Saturday, February 25, 2012

Ethnocentrism, Nationalism and self defence in a Globalist World

It would seem to Victor that a tribe is possibly the smallest manifestation of the ‘Ethno-state’, a ‘micro-nation’ if you will. The Huaorani, an Amazonian tribe located in the Ecuadorian Amazon Jungle (The lungs of the Earth) might just be one of the last true ‘tribes’ in that they utterly reject any outside interference in their affairs and their customs. Obviously there would still be the possibility that even more tribes are yet ‘undiscovered’ but these people have only been in contact with the ‘modern world’ for just over half a century.

According to the Australian Peter Allison, who lived with them for over a year, they are quite laid back and don’t mind foreigners hanging out with them and studying them for a while as they are equally curious themselves but don’t get under their feet while they go about their day to day business of surviving one of the Earth’s toughest environments or, God help you, try to ‘change’ them as some ill fated Christian Missionaries did. Not being big on talking politics, diplomacy or negotiation they simply speared the interlopers to death. End of section. Hard core brutal shit but you just gotta admire their spirit. These Huaorani have a lifestyle they think is worth protecting and if you wanna interfere with them they will fuck you up. As a White Nationalist your Old Uncle Victor cannot but admire these tough little fuckers, primitive and savage though they be, and say more power to ‘em. They have genuine Racial/Cultural integrity and, at least in this crucial area, we Whites can learn from them.

According to Wikipedia: “In the past, Huaorani were able to protect their culture and lands from both indigenous enemies and settlers. In the last 40 years, they have shifted from a hunting and gathering society to live mostly in permanent forest settlements. As many as five communities – the Tagaeri, the Huiñatare, the Oñamenane, and two groups of the Taromenane – have rejected all contact with the outside world and continue to move into more isolated areas.”

“In 1956, a group of five American missionaries, led by Jim Elliot and pilot Nate Saint, made contact with the Huaorani in what was known as Operation Auca. Two days after friendly contact with three Huaorani, a larger group from the same Huaorani clan killed all five of the missionaries in a spearing attack. In 1987, Catholic Bishop Alejandro Labaka and Sister Inés Arango were also killed by Huaoranis.”

The tiresomely familiar double standards inherent in so-called ‘Liberal-Democratic’ (read: Neo-Communist) thinking is never more obvious and overt than when one hears Leftists in general, and academics in particular, discussing these tribal folk. Demonstrating outrageous hypocrisy, they are fierce defenders of the rights of these indigenous tribes to maintain their lifestyle, their culture, their religion and their genetic integrity lest their unique qualities be lost forever while simultaneously advocating the effectively Genocidal policies of ‘Multiculturalism’ for the so-called ‘Developed (read: White Western) World’.

It never ceases to amaze Victor that these twits will gush and fawn over any NON-White culture, praising its uniqueness and value to Humanity yet seemingly remain blind to the exponential losses of these very same qualities from their own society. Can anyone out there offer up an explanation for how this P.C. ‘doublethink’ can remain virtually unchallenged?

For example, in his extraordinarily graphic and Historically accurate film ‘Apocalypto’ Mel Gibson shows us just how brutal the dominant 'civilised' city builders of the Mayans and Aztecs were in their treatment of the ‘lesser’ tribes as well as the ‘apocalyptic’ religious violence of their Sun Cult which had to be fed constantly with ever more blood and beating hearts ripped from the breasts of hundreds of thousands of sacrificial victims to ensure the Sun continued to rise and the crops grow.

Yet several ‘experts’, including Liza Grandia claim the film is outrageously ‘Racist’ and Historically inaccurate. In 2006 she published a scathing attack, not only on the film itself, but also on Mel Gibson personally in the article ‘The Sober Racism of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto’ she states her opinion succinctly in the line: “As a cultural anthropologist who has worked for thirteen years among different Maya peoples of Mesoamerica and who speaks the Q'eqchi' Maya language fluently, I found Apocalypto to be deeply racist.” But then goes on to reveal not only the reasons for her own bias but also her ignorance of the very field she purports to have expertise in with;
“The Maya in the film bore no resemblance to the hardworking farmers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, businessmen and women of Maya descent that I know personally and consider among my closest friends.”
This statement is absolutely ludicrous and leads one to despair at the low calibre of today’s academics. It is akin to an ‘imbedded’ Anthropologist’ in modern day England protesting that the portrayal of pre Medieval Anglo Saxon characters in an Historical drama film bears no resemblance to their educated, refined and sophisticated friends in contemporary Oxford or Cambridge. Her ‘qualifications’ be damned, this preposterous retrospectivity that Grandia applies to judging standards of behaviour and achievement in any people, let alone her dear Maya, is indicative of a very poor student of History. One of the very first things a genuine and rigorous Historical researcher should realise is that the activities of people in other eras cannot and should not be judged from the perspective of today’s ethical framework. With this in mind there is no slur, ‘Racist’ or otherwise, to be perceived from Gibson’s work. The very notion is irrelevant.

