Rienzi inanity

Lothrop Stoddard

Pathetic time wasting: Rienzi tries argument by appeal to the authority of some Wikipedia editor's summary of some leftist academic's interpretation of Lothrop Stoddard.

Had Rienzi bothered to actually pick up a copy of Re-Forging America, he might have noticed:
  • The book is about forging American national unity, not "white unity".
  • Stoddard did not suddenly become rosy on "New Immigrants" (Southern and Eastern Europeans) once immigration reform was accomplished. He stresses:
    • Immigration restriction averted disaster and this potential disaster must not be forgotten, and,
    • "New Immigrants" must accommodate themselves to the America, not the reverse. Those who can't can and should go home.
  • Stoddard comments positively that (at the time he wrote):
    • Colonial stock Americans still constituted almost half the white population, and most of the other half were of closely-related Northern European origins.
    • "New Immigrant" birth rates were falling, and it appeared unlikely they would increase their fraction of the population much.
    • Old-stock Americans still ran the country.

  • Stoddard glowingly praises his friend Madison Grant and quotes approvingly from Passing of the Great Race.
  • Stoddard notes that "New Immigrants" are concentrated largely in Northeastern industrial centers. At one point, Stoddard addresses himself to Americans who find themselves in areas like this and urges them to take heart and remember all the (real) Americans in the Midwest, West, and South who will come to their aid if alien elements attempt to exert control.

The Wikipedia article contains the claim that:
Stoddard was less concerned with which varieties of European people were superior to others (Nordic theory), but was more concerned with what he called "bi-racialism," seeing the world as being composed of simply black and white races.

Which is simply retarded. When Stoddard wrote, blacks were the only numerically significant non-white group in the US, and "bi-racialism" is merely Stoddard's name for his proposed solution to what at the time was the biggest race problem in America. The solution: outlaw racial inter-mixture and institute separate-but-equal segregation nation-wide. Organize America into separate black and white spheres, and allow blacks to rise within their sphere as far their talents lift them. That is bi-racialism--Stoddard's idea of a kinder/gentler/fairer Jim Crow. In other words, a practical proposal that has nothing much to do with post-modernist "white" identity deconstruction. (Incidentally, Stoddard considered "bi-racialism" an imperfect solution, and saw colonization as something eventually to shoot for.)

Stoddard clearly did not believe all whites were equivalent, and his chapter on "bi-racialism" contains no calls for "white unity" or attempts to minimize differences between whites. ("Bi-racialism" could be seen as implicitly acknowledging that black-white differences are larger than white-white differences, but such has always been obvious, and I know of no "Nordicist" who has argued otherwise.)

OMG Arab coins in Sweden!

Weak innuendo: "Were coins the only things brought back from the Middle East?"

I don't know, Rienzi. Swedes do seem suspiciously swarthy. You know what else? Vikings traveled throughout Northern Europe, no doubt spreading their Arab taint to the ancestors of Americans. To be safe, I suggest you exit my country immediately and commune with your personal hero on the island of his birth. They may speak a Semitic language there, but I don't think anyone has ever found any Arab coins in Malta, have they?


Anonymous said...

If the assimilationist argument is accepted, for discussions sake, is there any indication that it actually worked?

How did we get to this point?

A good starting point is the recent autobiography of Manoly R. Lupul, The Politics of Multiculturalism: A Ukrainian-Canadian Memoir.

In the 1960s, after Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson assigned the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism to design a fresh approach to English-French relations, citizens whose origins were neither British nor French began to fear they were being excluded from a new version of citizenship.

Ukrainian-Canadians, in particular, feared the extinction of Ukrainian uniqueness.

Their homeland, part of the Soviet Union, was dominated from Moscow. Lupul, visiting Ukraine in the late 1960s, saw Moscow's Russification policy destroying the old way of life. (He had no idea that the Soviet Union would fall apart in the 1990s and leave Ukraine to its own devices.) He and others dreamt of helping Ukraine survive in Canada.

It drives you nuts. Ukrainian survival some how trumps the survival of the founding Anglos. Russification is destroying the old life in the Ukraine so let's join other ethnic groups to destroy the old life of Anglos in Canada. It would be easier to accommodate Rienzi's position if it wasn't all about beating on the founding people.

Anonymous said...

The really amusing thing is Rienzi used to whine about McCulloch's suggesting that (some) Southern Euros be assimilated -- though he seemed most upset that McCulloch didn't want all SEs to be part of his proposed "Nordish" state. (And he was particularly upset that McCulloch would discriminate based on phenotype--though Rienzi reserves for himself the right to call his paisanos "Arabs" based on appearance.)

It would be easier to accommodate Rienzi's position if it wasn't all about beating on the founding people.

Quite. American identity must be watered-down out of existence and Wilmot Robertson's work must be suppressed so as not to hurt tender southern euro feelings.

Anonymous said...

I have no interest in White Nationalism. Nordicists are idiots (they try and take credit for the accomplishments of the Greco-Roman civilization when they are descended from barbarians.)
Rienzi is a real piece of work though. Like you say, he has a love-hate relationship with the nordicists- sometimes he seeks their approval, and sometimes he gets mad at them for rejecting him.
(He will condemn McCulloch et al. for wanting to exclude Southern Europeans, but then he trashes actual Southern Europeans- e.g. Greek soccer players- for not looking like Northern Europeans.)
Rienzi's notion of the "biocultural" unity of Europe is questionable, given the role of the Neolithic demic diffusion in southeastern Europe vs Northern Europe. For that reason, I would not doubt for a moment that most Greeks and Sicilians are more closely related to Jews and Armenians (Rienzi's hated "NECs") than to Danes and Swedes.

Anonymous said...

When I talk about Nordicists, I am thinking of people like Arthur Kemp (March of the Titans) or the idiot who wrote the "Refuting RM" website. Or James C. Russell, who wrote in The Occidental Quarterly about his ancestors who fought at Thermopylae, and claimed that later Greeks are "de-Hellenized" because of "cultural and genetic dissonance" caused by "Eastern immigrants."

I am not talking about Northern Europeans who take pride in and want to preserve their Celtic, Germanic, or Slavic heritages.
I am talking about the Kemps and Russells, people of northern descent who, because of some inferiority complex, claim that people of Northern European origin were responsible for Greco-Roman civilization and the Renaissance, and go out of their way to accuse present-day Greeks and Italians of being racially inferior.

For the record, I am of Sicilian descent; my family is from an area of that island settled by Greeks.
I'm proud of my heritage, but it doesn't mean I hate others or think they are inferior.

So I am neither a Nordicist or a "pan-European" WN. (Even if I wanted to be a WN, I wouldn't fit into the movement. I'm not a paranoid weirdo like most WNs on the net, and I know that some of my relatives would be considered "impure" by Nordicists, or "suspect" by the likes of Rienzi.)

Anonymous said...

(And he was particularly upset that McCulloch would discriminate based on phenotype--though Rienzi reserves for himself the right to call his paisanos "Arabs" based on appearance.)

He's at it again.


Just what service does Rienzi provide? He doesn't come close to possessing the qualities of a leader. As a theoretician he's a special-pleader par excellence. Maybe there's a job for him stuffing envelopes for the Aryan Alternative, though I suspect he'd balk at the prospect of having to undergo a certain kind of vetting.

Anonymous said...

LOL. "Rienzi inanity"- isn't that redundant? Or how about "Rienzi in(s)anity"?
After all, this is a guy who went berserk when I suggested that the Neolithic expansion and historic migrations had affected the genotype of people in Italy (the former significantly, the latter slightly).
Anyway, he has me confused with someone else (who he calls "Iceman")who he has been dogging on for a while. That's pretty funny.

Anonymous said...

Rienzi posted two diagrams, thinking he refuted something I said.*

1) On the "genetic map of Europe" Italy is one of the most diverse countries; they are all over the map. If you take the distance as Fst, many (not all, but many) Italians are closer to "NEC" Turks than to many "EC" groups from northern Europe.

2) Color-coded ancestral components: Tuscany (Central Italy) shows a small brown (Middle Eastern) component in addition to the main green (European) component. This may be due to Neolithic admixture, or to Etruscan influence.
Anyway, the study does not include Anatolian (Turkish, Armenian) or Aegean populations (Greeks, south Italians).

In other words, Rienzi sees what he wants to see in these diagrams; he is trying to fit genetic information into categories based on his ideology.

I recall that I made a dumb joke at his expense, apologized, and he launched into a paranoid rant thinking I was his nemesis "Iceman." The guy can't disagree without ad hominem ("mendacity" is his favorite word.)

*Not just me: Luca Cavalli-Sforza, for example.

Anonymous said...

It looks like I got under Rienzi's skin; he doesn't know who he is talking to or what he is talking about.

I notice that he includes Turks and Armenians in his "NEC" category, then says "southeast Europeans have nothing to do with NECs genetically." If he means Semites from the Arabian Peninsula, he is most likely correct, but if he means people from Anatolia (e.g. Turks and Armenians), most scholars regard Anatolia as the likely ultimate source of the Neolithic ancestry found in Italy and Greece.

The diagram STILL shows that the Greek sample and the bulk of the Italian sample are closer to the "non-European" Turkish and Cypriot samples than to many of the Northern European samples. Maybe there would be more differentiation if the latter 2 samples were bigger; maybe there would be less.

I didn't accuse Italians of being "Semites" except as a joke. I was the guy who made the last 2 comments (pointing out that "Semites" played a much smaller role in Italian history than Greeks and Celts, and that most of the supposed "Middle Eastern" ancestry in Italy came from Neolithic people who spoke languages of unknown affinity).

If Rienzi thinks Turks and Armenians are "Semites", he knows nothing about language or history (what was that again about Sarah Palin being dumb)?

Anyway, none of this really matters all that much in the real world, and I know I have wound this goofball up enough. No more of this tempest in a teapot. It was fun while it lasted, but I've got better things to do.

Anonymous said...

Alleged Sicilian, I find it impossible to believe you really think "none of this matters in the real world." How did you ever make your way to it if you didn't think it mattered? Assurances of "white inclusion" you may have encountered on the net are a distinct possibility. A more realistic appraisal of circumstances may have since led you away (or caused you to back down) from certain views you may have adopted, but it's difficult to believe you could turn your back on everything you've picked up. Race may not be everything, but it is certainly not nothing.

And to the extent that it's not nothing, the statement that "you have racial interests" must be true to at least some extent, and is almost certain to explain some degree of your behavior "in the real world."

That Rienzi is an oaf cannot seriously be disputed. But it's a mistake to allow his churlishness to so disgust you that you deny reality in order to spite it.

If my comments accurately reflect your sentiments, know that you're not alone. In my commentary across various boards (much of it regrettably churlish itself), I've attempted, implicitly (for now), to establish the outlines of a framework in which racial topics can be discussed and sensible racial policies promoted in ways that safeguard the dignity of the participants, as well as the dignity and physical well-being of the racial subjects (people) under discussion. The comments of the Dutch/Greek "sandra" woman in a recent posting highlight the desperate need to develop such a framework; the alternative is to allow her kind to celebrate as "victory" what is, in fact, catastrophe.

Anonymous said...

Don't know what I was thinking, or how important the argument is in the real world. I probably just have too much time on my hands.
I'm not interested in being "accepted" by a movement made up of wackos and criminals, and (just like almost anybody with an IQ above room temperature) I can think through the absurd implications of some of Rienzi's ideas. (For example, does he really think that Greeks and Sicilians have far more in common, genetically, culturally, etc., with Swedes than with Armenians?)
I guess the reason I was messing with Rienzi is the same reason people mess with the Nigerian bankers and lonely Russian women who infest their inboxes. I feel bad about doing it though; the guy may not be all there upstairs.
Anyhow, I got better things to do.

Anonymous said...

Silver, I don't know why you let R--nzi* get to you so much. I think both of you have pretty significant issues, and you feed off of one another.

R--nzi has probably been rejected from the movement because of his obnoxious personality more than his Italian heritage, but he thinks it's the latter, hence some of his obsessions (accusations of "Nordicism", genetic tests as proof of "whiteness", etc.)
BTW, I was the guy who left the message about the stupidity of Nordicists, and R--nzi's seeming love-hate relationship with them.

*I don't want you-know-who googling himself and going off again.

BTW, I am a frequent reader of GNXP and Dienekes; I have a major interest in history, archaeology, anthropology, human genetics, etc.
I admit I have visited "racialist" blogs and forums (Majority Rights, Western Biopolitics, etc.) for much the same reason people stare at car wrecks or watch Jerry Springer.

Anonymous said...

Sicilian, I don't think I have any "issues" at all, apart from being exasperated by my apparent inability to talk some sense (and a modicum of compassion) into racialists.

If you've made it to Dienekes and GNXP, it's no good pretending to be horrified by racialism ("car wreck"). Obviously you can see the sense in being able to do without the aggravation of dealing with, at a minimum, negroes, 'spanics(certainly the more indio variety) and muslims. But something is preventing you from being fully and openly honest about that. What is it? A distate of "hate" or a distate (fear even) of similar reasoning being applied to you yourself (particularly by those you care for)?

It'd sure be nice if an environment were fostered where the answers to such questions could come easily. Fraught with difficulty (of all sorts) answering such questions may be, I find it immeasurably preferable to remaining mute in the face of the avalanche of sensory, statistical and logical data steadily making its way toward us.

Anonymous said...

Not "horrified" by it; I know it's part of human nature like it or not. What is analogous to a "car wreck" is its obsessive, over-the-top expression by the likes of Rienzi, "Fred Scrooby" or VNNers.
I will be honest with you, silver. I know there are good people in each of those ethnic/religious groups you mentioned, even if the cultures are generally pathological and the majority of people in those groups are difficult to live with.
I don't care for most "white racialists" (many of whom are perverts, fraudsters, addicts, mental cases, or all of the above) and I don't give a damn whether they think I'm "white." If I cared about that, I would have posted my picture on Stormfront with the caption "Do you think I am white?"

Anonymous said...

I don't care for most "white racialists" (many of whom are perverts, fraudsters, addicts, mental cases, or all of the above)

Generalize much? Hate to break the news to you, however "many", if not most white racialists are normal white people trying to slog through life. They know they are the 21st century negroes however they either do not have the time to enact change or they are fearful for their livelihood and remain quiet.

You can shut your fool mouth now, unless you aren't finished sucking on silver's anti-white ass.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sucking on silver's (or anybody else's) ass, "anonymous"; I'm just calling it as I see it.

Maybe most individual "white racialists" are normal white people, but I was talking about the people who claim to represent and lead the "movement" (people like David Duke, Kevin Strom, Bill White, etc.), or many of the Internet posters who claim to speak for "white racialists" (some of whom I named above).

Anonymous said...

I will be honest with you, silver.

I expect nothing less. :)

Kidding aside, prefacing your comments that way indicates a pained awareness of racial reality and an accompanying difficulty in discussing it forthrightly. That difficulty is evident in the tepid concession that folows.

I know there are good people in each of those ethnic/religious groups you mentioned, even if the cultures are generally pathological and the majority of people in those groups are difficult to live with.

As difficult as that may have been to admit, it's not much more of a concession to reality than a neocon, even a jewish one, would make.

Look, of course there are good people in those groups. Racialists, in their haste to dicuss the nitty-gritty, fail to do justice to worthy non-white individuals (and a great deal more besides), but only the crudest, most died-in-the-wool skinhead would even attempt to defend the proposition that they don't exist.

The truly "revolutionary" insight is that those individuals shouldn't -- gasp -- be judged solely as individuals, but as members of the groups they belong to. If "no man is an island unto himself" is a truism, then conclusions must follow from that, the most obvious being a politics based on the exaltation of the individual is tragically flawed. This is obviously a standard I'm willing to apply to myself, so I'm not seeking any immediate personal advantage by proposing it.

This blog isn't the place to discuss such ideas (and I thank n/a for indulging this discussion so far), but discussing them is most necessary. And I'm addressing this to you here because clearly much of what is already being discussed resonates with you to some extent. If you're as put off by the individuals you mention as you say are, why not constructively refute their lines of thought? Ignoring them only allows them undue influence on the tenor of racialism, as newcomers mimic them and needlessly and uselessly likewise blinker themselves (so much so that I'm regarded, idiotically, as some sort of "anti"). The head of steam they're building up will continue with or without your (or mine) input, but silence from our side allows them (or risks it) to co-opt unchallenged what is not necessarily by rights theirs for the taking (that can be read literally to mean as physical territory itself, land).

If anything I've said has managed to capture some part of your interest and you wish to pursue it further, contact me at my email address. (Have I run across you elsewhere on other "hbd" blogs/boards by any chance? Dodona, HumanBioDiv?)

Anonymous said...

I am probably more of an "anti" than a "pro" as far as racialism goes, at least by WN standards.
I may be prejudiced, but I am not proud of it or obsessive about it, so I am not going to call myself a WN or a racialist. And I don't expect to change my mind.

That's all folks.