Liberal hypocrisy, “movement” stupidity, and something for Derbyshire.
The gothic is a quintessentially European aesthetic. Moreover, it pertains and appeals more specifically to those of North-West European descent and is to be found in various modes and tropes throughout North-West European culture and contrasts with the Classicism of Southern Europe.
It’s true that Gothic culture was most strongly focused in NW Europe, and in the popular mind is associated with Northern France and Germany. But there is this and also this and also this.
But that’s not the major problem with the above quote. The problem is in its use of the present tense: “pertains” and “appeals.” Yes sir, dem Krauts of today are all going into medieval Gothic themes (that is, when they are not welcoming axe-wielding refugees and supporting Merkel more than ever), while dem Wops are all flocking to the works of Aristotle (when they are not ship captains jumping off sinking vessels they ran into rocks or behaving like hedonistic jackasses). And, certainly, your typical German-American loves dem dere Batman movies and those movies’ Gothic themes, while your typical Italian-American eschews Batman and prefers Clash of the Titans (release the kraken!). What utter stupidity.
In 55 Days, one of the Marines, Captain Andy Marshall (Jerome Thor), has a mixed-race daughter, Teresa (Lynne Sue Moon) who he has left at a French Catholic orphanage. Teresa becomes a complication for Captain Marshall and Major Lewis as the story plays out. Even though she is rescued by Major Lewis in a dashing way with epic music playing in the background in the final scene we know she is not going to really be at home in Illinois after being raised in a Chinese orphanage. In my personal life, I know a great many people whose father was a career military man and whose mother is from the Far East, usually Korea. It seems to me that about half the kids of those combinations fail to launch, there is drug abuse, poor personal and career decisions, and other issues. Recently, several spree killers, such as Elliot Rodger, came from such a background.
Moviegoers also learn that Baroness Natalie Ivanoff (Ava Gardner) has had an affair with a Chinese General, causing her husband to commit suicide. She is now alone in the world with a valuable necklace her only wealth. She is haughty to her in-laws angry at her infidelities, but one can see her haughtiness is empty bravado. The Baroness is in dire financial straits and irredeemable social trouble. By the end of the movie she has pawned her necklace. The Baroness’ problems are solved by her death in the siege.
In The Sand Pebbles, the problem of personal, intimate involvement with Third World People is fleshed out more deeply. The deep personal involvement has three different layers. The first is institutional. On the USS San Pablo, the Captain, Lieutenant Collins (Richard Crenna) organized a group of Chinese as coolie labor on the riverboat. The Chinese coolies turn part of the ship into their living quarters and a no-go area for whites. The coolies cook the meals, launder the clothes, clean and paint the ship, and service the engine. The Americans do little but drill in their perfectly laundered clothes, argue over trifles, and drink. This institutional organization brings about serious problems as the plot of The Sand Pebbles thickens.
It is in the bars where the problems start to crop up and the second layer of problems arises: intimate sexual involvement. When being shown around the ship, Frenchie (Richard Attenborough), tells Jake Holman (Steve McQueen) that the Pharmacist Mate is the critical person to know, as many of the men are getting venereal diseases from visiting the Chinese prostitutes. Normally, sailors visiting Far Eastern prostitutes is not a big deal. In fact, such a thing is often a rite of passage for many young men in the military. However, Frenchie takes the situation further when he becomes involved with a Chinese woman named Maily (Marayat Andriane) who works at the bar the sailors like to patronize. The woman is at the bar because she is burdened with debts that she manipulates Frenchie into paying.
Far Eastern morality is also clearly shown. As soon as Frenchie has the money to pay Maily’s debts, her Chinese creditor seeks more money by auctioning off Maily’s virginity. Additionally, the Chinese Republicans simply lie about who killed who, declaring Holman a murderer although the Republicans themselves were responsible for most of the killing.
And a follow up question.
The answer: Brown Privilege.
Follow-up question: why does Andrew Hamilton still write for WN blogs?
No excuse for plagiarism.
The question is whether it is better to have an excellent plagiarized speech or essay, or mediocre originality. Franklin (and, presumably, Hamilton) sides with the former view. But this is a false choice. If a person, like Hemphill or Hamilton, recognizes their lack of originality, and wants to use the work of others, fine, but why can’t they cite these others? The issue is not with a lack of originality – not everyone can be original. The issue is a lack of character. Yes, if you must, use others’ work, but have the decency and integrity to cite that fact. Thus, for example, I’ve based much of my own ideas on the work of Salter and Yockey, but I’ve always cited them and given credit where credit is due. I’ve been one of the leading defenders and extenders of Salter’s work, but have always made clear that EGI is Salter’s idea, not mine. Further, even when I’ve added original permutations to the EGI concept, such as the importance of genetic structure, I’ve also frequently mentioned that others – such as James Bowery and Ben Tillman – also independently came up with similar ideas at around the same time.
That’s why Franklin was wrong. Hemphill could have used the sermons of others to his heart’s content, but he could have avoided the completely justified criticism of his character by admitting that the work was from those others.
The “movement” has a character problem. This issue is one manifestation of that problem. Defective characters should be eschewed from the “movement.” Of course, I realize that would result in the loss of, say, 99% of “movement activists,” but quality is more important that quantity, no?
One more thing. The plagiarist makes a point of addressing his reading suggestion to “people who comment anonymously on the Internet” – note that the inclusion of “anonymously” seems to imply something negative in contrast to those who, like, say, Taylor or Duke or MacDonald, etc., comment openly. The comment indirectly and slyly leaves the impression to the reader that the author of that comment is himself not an anonymous or pseudononymous commentator. Of course, he can’t directly come out and say that, since it’s not true, as we can see from the TOQ website (emphasis added):
Andrew Hamilton is the pen name of a widely-published author on the science and politics of race.
Yet another anonymous/pseudononymous Internet commentator. Here is some more recommended reading for Internet commentators.
Those who have heretofore hosted the writing of this plagiarist need to carefully consider whether they want to be associated with these ethical lapses and this obvious lack of integrity.
The Aryan ideal?
An individual bereft of character writes:
Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South West Africa (Namibia), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Siberia (Russia-in-Asia) should all be fully reclaimed by, and reserved exclusively for, whites as part of a Greater Europe or White Imperium, with the exception of set-asides for native inhabitants such as Amerindians in North America and Aborigines in Australia.
That’s great. You know, if I wrote something like that I would, out of decency, mention that Norman Lowell has been proposing a virtually identical White Imperium for years and, of course, then there’s Yockey.
But that’s me. Others apparently take a different view of questions of decency.