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.

Advertisements
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 than 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 than 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 than 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 because of Fawcett being constantly away from his family.

[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

Malala: Poster Child of Globalism

Originally posted at the Council of Eurocanadians

 

Malala in Canadian parliament
Pakistani Malala receives standing ovation after demanding that Canada accept 66 million refugees “in a historic address to Parliament” on April 11

Recently the House of Commons was ‘graced’ with the presence of the darling of the international press, professional activist Malala Yousafzai. She was speaking to Parliament to thank the government for giving her honourary citizenship. Trudeau gave a glowing introductory speech and throughout the entire affair MPs of the left and right clapped, cheered and laughed along with our dear leader and Miss Yousafzai. Her speech read as if it had been written for her by some deracinated White liberal. It was your typical ‘we are all the same’ and ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ style piece of political theatre.

We’ve heard such speeches time and time again so it was hardly anything new or innovative, but it came out of the mouth of a non-White Muslim girl so I’m sure for the superficial liberal and ‘conservative’ this must have been truly exciting. They must have come away thinking all their preconceived egalitarian, internationalist notions are somehow validated. She claimed that violence is not Islamic and that those who commit violence in the name of Islam are not Muslims, but she is. Well, I’d argue that she is the one who is not Muslim, unlike the terrorists she condemns. Obviously, Islam has a long history of spreading by the sword and to argue that acts of violence are solely the result of socio-economic position is false given many come from middle class and affluent backgrounds. It is also wrong to suggest Muslim attacks are the result of persecution given that Yazidis, Christians and Zoroastrians are all far worse off in Islamic countries and yet they don’t blow themselves up in Baghdad or Karachi. Nor do they come to the West to forge terrorist cells.

It was amusing to hear her list off examples of terror including the Quebec City attack by a Canadien, in order to try and draw the audience’s attention away from Muslim attacks. However, this failed as all the other examples she gave were of attacks committed by her co-religionists. It should also be noted that the near fatal gunshot wound she received when she was still living in Pakistan was delivered by her co-religionists.

Malala talking with Justin
Justine listening with the face and composure of a 12 year old girl

No, the faith she preaches is that of liberalism. Moreover, she is a token who, like the Western left and so-called right, dream of a deracinated world which the West is clearly to be the first victim of. For the left this is to be achieved for utopian ideals of egalitarianism (and also because foreign groups vote as they are told and also for the chance at getting more gibsmedat) while for the right it is for cheap labour which is achievable once all traditional constraints of family, religion, ethnic and cultural heritage are destroyed. Feminism plays a major role for both sides as it is seemingly egalitarian and acts to destroy the family and natural gender roles.

Speaking of feminism, Malala also used her time to promote that ideology. However, for the most part it was yet another opportunity to spread the false gospels of ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ and of open borders for ‘refugees.’ Evidently they deserve greater access to education than native-born Canadians. Her claim to fame is as an activist for girls’ education, but of course such an issue must be tied with (and perhaps subservient to) a wider goal of globalization. We see again how feminists are useful idiots for liberalism.

Malala, the moral conscience
Listen to me White Canadians: I am your Moral Conscience, the Symbol of Human Greatness

Malala is portrayed as a great hero but is she really? She only came into the limelight because of the connections of her father, who has ties to a secular, leftist political party in Pakistan (the Awami National Party) and various international aid associations. He used this to get his daughter exposure to Western media and in particular the BBC — which it is claimed she wrote for. She is incredibly privileged to have been brought to the UK for medical treatment and now gets to travel the world getting honorary titles and lavished with praise for being what media and university lobotomized citizenry of Canada and elsewhere in the West want non-Whites to be: harmless tokens who ape their views perfectly. Oh, but I forgot, privilege is something reserved specifically for Whites, no matter how poor their upbringing.

Meanwhile, this is what her own co-religionists say about her:

It’s a political decision and a conspiracy… She is a normal, useless type of a girl. Nothing in her is special at all. She’s selling what the West will buy.

So said the editor of the Pakistan Observer newspaper, Tariq Khattack, and he is correct. Another Pakistani journalist, Assed Baig, once stated,

Malala is the good native, she does not criticize the West, she does not talk about the drone strikes, she is the perfect candidate for the white man to relieve his burden and save the native.

