My last blog (“Chimpanzees don’t believe in open borders“) necessarily highlighted the work of Richard Wrangham, the Harvard primatologist whose theory on coalitional aggression by male chimpanzees was strongly supported by the study of Mantini et al. Wrangham argues that chimps and humans have both inherited a propensity for aggressive territoriality from a chimplike ancestor. War engaged in by cooperating males was adaptive in our evolutionary past and therefore left its mark in the human mind.
This is a remarkably unsentimental view of the human past–Darwinism red in tooth and claw. And it provides strong support for a biological basis for some of the nastier human qualities that the intellectual left wants to see as grounded solely in pathological cultures.
So one would think that someone like Wrangham would be open to a theory of group competition such as my theory of group evolutionary strategies. Wrangham’s work shows that group competition predated human culture. My theory expands on that to between-group competition not by warfare but over other resources: social dominance, financial resources, and–most centrally–over the construction of culture. My approach is combined with theory and data showing that the higher mental processes central to culture can regulate the more ancient evolved systems of the brain (e.g., ethnocentrism) like the ones that Wrangham’s research points to.
Unlike chimpanzees, humans are therefore quite prone to maladaptive cultures. In contemporary human societies, a large part of group competition becomes intellectual warfare over the construction of culture. Hence my book The Culture of Critique which shows that several important intellectual movements dominated by strongly identified Jews who were acting to advance Jewish interests collectively managed to dominate intellectual discourse on race and ethnicity beginning in the early 20th century. Interacting with the individualistic proclivities of White Europeans, these movements have been critical to overriding the biologically-based natural tendencies toward aggressive territoriality uncovered by Wrangham’s work.
However, Wrangham was one of the star performers in a tumultuous meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society at Amherst College in 2000. He presided over a forum devoted to discussing my work, described by Richard Faussette who witnessed the events. In my talk I stressed issues such as the maintenance of group boundaries that are so essential to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy and central to Wrangham’s theory of chimpanzee behavior. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of my remarks (reprinted in Faussette’s article), Wrangham called for an ethics investigation into me and my work and asked me to condemn the use of my work by “right wing extremists” and “rabid anti-Semites.” I forget what my response was, but my usual response to that sort of thing is to state that anyone is free to use any scientist’s work. And a lot of these “extremists” and “anti-Semites” have legitimate concerns, whether or not they express them in a language suitable to an academic.
The sad reality is that even hard-headed evolutionary scientists become completely unable to grasp the reality of human competition as it exists in contemporary societies. The chimpanzee neighboring groups that are aggressively defending and trying to expand their borders are doubtless more closely related to each other than the millions of people swarming over the borders of all the countries of the West are related to the traditional White people who have dominated these countries for hundreds or even thousands of years. There are very large genetic distances among human groups compared to the distances between these chimpanzee neighbors–and hence an even greater evolutionary imperative for us to defend our territory against human invaders–Frank Salter’s concept of ethnic genetic interests. But for evolutionary scientists like Wrangham, these relatively large genetic distances suddenly become meaningless when they refer to human groups, and it becomes irrational or even evil to be concerned about the eclipse and displacement of one’s racial group as millions of unlike others pour over the border.
The pall of political correctness hangs over even the best-known evolutionary scientists. Another hostile member of the audience at Amherst was John Tooby of the University of California-Santa Barbara who is prominently associated with the evolutionary psychology movement — a movement that neatly avoids any consideration of traits like IQ or unpleasant issues like race differences in IQ and aggression. (See my “Evolutionary psychology: The really dangerous idea is that it is wrong.”) And then there’s Steven Pinker whom I characterize as having assumed “the Stephen Jay Gould Chair for Politically Correct Popularization of Evolutionary Biology at Harvard.
Once again, it’s obvious that the success of the left derives from having taken over the elite institutions of the society, particularly the media and the academic world. It is a triumph with a very large ethnic component at its core — both in the ethnic aggression of the Jewish-dominated intellectual movements that have seized the academic high ground and in the ethnic vulnerabilities of the Anglo-Saxons whom they displaced. The remnants of the WASP intellectual elite, like Wrangham, cower in fear of being ostracized while they watch the inexorable logic of evolution work against people like themselves. Certainly a chimpanzee would not be so stupid or cowardly.
