I don’t like Obama. Not one bit. And I *want* to believe that most Americans are not Rednecks. But my friend, American Goy, thinks otherwise. I think he point of view should be heard. Here is what he thinks:
——-
The real America
Do you think that America is what you see in the big cities, with educated, centrist elite who are smart, erudite and surf the web for news?
Who read the blogs and sneer at FOX “news”?
Who can tell bullshit from the propaganda from the truth?
No, my friends.
America, the MAJORITY of America, is ‘Married… with Children’ land.
Observe.
Look, it’s one of them foreign reporting crews actually showing the REAL America.
Ignorant and proud of it.
Patriotic, which translated means lets bomb the shit out of them Arabs and gooks and hajis (the word should be jingoistic, come to think of it).
Feeling the holy spirit, which translated means that they are brainwashed morons.
Against murdering unborn children, which means that they want those children to grow up to become soldiers and kill Arabs and hajis and gooks… or come home in a casket, or without a leg… an arm… an eye.
And because the American democracy is decided by a few swing states (remember – in our version of – haha – “democracy” – a 51% vote in a state means that ALL of the state’s candidates vote for the winner).
Here’s the breakdown, from FEC.gov – look up the electoral count – how much each state is worth in a presidential race.
So, while some of the big ones, like Illinois, will vote Obama, the race will be decided in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio (where this video was filmed), Virginia (which WILL vote for McCain).
You see – due to the quirk of the American election system – it is not the educated population who decide who the leader of the world (no, really, this is de facto true) should be.
It is the rednecks – as profiled by the BBC:
During this US election cycle we are hearing a lot from the pundits and candidates about “heartland voters,” and “white working class voters.”
On the other hand, I can quite imagine their concern, given what’s at stake in the upcoming election. We represent at least a third of all voters and no US president has ever been elected without our support.
“We represent at least a third of all voters”.
No, he is not exaggerating.
Contrary to the stereotype, we are not all tobacco chewing, guffawing Southerners, but are scattered from coast to coast. Over 50% of us live in the “cultural south”, which is to say places with white Southern Scots-Irish values – redneck values.
They include western Pennsylvania, central Missouri and southern Illinois, upstate Michigan and Minnesota, eastern Connecticut, northern New Hampshire…
So when you look at what pundits call the red state heartland, you are looking at the Republic of Redneckia.
We come in one size: extra large. We are sometimes insolent and often quick to fight. We love competitive spectacle such as NASCAR and paintball, and believe gun ownership is the eleventh commandment.
We fry things nobody ever considered friable – things like cupcakes, banana sandwiches and batter dipped artificial cheese…even pickles.
I can confirm the extra large part. I live in a small town now, and the rednecks here are ALL, without fail, men and women, sporting triplets pregnancy bellies.
No, I am not exaggerating.
These people are huge.
They are triple the weight of an average European (UK fatsos excluded, as they admire America so much they adopted the junk food culture totally).
And most of all we are defiant and suspicious of authority, and people who are “uppity” (sophisticated) and “slick” (people who use words with more than three syllables). Two should be enough for anybody.
This is a key quote from the article.
This is why Palin’s homely speech (American moron speech) is a hit with these guys and gals – they can’t stand somebody who is edumacated and too smarty, too uppity.
Smart kids were beat up at school for being different and fake and fags.
Intelligence, erudition, manners – that is anathema to these… people.
A college educated person is someone to be suspicious of. After all, surely they are godless and want to kill babies. Librul elite! is a warning cry for the rest of the herd to close ranks.
If you have not seen the movie Idiocracy, I heartily recommend you buy it, rent it, steal it – and watch it.
You will understand when you see it, that America is doomed (seriously, you HAVE to see that movie).
And that is one of the reasons that, mystifying as it is to the outside world, John McCain’s choice of the moose-shooting Alaskan woman with the pregnant unmarried teen daughter appeals to many redneck and working class Americans.
You might think that this is a joke, but it is not.
I talked to a bartender girl (who is below 21, by the way) some time ago.
The local scoop is, half of the local high school graduating class was knocked up and spitting babies like no tomorrow.
Half of all the senior graduating girls.
Of the WHOLE local high school class.
Pregnant.
We all understand that there is a political class which dominates in America, and that Sarah Palin for damned sure is not one of them. And the more she is attacked by liberal Democratic elements (translation: elite highly-educated big city people) the more America’s working mooks will come to her defence.
Again, being stupid is OK – that is why Palin is “one of us”.
