorities, were against independence for Ukraine. The Rada went out of its way to encourage participation of minorities in the body politic and to get them to support the government. Their nationality policies were greatly influenced by Otto Bauer  — who was Jewish. National-personal autonomy was granted to various minorities, ensuring that they could speak their language, follow their religion and identify as they wished anywhere in Ukraine. However, this autonomy was only provided to Russians, Poles and Jews. Tatars, Greeks, Romanians, Germans and other minority groups were not given the same rights.[xv] Russians, Poles and Jews were to be represented in the executive branch of government via their chosen representatives who were to hold the position of Under-Secretaries. These Under-Secretaries in turn enjoyed fully equality with the General Secretary for the Nationalities in the area of their jurisdiction. Article 20 of the 1917 constitution also stated that all laws, administrative rules and decisions were to be published not only in Ukrainian, but in Russian, Yiddish and Polish as well.[xvi] Jews were allowed to establish their own schools and plans were made to set up kahals (Jewish self-governing communities) which the Tsarist government had done away with in 1844.[xvii] This shows the influence and power the Jews held  — as well as Russians and Poles although this is more obvious given the history of the region.

Despite all this goodwill, no Jewish party supported independence when the People’s Republic held a vote on the matter. When the Hetmanate came into being, these liberal laws were done away with, but were brought back by the Directory. Petliura, it should be mentioned was very much a Philo-Semite. As such, he and his colleagues readily accepted the suggestion by Solomon Goldelman (a professor and former member of the Central Rada and one of the few prominent Jews who actually supported Ukrainian statehood) that the nationalities law be reinstated. This support for the Jews was not something which had been developed for cynical political reasons, however, because even when he was a boy Petliura was Philo-Semitic. He was nicknamed the ‘Jewish father’ at school because of how readily he came to their defense.[xviii] During the first attempt at revolution in the Russian Empire, in 1905, Petliura again showed his pro-Jewish credentials when he spoke out in favor of granting Jews full access to education as other groups and an end to the Pale of Settlement.[xix]  Similar discriminatory laws regarding Jews and education were overturned in Romania and elsewhere, only for Jews to become heavily disproportionately represented, which in turn only fueled resentment towards them

Petliura had to lie when he claimed nationhood for Ukraine was widely supported by the Jewish community. He constantly tried to get Ukrainians to care as deeply for Jewish issues as he did. Jewish parties were willing to work with the Ukrainians, but they abstained from coming out for or against independence. Or, if they did have a firm stance on the matter, it was decidedly against independence.[xx] Yet, throughout his time in power, Petilura would again and again make public statements in favour of Jews. Take for example, the following statement to what remained of his army in August of 1919,

It is time to know that the Jews have, like the greater part of our Ukrainian population, suffered from the horrors of the Bolshevist-communist invasion and now know where the truth lies. The best Jewish groups such as the Bund the Faraynigte [United Socialist Jewish Workers’ Party], the PoaleiTsion [Workers of Zion], and the Folkspartey [People’s Party] have come out decidedly in favor of an independent Ukrainian state and cooperate together with us. The time has come to realise that the peaceable Jewish population — their women and children — like ours have been imprisoned and deprived of their national liberty. They are not going anywhere but are remaining with us, as they have for centuries, sharing in both our happiness and our grief. The chivalrous troops who bring equality and liberty to all the nationalities of Ukraine must not listen to those invaders and provocateurs who hunger for human blood. Yet at the same time they cannot remain indifferent in the face of the tragic fate of the Jews. He who becomes an accomplice to such crimes is a traitor and an enemy of our country and must be placed beyond the pale of human society. … I expressly order you to drive away with your forces all who incite you to pogroms and to bring the perpetrators before the courts as enemies of the fatherland. Let the courts judge them for their acts and not excuse those found guilty from the most severe penalties of the law.[xxi]

If Peltiura was guilty of anything, it was that he had almost no control over many of his generals, who essentially did as they pleased. He actually tried to set up Jewish militias in response to the growing number of accounts of pogroms. These militias would be tasked to defend Jewish communities from anyone, including those supposedly under Petliura’s command. However, they were never created because, interestingly enough, the Jewish parties were against any such units being created.[xxii] He passed laws which were meant to stop pogroms: reformation of the army, extraordinary courts to deal with pogromists and funds to be used to assist victims of pogroms.[xxiii]

His reforms seem to have had some effect. Indeed, there are many cases of soldiers being found guilty of engaging in pogroms and were thus sentenced to death for their role.[xxiv] But the damage to Petliura’s reputation was done. The international press had portrayed him as a murderous tyrant, and nothing Petliura could do would change that. No wonder, then, that even before Schwartzbard’s trial in the minds of many Petliura deserved a violent end.

Symon Petliura was completely misrepresented, but the press ran with the anti-Semitic canard and that was the end of the story. Although his support for Zionism meant that Petliura was defended by Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, still other prominent Jews, like Hannah Arendt, fully bought into the narrative formulated by their kinsmen. In preparation for this piece I read many Jewish online news media, magazines, etc., and they all went with the traditional Jewish narrative of Petliura the pogromist.

As should be clear by now Petliura was not an anti-Semite but was actually quite the opposite. In fact, he and his colleagues in both ruling regimes of the Ukrainian People’s Republic held views which were very much egalitarian. Or at least they were when they came to the Jews, the people whose trials and tribulations always seem to be of the utmost importance. Although the Central Rada and Directory were both nationalist, they were more socialist than traditional (anti-egalitarian) rightist. Of course, the modern ideology of nationalism had actually grown up as a liberal movement in the eighteenth century, but in our time, it is more often associated with rightist politics. As such for many it may come as a surprise that the leading Ukrainian nationalists of 1918–20 were in many ways more similar to the Bolsheviks than later counter-Bolshevik movements that grew up in interwar Europe, and which were more influenced by right-wing thought.