I would argue that it is not the White man’s burden but the liberal White man and others who have essentially bought up the uncritical narrative pushed by the media, activists and politicians. Groups which have all completely uprooted themselves from their Occidental background.

It would seem that many ordinary Pakistanis and Muslims more generally are also critical of Malala, but for religious reasons. Again, we see how disconnected she is from those the elite tells us she represents.

Sadly, Canadians are especially susceptible to the narratives pushed by Malala and her handlers. Canadians are so ignorant and arrogant because of their geography. Canada is safe from most of the travails of the world being isolated from the Old World and bordering the global hegemon. Canadians have been afforded the luxury of not understanding differences in culture, race, religion, etc., because unlike Europe there is no real threat of invasion. Of course it helped that when the country was founded the political leadership had no intentions of flooding disparate peoples (whether for neoliberal or social liberal reasoning), but as Dr. Duchesne has noted, starting in the 1950s, the leadership turned away from basic and natural understanding of nationhood and instead went about deconstructing the identities of English and French Canada and turning Canada into a patchwork of disparate peoples from around the world; with special focus being placed on migration from the Third World. Decades of propaganda in support of such changes has, I fear, taken its toll on the Canadian collective psyche.

Malala, Nobel Prize laureate
You White Canadians have no right to deprive Muslims Girls of an Education! We are coming to your countries and we expect to be educated!

Malala Yousafzai is yet another weapon used against White Canadians by a liberal elite hell-bent on doing whatever it can to marginalize if not replace the founding stock in favour of others who will be more easily controlled. They use her to seemingly confirm the lie that foreign cultures and religions can mesh with Western ones. She has the potential to be particularly destructive as her claim to fame is supporting the right of girls to an education. Any criticism of her will ultimately lead to an outcry, because our superficial society does not bother to look beyond the seemingly sweet and innocent surface. Its not just Pakistanis who should be wary of her and, indeed, UN backed activists as a whole.

Posted in Canada, Immigration, Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Culloden

CullodenOn April 16th, 1746, the last battle fought on British soil occurred. It was a confrontation between the supporters of two different dynastic houses, but it was more than just some familial feud. This was the Battle of Culloden and it was the last battle in a conflict that was political, religious and ethnic. It is the subject of John Prebble’s Culloden, but his book is more than just a re-telling of that battle. It is also the story of Scottish Highlanders and in particular what happened to them in the aftermath of Culloden. Prebble’s book is also, to a lesser extent, the story of the Lowlands and of the men who fought on behalf of the ruling Hanoverian dynasty against the rebellious Jacobites.

John Prebble is perhaps best known for having written the screenplay for the great 1964 film Zulu. He also helped in creating a documentary based off of this book. Prebble was for most of his life a communist and yet he was arguably a Scottish nationalist as well. Though he is clearly very critical of aspects of Scottish culture and traditional feelings of nostalgia for Jacobitism, from reading Culloden one generally comes back with the feeling that this was in fact the work of a patriot.

The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 was the second attempt by the Scottish Stuart dynasty to retake the thrones of England, Scotland (which since 1701 were united together) and Ireland. The first rebellion had occurred in 1715 and had also begun in Scotland, although there was a failed attempt at initiating one in Cornwall as well. James II was the last Stuart to rule over the British Isles. He was overthrown during the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ in 1688 after the largely Anglican political establishment decided they had had enough of a Catholic king whose wife had just recently given birth to a son – the ‘Old Pretender’ aka James III to Jacobites. James II tried to regain his lands in 1689, when he landed in Ireland to help the largely Catholic Irish resist the Protestant forces of Great Britain, the Netherlands (where his replacement William III hailed from) and Ulster. This attempt failed. So did his son’s aforementioned attempt in 1715. After the failure of the 1715 rebellion, the ‘Old Pretender’ essentially resigned himself to live out the rest of his days in exile in France, but his son, Charles Edward (aka the ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’ or the ‘Young Pretender’) was not so easily subdued. He landed in Scotland in 1745 to take back the British Isles for his father.