Calling somebody stupid, as in “My god, you cannot be this moronic, this much of an idiot, and seriously think you are qualified for the position of the vice fucking president of the Yoo Ess Ey?!” is bad.
After all, in a crowd of inbred retards, you cannot call someone “an inbred retard”.
Because the crowd around you at a bar might take an umbrage.
Her daughter had a baby out of wedlock? Big deal. What family has not?
Mine has not, bud.
My family, the atheist, non god believing, not church going, has never had an abortion (we use condoms, you see), and has never had a baby out of wedlock (those condoms again).
Meanwhile, you fill your women with more than the holy spirit it seems, when you people get drunk and out of your mind Friday night and howl at the moon (yes, I have seen that too – there is not much to do in a small town on a weekend night, except drink and fuck).
She is a Christian fundamentalist who believes God spat on his beefy paws and made the world in seven days? So do at least 150 million other Americans.
This is another key quote.
You see, 150 million Americans are certifiably INSANE.
Bat shit crazy.
Living in a delusion.
And yes, they really believe that dinosaurs walked the Earth with humans, as it was written in the bible and as it is shown in the Creation Museum – aka crazy land (you HAVE TO click this link).
Finally, the BBC article concludes with this:
Ultimately, the Scots Irish have had more of an effect on the American ethos than any other immigrant group. Here are a few you will recognize:
Belief that no law is above God’s law, not even the US Constitution.
Hyper patriotism. A fighting defence of native land, home and heart, even when it is not actually threatened: ie, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Haiti and dozens more with righteous operations titles such as Enduring Freedom, Restore Hope, and Just Cause.
A love of guns and tremendous respect for the warrior ideal. Along with this comes a strong sense of fealty and loyalty. Fealty to wartime leaders, whether it be FDR or George Bush.
Personal pride in equality. No man, however rich or powerful, is better than me.
Perseverance and belief in hard work. If a man or a family is poor, it is because they did not work hard enough. God rewards those who work hard enough. So does the American system.
The only free country in the world is the United States, and the only reason we ever go to war is to protect that freedom.
I buy that.
I think that he nailed it.
The last two reasons though are such complete and utter bullshit but… that is what redneckians believe.
Add to that a Diebold “miracle” in several key states, mix with some voter purging which is going on…
Ohio
NYTimes: Ruling May Impede Thousands of Ohio Voters
More than 200,000 registered Ohio voters may be blocked from casting regular ballots on Election Day because of a federal appeals court decision on Tuesday requiring the disclosure of lists of voters whose names did not match those on government databases, state election officials and voting experts said.
200,000 voters purged in Ohio, the land of the holy spirit who hates them negro eyerab terrarists.
Pennsylvania
standardspeaker.com
Pennsylvania is among the states where voters’ named are purged for lists for no other reason than not voting for several consecutive elections.
Did you catch that?
Let me repeat – in Pennsylvania, voters are purged because they have not voted in previous elections.
So much for the get out and vote campaigns, eh?
Michigan
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct 14 (IPS) – A federal judge ruled Monday that the current practices to purge the voter rolls in Michigan are illegal and ordered Republican Secretary of State Terry Lynn Land to immediately stop the cancellation of registered voters whose voter identification cards are returned as undeliverable in the mail.
The purging of registered voters, many of whom lost their homes to bank foreclosure, in the state of Michigan prompted the federal lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), United States Student Association Foundation and the Advancement Project, and resulted in calls in Congress for a Justice Department investigation.
In Michigan, if you have had your home foreclosed, and your mail is being returned to sender, you were denied the right to vote (were, thank you the great spaghetti monster!).
See the pattern?
These are all important swing states, all states that both candidates MUST win to have a chance at becoming a president.
Rednecks.
They have this country by the balls.
Sigh.
Am not a big fan of Obama – but if we must (and we will) have someone who will send more aid to Israel, prostrate himself before AIPAC functionaries and ask what more we can do for their true country, bomb Iran and further destroy the country – I want that president to at least be intelligent enough to hold a conversation with.
On various topics.
Politics.
International situation.
Whether Sarkozy is a neocon (he is).
Why Canada’s 60% population voted for liberal parties and yet Conservatives won the election (Canada’s election process is even more fucked up than ours).
Discuss the “bailout” of the stockmarket and what it means, and how it is going to play out.
But these are not topics that rednecks are comfortable with.
NASCAR, baseball, football, “Palin is hot!”, “Obama is a terrorist moslem!” are hot topics of conversation right now.
