What does it mean to be a true Greek? ...Irish? ...American?

Perhaps this is relevant to no one's interest here, but having been told I'm 50% Irish by my parents I am interested in what views the Romans, Germans, and other great heritages had on the capacities of the Irish. I am very ignorant about my own heritage and exploring what relationships and respect the Irish were given throughout history has been a way of understanding my own capacities and adjusting my value system accordingly.

Perusing Google searches such as "What do the Germans think about the Irish?" and other like terms, I've found both strengths and weaknesses.

The major criticisms of the Irish heritage is that they take part in too much gaiety and are uncivilized. I often see criticisms in the fact that the Irish are always drunk, they take poor care of their hygiene and that without interruption from other heritages they would not be so educated or civil as they are today. The way I've interpreted this is that the Irishman is like a missing link between the Negro and other European heritages. Though, perhaps because they are on an Island, the Irish first had to bear the mainland life of a European only to later find sheltering and solitude on Ireland where that sheltering made intelligence less important. The Irish needed the same faculties as other heritages in a cold environment from their history but perhaps to a lesser extent as, becoming secluded on an island, they faced only the elements (nature) that, once adapted to, needed very little further adjustments to survival wise. Most of the criticisms in regards to the Irish being uncivilized were from Anglo-Saxons.

When searching for Roman thoughts on the Irish the first few results on Google were disappointing and so, being the lazy fool that I am, did not explore that further. The most I remember finding is that the Greek were aware of the Irish and respected them somewhat as a foe and a threat if provoked. They, at least, weren't complete pushovers.

Knowing about the accomplishments of the German folk, I wanted to see what their opinion on the Irish were. From perusing what results I did get, it seems the Irish were seen as some sort of fairy folk who the Germans took to quite fondly. The Irish were said to criticize the Germans, telling them to lighten up and have a drink, etc. It was said that the Germans tried to help create a sort of paradise within Ireland. Whether this is actually true or not, I am not sure.

Thus far I see the Irish as a little below par in intelligence capacity due to a sheltering forest environment and the primal behavior it allowed. So, in the world today where many are sheltered it affords someone of Irish heritage the ability to 'move up' in the genetic quality of a partner. Of course, this is if reproduction is a primary concern. Being such a hedonist would inevitably affect more than just yourself but your child's well being as well.

I do not claim this to be an objective view of the Irish, it is my personal conception that I would, if any has to offer, like corrections or other viewpoints on. Many of what I said has personal values stuffed in there that may not have any sound justification for being there. I am looking for correction more than I am validation.

It's interesting that the Irish are one of the few northern peoples that have similar attitude with the southern Mediterranean peoples.

Don't know enough of Irish history to comment on what in their past made them so...perhaps apaosha does.

I'd agree with most of that, with the addition that the 800 or so years of being ruled by Britain had a strong selective influence on the psyche of people here. Penal Laws prevented Catholics from receiving an education or working or (I think) owning property. Generally any uprising was brutally crushed and the partiipants massacred or imprisoned or exiled... which led to a strong instinct to submit and curry favour with authority figures; an instinct which is still very strong today.
You should look into the Flight of the Earls as an example: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

The Penal Laws were, according to Edmund Burke “a machine of wise and elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.”

So you had no leaders and the people themselves had no real prospects. Over the generations this inevitably favoured the selection of certain traits. That's my belief, anyway.

In terms of the origins of the Irish race, from memory the first people on the island were the Tuatha De Danann, the people of the goddess Danu, who seem to be linked to the Danube river etymologically. These were displaced by Celtic invasions from Iberia (Spain/Portugal), the Sons of Mil. After that I'm not so sure what happened but they were converted to Christianity, suffered slave raids and colonization by the Vikings and were eventually conquered by the Normans and brought under British rule in the 11th Century.
They had their own Pagan religion, involving Druids, and gods like An Dagda, Morrigan, Lugh, etc. The hero Cúchulainn (pronounced koo-kullan) is vaguely analogous to Achilles or Hercules. They had the Brehon laws to govern themselves and an elected High King to rule them. They had the Fianna which a sort of noble warrior society.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There's also the fact that the Irish took very strongly to Christianity to the point where Ireland was known as "the land of saints and scholars" very early on, before the Normans invaded.. In the same way they recently have taken very strongly to liberalism and the ideologies of tolerance, multiculturism, feminism, etc. I think this is an instinct to ally with dominant foreign ideologies which is very self-defeating.