Bonnie Prince Charlie by John Pettie

John Pettie – Bonnie Prince Charlie

As stated earlier this war was more than just two (closely related as it turns out) families fighting for power. The Jacobites represented the old order as they wanted the monarch to rule over parliament. As Catholics, James II and his son and grandson naturally wanted to give equal rights to Catholics, but they also claimed to want to give similar rights to those Protestants that weren’t Anglicans. There is a long running controversy about whether James II had truly meant to give such rights to low-church Protestants or if he wanted to force Catholicism upon the populace, which is the view generally held by liberals. The enemies of James and his prodigy were indeed liberal. They were Whigs, the forerunners of the modern variants of liberalism and its offshoots (including cultural marxism). They believed in ‘progress’ and the power of the parliament over the monarch who was to be as powerless as possible. They also supported the continued amalgamation of all regions of the British Isles and political centralization. In contrast, a good many Jacobites wanted the Act of Union repealed. The Hanoverian dynasty, like William III before them, were not fully behind Whiggism, but there was nothing they could do. They owed their title and power to parliament and thus were beholden to it.

Personally I’ve never been impressed with James II or the Stuart dynasty as a whole (going back to when they were still only kings of Scotland). Similarly, the Highlanders weren’t particularly predisposed towards James or his family either and in fact the most powerful of Highland leaders, the Lord of the Isles, had on several occasions gone to war against the Stuart kings during the 15th century. However, the cause which was born from the Stuart’s overthrow is obviously bigger than one man. Moreover, the Bonnie Prince was a man who was able to inspire loyalty through his charisma and daring. He gave them the will and desire to march as far as Derby and, had his generals been less cautious, perhaps it would have been this Italian-born and seemingly foppish aristocrat who would have taken London and brought the Stuarts back to power.

Prebble does not give much background to the Jacobite Rebellion that Culloden was the final, bloody battle of. In this way it is as if he had written this book with the belief that his readership would be well versed in the history of the rebellion, which is uncharacteristic of this book as a whole, because Prebble often relates information which even those of us with knowledge of the rebellion aren’t aware of. That said, Prebble does occasionally go back to mention previous events concerning the conflict.

Prebble does give some context to this conflict with regards to the way of life of the Highlanders who made up the bulk of the Prince’s army (although Irish, English and others fought for the Prince).[1] Many of course were Catholic, but a great many were Protestants. Prebble notes that many fought because they had been forced to by their clan chieftains. The Highlands were a largely poor and underdeveloped region, quite unlike the Lowlands or England, with the small city of Inverness being the only gateway to the continent that the region had. Many Highlanders lived in little more than hovels and were essentially living a feudal life.

Land used to be owned collectively in the Highlands, but this had changed in the 18th century when it became solely owned by the chief. However, he owned all the land on behalf of his people and parceled out land to his subjects. The mensal was land purely for the chief’s use but some land was given to families of the clan officials (which included the bard and piper, which were hereditary positions) and the rest held by tenants under lease. Tenants could then lease parts to still others. Such men would owe tenants allegiance and all owed allegiance to the chief.

Chiefs were often more cultured and worldly than we imagine. They spoke English and Gaelic and many spoke French and Latin as well, being graduates of universities in the Lowlands or the continent (page 36). Many had a taste for foreign fashion and cuisine. I’d say its fair to say most were good rulers, however, there were exceptions – for example, Sir Alexander MacDonald of Sleat sold hundreds of his people into indentured servitude in the Americas (page 37). The chief’s power was based on the size of his cattle herds as it had been for the Gaels since antiquity. And as with the ancient Gaels, the Highlanders of the modern era engaged in cattle raids against rival clans. In the eyes of his people, the chief’s primary duty was to be a conquering warrior (page 39). His bards and pipers composed poetry and songs, respectively, to commemorate his battlefield glories and those of his ancestors.

The chief controlled all aspects of his people’s life and so when he chose to fight for the Prince or the government (as some clans like the Campbells did) then his subjects had to support him. Evidently those who refused had homes burned, cattle killed and were themselves beaten (page 52). During their trials after the rebellion had ended, many told such stories to the court, but this wasn’t enough for a pardon as the English didn’t understand the Highland honour culture; they stated that the Highlanders should have run away, but where would they go? What kind of a man are you if you betray your chief and clan?

