Saturday, March 22, 2008

Calgary's "Aryan Guard" - Better Than You & I Since 2006

Calgary Skinhead rally causes clash.

Author's Note:

Nation, every so often I cover a story that makes me sick to my stomach. In researching for this story, I've had to walk away from the computer several times. There will BE no links to the offensive garbage I've been reading to prep for this story - if you want to find this trash, Google it yourself. I'm not sullying my blog with links to this kind of filth.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

... b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982)

This section of the CCRF gives groups like the Aryan Guard the right to think what they do, and express those thoughts publicly without fear of government reprisal provided said expression does not constitute a violation of another person's rights. This right, which my own forebears fled Germany to exercise, and whose children later returned with the Canadian Forces to protect and defend, also conveniently gives me the right to verbally tear them a new one. Which I will proceed to do... now.

The Aryan Guard, which as an organization has been around about as long as this Blog, is a group based out of Calgary, with a simple, 14-word mission statement:

"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children."

I couldn't agree more. Certainly, the history of North American society over the past 300 years shows that for far too long the Whites have been held down and oppressed. Who can forget the near eradication of the peaceful White settlers by those awful red-skinned savages, and their small-pox infected beaver pelts? Or the hundreds of shiploads of White slaves brought over from Ireland and Portugal to work in the cotton fields of African plantation owners? Or the abuse that Scots railroad workers suffered at the hands of their Asian bosses? Simply criminal. Thank heavens that now, at long last, we have a group willing to stand up for our oppressed race! A group that wants to get us off of the "Pale-Face Reservations", and have us take our proud place in society. A group that will fight for our right to earn equal pay for equal work. A group that makes sure nobody steals our White children and forces them to attend missionary schools, to be raped soul, mind, and body by their coloured, pagan oppressors in the name of "religious education, for their own good". As has been happening to us white people for hundreds of years.

The Aryan Guard, local heroes that they are, make the statement on their website that they "fully support The National Socialist Party of Canada and their goals". A quick run-through on the NSPC's website gives us THIS gem, on the main page:

"The attack by the corrupt political establishment in Ottawa has been driven by the B'nai Brith, The Canadian Jewish Congress, and The Simon Wiesenthal Center. The attack has been under the guise of 'human rights' by those who care nothing about REAL human rights. Their only concern is establishing a Jew-Marxist tyranny over Canada and the furtherance of Global Zionism."

B'nai Brith, The Canadian Jewish Congress, and The Simon Wiesenthal Center, by the way, are all strongly supported by our current Prime Minister, Stepher Harper. One could therefore draw from this that, in fact, the NSPC is suggesting that Stephen Harper is a part of the "corrupt political establishment", and is in fact only concerned with "establishing a Jew-Marxist tyranny" over Canada. I've got no great love for Harper (no great hate, either), but I hope that all of the radical leftists I know who refer to Harper as a closeted racist, intolerant, and borderline Nazi will consider that, if the REAL Neo-Nazis hate him, he can't be all that bad.

Many of the White Supremacist groups out there really focus on 2 primary themes...
  1. The Greatness of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis
  2. The natural superiority of the Aryan Race

Let's hit on these 2 points, one at a time.

1. The Greatness of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis

The Thousand Year Reich lasted 10 years. The Nazis were defeated, and Hitler killed himself.

WHO, pray tell, defeated the Nazis and their armies made up of superior, Aryan warriors? Armies from Canada, Britain and the United States (made up of soldiers with mongrel backgrounds), and the Red Army of Soviet Russia, made up almost entirely of inferior, Slavic peoples.

Hitler was a frustrated painter and WWI veteran, frustrated with the treatment that Germany received after her defeat in "The Great War". The Austrian national even saw his home country divided, ending the decline of the Austro-Hungarian Empire from a military and cultural superpower to a rump of small, divided and impoverished states. He needed, and found, someone to blame for this calamity: People of inferior stock and character, whose presence in the German military and social infrastructure had allowed the defeat of the genetically superior German people, whom he referred to as "Aryan". More on those Aryans later.

The Nazis were fantastic organizers. You want a rally? The Democrats put on a nice one, but it pales in comparison to a Nazi rally. Not those wishy-washy rag-tag Neo-Nazis, but the Nazis of Rudolph Hess. Likewise for message control. People think Stephen Harper controls a message well, but the PMO is a leaky rowboat compared to the Nazi controls on public messaging. They could sit in a room, and come up with fantastic plans when not faced with a time crunch. Brilliant military strategy. Sound political strategy domestically, too (although it will go down in history as some of the most heinous, evil and inhuman "policy" in the history of social governance). Let's not forget: The Nazis got themselves democratically elected by the German people. Where they, and Hitler, failed miserably was in thinking on their feet. When time became a factor, and plans needed to be made "on the fly", the Nazi braintrust made blunder after blunder, and bad decision after bad decision. Their plans for surprise invasion, made months in advance, were fantastic - but they had no idea what to do once their enemies started fighting back. They had great plans on how to conquer territory, but piss-poor plans on how to HOLD it.

There's an Iraq War comparison there that I'm disinclined to follow at this time.

The greatness of Hitler and the Nazis, then, is a logical fallacy. Because Hitler and the Nazis failed, they therefore can not be considered great - even by those who share their ideological bent. Hitler's claim that the "purging" of Germany, the "ethnic cleansing" of her social and military make-up, would result in a strong Germany made up of Aryan Germans who would rule Europe for a thousand years was emphatically wrong. Without those Jewish and ethnically impure Germans to blame, as he himself did for the defeat in World War One, where must the blame fall for Nazi Germany's defeat in World War 2? At the feet of Hitler, and his Nazi party.

They identified what they considered to be their country's weakness. They eliminated that weakness, and went to war with their ideal vision of a German Army... and lost. Either the Nazi vision was inadequate, the Nazi ideal of an army of Aryans was inadequate, the Nazi war-time leadership was inadequate, or all 3 were. Whatever the case, "greatness" can NOT be inferred from this defeat. In fact, a logical and rational observer could infer quite the opposite.

2. The natural superiority of the Aryan Race

Hitler claimed, among many other things, that the Aryan Race was genetically superior to all other races, and was therefore destined to rule Europe, and eventually the world. This is "natural selection" taken to the extreme. The claim, of course, is still echoed to this day by White Supremacist groups.

I'd be remiss if, at this point, I didn't point out that most of the members of White Supremacist groups that I've seen are not blonde (perhaps why they shave their heads). They do not have blue eyes. They're either 50 pounds underweight or 50 pounds overweight, have little or no discipline, exhibit very little in the way of rational thought, and would in fact be the first people tossed out of Hitler's army of Aryan supermen.

But let's look at these mythic Aryans...

Hitler's Aryans are a Nordic people, living mainly in Northern Central Europe. Bordered by inferior Slavs on the East and inferior Celts on the West, the Aryans are blonde-haired, blue-eyed people possessing superior mental abilities and physical strength and endurance, and also the only race that is capable of and interested in creating and maintaining a culture and civilization. These noble Aryans, therefore, are the natural rulers of Europe, and indeed the world.

The unavoidable problem with this theory lies in the genetics, linguistics and origins of the "Aryan race" itself: They're not from Northern Europe, they're from Northern India. They're predisposed towards brown or black hair, and dark eyes. You can see the closest thing to a modern "Aryan" if you look in modern Iran - which is named, incidentally, for it's "Aryan" people.

As the Aryans spread out and migrated to the North and West, they mixed with other races, and natural selection had its way with the complexion and physical characteristics of the typical Aryan settler through the generations. Darker skin colour became lighter, as the climate got cooler and the people they were encountering on their travels through these new lands were lighter of skin. Likewise with eye colour, build, etc. In truth, the average blonde-haired, blue-eyed German is as likely to be descended from Celtic stock (see Irish, Scottish) as he is from Aryan. At least the Celts are native to Europe, UNlike the Aryans.