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
When Heidi went to Heaven 
In this case, the troop that is winning territory gains advantage by manipulating laws of the jungle (moving the goal posts). That is a trick that real chimps cannot pull.
“The sad reality is that even hard-headed evolutionary scientists become completely unable to grasp the reality of human competition as it exists in contemporary societies.”
Talk about a maladaptive culture! The bitter, bitter irony. Kind of like trying to empty a bucket while you’re standing in it. God only knows how you do it, Prof. MacDonald.
Why is Whites organizing as Whites on behalf of White interests taboo? From an individualist perspective, I personally find it as distasteful as Jews, Blacks and Hispanics doing likewise, but I don’t blame Whites who do, particularly in America where the few that are doing so are responding in kind to ethnic tribalism in order to protect their own lives and interests.
The reason it is taboo in in the West is because the Left has characterized White colonialism and Nazism simultaneously as White nationalists movements and as the ultimate evil in world history, when in fact Nazism was merely the antithesis of Jewish Bolshevism (which exterminated millions based on race (under the guise of class) and religion (implicitly anti-Christian) before the Nazis ever did. And colonialism was not carried out by average Whites, but rather by hyper-ambitious elites on behalf of their own wealth, vanity and glory, and at the expense of average Whites (studies have shown that colonialism incurred net losses for the taxpayers in countries that carried it out).
With this in mind, I would conclude that these hyper-ambitious, bloodless elites of all races who are today imposing this political and cultural regiment of globalization and its attendant political correctness (many of whom are getting rich doing so) are ethically and morally far closer to the elitist colonialists they profess to loathe than are the average Whites whom they seek to straw man in advance of their own bank accounts and careers.
Average Whites are essentially being framed for the sins committed by a bloodless elite by a neo-bloodless elite, who are then carrying on in public about how “evil” the Whites they’ve framed are. Can there be any creature or group more disgusting and loathsome than one that would undertake such a deed?
It’s very sad that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
The problem is Darwinian theory of evolution itself is a myth. There is no scientific evidence for it. It remains dominant in science due to an Atheist group strategy.
“…while they watch the inexorable logic of evolution work against people like themselves”. How ironic, and true Kevin. This observation is just as valid regarding the Anglo American community at large. These unthinking White people, who have intellectually internalized some of the most ludicrous of unnatural fantasies and delusions, are now having to face the consequences of their tomfoolery. As they squirm and writhe in disbelief, make-believe-America is crumbling before their eyes. Yet, they still grasp at trite abstractions, in their ideologically programmed illusion of race denial. An ignoble end, to be sure, for those ensnared in a web of alien spun inconsistencies and self-destructive contradictions.
Bigmo,
I totally agree.That is why I don’t understand why so much work goes into comparing chimpanzee behaviour with that of humans.
100 years or so ago this would have seemed totally bizarre and it upsets me that so many White nationalist sites follow Darwinism.I suppose they just don’t want to admit the religious /spititual dimension of our fight.
Dorothea,
Why do you feel the need to force Aryans to believe in God ? Can’t you just accept that some believe, some don’t. Darwinism and Evolution is based on science, not like religion which is based on Faith. But having said that, what came before the Big-Bang, how can you create something out of nothing ? That is strange.
My unromantic view is: you live, you die, and that’s it. And if there is a Heaven then that’s good. And if there isn’t, then it doesn’t really matter, ’cause you’re dead.
Catholics & Protestants have been fighting and killing eachother for centuries, behaving just like these chimps – their ancestors.
Kevin,
the Richard Faussette article is excellent.
This kind of reminds me of the numerous times I’ve talked with fellow skeptics; some of whom are academic biologists and geneticists, about this kind of thing. The weird thing is that they acknowledge that racial biology is valid and that racial differences exist and are inherited, but then when it comes to applying that thought they run away from it as if it was infected with Bubonic plague.
The irony being that these are the very people who should know better, but yet as always individual evolutionary considerations trump their supposed ‘ruthless objectivity’ and ‘skeptical mindset’ causing them to suddenly espouse; what Revilo Oliver identified with the amusing term ersatz Christianity, the inverse of their own principles (‘you must believe…’).