Who would have thought that after 8 years of bush, after 4 of bush sr, after reagan… I now fear for the future of my country more than ever.
——-
I still think Obama will win. I *refuse* to believe that Americans are capable of electing McCain. Not after 8 years of Dubya. And if I am naive, please don’t tell me otherwise. Leave me that illusion until Election Day…
The Saker
Why Canada’s 60% population voted for liberal parties and yet Conservatives won the election (Canada’s election process is even more fucked up than ours).
They don’t even have SENATORS in Canada.
Thanks for the laugh, i giggled a lot.
Pretty funny, I have to agree with most of the things. On the other hand, if I were an American now, I wouldn’t know who to vote for! Obama’s “economic” ideas are pretty ridiculous…
And for Canada – “liberal” is very wide term. So yes, Conservatives won, they had the most votes, what’s so special about it? You hardly can count NDP, Liberals, Quebec guys and Greens as “one liberal group”…
But yes, third minority government in four years is not a good sign for Canada…
Take care
Lorne
Obama is going to win and by a substantial margin. I predict he will do much better in rural states than Al Gore or John Kerry.
I’m no Obama fan. He voted to fund the war, for telecom immunity, the patriot act, and most recently for the bankster bailout. That is why I can’t vote for him.
But he is going to win. And when he does, all the issues lefties railed about…civil liberties, war, etc…will be forgotten. To much government power isn’t a problem so long as you have the ‘right’ government, you see.
This kind of intense hatred toward the indigenous white underclass of the United States is the inevitable byproduct of being raised in an educational milieu where the elites who dominate the educational, political, financial and culural establishment are antagonistic and hateful toward the gentile masses.
I doubt that the writer of this is a member of this group, but he has internalized their agit-prop and come to identify it as a hallmark of erudition and enlightenment. By identifying with the intense bigotry of the elites he probably believes he can elevate himself above the ordinary gentiles.
Can you imagine portraying blacks or Hispanics this way? Of course not. To do so would identify the writer as a dumb, bigoted hatemonger. But to hate white gentiles like this is perfectly acceptable.
In fact, it is a mark of distinction.
Kevin MacDonald has written of this antagonism toward the indigenous white Christian culture of the West quite eloquently in his book Culture of Critique. I encourage you to peruse his writings. You can also see an interview of Kevin MacDonald here or here.
@culture of critique: you are equating Rednecks with what you call the ‘indigenous white underclass’ and I fundamentally disagree with you. As I have already written elsewhere, Rednecks are not that poor at all (hence the Harleys), they are quite proud of being Rednecks (hence all the tribal distinction marks such as tattoos) and they are rather proud of their inbred, overweight and drunk looks. This is not at all the case of the poor. I know, as I come from a family of refugees who lived in a great deal of poverty for a long while.
The poor are NOT ‘proud’ of their poverty and all they want to do is overcome it. Poor people do not waste money on bikes and tattoos, they don’t spend their time drunk and they do not hate everybody else for having a sense of quality, tradition or, God forbid!, good taste.
This is why the term “white trash” does not apply to the poor, but only to the Rednecks who are exactly that. Besides, they are quite happy with being “white trash”. I live in Florida and I have seen A LOT of rednecks around here and I can tell you that they have exactly *nothing* in common with any ‘indigenous white underclass’.
And may I ask you what the hell you are talking about when you speak of a “indigenous white Christian culture”?!
First, NO White person is indigenous to the USA. Not one. All of them are immigrants.
Second, what the hell is “White” anyway?! Does that include Whites from South America or are they Latinos? What about Slavs? Or Jews? Or Moroccans? Or Indians (from India, that is, some of which are very white skinned)? What about Turks? Or even Iranians (who are Aryans)?
Third, what do you mean by “Christian”? Papist? Orthodox? Episcopalian? Pastor Hagee? Jesse Jackson maybe? Or Reverend Moon?! They all call themselves Christian after all… And how are any of them linked to “white trash”?
I think that what American Goy and myself hate is not any ethnic group or religion, but the backward, self-satisfied, inbred, arrogant, flag-waving, Harley-driving ignorant and militaristic morons which make up a good deal of the modern Republic of Redneckia.
I see them on a *daily* basis so don’t come and tell me about some “indigenous white Christian underclass”…
Redneckia.
Nice. :)
So are you jealous of the little bit of prosperity these lower middle class whites have that allows them to buy Harley Davidson’s and to get tattoos?