The Directory expropriated church lands and broke up large private landholdings for redistribution so it was hardly as if these moderate socialists were really that different from the more radical Bolsheviks. But, the Directory was nationalist minded as opposed to internationalist and, although it had Jewish members, it was nowhere near as Jewish as the Bolsheviks. The rightist nationalist elements had largely been centred around the Hetmanate which had been connected with the Central Powers and so was viewed by many to be a foreign puppet.

For many Ukrainian nationalists, socialism seems to have been more important than the issue of Ukrainian sovereignty. For example, Hrushevsky went into exile after the Directory took over, but returned after the Soviet victory because ultimately his views were more in line with Bolshevism (although eventually he would be denounced by Stalin). Petliura also came into conflict with Vynnychenko because the latter was more concerned with completing a communist-type social revolution. The failure of the leadership to create a united front — not to mention the more well-defined programme of the Bolsheviks — made many ordinary supporters turn away from the Directory and actually embrace Bolshevism. As far as they were concerned both sides were socialist but Lenin’s party was more disciplined, unified and had a clearer vision. They were of course helped along by Bolshevik agitators who managed to infiltrate both the Central Rada and the Directory.[xxv]

*   *   *

 

In today’s Ukraine, Petliura’s legacy is being re-evaluated and a more positive view now exists. The government is now rehabilitating Petliura and other Ukrainian nationalists from the interwar era, including later figures who fought both the Soviets and Hitler’s Germany in World War II. Of course, this is seen as highly controversial in the Western states which are backing Ukraine in its current crisis with Russia. Given the history of Ukrainian-Jewish conflict and that Ukrainian nationalists today are more rightist than those of the 1918-20 period, it is interesting to see so many in the West have been pro-Ukraine including Jewish organizations (particularly neoconservatives for whom Russia is the main enemy).

The case of Petliura is one of much interest to me because I believe in it we can see parallels with what is going on now in the Occident of the twenty-first century. One of the points of interest is how Petliura and his associates did their best to promote Jewish interests and placate that community only for it to largely remain aloof to the issue of Ukrainian statehood. As we saw, Jewish political organizations generally supported internationalism over an independent and largely homogenous Ukraine, no doubt because they saw this as being more in line with their interests. We can see similar trends today with Jewish organizations supporting anti-White-ethnonationalist policies throughout the West but defending Jewish identitarianism — and often Israel as well — on the other.

Certain commonly held assumptions concerning anti-Jewish outbreaks are present in the case of 1918–20 Ukraine just as they are in 17th century Ukraine. I certainly do not condone violent actions being perpetrated against civilians, but it is clear that those who targeted Jews were not doing so without reason. As is so often the case with incidences of pogroms, the aggressors were acting out because of the prior actions of organized Jewry, in this case their association with Bolshevism and also, I think it is fair to say, because of historical grievances going back at least to the seventeenth century. Jews were not singled out as victims purely for the sake of finding some kind of scapegoat. As if often the case in these situations, Jews were not the only targets of ethnic violence, yet Jewish victims are most readily remembered. Other groups were also targeted for ethnic cleansing.

But perhaps most important of all about Petliura is that his death led to an outpouring of support for his murderer and the creation of an anti-White Jewish organization which still exists to this day. Bernard Lecache, a Jewish journalist and active supporter of Schwartzbard, founded the League Against Pogroms in the aftermath of Schwartzbard’s trial. Not long after, the organization’s name was changed to the International League Against Anti-Semitism, but evidently that name was seen as too Jewish because its name was changed yet again to the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA). This organization is very active and powerful to this day (see TOO articles on LICRA). One of its early members was the French Jew Charles Palant who went on to found another Jewish organization which is still active to this day: Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples. Both organizations are openly anti-White organizations which promote all the usual cultural Marxist dogmas. Although LICRA’s presence is most heavily felt in France, it also has chapters in other European countries and is a member of the FARE (Football[xxvi] Against Racism in Europe), which pushes cultural Marxism in organized football. For example, one of its campaigns is promoting  resettlement of refugees in European countries. LICRA and its offshoot are both considered NGOs yet they have much influence in both the public and private sphere helping to create ‘anti-racist’ laws and workshops. For example, recently they have advocated laws to forbid those convicted of ‘racism’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ to be barred from parliament. Famously, they sued Yahoo! in 2000 because that company was allowing people to sell memorabilia from World War II Germany. During the last presidential election they and other Jewish organizations were able to put pressure on Macron to get rid of candidates who were mentioning Jewish privilege or promoting BDS.

As is often the case with these Jewish ‘anti-racist’ organizations, LICRA now finds itself coming into conflict with migrant groups who, unlike indigenous Europeans, do not hold positive views of Jewry. It’s interesting that the issue of non-White anti-Semitism has caused internal disputes concerning to what extent LICRA and other Jewish groups should stand behind politically incorrect kinsmen. I think its fair to say any condemnation by LICRA against their fellows is more about not wanting to appear “soft on racism but hard on anti-Semitism” to non-Whites.[xxvii]

Even though the views of foreigners towards Jews creates potential difficulty for LICRA, they continue to call for greater importation of foreign races into Europe. As with other Jewish organizations (be they associated with the left or the right) we see a commitment to denying identitarian rights to be extended to European peoples as arguably their greatest goal. And even as the increase in immigration means an increase in anti-Semitism, no matter, because LICRA and the like view the suppression of European identitarianism as a greater goal, while migrant anti-Semitism is manageable.

