Beullogeo's

In "Depression v. Nervous Breakdown", Sailer writes:

I noticed this when I was reading up on the Civil War and got to the formidable Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's psychological collapse in late 1861, in-between his strong performances at the battles of First Bull Run in 1861 and Shiloh in 1862. While organizing behind the lines for the next year's campaigns, he had to be relieved of command so he could recuperate at home. Sherman later joked, "Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."

The Wikipedia page on Sherman uses the old-fashioned term "nervous breakdown" and blames "the concerns of command." In contrast, James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom sometimes uses the more modern term "depression," and at one point suggests that Sherman was depressed by his vision of the logic of Total War.

Or was he suffering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder over Bull Run?

Maybe Sherman was depressed because he realized Total War would someday result in the rise to power of pushy, hostile jews and the subsequent colonization of the entire White world by unarmed Amerindian, African, and Asian peasants. Then again, it isn't likely Sherman would have ever recovered and continued to kill his cousins if he realized that.

General Grant's Infamy:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the "Department of the Tennessee," an administrative district of the Union Army of occupation composed of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

Ireland was brutalised to such a horrific extent that not even the full force of British censorship could hide the atrocities from the world outside British control. Propaganda in Great Britain coloured the Irish as savages and thieves, whereas in fact it was the Irish, like the British peasants before them, who had their land stolen from them by the savage servants of the British Monarchy. A particularly sad aspect of the criminal assault by the foot soldiers of the murderous Monarchy, was that by manipulating information, the British Establishment created a false image of Christian Ireland as an enemy of the people of Great Britain. In truth, had the reality of the oppression of the Irish by the ruling class in London been known by the ordinary Britons, it could have been the catalyst required to spark a revolution to free all the peoples of the Isles from the serpents of the Establishment. The censorship and outright lies of the Monarchy, their puppet politicians and clergymen created a surreal situation in which the Britons of Great Britain came to identify with their alien oppressors and despise their downtrodden brothers and sisters in Ireland.

The resilience of the Irish in the face of the armed butchers of the London occupation regime was such that in the province of Ulster, a colony of radicalised Presbyterian Scots was planted to displace and divide the Irish. To emphasise their imperialist rule, Irish place names were replaced with English ones, such as Coleraine which became Londonderry. Saint Patrick, who brought Christianity to Ireland, was himself a Scot. Whereas Saint Patrick took Christianity to Ireland and symbolically threw out the serpents of paganism, the Scots planted in Ulster by the occupation regime brought an evil anti-Christ cult which sort to eliminate Christianity and enshrine the serpent of Edom in its place.

The ethnic identity of the people of Northeast Ireland is interesting and frustrating. Propagandists against Irish unity have created a myth that the province of Ulster is ethnically different to the other provinces. To justify the argument that Ulsterman are not like the Irish from below the border, the issue of the establishment of a plantation in the North of Scots from the West of Scotland is cited. However, those who were moved en masse to Ulster, originally came from Ireland, from where they had emigrated in waves from the 5th Century. (The name Scotland is derived from the Latin word for the Irish, 'Scotti'.) The transfer of people back and forth across the narrow divide between Scotland and Ireland has been virtually continuous. To argue that the Ulster folk are not really Irish is disingenuous - they are the same people. The Scotti of Ireland ARE the Scots of lower Scotland.

Accepting that there is no ethnic reason why Ireland should be divided, the issue of religion is used. This is another false reason. The Presbyterian Scots who were planted by the Crown were put there in order to wreck Irish unity, however, over time, the newcomers were to realise their commonality and become key figures in the resistance to the tyrants in London. Had it not been for the economic reliance of the Belfast workers upon the capitalist hub in Great Britain, Ireland would have gained freedom in its entirety after the Great War. The tactic of fomenting religious division in order to bolster the rule of the British Monarchy failed, but the economic division which had its roots in the materialist mindset succeeded, and the industrialised 6 counties within Ulster remained under British rule when the rest of Ireland achieved freedom. (This freedom was a red-herring as the Masonic Lodges which serve the Monarchy had become entrenched throughout Ireland making independence a front for the continuation of rule by the Royalty.) Partition was not due to allegiance to the Crown, as we are supposed to believe - it was solely due to economic factors.