You persist with the claim that ‘rednecks” are inbred and overweight. The most inbred people in America are Ashkenazi Jews and the Amish. That’s why they suffer from polydactyly and Tay Sachs disease. The most overweight are Latin Americans and blacks. That’s a fact.
To say no whites are indigenous to the USA is a misnomer. The United States was founded by whites. Even the “Native Americans” are not indigenous to the land. They immigrated from Asia and were preceded by Norsemen who made it to Newfoundland and died off. But this country is unmistakably founded by people of European descent. That is not to say, of course, that no one else belongs here. But rednecks certainly do.
And you are pretending not to know who white people are? Have you ever held a managerial position or served on an admissions committee of some university? In America everyone including women belong to what are defined as legally protected classes except for white males. Protected classes enjoy special legal privileges and institutionalized preferences in university admissions, recruiting, hiring, and promotion.
As a former manger in a fortune 500 company I can attest that we were explicitly told that the most important metric of managerial skill was our success in recruiting, hiring, and promoting members of protected classes. We were told to look beyond the most obvious (aka most qualified) candidates and to “challenge” ourselves by promoting “less obvious” or ‘underlooked” (less qualified) members of protected classes. The more minorities you promote the better you are as a manager who successfully “develops new talent” (rather than one who identifies existing talent). This is just a euphemism for promoting minorities, especially underqualified minorities who would otherwise be “overlooked”.
In America, employment law determines who is a white male. It is the only employee that does not belong to a protected class. And most of the people on top, even though they are white, belong to a Jewish dominated ethnopoly that wants to exclude other whites,d undermine their power, and seeks to delegitimze them by calling them bigots, racists, and rednecks. Jews of course are the most ethnocentric whites around but one can never openly discuss this.
As for rednecks being “self-satisfied” they are not the ones who wield power. These rednecks may be poorly educated and they may believe that their political class at least considers their interest or acts on their behalf. But that’s only because that is exactly what the Anglo-Judeo dominated elite class wants the underclasses to believe. It is a message that is inculcated and reinforced at every level of social indoctrination, as is the notion that whites, southerners, WASPs are racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. Whose agenda do you think this message serves?
@ Culture of Critique
You are not alone in your views. You spoke for me as well.
@ The Saker,
do you remember what you wrote in your “So is there a difference between Obama and McCain? A guide for non-Americans”?
I quote the excerpt of my concern:
b) if you love the USA – hope for an Obama victory: while Obama voters are naive, they are ashamed and disturbed by the burning hatred with which most countries now see the USA and they want to change that. Obama voters do want to be part of Planet Earth and they do sincerely care about the rest of the world (McCain voter don’t give a damn and if you oppose them they will “motherfucking nuke you!” to teach you a lesson).
I don’t know why, but you are deeply naive thinking that the “ashamed Obama voters” will have any influence on their leadership and how the USA is governed if Obama wins. You can’t say being analyst expert “of some sort” you don’t understand American political scene and what the present election circuses are invented or conjured up for.
Point b) describes the condome covered dems, pink condomes, to see the world in rosy colors lest the darned rednecks! How the USA and the world would be beautiful if not the tatooed morons.
Saker I am deeply disappointed with your lates remarks concerning Election 2008, I think you lost your analytical powers, to say the least.
I would like more on the subject but I found a sort of a lawyer who better expressed what I would like to say.
Read, please, Mr Dendis Prager’s text: There Are Two Irreconcilable Americas
http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/10/14/there_are_two_irreconcilable_americas
BTW. For years I was wondering why the USA would not devide herself into two countries – the USA (conservative) and the USSA (United Socialist States…) to end the bitter inner fight between TRUE Americans vel rednecks and the socialist/communist/liberal morons. The answer is: in three years there would be bloody war between them as the USSA had her resources zeroed and went bankrupt. The prefer to “invade” the USA thru “peaceful” methods, leveraging the old Mao’s tactics of “long march”, here in USA thru universities, media, and schooling.
Never in my life I would dare to denigrate American Nation to which the rednecks belong and which was born thanks to the rednecks, just as you SOB friend (?) American Goy did.
Regards
@p202: I don’t know why, but you are deeply naive thinking that the “ashamed Obama voters” will have any influence on their leadership and how the USA is governed if Obama wins
Well, if you had paid any attention at all to what I wrote in this article or everywhere else on my blog you would have noted that I do NOT think that Obama voters will have any influence on anything nor, in fact, Obama himself. My personal view is rather clear: there is a Nomenklatura running the USA and the elections are a face given to the people to impersonate democracy. Nothing will change no matter who gets elected.