Prebble describes the battle from beginning to end noting what a terrible waste of men it was for the Jacobites. A truly sad and grim affair. The relentless gunfire from the government lines, the desperate charge of the Highlanders, the last ditch attempt by the non-Highland battalions to hold off the government cavalry and let the Highlanders make good their escape; all is told here in great and gory detail. Prebble goes into detail describing some of the leaders and supporters of the Prince, including, among others, ‘Colonel Anne’, the Lady Mackintosh. She didn’t lead any troops into battle but her story is told here because of how intriguing it is. Her husband had gone south to raise a militia force for the government, but when he left she then raised his clan for the Prince (page 68)! He also notes how Catholic priests had not only gone throughout the Highlands preaching rebellion, but many fought as well (page 50).

Prebble notes how the Jacobite cavalry was seriously depleted at Culloden and indeed most were on foot. The artillery had always been a weak point for the Jacobites, but at Culloden it was just down right terrible. Most pieces had been lost and most gunners had deserted so the few guns at Culloden were largely manned by untrained men. Moreover, Charles had left one John Hay in charge of supplies for the army, but Hay proved to be incompetent: he left them at Inverness. It was the aged Irish general O’Sullivan who demanded a fight at Drummossie Moor and is responsible for the poor deployment prior to battle (page 55).[2] Prior to the fateful battle, a night attack attempted at Nairn where the government forces were stationed, but it never went anywhere as the soldiers got lost in the dark. The army was thus dispirited, tired and hungry by the time of the engagement (page 56). Some were so tired they slept straight through the battle and only awoke when enemy dragoons fell upon them after it was all over (page 58). A Jacobite feigned surrender just before the battle so he could assassinate the Duke of Cumberland – who lead the government army. He shot at the wrong target (Lord Bury) but missed, and was himself shot (page 32). Most Jacobite deaths were caused by the artillery barrage at the beginning of the battle. This lasted 30 minutes before they decided to charge, although O’Sullivan had wanted them to remain standing there and continue to endure the barrage (page 82).[3]

David Morier - An Incident In The Rebellion Of 1745

David Morier – An Incident in the Rebellion of 1745

Two major tasks this book sets out to deal with are: ending certain myths surrounding the rebellion and to tell the often forgotten bloody aftermath. In fact, most of the book’s pages are devoted to this last task. In terms of dealing with myths, we have already seen how Prebble describes the authoritarian nature of the clans which meant the Jacobite army was not one entirely made of volunteers. Another myth is that the Prince was a coward, but in fact Charles had to be led off the field of battle when he attempted to lead a last desperate hurrah against the enemy even though it would certainly have meant death (page 108). Prebble mentions how the Duke had spies within the rebel army and even the Prince’s entourage, feeding the government information on the Prince’s whereabouts after he went underground. Again, he sets out to show that loyalty to the Jacobite cause was not total. Truly Charles was a tragic figure, but Prebble speaks of him with much scorn as if he were some silly man-child. I wouldn’t go this far and in fact quite admire the man. His last years were, however, depressing ones of solitary life and alcoholism in French exile.

In terms of the battle’s aftermath, almost immediately the civilian populace experienced the wrath of the Duke of Cumberland, who has since gone down in history as ‘The Butcher’ by the Scots (and also the Tories, who were largely Jacobites at this time). Commoners including women and children who had been watching the battle, even those doing so from their homes, were shot at and attacked by government forces after the battle (page 113). Prebble suggests that the troopers killed those they thought were coming to loot the dead and he notes how one Michael Hughes wrote they could not always tell rebel from civilian. However, Prebble also notes that it is clear many were killed in cold blood and not for the reasons stated above (page 118). Farmers who were simply ploughing their fields and their families were slaughtered by government forces in cold blood, for example (page 119). Meanwhile, the dying Jacobites were left on the battlefield for two days before the victorious government soldiers went around killing them (page 125). Someone forged an addendum to Lord Murray’s orders (when they were found) saying he ordered for their to be no quarter. This was told to the parties sent out to find Rebels and they used it as an excuse to kill rebels, suspected rebels and their sympathizers (page 126).