That's all just off the top of my head so it's incomplete and some of it is probably wrong. Do searches on some of the things I mentioned if you're interested.

When it comes to alcohol I am extremely atypical as a teetotaller so I can't comment, personally.

Also: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Slaughtz wrote:

I am interested in what views the Romans, Germans, and other great heritages had on the capacities of the Irish. I am very ignorant about my own heritage and exploring what relationships and respect the Irish were given throughout history has been a way of understanding my own capacities and adjusting my value system accordingly.
Perusing Google searches such as "What do the Germans think about the Irish?" and other like terms, I've found both strengths and weaknesses.

Why would you use such a skewed approach through another's perspective to study your heritage while you are just starting to discover? Unless, you begin with your customs, culture, myths and beliefs as laid down in your history first, you won't be able to fully evaluate how far or how good the perception of your culture holds good, has weight. Just a suggestion.

If you're interested in exploring pagan celto-germanic religious kinship, etc. will suggest a book.

Satyr wrote:

Irish are one of the few northern peoples that have similar attitude with the southern Mediterranean peoples.

I'm interested in you elaborating on this. What kind of attitudes have you observed in the southern Mediterranean?
The first settlers of Ireland were conquered/displaced by the Spanish, which is where you might see the similarity in attitudes. [1]

apaosha wrote:

Generally any uprising was brutally crushed and the partiipants massacred or imprisoned or exiled... which led to a strong instinct to submit and curry favour with authority figures; an instinct which is still very strong today.

Oh, I've experienced this viscerally. I find it extremely difficult to take on typically masculine characteristics and I've a history of saying to friends before that "I feel as if I was bred to exceed at being a beta male." So I am inclined to agree.

apaosha wrote:

In terms of the origins of the Irish race, from memory the first people on the island were the Tuatha De Danann, the people of the goddess Danu, who seem to be linked to the Danube river etymologically. These were displaced by Celtic invasions from Iberia (Spain/Portugal), the Sons of Mil.

I looked this up and the Tuatha De Danann were apparently the fifth to settle on the island of Ireland, not the first. I'm not sure who was technically 'the first.'

apaosha wrote:

When it comes to alcohol I am extremely atypical as a teetotaller so I can't comment, personally.

Interesting, I promised myself at 12 years old that I would never drink or smoke. Thus far, I drink occasionally but I am no drunkard. I actually fear how I might behave if I lost control of my own behavior. All the times I've been "drunk" I could remember what happened and how I was behaving. I can no longer say I'm a teetotaller, but I can understand the decision.

Lyssa wrote:

Why would you use such a skewed approach through another's perspective to study your heritage while you are just starting to discover? Unless, you begin with your customs, culture, myths and beliefs as laid down in your history first, you won't be able to fully evaluate how far or how good the perception of your culture holds good, has weight. Just a suggestion.

Ah, my intentions were clearly stated to Satyr in PM, I am not really a noble person looking for truth but someone who is exploring this out of a need for satisfaction. I would be fine with being the average, happy in ignorance, dolt but it seems in some ways I wasn't afforded that. My exploration of outside perceptions of my heritage is a sort of 'knowing your enemy' and trying to work out chinks in my armor. I was not joking that I am quite lazy but I am also quite illiterate - I look for a quick way to solve my problems. Interesting to me, this is what Schopenhauer criticized women for doing. That's about the extent of my introspection though until need arises for further.
[TL;DR my approach is probably nonsensical to a "noble soul"]
I suppose you could look at it as me manufacturing need, especially from what might be considered delusional premises.

I would not mind a book suggestion on the celto-germanic kinship if it includes the Irish, though I'm pretty sure the Irish are not really Celts. [1]

1: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Slaughtz wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Irish are one of the few northern peoples that have similar attitude with the southern Mediterranean peoples.

I'm interested in you elaborating on this. What kind of attitudes have you observed in the southern Mediterranean?
The first settlers of Ireland were conquered/displaced by the Spanish, which is where you might see the similarity in attitudes. [1]

A joie de vivre, love of life; a joyous fatalism; a distinct sense of self and an independence of mind; an identity centered around family; a vivacious expressiveness and generosity of spirit.

Quote :

Oh, I've experienced this viscerally. I find it extremely difficult to take on typically masculine characteristics and I've a history of saying to friends before that "I feel as if I was bred to exceed at being a beta male." So I am inclined to agree.

As a young child I was not like that at all and even led a gang of younger boys which I often bullied. Several of them, in fact. I had few steady friends but many acquaintances. I was rather isolated as a teenager but overcame myself in others as I grew older and now sometimes find that I need to restrain a kind of callous cruelty or indifference. But then I am Irish only genetically. Mimetically I lean more toward the greek or german, thanks to the influence of various philosophers and writers.

You should note that this psychology need not be a genetic predisposition. It may be common back in Ireland, even dominant, but in the diaspora there are those who break this mold. The Kennedys for example. My theory is that the island itself has formed itself into a pretty much permanent rural backwater mentality and that when one leaves one is forced through necessity to adapt to changing or difficult circumstances... allowing the more desirable traits to manifest themselves once again. It may be of some consolation to remember that though the original stock degenerated to what it is today, that that earlier potential may not be entirely extinct.
These days however, the island is being turned into a pseudo-american melting pot according to the modern creed, so even that is now up in the air.

Quote :

I looked this up and the Tuatha De Danann were apparently the fifth to settle on the island of Ireland, not the first. I'm not sure who was technically 'the first.'

Sorry. But like I said, it was from memory. I should have qualified that by adding that they were the earliest I knew of.

Quote :

Interesting, I promised myself at 12 years old that I would never drink or smoke. Thus far, I drink occasionally but I am no drunkard. I actually fear how I might behave if I lost control of my own behavior. All the times I've been "drunk" I could remember what happened and how I was behaving. I can no longer say I'm a teetotaller, but I can understand the decision.

I've never really drank, or been drunk. On the few occasions I've tried alcohol, no more than sips, the taste did not appeal to me. I may grow more adventurous when I grow older. I'm a very odd Irishman.

I got inspired by Mr.Panos whose message "Fuck you, malaka" keeps influencing people around the world.


I'm going to make a few videos dedicated to different nations, but before I begin I'd like to understand how you think.

There is one question which I really like to ask everyone who claims to be a patriot and supports his nation.


Give me you brains, my noble Kings and Warriors.

I don't want the young to become 'citizens of the world' who lost their identity.

Let's say, it doesn't matter where they live today.

What a boy and a girl should know to become of a true Greek, Irish, American, etc, etc?

How should they think and act to make their nations flourish?


I'm asking you for a short definition which every person should hear, understand, and begin to influence their friends.


What does it really mean to be a Greek?

What does it really mean to be an Irish?

What does it really mean to be an American?

What does it really mean to be a Russian?

What does it really mean to be *insert your nation*?

Start with biology.

Recidivist wrote:

Start with biology.

"To be a true *Recidivist*, start with biology."

Is that all what you would tell your kid?




* * *

OK, let's start from here. As an example I'll use the Greeks.

"A true Greek, and the one who supports Greece, is only the one who eats 100% organic food grown on Greek soil.

He buys it directly from Greek farmers, whom he treats like his family, loves, supports, and protects them.

Anybody else is a parasite or a lost soul who has been mislead to convert the country into a bazaar."


What do you think? What else would you add?

Quote :

What does it really mean to be an Irish?

I have no idea.

If I think about the men in my family; on my father's side they would have been tradesmen and soldiers, simple people who enjoy the pub and do not take much care for the future; on my mother's side professors, businessmen, professionals, managers, responsible people who see forming a successful household as the primary goal in life. Neither side are concerned with causes or ideas. I'm a mutant.

The Irish as a race were destroyed spiritually by Catholicism and the English. Today, Liberalism is picking over the carcass that remains. To be Irish is to be the last remnant of a people totally subjugated by foreigners; politically, religiously, morally, ideologically.
The Irish are a peasant race and have been for centuries.

Only those who have emigrated beyond the reach of the entrenched system established here have shown any quality. The diaspora. The Kennedys in America, for example.
I am about as foreign in spirit to other Irish people as one could get. Evola was right. We need to look not only among the races for quality, but also within each race. That a race has a higher potential does not guarantee that it will show that potential in every one of its individual members.

There needs to be a race within the race. An offshoot, beginning on memetic grounds, maintaining its memetic distance until such time that this filtering mechanism establishes a genetic one also. A noble race.

However ridiculous this will sound, the best way to achieve this is emigration to Mars. Set up a new frontier, a new system unaffected by the established one here. But this is for the future.

National identity is a victim of bloodline mixing, and is now becoming just as relevant as race.
It was originally a name for a tribe denoting a unbroken continuum, made possible by male dominance over female promiscuity.
By controlling tis females males of a tribe could control what genes get integrated within their shared gene pool.
The King, the Tribal Leader, was the representative of this shared bloodline: the best of the best.

This tribal identity included the control over land, as an indication of the tribe’s health – its power, its quality.
Because females are less self-conscious, less ordered, they can more easily accept and adapt to whatever cultural ideals they find themselves sin…even after they’ve matured.
Males have never changed tribes nor were they exchanged by tribes, as booty…but females were.
Females being a ‘means to an end’ makes them a resource. The more masculine a female is the more resistant to an other’s authority she is.
It has always been the male who was the bearer of his tribe’s essence…look at how male lions defend their pride and then are easily replaced, after his fathered offspring are slaughtered by the new master male.
In nature the male is to defend his brood, and control the females which bring this brood about.

As cooperatives grew in size males had to follow suit, either opting for greater numbers (quantity) or going for more skill and more sophisticated methods (quality).

My knowledge is limited on the subject, but I'll speak from what little I've read. Ireland's culture, before it was infested by Catholicism, had very little prescribed. There were kings and druids, but the hierarchy wasn't taken seriously.

The Irish were an anarchist type folk who kept peace among themselves because of family ties and the threat of retaliation from those equal in strength. The balance in this made it like an ecosystem that went nowhere. Live, drink, fuck and die - little strife among themselves.

They would die fighting to protect their family and they did. I even read that the Irish (then) would rather kill themselves (jumping ship) than to become a slave. From what I've seen, there doesn't seem to be a lot of Irish of that caliber around any more (or they are fooled into thinking they are free.)

Nationality doesn't really matter. What matters is heritage (born with genes) and culture (raised with memes.) America (where I live), for example, is now striving to be 'multicultural.' Being "True American" now would mean any number of cultures. Previously, it seemed the culture was individualist - do whatever you want as long as you're not stopping someone else from doing so to some extreme degree. Now that principle has been twisted into holding other people responsible for problems you were born with.

Anyway, I started to ramble there. Getting out while I see myself as ahead.

Thirsty wrote:

Recidivist wrote:

Start with biology.

"To be a true *Recidivist*, start with biology."

Is that all what you would tell your kid?

I wasn't aware I was addressing children.

It's a jumping off point. The nationalities you mentioned map to certain unique racial characteristics. It would be worthwhile to explore these and consider how they may have given rise to the cultures that eventually became modern nation states.

It's unlikely the Slovaks would have ever invented philosophy or the five orders, or the Irish communism. I know the subject is enormously complicated but the psychological nature of each race is the most important thing here.

I think we can agree that supplanting the Ancient Greeks with a bunch of sub-Saharan tribesmen would not have led to Greek civilization as we know it today.

Quote :

What does it really mean to be an American?

One thing that matters to me is, did your people come as immigrants after the country was established, or were they part of the stock that colonized and settled the land?

My mother's paternal line came to Virginia in the 1650s. According to one genealogical document, one of my great-great-great-great-etc. grand-uncles was a Tory (sided with the British) in the revolutionary war, and was therefore disowned by his family. For me, an experience like that embodies the essence of America: conflict with and breaking from authority in favor of a new ideal. Families broken apart, traditions averted. They ended up settling in Kentucky and evidently named one of its counties.

What do people think of when they think "America?" Surely the pioneers who settled the West have a unique experience. I am of that stock as well, on both sides. This may sound funny to you, but my mother's father was a cowboy. He left his family in Kentucky, and "hoboed" around hopping trains until, literally, he was herding cattle on horseback, between Montana and Texas, in the 1920s. I suppose he was one of the last of this type. Railroads soon made that kind of work obsolete. But horsemen still found other employment. He eventually became a farmer and rancher. He died when I was 2 and I never saw him on a horse.

His wife, my mother's mother, was also from Kentucky but felt smothered by her family and came out west when she met him. She played guitar and had some knowledge of traditional country songs and ballads. When my mother and father were married, she (my grandma) and my dad's dad would sometimes play such songs together. I have some recordings of her singing and playing with her friends. I consider them documents to be studied for my education. She also died before I was old enough to really experience her.

I would say their experiences and the culture they transmitted to me are uniquely and formatively American. A recurring theme in the generations of my family is defying one's family's expectations and seeking your fortune alone, on a frontier--yet carrying your culture and traditions with you, despite yourself--which I realize I have done, sitting here in the Far East for the past 3 years and perhaps talking to my family twice a year. Though perhaps this has been much easier than some of what they did. They were children of the depression, while I am the suburban doughboy spawn of their baby-boomer children.

When I meet an "American" whose family immigrated to the States in the 1800s, to Pennsylvania or Iowa or wherever, I must say I feel I have more of a birthright to the land than they do. However, mass European immigration of that kind is also a unique American experience.

Black Americans, likewise, are uniquely American. Genetically African, mimetically ... something.

There is also a difference between Southerners and Northerners, genetically and mimetically. For example, the South has more Scots-Irish and the North has more Anglo-Saxon. Mimetically, the outcome of the Civil War helped to crush the idea of nativity/indigeny/rootedness to one's home State, and ensured that rootlessness and bourgeois urbanity would set the dominant tone for mainstream "American" culture.

As I see "America" being balkanized and broken up into separate states over the next century or so, I think the term "American" will mean less and less. As Jonathan Bowden said, an American will be anyone who wants to be an American. Here's a little stick man, with a smile and two dots for the eyes. That's your American.

What does it really mean to be a German?

It means to be guilty for having white privilege, supressing women and killing large amounts of Jews. And starting both World Wars of course.

This is the image that is kept alive here in Germany. The herds are slaves. And the masters pull the strings.

To be German is to be full of shame, guilt and self-hatred. It's to be white-trash. To tatoo oneself and pierce every possible part of the body as a display of masochism, for all the guilt.

Or to read lots of academic books and news articles, to deal with the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
To rehash the version of the guilty people over and over again. In all details. WWII history is our religion. Whoever doesn't confirm to the official version and interpretation of events is labeled a Nazi. Even a progressive Marx reader like Sloterdijk had his TV show (every 2 month) cancelled, for being too politically controversial.

Germans love Obama, because he's black and leftist. We consider all immigrants an enrichment of our culture. And deny that we even have a culture, when asked. I got angry looks yesterday, when I held my ears, having to listen to a gypsy familiy sing at full volume in the city center, passing by. (They were horrible!) Not correct! Very angry looks from German women. (Women are the enforcers of politcal correctness over here!)

We are Leftists. And we are competing for who is more leftists and who is more self hating than the other. Especially women. The young ones, don't dress feminine. They look like beggars or something. The pretty ones especially. And listen to awful leftist music. And graffiti and smear everywhere. Marxist slogans. And against "Nazis".

We have a lot of immigrants from Turkey and they consider themselves the "new Germans". They live their old "culture" as well as the new, they proclaim. In fact they never spoke to me or intruduced themselves. And this is progressive. This is looked at as interesting.

There are a few (real) (old) Germans in the countryside and parts of eastern Germany, but they are few. There is also a little bit of Paganism due to some middle ages fashion trends. They meet and drink and play in the woods in their costumes. I was invited once, but haven't gone so far. It's this fantasy role playing stuff. (These are nerds, who all claim to be politically correct: left. Maybe not all of them are, but they too have to pretend, to not get into the spotlight. Again: double think.)

I won't even get into politics.

apaosha wrote:

However ridiculous this will sound, the best way to achieve this is emigration to Mars. Set up a new frontier, a new system unaffected by the established one here. But this is for the future.

It doesn't sound ridiculous, as I've pointed out before interstellar space is the greatest natural boundary man has ever faced. It requires a very high intelligence and incredible feats of engineering to traverse it. Negros cannot do it, they could only ever travel as passengers.

Hopefully we won't make the same mistake again.

Recidivist wrote:

apaosha wrote:

However ridiculous this will sound, the best way to achieve this is emigration to Mars. Set up a new frontier, a new system unaffected by the established one here. But this is for the future.

It doesn't sound ridiculous, as I've pointed out before interstellar space is the greatest natural boundary man has ever faced. It requires a very high intelligence and incredible feats of engineering to traverse it. Negros cannot do it, they could only ever travel as passengers.

Hopefully we won't make the same mistake again.

If interplanetary colonization is done by representatives of modernity all you'll get is the current paradigm repeated elsewhere.
This is why it needs to be done by private enterprise.

Currently, people like Branson are going into space while agencies like NASA are declining. This needs to be taken advantage of sooner rather than later.

Slavery was driven by economics. It's almost impossible to imagine, given the costs, any economic justification for or possible utility in transporting millions of Negroes across light years of interstellar space.

Recidivist wrote:

Slavery was driven by economics. It's almost impossible to imagine, given the costs, any economic justification for or possible utility in transporting millions of Negroes across light years of interstellar space.

Is there any economic justification in allowing millions of negroes into Europe?

It will be an ideological one based on egalitarian affirmative action and the implementation of racial quotas to ensure that humanities new colony is properly representative of all minorities.

This is why it needs to be private enterprise; there at least is the potential to act outside the conventional socio-political necessities.

Just going on my intuition and with what I've heard about the estimate of emergence of other technologies from prominent scientists, Europeans won't be able to colonize mars and remain independent of Earth in our lifetime, probably. When it is possible, a revolution might have already taken place that's created a more discriminating society. Russia may be the first. The USA doesn't have any more serious white supremacist racial movements, whereas I saw a documentary of Russian gangs going around and beating up/murdering foreigners.

This topic is derailing the thread, but I just wanted to chime in on that. Perhaps move these posts into another thread.

Lyssa wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Whiteness in this sense is a form of ‘original sin’, which ‘whites’ must purge from themselves – if ever there is to be another Great Awakening.

In demanding ‘the abolition of the white race’, the ‘key to solving the social problem of our age’, Ignatiev’s New Abolitionists do not literally call for the extermination of whites as a ‘race’ (‘races do not exist’), but rather the abolition of the ideological system associated with white racial oppression (‘whiteness’). If the white race is ever abolished, they claim the ‘human race’ will finally come into its own – and all those people with white skins who thought they were ‘white’ will discover their kinship with the other families of humankind. The genocidal intent of their project, which demonizes everything associated with whites, is, of course, mitigated not in the least by this sort of qualification. One liberal historian (Peter Kolchin), critically sympathetic to the discourse on whiteness, points out that for these historians ‘race’ appears as ‘both real and unreal, transitory and permanent, ubiquitous and invisible, everywhere and nowhere, everything and nothing’. It means, in other words, whatever they want it to mean, regardless of context (which, if the universities had any integrity, would automatically disqualify them as scholars, given that their authority rests on the professed scientific/objective/impartial study of their subjects).

If white-skin people ever gave up their commitment to ‘racial privileges’ – refusing the advantages that come with their ‘assigned race’: the so-called ‘wages of whiteness’ – then, it is argued, whiteness would cease to exist. But it’s difficult to imagine what this would mean in actual practice? Given the historians’ less than rigorous conception of whiteness and the ongoing accusation that whites are guilty of ‘racist, sexist, homophobic oppression’, it is as if Ignatiev and Co. are asking whites to abandon their culture, their history, and everything that identifies them with whom they are: which happens to be one definition of genocide.

Part 2:http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/12/how-the-irish-became-white-part-2/

Quote :

The single positive feature of the historic Left – its defense of the ‘people’ from their exploiters – has revealingly become a thing of the past. The postmodern, militantly anti-racist, white-hating, sexually ambivalent, Jew-dominated Left of today (whose goals are comprehensible solely in terms of Stoddard’s ‘San Domingo’) no longer champions the cause of white working people resisting the often ruinous conditions imposed by economic elites; it doesn’t even resist the growing police state; instead, it endeavors to deconstruct everything that once guaranteed social decencies and the common good. It functions, thus, as the vanguard of the inherently maniacal system dictating the present destruction of white life and liberty. (Lothrop Stoddard, The French Revolution in San Domingo [1914].)

Quote :

That the Irish had been subjugated in their homeland and hostilely received in America, where they were relegated to the bottom of the social hierarchy, at times below free blacks, meant there was no group better situated then the Irish to make common cause with non-whites for the sake of a multiracial class alliance to challenge US capitalism and its onerous system of white-supremacist social control.

The Irish failure to recognize their common class ties with blacks — along with their violence to abolitionists, their exclusion of Asians from the West, and their refusal to become the pawns of Northern revolutionaries and terrorists — are symptomatic, the whiteness historians claim, of all that was wrong with the US working class and its trade union leadership (nearly half of which was Irish). That is, they are symptomatic of the fact that, historically, white workers not only chose ‘white supremacy’ over class solidarity with blacks, but used their racial identity to define their class identity (which, pace the Marxists, happened to be more communal and racial than economic or ideological in character). (Bruce Nelson, Divided We Stand: American Workers and the Struggle for Black Equality [2001]; Irish Nationalism and the Making of the Irish Race [2012].)

Blood trumps economics. Which is why the Left calls race a social construct. No class war otherwise.

I have this bad feeling that the human race is being groomed for communism, according to the the Marxist Historical narrative, and that Americanisation is being used as the tool to implement that.

apaosha wrote:

I have this bad feeling that the human race is being groomed for communism, according to the the Marxist Historical narrative, and that Americanisation is being used as the tool to implement that.

This becomes more obvious as each day goes by. The burden of proof lies on those who think otherwise, in my opinion.

I used to regard myself as a leftist, and I remember reading Ignatiev's book. I broke with Marxian thought because I finally accepted the fact that I would never be truly accepted, because white working-class males cannot hide the fact that they are white males, and the more honest they are, the more they try to contribute by offering their own cultural roots for scrutiny, the more of an eyesore they are for the leftist cause. In order to be accepted as Marxist, white male, and Southern simultaneously, you have to apologize for your existence. And be sure that everyone sees you as the goddamn idiot you are for even trying.

I was never Leftist. I'm not sure why. Late eighties, early nineties were my childhood, and I was never brought to church so it wasn't Catholicism that acted as a buffer.
I always had the gut instinct that an obligation to your fellow man was a redefinition of slavery. Just a feeling, or an instinctual rejection. In the last few years, I've found words to express that rejection and knowledge to account for it.

Orwell was so right. If you deny a man the capacity to even think certain things, he becomes blind to the chains around his neck.

The forbidden fruit of what tree?

apaosha wrote:

I always had the gut instinct that an obligation to your fellow man was a redefinition of slavery. Just a feeling, or an instinctual rejection. In the last few years, I've found words to express that rejection and knowledge to account for it.

Late eighties, early nineties as well.

I was raised as a Protestant Christian, so my ethical training primed me for Leftist ethical assumptions. The thing about Christian and Leftist ethics, however, is that the idiots and the wretched are the ones who feel entitlement, and the confident, intelligent, and indifferent are made to feel guilty. I was the target of butthurt rage often enough that I internalized the guilt.

I'm not aware of a similar gut-instinct against "obligation to your fellow man." I have always felt an obligation to serve great people, who have proven their higher qualities. But I always passionately hated being told to slow down so that others could keep up. Maybe this is a variation on your words. Notice that the weak and stupid have no "obligations" that they are really expected to follow through on, because they are inept. The able and intelligent have "obligations" in spades, and if they're like me they will willingly harness themselves to prove how much they care. I guess I assumed that others were doing the same......but recently I've become aware that I was being used in this way and am still working my way out of all the knots I wound up in.

This has been a theme in my life: People tell me that I am an abuser, an attacker, a self-centered narcissist.....and then proceed to attack me with malicious abandon. It's the feminine way, and males do it plenty. I was raised by women, if you can call it that, and to a degree am still susceptible to such tactics, to my continued embarrassment.

I'm worried that "narcissism," "psychopathy," and other terms are being co-opted by the Christiano-leftist cause and will increasingly be used against independent thinkers who cannot be dissuaded by appeals to emotion alone. Your ability to suppress emotion to deal squarely with facts will be seen as cold, robotic, inhuman calculation, you will be branded a sociopath, and no one will listen to you for fear of it rubbing off. But they will gladly take your money and resources.

apaosha wrote:

I have this bad feeling that the human race is being groomed for communism, according to the the Marxist Historical narrative, and that Americanisation is being used as the tool to implement that.

Can you give any indication as to how such a strategy could be implemented globally, given the collapse of communism in the East under pressure from American capitalism, or how it would profit the worlds wealthy?

Communism is a weaker economic system than capitalism, less flexible, less dynamic. It will inevitably fail in the long run against free market systems, in my opinion.

Communism failed because it offered an ideal which went against human nature.
It was the application of Christian ethos in economics and in politics, once the God element was secularized into the State.

Capitalism is closer to the survival of the fittest natural environments man evolved within, although here too it is not as void of control and not as anarchic.

There has never been a theory which has been applied perfectly or as it was intended.
Man corrupts all ideals with his nature. This is the real confronting the ideal.

What has happened is that capitalism has incorporated some socialist elements in its own way.
The bailout of corporations, for instance, was an example of State intervention and welfare…but directed towards non-living entities which are the face of groups of men who sit behind them anonymously.

Capitalism is based on herd management.
A more sophisticated form of human husbandry than Communism or Christianity.
It offers an ideal in the form of an abstracted promise: the American Dream.

A dream can be anything.

Its power is in convincing the herd that its choices in the market place constitute freedoms, and that access to resources is happiness.

German political economist Roland Baader used the term: Money Socialism.

Our Capitalism, is in fact still Socialism, but it involves fiat paper money, credits, stocks, bonds, and all kinds of sophisticated virtual money transactions. (There even is: virtual virtual money. And probably also: virtual virtual virtual money.) Libertarians at least are not fooled that this is real Free Market Capitalism. It's a very tenacious illusion, that is kept running as long as enough people buy into this "american dream". Which is not too unnatural. Family. Happiness. But the ways to achieve it (credit, mortgages...) are unnatural (because they have no backing) and detrimental to the "system" as a whole in in the medium run. We are dealing with illusions here. Collective illusions, that become real because our psyche/nature is following this "american dream". Everybody. Left, Right, smart, dumb, rich, poor. Everybody. That's where this "spiritual awakening" rhetoric takes a foothold. Alex Jones is a priest of this "awakening". The question is, where will it lead to? Everything "alternative" is quickly absorbed by the system and sold as a commodity.