However, you bait a bull with a red cloth and you bait, say, a gnu with a blue one (I am, of course, making the latter one up). Your intentions are still the same, but you bait with different things. Same here. The Obama puppet appeals to one kind of American and the McCain puppet appeal to another kind. That’s all I said. The rest is just my personal observations about the kind of Americans I see leaning towards one or the other candidates. I live here and I describe what I see. Every day.
But hey, if you or culture of critique like Rednecks (pardon me, “indigenous white Christians”) that fine – to each his own.
And one more thing: let me share with you what I consider the single most important truth about the USA which most Europeans do not understand:
The most far left leaning wannabe socialist liberal in the USA is far far far far far to the right of the most far right wing wannabe conservative European. Jean Marie Le Pen would be considered quasi communist around here, at least if judged by his political views as they really are rather than how they are paraphrased in the corporate press. So the entire idea of a socialist USA is just utter nonsense. Sorry.
Cheers,
VS
Amen CoC! Quite a spanking you gave VS!
–AngryWhiteDude
@P2O2: I can’t say I care much for the politics of a former rabbi turned neoconservative Zionist Jew like Dennis Prager.
I have much more respect for the likes of Jörg Haider. Unfortunately he passed away in a tragic accident just a week ago.
Anyway I would encourage you to download the preface of Culture of Critique directly from Kevin MacDonald’s website.
I’ve spoken my peace. Didn’t mean to troll.
@ Saker
We have more in common looking at US elections than it could be inferred from my last comment.
Some would say “US democracy” is a cancer on American nation, the USA was once a Republic.
Perhaps I got wrong picture but from what I read, there are leftist dems (centrists?), left to them red dems, e.g. far left (some “red” bloggers), center-conservatists (a’la Bush, bad example, he’s corporatioiist and globalist but I’m not able to give here the correct name) and conservatists (in all good meaning of the term – free speach, personal weapons, etc. – all who think that their personal freedom is limited __only__ by fredom of others).
***There is no such category like far-right.**
How can one be more conservative than conservatist? The name is derogatively used by leftists to describe national-socialists and to disguise the true meaning of the term – that far rights are SOCIALISTS (national to be correct). Socialists do not like competition (vide Hitler and Stalin). That’s the basic lie circulating here in Europe.
Let’s go now to your words:
“The most far left leaning wannabe socialist liberal in the USA is far far far far far to the right of the most far right wing wannabe conservative European.”
As I said, the European far-rights are national-socialists so your definition is correct – the socialist Dems are even more reds than Nazis (short for national-socialists). Is the truth knows to Americans? But you are wrong if you tries define true conservatists. Wannabe __socialist__ liberal (in US meaning) __cannot__ be **right** to the (far) rights simply due the _socialist_ descriptive.
There are also deeper differences as one can be conservative in social matters (against pro-murder, with religion’s leading role in social life, etc) and liberal (in European meaning) in economy (free market, less state in citizens life, minimal governement, etc.). In this light – the US Dems are liberal socially (pro-murder, same sey unions, etc) and socialist in economy (more state, higher taxes, socialist redistribution of wealth, etc.) They will __always__ be on the LEFT of TRUE conservative European. If you will start to use the proper meaning of the definitions of what’s left and right, the European conservatives are real conservative, and so called “far right” are simply nazis and/or fascists.
Sorry to say that but you were dupped by the same forces standing behind the media both in the USA and in Europe.
@politiques usa
I listened to and read Mr Prager about two years ago and he sounded OK. If he changed his views I am not aware of. But his quoted text describes well what I think about the USA not living there but only reading mostly “conservative” radio talk shows (Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly) and reading mostly center-right (?) and conservative columnists (including paleo-, common-, and neo- conservative). When I have written “mostly” it means I read a lot of others not from “only this” side of political spectrum.
Regards
Correction
I wrote “@politiques usa” but it should be @culture of critique
My apologies. P2O2
@p202: We have more in common looking at US elections than it could be inferred from my last comment.
We have much in common indeed, but not in our politics, not in our worldview. Here is why:
I don’t even recognize the categories “left” and “right” (which are a product of the seating arrangements in the French Parliament). The reality is that I fit in neither. My personal view is that there are only two camps out there: God, the Truth, love and beauty and the other camp who responded to Christ my name is legion because we are many. The Truth is ONE but there are many lies out there. And this is also why I refuse the “lesser evil” or such misguided logic as “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
I sometimes use the words left, right, conservative, liberal just as I would use Bolshevik or Menshevik – as a convention to differentiate between factions and groups. But in no way to I see these factions as qualitatively different. Roehm or Himmler? Trotsky or Stalin? Obama or McCain? What kind of ‘choice’ is that?