Prisoners of War were treated terribly and essentially left to rot in prisons, the holds of ships, cellars and any other dank and crowded place they could be forced into. Jacobite doctors were not allowed to keep the instruments necessary to treat their injured (page 150). The following is an example, in Prebble’s typical descriptive fashion, of the POW experience,

Some prisoners, from whom the guards expected violence or escape, were manacled, and were not released to eat, seep or relieve themselves. Two officers of the Duke of Perth’s regiment, Major James Stewart and Major Alexander MacLachlan, were handcuffed for ten days, and MacLachlan so tightly that ‘his hands swell’d so that the irons could not be seen.’ Their daily and dignified request for larger irons were daily and obscenely refused. In the same prison, the Tolbooth, Farquharson said that he tended to a dying Frenchman who lay to his waist in excreta. There was little the Highland blooder could do but put a stone beneath the man’s head for a pillow. The dead were not taken from the prisons immediately, they were left until there were a dozen or more, enough to make the employment of the beggars worth the few pence paid. Until then, the living endured the rotting company of the corpses.  (page 154).

Surrendering rebels were at mercy of officers of men they surrendered to. Often they’d be killed anyways. Similarly, troops often burned down the property of suspected rebels during their searches (page 181). Of the POWs, 936 were made indentured servants, 222 were simply banished, 88 died in prison, 120 were executed, 58 escaped, 76 were given pardons, 1287 were released or exchanged and 684 fell in the category of “disposal unknown.” (page 233). Such individuals were more than likely the victims of mortal abuse at the hands of their captors. Some 58 camp women were also imprisoned and 27 were sent to the colonies. Many had infants with them (page 234).

The trials for the POWs were all of them short and so similar that as Prebble says, to read one trial is to read them all. Stalin once said that one death is a tragedy but many is a mere statistic, in other words that we are moved more by individual cases of suffering as we can personalise it and make it seem more real to us. For this reason, I believe, Prebble decided to focus his attention on a handful of those were were executed in order to give the reader a better idea of what they all went through. Most were common people and we hear of some, like the English Catholic Francis Towneley, who were stoic and bravely faced death and of others who were anything but. Some like one Donald Macdonald were happy and festive during their imprisonment, treating the whole thing as a joke while others were naturally very gloomy and depressed about the whole experience and the doom it was all leading to. It is interesting that he chose to focus more on the members of the English Manchester Regiment. I suppose this was partly done because every single member was executed, partly perhaps because they had not actually fought at all (having been captured without a fight at Carlisle) and partly perhaps because he wanted to give some space for the non-Highland members of the Jacobite army.

The aftermath of Culloden also brought out anti-Catholic tendencies in the people of London and Edinburgh who, upon hearing of Cumberland’s victory, took to the streets to attack Catholics and their places of worship (page 141). However, the treatment of civilians in the Highlands was far worse. Government clans used aftermath of Culloden as excuse to launch raids into rival territory (page 165). Though ultimately the destruction of Highland culture was the goal of the Duke he allowed it to persist for a little while longer so long as it could be used for his purposes of punishing Jacobite clans. Cattle herds confiscated and soldiers given part of the earnings their officers made in selling the cattle. The main goal, however, was to starve the clans and break their economy (page 182). And starve the people of the Highlands did. Starving and often leaderless now that their chiefs were dead, in prison or exile, the people were broken and there were to be no serious attempts at maintaining rebellion.

Prebble gives many examples of the killings, rape and wanton destruction wrought upon Highlanders regardless of their political or religious affiliations. In some cases, they were a response to the few acts of resistance, although the impression given is that these were often desperate acts by cold and starving men to get some clothes, bedding and food. Soldiers, angered at not being able to get at their attackers taking their frustrations out on others. For example, after a group of clansmen robbed the baggage train of Lord George Sackille, he set his men loose upon the nearest hamlet allowing them to rape the women who were “then held to watch the shooting and bayoneting of their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons.” (page 199).