Following the collapse of the shipping industry, the rationale for the 6 counties remaining apart from the 26 counties of the Irish Republic dissipated. It was at this point that gangsters such as Iain Paisley (a foul man who bought himself the title 'Reverend') latched onto the idea of exaggerating the old religious differences and resentments to drive a wedge between the Christian Irish and the descendants of the planted Scotti. Freemasons from brother lodges contrived a fake religious problem and set about corralling the population of the North of Ireland into rival community factions. Mimicking the Masonic flag of the Republic, the factions were assigned the rival colours of Green and Orange, with the Luciferian controllers steering each faction, as indicated by the white panel which sits at the centre of the tricolour. The Monarchic Establishment in London, through its mercenaries and agents in the (green) Provisional Irish Republican Army, and the (orange) Ulster Volunteer Force, began a campaign of terror which killed thousands of ordinary people and wrecked the lives of many thousands more.

Using the manufactured terrorist threat as an excuse, the London Establishment enacted ever harsher measures of population control. The London regime through its MI5 assets in the PIRA and UVF, conducted psychological warfare on the people. The atrocities endured by the Irish were soon extended to the British mainland and to a lesser degree, the Irish Republic. From these exercises in terror, MI5 was able to put into practice various theories for the mental destruction of resistance to tyranny, and indeed for methods to create willing support for despotism. In exactly the same way that the MI5-MOSSAD-CIA orchestrated New York massacre on the 11th September 2001 was used to dæmonise Muslims and give Police State powers to the State, the MI5 bombings of Britons across the Isles was used to dæmonise the Irish and to turn the British 'Bobby' into the jack-booted enforcer of mafia-esque legislation which is represented by the British Police of today.

Dæmonising the Irish had the effect of creating a scapegoat which could be beaten whenever the Establishment needed a distraction. Many Britons, justifiably enraged at atrocities attributed to the Irish, and egged on by anti-Irish propaganda on the BBC, began to believe the lies they were sold and began to treat the ordinary Irish as terrorists. Likewise the Irish who were on the receiving end on 'loyalist' atrocities began to support those who falsely claimed to be anti-British. During the height of the terrorist bombings, as MI5 murdered Britons and Irishmen, hatred of one another replaced critical analysis. At this time, ever more draconian laws were enacted, and the surveillance society began in earnest.

Whilst Irishmen chanted 'No Surrender to the IRA', or 'Troops Out', and sang ditties about the criminal Zionist, William of Orange, the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom simultaneously progressed along the path of integration into the European Economic Community, now the European Union. As the controlled media screened images of suffering, the issue of whether Ulster should be governed by London or Dublin, or even Stormont, became irrelevant. All the while the pantomime played on, with puppets such as Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley publicly berating one another (although not in the Lodge!); with safety valve parties such as the BNP and National Front leafletting and stickering swathes of the UK with literature proclaiming Ulster to be British forever; with defiant murals against the British Army being painted on gable ends across Belfast; with people the length and breadth of the British Isles focusing on the enemy created for them; with sincere but misguided activists wasting time playing their parts. Even now the game continues.

17th March is the day we remember Saint Patrick, Patron Saint of Ireland, Christian and proud Scot. On this day, amidst the drinking and merry-making we must remember the suffering caused by the Royal Family of Europe (yes Family, they are all related). We must look at the current 'terrorist' threat being presented - at the scapegoating and dæmonisation of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, of Islam - and the truth of who really is committing atrocities which the Muslims are currently being blamed for. For Celtic Britons and Irishmen we must recall that we are one people divided against one another by our common enemy - the British Crown. We must wake up to the fact that whilst we have been distracted by the deadly circuses of MI5, our sovereignty has gone and our nations have been over-run by immigrants who are not of our kin. We have been lied to, manipulated into supporting rival factions which only exist to serve the internationalist Police State. Worst of all, we have aided our enemies and attacked our own.

Saint Patrick's Day 2010 is different because Ireland as a nation no longer exists, nor does the United Kingdom - yet still pressure valves like the National Front fight the battle of shadows. We let this happen because we believed the media and the Government, and the other fronts of the Royal power. We must wake up and refuse to fall into the trance again. We are one - Irish, English, American, Russian - EUROPEAN. The Ulster conflict is over. Ireland IS united. They now have new terrorist threats and climate scares to distract us. If we can learn from the experience of being lied to on such a scale, we can resist the new lies and stop the Internationalist cabal. From adversity comes strength.