I used to write that the choice between Obama and McCain is similar to the choice between (Kosher) Pepsi and (Kosher) Coke when what was yearns for is a good bottle of Bordeaux (the “Kosher” label is a sign that the candidate has been vetted and approved by AIPAC).
To repeat: I do not choose Left or Right. I choose UP.
@culture of critique: sorry for getting back to you so late but, frankly, there is so much nonsense in your comment that I was putting off the moment when I would sit down and deal with it. I will set aside the truly idiotic stuff like me being “jealous” of somebody’s tattoos or Harleys and only deal with the stuff with some logical or factual content.
a) inbred & overweight: dunno about Ashkenazi Jews and Amish, but I can only describe what I see with my own eyes where I live (I only met the Amish once, and they looked ok; as for the Ashkenazi I am inclined to think that you have a point). I am sure that you are correct about the overweight thing as poverty is the main factor in determining diet and diet in determining weight. But all this is neither here nor there. When I wrote of in inbred Rednecks I was referring to their appearance and behavior and not to whatever might actually cause it. My comment was an observation and nothing else.
b) indigenous: the Native Americans did not acquire the land by doing what your White Christians did: what I call a ‘poly-genocide’ i.e., not the genocide of one ethnicity, but the genocide of ALL the ethnicities of an entire continent, something which history had never witnessed before (or after) and which has to rank as the single most evil act in human history. And when you claim that they were preceded by Norsemen you get it wrong by, oh, a couple of tens of thousand of years…
c) Whites: And you are pretending not to know who white people are? Yes, exactly. To me the category “White” is amazingly empty, with no factual or historical basis. Sure, I can look in the mirror and say that I am “White” but if I told you about my actual ethnic makeup you would probably jump back in horror :-) And when you pretend to know what a “White” person is you are only kidding yourself. Let me give you one example.
In the USA “Whites” are called “Caucasians”. Caucasians are people from the Caucasus. Not take a guess what (racist) Russians call Caucasians? They call them “Blacks” (Черные pronounced “Chernye”). LOL!
The fact that in the USA such categories are used in just a reflection of the insular crass ignorance and history of racism of the USA, not of any sort of factual basis of this category.
Lastly, I would note that it would be funny to see how a presumed Christian operates with such racial categories in the light of the fact that, unlike Judaism, Christianity specifically condemns such differentiations. But it is not funny at all. Fundamentally, racial categories are always a form of iconoclasm, a particularly ugly heresy which was finally overcome by the condemnation of an Ecumenical Council.
There is, indeed, nothing new under the sun and the revival of iconoclasm, be it in its original form or its derived “racial” format is not something surprising. It is, nonetheless, no less abhorrent.
Call it racism, call it ethno-tribalism, call it phyletism, call it patriotism, call it nationalism, call it glebophilia – whatever. At the core it is always a departure from Christian norms at best, and a grievous sin at worst.
So much for the “Christianity” of the indigenous White culture…
@Saker
The oversimplification is typical American peculiarity. You imbibed “the Americanisms” a lot probably. Trotsky wanted revolution all over the world, Stalin not. If you want to appraise someone’s deeds and intentions you have to know the details and historical contexts. Are you realy an analyst guy you claimed you are?
If we sometimes use the French categories of Left versus Right it is for our convenience, but one has to use it correctly. Sometimes complexity of life (like in physics vide quantum physics) is of such nature we have to turn to simplistic terms and not forgetting to understand their true meanings.
culture of critique, point b)
Your response was not addressed to me but was made public so you should not treat me Johnny-come-lately. :) But the gist of your reply is more serious.
Let me ask you a question. What about Europe? Which tribes invading Europe did to “indigenous Europeans” the same as the Whites to indigenous Americans? How far back in the Past do you place the mark point on time scale which decides who’s good or bad? Why do you always get rid of historical context in your evaluation of someone’s deeds?
That’s politically correct way of doing things, isn’t it? Or you think/know the multi-culti is a new God-in-the-block?
Through all the History better/higher culture “invaded” the inferior ones and ruled the world. Why do you value White Christians or White Culture as barbaric through the use of better inventions like Winchesters designed for killing other people (Christians, Brother in Beliefs, or simply Savages)? Why do use the same measurement to all aspects of human and civilization development and through all the times on History scale?
BTW. Your example with Russia is pure demaggogery. After all nobody in Russia call Caucausian people Niggers, doesn’t it? Bohemian people are also “black”. Not take a guess what Niggers differ from Blacks? Nigger is derogative term, “black” is a simple statement of the fact – so we got Blacks.
Cheers
@p202: Let me ask you a question. What about Europe? Which tribes invading Europe did to “indigenous Europeans” the same as the Whites to indigenous Americans? How far back in the Past do you place the mark point on time scale which decides who’s good or bad? Why do you always get rid of historical context in your evaluation of someone’s deeds
Many bad things happened in history though the extermination of all the ethnicities of a large continent is probably right up there (the same Anglos did the same thing in Australia though). What makes the case of the USA unique is not how far in the past its criminal foundation took place, but the fact that the current state is the inheritor state to the genocidal one. Modern South Africa is no more the same state as the one which tried to kill the Boers, modern Germany is not the same state which is guilty of WWII, but modern American is the exact same state (it even pursues the same policies as the entire Wounded Knee incident or the FBI’s treatment of Indian leaders over the past decades has shown).
I think I have answered the only question I can identify in your post. The rest is just a rather hostile expression of disagreement. I will just note that I do not claim to be anyone or anything. You take from this blog what you like, you leave what you don’t like and you spare me the personal attacks and empty innuendos.
Thanks,
VS
@Saker
Do not be offended. If you think I am a bit nasty I’ll see to it and think about it.
But you once said you are for a United Europe or a Europe as a whole big identity. I’m trying to find out what are your premisses to “love” the idea (I hate it). Only those countries which differ from another are able to florish. Compitition is good for everytime and for everyone. United Europe or Great Europe or what many (and me too) thinks is a new IV Reich, is excellent example of monopoly which are BAD from its definition.
“Hostile expression of dissagreement” may result from my passionate nature. On the other hand my views being not the same as yours may contribute (I hope so), to the vision of the subjects pending discussion – my vision versus your’s. You can make comments to them or not, ending the “empty innuendos” at will. It’s your blog.
And BTW, perhaps “claim” is not the best word describing you, but your posts and remarks define you and what you stand for without any question.
The more so, such statements like this one of yours – “… but modern American is the exact same state (it even pursues the same policies as the entire Wounded Knee incident or the FBI’s treatment of Indian leaders over the past decades has shown).” – in which you imply guilts of White Americans for their opression of indigenous Americans, needs clarification – what “compensation”, fine, punishment do you suggest for the nefarious deeds “going on” at least for 200+ years? So much for the logic.
Nice days to all.
@p202: you imply guilts of White Americans for their opression of indigenous Americans, needs clarification – what “compensation”, fine, punishment do you suggest for the nefarious deeds “going on” at least for 200+ years?
None. None at all besides the termination of the racist policies in question and avoiding such choice of words as “indigenous White” in reference to the USA (the same words do no bother me in the least when applied to, say Norway).
I write what I think. No more. No less. And if I did not write something it is probably because I do not think it or because it is not part of my argument.
That is, I think, basic logic.
@Saker
To end this interesting exchange of words (for me yes) I wonder when will you start defending Whites opressed by the USA?
The rule is as simple as that – if someone gets privilages based on race, the others are put into disadvantage. Affirmative actions, social/racial quotas, etc, _for_ those to whom they are applied are at the same time _against_ those who are excluded from the scheme. Right? :) Do we have an act of discrimination? Yes, we have.
There is a saying in Polish – to see a splinter in someone’s eye and not to see a beam in his own.
And last but not least. You said – “I write what I think. No more. No less.” Really? Without any deeper thinking during the breakes in writings? ;)
Cheers
@p202: I wonder when will you start defending Whites opressed by the USA?
If you had actually read my blog you would have realized that I have already done that. Many times.
The rule is as simple as that – if someone gets privilages based on race, the others are put into disadvantage
Yes. And since “race” itself is an idiotic and nonsensical concept *any* policy based on race is, by definition, stupid (and usually unjust)
There is a saying in Polish – to see a splinter in someone’s eye and not to see a beam in his own.
WOW! I would have never thought that I would one day see a Pole mistaking the very well known word of Christ in the Gospel (Saint Luke 6:39-45; Saint Matthew 7: 1-5) for a “Polish saying”… Is that a reflection of Poland or the Papacy? Both, I guess.
You said – “I write what I think. No more. No less.” Really? Without any deeper thinking during the breaks in writings?
Yet again you are reading into what I wrote something which is not there. The missing word would have been “all” as in “I write *all* what I think”. How is that for a rather huge logical beam in your eye?
“If you had actually read my blog you would have realized that I have already done that. Many times.”
So, you defend the Whites condemned by politcorrect follies and condemn them for what they do to indigenous Americans? Hmm…
So perhaps there is a third party, let’s call it the American Curse, which makes both the Whites and the Reds (Indians) lives miserable and your harsh words toward the Whites are not justified?
“WOW! I would have never thought that I would one day see a Pole mistaking…”
:) Man always learns through his life. “Poland = Catholic country” is a myth. Not every Pole is a Bible scholar. :) Next time I’ll write – “we Poles used to say…”. :)
“How is that for a rather huge logical beam in your eye?”
The smile you omitted signaled a joke, rather benign, conciliatory. ;)
Cheers
Correction
Last sentence – smile = smiley
@p202:So perhaps there is a third party, let’s call it the American Curse, which makes both the Whites and the Reds (Indians) lives miserable
Yes. Absolutely. I call it the American “Nomenklatura”.
and your harsh words toward the Whites are not justified?
Not again! Oi veh!! :-))
I did not write anything harsh towards “Whites” if only because I do not operate with such categories…
Read my lips: White!=Redneck.
@Saker,
Not again! Oi veh!! :-))
I did not write anything harsh towards “Whites” if only because I do not operate with such categories…
Saker, for God’s sake, please! You wrote:
b) indigenous: the Native Americans did not acquire the land by doing what your White Christians did: what I call a ‘poly-genocide’ i.e., not the genocide of one ethnicity, but the genocide of ALL the ethnicities of an entire continent, something which history had never witnessed before (or after) and which has to rank as the single most evil act in human history. And when you claim that they were preceded by Norsemen you get it wrong by, oh, a couple of tens of thousand of years…
If I wrote “White Christians” instead of “Whites” I’d be vindicated? :(
Read my lips: White!=Redneck.
Got it. White!=Redneck
(“!=” is an operator used in many programing languages which means “not equal”)
Which answer is the correct one then, assuming the Redneck is the term to be defined:
Redneck=Brown
Redneck=Pink
Redneck=Yellow
Redneck=Green
…
..
.
:)
@p202: I did use the term “White” in reference to a post which claimed that “Whites” were here before the Indians. This is not my vocabulary, but the one used in the reference system of the person I respond to. Just like I might use the world Left or Conservative even if these are not MY categories.
Redneck. The term properly refers to a social category or ‘tribe’ which one is free to join or identify with.
“Whites” do not choose their skin color. Rednecks choose to be Rednecks.
It seems kind of self evident to me…
@Saker
Thanks very much for all your explanations and your patience.
To be true you expressed your views and the way you think about the USA in the first reply to CoC comments, but nevertheless I wasn’t able to grab the whole picture of your views. Now I know why.
Both CoC and me used two definitions in a common way:
1) loosely-applied “indigenous whites” e.g. creators of a new nation – here the American Nation
2) strictly-applied Rednecks definition like the one found on Wikipedia pages
In the meantime you did otherwise:
1) you strictly applied “indigenous” definition to the first white Americans (so “truely” indigenous were Indians)
2) you loosely applied __your own__ definition of Rednecks – simply speaking you cut off from the definition the “racial” part (white people) and made it more abstract, ready to apply to any social group.
I got more thoughts on that but I will keep them to myself. Let me only observe that changing commonly used __good__ definition borders with “1984”‘s Orwellian newtalk. I underlined “good” as there are also bad ones. One should also pay attention to the fact that quantity never constitutes quality and commonly used definition don’t have to be a good one (or the best, or even true).
No wonder I wasn’t able to catch your value tree even though you explained it clearly. My fault. :)
BTW. Is a cigarette without nicotine still a cigarette? Is a coffe still a coffe even without a coffein? Is a beer without alcohol still a beer? Or a white chocolate bars without chocolate a chocolate bars? And on, and on, and…
You do not like whatever part of “racisms” you are able to find in any definition, however small. I do not like the socialist newtalk with changed definitions serving somebody’s agenda (let be a private one, e.g. private views).
I stay to what I said – I agree with CoC, not with you.
You gave me a lot of thinking, thanks, I like that. :)
Cheers