The Duke was essentially given a blank cheque when it came to governing Scotland. I suspect the power went to his head, but also that he was determined to secure the fruits of his victory at Culloden and to ensure that never again could his cousin’s family threaten the dominance of his own. There was also the very real fear of continued French meddling in Scottish affairs (as it was the French who equipped the Prince and gave him passage to Scotland) if the clans weren’t subjugated. Plus, destruction of the clan system allowed the state to further extend centralized power. Would the same fate have befallen the Highlands even with no Rising? I suspect so but this simply hastened the process. This raises the question, though, as to whether the clan system would have survived had Charles succeeded in getting his father the British crown. Would the Stuart dynasty have left the Highlands in peace as a reward for their service or would they have followed the same path as demanded by the Whigs and many Lowlanders? Or could they simply have ignored the demands of such men? How much did the pro-Jacobite Tories care for the Highland way of life? The pacification of the Highlands, after all, was more than the Hanoverians simply getting vengeance.

After Culloden, singing rebel songs, having drunk to the Prince’s health or being a rebel sympathiser was enough for one to be jailed and at first these pronouncements were followed through, but as we shall see the soldiers eventually gave up. The tartan and kilt were for a time banned because they were seen to make the Highlanders too mobile and so made them a threat should they choose to become guerrillas. It was also another way to destroy clan system and culture (page 310). When the land system changed in the Highlands it went from lords owning land on behalf of all to the lord owning everything for himself. Parental feelings were destroyed and thus the path was set for the Highland clearances. Many lords took part in the clearing of their own people as profit triumphed over tribal and familial loyalties (page 315). The end of Jacobite Rising saw the beginning of the end of the last vestiges of a maritime Gaelic culture.

MapC2

Lingustic situation in Ireland and Scotland over 200 years prior to Culloden. Gaelic languages were still predominant at that point, however, they began a rapid decline thereafter. The repression in the Scottish Highlands after Culloden and the Highland Clearances effectively reduced the Scottish variant to a few fringe areas. A similar process of conquest and emigration (along with the infamous famine of 1845) greatly reduced the Irish variant as well

Culloden is also the story of the government soldiers; their travails, camp women, boredom and general life in the army. He mentions how they fully took to plundering even though it was forbidden to them, because they needed the money and Prebble claims the harsh actions of their officers led them to treat others harshly too. A soldier’s life was hard and full of abuse. He got almost no pay and was bound to wind up a beggar after service. London didn’t give enough supplies (including clothes and bedding) to the troops so they stole what they could. Even going into the Lowlands. Indeed, it sounds as if the Lowlanders were often viewed with the same suspicions as Highlanders by English officers. Perhaps because of this, in Edinburgh that December, people began wearing the white cockade of the Jacobite army, signing rebel songs and holding balls in honour of the Jacobite cause (page 296). All of this would have been a clear act of defiance against the government which was treating the Lowlanders as if they were an occupied enemy populace. The soldiers treated such orders with disdain and even laughed along with those they were meant to arrest (page 297). Thus is the beginning of the romance surrounding the rebellion in the Lowlands, a place which largely ignored the Prince’s call to arms. A romance which Prebble is very much against.

For classical liberals I suppose it must seem strange that Prebble, who was for much of his life a communist, would condemn one form of interdependent socio-economic system whilst being an admirer of another form, but this would be from their failure to see the differences between the varied systems of collective existence. Collectivism has a positive natural expression, but also an inorganic one that has come out of a marxist reaction to classical liberals; the clan system, for all its faults, would be an example of the former. It gave people a sense of community and a common goal. Moreover, it united them with their ancestors. Though Prebble is no traditionalist or Jacobite it is possible for those who are, to read it and not feel it overly cringe-worthy. The same could also be said of more modernist right-wing Scottish nationalists, and Highlanders in particular.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1]Interestingly enough the Prince’s army did not use corporal punishment and it is suggested that this was a factor in government soldiers switching sides (page 122), although not many actually went turncoat. Some the deserters found among the Rebel POWs had deserted in Flanders and either because they wanted to go home, needed the money or were truly Jacobites, joined the French companies that left for Scotland in 1745 (page 146).

