|
|
Dead Yankee DayTomorrow is Memorial Day in the united states, a pseudo-religious holiday in which the State’s war dead are officially honored by those who did not fight. As an antidote to the liturgical pomp emanating from the Washington tyranny I offer this bit of Southern doggerel:
Courtesy of Little Geneva: Do something productive this weekend, like blowing your nose in the stars and stripes. Posted by leslie on Sunday, May 29, 2005 at 11:10 AM in U.S. Politics Comments:2
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 29, 2005, 11:30 AM | # (Oh, its not about WWII, but from the Civil War*) It happens that Harry over at Little Geneva has a good summary describing the origins of the holiday:
*Second American War of Independence. 3
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:49 AM | # Do you consider yourself a Southerner (Kansas sided with the abolitionists)? Do you have any “Yankees” in your family? One way of looking at it is that the South didn’t actually lose the Civil War. The Yankees that supposedly won the civil war have pretty much disappeared off the map (by which I mean mainly the Northern WASPs) and they wield little power today. The South for what its worth still does survive in some shape or form and still has a heritage left that it can call its own. Much of the North now has almost no connection to the North that fought the Civil War. 4
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 29, 2005, 12:03 PM | # > Do you consider yourself a Southerner This is something I’ve spent a lot of time researching. The records from this time are hard to verify, but it looks like my direct paternal ancestor did not fight in the war of 1860-65. Why? I don’t know. Interestingly, all the Becks emigrated from Virginia ( where they settled before 1776 in the Shenandoah Valley ) in the 1830s for the new states in the upper midwest. I now consider myself a neo-Confederate with late Medieval tendencies. 5
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 12:19 PM | # The greatest American of his generation:
Governor, if I had foreseen the use these people desired to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox, no, sir, not by me. Had I seen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand. - Robert E. Lee, 1870 6
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 02:31 PM | # Didn’t the Confederacy lose the Civil War? Why would you choose to throw your lot in with the losers? In the end, the South proved weaker than the North by 1865. Doesn’t that prove the Northern way of life superior? 7
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 29, 2005, 03:05 PM | # The Spartans lost at Thermopylae against the Persians: I’ll take Homer, Sophocles, and Aristotle over some oriental despot with a multicultural army anyday. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on May 29, 2005, 03:23 PM | # “I now consider myself a neo-Confederate with late Medieval tendencies” Henry VII meets Robert E Lee. I’m willing to entertain the idea. But I might need a bit of help to see how it works. 9
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 29, 2005, 04:09 PM | # > ...to see how it works It can be argued the American South was the last stronghold of fuedal chivalry in the Western world. 10
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 04:21 PM | # The Spartans lost at Thermopylae against the Persians: I’ll take Homer, Sophocles, and Aristotle over some oriental despot with a multicultural army anyday. Why? Whatever noble qualities the Greeks and the Southerners might have posessed, it makes no difference if they weren’t strong enough to defend their way of life. I believe Hitler said something along the lines of “The stronger man is always right.” Regardless of who said it, the point still stands—might makes right. The North proved stronger than the South, and in the end, that’s all that really matters. 11
Posted by dissidentman on May 29, 2005, 04:35 PM | # Kaim wrote:
What if some virus wipes out humanity? Would you consider the virus to be morally superior to all humans on the grounds that it managed to wipe them all out? 12
Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 04:41 PM | # Didn’t the Confederacy lose the Civil War? Why would you choose to throw your lot in with the losers? In the end, the South proved weaker than the North by 1865. Doesn’t that prove the Northern way of life superior? One can’t choose whom to cast one’s lot with; nature makes that choice for each of us. Yes, the North prevailed and enslaved the South, but that proves nothing about the North’s way of life. It says only that their advantage in economic resources was sufficient to result in the victory. 13
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 04:42 PM | # “Morally superior?” Of course not. “Morality” is essentially a meaningless concept. If humanity dies out, whether from a virus, a natural disaster, or whatever, so be it. Let the stage be cleared for a new, stronger species. In any case, that day hasn’t come yet, so really, your example is tangential. I’m still waiting for Beck to tell me why we should admire the losers rather than the victors. 14
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 04:45 PM | # One can’t choose whom to cast one’s lot with; nature makes that choice for each of us. Yes, the North prevailed and enslaved the South, but that proves nothing about the North’s way of life. It says only that their advantage in economic resources was sufficient to result in the victory. “cast in your lot” was a bad choice of words on my part. What I was questioning is why Beck seems to admire the South so much, despite the fact they turned out to be weaker than their Northern opponents. After all, raw physical strength isn’t the only measure of might—a stronger economy and a more effective government should be lauded above a poor economy and an inefficient government. 15
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 04:52 PM | # The Japs lost WWII and the Americans won. But the Japanese may survive the 21st century as an intact ethno-state whereas America most certainly won’t. “Winning” can be a tricky business. 16
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 29, 2005, 04:53 PM | # Kaim, While I disagree with your outlook on life, it does seem to be the prevalent one for these times: ‘The Will to Power’. I suppose that such views are the logical outcome of 20th century thought. 17
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 29, 2005, 04:57 PM | # > I’m still waiting for Beck to tell me why we should admire the losers rather than the victors. Because I’m a loser too. I’m opposed to the status-quo - I’m ‘on the outs’: a rebel. Looks like I’m not the only one: http://teamamericapac.org/ta-tapr-050511-unitethefightsummit.shtml 18
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 05:00 PM | # The Japs lost WWII and the Americans won. But the Japanese may survive the 21st century as an intact ethno-state whereas America most certainly won’t. “Winning” can be a tricky business. It’s ironic, in a way. The white race overcame the Asians in 1945, but will likely be overcome by the darker races by 2045. Still, this proves another one of my beliefs—victors should never grow decadent and complacent. Even if you win 100 battles, it’s no good if you lose the 101st. Whites were the strongest race on Earth for years. Only time will tell if it regains enough strength to maintain its dominion over the other races…if so, it will continue on the path to glory. If not, it will be consigned to the dustbin of history, like so many other failed peoples. 19
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 29, 2005, 05:03 PM | # I guess you’ll be the last one standing Kaim… History’s last man. 20
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 05:07 PM | # It’s ironic, in a way. The white race overcame the Asians in 1945, but will likely be overcome by the darker races by 2045. Still, this proves another one of my beliefs—victors should never grow decadent and complacent. Even if you win 100 battles, it’s no good if you lose the 101st. Whites were the strongest race on Earth for years. Only time will tell if it regains enough strength to maintain its dominion over the other races…if so, it will continue on the path to glory. If not, it will be consigned to the dustbin of history, like so many other failed peoples. Ummm, hang on a minute old chap. The disappearance of America doesn’t automatically mean the disappearance of the white race. European descdended peoples may survive long after America is gone. As for whether the “darker races” overtake us or simply plunge the world into another age of darkness remains to be seen. 21
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 05:15 PM | # Ummm, hang on a minute old chap. The disappearance of America doesn’t automatically mean the disappearance of the white race. European descdended peoples may survive long after America is gone. Let’s face it, isn’t the exact same thing happening in Europe? America’s being overtaken by Hispanics and Asians, Europe is being overtaken by brown Muslims. They’re even beginning to encroach upon Scandanavia! Right now, I suppose there are a few bastions of European peoples standing alone, but I’m quite pessimisstic about their prospects—in a few years, I think pretty much all of European civilization will be consumed. I can’t think of a single White nation that isn’t succumbing or beginning to succumb to the darker masses. 22
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 05:30 PM | # The same processes are operating in Europe, but America is much further down the mire. But more importantly, there are signs of stiff resistance across Europe. In America both political parties have agreed to do nothing. Thats a big difference. If I had to bet money, I’d be willing to bet some money on Europe but none on the US, Canada and Australia. 23
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 05:34 PM | # The same processes are operating in Europe, but America is much further down the mire. But more importantly, there are signs of stiff resistance across Europe. In America both political parties have agreed to do nothing. Thats a big difference. I see. Looks like the Europeans still have some spine in them! In that case, I wish them the best. If the resistance you speak of triumphs, the white race may yet regain its former glory. If it doesn’t…well, at least a few whites put up a fight. 24
Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 05:34 PM | # In any case, that day hasn’t come yet, so really, your example is tangential. I’m still waiting for Beck to tell me why we should admire the losers rather than the victors. For me, it’s not a matter of admiration; it’s a recognition of the principle of self-determination. Like the Confederates, we (I speak here of whites) have lost control over our destiny. We must retake control. 25
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 29, 2005, 05:35 PM | # > . I can’t think of a single White nation that isn’t succumbing or beginning to succumb to the darker masses. Agreed. When I read this I want to fight - and die if necessary to protect my heritage. C’mon folks lets ride. 26
Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 05:36 PM | # If it doesn’t…well, at least a few whites put up a fight. Then again, I suppose I do admire the Confederates for not ceding their freedom without a fight. 27
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 05:37 PM | # it’s a recognition of the principle of self-determination. Like the Confederates, we (I speak here of whites) have lost control over our destiny. We must retake control. Self-determination? You’re kidding, right? There is no “principle” of self-determination. A stronger race has the “right” to dominate a weaker one, because the weaker one can’t do much about it. Still, as Phil pointed out, the white race may prove strong yet. Perhaps the Europeans may be able to put the darker races in their place once again at some point in the future… 28
Posted by Stuka on May 29, 2005, 07:00 PM | # Still, as Phil pointed out, the white race may prove strong yet. Perhaps the Europeans may be able to put the darker races in their place once again at some point in the future… Agreed. I’d be willing to bet on it. There are more signs of hope in this regard today than there were only a few years ago. What is happening, I think, is a gradual realization, a slow recognition that a new way of thinking is required. The conventional morality that we all grew up with no longer applies. With our very survival at stake, anything and everything is permissible. It’s happening way too slowly for my tastes, but these things take time. 29
Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 07:17 PM | # Agreed. I’d be willing to bet on it. There are more signs of hope in this regard today than there were only a few years ago. What is happening, I think, is a gradual realization, a slow recognition that a new way of thinking is required. It is tempting to reach this conclusion - and I do not insinuate that you have reached the conclusion in error - but one must also consider the danger of egomorphism. Do you and I sense this realization in others because we have come to the realization ourselves? Are we self-selecting our sample by asociating with others who have come to this realization? 30
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 29, 2005, 07:26 PM | # > Are we self-selecting our sample by asociating with others who have come to this realization? Ben ‘Pitchfork’ Tillman is probably right, especially considering the influence of the controlled media, gov’t schools, and the other satellite institutions. I believe that those who are “self-selected” must plan and organize for the day when the State makes a mortal blunder, most likely economic, and then… 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 07:53 PM | # Kaim, the mainly agrarian South had a population of nine million against the highly-industialized North’s twenty million, and the North’s twenty million were white, against the South’s five million whites and four million Negro slaves. The South therefore was fighting a nation four times it size—five million to twenty million. Man for man it vastly outfought the North. 32
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 08:47 PM | # I might add that the casualties greatly favored the South, as Fred has implied. Google, it isn’t hard to find the info. 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 09:36 PM | # Bear in mind too, as was mentioned, that the four-to-one population advantage in favor of the North was compounded geometrically by the fact that the North was heavily industrialized, while the South hardly was industrialized at all. You had a nation without industry fighting a highly-industrialized nation four times it size. That it did as well as it did is nothing short of mind-boggling. That war is not over, Kaim. The final chapter on it has not yet been written. 34
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 10:48 PM | # That it did as well as it did is nothing short of mind-boggling. The South’s shortcomings (lack of industrialization and small population) were mitigated by its well-trained army and vastly superior army—at the outset of the war, the Union soldiers were ineffective and cowardly, and Union generals were timid and short-sighted. Once the Union army got some decent training from McClellan, and found a general able to capitalize on its strengths like Grant was, the South started losing battles. The South fought well, very well. The Civil War, the Second War of Independence, the War Between, whatever you want to call it, it was quite a struggle, and the South put up a very good fight. But its valor wasn’t enough, in the end. The huge, industrialized North still proved stronger, and that’s all that matters. No matter how valiantly you fight, it’s no good unless you emerge victorious, which the South didn’t. 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 11:05 PM | # Sorry, Kaim, I’m not interested in might makes right. This is a discussion you can carry on without me. 36
Posted by Kaim on May 29, 2005, 11:23 PM | # Sorry, Kaim, I’m not interested in might makes right. This is a discussion you can carry on without me. You know, speaking candidly, this sort of attitude surprises me among white nationalists—I’d expect it more among bleeding-heart liberals, honestly. What has the white race, indeed, ANY race lived by other than strength? What gave Europeans the right to take America from its aboriginals? They were weak, we were strong. What gave the Spanish Conquistadors the right to lord over the Indians they encountered in South America? The Aztecs were no match for European steel. What gave white colonists the right to lord over black African nations? The Negroes could muster no effective resistance. The only thing that matters in life is power. Losers deserve no praise. 39
Posted by Matra on May 30, 2005, 12:34 AM | # I take it if white Zimbabweans are butchered like cattle Kaim will be gloating at the sight of a stronger people killing their weak minority. The idea that we should automatically identify with the strong is ridiculous if the strong at any given time are not our side. The Southern ethnic group may have lost the War Between the States in the 19th century that doesn’t mean that Southerners and others who believe their cause was just should forget that cause and that others should sneer at them. After all look at the Jews. How long were they away from Palestine before their Reconquista (or was it just a Conquest)? The ‘loser’ Mexicans certainly could not win their struggle in the SW with Kaim’s attitude. Should Irish nationalists in the late 19th century have given up and turned away from their ‘loser’ cause because their cause up until then had been completely unsuccessful? I live in a country (Canada) where the ‘weak’, defeated nation (the Quebecois) may, in the next few years, reverse the course of their history as ‘losers’ since 1760 and liberate themselves from Canada. They haven’t forgotten their conquest two and a half centuries ago at the hands of foreigners - ‘Je me souvien’ is still printed on every licence plate and is the province’s motto. They aren’t ready to throw in the towel. 40
Posted by Kaim on May 30, 2005, 12:52 AM | # I take it if white Zimbabweans are butchered like cattle Kaim will be gloating at the sight of a stronger people killing their weak minority. Why not? Anyone who can’t defend themselves deserves death. As I said, “morality” is irrelevant. If some army of black thugs wants to murder me, they’re welcome to try, but I’ll be sure to take down at least a few of them with me. The ‘loser’ Mexicans certainly could not win their struggle in the SW with Kaim’s attitude. Should Irish nationalists in the late 19th century have given up and turned away from their ‘loser’ cause because their cause up until then had been completely unsuccessful? You misinterpret me. If I really believed this, I would have advocated the Union I admire to surrender after the Battle of Bull Run! As long as a nation or people has the will to dominate, the “Will to power,” I won’t write them off until they’re completely extinguished. If Lee hadn’t surrendered at Appomatox, if the South continued a vicious guerrila war against the North up to this very day, I would respect them. After all, they might prove themselves stronger in the end! Only after a nation has just plain given up does it lose all respectability. The Union drove the South to surrender—the South just threw up its hands and said, “Okay, I guess you win! I’m weaker than you!” That is why the North has proved itself stronger than the South, in my eyes. 41
Posted by Matra on May 30, 2005, 12:59 AM | # I see Southerners playing a role in the current US empire similar to that of the Scots in Britain’s. After Scotland was defeated the Scots became the foot soldiers of the British empire. Although their independence movement appears to be stalled for the moment they at least turned their backs on most of the UK after the empire fell and the UK declined in importance. They now have their own devolved government. No one knows what’s going to happen to America in the coming decades, however I suspect that it is facing a decline similar to that of the British and far greater internal (ethnic) conflict. I’ve no idea whether white Southern nationalism is merely dormant or (as most would say) has been totally absorbed by the US state. But if Southerners are to survive as a people they’d be well advised to remember their previous defeats and even to romanticise them. Let me say as an Ulster Protestant it is not easy to wear down, never mind defeat, a determined people who cherish and carefully nurture their historical grievances. 42
Posted by Kaim on May 30, 2005, 01:26 AM | # But if Southerners are to survive as a people they’d be well advised to remember their previous defeats and even to romanticise them. Let me say as an Ulster Protestant it is not easy to wear down, never mind defeat, a determined people who cherish and carefully nurture their historical grievances. Romanticizing your defeats won’t do you much good, in the long run. If you’re weak, looking honestly at your weaknesses is the only way to correct them. 43
Posted by Martin Hutchinson on May 30, 2005, 10:09 AM | # The real lesson to be drawn about the Civil War at this stage is the greatness of that much maligned President James Buchanan, who wanted to allow slavery to die its inevitable economic death while keeping the Union together and preventing civil war. After sorting out “Bleeding Kansas” he needed 2 years of peace and quiet to start making progress on this. Thanks to the Lincoln/Douglas debates and John Brown, he didn’t get them. Buchanan was without doubt one of America’s few good Conservative Presidents. 44
Posted by Geoff Beck on May 30, 2005, 12:10 PM | # > President Buchanan Buchanan told the truth “under the US Consitution he was powerless to stop a state from seceding” Historian David Livingston argues that it was Lincoln, and not Southern politicians, that were the race hustlers and agitators of that time: Southern Secession and Reconstruction 45
Posted by Svigor on May 30, 2005, 02:23 PM | # The only thing that matters in life is power. Losers deserve no praise. Where you’ve gone awry, Kaim, is in confusing the most important thing with everything. The idea that strength (of which there is more than one kind I might add) is most important is fine; I see no need to go overboard and pretend it is all. It’s facile, really. 46
Posted by Kaim on May 30, 2005, 03:11 PM | # Where you’ve gone awry, Kaim, is in confusing the most important thing with everything. The idea that strength (of which there is more than one kind I might add) is most important is fine; I see no need to go overboard and pretend it is all. It’s facile, really. What else matters? If you’re strong; you live, if you’re weak; you’ll eventually perish. Economic, social, political, or military strength, the result’s always the same. 47
Posted by Svigor on May 30, 2005, 05:13 PM | # Enjoying life matters too Kaim. Your fixation on one version of strength borders on monomania. 48
Posted by Svigor on May 30, 2005, 05:15 PM | # Music, art, literature, family, and much of human life doesn’t matter, according to you. Your philosophy is stupid because it can’t recognize the good in a “loser.” Suddenly anything to do with or produced by a losing team becomes worthless or not admirable. 49
Posted by Svigor on May 30, 2005, 05:16 PM | # It’s also logically flawed, since you can’t prove “if you’re weak; you’ll eventually perish.” 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 01, 2005, 09:44 AM | # Just wanted to mention that the way to deal with this “Cinco de Mayo” crap being shoved down our throats is to begin to make May 5th a day of remembrance, all right—a day of remembrance in honor being the date on which the fleeing Confederate government under Jefferson Davis held its last formal cabinet meeting. That’s a date I can honor. The strategy here is the same as that which the earliest Christians had in mind in declaring Christmas to fall on the day of the Saturnalia: replace a wrong “holiday” with a right and holy one. Hey it worked. From now on, when someone babbles about “Cinco de Mayo” I’m going to say to him, “Wow, I didn’t know the Mexicans had a day of remembrance for the Confederacy! That’s really nice of them!” Then I’ll solemnly bow my head for a minute of silent remembrance of those men and that government who fought for The Cause. If anyone asks me, my teenagers or anyone, what the Cinco de Mayo is I’ll tell them it commemorates the last Official Cabinet Meeting of the fleeing Confederate Government just before the end came—reminding them, of course, that that was not the end, but merely the end of chapter one, and that chapter two is yet to be written but is confidently expected to have, shall we say, a different outcome ... 51
Posted by dissidentman on June 01, 2005, 02:45 PM | # The strategy here is the same as that which the earliest Christians had in mind in declaring Christmas to fall on the day of the Saturnalia: replace a wrong “holiday” with a right and holy one. 52
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 01, 2005, 06:10 PM | # “It should bother you that the Church, to this day, does not know when Jesus was born and when he died.” Doesn’t bother me in the least, dissidentman. Not in the least. Next entry: God bless the French Previous entry: Abortion: Only conservatives care |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Roof Leaks commented in entry 'YOBS' on 05/25/12, 01:16 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/25/12, 12:41 AM. (go) (view) pletcheroka commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/25/12, 12:36 AM. (go) (view) Graistetrisog commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/25/12, 12:19 AM. (go) (view) BomeDeddell commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) indernMix commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:42 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:24 AM | #
Geoff,
As I am an ignorant pom, could you fill me in on “Memorial Day”? When did this begin to be commemorated and what does it commemorate? Is it the soldiers who died fighting World War II?