Mel Gibson’s presentation of the Jungle dwellers in ‘Apocalypto’ is sensitive and sympathetic, portraying them as simple folk who just want a quiet life. Where is the so called ‘Racism’ in this? Yet Grandia waffles on in pseudo academic ‘analysis’ claiming to be searching for, and finding, a ‘clear message’ in the film;

“Gibson purportedly wanted to make a statement about the decay of empires in this film. However, the only clear message I could take away was that indigenous people should have remained friendly forest hunter-gatherers and never have attempted to build their own civilization. Ignoring the fact by the time of the Spanish invasion, all Maya peoples had been either urbanized or sedentary agriculturalists for hundreds of years and maintained complex trade networks, Gibson nevertheless depicts his hero's tribe as crude but happy rainforest peoples living in isolation, blissfully ignorant of the corrupt cities neighbouring them. He contrasts these noble forest savages with evil city dwellers such as slave traders, despotic politicians, psychotic priests, and sadistic head-hunters all living amidst rotting sewage, filth, disease, and general misery.”

Victor would suggest this is standard Hollywood scripting (even though Hollywood has disowned him) rather than any so-called ‘Racism’ on Gibson’s part. If he had scripted and directed central characters that were morally ambiguous with nothing of the ‘heroic’ in them then the audience would have been watching a pretty dull ‘documentary’ rather than an exciting story. There is simply no logic in Grandia’s article. It is all knee-jerk, reactionary, defensive apologia for her precious Maya. There is not a shred of cool academic emotional discipline of thought or intellectual objectivity.
She sums up her hateful diatribe with;

“To stereotype and slander ancient Maya civilization and to imply that the impending holocaust of Maya peoples by the Spanish is a "new beginning" shows how truly racist Gibson really is-whether drunk or sober.”

Obviously having totally immersed herself in Mesoamerican Culture she is heavily biased and oversensitive to any objectively critical observations of that culture and in particular its bloody history. It is she who is ‘Racist’ in her shrilly articulated and distinctly un-academic Anti-White attitudes. As a committed apologist for Mesoamerican Culture she minimises the savagery of the Maya while grossly exaggerating the cruelty and destructiveness of the Spanish Conquistadores.

One would have thought the science of Anthropology itself was inherently ‘Racist’ purely in the fact that it highlights and studies the differences between the Races but a clue as to Grandia’s agenda is found in the title of her vocation. She claims to be a ‘Cultural’ Anthropologist. This is a ‘Clayton’s’ Anthropologist, just as a psychologist, working on pure theory with no medical qualifications, is a ‘Clayton’s’ Psychiatrist, an ‘Anthropologist’ that, like the insane Jew Franz Boas, believe that actually there is no such thing as Race. So why ‘study’ them then? Simple, to advance the Marxist agenda and brainwash ‘students’ to believe Humanity is merely a ‘propositional’ gestalt entity made up of generic individual creatures requiring only the ‘correct’ socio-cultural programming to realise Utopia here on Earth. Concepts of Race and Tribe and Ethnicity are barriers to be smashed down facilitating the inexorable march of Cultural Marxism. The ‘revolution’ will not end until everyone is exactly the same.

Wikipedia says of Cultural Anthropology;
“Cultural anthropology is a branch of anthropology focused on the study of cultural variation among humans, collecting data about the impact of global economic and political processes on local cultural realities. Anthropologists use a variety of methods, including participant observation, interviews and surveys. Their research is often called fieldwork because it involves the anthropologist spending an extended period of time at the research location.” as opposed to the REAL Anthropology, the hard science of “Biological anthropology (also known as bioanthropology and physical anthropology) is that branch of anthropology that studies the physical development of the human species. It plays an important part in paleoanthropology (the study of human origins) and in forensic anthropology (the analysis and identification of human remains for legal purposes). It draws upon human anthropometrics (body measurements), human genetics (molecular anthropology) and human osteology (the study of bones) and includes neuroanthropology, the study of human brain evolution, and of culture as neurological adaptation to environment.”

1 comment:

bushranger said...

I agree with WLT that it is heartening to see a group such this tribe reject all outside interference in its affairs regardless of the intent of the interlopers.

This is stark contrast to the Australian Aboriginal who seems to place little or no value on their culture and is only too willing to ditch it for the modern day equivalent of beads and blankets, booze and free housing.

Yet, we are constantly bombarded by the media and academia’s pitiful attempts to shine the lumpy turd that is Aboriginal culture, in an EPIC FAIL that seems to have no limit.