[2]Another important advisor to the Bonnie Prince was Sheridan, yet another aged Irishman. Charles’ most able general seems to have been Lord George Murray who had earlier defeated government forces at Falkirk. He also was against a battle being fought at Culloden. However, he had also counseled against continuing the Jacobite advance from Derby to London, perhaps had the Jacobites actually done so they could have won.

[3]This has raised the question as to whether the battle could have gone the Prince’s way if the Highlanders had been allowed to charge earlier? Although perhaps not given how devastating the musket fire from the government lines was and also the new technique of bayonetting which had been developed precisely to deal with a Highland charge.

Posted in Books, History, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Rotten Daffodils

Also published at Identity Forum

 

 

Logo-Plaid-e1461174092155

There is a tendency among the Welsh to show great pride in the deeds of past ancestors who fought against English conquest; of men who wanted to force the English back, the championing of a distinct Welsh identity, the preservation of the nation’s culture, it’s heritage and it’s language. However, as with so many of the Scots and Irish, such fervour doesn’t appear to extend to the current and even greater invasion coming from third worlds. In fact, it would seem that the political leaders of modern Wales are, in a complete volte-face from those of popular heroes like Owain Glyndwr, actually making it easier for foreigners to undermine and displace the Welsh people in their own homeland.

Medieval Welsh poetry and prose lament of Wales and Cornwall as the last refuges of the Brythonic people in the British Isles, having been driven west or assimilated1 by Germanic invaders.2 Today, it would seem that Welsh politicians are helping to ensure that this refuge is taken from them.

Recently, as Jack Montgomery reports, politicians in Wales have been feverishly working to turn their country into the world’s first ‘nation of sanctuary’ for so-called refugees from the third world. Labour politician John Griffiths has promoted this idea which, it appears, has been in the works since 2012. Of course, it comes to no surprise that the Labour party would be pushing for such an idea, given how they have admitted to opening Britain’s borders as a way of forever screwing over their ‘tory’ rivals. One of the many other high-level supporters of this plan is none other than the leader of the nationalist Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales), Leanne Wood.

 

Saunders_Lewis_1936
Saunders Lewis

Saunders Lewis, the founder of Plaid Cymru, must be turning in his grave.

At first, this all seems quite confusing. Why would a supposed nationalist party support such a measure? However, the Party of Wales like the SNP in Scotland and nationalist movements in Catalonia and elsewhere, is not actually a nationalist organization. Leanne Wood is actually just a run-of-the-mill socialist, a self-declared feminist, a republican, an ardent supporter of the EU. She also cites the 19th century miner Lewsyn yr Heliwr – one of the leaders of the Merthyr Rising, a workers strike, where red flag was flown for the first time – as a hero. All in all, she holds all the views one would expect from someone in any standard social democratic party. Wood and other such ‘nationalists’ have proven that they are in league with the other globalist shills. The only factor which distinguishes them from their mainstream rivals is that they want to impose such policies on a smaller scale. ‘Independence’ means saying goodbye to the United Kingdom, while gleefully embracing micro-bloc status within the gargantuan, bureaucratic, and dwindling European Union.

Nationalism, as we know it, grew out of liberalism and there are many early examples of nationalists like Vasil Levski who rejected ethnic, racial or religious nationalisms in favour of an all-encompassing civic variety. In Levski’s case, he chose to reject the ethnic definition of Bulgaria in favour of a geographical expression. Meaning he saw anyone living in the territory known as Bulgaria as Bulgarian, regardless of their faith, language, culture, blood, et al. However, it must be said that even these liberal nationalists of the 19th century were never as insane as Leanne Wood and her ilk, as they never envisioned turning their lands into massive dumping grounds for the flotsam and jetsam of the world. It should, of course, be noted that many were ethnocentrists and racialists (as was the norm in saner times), regardless of their liberal ideals of democracy and free trade. Even the early socialists look clear minded and level headed when compared to Leanne Wood. One wonders what her hero, Lewis Lewis, would make of such an assault on the native working class.