The notion of a White, ethnically pure, Aryan people is therefore false. Further, it is foolish. Even a first-year university biology student will tell you that the best way to ensure propagation of a species is to incorporate many different genetic elements, in order to benefit from the best of all. Indeed, for this precise reason having a family tree that doesn't fork is frowned upon generally, and is really only acceptable in West Virginia and amongst European Royal Families.

White Supremacist, Aryan groups like to talk about people "going home to the country of their forebears". Of course, they generally don't phrase it quite so nicely, often preferring "go back where you came from!". One wonders, in light of the glut of scientific evidence tracing the roots of the Aryan race, if they would be so quick to return to the land of THEIR forebears... in the case of the group in Calgary, if they claim Aryan heritage, they wouldn't be trading the Rockies for the Alps - they'd be trading them for the Himalayas. And good luck in convincing the people you find there that the White Power cause is worth supporting.

Now, in fairness to the groups in question today, none of them is advocating for the systematic extermination of non-whites (unlike their Nazi heroes). However, it's worth noting that the founder of the National Socialist Party of Canada says his group "doesn't have a problem with non-white people, as long as they stay in their own homelands."

My sister-in-law was born in Calgary. She is of Filipino descent. Nobody would ever mistake her for "white". My gorgeous niece was born in Calgary, to that same sister-in-law and my EXTREMELY blonde, blue-eyed, brother (whom nobody would ever mistake for coming from ANY stock but German - which both he and I mostly do).

My niece and my sister-in-law, neither one what you would call "white", have a "homeland"... their "homeland" is right here. They were both born here. They have as much right to be here as anyone else.

And if you're talking about shipping people back to the place from whence their ethnic ancestors came, then it's time to start inflating the rafts, White Supremacists. Because, as members of our First Nations would no doubt agree, "it's a long swim back to Europe. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."

It's even longer to India - if you're Aryan.


Anonymous said...

Y'know, I wish I'd had a heads up about this rally. Had I known, I'd have been downtown with my 70-200mmm zoom grabbing headshots of as many of our city's fine young bigots as possible, and then posting them online. I'd buy the domain.

I wonder how these scum would appreciate being outed as such... so their friends, family, and coworkers could see them.

Brian Dell said...

"They had great plans on how to conquer territory, but piss-poor plans on how to HOLD it."

I'd disagree with that. If anything, it wasn't great strategy and bad tactics but the opposite: bad strategy and great tactics. The decision to declare war on the Soviet Union while still at war with Britain and then declaring war against the USA sealed the deal for Nazi Germany right there.

"They have as much right to be here as anyone else."

Although I understand the popularity of being a man of action, a la teddy above, as opposed to dispassionate reflection on the question of identity, does everyone on the planet have the same "right to be here"? I realize that you've particularized the question here, to making it about someone you know personally, but I don't think this sort of particularization furthers critical inquiry. Rather it cuts off abstraction by appealing to the audience's immediate feeling. What sort of person would be hateful as to suggest that any particular person, never mind someone close to you, someone's wife and mother, does not belong? Not me. But does that mean no one should question the implied idea that every human has the right to enter and influence any culture, community, or country of his or her choosing? Fact is, people are tribal in nature. That's simply a statement about what is the case, not what ought to be. What is the best way to purge tribalism from human nature? Just identify the tribalists, as teddy intends, and then, with no sense of irony, marginalize them?

I sometimes wonder what the difference is between "Canadian sovereignty" and tribalism. The marker for being with the "in" group, worthy of the group's special protection or privilege, is presumably a Canadian passport instead of a less abstract marker like ethnicity or what have you, but is that ultimately any less contingent a marker? The whole concept of Canadian sovereignty seems to have a huge loophole in that some foreigner bent on looting Canadians by shipping Canadian resources overseas need only enter Canada and get a passport, after which the same looting behaviour could become entirely legit!

e.g. Suppose a former Chinese goverment official who has emigranted to Canada and obtained Canadian citizenship buys a Canadian country radio station and switches the format while having the DJ make disparaging remarks about the Dalai Lama before every commercial break. An American from Nashville then proposes to buy the station and promises to switch the format back to country but is blocked by foreign ownership rules, rules that are presumably meant to protect the Canadian identity. Would this protect the substance of Canadian identity or just the form? Or is that in fact what Canadian identity substantively is: a form?

Enlightened Savage said...

Brian: My point in posing the second question wasn't to wax about the existential quandray, but rather to test something that the founder of the National Socialist Party of Canada had said.

... (our group) "doesn't have a problem with non-white people, as long as they stay in their own homelands."

If what he says here is TRUE, rather than a way to skirt around federal hate crime legislation, then he should in fact have no issue with my sister-in-law and neice, both of a visible ethnic minority, living, growing, and working here. Because "their own homeland" is right here, where they were born.

If someone wants to have a discussion about the benefits and challenges of modern-day immigration to our system, I'll be more than happy to talk about that. But the entire point of my discussion on the topic as relates to the "homeland" comment was to show that, while the person in question may think he's cleverly hiding his (allegedly) racist agenda beneath the guise of immigration policy, his reasoning is in fact fatally flawed, as at least half of the "non-white" faces you see on the street or in the mall every day were, like my relatives, born right here and thus have every right to call this their homeland.

And if he means, as I asserted, that they should go back to the country of their ancestors, then I'd respectfully suggest that he lead by example... because if "where you're born" takes a back seat, in his book, to "where your people came from", then there are likely a number of countries on the other side of the Atlantic that he can choose from - and should choose from, using his own logic. Since we pale-skinned people, quite obviously, didn't originate here either.

Brian Dell said...

I appreciate that but the contention that '"their own homeland" is right here, where they were born' is the very question at issue.

If that's true, then the 50% of Toronto that is foreign born would not be in "their own homeland" by your own account. One could argue that they've got a new homeland! The idea of a "homeland", in other words, may be shallower than you suggest.

Alternatively, one can argue that it is deeper than you suggest. Many if not most Arabs in France and Turks in Germany were born in those countries. But it not totally implausible to suggest that those persons are living in a French or German "homeland" as opposed to an Arab or Turkish "homeland", such that they are not, and indeed never have, lived in their true homelands. At issue is just what is a "homeland" and how important is it.

However one defines it, I grant that it is more difficult to make the case that Canada or the US is a "homeland" for European ethnicities than for Europe. But European settlement goes back centuries now and was the dominant influence on North America's cultural norms and institutional structure. Meanwhile, I'd grant that the fact many non-European Canadians are now second generation strengthens the notion that Canada is now more of a "homeland" for non-Europeans than previously.

In sum, I think one can't really take issue with the claim WITHOUT getting into the "existential" question. Just who are we as human beings? Creatures of flesh or creatures of mind? If the latter, the notion of "homeland" is really entirely irrelevant (i.e. it does not go "deep" at all). As such, I think the true riposte to the National Socialist founder is to say that there is no such thing as a "homeland". Once you've conceded that the term has any meaning you've got yourself a metaphysical debate over whether humans have "homelands". If you want to engage and convert these people you have to understand where their mentality. Search "Blut and Boden" on Google, for example, and you'll get more than 100000 hits.

Anonymous said...

"...Nazis got themselves democratically elected by the German people...": nope, wrong. Some Nazis were elected (forming a minority of representatives in the Bundesreicht), but they formed far less than a majority in the Weimar Republic's Reichstag. Nazis won 18.3% of the vote in 1930; that is hardly a definition of "democratically" elected. Thereafter, however, Hitler skilfully manipulated the Berlin Diet so as to ensure he had legislative control. It was a slow, cunning and gradual process. But be clear about this: the majority of the German people did not vote for Adolph Hitler to be their Chancellor. Trust me on this; my Mother grew up in Nazi Germany. I know whereof I speak.