Australia
Andrew Fraser spins a long yarn here about the corrosive impact of whiteness on purebred Anglo-Saxons in America:
“Today such grandiose visions seem absurdly out of reach. Awesome Anglo-Saxon roosters have become wimpy WASP feather dusters.”
I’m not buying it.
There wasn’t a single spot in the entire British Empire that was more resistant to this disease that has paralyzed Anglo-Saxons than the “white” slave societies in the Caribbean and the American South.
In my opinion, there is a very simple and compelling answer that accounts for the stunning decline of the Yankee and the Englishman. It was due to a fatal combination of racial homogeneity, or a lack of slavery in most of the Anglosphere, and swallowing and ingesting the poison of liberalism and evangelical Christianity.
Correlli Barnett explains the origin of the “wimpy WASP feather dusters” in his excellent book from the Pride and Fall Sequence, The Collapse of British Power:
“However, it was religion which was to give the romantic movement in England its singularly moralistic direction and force. The eighteenth century founders of Methodism, the evangelists Wesley and Whitefield, although standing in an older tradition, brought to life a new religious emotionalism by loosing men’s feelings in vast open-air assemblies tumultuous with mass-hysteria; the archetypes of the mass-meetings of future democracy and its political demagoguery. From the Methodists themselves, the flame of emotionalism leaped and ran through the traditional but now torpid nonconformist sects. It ignited even the Church of England, a body which in the late eighteenth century might have been regarded as wholly proof against feelings stronger and deeper than those of respect for the squire or for a well-roasted goose. The Church of England revivalists, the so-called ‘evangelicals’ or ‘saints’, such as William Wilberforce, Hannah More and their friends, carried intense religious emotion and zeal for righteousness into the upper-middle classes. By the opening years of the nineteenth century all British Churches and sects, regardless of doctrine, had been set aflame. And the evangelical attitude to religion, indeed its attitude to the whole of personal and public life, spoke to the hearts of the future rulers of England, the rising middle classes of the towns.
To evangelicals, morality was no mere matter of pragmatic observance of the laws and mores of a society; no unconscious affair of habit; not something to be taken for granted. On the contrary, their attitude to morality was highly self-conscious; they saw it as an intensely personal question, to be answered according to strict doctrinaire principle. For evangelicals were tormented by a sense of what they called ‘sin’, a term which covered most aspects of human nature, and especially its strongest and most basic impulses. ‘Sin’ was to be conquered by earnest prayer in the course of private struggles of conscience conducted in a state of spiritual abasement. Evangelicals therefore saw human existence in all its rich complexity in simple terms of good and evil, right and wrong. They had no doubt at all that they were, although sinful, right. Indeed, their pew-hard certainty, on which no outside evidence could make an impression, was a distinguishing characteristic.
The importance of evangelicalism in terms of future British attitudes to world affairs lay in that it did not limit itself to theology or private examination of the soul, but saw religion as a rule-book to govern every aspect of personal, social and international life. In the words of Sir Edward Barker: ‘It has indeed been a feature common to the Evangelical and Catholic sections of the English Church — and, for that matter, a feature common to both with various nonconformist societies . . . that they have all sought to make religion a general social force.’
Traditional English pragmatism was therefore threatened by the onset of a rigid concern for doctrinaire principle. No less significant for the future tone of British politics and foreign policy was the emphasis of evangelical religion on humanitarian concern and pacifistic sentiment. This was the theological aspect of the new middle-class sentimentality that Dickens both tapped and stimulated, the compassion first manifested by the philanthropists of the eighteenth century. In the past religion had often served rather to justify struggle with one’s fellow men. St. Athanasius, for example, in the early Christian era, declared that it was lawful to kill enemies in war.
There is no biblical disapproval of slavery, although the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 as a result of a campaign led by William Wilberforce and of slavery itself in the British Empire in 1833 were the earliest of the great social achievements of British evangelicalism. Religious bigotry had served Cromwell and his Ironsides only to whet their resolution in battle. But while it is true that evangelical religion was to inspire some ruthless English men of action in the nineteenth century — General Gordon; the Lawrence brothers who administered the newly-won Punjab — these were nevertheless exceptions. To embrace one’s fellow men in brotherly love rather than smite them with the sword of righteousness was the broad instruction of evangelicalism to the British people. As a historian of Christian pacifism observes:
. . . our concentration on the primacy of love in the nature of God, and therefore in the Gospel .. . and therefore in the social, national and international implications of the Gospel, is a relatively modern phenomenon . . . I do not find it wiht any prominence earlier than about a hundred years ago.
By 1870 evangelical Christianity, like a clove of spiritual garlic, had permeated British life….
As a consequence of this spiritual revolution English policy ceased to be founded solely on the expedient and opportunistic pursuit of English interests. International relations were no longer sen as being governed primarily by strategy, but by morality. As Gladstone put it in 1870: ‘The greatest triumph of our epoch will be the consecration of the idea of a public law as the fundamental law of European politics.’
Starting in the late eighteenth century/early nineteenth century, the spread of evangelical Christianity began to rot the British character and create the precursors of the twentieth century “wimpy WASP feather dusters,” the earliest signs of which was Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce’s crusade to abolish the slave trade.
In the United States, abolitionism was born in the Deep North in the 1830s from the cultural foundation of the Second Great Awakening. Evangelical Christianity was the gasoline that ignited the Union in the War Between the States. See David Goldfield’s new book America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation which explains how evangelical Christianity in the North turned slavery into an intractable moral issue that could only be settled by bloodshed.
Note: I will address this subject in detail in OD’s first book, Shattering The Golden Circle: The Failure of Free Society in Dixie, Haiti, and the Caribbean.
As for the discussion at TOO, Andrew Fraser has reduced a cultural problem – the decline of the WASP, which was caused by the WASP’s own fatal embrace of liberalism and evangelical Christianity, and the subsequent moralizing and crusading that resulted from the infection – into a racial/ethnic problem which only obscures the real issue. There were plenty of purebred Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Canada, and Australia, but liberalism and evangelical Christianity had the same destructive cultural impact in the rest of the Anglosphere that it did among the Yankee in the Northeast.
Tarlton should have run Wilberforce through.
We’ve spent too much time framing problems in terms of ethnicity. It is becoming clear that ideology and religion are the real culprits here.
He would have enjoyed it.
Like Yankees and Englishmen, Southerners and West Indians were predominantly Anglo-Saxons, but slavery acted as an antidote to the destructive cultural impact of religion and ideology.
Southerners and West Indians could never wrap their minds around nigger equality. It was obvious that strict limits had to be placed on liberal republicanism, the natural rights ideology, as well as on preaching.
Slave societies were built on the exact opposite principles of liberalism: the authority of the master over his bondsman, and the inequality of the relationship, and what’s more, the system was economically successful, which made it more resistant to the disease.
Hunter, I can’t began to count the number of times your point was proven when I was in the Army.
There was a steady stream of rural yankee country boys who’d join the arm, come down South thinking niggers were people, the Southron White man a racist etc only to learn the truth on their own. Then they’d go home and tell their folks about it, but their folks wouldn’t believe the truth from the mouth of their own kin
@ Stonelifter
I had very similar experiences with Yankee classmates when I was at The Citadel.
@Hunter Wallace
I’ve read most of Mr. Fraser’s writings on “The Wasp question” (as he phrases it) and it’s pretty obvious that he’s come to the same conclusion that you have as to the viability of generic white nationalism. Which is to say that ethnonationalism whether it’s Southern, English, Catalonian, etc is more viable than pan White Nationalism. Fraser is merely advocating a revival of Anglo Saxon nationalism centered around a revised and more conservative Anglican Church.
HW- I’m willing to concede that apostate Protestantism is largely to blame for the rise of ‘considering the nigger as a White Man’s equal,’ but let’s be clear about terms, shall we?
While others may think I’m insane for noting it, your lengthy quote merely corroborates my earlier opinion. It was the Armininism of Wesley (and therefore, does not include Whitefield, who remained a staunch Augustinian/Calvinist to his dying day) that is to blame, for this ‘seeing hominids of duskier skin as brothers to Adam’s seed.’
Arminianism is merely Pelagianism, in a GW Bush ‘kinder and gentler’ fashion- for 18th century sensibilities. Pelagius (a heretic) actually believed men could save themselves, without the prevenient (coming before) Grace (unmerited favor) of YHWH God himself, contrary to St. Paul, etc. He was excommunicated, and his heresies denounced.
Interesting point- Arminianism is prevalent also, within the Church of Rome. Indeed, an even larger measure of post-schism ‘free will’ claptrap would have come about after Aquinas, had it not been for an Augustinian (Predestinarian) Monk, by the name of Martin Luther!
So, if you are going to lambast the entire edifice of Christendom, at least lambast the guilty parties, instead of using a ‘broad brush’ approach- place blame where it is due- with the Pelagian side of the equation, and at least allow those who tend to be sovereign grace advocates, free from this slur. At least the kinists, the Restorationists, and others don’t believe in the perfectability of man to such a degree, than we believe a leopard can change his spots, or the Nigger become a White man… even by the grace of God!
(Bush, Sr., who started our whole ‘New World Order’ BS, was/is an Arminian Methodist… So is Ron Paul. Hmmmm….)
singlemalt,
I don’t disagree.
The existence of the gelded, wimpy WASP feather duster is the bigger problem. It is much worse in England than Dixie. I’m convinced that liberalism, evangelical Christianity, and the absence of slavery in most of the Anglosphere is the cause.
The wimpishness of the Yankee and the Englishman can’t be biological.
Biologically speaking, Yankees are closely related to us. So there has to be a cultural explanation for their decline. It seems the answer is the effect of Methodism and a lack of slavery.
Fr. John,
(1) No, I am not blaming Christianity per se. Let’s keep in mind here that Christianity sanctioned slavery until 1807 and presided over the rise of the slave societies in the New World.
(2) Somewhere during the mid-18th century, there was a “mutation” that altered the nature of Christianity in Britain, which became dominant in the early-19th century.
(3) You would know more about the theology of this development than me. Your instincts sound correct.
Fraser is brilliant.
Iput aside his book, but will pick it up again.
The WBTS brought Europe to the American shores, and now we are dealing with the Spanish again, (who used the Irish to open the borders).
The infiltration of the Irish into government and their hatred for anything English and German has been a huge player in u.s.. They are HYPER-DOSED on Hollywood pro-sinn-fein movies from birth, (Irish nationalism, just like brown nationalism, the Indian-Ghandi movies, and so on is good, but wasps exist only as genocidal colonists and slavers, lol). Philip Hart and the Kennedys opened the border, and their allies use SC of U.S. to keep it open. Tarantino, Scorcese, Cohens etc, keep anti-wasp movies coming.
Personally, I like Irish people— but organizationally they have not worked in white interests that I can see. So, I don’t fully embrace Hunter’s idea that a chink in the armor of the wasp is the main cause. Jews who came to U.S. around WWII saw them as Germans. And catholics, especially Irish like Kennedys, their embroilment with Cuba and the south border, Philip Hart, etc, (The Italians and Germans not so much as the Irish) were used by whatever money behind them, to produce what we’re living in now.
From their point of view, there is nothing “wrong.” Like Hannity, they have “beat the evil wasps!” Ryan has “shown those slavers” by dating a black lady in college!!!
The black guy who wrote “How the Irish became White” may have jumped the gun, lol.
Fraser is right in saying the other “whites” do not share the burden of wasp vilification.
HW—- asking wasps to continue deconstructing themselves (who can be more self-analytical than wasps, lol) instead of going on the offensive and asking some of these other “white groups” to take a look at THEMSELVES for a change is a bit questionable, imo.
Dixiegirl,
(1) Andrew Fraser’s essay is focused on the United States, not Great Britain. If he had analyzed developments in Britain in parallel with the Northern United States (particularly those related to the spread of liberalism and evangelical Christianity), then the ethnic hypothesis would have been ruled out.
(2) Did the Irish turn the British into spineless, self effacing wimps in England? If so, how?
(3) Why do WASPs deconstruct themselves? I say it is because of their own embrace of liberalism and evangelical Christianity. That’s why you don’t see much of it in the seventeenth or eighteenth century. It becomes prominent only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The English lorded it over the Irish for centuries. Cromwell certainly didn’t have any problem lording it over them. He pretty much sold many of them into slavery in the West Indies.
So what changed? What turned the Anglo-Saxons into such self effacing pussies? Did the Irish come up with some new strategy that had eluded them for centuries? Why do you only see this after the nineteenth and twentieth centuries?
Notice how the Yankee and the Englishmen can be quite ruthless … but, and this is the key to understanding the mentality behind their decline, only when they are engaged in some great, noble, self sacrificing crusade against demonic “evil doers,” such as the Southern slaveowner or the German Nazi, or “spreading democracy” to Iraq and Afghanistan.
By the way, just so we don’t forget who hates Christians most-
http://crtraditionalism.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/jewish-supremacists-descecrate-christian-monastery/
Same old deicides. Same old Christ-killers.
The Irish are only good as gabby cannon fodder. That’s not an insult.
Some of those Saints from Clapham were stuffer Nigger Indians into cannon and firing them during the India Mutiny. So they were not pussies. Lawrence Brothers and Charlie Napier were dragons. Kitchener had the madhi’s skull for an inkwell.
Your thesis might do well to look at Tom Brown’s School days and the liberal bullshit that Matthew Arnold unleashed at Rugby. Which was a school for savages before his arrival and a school for pious damp squibs afterwards. It’s all the Flashman books.
A lot of it is Methodism too. All the men at Waterloo sneared at religion. By the 1840s it was a different breed of soldier, but the conflict with India cured all that.
the Citadel? Bad ass singlemalt. Tip o the hat to you Sir
“There were plenty of purebred Anglo-Saxons in Britain, Canada, and Australia”
There haven’t been any “pure bred” Anglo-Saxons since about the 6th Century. DNA analysis has shown that there is a general increase (in an East to West cline) in the R1B1 (Celtic) Y-DNA Haplogroup. In England and western France it is currently 60%. It’s higher in fringe Celtic areas like Wales, Brittany, Eire, the Scottish Highlands etc.. where it surpasses 80%. It is even 40% in Iceland, probably due to the raiding of Ireland for women slaves.
Despite 2 millennia of overlaying ruling invaders the English are still majority Briton in their genetic makeup.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4tmWE8JAKMI/T4iwYdFPvdI/AAAAAAAAAdg/GXSCkODG2ss/s1600/300px-Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA_version_2.gif
Rudel, it’s a cultural reference.
It just means English.
Is there such a thing as a Prussian? Also funny. The Anglo Saxon’s greatest trick is to convince you he doesn’t exist.
Your thesis might do well to look at Tom Brown’s School days and the liberal bullshit that Matthew Arnold unleashed at Rugby.
I’m pretty sure Hilaire Belloc remarks in The Jews that the Arnolds were part Jewish. I haven’t read Tom Brown’s School Days; but maybe two decades ago, I saw the old Hollywood version of it on late-night television. Late in the story, the headmaster, who, I gather, is Thomas Arnold, supposedly brings Tom to some sort of moral awakening by trapping him in some sort of situation that struck me as completely unfair. I don’t know whether that’s how things played out in the book, but I found it repulsive. I’m pretty sure I saw the movie before I read Belloc’s statement.
Yes it’s Thomas Arnold.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Brown%27s_School_Days#section_6
what’s remarkable about the book is that it takes the savage children of the aristocracy and turns them into pious little do gooders.
You also see Sports codified. Rugby, particularly which is a forerunner of American Football.
You also see George MacDonald’s Fraser’s much needed corrective with reviving the character of Flashman.
The book is so influential that an entire genre is built on its bones. Exhibit A, Harry Potter. Draco is the Flashman character (cowardly sneeky greedy) obviously. Potter is a pussy of the highest order of course.
I have a different theory on why white Anglo men are such wimps: A hedonism of sorts. Hedonists are those who think that self-pleasure is the highest good. Despite their large numbers all through history, hedonists have never been able to form viable, stable groups. Forming viable, stable groups means occasionally having to set aside one’s pleasure for the good of the group–or at least doing things that one doesn’t find pleasurable.
Compare this to the traditional “enlightened self-interest” of capitalism and liberalism where the only thing that is supposed to matter to me is my own financial well-being (i.e., the “invisible hand” whereby if we all pursue our own individual interests, everything will be just peachy). Of course, the problem is that being part of a functional society occasionally entails doing things that aren’t in our own financial best interests even if they are good for the country. In saner times, it was called sacrifice.
Things got worse with the Baby Boomers when their motto became: If it feels good, do it. Activities such as serving in the armed forces and joining service organizations are just two examples of activities that are necessary for the common good of any society, yet don’t always feel good to do.
Bottom line: If behaving in a socially responsible fashion always felt good, the West would still be at the top. Things don’t always work out that way though.
As far as any type of orthodox Christianity being the problem for the West, I also disagree. The problem is the co-optation of ALL Western institutions by powers that no longer have the people’s best interests at heart.
This is much too complex a subject to be dealt with in its entirety in this forum. Suffice it to say that it results from liberalism’s tendency to pit the richest and most capable against the poorest and least capable. Gone are the days when the divine right of kings, or anything similar, made looking out after the interests of average people a moral imperative. Even if average people had their interests neglected in premodern times, the moral standards still existed. Today, it’s every man for himself–or herself.
One of the reasons Marx failed in his theories was he regarded culture as “superstructure” that would grow automatically from changed social relationships. The reason he said this was that he watched closely the development of “bourgeoise culture”, which was different from that of both the premodern aristocracy and the peasantry. Since the bourgeoisie saw themselves as being under siege, a siege mentality developed where they didn’t see themselves as one group in a larger society; their culture focused inwardly only.
As the bourgeoisie became hegemonic and wealthy, this new culture wanted to keep itself apart. So, it developed PC sensibilities (PC actually goes way back; see here: http://books.google.com/books?id=LGLUAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) to distinguish itself from the working classes. Unlike the rich bourgeoisie, the working and petit bourgeoisie classes simply cannot afford to embrace ideas like desegregation, open borders, free trade, etc. PC is how this group sets themselves apart from the rest of us. It is the snobbishness of the radical egalitarians.
Matt Dunnyveg: agree on the hedonism. Just finished Nicomachean Ethics where one of Aristotle’s points was the difference between pleasure and amusement. We have an entire culture based on amusement.
Hedonism? Sensual pleasures?
The Victorian hypocrite as hedonist? Rewind and rethink that.
John, if I’m going wrong, please tell me how. Is liberalism not about capitalism, which is in turn about self-interest, which in turn is about personal pleasure?
I will say that bourgeois culture didn’t gain complete hegemony until after WWI, which was after the Victorian era.
The planter class in the West Indies (think of Sultan William Beckford who built Fonthill Abbey) were extremely wealthy hedonists, but their wealth was built on plantation slavery, which encouraged racialism and discouraged the sort of meekness that characterizes the likes of Wilberforce and his successors.
The slave trade was a form of capitalism. The slave interest was firmly grounded in self interest and profit seeking. The plantation system produced commodities like tobacco, sugar, cacao, and coffee which catered to the mass pleasure of European consumers.
“Despite 2 millennia of overlaying ruling invaders the English are still majority Briton in their genetic makeup. ”
The Iberian/Irish link is mythical. There is no Celtic race. Celtic is a language not an ancestry.
http://racehist.blogspot.ca/2008/11/another-nail-in-coffin-of-iberian-irish.html
The sort of ascetic religious mindset that produced abolition also produced the temperance movement and Prohibition which is the exact opposite of hedonism which was always a stimulus to slavery.
Hunter, undoubtedly what you say is true; hedonism is more a psychological than sociological trait–at least before the advent of modern liberalism–and afflicts a certain number of people the same way sociopathy does. Drug and gambling addicts come to mind as the pathological hedonists. Liberalism, on the other hand, has made hedonism normative.
I’ve only read what you’ve written on the Caribbean planters. But I am aware that honor was first and foremost for Southern planters. Was the case the same for those in the Caribbean? If so, these people as a group were certainly not hedonists. It would be much more pleasurable to walk away from an insult than to risk one’s life and limb avenging it.
Recently, I saw a satirical video where the subject was how to insult the honor of white Westerners. The serious answer would be to interfere with their consumption patterns, which is a form of pleasure.
Honor implies that there is something bigger than me, and that bigger something is worth fighting and dying for. Hedonists are only willing to die for pleasure. The whites who died at the Alamo are the perfect example. This kind of thing is anathema to hedonism.
I would add to what I wrote to John that anybody who has read Mill’s “On Liberty” understands the relationship between hedonism and liberalism (i.e., we have the right to do anything we like provided we don’t harm another innocent party in the process). And Mill was a Victorian to boot. Is this dictum not a hedonist’s dream?
There is also another explanation for temperance. I take the following argument largely from Harpending and Cochran’s “10,000 Year Explosion”: I’m sure you’ve known some whites who swear by a low-carb, high-protein diet whereas other whites swear by a high-carb vegetarian-type diet. Actually, both are right–at least for some people.
Germanics and Mediterranean whites tend to do better on a high carb diet because their peoples have been farmers for ten thousand years; their genetics have changed to allow them to eat such a diet.
This is not the case with Celts, who became farmers only relatively recently. Before they were farmers, they were herdsmen, who lived on a low-carb high-protein diet.
You may ask what in the world this has to do with temperance. The answer is plenty. Farmers learned to ferment alcoholic beverages as food and as a way to drink safe water. Part of their genetic changes are the ability to drink alcohol without becoming alcoholic. This is less the case with Celtic peoples.
This is the reason temperance was bigger in the South; there were more Celts.
Another factor in American Prohibition was ethnic. Unlike American Protestants, who tended to take a rather dim view of alcohol (whether Puritan or Evangelical), the Catholics and Jews of the Ellis Island invasion liked alcohol and tended to handle it better. Prohibition was essentially one of the first battles between immigrants and the historic American nation, and the first major battle the immigrants won.
If you have compelling information to the contrary, I’d love to hear it.
(1) Andrew Fraser’s essay is focused on the United States, not Great Britain. If he had analyzed developments in Britain in parallel with the Northern United States (particularly those related to the spread of liberalism and evangelical Christianity), then the ethnic hypothesis would have been ruled out.
Not if we examine N.Ireland. Why are the Prods and Mics divided? Their religion is an ethnic marker. After the 1840 famine there was a mass Gaelic Catholic Irish migration to England, in particular Liverpool. (John, Paul, George and Ringo all of Irish descent). The result paralleled the events in New York. The Irish were an unmitigated disaster for the English. However, like NY there were calls for repatriation that were never answered and eventually intermarriage occurred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#Irish
(2) Did the Irish turn the British into spineless, self effacing wimps in England? If so, how?
Mass migration, assimilation and intermarriage. The Northern states did not need anti-mis laws for blacks, they needed them for Catholics. This is what Grant and the second Klan opposed and their religion was a marker for ethnicity. This what the Alabama Klan meant in the 1960s.
(3) Why do WASPs deconstruct themselves? I say it is because of their own embrace of liberalism and evangelical Christianity. That’s why you don’t see much of it in the seventeenth or eighteenth century. It becomes prominent only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
It’s loss of their religion that caused the decline. Their belief in the OT made them a chosen people and like the Jews embraced their choseness. The most religious part of the Union was the South. Undoubtedly, the Evangelicals are the least likely to marry Catholics. John Rolfe’s consternation is evident…“the heavie displeasure which almightie God conceived against the sonnes of Levie and Israel for marrying strange wives…”
The planter class in the South and the West Indies were defined by their hedonism, materialism, and extravagance.
Some travelers to the West Indies mocked the sugar barons for imitating the latest European fashions in such an unsuitable tropical climate. They looked like they were “about to melt” in their clothes.
The planters built great mansions and indulged themselves with huge feasts and the finest imported European wines. They stocked their homes with the best European furniture and often lolled about their plantations drunk on rum.
The plantations were commercial empires built on self interest and pleasure lorded over by sultans who never saw any contradiction between their own pleasure seeking and consumption and the misery of their slaves.
There is no contradiction between hedonism and slavery; hedonism was a great stimulus to slavery, it created the mass markets for sugar and coffee, and self interest and profit drove the whole enterprise.
Abolitionism is rooted in ascetism or the denial of pleasure. Anti-slavery had no economic rationale. It was destructive. It made tropical commodities like sugar and coffee more expensive and sparked riots when the supply was interrupted.
How is White guilt based on hedonism? Hedonists don’t feel guilty at all about slavery. It is highly unpleasant to be a self hating liberal ethnomasochist!
“Rudel, it’s a cultural reference.
It just means English.”
No, that wasn’t what was said. What was said was “pure bred.”
“If you have compelling information to the contrary, I’d love to hear it.”
Jews hardly drink. It was the Germans, Irish, and Poles who opposed Prohibition before it was passed. It was everybody who ignored it.
“Germanics and Mediterranean whites tend to do better on a high carb diet because their peoples have been farmers for ten thousand years; their genetics have changed to allow them to eat such a diet.
This is not the case with Celts, who became farmers only relatively recently. “
This is nonsense. Both the Celts R1B1 Y-Haplogroup and Germans/Slavs R1A1 both migrated from Anatolia and the Caucasus’ no more than 5 or 6000 years ago or so. Current thinking is that the Celts migrated along a Southern Mediterranean route or up along the Danube (or both) rather than across the Eurasian plain.
At any rate lactose tolerance seems to be just as prevalent in both groups as well as the indigenous hunter-gatherer Scandinavians. Haplogroup U1.
When’s your book coming out? I want an autographed copy!
On this subject, it’s interesting to note, I think, that Evangelicalism did not have the same effect on those in slave societies as it did elsewhere. For example, in the 1820s Robert Barnwell Rhett was won over to a much more emotional form of Christianity. He loved it and wrote about it. He gave up his conservative Anglicanism for this new Evangelicalism. However, Rhett’s views on race did not change. He was known to treat his slaves well (when the English abolished slavery an English friend of Rhett’s who had a plantation in the South Carolina Lowcountry sold his slaves to Rhett at a reduced price in order to see them go to a kind master) but he completely rejected equality to his dying day. As well, it should be noted that Rhett was an Anglo-Saxon and took enormous pride in his English heritage.
“This is nonsense. Both the Celts R1B1 Y-Haplogroup and Germans/Slavs R1A1 both migrated from Anatolia and the Caucasus’ no more than 5 or 6000 years ago or so. ”
And you call what other people write “nonsense?” The vast majority of evidence points to R1A1 being of northeast European origin and intrusive to the Caucasus, not native. As for R1b1 being neolithic, there is likewise an abundance of peer-reviewed research which indicates its origins date back to the paleolithic in Europe because of its density and distribution there, so nothing you have written above in your declamatory style is etched in stone. Molecular clock dating placing this mutation in the neolithic are by no means universally accepted by all. This is the chief problem with Whites and why we don’t get anywhere. A little bit of information and we inflexibly conclude we know it all. Too many chiefs and not enough indians. Vanity will be the death of us.
“Molecular clock dating placing this mutation in the neolithic are by no means universally accepted by all.”
Your theories are quite frankly obsolete. Get with the program. Science marches on and you obviously haven’t. I suggest you take a more integrative approach using stones, bones, and DNA.
“Your theories are quite frankly obsolete. Get with the program. Science marches on and you obviously haven’t. I suggest you take a more integrative approach using stones, bones, and DNA.”
…Once again revealing the irony of your own cluelessness. Outside of Renfrew and a couple of ethnic chauvinists from the Caucasus, nobody buys the Caucasus origin of Indo-Euros based on either linguistic, archaeological, or ESPECIALLY the genetic evidence any more. A philistine such as yourself should probably start at a a site like http://www.forumbiodiversity.com to attain a beginner’s acquaintance with some of the findings and arguments in this area. Much luck. You’ll need it.
As far as the argument goes that there is not separate group of Celts, I would disagree based upon the arguments in Bryan Sykes’ “Saxons, Vikings, and Celts.
Hunter, what you are describing is normal human behavior, and not hedonism. Do a little research if you don’t believe me. It is normal human behavior to do that which your group celebrates and to avoid that which your group condemns.
I hope you are researching your arguments on slavery in the Caribbean more carefully than you have thought out your responses to me. There is a difference between hard living and hedonism.
“Once again revealing the irony of your own cluelessness.”
Your ad hominem attacks hold no water. The neolithic origins of both R1b1 are entirely consistent with the genetic analysis of Western Europeans showing that R1B1 does not show up in the fossil record in any significant numbers there until some 4 or 5 thousand years ago.
“In addition, we dated a striking Paleolithic male lineage expansion to 41-52 thousand years ago and the node representing the major European Y lineage, R1b, to 4-13 thousand years ago, supporting a Neolithic origin for these modern European Y chromosomes.”
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2012/10/04/gr.143198.112.abstract
These results are consistent with up-to-date analysis of the Neolithic architecture found in many spots in Spain that show a decidedly Anatolian style of construction consistent with the modern theories that posit and Italo-Celt migration along a southern route through the Mediterranean and then northward into Western Europe as the Celt Bell-Beaker peoples, who were hardly indigenous paleo-Europeans.
The paradigm has shifted. You are living in the past. Please educate yourself as to current research before you become an outdated fossil yourself.
Kevin MacDonald rebuts Fraser re: “Anglo-Saxons”
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/10/whites-versus-anglo-saxons/#more-16457
@ Hunter George Whitfield was a slave owner, and spoke in favor of permitting slavery in Georgia.
Sykes:
“The Celts of Ireland and the Western Isles are not, as far as I can see from the genetic evidence, related to the Celts who spread south and east to Italy, Greece and Turkey from the heartlands of Hallstadt and La Tene…during the first millennium BC…The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or about the same time as farming reached the Isles. (…)”
However, Sykes theory of an Iberian origin falls down because of the marker L21 which is is “almost” exclusive to Britain and Ireland. There is no Celtic race. It is a linguistic and cultural characterization.
I agree, Desmond, especially with the last statement.
“Robert Barnwell Rhett was won over to a much more emotional form of Christianity. He loved it and wrote about it. He gave up his conservative Anglicanism for this new Evangelicalism”:
The motto by an Evangelical appears daily on OD!