In Wales just as in Scotland and elsewhere, rightist politics are associated with that European nation which has dominated them and, more specifically, the neoliberal policies of The Conservative Party. Founded upon separatist principles, the politics of such nationalist movements have been established upon reactive contrarianism, finally blossoming into a hodgepodge of inconsistent and incompatible liberal-leftist agendas. Not only will they claim to champion workers’ rights, but also mass migration, housing developments and environmentalism. None of these policies mesh. In the case of Wales, such a small country being turned into a massive ‘refugee’ camp will mean that its agricultural land and areas of conservation will have to be sacrificed. Moreover, it would in no way help the maintenance and growth of its endangered culture and language. In championing the cause of open borders and mass migration they will sacrifice other supposedly cherished causes, including the one they are supposed to hold higher than all others: the survival of the Welsh people, their identity, culture and language included. If successful, they would bring about something far worse than anything England could ever have accomplished.

Ultimately, the European nations of the world are meant to destroy themselves in the name of deracinated ideals. Ideals which, for the most part, are shared by Europeans and Europeans alone. It doesn’t much matter if the countries in question were ever subjected or occupated; They are still White, and thus still in need of ‘deconstruction’ along with those few European countries which did succeed in overseas imperial projects.

So much for indigenous rights.

Famously, when Henry II of England was campaigning in Wales he came across a Welshman who told him that,

“This nation, O King, may now as in former times be harassed, and in a great measure weakened and destroyed by your and other powers, and it will often prevail by its own exertions; but it can never be totally subdued through the wrath of man, unless the wrath of God shall concur. Nor do I think that any other nation than this of Wales, or any other language, whatever hereafter may come to pass, shall, on the day of severe examination before the Supreme Judge, answer for this corner of the earth.”3

It remains to be seen if this will be so. Clearly, the ‘nationalist’ party has shown itself to be one of those powers hell-bent on Wales’ destruction that this man spoke of, interests of their voting base be damned!

Is this what Welsh voted for? Based on the 2014 poll cited in Montgomery’s article it would appear the majority did not. 68% believed immigration controls should be tighter (5% believed they should be relaxed). 41% also believed that immigration has damaged Wales, with 18% saying the damage has been “very bad”. This compares with 22 per cent who said immigration has benefited Wales, with just 5 per saying the effects have been “very good”. These numbers aren’t good enough, but I suppose they are the best one can hope for given the endless multiracial, one world propaganda that has been imposed on the Welsh (and European peoples in general) via the media, government, corporations, education system and judiciary.

It should also be noted that the majority of Welsh voted for Brexit and that during the last general election, The Conservatives took second place, while UKIP came third in the popular vote (without out winning any seats). UKIP by far had the largest growth. To me, this suggests that the Welsh are not fully on board with leftist social engineering. Unfortunately, for the moment, such sentiments can only be expressed by voting for parties that are either rightist in name only (like the tories) or are a rather mixed bag (like UKIP). I’m happy to say that the social media accounts of traitors like John Griffiths and Leanne Wood are filled with angry comments concerning their globalist agenda.4

Democracy is supposed to mean that it is the will of the voters that decides which policies a state will enact. The will of the people, however, can always be subverted. Those elected can always avoid following up on their promises, deliberately choosing to forgo delivering in the interests of their electorate. At worst, this may include enacting or supporting something that their voters specifically voted against. And even when individuals come along with anti-establishment views, there is no telling how effective they will be when up against the seemingly impenetrable wall of opposition from the ruling puppeteers. As with Trump, who now appears to be caving into the endless opposition from multiple corners over his previously touted anti-interventionist policies, nothing is guaranteed or all it may seem. Ultimately, democracy will not solve the problems facing the Occident. Once again, many of us are left asking, How much will the farce continue?

 

 

1It is important to note that assimilation was the greater force at work here as the majority of English can trace their ancestry back to the indigenous inhabitants of Britain, just like the Welsh and Cornish.

2The Irish also invaded Britain around the same time, but with the exception of (the formerly Brythonic) Isle of Mann and the Pictish regions of Scotland, they were not as successful.

3Wynford Vaughn-Thomas, Wales A History. Michael Joseph Ltd., London. 1985.Page 98

4Sadly, a major issue with Welsh politics – and politics in the West in general – is people voting for a party out of loyalty, as it is the one they or their family have always voted for. The eternal urbanite is yet another issue.

Posted in Immigration, Politics, United Kingdom | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment