There no excuse for naming a White child Matthew or Michael, Rachel or Ruth.
This is one of my favorite topics. I always refer folks to what Dr. Pierce wrote on this subject 30 years ago in Chapter 24 of _Who We Are_. The bottom part (bold) about Whites being thoughtful in how we name our children is prefaced by a little Babble history which my fellow Creators will appreciate:
[...]
The Reformation
Another factor which undoubtedly made the West more susceptible to the Jews was the Reformation, the lasting effects of which were confined largely to Europe's northwestern regions in fact, to the Germanic-speaking regions: Germany, Scandinavia, England and Scotland, Switzerland. The Church of Rome and its Eastern Orthodox offshoot had always been ambivalent in their attitudes toward the Jews. On the one hand, they fully acknowledged the Jewish roots of Christianity, and Jesus' Jewishness was taken for granted. On the other hand, the Jews had rejected Jesus' doctrine and killed him, saying, "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25), and the medieval Church was inclined to take them at their word.
In addition to the stigma of deicide the Jews also bore the suspicion which naturally fell on heretics of any sort. During the Middle Ages people took Christianity quite seriously, and anyone professing an unorthodox religious belief, whether he actively sought converts or not, was considered a danger to the good order of the community and to the immortal soul of any Christian exposed to him.
Clergy vs. Bible
Because of this ambivalence the Jews were sometimes favored by the Church and sometimes persecuted, depending to a large degree on the temper of the times and local circumstances. When the priests and bishops were in a relaxed and self-confident frame of mind, the Jews could generally count on support from the pulpit, but whenever the Church became wracked by one of its many paroxysms of militance or defensiveness, the Jews were well advised to maintain a low profile. The Reformation brought on the greatest paroxysm the Church had ever experienced, and in Catholic lands Jews fell as far from favor as they rose in Protestant areas.
What the Protestant reformers did for the Jews was give the Hebrew Scriptures a much more important role in the life of the peoples of Europe than they had enjoyed previously. Among Catholics it was not the Bible but the Church which was important. The clergy read the Bible; the people did not. The people looked to the clergy for spiritual guidance, not to the Bible.
Among Protestants that order was reversed. The Bible became an authority unto itself, which could be consulted by any man. Its Jewish characters -- Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, and the rest -- became heroic figures, suffused with an aura of sanctity. Their doings and sayings became household bywords.
The Great Reformer
It is ironic that the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, who inadvertently helped the Jews fasten their grip on the West, detested them and vigorously warned his Christian followers against them. His book Von den Jueden und ihren Luegen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, is a masterpiece.
Luther's antipathy to the Jews came after he learned Hebrew and began reading the Talmud. He was shocked and horrified to find that the Hebrew religious writings were dripping with hatred and contempt for all non-Jews. Luther wrote:
Do not their Talmud and rabbis say that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are the noble blood and circumcised saints. We, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world and we are their servants, yea, their cattle....
I hear it said that the Jews give large sums of money and thereby are helpful to the government. Yes, from what do they give it? Not of their own, but from the property of the rulers and subjects, whom they deprive of their possessions through usury. And thus the rulers take from the subjects what the Jews have taken ... so they can remain in the land freely to lie, slander, curse, and steal. Should not the Jews have a good laugh over the way we permit ourselves to be fooled and led around by the nose to give our money in order that they may stay in the land to practice all manner of wickedness?
Tragedy of Luther
Alas, Luther could not have it both ways. He had already sanctified the Jews by elevating the status of their history, their legends, and their religion to that of Holy Writ. His translation of the Old Testament into German and his dissemination of the Jewish scriptures among his followers vitiated all his later warnings against the Jews. Today the church he founded studiously ignores those warnings.
Luther had recognized the evils in the Christian Church of his day and in the men who ruled the Church. He also recognized the evil in the Jews and the danger they posed to Europe. He had the courage to denounce both the Church and the Jews, and for that the White race will be indebted to him for as long as it endures.
The great tragedy of Luther is that he failed to go one step further and to recognize that no religion of Jewish origin is a proper religion for men and women of European race. When he cut himself and the majority of the Germanic peoples off from Rome, he failed at the same time to cut away all the baggage of Jewish mythology which had been imposed on Europe by Rome. Instead he made of that baggage a greater spiritual burden for his people than it already was.
Elevation of the Old Testament
The consequence was that within a century of Luther's death much of Northern Europe was firmly in the grip of a new superstition as malignant as the old one, and it was one in which the Jews played a much more explicit role. Before, the emphasis had been on the New Testament: that is, on Christianity as a breakaway sect from Judaism, in which the differences between the two religions were stressed. The role models held up to the peoples of Europe were the Church's saints and martyrs, most of whom were non-Jewish. The parables taught to children were often of European origin.
Among the Protestants the Old Testament gained a new importance, and with it so did the Hebrew patriarchs as role models, while Israel's folklore became the new source of moral inspiration for Europe. Perhaps nothing so clearly demonstrates the change, and the damage to the European sense of identity which accompanied it, as the sudden enthusiasm for bestowing Hebrew names on Christian children.
Puritan Madness
Even before the Reformation a few Jewish names had been adopted by Europeans, but they were in most cases variations of the names of Christian saints of Jewish race: John (Heb. Johanan), Matthew (Heb. Mattathiah), Mary (Heb. Miriam), Ann (Heb. Hannah, supposedly the name of the maternal grandmother of Jesus). In addition, a few other purely Hebrew names had come into fairly common usage in parts of Christian Europe prior to Luther's time: Adam, Daniel, David, Michael, Elizabeth, and Sarah are examples.
During the l7th century, however, practically every name from the Old Testament came into general use. The madness reached its height among the Puritans, who scorned the names of their own ancestors and christened their offspring with such atrociously alien appellations as Israel, Amos, Ezekiel, Lemuel, Deborah, Reuben, Esther, Abner, Samuel, Nathan, Noah, Ephraim, Gideon, Jesse, Rachel, Susannah, Leah, Elihu, Abigail, Benjamin, and Abraham. The Puritans brought this pernicious habit with them to America, and Hebrew names were more common in the New World than European names during the Colonial period.
Parental Ignorance
Fortunately, most of these names have fallen out of favor in the present era, but some of them persist, largely through the ignorance of parents who do not realize they are giving their child a Jewish name when they choose David, Joseph, Susan, or Ruth. Indeed, a few Jewish names are so common today that almost no one thinks of them as Jewish. What name could be more "Irish" than Mike, or more "English" than Johnny?
Ironically, a number of perfectly, good European names are avoided today, because they are thought of as "Jewish sounding" -- the consequence of their popularity among Jewish name-changers. Such are Seymour, Sidney, Sheldon, Stanley, Melvin, and Murray, for example.
Since ignorance of this topic is so abysmal among the White population today, and since we are concerned with identity above all else in this series, a brief diversion on names seems in order here. The European ancestors of today's White Americans spoke a variety of languages, each of which provides a rich source of names bearing a purely European identity, with no Semitic taint.
Germanic Names
In terms of the number of descendants of these ancestors in the United States today, the Germanic languages should be by far the most important of these sources. Names of Germanic origin are fairly easy to spot; most of them are compounds of common Germanic words designating things (animals, weapons) or attributes (wisdom, brightness, a color, nobility, courage). Thus: Albert (noble-bright), Arnold (eagle-power), Baldwin (bold-friend), Bernard (bear-hard), etc.
In addition to these numerous compound names, there are several very common one-syllable Germanic names. Examples are Carl (Karl, Charles) and Earl.
Generally, names ending in -ald or -old ("power" or "authority"), such as Gerald, Harold; -ard ( "hard"), such as Al(l)ard, Richard; -bert ("bright"), such as Herbert, Robert; -gar or -ger ("spear"), such as Edgar, Roger; -mond or -mund ("protection"), such as Edmund, Raymond; -olf, -alph, or -ulf ("wolf"), such as Adolf, Ralph; -rad or -red ("counsel"), such as Alfred, Conrad; -ric ("ruler"), such as Eric, Frederic(k); or -win ("friend"), such as Edwin, Godwin; are Germanic.
Many Germanic feminine names are derived directly from corresponding masculine forms: Alberta, Caroline, Charlotte. But there are also many purely feminine forms: Adelaide (and the related form Alice), Astrid, Audrey (from Etheldreda), Belinda, Bertha, Clotilde, Edith, Matilda, etc.
Celtic Names
The Celtic languages provide fewer names, but some of those are fairly popular today. Examples are Cailen, Alan (Allan, Allen), Barry, Brian (Bryan), Bridget, Conan, Donald, Douglas, Duncan, Gladys, Gwendolyn, Joyce, Kenneth, Malcolm, Muriel, Lloyd, Neil, Owen, and Una.
Easily as common as the Celtic names today are those which come directly from Greek and Latin -- not because many of our ancestors were Greeks or Romans, but because those two languages were widely used for literary purposes in Europe until a few centuries ago. Many feminine names, in particular, are in this group.
Classical Names
A few such names stemming from either Greek (G.) or Latin (L.), are: Agatha (G.), Agnes (G.), Alexander and Alexandra (G.), Andrew and Andrea (G.), Anthony and Antonia (L.), August and Augustine (L.), Barbara (G.), Beatrice (L.), Berneice (G.), Cecil and Cecelia (L.), Clara (L.), Claude and Claudia (L.), Constance (L.), Cornelius and Cornelia (L.), Den(n)is and Denise (G.), Diana (L.), Eugene and Eugenia (G.), Florence (L.), George and Georgia (G.), Grace (L.), Gregory (G.), Helen -- also Elaine, Eleanor, Ellen, Nell (G.), Irene (G.), Julius and Julia (L.), Katherine -- also Catherine, Cathy, Kate, Kitty (G.), Laurence and Laura (L.), Margaret -- also Marguerite, Margot, Gretchen, Greta, Madge, Meg, Marjorie, Rita (G.), Martin, Nicholas (G.), Patrick and Patricia (L.), Phil(l)ip (G.), Phyllis (G.), Priscilla (L.), Rhoda (G.), Sophia (G.), Stella (L.), Sylvia (L.), Theodore and Dorothy (G.), Timothy (G.), Ursula (L.), Valerie (L.), Victor and Victoria (L.), Vincent (L.), and Virginia (L.).
It goes without saying, of' course, that no one is to blame for the name his parents bestowed on him, for whatever reason. But no well-informed, racially conscious White parents today have any excuse for naming a child of theirs Matthew or Michael, Rachel or Ruth.
If one of the more common Germanic, Celtic, or Classical names will not do, it is far better to dip back into the richness of the European past for a less common name, like Alaric or Adalbert, Gerda or Gunilda, than to stick the poor tot with a Hebrew label for life.
And there is no reason why parents of Polish, Ukrainian, or Russian ancestry in this country should not name a child Casimir or Igor, Ludmila or Vera. But, please, not Ivan or Masha, which are merely Slavicized variants of Hebrew names![/b]
There are a number of currently available books on the origins and meanings of given names. An inexpensive one which, although far from exhaustive, is authoritative and especially thorough in giving the original source and meaning of each of the 1,200-1,500 names it treats, is The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, by E.G. Withycombe.
This is one of my favorite topics. I always refer folks to what Dr. Pierce wrote on this subject 30 years ago in Chapter 24 of _Who We Are_. The bottom part (bold) about Whites being thoughtful in how we name our children is prefaced by a little Babble history which my fellow Creators will appreciate:
* * * *
[...]
The Reformation
Another factor which undoubtedly made the West more susceptible to the Jews was the Reformation, the lasting effects of which were confined largely to Europe's northwestern regions in fact, to the Germanic-speaking regions: Germany, Scandinavia, England and Scotland, Switzerland. The Church of Rome and its Eastern Orthodox offshoot had always been ambivalent in their attitudes toward the Jews. On the one hand, they fully acknowledged the Jewish roots of Christianity, and Jesus' Jewishness was taken for granted. On the other hand, the Jews had rejected Jesus' doctrine and killed him, saying, "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25), and the medieval Church was inclined to take them at their word.
In addition to the stigma of deicide the Jews also bore the suspicion which naturally fell on heretics of any sort. During the Middle Ages people took Christianity quite seriously, and anyone professing an unorthodox religious belief, whether he actively sought converts or not, was considered a danger to the good order of the community and to the immortal soul of any Christian exposed to him.
Clergy vs. Bible
Because of this ambivalence the Jews were sometimes favored by the Church and sometimes persecuted, depending to a large degree on the temper of the times and local circumstances. When the priests and bishops were in a relaxed and self-confident frame of mind, the Jews could generally count on support from the pulpit, but whenever the Church became wracked by one of its many paroxysms of militance or defensiveness, the Jews were well advised to maintain a low profile. The Reformation brought on the greatest paroxysm the Church had ever experienced, and in Catholic lands Jews fell as far from favor as they rose in Protestant areas.
What the Protestant reformers did for the Jews was give the Hebrew Scriptures a much more important role in the life of the peoples of Europe than they had enjoyed previously. Among Catholics it was not the Bible but the Church which was important. The clergy read the Bible; the people did not. The people looked to the clergy for spiritual guidance, not to the Bible.
Among Protestants that order was reversed. The Bible became an authority unto itself, which could be consulted by any man. Its Jewish characters -- Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, and the rest -- became heroic figures, suffused with an aura of sanctity. Their doings and sayings became household bywords.
The Great Reformer
It is ironic that the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, who inadvertently helped the Jews fasten their grip on the West, detested them and vigorously warned his Christian followers against them. His book Von den Jueden und ihren Luegen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, is a masterpiece.
Luther's antipathy to the Jews came after he learned Hebrew and began reading the Talmud. He was shocked and horrified to find that the Hebrew religious writings were dripping with hatred and contempt for all non-Jews. Luther wrote:
Do not their Talmud and rabbis say that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel? It is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are the noble blood and circumcised saints. We, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world and we are their servants, yea, their cattle....
I hear it said that the Jews give large sums of money and thereby are helpful to the government. Yes, from what do they give it? Not of their own, but from the property of the rulers and subjects, whom they deprive of their possessions through usury. And thus the rulers take from the subjects what the Jews have taken ... so they can remain in the land freely to lie, slander, curse, and steal. Should not the Jews have a good laugh over the way we permit ourselves to be fooled and led around by the nose to give our money in order that they may stay in the land to practice all manner of wickedness?
Tragedy of Luther
Alas, Luther could not have it both ways. He had already sanctified the Jews by elevating the status of their history, their legends, and their religion to that of Holy Writ. His translation of the Old Testament into German and his dissemination of the Jewish scriptures among his followers vitiated all his later warnings against the Jews. Today the church he founded studiously ignores those warnings.
Luther had recognized the evils in the Christian Church of his day and in the men who ruled the Church. He also recognized the evil in the Jews and the danger they posed to Europe. He had the courage to denounce both the Church and the Jews, and for that the White race will be indebted to him for as long as it endures.
The great tragedy of Luther is that he failed to go one step further and to recognize that no religion of Jewish origin is a proper religion for men and women of European race. When he cut himself and the majority of the Germanic peoples off from Rome, he failed at the same time to cut away all the baggage of Jewish mythology which had been imposed on Europe by Rome. Instead he made of that baggage a greater spiritual burden for his people than it already was.
Elevation of the Old Testament
The consequence was that within a century of Luther's death much of Northern Europe was firmly in the grip of a new superstition as malignant as the old one, and it was one in which the Jews played a much more explicit role. Before, the emphasis had been on the New Testament: that is, on Christianity as a breakaway sect from Judaism, in which the differences between the two religions were stressed. The role models held up to the peoples of Europe were the Church's saints and martyrs, most of whom were non-Jewish. The parables taught to children were often of European origin.
Among the Protestants the Old Testament gained a new importance, and with it so did the Hebrew patriarchs as role models, while Israel's folklore became the new source of moral inspiration for Europe. Perhaps nothing so clearly demonstrates the change, and the damage to the European sense of identity which accompanied it, as the sudden enthusiasm for bestowing Hebrew names on Christian children.
Puritan Madness
Even before the Reformation a few Jewish names had been adopted by Europeans, but they were in most cases variations of the names of Christian saints of Jewish race: John (Heb. Johanan), Matthew (Heb. Mattathiah), Mary (Heb. Miriam), Ann (Heb. Hannah, supposedly the name of the maternal grandmother of Jesus). In addition, a few other purely Hebrew names had come into fairly common usage in parts of Christian Europe prior to Luther's time: Adam, Daniel, David, Michael, Elizabeth, and Sarah are examples.
During the l7th century, however, practically every name from the Old Testament came into general use. The madness reached its height among the Puritans, who scorned the names of their own ancestors and christened their offspring with such atrociously alien appellations as Israel, Amos, Ezekiel, Lemuel, Deborah, Reuben, Esther, Abner, Samuel, Nathan, Noah, Ephraim, Gideon, Jesse, Rachel, Susannah, Leah, Elihu, Abigail, Benjamin, and Abraham. The Puritans brought this pernicious habit with them to America, and Hebrew names were more common in the New World than European names during the Colonial period.
Parental Ignorance
Fortunately, most of these names have fallen out of favor in the present era, but some of them persist, largely through the ignorance of parents who do not realize they are giving their child a Jewish name when they choose David, Joseph, Susan, or Ruth. Indeed, a few Jewish names are so common today that almost no one thinks of them as Jewish. What name could be more "Irish" than Mike, or more "English" than Johnny?
Ironically, a number of perfectly, good European names are avoided today, because they are thought of as "Jewish sounding" -- the consequence of their popularity among Jewish name-changers. Such are Seymour, Sidney, Sheldon, Stanley, Melvin, and Murray, for example.
Since ignorance of this topic is so abysmal among the White population today, and since we are concerned with identity above all else in this series, a brief diversion on names seems in order here. The European ancestors of today's White Americans spoke a variety of languages, each of which provides a rich source of names bearing a purely European identity, with no Semitic taint.
Germanic Names
In terms of the number of descendants of these ancestors in the United States today, the Germanic languages should be by far the most important of these sources. Names of Germanic origin are fairly easy to spot; most of them are compounds of common Germanic words designating things (animals, weapons) or attributes (wisdom, brightness, a color, nobility, courage). Thus: Albert (noble-bright), Arnold (eagle-power), Baldwin (bold-friend), Bernard (bear-hard), etc.
In addition to these numerous compound names, there are several very common one-syllable Germanic names. Examples are Carl (Karl, Charles) and Earl.
Generally, names ending in -ald or -old ("power" or "authority"), such as Gerald, Harold; -ard ( "hard"), such as Al(l)ard, Richard; -bert ("bright"), such as Herbert, Robert; -gar or -ger ("spear"), such as Edgar, Roger; -mond or -mund ("protection"), such as Edmund, Raymond; -olf, -alph, or -ulf ("wolf"), such as Adolf, Ralph; -rad or -red ("counsel"), such as Alfred, Conrad; -ric ("ruler"), such as Eric, Frederic(k); or -win ("friend"), such as Edwin, Godwin; are Germanic.
Many Germanic feminine names are derived directly from corresponding masculine forms: Alberta, Caroline, Charlotte. But there are also many purely feminine forms: Adelaide (and the related form Alice), Astrid, Audrey (from Etheldreda), Belinda, Bertha, Clotilde, Edith, Matilda, etc.
Celtic Names
The Celtic languages provide fewer names, but some of those are fairly popular today. Examples are Cailen, Alan (Allan, Allen), Barry, Brian (Bryan), Bridget, Conan, Donald, Douglas, Duncan, Gladys, Gwendolyn, Joyce, Kenneth, Malcolm, Muriel, Lloyd, Neil, Owen, and Una.
Easily as common as the Celtic names today are those which come directly from Greek and Latin -- not because many of our ancestors were Greeks or Romans, but because those two languages were widely used for literary purposes in Europe until a few centuries ago. Many feminine names, in particular, are in this group.
Classical Names
A few such names stemming from either Greek (G.) or Latin (L.), are: Agatha (G.), Agnes (G.), Alexander and Alexandra (G.), Andrew and Andrea (G.), Anthony and Antonia (L.), August and Augustine (L.), Barbara (G.), Beatrice (L.), Berneice (G.), Cecil and Cecelia (L.), Clara (L.), Claude and Claudia (L.), Constance (L.), Cornelius and Cornelia (L.), Den(n)is and Denise (G.), Diana (L.), Eugene and Eugenia (G.), Florence (L.), George and Georgia (G.), Grace (L.), Gregory (G.), Helen -- also Elaine, Eleanor, Ellen, Nell (G.), Irene (G.), Julius and Julia (L.), Katherine -- also Catherine, Cathy, Kate, Kitty (G.), Laurence and Laura (L.), Margaret -- also Marguerite, Margot, Gretchen, Greta, Madge, Meg, Marjorie, Rita (G.), Martin, Nicholas (G.), Patrick and Patricia (L.), Phil(l)ip (G.), Phyllis (G.), Priscilla (L.), Rhoda (G.), Sophia (G.), Stella (L.), Sylvia (L.), Theodore and Dorothy (G.), Timothy (G.), Ursula (L.), Valerie (L.), Victor and Victoria (L.), Vincent (L.), and Virginia (L.).
It goes without saying, of' course, that no one is to blame for the name his parents bestowed on him, for whatever reason. But no well-informed, racially conscious White parents today have any excuse for naming a child of theirs Matthew or Michael, Rachel or Ruth.
If one of the more common Germanic, Celtic, or Classical names will not do, it is far better to dip back into the richness of the European past for a less common name, like Alaric or Adalbert, Gerda or Gunilda, than to stick the poor tot with a Hebrew label for life.
And there is no reason why parents of Polish, Ukrainian, or Russian ancestry in this country should not name a child Casimir or Igor, Ludmila or Vera. But, please, not Ivan or Masha, which are merely Slavicized variants of Hebrew names![/b]
There are a number of currently available books on the origins and meanings of given names. An inexpensive one which, although far from exhaustive, is authoritative and especially thorough in giving the original source and meaning of each of the 1,200-1,500 names it treats, is The Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, by E.G. Withycombe.
Send Mail