 

 

 

[i]One of which was proclaimed just prior to the outbreak of World War II, but it lasted only one day

[ii]Orest Subtelny, Ukraine A History, (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1988, 4th ed. 2009), 362

[iii]The ZUNR was also destroyed, in its case by Poland. Although Ukrainians did not have to suffer mass slaughter and forced starvation in Poland, they still had to endure Polonization policies which would set the stage for further Polish-Ukrainian bloodshed in the 1940s-50s.

[iv]After his acquittal, Schwartzbard was free to travel the world and live out the rest of his life in peace. His remains were eventually brought to Israel where evidently, there are streets named after him.

[v]George O. Liber, Total Wars and the Making of Modern Ukraine, 1914-1954, (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 2016), 70

[vi]Orest Subtelny, Ukraine A History, (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1988, 4th ed. 2009), 363

[vii]George O. Liber, 70

[viii]The ZUNR was as well

[ix]On a side note I think it worth mentioning that Khmelnytsky’s Rebellion had a major impact on the development of a millenarian Jewish movement in the Ottoman Empire led by one Sabbatai Sevi. He claimed to be the messiah and believed that the Jews would one day conquer the world; albeit bloodlessly. The sultan would become his servant and the “uncircumsized nations” of the world would be slaves to Jews; trembling in fear “of what the Jew will command.” (John Freely, The Lost Messiah: In Search of the Mystical Rabbi Sabbatai Sevi, (The Overlook Press, Woodstock & New York, NY, 2001), 68). He ran afoul of the established Jewish leadership by openly flaunting Jewish customs and traditions and more than likely had his followers engage in sexual orgies (John Freely, 196). Sabbatai’s cult would in turn go on to influence the rise of Frankism in Central Europe. He and many of his followers were eventually made to convert to Islam and their relatives exist today in the form of the shadowy Dönmeh community  — in many ways an Islamic version of conversos  — which has included high-ranking members of Turkish society like Djavid Bey, a leading member of the Committee of Union and Progress.

[x]Orest Subtelny, 363

[xi]Ibid, 374

[xii]Taras Hunczak, ‘A Reappraisal of Symon Petliura and Ukrainian-Jewish Relations, 1917-1921’, Jewish Social Studies Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 163-183, 168

[xiii]Paul Robert Magocsi, A History of Ukraine, (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1996), 508

[xiv]Ibid, 509

[xv]Ibid, 504

[xvi]Taras Hunczak, 165

[xvii]Paul Robert Magocsi, 504

[xviii]Taras Hunczak, 170

[xix]Ibid, 171

[xx]Paul Robert Magocsi, 504

[xxi]Ibid, 505

[xxii]Taras Hunczak, 173

[xxiii]Ibid, 178

[xxiv]Ibid, 179

[xxv]Orest Subtelny, 362

[xxvi]As in soccer

[xxvii]The controversial Jewish historian Georges Bensoussan was acquitted of the charges of racism in March of this year.

 

Posted in Europe, History, Ukraine | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

1898: Our Last Men in the Philippines

null

In the 1810s-1820s, Spain suffered a major calamity from which, arguably, it has never recovered. She lost almost all of her territories in the Americas after a series of wars against local Creoles, who at first had been motivated by a number of disparate desires, but ultimately had all chosen the path of complete separation from the motherland. Only a few islands like Cuba, Puerto Rico and Chiloe remained in Spanish hands after 1821, and Chiloe was lost to Chile soon after. The once greatest empire on earth was beset by seemingly endless economic, political and social crises for decades to come. The loss of such wealthy and seemingly ancient possessions as Peru and Mexico also strengthened the kingdom’s desire to never again suffer such an ignominious defeat. Spain was determined to hold on to what colonies it had left.

Spain’s few territories in Africa and Asia remained firmly in Spanish hands, however, including the territory which after 1821 became her largest possession: the Philippines. 1898, Los Ultimos de Filipinas (1898, Our Last Men in the Philippines) is the story of one such incident from the ultimately failed attempt by Spain at retaining one of her last – and oldest – colonies. This film is based on a real event, the siege of a small town called Baler that lasted for 335 days and went on past the Americans had wrested the Philippines away from Spain. Although the film is a fictionalized depiction of the event (with made up participants and the like) in some respects, it is largely based in reality and I think does a fine job at capturing the events of that battle. It is always strange how directors, writers et al. choose what historical facts they will be faithful towards and what they will completely disregard. For example, the makers of this film correctly depicted Captain Enrique de las Morenas as having brought his little dog along with him to Baler on the one hand, but on the other decides to depict the defenders as being new recruits (which they weren’t). I suppose the choice of depicting the Spaniards as green was done on purpose: to emphasize the horrors of war as it leads to the sacrificing of young men who do not and should not know war.

The film follows the lives of the small detachment of soldiers sent to defend the little town of Baler, deep in the jungles of Luzon. It is only reachable by sea as the forests are just too impenetrable and, moreover, are the playing grounds of anti-Spanish guerrillas. The detachment arrives and is greeted by the local Spanish priest and also the only remaining survivor of the first attack upon Baler by the guerrillas, Sergeant Jimeno (played by Javier Gutierrez).  The defenders are lead by the aforementioned de las Morenas (played by Eduard Fernandez) and by Lieutenant Martin Cerezo (played by Luis Tosar), but the primary focus of this movie is on the young artist turned soldier, Carlos (played by Alvaro Cervantes). The town itself is hardly a great defensive position and it is not long before the Spaniards are forced to retreat into the local church, the only position which can be fortified effectively.

The siege is for the most part rather mundane affair. The Filipinos occasionally bombard the church and the Spanish occasionally raid the enemy positions for fresh food. Otherwise, for the most part, it’s a case of the besiegers keeping a tight ring around the defenders to ensure there can be no breakout and wait for the Spaniards to either surrender or succumb to starvation and disease. There is one scene in which Teresa (a local woman who is revealed to be more than just the town prostitute but a rebel agent) acts as a siren singing and exposing her flesh to the Spaniards; attempting to lure them away. I was reminded of reports that the IDF uses pornography as a weapon in Palestine. Sex can be a weapon to domesticate and placate aggressive masculine abilities.

In terms of lighting and cinematography it was very well done, but I felt the pacing wasn’t great. 1898 seemed a lot longer than it really was. Then again, given this is a movie concerning a seemingly endless siege of some small town in the middle of the sweltering jungles of South East Asia, perhaps it was apt that 1898 would feel longer than it was.

Of the historical realities that are depicted in 1898 a few I feel are worthy of mention. Cerezo really did refuse to surrender even after news of the United States’ entry into the war against Spain and Spain’s subsequent capitulation was relayed to him. The Filipinos brought forth Spanish newspapers believing this would be sufficient evidence, but Cerezo dismissed the newspaper reports brought to him as fake. He states that the newspapers have to be false because what is reported can’t be real: the navy going out to meet the Americans in such unfavorable conditions is unbelievable and if such a decision had been made then the people who made them should be shot for incompetence. Perhaps they should have! Moreover, he just could not believe that Spain would ever part with the Philippines and its last American colonies for USD 20 million. Cerezo also dismissed the word of Spanish officers who came to plead for his surrender. As in the film, in reality it was not until Cerezo noticed some minor details in a report on troop placements in one of the newspapers brought to him, that he surrendered. The Filipinos stood at attention when the Spaniards departed and honored their bravery and resilience. This too the film depicts.

I was reminded of those stories of Japanese soldiers who refused to give up their lonely outposts in the aftermath of the Second World War, although those soldiers held out for decades after the war ended. Like the defenders of Baler, these lone sentries were fighting in dense, tropical forests, in fact one, Hiroo Onoda fought on in the Philippines. However, they did not have to put up with a siege like the Spanish had to.

Its understandable that Spain would fight like they did as the Philippines had been Spanish for around 400 years as, much like Indonesia was created by the Dutch, the Philippines were created by the Spanish. It must have seen impossible that these islands would ever be anything but Spanish. Rebellions inspired by foreign ideologies may spring up from time to time, but surely Spain would always reign triumphant. Although the Filipinos do not figure prominently as individual characters in this film, they are not depicted as some malevolent, faceless force. Indeed, as stated previously, they honor  the Spaniards bravery and tenacity. Unlike self-hating Whites and the second generation non-White immigrants in the West today who complain of colonialism and condemn any European associated with it, the guerrillas, these actual men who have done infinitely more for their people than any in the decolonization crowd, were still able to respect and honor their enemies and the achievements of their ancestors who had ruled the Philippines for so long.

Overall, the themes expressed in 1898 make it an anti-war and anti-imperialist film. But it is more than that, it is anti-patriotism as well. Even Jimeno, one of the staunchest defenders, at the end says: “to hell with Spain.” It would be one thing to simply be anti-war or at least anti-imperial wars (which seems particularly pertinent today given that most wars seem to be completely useless for us; they are the work of international and cosmopolitan elements and not to the benefit of our nations). Although, even in the late 19th century, even though the Philippines had been Spanish for hundreds of years and for many must have been viewed as essentially another province, one could understand anti-war feelings among Spaniards. Why must they bleed and die across the globe for a land of such foreign landscapes, climate and people? However, to be against a war that one’s country takes part – like being against a ruling regime – is not to say that one must also be against the country as a whole. This distinction is lost on many.

And there is an anti-Christian theme as well. The priest at the outpost is shown to be an opium addict who at one point says the Islamic heaven is better (you get virgins!) than the Christian one which is boring, but, at least there will be no reincarnation. Sad that Spain once such a staunch bastion of Christendom is now producing men and women who in their artistic work must go out of their way to insult the faith.

Surviving Defenders of Baler

Surviving defenders of Baler

Post Script: I think it worth mentioning that the United States truly messed up in its decision to end the Spanish Empire in the Americas and Asia. For starters, in the case of the Philippines, it just ended up becoming embroiled in a Vietnam style war against Filipino nationalists. As in Vietnam, the Americans were up against not just a determined foe willing to engage in brutality but the foreign terrain and climate of tropical islands as well. In response to the actions of the Filipinos, the Americans responded with even greater ferocity. US responded to Philippine brutality with even greater savagery, killing more than the Spanish or other openly imperialist powers (Germany, Britain, France and the Netherlands) ever did in the maintenance of their colonies.

But of course, the Philippines were never referred to as a colony. The Americans started a war with Spain because they wanted to create their own empire although they had the audacity to say it wasn’t an empire. The Americans would have been better off to have just admitted their imperialism but they couldn’t’ because of the principles that they claimed to have, that DC claimed to have. As Todd Lewis mentions it was perhaps inevitable that the US would betray the isolationist populism of its people, as the seeds of its internationalism were laid in its revolution. I would add it was also quite arrogant thinking that it’s values were the highpoint of human mental development which could and should be imposed on all others.

Furthermore, by extending her borders deep into the Pacific the US was put on a collision course with the Japanese Empire. A collision which of course could have been avoided, but as the 20th century wore on it became clear that the US was more concerned with replacing Japan then it was seeking a peaceful détente. As Spain was not an emerging power eager to flex its muscles in China, as the Americans and Japanese equally were, I doubt the survival of Spanish Asia would have lead to war.

Posted in Films/TV | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Canada Day Is Now a Day to Inflict White Guilt

Also published at Council of European Canadians

 

White guilt

July 1st of this year marked the 150th anniversary of the Canadian confederation as everyone is well aware at this point. The public and private spheres both put a great deal of time promoting this special occasion although quite frankly I felt rather underwhelmed by it all. It should have been something to instill great feelings of patriotism and celebration, but given all that has happened to Canada in the last 50 years, not to mention the current ‘we are the world’ style multicult propaganda being pushed, I must say I was not feeling like celebrating. Evidently I was not the only one, but others had far different reasons.

Ever since Idle No More and the largely positive coverage of that movement by the press, the Amerindian lobby has grown considerably. In the weeks and months leading up to Dominion Day there was a rise in open protesting of Canada Day by Amerindians who see it as a day of oppression as opposed to celebration. They never have and never will identify with the Canadian project because it was not one they were ever part of.

On July 1st itself there were a number of protests throughout the country, including Toronto and Regina. It would seem that in the aftermath of Idle No More a number of smaller groups have arisen, although how significant they truly are is rather suspect at this point. To what extent are they being hyped up by the media? Canada’s so-called policy of reconciliation has emboldened Amerindian groups to call for reclaiming whole cities and even Parliament Hillas their ‘unceded territory.’ Of course many of the people involved in these movements, protests et al., are at best only of partial Amerindian descent. Many Whites can be seen identifying with these ultimately anti-White groups thanks to years of indoctrination in public education, universities and the media.

Despite only being 4% of the population (and that includes Metis), ‘aboriginal’ interests have been successfully pushed in recent years with the most obvious example being the decision by the Trudeau government to accept in full the TRC narrative on the residential schools. As Lynn Beyek found out recently, to point out that these were not genocidal camps and that many prospered because of their time in such institutions, is not something you can do publicly. We are not only to believe they were a holocaust but that intergenerational suffering is the reason for the violence Amerindians inflict upon each other. And it doesn’t just stop at residential schools or land issues, to in anyway critique or make light of the Amerindian lobby is a huge moral crime in today’s Canada, even leftist Jews like Johnathan Kay are not exempt from attacks for failing to tow the line.

Given how corrupt and violent Amerindian communities are it won’t be long until residential schools 2.0 spring up out of necessity. No one seems willing to just let them live by themselves because they know that would just lead to self-destruction and sadly we feel like we owe them.

Every Occidental country now needs a genocide narrative as a founding myth in order to promote the dispossession of Whites and neoliberal globalism. For Canada residential schools fit nicely, well once you tweak history a little bit. The Amerindians have now like the new left been coopted by these forces, which are more than willing to accept and promote their social concerns so long as their ultimate economic goals are achieved. Amerindians, then, are complete tools. Hatred for Whites is so strong that they are willing to openly and vociferously promote greater immigration because they are more concerned with attacking Euro-Canadians than protecting their own people. Open immigration will not and does not help Amerindians, Inuit or Metis. In fact, they may be negatively impacted by it even more than the majority population.

Of course, in reality the true history of the colonization of Canada is one of British liberalism. The British could have promoted the annihilation of Amerindians or of their being bred out of existence, as occurred elsewhere, but instead they promoted a policy of treaty signing, of trying to find a way of accommodating these people and moreover, of trying to uplift them. The residential school system was hardly perfect but its purpose was to prepare Amerindian children for a changing world and also to protect them from their own families who were mistreating them. Something which still goes on to this day, as does the mistreatment of Amerindian women by their own menfolk. Unlike in other parts of the Americas there were no Indian wars in Canada; the only conflict that comes close is the Metis revolts but these were a series of skirmishes. Though I suspect the policy in Canada would have been much the same even if there had been wars, given the liberal policy shown towards the Maori of New Zealand who did fight long, protracted conflicts with the British.

As this recent story illustrates, Amerindians show again how much they really don’t care about indigenous-hood and are really just tools of the liberal elite. Anything to stick it to the White man. Euro-Canadians have greater claim to being indigenous than recent arrivals from Syria. Funny how it’s ok for Syrians and other non-Whites to come and maintain their cultures on ‘native land’ but ours are condemned. And certainly Whites are indigenous to Europe (not only have they always been there but they formed the modern states that exist there so there can be no claims of terra nullius), but Amerindian lobby doesn’t come out against the replacement of Germans, Swedes and other Europeans in their native homes.

Many second and third generation immigrants from India and elsewhere have also bought into the anti-White narrative and many seemingly promote Amerindian interests. But, I wonder, how committed these people truly are to the Amerindians? Might be fun to see what happens if and when Canada becomes ‘majority minority’ and conflicts arise between Asiatic groups and the Amerindians, because I believe ultimately, the Chinese, Punjabis, et al. will put themselves first. Amerindians need Euro-Canadians because of their stupid White guilt complex.

Not all Euro-Canadians, however, are willing to sit back and accept the new manufactured narratives about Amerindians. Recently, in Halifax a small group peacefully counter protested an Amerindian one held in front of a statue of Edward Cornwallis, who is attacked for having called for reprisals against Mikmaq. (They leave out, of course, that Mikmaq were slaughtering Whites and his actions were a response to their cruelty.) If these incidences, as peaceful, calm and rather mundane as they are, continue then we could see end of feeling of White goodwill to Amerindians. They are working hard to indoctrinate the young as Amerindian lobby and anti-White groups more generally admit. Note how they falsely state race is simply about color and refuse to ask deeper questions as to why Amerindians may not be as successful as Whites and indeed Asians. If White privilege is real, then the question we should all ask is why is it a bad thing for Whites to be successful? Especially as it only seems to be in White countries.

Many are obviously in favour of Canada day but for how much longer? Will the current ‘we are the world’ style narrative give way to the ‘evil genocide’ one? More likely, the two will exist in tandem as the plan is not so much to be consistent but to use any and all narratives so long as they erode any sense of pride and identity in Euro-Canadians for themselves or their ancestors.

Posted in Canada, Cultural Struggle, Race | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Spotlight on the DUP

_81702664_duplogoPrimarily, my descent is from the so-called Celtic fringe of the British Isles and thankfully these areas are also the least ‘diverse’ although it should be mentioned that there are regions of England, like the south-west, which I know are still fairly homogenous and haven’t seen an influx of intruders. Sadly, however, England as a whole seems to be far too open to migration with the eternal urbanite having essentially sold their cities wholesale to non-Whites. London, Leicester, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, all have White minorities or are fast on their way to such a future; and this is to say nothing of the indigenes! The cities of Scotland too, and even Wales, are seeing an influx, but the largest problems in those countries seem to be not so much migration (yet), but just the fact that their dominating political parties are such useless collections of swine. The left firmly dominates, yet the old industrial areas are now de-industrialised and Labour has for decades now proved it cares more about middle-class non-Whites than the poorest representatives of the native working classes. There too we find the tories who as in England have proven they are not worthy of that name. They have not conserved anything. Sadly, the largest separatist parties are just as unworthy of the term nationalist, being proponents of open cultural marxism, unnecessary international bodies and globalism more generally.

But there may be one saving grace in the UK and that is the formerly beleaguered Northern Ireland. Just as communism had the effect of keeping Eastern Europe more socially conservative than the West, perhaps the ethno-political conflict in the six counties has made the Northern Irish less willing to accept the latest liberal fashions. Or maybe it is something more peculiar to the Ulster Scots, because it is largely they, I believe, who determine the political outcomes of Northern Ireland. Or maybe it is all simply due to Ian Paisley and his abrasive and domineering presence which was felt in that country until his death in 2014. Whatever the case, Northern Ireland is the only country in the UK without gay marriage or a liberal abortion policy.

It was Ian Paisley who founded the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), the largest party in Northern Ireland and the one which is now in the global spotlight thanks to its coalition with the British Conservative party after Thursday’s election. There is much to dislike about Paisley and I’ve never cared for the Orange Order or the often mindless worship of that limp-wristed Dutchmen William of Orange (who many claim was a homosexual, but then again it is fashionable nowadays to call all variety of historical figures sodomites so I don’t know how valid such claims are), but at least the Ulster Scots as a whole have retained some actual conservatism. They are against the EU, they are against gay marriage and other recent gay and trans narratives being pushed throughout the Occident. Kudos to them for retaining that much at least.

Obviously the DUP is far from perfect. For starters, it’s a political party and as such has all the problems that that entails. This includes, among other things, corruption and bureaucratic ineptitude, which is most obviously seen in the recent ‘cash-for-ash’ scandal. And of course there is always the issue of democracy. We can try and use it to fix the current system of things but ultimately I doubt it can be relied upon. Democracy alone won’t save the Occident because what needs to happen is for their to be a complete cultural restoration and voting in this or that party just won’t result in such an occurrence.

I fear too that the DUP are riddled with Zionists. During the Troubles the leftist IRA, INLA and other groups (violent or otherwise) that favored a united Ireland also came out in support of the PLO and a free Palestine. In a knee-jerk reaction many loyalists came out as pro-Israel. I’m sure this hasn’t changed since 1998.

Of course leftist rags in the rest of the UK want their readers to be concerned about the prospects of a DUP-Conservative coalition, although given how far the tories have fallen I don’t think they need worry about the DUP influencing the social agenda of May. If anything it will be other way around, with the tories watering down the DUP’s social conservatism. Already, Ruth Davidson, the mannish lesbian at the head of the Scottish branch of the Conservative party is calling for London to do what it can to impose the gay agenda on Northern Ireland. Apparently, “[Davidson] said the prime minister agreed to try to use her influence to advance LGBTI rights in Northern Ireland.” Once again the tories show just how unworthy of that name they truly are!

Interestingly enough, many Catholic Irish who are more than just Catholic in name only, have actually started supporting the DUP because the SDLP and Sinn Féin have degenerated from Irish nationalists to your standard, run-of-the-mill cultural marxists. As Malachi O’Doherty ruminated last year,

The issue had risen to unexpected relevance with the prosecution of a young woman who had self-administered abortion pills. Both Sinn Féin and the SDLP are now caught in a dilemma over this issue and stand to lose voters whichever way they move. They can placate the conservative Catholics by holding fast to “pro-life” positions and lose the newly secular liberals; or they can go with them, as the Green party did to its advantage, and lose the religious. Yet even among conservative Catholics who do want a united Ireland, some have put their moral causes before the constitutional question. In East Derry last week, a group of conservative Catholics campaigned for the DUP as the party most likely to resist abortion reform and the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Last year the Catholic church also supported DUP efforts to introduce a conscience clause allowing tradespeople to discriminate against gay people. This election has signalled a change in the old model of two mirror-image communities at odds with each other, equally committed to their separate sovereignty claims. In short, for many nationalists, there are some things more important to them than getting rid of the border. Yet it can probably be said with confidence that there are fewer in the unionist/Protestant community who are as blase about the Union. Nationalism was already ahead of unionism in divesting itself of the religious input into its politics. Thirty years ago, murals in nationalist areas showed hunger strikers praying in their cells with the Virgin Mary watching over them. Today that would be unthinkable. If the trend continues, of one community being far more concerned about the union than the other is about a united Ireland, a possible consequence will be that the solid phalanx of Protestant unionism will dominate the political scene while the more liberal, social and moral issues will divide the former Catholic/nationalists.

If he is correct than soon the greatest issue in Northern Ireland will not be debate over continuing their union with Great Britain or joining the rest of Ireland, but will be as it is in say Poland or Hungary: to accept further liberal intrusion or resist? Its hard to say, but I’ve often heard it said that the Irish segment is growing while the Ulster Scots is dwindling. Of course, I’ve also heard the opposite, but if it is true that the Irish are growing, then will that mean the end of Northern Ireland as a bastion of social conservatism on that island? Because the traditionally Irish parties are also more leftist. Sadly, however, religiosity is declining among Protestants as well as Catholics so while compared to her neighbours Northern Ireland is not as far gone, it is still under serious threat.

For the moment, however, it would seem that of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom it is Northern Ireland that is in the least ruinous position.

Posted in Politics, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

The Lost City of Z

the-lost-city-of-z

The Amazon rainforest is the largest in the world and for centuries it has beguiled and mystified humanity. Indeed, it still has the ability to surprise even in the 21st century, with reports of uncontacted tribes being discovered deep within the jungle fastness. One particularly enduring mystery of Amazonia is the possible existence of lost cities. El Dorado, the lost city of gold is the most obvious example. During the early 20th century one Percy Fawcett attempted to find another city, one which he simply called ‘Z’.

James Gray’s The Lost City of Z (which is based on a book of the same name by the liberal journalist David Grann) concerns some of these attempts by Fawcett and his mysterious disappearance. Though the movie only shows two attempts by Fawcett – once in 1911 and again in 1925 – he also attempted to find ‘Z’ in 1920. Prior to his attempts to find lost cities, however, Fawcett spent many years traveling in the region mapping out rivers and borders, which is shown in a condensed manner in the film for timing purposes.

I felt that The Lost City of Z was a rather schizophrenic movie, as if its not sure what it wants to be. Its partly an adventure flick but also has elements of a family drama and war film.[1] It was quite a long movie but thankfully it moved at a good pace and didn’t drag. The biggest issue with this film was what are we to make of it in a world filled with anti-White and anti-Christian media? In this sense the film can easily be critiqued for following general leftist view of egalitarianism.

In one scene, wherein Percy Fawcett lays out his theory of lost cities in the Amazon to the Royal Geographic Society, speaks of the “bigotry of the Church,” which I assume is to mean that the Church has looked down upon non-Christian cultures. But the Catholic Church, at least, did a lot to maintain the languages and cultures of Amerindians. They obviously spoke out against cannibalism, human sacrifice and the like but that was it. Father de las Casas, Pedro de Córdoba, Antonio de Montesinos and António Vieira are but a few examples of the priests who went out of their way to defend Amerindians.

The Church in Spanish America was more than willing to use Amerindian languages to spread the faith, particularly the so-called lenguas generales – those languages which were the most widespread and often the tongues of the most dominate ethnies like Nahuatl and Quechua.[2] In what are now Paraguay and southern Brazil, it was the Church – or at least the Jesuits – that protected local tribes and gave them the skills necessary to create thriving agricultural communities, as well as protected them from slavers – of all racial backgrounds. In the case of Paraguay, these Jesuit run communities actively competed against the rest of society, thus earning the ire of the White and mestizo populace. It was a factor in the outbreak of a series of revolts which occurred in the mid-18th century.

The Church wanted to convert the Amerindians and end certain inhumane practices, but it was not about destroying them.

Fawcett is of course heckled for thinking Amerindians may have built cities in the Amazon and in an earlier scene, where Fawcett is traveling through Bolivia, in order to map out its border with Brazil, we the audience are treated to a Bolivian rubber-plantation owner’s slave overseer being depicted as from Dixie. He has the ragged, dirty look of the stereotypical rural Southerner, complete with the drawl an’ all.

I’m not sure how historically accurate either scene is, but if it were true that many felt it impossible for Amazonian Amerinds to have been city builders then this would have been an understandable but flawed opinion. On the one hand, by time of Percy’s speech to the Royal Geographical Society in 1911, it was well known that Amerindians could create complex societies. The Mesoamerican civilization was well known. On the other hand, however, given the geography, soils, climate, etc., I think it is more than fair for people to have been shocked at the idea of cities being in the Amazon. But, for the filmmakers we must focus solely on those who were ‘racist’ and looked down upon the Amerindians.

Sure we are all human, but clearly race is more then just skin colour and that the differences in race, culture and the like are important. Of course, Gray’s movie is devoid of such basic information. Instead, near the end of the film we are treated to a scene of Fawcett taking photographs with various tribesmen with a voice over explaining we are all exactly the same.

There is something to be said, however, of not being just a crass supremacist that refuses to look upon other people with interest, because it can be illuminating to study other cultures especially those which have failed. Sir John Glubb made the point, in The Fate of Empires, that it would have been a good thing for Britons of the 1970s to become acquainted with the old Arab (and other foreign) empires as there was much to be learned from their rise and fall and of how it could relate to their empire’s fall.

Evidently there is evidence of there being large towns in Amazonia, however, as of yet I know not of any discovery of settlements that would be comparable to the fabled ‘Z’ or El Dorado, or even known Amerindian cities like Tenochtitlan. Nor do they appear to be older than Western civilization as Fawcett is shown hypothesizing in the film. According to this PBS documentary many think these settlements were the result of Europeans and Maghrebis moving west around the same time as the Roman conquest of Carthage. We don’t know how these urban centres fell, although Old World diseases are largely blamed at this point, so who knows; perhaps we could learn from their failure?

With any luck as more discoveries are made we can find out who the builders of these jungle cities were. I am not sure I buy the idea that Iberians or Maghrebis were the builders of them (although genetic evidence suggests that the Chachapoya people from further west do have West European genes, but this could be due more to earlier migrations from the north), but perhaps other Amerinds from Mesoamerica or the Andes were responsible? Perhaps, it truly was the result of Amazonian Amerinds?

But constructive criticism is not the purpose of this film. Instead, it is yet another film for liberal boomer Whites – and the Anglo/Dutch/Nord in particular – to watch and feel uplifted by. To feel justified in their hatred of their racial fellows and patronizing attitudes towards the red man. Indeed, for (((Owen Gleiberman))),

What Fawcett is suggesting — that a “primitive” Amazon tribe might have had an advanced society that predated Europe — is nearly as radical as the theory of evolution. It undercuts the very premise of what it is to be an Englishman: the notion that they exist on a higher plane than “savages.” Fawcett realizes that he’s not just searching for the lost city of Zed, he’s — potentially — upending the meaning of Western Civilization.

In reality I highly doubt that ‘unending’ – or perhaps to use a term more favoured by (((Gleiberman’s))) co-ethnics, ‘deconstructing’ – Western civilization was ever part of Fawcett’s mission, but for the liberals and Jews it most certainly is. They have to read such a message into Gray’s film. Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me if Gray wants such a conclusion to be drawn, given he is a member of the establishment media.

I should mention, though, that Amerindians are not completely depicted as noble savages. They are shown attacking foreigners entering their territory as a first response (those horrid, unenlightened bigots!), engaging in cannibalism and warring with each other. Though, arguably this is all shown in a neutral manner and it is up to the viewer to decide if it is negative or not. For example, the cannibalism shown is highly symbolic. The dead are eaten so that their souls can find rest by being united with the living members of the tribe. Even the deaths of our hero and his son aren’t overly terrible.[3] They are drugged and then carried to the river, their actual deaths are not shown. It can be assumed, however, that they weren’t overly drawn out or painful. They weren’t killed for malicious reasons either, but to fulfill a spiritual purpose. Although, it is also hinted at that Percy and his son do not die that night, but in fact survived and spent the rest of their lives in Amazonia.[4]

I’d suggest rightists who see this film use it as an example of why one should not be too dismissive of others and thus fall into the trap of underestimation instead of going the liberal and Jewish routes described above (although the left should be careful not to be so dismissive of theories relating to non-Amazonians or even non-Amerindians being the founders of cities in the Amazon, indeed they shouldn’t be dismissive of theories that Amerindians weren’t the first or only inhabitants of the Americas prior to 1492), I’d also suggest reading a Faustian spirit aspect into The Lost City of Z.

The Faustian spirit of discovery is apparent in this film. Fawcett explores initially in order to prevent war between Bolivia and Brazil, but also to reclaim dignity and honour for his family – as evidently his father was a gambler and a drunk. Later, he continues to explore and dream of exploring in order to discover truth. This obsession with exploring for the sake of it is very much an Occidental trait. The line uttered by an Indian guide to Fawcett I thought was quite a telling one. The guide tells Fawcett that he and his fellow Whites will be forever trapped by the jungle, unlike the Indians. For me this is a reference to the endless desire Whites have to explore and discover. It can become obsessive. That said, I’m sure James Gray did not intend for the line to be taken in such a context, but I believe that is a great way we on the right should be looking at it.

Indeed, the entire film is a sham in order to fulfill the desires of Jews and deracinated liberals, the two biggest groups in the movie industry. According to John Hemming, Fawcett was not some great explorer but a lucky fool. Instead of the kind and ‘open-minded’ White man who is friendly to all Indians and shuns violence towards them, he actually was more than willing to kill when threatened. In fact, if Hemming is correct then Fawcett was no better than the RGS members depicted in The Lost City of Z; he was a ‘racist!’ The Percy Fawcett of Grann’s book and Gray’s film is a fabrication, much like the Hugh Glass of The Revenant (which I have been thinking of writing about. However, I’ll probably have to watch it again in order to do so which doesn’t sit well with me; such falsehoods). Once again we see how the media distorts and outright fabricates history in order to promote insane narratives such as egalitarianism. How else can they continue to shame decent people into accepting madness?

One really interesting aspect of this movie is how gender relations are treated. Fawcett’s wife is the strong proto-feminist type who argues that men and the women are equal and scorns her husband for pointing out basic facts, like how men and women are not physically equal and that the bedrock of civilization is the differing gender roles. God, nature and the entirety of our species’ history prove this. The audience, undoubtedly, is meant to view this through a feminist lens. However, looking via the feminist angle only goes so far, and one could argue that it fails, because in the end she obeys her husband and stays at home to look after her children as opposed to journeying into unexplored Amazonia.

In terms of cinematography, acting, music and the like, The Lost City of Z is a perfectly fine effort. However, clearly it is not meant to be much more than something for Jews and deracinated Whites to laud over. That said, it does have some unintentionally rightist parts – or parts which can at least be seen through a rightist lens – which ensure that it is not a total write-off.

 

 

 

[1]For me, the worst part of this movie was how German soldiers are shown wearing Pickelhaube in 1916! Furthermore, the British troops are depicted running across no-man’s land with little equipment when in reality they walked because they were so burdened with gear.

[2]Nicholas Ostler, Empires of the Word (2005), 366

[3]The movie depicts Fawcett and his eldest son going on this trip alone in 1925, but this was not the case in reality. His son’s friend Raleigh Rimell as well as two Brazilian porters and a number of pack animals went as well. Undoubtedly they were left out so as to make the final journey more of a focus on the relationship between father and son. An example of the family drama aspect of this movie, especially important given how throughout much of The Lost City of Z father and son are estranged.

[4]Some think that Fawcett never had any intention of returning and that he had stopped caring for finding ‘Z’ by 1925. No, according to this theory, instead Fawcett hoped to create some sort of Anglo-Amerindian commune deep within Amazonia based upon theosophy. Weird is putting it lightly.

 

Posted in Films/TV | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment