← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Ragnar
Thread ID: 7881 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2003-07-05
2003-07-05 18:46 | User Profile
**Gangs Of New York And The Meaning Of America **
7/5/2003
by Bill White
[url=http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=5479]http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=5479[/url]
Commentary -- I saw Gangs of New York this evening and I have to say that it was a very good film. It spent most of its 2 and half hours or so building up to one apparent conclusion, and it introduced elements at the end that put everything in a new meaning. The ability to do that, and to make the ending really bring in a new meaning, instead of some trite BS designed to appease the current political sensibility, is something I have to admire. The film focuses on the conflict between white Irish immigrants and white non-Irish immigrants in New York, and ends with the message that it is ridiculous for white working people to fight over stupid things when there is a federal government and a capitalist system ready to smash them all flat.
Leo DiCaprio plays an Irish man, and I'm not sure of the actor who plays his nemesis. DiCaprio's character's father is killed in the opening scenes in a very well-shot gang rebel with the Nativist American gang leader. DiCaprio is sent to a reform school, and then is released. He joins the Nativist gang, tried to assassinate the leader, is beaten, then organizes his own Irish gang, and sets a date for a rumble between the white Irish and the white non-Irish for control of the neighborhood. Then the film gets interesting.
Abraham Lincoln declares a draft, and the white workers of all ethnicities don't want to fight. They don't care about slavery, and don't want to free the slaves, and don't want to fight and die for, as they refer to them "negroes". The theme of the penalty that war imposes on the war, and the apathy of working people to rich men's causes is constant throughout the film. The Irish are shown getting off the boat and being drafted immediately into the Union Army. During a production of Uncle Tom's Cabin, authored by the wife of a Rabbi, the Nativists and the Irish riot together screaming "Down with the Union!" The point that the war of Northern Aggression was a rich man's war that working people hated as they hate all war is driven home.
But though the working people hate war, they love a good fight (feeling much as I do about both, in fact). The Irish whites and the non-Irish whites are right about to face off in a gang war when rioting breaks out. The working people destroy New York, run into the homes of the rich families who are sending them to war, and destroy them. The draft office is burned. The politicians are endangered. The army comes in.
On an evening in the middle of multi-day rioting the rich, not yet affected by the riots, are discussing the day's events. One looks at the politician who has been meddling in the politics of the neighborhood the gangs are fighting over and says, "What is it that you always say? We can always use one half of the poor to kill the other?" That statement is brilliantly integrated, because it takes the whole immigrant white / non-immigrant white thing and puts it in perspective. All those politics are is playing one group of whites against another. What is needed is white unity.
There is no indication that there is an intent that whites should unify with non-whites. What the whites unify for is the lynching of the non-whites and the rich capitalists that they see as the cause of the war. I found that racial theme very interesting in the film, and think that it had to be included against the director's intentions, because the director refused to change history to reflect his political convictions. Interesting and admirable.
So the white immigrants and white non-immigrants are about to kill each other, a Union battleship begins firing on their neighborhood, and Union soldiers come marching down their streets. The fight never happens. The workers were so busy fighting each other that they were unable to see their common enemy: Judaeo-Capitalism, imperialist federalism, and the political forces that exploit them and sacrifice them for alien interests. The non- immigrant white leader is killed by a fragment of a Union artillery shell; DiCaprio just finishes him off. The Union slaughters untold numbers of workers of both parties; workers from both gangs are seen rushing the Union troops and being blown to pieces. The whites unify, but too late to save themselves or their neighborhoods; the federal government occupies their neighborhood and imposes its will.
That, plus the portrayal throughout of the American electoral system as being absolutely corrupt, and of the stupid nature of inter-white conflict, made the film very enjoyable. There is also a lesson as well for the types of silly and petty ethno-centrism that some white nationalists tend to spew.
There are those -- outside of the mainstream of white nationalism, but haunting its periphery nonetheless -- who want to take the ethnic hatred of Old Europe and continue them within the context of the white nationalist struggle. These men -- usually men -- want to see a "white" or "nationalist" movement that disdains interactions with the Irish, with Southern Europeans (Spanish, Italians, Greeks), with Slavs and Eastern Europeans, and with other white peoples who, in America, share a common history with them. This is nonsense. One of the ideas behind America, before Jewish mulit-culturalism and the pathetic ramblings of some Christian sects determined otherwise, was that it was a place for white unity, where the ethnic and religious conflicts of Europe (and the nominally religious conflicts with an ethnic undertone) would be left behind. There are still some whites in this country who can't understand this, and in a situation where there is a deliberate attempt by world Jewry to exterminate the white race, these whites want to set white people against each other on the basis of their ethnic roots. This is utter nonsense.
In the middle of Gangs of New York my girlfriend called me and we spoke for an hour or so. She had been looking on Ancestry.com, and I pulled out the genealogical charts that I have -- charts that go back between six and ten generations (and now up to sixteen) on every ancestor in my family -- and asked her if she saw any of them. It was surprising -- we spent the hour researching just one of my relatives from eight generations ago. This fellow, and his antecedents, were Swiss; he was actually of the lineage of the Governors of Zurich Canton from at least 1510 to near the end of the 17th Century. Other ancestors of mine, on my father's side, are, by and large, descended from the petty nobility of Switzerland, Austria, Bavaria, Saxony, the Palatinate and Hesse, though there is a distant relative of one of the governors of Plymouth colony, and three or four who's origins beyond the sixth to eighth generation are unknown. Almost all of them are members of noble families who left the nobility in Europe to come to America because of religious persecution; the vast majority became Mennonites or Schwenkfelders. They came to America instead of say, Russia, where the Czar had offered the resettlement of Germans, because they wanted to escape the petty religious and inter-white ethnic conflicts of Europe. There are records of them founding towns and fighting off Indians and fighting in the Revolutionary War. They built the country, not because they wanted to slaughter the Irish or the Greeks or the Catholics or the Slavs, but because they had seen the stupidity of the fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants and the various white nations and wanted to get away. Those that didn't want to get away are, by and large, still in Europe, and continued to hold positions in the governments of the pre-unification German states, the Austrian Empire, and the Swiss government, at least for as long as I looked at the records of them.
So, I'm struck by the quality of a movie that urges the stupid among whites -- often those most willing to pronounce their level education -- to shut up and look at who the real enemy of working people is. It's not some white person who is confused about religion and still worshipping some Christian sect, or the white person who happened to just move into town, but it is the system that sits on top of white workers and divides them so as to exploit them for their profit and their wars. For that lesson alone, I would say Gangs of New York is a product worth consuming.
2003-07-06 01:51 | User Profile
I haven't seen the film yet. But I hope the commentator is not saying that whites in America forget their own heritages. Stop the infightig, but don't give up our own specific prides. An American of Irish decent can still take pride in being Irish. Same thing with those of Anglo-Saxon roots, Slavic roots, Germanic, etc. Otherwise we'll get some kind of vague white nationalism that has no real roots. Nationalism without roots simply cannot thrive or even exist, since Nationalism is always based on historic roots.
I'm proud of my Slavic heritage, but that doesn't mean I hate Germans, English, etc. No, I have upmost respect for the diverse ethnic folk heritages all over Europe. But tell me I cannot take pride in my Slavic heritage, and any talk of white unity and white nationalism becomes meaningless to me personally. To me it sounds like cosmopolitianism cloaking itself as nationalism. I sincerely hope thats not what the commentator is implying.
2003-07-06 01:56 | User Profile
Perun:
Never mind Bill White's personal take on GANGS. It's well worth seeing. At nearly three hrs it felt a little long seated in a theater, but on video/DVD I'm sure it will play much much better. It's got its ups and downs, but there's enough genuine greatness in it to warrant a viewing.
2003-07-06 02:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 5 2003, 19:56 * *Perun:
Never mind Bill White's personal take on GANGS. It's well worth seeing. At nearly three hrs it felt a little long seated in a theater, but on video/DVD I'm sure it will play much much better. It's got its ups and downs, but there's enough genuine greatness in it to warrant a viewing.**
I concurs, 'Rachnid.
Both Scorcese and Day-Lewis deserved the Oscars that went to that overwrought, mawkish Holocause yarn.
2003-07-06 05:57 | User Profile
**Perun:
Never mind Bill White's personal take on GANGS. It's well worth seeing. At nearly three hrs it felt a little long seated in a theater, but on video/DVD I'm sure it will play much much better. It's got its ups and downs, but there's enough genuine greatness in it to warrant a viewing. **
I'm sure its a good movie. That wasn't my problem. My problem was with this Bill Whites's contention that in order to be a white nationalist, one has to give up their ethnic prides(Irish, German, Russian, etc). I find this bull.
This almost like how some people are justifying the EU, that petty ethnic hatreds in Europe must give way to a new Pan-European nationalism. Yet without the specific ethnic identities, anykind of pan-Europeanism is meaningless and worthless.
Globalists also try to sugar-coat themselves by refering to globalism as "pan-nationalism", a nationalism that encompases the globe. I think Bill White was moving in that direction. Beware of globalists posing as nationalists.
I didn't say anything against the movie itself, just how this guy was trying to use it push his own agenda.
2003-07-06 07:01 | User Profile
My problem was with this Bill Whites's contention that in order to be a white nationalist, one has to give up their ethnic prides(Irish, German, Russian, etc). I find this bull.
I gather from your other posts that you're a young man attending college; thus I'll gently suggest that there is something to what Bill White says. [u]Divide and conquer [/u]is how we got into this mess.
Ethnic identity is fine, but overweening ethnic pride is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Along with the good stuff we all throw our chest out bragging on, the history of Europe is one of hubris-fuelled, pointless fratricide. And every time, after the dead were buried and the maps redrawn, guess who got stronger and more entrenched. Guess who eagerly awaited each new opportunity to play banker to both combatants.
Think hard about this. Read, watch, learn...with open eyes. And remember that if white men never again warred against each other, who would find it imperative to manufacture hostilities to remedy the peace.
2003-07-06 07:40 | User Profile
**I gather from your other posts that you're a young man attending college thus I'll gently suggest that there is something to what Bill White says. Divide and conquer is how we got into this mess.
Ethnic identity is fine, but overweening ethnic pride is a luxury we can no longer afford.**
History is a powerful force to try to overcome. Many have tried to erase it and say "well things were bad then we'll be better now", and have failed. Many of the divisions in Europe are deeply rooted and will probally remain. Does that mean that Europe cannot be united to some extent, no. But it will probally be more like Europe in the 1940's when all sorts of nationalist movements united against Bolshevism. Or even before that, to the days of Young Europe during the 1830's to the 1848 revolutions. Young Europe was a bedrock for nationalist movements throughout the continent and branches in many countries(ex. Young Italy, Young Germany, Young Ireland, etc.). It wasn't uncommon even during that period for nationalists to give support to one another's cause. Many Italian nationalists fought with Greek nationalists against the Turks as one example.
As I said before, much of the white European nationalism that Bill White is speaking sounds errily similar to what the EU is preaching. What exactly does Bill White call for, a United States of Europe, or a Union of European states? I'm just asking.
** Along with the good stuff we all throw our chest out bragging on, the history of Europe is one of hubris-fuelled, pointless fratricide.**
As I said before, disregarding history as just a hubris-fuelled, pointless fratricide is the same mistake our Marxist enemies made and the EU is mouthing off today. They thought blind internationalism would unite the world. Wrong!!!! Same was true with the Latinizers in the Catholic Church, who thought that the Catholic church being a "universal" church must be a "uniform" church. The Eastern Rites(to which I belong) opposed such a notion, claiming the right to maintain their own eastern heritage within the universal church. As one Byzantine Rite theologian once commented "force unity often leads to more disunity". Funny how the Orthodox church placates more towards specific national traditions(Greek, Russian, Antiochean, etc.) and yet remains far more united than many other christian denominations. A Greek orthodox can freely go to a Russian orthodox church and vice versa.
If Pan-European nationalism is to thrive and survive it must follow a philosophy similar to what the Orthodox has towards national traditions within the universal church. But what I'm getting from you and Bill White is a more "Latinizer" style philosophy that will probally cause more disunity than unity. Please try to prove me wrong in my assetment.
** And every time, after the dead were buried and the maps redrawn, guess who got stronger and more entrenched. Guess who eagerly awaited each new opportunity to play banker to both combatants.
Think hard about this. Read, watch, learn...with open eyes. And remember that if white men never again warred against each other, who would find it imperative to manufacture hostilities to remedy the peace. **
Wars and fighting among the white race will continue well into the future. Lets not be foolish about this, it happens in all races. Even close families have arguments and fights, its part of human nature. Only untill Christ's second coming(if you believe in that) will that end.
2003-07-06 08:23 | User Profile
Young Europe was a bedrock for nationalist movements throughout the continent and branches in many countries(ex. Young Italy, Young Germany, Young Ireland, etc.). It wasn't uncommon even during that period for nationalists to give support to one another's cause.
That's certainly closer to what I'm prescribing than any United States of Europe.
But even closer to it is an awakening in the minds of individual whites that - above all else - they are white. And that their whiteness is no accident of birth, no random assignment of pigmentation....as Chuck Pearson has said, if you are white it's becauuse your parents were racist.
Take a look at percentage of world pop that whites occupied 100 years ago, and compare it to now. Forget frightening; it's practically irreversible. If you and I were Martians observing this phenomena (and realists besides) we wouldn't even stick around for the inevitable finale. But because we are vitally involved in this demographic slide we must hold out hope. And the linchpin of that hope is WHITE - and not specific European- IDENTITY. My enemy isn't the Slav or the Swede or the Celt even if the Slav, the Celt and the Swede are brandishing weapons at me; my enemy is the OTHER. The Slav/Celt/Swede might have been neutral to me yesterday, and might again be neutral to me tomorrow....but the OTHER has hatred me since time immemorial. The OTHER bedded down 1000 years ago to dream of my complete destruction, and dreams the same dream today, and will again tomorrow. The determining factor - the difference - is NUMBERS. The OTHER is winning; at long last, the momentum is on his side.
We simply no longer have the NUMBERS to justify factionalism.
2003-07-08 02:43 | User Profile
**> ** Young Europe was a bedrock for nationalist movements throughout the continent and branches in many countries(ex. Young Italy, Young Germany, Young Ireland, etc.). It wasn't uncommon even during that period for nationalists to give support to one another's cause. **
That's certainly closer to what I'm prescribing than any United States of Europe.**
OK we're in agreement now. I too adovcate something like what Young Europe was or the strong unity of European nationalists during the 1930's and '40s.
**And the linchpin of that hope is WHITE - and not specific European- IDENTITY. My enemy isn't the Slav or the Swede or the Celt even if the Slav, the Celt and the Swede are brandishing weapons at me; my enemy is the OTHER. The Slav/Celt/Swede might have been neutral to me yesterday, and might again be neutral to me tomorrow....but the OTHER has hatred me since time immemorial. The OTHER bedded down 1000 years ago to dream of my complete destruction, and dreams the same dream today, and will again tomorrow. The determining factor - the difference - is NUMBERS. The OTHER is winning; at long last, the momentum is on his side.
We simply no longer have the NUMBERS to justify factionalism. **
That maybe true, but that it still ignores the historical differences between the European(white) races. None more so than the difference between West Europeans and East Europeans. This division has always existed in some way or another, but the beginnings of the division in its modern form started when the Roman Empire was split into two. The Western Empire was influenced more by Latin cultural traditions, while the Eastern Empire was more Greek in influence.
This even caused a split in the Christian church into West(Roman Catholic) and East(Orthodox/Byzantine Catholic). West Europeans often adhere more towards traditional Greco-Roman culture as its foundations, wheras East Europeans adhere more towards the traditions of the Byzantine Empire. There are too many differences between the two traditions to list.
So to try to dismiss these differences is to almost dismiss much of the identity of many of Europe's peoples. I understand the population problem, I truely do. But the divisions among the Whites are deeply embedded and are not going anywhere soon. That is not to say our differences should prevent us from uniting against the common foe. For example, Europe's nationalists united in the 30's and 40's to fight against both Jewish influence and Bolshevism. They did this while at the same maintaining their distinct ethnic/national identities. But we need to understand that a complete unity of the white race is elusive.
I know this much closer to home. I'm a Slavic nationalist, but pan-Slavism is elusive as well. The Western Slavs(Poles, Czechs, Croats) are more Roman Catholic and closer to Western Europe, wheras the Eastern Slavs(Russians, Belarussians, Ukrainians, Serbs) are Orthodox and almost form a distinct civilization of their own(as many Slavophiles of the 19th century argued). So this in many is representive of the division between East and West I described earlier.
The same is true with other Races, no race is completely united under one banner. Blacks are not exactly the most united race on earth. They have tribal/gang wars both here in the ghettos and in the old continent. Pakistanis and Indians are pretty much the same racially, but they hate each others guts. Same thing with the divisions among the Mongoloid peoples(Chinese vs. Japanese, Japanese vs. Koreans, Chinese vs. Mongols, Chinese/Japanese vs. Vietnamese etc.). Its the way the world is.