Happy Saint Pat's!

Gates of Vienna: Ethnically Cleansing the English, by Paul Weston:

To become an ethnic minority in your own country over just a few decades suggests that government policy, as has recently been revealed, was indeed to ethnically cleanse the English from their homeland, although the multiculturalists who committed this wicked act of treason and betrayal never couched it in quite such plain language, preferring instead to frame mass immigration as a means of achieving social objectives.

These figures are not hysterical, nor are they the obtained from the research of paranoid periodicals. In 2007 The Guardian reported that Britain was heading toward a population of 70 million by 2031, but did not mention that the addition of an extra 10 million people whilst the indigenous population was simultaneously declining and emigrating required the importation of an awful lot more than just an extra 10 million immigrants.

Indeed, the liberals and the leftists are only too aware the indigenous population is being ethnically cleansed. In 2000 The Guardian predicted a white minority Britain by 2100, therefore tacitly admitting acceptance of population replacement, but erring only on the time frame necessary to achieve racial cleanliness.

Fjordman said...

Terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here: What is happening with the native white population throughout Western Europe is a purposeful, state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that's unique about Britain is that key members of the ruling party openly admit this, in writing. What Andrew Neather probably didn't realize when he said this was that he inadvertently laid the basis for a new Nuremberg process where Multiculturalism is listed as an ideology with the stated intention of the physical destruction of whites everywhere. As such it constitutes an organized crime against humanity.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for "ethnic cleansing," thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleaning of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately destroying the native population of their country. So why isn't that happening? Could it be because similar anti-white policies are followed in all white majority Western nations without exception?

It's time we realize that the humiliation, dispossession and gradual destruction of whites, from Canada to Sweden, is not the accidental result of a failed policy but the deliberate result of an evil policy, the largest campaign of ethnic cleansing in recorded world history. An this is happening in the "free and democratic West." If "democracy" means the genocide of your people then what the hell is it good for?

Fuchur said...

Terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here

I cannot take someone serious who uses the words "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" in that context. Just look at the word "genocide": "Killing" is part of the word. Now when, say, a black woman immigrates to GB and then gives birth to a child there - how is that in ANY way related to KILLING somebody??? I can only shake my head in disbelief at the vile twisted minds that could come up with such a warped comparison. Even Orwell would be baffled at that crazy attempt at Doublespeak: giving birth = killing. Ingenious.

This is racism, in it's purest and simplest form. Period. Now, you could maybe try and make the point that racism isn't all that bad and so on... but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that this isn't racisim. Really. It's just too ridiculous...

Paul Weston said...

@Fuchur

Curious name, curious morals.

You read an article pointing out the territorial and cultural displacement of a race of people, and your response is to make the accusation of racism.

You must hate the white race with a passion!

The UN definition of genocide quoted does not include the word “killing” and nor do I make such an association in my article.

I imagine you have an extremely short attention span, so will repeat the UN definition of genocide for you, and the UN rights of indigenous peoples.

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”

“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.”

“Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;”

You see, no mention of the word killing...

Perhaps a simple yes or no question might be in order.

Do you think the UN declarations above should be applied to the indigenous English?

Yes or no.

Failure to respond might well lead people to think you a rather silly fuchur.

The genocidal regime in Britain, and indeed in all White countries, agrees with Fuchur.

BNP 'whites-only' membership rules outlawed | Politics | guardian.co.uk:

Judge agrees with human rights watchdog that British National party's rewritten criteria for joining are still racist

In a landmark injunction at the Central London county court, a judge found that the BNP's membership policy remained discriminatory, even after a direct whites-only clause was removed last month.

The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

While one offending clause is largely an administrative matter – a requirement that all new members agree to a vetting visit from BNP officials, something the judge found could intimidate non-white applicants – the other spells out core beliefs.

This is a requirement for members to believe in the "continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence" of an indigenous British race and action towards "stemming and reversing" migration.

Our enemies see concern for the interests of indigenous Whites as "racist", and not being "racist" against alien interlopers takes precedence over the desire of native Whites to ensure our very existence. That they have the power to legalize their crimes does not absolve them of responsibility.

Thoughts On America’s Jewish Ruling Class And Noblesse Oblige is a broad but somewhat superficial overview of jewish influence by Steve Sailer. Such criticism is rare, so I'm glad he wrote it and that VDARE published it. However, he underplays and overlooks some aspects of jewish influence, and his critique is weakened by the needling style and obsequious tone he always adopts when speaking truth to jewish power. (He's notably less generous and circumspect when accusing and blaming White power.)

Sailer's line of argument is hopelessly flawed:

The theory behind the dusty old concept of noblesse oblige is that a powerful class that thinks of itself as being in the game for the very long run will tend to behave in a more responsible fashion than one that doesn’t.

How do jews feel about this? We get a hint in How to Think About: Jewish Bankers | The Atlantic Wire, where media jew Michael Kinsley discusses finance jews. The attitude, which should be familiar to anyone who has ever opined on jewish influence, can be summed up as, "Yeah, jews are powerful. So what? Oh, and by the way, you're a nasty jew-hater."

Sailer presumes the jewish ruling class can be made to care about and behave like Whites. He compounds this error by presuming that they don't think of themselves as being in the game for the long run. He's wrong on both counts. Jews have for millenia existed in diaspora as a successful and influential minority. They have infiltrated, outwitted, and outlasted every nation in the Levant and Europe. They know who they are. They know their history. When they feel safe they boast of their success at our expense. When they need sympathy they instead recite a long litany of woe at our hands. They know non-jews tend to underestimate them. They have survived because they make a point of not tying their future to anyone else's.

The reason jewish rule is so ruinous for Whites is because they are alien to us. They will never care for us or behave like us because they are not us. They know this, but for the most part Whites don't. My previous post links comments in which political pundit jew Lawrence Auster admits as much, even while defending jewish interests:

James N. writes:

. . .

Do you really think that American Jews perceive themselves, and self-identify, as "insiders"? My experience is quite the contrary. In fact, I've always observed (and found it curious) that American Jews, from their positions of wealth and achievement, practically cultivate and nourish a sense of outsiderness, which is often wielded as a grievance.

My medical school class had 226 freshmen. Of these, at least 190 were Jewish. At that, an orthodox Jewish professor complained more than once that the admissions committee discriminated against Jews, proving that America truly had it in for the Jews.

I think that a lot of the recent, and public, obsessive anti-Bush and anti-Palin sentiments made by prominent Jews arise from this same sense that ordinary, middle-American virtues and values are alien to them, SO alien, in fact, that sounding off in public, in a borderline-hysterical way, is a way of proving group solidarity AND outsiderness at the same time.


. . .

LA replies:

I agree with your observations about Jewish attitudes. But in my comment I did not mean that Jews perceive themselves as insiders. I meant (1) that the white gentile majority perceives the Jews as insiders, and (2) that in key respects the Jews are, in reality, insiders. And therefore that a First Law-type analysis doesn't fit them.

Sailer at least acknowledges that anyone who challenges jewish power is punished. Auster pretends all our society's problems are due to "the majority" simply abdicating.

The reality is that America's jewish ruling class is shameless. They are not embarrassed about lying to, defrauding, and ultimately genociding us. To the extent they or their apologists even respond to objections and resistance it is only to misdirect blame onto powerless "anti-semites". It will stop only when enough people realize the consequences of jewish misrule and misbehavior and act against it.

For a more thorough review of jewish influence in media, see William Pierce's Who Rules America?. For more about what Sailer glibly alludes to as the "Sons of Ellis Island", see Kevin MacDonald's Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. More on what Sailer has called the "Diversity Recession" and the jewish role he assiduously underplays can be found in Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce. Damning evidence of the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the regime is discussed in DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites. The graph above is from Yggdrasil's examination of Diversity in income and education.

Prompted by the links discussed in Saving the West, One Blogger at a Time, Auster writes My November 2007 response to Tanstaafl about the First Law and the Jews.

He begins by rephrasing his "First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society" for the Nth time:

The First Law refers to a liberal majority's concealment of the negative truths about minorities who are visibly dysfunctional, alien, or threatening: the more dysfunctional or dangerous they are, the more their negative qualities are denied and are blamed on the majority.

He goes on to deny that jews are dysfunctional. One of his commenters gets him to dissemble about their alien nature. He doesn't address "threatening" or "dangerous". His own reaction to the idea that his law applies to jews provides a vivid example of the law in action. He admits he was thinking of blacks and muslims and didn't consider jews when he formulated this version for John Savage (his emphasis):

As I look over your collection, it’s clear to me that there is but one Law, and it’s simply this: that the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated. This increasingly undeserved favorable treatment of an increasingly troublesome or misbehaving minority or non-Western group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group’s crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group’s critics as racists, and blaming the group’s bad behavior on white racism.

The new, shorter version is missing the reference to "racism". How convenient. Most of the rest of Auster's comments are an attack on Chechar and myself for "anti-semitism", that extra special form of "racism" most noted for its use in covering up the crimes, misbehavior, and dysfunctions of an extra special "minority".

Auster could have called his law "The Law That Covers Everbody Except Jews". Too late, it's The First Law of Jewish Influence now.

Commenter Flippityflopitty sends this link via email. Let's Get Real About Racism: Lee Mun Wah:

Before we can truly become a multicultural nation, we must have relationships based on respect and understanding, reflection and compassion; where our differences and our similarities are embraced, valued, useful and integrated into the very fabric of our workplaces, communities, schools and governmental institutions. I come from the belief that awareness and holidays are just the beginning. What is required is an ongoing dialogue and relationship with each other, one that allows for conflict and differences, questions and curiosity. To me, that is what a healthy and intimate relationship possesses. I hope that you will join me in making this not only a better world for our children, but for ourselves – not by starting tomorrow, but beginning today.

Let’s Get Real: What People of Color Can’t Say & Whites Won’t Ask

For People of Color:

1. What’s hard telling whites the truth about racism?
2. What’s the price of telling the truth about race relations in the U.S.?
3. Why do you think it’s so hard for whites to hear the truth about racism?
4. What would you say to whites if you could tell them the truth about racism?
5. In what ways do whites keep people of color from telling the truth about race/racism?
6. How have you learned to “play the game” to appease white folks?
7. What would it take for you to feel safe enough to tell the truth about race/racism to white folks?
8. What is the difference between talking about race and racism?
9. What is the illusion about race relations in the United States?
10. Are race relations getting wors e or better in the U.S? Why or why not?
11. Can you ever envision a world without racism? Why or why not?
12. What was your most profound experience with racism? How old were you? How did it affect you and how does it affect you today?
13. What do you think it will take for whites to truly embrace diversity?
14. In order to unlearn racism, what do you need or want from white folks?
15. What can’t you say about racism? Why or why not?
16. What does assimilation mean to you? Why?
17. When you have told the truth about racism, what has been some of your experiences? How have those outcomes affected you?
18. When talking about racism, what opens you up and what close you down?
19. What do you say to folks that feel that racism is no longer an issue now that we have a black president?
20. Do you think that your children will experience racism when they grow up? Why or why not?
21. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color?

For Whites:

1. What’s good and what’s hard talking about racism?
2. How does guilt keep you from dealing with racism?
3. How do you think you benefit from racism?
4. What opens you up and what closes you down to talk about racism? Why?
5. What are some of your fears to bring up the issue of racism with people of color? With other white folks?
6. What do you need from people of color to feel safe to talk about racism?
7. What do you need from other whites to feel safe to talk about racism?
8. If you could say three things to people of color about racism, what would you say?
9. What do you think it will take for people of color and whites to trust each other?
10. Do you believe that racism is a learned behavior and attitude? If yes, why? If not, why not?
11. Where did most of your stereotypes about people of color come from? How did those stereotypes affect your perceptions and attitudes toward them?
12. What part do you think you play in perpetuating racism?
13. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color? Why?
14. What do you think it will take to unlearn racism for white folks?
15. What are some of the things that you are afraid to say to people of color?
16. What would be some questions you would like to ask people of color?
17. Why do you think many white folks don’t identify as a group?
18. When did you first experience racism? What happened and how did it affect you?
19. What percentage is your life is impacted by racism? Why or why not?
20. In what ways have you been able to avoid talking or dealing with racism?
21. Are there two Americas? Why or why not?
22. What does assimilation mean to you?
23. What does diversity or multicuturalism mean to you?
24. What do you think keeps people of color and whites apart?
25. What do you think it will take for the United States to heal from racism?

1. Why does anyone mistake this anti-White bigotry for "anti-racism"?
2. Why should Whites respect, embrace, or have any dialogue or relationship with people who blame us for all their problems?
3. How can we make them leave us alone?
4. Where can we go to get away from them?
5. If we somehow succeed in saving ourselves, how do we keep this from happening again?