Header Image


Bad Eagle Journal

Nationalism Is Racism? Ask Corsicans and American Indians

by David Yeagley · December 9, 2012 · 20 Comments ·

An AP report (Sunday, December 9, 2012) quotes French Interior Minister Manuel Valls as claiming the recent violence committed by Corsican nationalists against the life and property of French mainlanders living on the island is “without a doubt a kind of racism.”

So, when you defend your homeland against alien abuse, you are racist.

A picture taken on December 8, 2012 in Calvi, Corsica, shows one of the houses destroyed in a series of at least 24 attacks aimed at secondary residences across the island overnight December 7 to 8. AFP PHOTO / PASCAL POCHARD-CASABIANCA

Yet the same French government wouldn’t dare accuse French Arab, North African, or Pakistani Muslims of racism when they commit violence against native white French people. Like the Negro, the Muslim is exempt from the accusation of racism, bigotry, or even nationalism. They may freely destroy your country, your race, your religion, but they cannot even be accused of anything politically incorrect–just because liberals won’t allow such accusations.

The truth is, the island of Corsica has for centuries been a haven for international crooks, prisoners, Arab pirates, and other tycoons. But, in post-Roman times, it was the Italian tribes that dominated the island. The city state of Genoa controlled the island beginning in 1282, and it was part of Italy from 1347 until 1729. In 1729 the island began the effort for independence.

Evisa, Corsica. Corsica is one of the most beautiful places in the world. Therefore, real estate is an international market item. Internationalism always threatens nationalism.

Because of it advantageous location in the Mediterranean–between France and Italy (but closer to Italy), the island has always attracted intense political interest. Yet, the historical people of the island considered themselves independent. Their common, daily language, Corsican, is neither French nor Italian, but does bear more of a historical Italian influence.

It took 26 years of strife against incompetent internationals and Arabian terrorist pirates, but by 1755, under ethnic Italian Pasquale Paoli, the “natives” of the island country achieved independence. It was like an pre-American miniature, in some respects. Of course, France conquered the island in 1769, and Corsica was annexed by France in 1770.

Corsicans have, for hundreds of years, considered themselves a nationality. Today, the Corsicans have deep resentment toward the French real estate tycoons who are abusing the natural beauty of the island. There have been twenty murders on the island (of 300,000) in the past year (2012), and 39 the two years before that. Some 26 homes have been bombed recently. The victims are mostly French nationals or continentals, from the French mainland, who have been developing real estate on the coasts of Corsica. For example, in July (2012), French national, retired financier Alain Lefebvre was kidnapped, along with six others, and made to witness the destruction of his property, then released unharmed.

The island country of Corsica (in red).

Corsican nationals do share sentiment with Italian mafia on the island, who of course are anxious to eliminate all real estate competition–particularly from the French. The underworld on such an island has for decades been quite pronounced, if not dominant. It is as though Corsica is the Sicily of the western Mediterranean.

So, the French would rather accuse the Italians of racism, rather than the murderous Arab, North African Muslims. The Caucasian French feel more comfortable and justified in condemning The Caucasian Italians of racism, rather than accuse the dark, Negroid Arabs of anything, racism or murderous designs of anti-nationalism.

Interestingly, these same kind of self-contradictory liberal whites in America are careful never to accuse American Indians of racism. American Indians insist on “sovereignty,” as indicated in blood-bought historical treaties. Indians try to preserve our basic nationhood, with our languages, religions, customs, and some kind of territories or borders. Indians try especially to protect what’s left of our land from abuse by white businesses like oil, gas, and water companies. No one accuses Indians of racism for this.

So how can France accuse Corsicans of racism when they are simply trying to prevent their beautiful territory from commercial rape?
For that matter, how can the Serbia be accused of racism or bigotry when they tried to prevent Albanian Muslims from usurping the Serbian heartland of Kosovo?

These crises are caused by various aggressions, but, to label national defense as racism is something only suicidal liberal whites would do. It is profoundly deceptive and obviously stupid. It is the white liberal oedipal complex. It is a death wish.

What is also interesting (and confusing) about Corsica are the population statistics. They want to say (in 1998) that 87.1% of the island population is French-born, but, since the island is part of the country of France, this statistic doesn’t specify whether these “French” people were actually born on the island or not. Also, 41.9% are North African (mostly Moroccan), the rest Italians (18.7%) and Portuguese (12.3%). The people whose generations have lived on the island for centuries are the true Corsicans, naturally.

But just remember it’s not racism or bigotry when Arab Muslims bomb or murder white Christians. But, when someone wants to protect and preserve himself and his country, then it’s racism.

Nationalism is racism. It’s the new normal. Let’s keep that in mind when considering the liberal approach to the world, and our necessary response.

Liberals have made American Indian people to function politically as liberals, in every way. I resent this with ineffable outrage. Because liberal leaders are deceptive liars, who get off on trying to humiliate achievers, and denigrate warriors, I cannot abide this misrepresentation of American Indian history and Indian people. That we should be made party and contributor to the antithesis of our nature is satanic. I denounce it wholly and utterly.

One more thing about Corsica. It is most curious that historical flag of Independent Corsica appears picture a African Negro with a bandana.

How might we account for this–the only national flag celebrating the African slave? Originally, we’re told, the bandana was a blindfold, over the eyes of the slave, but, in acknowledging freedom, it was moved up on the forehead, as a bandana. When this happened, we don’t know. Must be in modern times.

Posted by David Yeagley · December 9, 2012 · 9:21 pm CT · ·

Tags: American Indians · American Patriotism · Arab · Bad Eagle Journal · Christianity · Conservatism · Islam · Liberalism · Politics · Race · White Race

Read More Journal Posts »

20 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Thrasymachus // Dec 10, 2012 at 2:04 pm   

    “Liberals have made American Indian people to function politically as liberals, in every way. I resent this with ineffable outrage.” — David Yeagley

    Naturally you feel this way. The majority of Americans have succombed to this conditioning.

    The power of Liberalism is that it does what Shakespeare describes about petty truths:

    “And oftentimes, to win us to our harm, The instruments of darkness tell us truths, Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s In deepest consequence.”

    Liberalism began, centuries ago, with actual good and sound positions, but then, as is mankind’s wont, took them to the farthest extremes, converting them into grave error. Therein lies its power and seductiveness: the original soundness of teaching Christian charity towards all human beings, treating them as Jesus taught us. But this is no longer what Liberalism is all about.

    As to “racism,” it seems now to mean the belief that any ethnic group or historical nation is entitled to its own history and heritage and lands.

    Really, though, ‘racism’ was not invented — as we were told — to help the oppressed; it was to enable the would-be oppressors. It was a communist word, coined by Trotsky. It’s use is to sanctify the actions of hostile invaders in granting them the “right” to the conquest and dispossession of long-settled peoples.

  • 2 Bonus Gift // Dec 10, 2012 at 3:05 pm   

    Good point Thrasy, I think someone knows their history. It seems that Trotsky used the term to shut down traditional Russian Slavs, and, well, make them slaves (i.e., for his utopian dreams of communism). Trotsky’s intent was to prevent traditionalist Slavs from even attempting to preserve their culture (especially religion) and land. It seems to me that it has almost always been used against traditional white Christians to deprive them of their culture, history, and eventually land (and nowadays to genocide them). Back in the Trotsky days he and others were called things like “internationalists”, now we call them “globalists”. It seems that there has been a slight change on one set of terms to help camouflage the identity of the Marxist monsters yet no significant change for the term “racist” or its use. That word and the hypocritical monsters that wield it should be smoked out and laid bare for all to see. DY has done a service by bringing it up. We need to make the hypocritical use of such Marxist terminology clear and render such attempts to genocide white Christians or American Indian tribes moot. A person attempting to preserve themselves and their traditions is a good person, and being a white Christian doesn’t make you marked for extermination by the hypocritical globalists/communists.

  • 3 David Yeagley // Dec 11, 2012 at 10:32 am   

    The Communist Manifesto should really be made more a part of American education. It would explain, clearly, to everyone, who the Democrats are, who Obama is, what they’re trying to do, etc.
    It’s all based on covetousness and greed, really. It is about coercion, not achievement.

    Now, back to Corsica, I think France is a laughingstock for calling Italian natives (of Corsica) “racists,” and not the anti-French Muslims. This is epitomical of liberal self-blind-siding. It is almost pitiful, if sincere.

  • 4 Bonus Gift // Dec 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm   

    Yes, I agree it is beyond silly for the communist French to spank the honest Corsicans for trying to save their culture and land, yet continue to ignore the clear intent and purpose of the Muslims. Yes, it is suicidal in the extreme; and yet just part of the communist playbook.

    Incidentally, in my quick Internet research on Corsica I did find it fascinating stuff, especially the flag. It appears that the head is a moor’s head. The head was put there as part of the recon quest of several parts of Europe (i.e., not just Spain and Portugal, but in this case Sardinia and Corsica). Apparently, the conquerors of Sardinia used it first (four moor heads in that case) and it was applied to Corsica. In effect a very un-PC symbol of kicking blacks out of Europe for trying to get rid of the Europeans. In short, it was a symbol of your victory (e.g., think taking a scalp). Think about it, now less than a millennium later the communists have invited them back in without so much as a food fight to contest the genocide.

  • 5 Thrasymachus // Dec 11, 2012 at 1:26 pm   

    “I think France is a laughingstock for calling Italian natives (of Corsica) “racists,” and not the anti-French Muslims.” — David Yeagley

    Yes, of course. This is the oddest used of “racism” I’ve encountered in a very long time. To me, it simply reveals the meaninglessness of the word and how is like calling someone a “witch” back in the old days — i.e., the Salem Witch Trials. “Racist” has become a word people are deathly afraid of, so it is the word du jour for attacking one’s enemies. “Racist” strikes terror in men’s hearts. It is a bullying word, a menacing word, a word intended to keep others “in their places.”

    The Frenchman who used it knows all this. He knows that “racism” is not an honest word for what he is objecting to. It is slander, sir. It is dishonest. It is malicious. It is intended to silence the voices of the oppressed.

  • 6 Thrasymachus // Dec 11, 2012 at 1:46 pm   

    Another factor not to be overlooked:

    They do not have the First Amendment in Europe. In France, Brigitte Bardot was in trouble with the law for speaking out against the Muslim invasion of her country. Lack of laws ensuring the right of free speech to all citizens is a serious problem there, as it is the cornerstone of freedom. It is the most serious problem in Europe today.

  • 7 Thrasymachus // Dec 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm   

    Liberalism and PC are a secular “religion” of sorts.

    Just as Christianity was imposed by force (how unbiblical!) on Europe in earlier centuries, now this new “religion” has political power in its hands to command its will.

    Accusing someone of being a racist is much like accusing him of being a heretic. Racist has all the feeling and self-righteous satisfaction of the old word. To be an anti-racist is to be holy and honorable and above reproach in this day and age.

    A majority of people are terrified of this — hence its power; and, given its power, hence its use, as in the present example.

  • 8 Thrasymachus // Dec 11, 2012 at 4:18 pm   

    “It appears that the head is a moor’s head.” — BG

    The same thing goes for Shakespeare’s Othello. He was not a Negro, but a Moor. Nowadays, he’s always cast as a Negro. Superfluous, really, since Juliet is also frequently cast as a Negress!

  • 9 David Yeagley // Dec 11, 2012 at 6:13 pm   

    A Moor is a North African Negro, no? Maybe mixed with Arab, but, Negro. Certainly, the caricature on the Corsican flag is Negro. And it was not the Arab that was enslaved, but the Arab who enslaved and sold the Negro.

  • 10 Mario // Dec 11, 2012 at 7:16 pm   

    Interesting article Dr.Yeagley, I never knew that the Corsican flag had a negro or a more PC term, black guy with a white bandana on his head. My question is about this Corsican/French dispute is that Napolean was a Corsican by birth and yet he is celebrated as a French hero. Funny how times have changed.

    About a Moor, from my history class, are of Arab descent that conquered North Africa. I think maybe later it included black muslims from the region or those blacks that were brought from further south to be placed in Northern Africa. I believe originally the Arabs that conquered the northern Africa to distinguish them from the Berbers. I can be wrong since I am going back a while. I think the muslims in Spain were also referred to as Moors by the divided Spanish kingdoms at the time.

    I agree with Thrasymachus that this Communism/Socialism/Humanism is now the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages who impose their “creed” and if you do not go with the dogma, you will be figuratively be burned at the stake of public opinion by the new inquisitors. These inquisitors comprise of the media, academia, and government.

  • 11 Mario // Dec 11, 2012 at 7:24 pm   

    Sorry I forgot to ask the question, How would the French feel that calling the Corsicans racists because they are nationalists, yet their 1st Emperor was Napolean I who was Corsican by birth? The French can not claim Napolean as their own yet call Corsicans racists, can they?

  • 12 Thrasymachus // Dec 11, 2012 at 8:46 pm   

    I think that Shakespeare had the definition that Mario has given above, namely: “One of the Muslims who invaded Spain in the 8th century and established a civilization in Andalusia that lasted until the late 15th century.”

    You make a good point about Napoleon. Something slightly similar happened in Nazi Germany. After all, Hitler was not, technically speaking, a “German” national, but an Austrian by birth. Unless I am much mistaken — history (music history excepted) — has not been my favorite subject — Hitler had absolutely no right to be German chancellor, in exactly the same way that Obama has no right to hold the US Presidency. The fault is that neither man had full citizenship qualifications.

    These days liberals speak of various shades and species of “racism.” I once heard Jodie Foster speaking on French television about opposing “cette sorte de racisme” in the theme-message of one of her movies — yet I have no idea just what kind of “racism” it was. Apparently there are many uses for this knock-out accusatory word.

    As a cat-lover, I know people who dislike cats and prefer dogs. Perhaps I should accuse them of some kind of species-ism against the poor felines. (I also like and esteem dogs equally.)

  • 13 Thrasymachus // Dec 11, 2012 at 9:03 pm   

    As in the King James Bible, Shakespeare usually referred to Negroes as “Ethiopians.” I shall have to purchase a special edition of Othello to investigate the question of the man’s race. Yes, the play is about miscegenation, but I’m not certain that it is strictly about “Negrophilia.” I admit that this may be a possiblity, but it seems to me that Othello was more civilized than the African Negro. Of course, I cannot tell what firsthand knowledge Shakespeare had of African Negroes and their cultures — though he almost certainly regarded them as wild and uncivilized. Othello is not the only case of miscegenation mentioned in Shakespeare:

    “Methinks our garments are now as fresh as When we put them on first in Afric at the marriage of the King’s fair daughter Claribel to the King of Tunis” (Tempest: II.i.71-4)

    Claribel was sold, as property, to the King of Tunisia, and thus was cut off from her family.

  • 14 Thrasymachus // Dec 11, 2012 at 9:14 pm   

    It seems to me (thought I am not well up on history) that Shakespeare would not have know the “Negro Question” as the modern world knows it. He could not have known of South Africa’s fate, nor of the fates of Haiti and Detroit. Shakespeare could be excused for not knowing about the multicultural experiment and the ideals and results of modern liberalism. Whites who have had only limited and pleasant “commerce” with Blacks are naturally not “prejudiced” against them. Whites, like Albert Schweitzer, always begin with the assumption of basic racial equality and the strong belief that all Blacks can, with a little education, swiftly become “just like us.” We all want that. Whites are born recognizing race differences, but we are not born believing anything particular about them. They only acquire meaning through experience. Or so it seems to me.

  • 15 Thrasymachus // Dec 11, 2012 at 9:48 pm   

    “They only acquire meaning through experience. Or so it seems to me.”

    By “meaning” is intended “positive or negative associations.” There also is a natural “meaning” in that the individual naturally self-identifies with the people and culture into which he or she is born. This is an innate tendency.

  • 16 Bonus Gift // Dec 12, 2012 at 3:15 am   

    Regarding the term moor, certainly the head on the flag looks like that of a negro, but I believe the Muslims who conquered parts of Europe (much of Spain, all of Portugal, Corsica & Sardinia) around the 800s and who were called “moors” were in fact Arabs and newly converted Berbers (who were likely what was left of the Carthaginians of yore; in fact they were Caucasians albeit on the darker side compared to much of Europe; as are the Arabs categorized as Caucasians). The Shakespeare view of the dusky moor may be more of a theatrical exaggeration by Bill. When the Spanish re-conquered most of Spain one of the ways they used to evaluate whether you were a Muslim moor or Catholic Spaniard (even if a bit crude) was to look at the palm up part of the forearm to see if they could see your veins (i.e., in lighter skinned Caucasians you can see purple veins through the skin especially around the wrist). This, I believe is where the term “blue blood” comes from (i.e., even though we now know the term as a reference to aristocrats, e.g., the Hapsburgs, Windsors, etc.). You must know/appreciate that back in the Muslims conquering parts of Europe days there were Muslims who were in fact very white (e.g., many with “blue blood”; e.g., the Janissaries of the Turks were Serb and other Christian European slaves and others that were separated from their parents forced to convert to Islam when young and destined to be used as cannon foder against European Christians – their own people; in fact many had light hair and blue or green eyes – see, e.g., it is possible that Ataturk is descended from one or more Janissary as genetics would suggest one thing if you look at a picture of the founder of Turkey who doesn’t look very Turkish; and some even say Jewish). It is that after the original conquering by mostly Muslim Caucasians over Catholic Caucasians the original Moors began to import slaves from south of the then Mason-Dixon line (i.e., the Sahara). Over time the Moors went from a strictly Berber and Arab group to a more dusky hue, and that I think is where the more recent (say 400 years ago or so) more negro version of a Moor comes from (Shakespeare’s included). You have to realize that the Muslims were big on slavery (they essentially invented the modern form of it (some still practice it today), and that is where the Portuguese and Spanish essentially learned the trade) and Islam was presented as a universal religion (i.e., it was supposed to apply to Caucasians, Negros, and mongoloids; as is Christianity I know). Therefore, as “Moorish Andalusia” (and I guess Corsica, Sardinia, etc.) went forward in time the moors (much like modern America) were effectively overrun by their slaves just enough that the more pure Spaniards were able to get their land back and maintain their culture (a necessary condition for re-conquest success, if not life in general anyway). In short, I think the negrified moor thing is more a cleaner representation of an us and them view of the re-conquest (probably mixed in with visceral notion among Caucasians, pure-blood Arabs included, that blacks do not belong on white man’s land). Obviously, the confusion is easy as history and the genetic drift toward duskiness has muddied the waters over what is a moor and what was a moor and at what time we are interested in. Therefore, the current flag of Corsica looks indeed to be a negro moor, but it is really about Christians re-conquering more dusky Muslims of whom they do not wish to be associated with (thus, the blacker face on the flag the better even if it is not historically so much the case). And that, my friends, is my mostly top of the head version of why our confusion (and I may be wrong on some details but hopefully not too far off); although, I doubt the Corsicans are much bothered and seem attached to that flag either way. Personally, I find it fascinating stuff, and then there is the Napoleon issue … (maybe another day …)

  • 17 David Yeagley // Dec 12, 2012 at 12:07 pm   

    Another unique and luminous conversation on! Thank you, gentlemen, for your contribution.

  • 18 David Yeagley // Dec 12, 2012 at 12:20 pm   

    There is a contemporary (1767) description of Corsica written by the Scotsman, James Boswell, An Account of Corsica.

    Indeed there is dispute whether the Bonaparte family was Italian or Greek in origin!

    It appears Napoleon’s mother was Italian, Mariai-Letizia Ramolilno.

    Corsica was controlled by France when Napoleon was born, so he was technically born a French citizen.

    In 1771, the Conseil Superieur (of Corsica) had “established” that the Corsican nobility, and had included the Buonapartes, as though they claimed 200 years residence on the island. But were they aristocratic, or royal? These things are left open for debate, I’m afraid.

  • 19 Bonus Gift // Dec 12, 2012 at 12:40 pm   

    I did not know that about Napoleon. Ignoring the communist evil and “racist” name calling silliness for a moment, it really seems a fascinating place and would be tragic to lose it to the current day moors and communists. I read that because of its relatively high mountains it has some trout streams and if I ever get the chance I’d love to go fishing there and just plain touring the place a bit, seriously.

  • 20 The Crimson Thread of Kinship | Spirit/Water/Blood // Jan 13, 2013 at 11:11 am   

    […] Indians are never guilty of racism for trying to protect their nationhood and borders from business interests. But in Corsica, the French are guilty of racism when Arabs, North Africans, or Paki Muslims commit murder, just as Serbians are guilty of racism when Albanian Muslims usurp Kosovo. Nationalism is racism, but only white nationalism. […]

You must log in to post a comment.