Mind you they’ll also run a mile before they criticise jews as well and if you criticise jews you might as well go shoot yourself in their book, because it is career suicide.
Cowardice and fear of the – very real – personal costs are a big part of it but the WASP elite don’t think of things that way because those motives are discreditable. Cognitive dissonance comes into play and in their own minds gentile lickspittles see themselves as paragons of noble and virtuous courage.
“Someday” summed it up. It’s so obvious.
I heard Wrangham inteviewed on the radio not too long ago on a book he wrote about how cooking made us human, which isn’t a new idea, by the way, but I think he grabbed the idea for his own.
So I looked him up on the internet and was floored by what a stupid ba***rd he is on other topics. A liberal arse.
@TicTac
I challenged a famous Irish Catholic historian, author, journalist & friend of mine to name an anti-Irish Catholic event that had “actually” happened in the United States. Not allegations, or cartoons, or whining, but, a real life event. He admitted he couldn’t.
I’m still trying to remember, which of the ancients claimed the origin of the Jews was on Cyprus? May have been an ancient geographer?
Kevin,
I don’t see that there is much interest in the chimpanzees. We had
Richard Ardrey The Territorial Imperative in 1966 (and Konrad Lorenz and Desmond Morris …). The poor beasts seem to be no more that a convenient excuse for repeating what you have said so often before.
Of course some things need repeating, but they must first be understood.
For example, people here, especially I think Americans, talk endlessly about the dreadful “liberals” and the evils of “liberalism”, and I for one have no idea what they mean. I understand ‘A liberal glass of brandy’, and the ‘Canadian Liberal Party’ etc but not the usage here. Surely the word is simply a near synonym for ‘generous’, and so a good or bad thing according to circumstance. I suppose some people think it an elegant substitute for Jew, but I suspect that for many it simply expresses the “hard-nosed”, “tough-minded”, “all-American” opposition to any ideas descended from Hume or Mill or the Enlightenment.
Look, I may be slow in my old age but I’m not poking fun. I would really like someone to explain.
ad Dorothea
If you truly do believe in the divine and the efficacy of prayer, could you please go to your prayers (if not a nunnery :-) ) and stop wittering on.
TicTac,
Nobody is forced to believe in God, but if possible, I would favor forcing whites to learn their own history. Wars between Protestants and Catholics were regrettable but there have always been wars and none so bloody as those of post-Christian Europe in the twentieth century. Most so-called religious wars are really fought for crass economic reasons disguised by the sanctimony of war propaganda. Accepting the explanation that Protestant and Catholic powers fought for the purity of religion is like believing that the West invaded Iraq to defend democracy. In Christian societies, propagandists invoke religion (what else?) to launch wars. In post-Christian societies, professional moralists use democracy and feminism (anything will do) to justify the killing. In Jew-worshiping societies, we fight to protect the Chosen People.
The universality of sanctimonious war propaganda is beyond question and yet the shopworn Christianity-brings-war cliche is still trotted out after all these centuries. “Enlightenment” wars against religion led to Communist, NAZI, and liberal democratic wars that killed hundreds of millions. Christian Europe was far less brainwashed by propaganda than the post-Christian West of today. We have been fighting wars to end all wars for a century now and with no end in sight. The popes have repeatedly counseled peace. At least Christian Europe could replace dead soldiers while the secular West is contracepting, aborting, and buggering itself out of existence. If the supposed warlike nature of Christianity is still the strongest argument against religion, one can feel hope. Perhaps the prodigal rebellion of “liberated” secularism has almost run its course. When whites finally shake their heads clear of the Judeomasonic “Enlightenment” propaganda, they will return the mainstream of European civilization.
Wrangham called for an ethics investigation into me and my work and asked me to condemn the use of my work by “right wing extremists” and “rabid anti-Semites.” – Wrangham sounds like a coward to me, unwilling to explore all the possibilities of research for fear he would be shunned by the group. I’m sure his behavior could be found among chips as well.
dc, since you asked, “liberalism” means the rejection of traditional identities and inherited values.
dc: “people here, especially I think Americans, talk endlessly about the dreadful “liberals” and the evils of “liberalism”, and I for one have no idea what they mean…Surely the word is simply a near synonym for ‘generous’”
Contemporary Western liberalism has nothing in common with the classical liberalism of more than a few of America’s founders, nor anything to do with generosity (it’s not “generous” to shakedown taxpayers to support massive social-engineering projects and monolithic super-states that have to support themselves at the point of a warmongering, hegemonic gun). Contemporary Statist-centered left-liberalism, which is a synthesis of Communism and, say, FDR’s “liberalism” (which was in bed with corrupt Jews and Wall Street banksters even back then) can be referred to shorthand as neoliberalism, which itself is a kissing cousin of the neoconservatism fancied by GW Bush and much of the mainstream GOP.
Both of these are largely manifestations of Jewish thought and ethics, and are thus inherently elitist, anti-(average) White, anti-Christian, anti-Western, and ultimately murderously misanthropic. (And contemporary left-liberals still affect to be “searching” for what all the screaming is about; can there be a more phony and studiously superficial species on earth?)
KM,
The sad reality is that even hard-headed evolutionary scientists become completely unable to grasp the reality of human competition as it exists in contemporary societies.
Karl Radl,
The irony being that these are the very people who should know better, but yet as always individual evolutionary considerations trump their supposed ‘ruthless objectivity’ and ’skeptical mindset’ causing them to suddenly espouse; what Revilo Oliver identified with the amusing term ersatz Christianity, the inverse of their own principles (’you must believe…’).
So it appears that evolutionary scientists lack courage of their convictions. Otherwise, one would expect to see studies that rank various human subgroups on evolutionary performance. In other words, who is proving the “fittest” to survive according to evo theory? KM is one of the few scientists that has published anything like this and he has only scratched surface.
It would be ironic if evolutionary belief turns out to be a threat to survival. Anecdotally, it appears that subgroups who believe in evolution the most are those least able to defend themselves or reproduce. Perhaps such a conclusion would move evolutionists to reevaluate what traits they consider to be fit. :-)
If demography is destiny, then is the trait of evo belief an evolutionary dead end?
Chris,
I take your point. I’ll try to be clearer. I know and can recognize communism, Jew influence, conservative attachment to traditional values, National Socialism, … All these terms mean something, but the shouts of “liberal” sound very much like simple abuse … rather like the Jew noise of “antisemitism”.
Look at your last sentence. For me a “left-liberal” is someone who supports clean streets, libraries and public swimming pools. Where can one find definitions.
dc: “For me a “left-liberal” is someone who supports clean streets, libraries and public swimming pools.”
The ethos you are describing is that of Christianity, before Christianity was co-opted and raped by leftism, modernism, neoconservatism and neoliberalism.
Perhaps one day Christianity will evolve into some higher morality, but clearly we’re not there yet, and clearly that evolution won’t be overseen by any regrade, usurping manifestations of Jewish thought. We’re drowning in the manifestations and toxins of retro-Judeo-thought as we speak.
dc
“talk endlessly about the dreadful “liberals” and the evils of “liberalism””
It’s just their word collective noun for the social democrat + cultural marxist combination that exists across the west. In Britain the equivalent might be “Guardian-reader.” I assume every country has their equivalent term.
Karl Radl,
“but then when it comes to applying that thought they run away from it as if it was infected with Bubonic plague.”
Yes, their hysterical reaction is so striking. If they believed in their heart that none of this was true their reaction would be a sigh and rolling their eyes and a bit of gentle mockery.
“Wrangham called for an ethics investigation into me and my work and asked me to condemn the use of my work by “right wing extremists” and “rabid anti-Semites.””
“Lathspell I name you, Ill-news; and ill news is an ill guest they say.”
- The Two Towers: “The King of the Golden Hall,” p. 117
That’s what they’re naming you, Kevin, and worse. But it’s better to be Gandalf than Grima Wormtongue.
Tom,
Yes, the Protestants and Catholics have definately improved their tolerance. I would tho like to see them make a greater stand against the Zionists. Ted Pike, I like him.
Edward,
I support Christianity. I think Jesus and Christianity are forces for good. As long as you don’t force me to go to church, then I will always support it. There aint no religious figure that compares to Jesus. He is an example for all humans.
Chris Moore asks:
“Why is Whites organizing as Whites on behalf of White interests taboo? ”
Because Whites allow it. Anytime, you preface something pro-White with, “I’m not a racist, but … ” you evoke this taboo. Anytime White Tea Party (TP) activists have to put a PoC (Person of Color) on the podium to convince a hostile anti-White media they are NOT pursuing White interests, they evoke this taboo. Anytime, they have to slobber over or get a PoC to co-sign their statements or they cannot say them, they evoke this taboo.
Negros did not deign to deny THEIR racism when they voted for their black homeboy, Barak Obama over Whites like Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain who shamelessly pandered to them and other PoCs. No matter how much or how hard Whites screamed foul. They pursue their own interests and they don’t care who the hell knows this.
Likewise, Mestizos; especially Mestizos. In pursuing “Azatlan,” their leaders ran and elected their own candidates against the entrenched liberal candidates who had pandered to them in the past and when one turned out to be a particularly upset Jew, they emphasized their Reconquista agenda and were even ballsy enough to point out the parallels between their own Dual Citizenship-Loyalty structure with Mexico to that of American Jewry’s to Mexico.
It’s Whites who tiptoe around their own interests for fear of offending anyone especially quasi-official Jewish watchdog groups instead of looking anyone squarely in the eye who calls THEM a racist and retorting, “So what, if I am?” Instead, they whine, grovel, apologize and assume the fetal position and/or drop their pants and assume the position. We are weak. Little wonder those who hate us smell blood on the water and its only whetting their appetite for more.
Fortunately, many TPs are already figuring out that Racist is just a code word for White and once the Neo-Cons finish using their fear of being called racists to hijack their movement and destroy any progress they have made proving once and for all that nice guys finish last, these very nice, polite White people will be very fed up, pissed off Racists. Then there will be no stopping them.
” . . . the success of the left derives from having taken over the elite institutions of the society, particularly the media . . . ”
The left has taken over the corporate media? That’ll be the day. Noam Chomsky is read all over the world but cannot get an op-ed published in a major American newspaper.
Severus, it’s young people like you that gives us hope. You see clearly. You’ll like this video, Pound’s verse applied to today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFsVnL5ueyQ
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg recently stated that America would die as a nation if millions of nonwhites are not allowed in.
There is only one proper response to Mayor Bloomberg:you dirty fucking genocidal inbred kike dwarf!!!!
Or, you can blather on about monkeys,genes,Harvard professors..scientific papers.
Has anybody seen the size of the yacht this kike dwarf billionaire has parked in Sag Harbor on summer weekends? At least a 100 million $$$$. The bridge you go over into Sag Harbor is now named after a NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN TEENAGER of German ancestry who at the age of 19 was exterminated for the kike dwarf Bloomberg’s favorite nation state. The one he has complete allegiance to.
Jewish evolutionary strategy:exterminate the NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN MAJORITY.
Ethnocentrism for Jews. Racial extermination for NATIVE BORN WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICANS.
It was a mistake to let Jews into the Ivy League.
Listen up Jews(this includes you Larry Auster trust fund kid):I HAVE 0 allegiance to the stae of Israel.
“TicTac says:
June 27, 2010 at 5:36 AM
I support Christianity. I think Jesus and Christianity are forces for good. As long as you don’t force me to go to church, then I will always support it. There aint no religious figure that compares to Jesus. He is an example for all humans.”
Is Christianity a non-European alien Frankenstein religion that severely impedes/distorts European group development?
Did Christianity come from severely [Judaic] tribal culture and was embedded atop individualism of Europeans?
What exactly Christianity provides that Euros didn’t possess culture-wise before it’s emergence?
This is off-topic, but anyway…
kolovrat says: “Is Christianity a non-European alien Frankenstein religion that severely impedes/distorts European group development?”
Looks like it to me. But it has important good points. And honest tallying up of such a massive, complex cultural force is bound to have pluses and minuses that defy objective summing up.
kolovrat says: “Did Christianity come from severely [Judaic] tribal culture and was embedded atop individualism of Europeans?”
I would not sum up the city states of the Greeks, the family / tribe / state religion of the Romans or the tribalism of the northern European peoples as simply as “individualism”. It was more individualism than the rest of the world had, but it still exhibited massive cohesiveness. Rome could not have beaten Carthage if Roman culture had just been “individualistic”.
kolovrat says: “What exactly Christianity provides that Euros didn’t possess culture-wise before it’s emergence?”
Strong support for the lives of society’s most vulnerable and valuable members (or in negative terms powerful new inhibitions on infanticide), strong and from a White point of view biologically natural and benevolent support for monogamy as normative from the lowest hut in the land to the highest castle, a literary culture that the Northerners didn’t possess, a greater field of cooperation between the White peoples, including military cooperation, and related to that institutions that helped Christendom to hold out against the assaults of Islam, such as monastic military orders, distinctive traditions of charity and sacrificial love, and – shameful as it is to think of – a kind of antisemitism that protected non-Jews in a way that pagan religions did not. (Read Kevin MacDonald on this.)
I think Christianity falls short of what we need in some ways, but it can’t be written off as a thing of no value. That’s bad history, and an unsound analysis of Darwinian effects.
I don’t think this is the right place to debate Darwinism versus Christianity.
I don’t even think it’s a genuine “versus”.
Darwinism is solid science. Most people will accept that, if it’s not framed as being against God. The people who keep setting up a fight between Darwin and God generally seem to be haters of religion, specifically haters of Christianity and Christians. They know Darwinism is intellectually sound, and they want a death-fight between it and Christianity, and they don’t care how many people are alienated from Darwinian thinking in the process, because they’re motivated by religious hate, and not primarily by love of science.
I think these militant atheists have done and are still doing grave harm, because by pressing people to choose between Darwin on the one hand and Jesus and the hope of Heaven on the other hand, they make a sound scientific theory hateful to multitudes, and thus bias intellectual contests in favor of anti-Darwinian unsound theories with large and malign social consequences.
Perfectly sound Darwinians such as Kevin MacDonald just don’t get into the religion business. No opposition arises, because Kevin’s motive isn’t scourging Christians.
I want a strongly enforced economic,political and cultural separation from the State of Israel. To be a primate about it:THEY ARE NOT OUR KIND!!! THEY HATE OUR KIND!!! ..it is just so obvious insn’t it.
“anyone is free to use any scientist’s work.”
Dr MacDonald is, of course, a scholar of the old school, one’s enquiry takes one down whatever road it leads to, however that is career suicide nowadays. Any attempts to present information has to pass through a gauntlet of censors. What does get through is often deleted by moderators, the gatekeepers.
Yet the uncompromising impact of reality is bout to slam into the culture of critique and it will make the Apocalypse of John look like a Pollyanna story.
If there is a history after the deluge surely Dr MacDonald’s name and work will be remembered.
Professor William Pierce, PhD(Physics)
KM have you read this one yet?
The Triumphant Decline of the WASP
By NOAH FELDMAN
New York Slimes, June 25
Noah Feldman is a law professor at Harvard and the author of the forthcoming “Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of F.D.R.’s Great Supreme Court Justices.”
Chris Moore, in a reply to dc:
“dc: “For me a “left-liberal” is someone who supports clean streets, libraries and public swimming pools.”
The ethos you are describing is that of Christianity, before Christianity was co-opted and raped by leftism, modernism, neoconservatism and neoliberalism.”
The ethos is that of ‘civility’ and it had been accepted in every sufficiently advanced civilization long before the birth of Christianity.
Back on topic… I guess one of the greatest reasons to love science is that it gives you results that are still of value regardless of what you think of the scientist. Regardless of what Richard Wrangham and others say abut Kevin, his work stands. And whatever one may then think of Richard Wrangham or other would-be persecutors, their work is still just as valuable.
SEVERUS, yes — Like Alex Kurtagic said over on The Occidental Observer site in his article: “It’s not about the arguments”. We have science and reason on our side 100%, but conditioning and appeals to emotion in people who do not so much think as just want to be what society values is more powerful in the masses.
Also, I loved this quote from Dr. MacDonald:
my usual response to that sort of thing is to state that anyone is free to use any scientist’s work. And a lot of these “extremists” and “anti-Semites” have legitimate concerns, whether or not they express them in a language suitable to an academic.
Once again, WOW. The courage to not back down when you are right is maybe the most important and valuable stuff in the world. What a perfect statement. A truly objective and moral statement.
kolovrat,
The Jews fear/hate Christianity that’s why they make war against it, that’s one reason why I support it. And, also, it gives people comfort believing in an afterlife.
Severus,
I don’t think the Anglo war against the American Indians was unjust.
The Anglo-Indian war was perfectly natural and was what nature intended men to do. Remember Tom Cruise said General Custer was a murderer ? how pathetic. Custer helped win a new home for millions of Americans and this is the thanks he gets. If the shoe was on the other foot, then the Indians would have done to us what we did to them.
The Jewish intellectual covert war against we Aryans is also natural. Nature intended the races to fight for superiority, and if you don’t fight you become a slave.
I suppose KM’s next post will be on Noah Feldman’s article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28feldman.html?pagewanted=2
KM will no doubt tackle the article on two fronts – that of Jews cudgeling the WASP to death, while intrinsically buttressing Feldman’s argument that the WASP was indeed more open than other elites and this has led to its downfall.
Since Feldman ends with the hope that non-WASP elites are to emulate the WASP in its openness, KM will no doubt raise the specter of the Jewish elite in the USSR as an example of “no way Jose” and from the on its the decline of the West.
KM’s finishing touch will no doubt be= WASP decline = White decline. Jewish rise = rise of the darkies. KM will also pounce on Feldman’s hypocricy of being a Jew, and presenting the Supreme Court as Catholic and Jewish, when in reality it is Anti-White, and the dominant group is now Jewish. The last being a valid criticism of Feldman’s article.
What both Feldman and KM are likely to miss, is that the arguments for a homogeneous WASP elite are simply hog-wash. The Irish like to bang on about discrimination, as do Wops, but the truth of the mater is that America had been an open book from its foundation. For every Brahmin family one could find self-made millionaires on the Frontier. Jews in particular, were part of the original WASP elite, and plenty a political institions existed to keep individuals of different faiths, active in one civic venue.
In as much as the WASP elite ever existed, its main attributed consisted of hyper-individualism – not exclusiveness nor nepotism. It was an open elite in any sense of the word. The New York stock exchange was founded in the late 18th century by no less than 1/3 a Jewish body. The Richest man in America at the start of the Revolution was a Bostonian of Jewish extraction and Catholic faith, and as I tirelessly stress, Jews supported the South, not the North in the great waste known as the un-Civil War.
In short, it is neither the Jewish nature of the new elite that is leading to a decline of the White race, nor the decline of the WASP elite. Feldman misses the elephant in the room. The Supreme Court is neither meritocratic nor representative of Americas elites which remain preponderantly Jewish-Protestant, because the Court is basically an Affirmative Action institution with libJewish whores who muscle their way in via control of the Affirmative Action spoils machine.
That libJews are a race apart, from real Jews such as myself, is proven by their complete ignorance of religious maters, and the distance between them, and the old Jewish American elites, which were a solid part of America’s majority White culture, for which they fought and died, from the foundation of this land to the very last Great War.
ad TicTac,
Not wishing to inflame or prolong the Christianity question but surely you realize that Christianity was as much shaped by N Europea values as the other way about. (Cf. fixing a date for Christmas; and why is Easter called Easter.) Moreover, even restricting ourselves to the New Testament gives us any number of mutually contradictory pictures of Jesus’ teaching (rather like the tales of the “holocaust survivors”). In some JC is the humanitarian par excellance, in some a mean spirited crank, in a showman performing tricks for the rubes, …
While I share what I presume is your enthusiasm for the sentiments of the Sermon on the Mount (“Blessed are the cheesemakers, …”), Caba is quite right in pointing out that the person of Christ is irrelevant to the sentiments expressed. I prefer National Socialism as a more consistent and consistently humanitarian point of view, and Mr Hitler never claimed the ability to walk on water. Still, to each his own I suppose.
apologies for goofy typos.
You know an odd feeling? Sitting on the toilet eating a chocolate candy bar.
Sent from my iPhone 4GYou know an odd feeling? Sitting on the toilet eating a chocolate candy bar.
Sent from my iPhone 4G