There seems to be a certain moral fervor in many of us Whites. It’s apparent among the Puritans and some of their noisier descendants, the abolitionists of the 19th century. They waged Holy War on behalf of righteousness (see also here), often on against their own people on behalf of people quite a bit unlike themselves.
I was reminded of that while watching The Constant Gardener, a film starring Ralph Fiennes as Justin Quayle, a minor British diplomat posted to Kenya who is married to crusading humanitarian activist Tessa, played by Rachel Weisz. We see her originally holding forth in a room crowded with journalists blaming the British government for what’s going on in Africa, her rhetoric so extreme that the room quickly empties. Although Tessa gets married to the White diplomat, her heart is in all things African. We see her flirting with an African doctor, openly consorting with him at a high-level cocktail party, then opting to have his baby in a hospital swarming with poor Africans, except for the White nurses and doctors. The birth of the baby happens as though it is part of the natural order of things—the husband is just fine with it, acting as if there’s nothing to notice, while the father of the baby looks on proudly. Tessa’s only thought is to help the poor African girl in the next room.
Tessa and her African lover, amidst the squalor
Oddly, we are given only brief glimpses of the baby—as if the director didn’t think the audience would be quite ready to relate to the child of a married White woman and her very African lover—although, it must be said, we now have a president who was conceived under broadly similar conditions.
But the real story here is the psychological— the emascululation of the husband and the wife’s attraction to all things African, including her lover. Evolutionary psychologists have made a good case that humans have brain modules designed to safeguard our interests in the mating game. Men are designed to attempt to punish cheating wives and to make sure that the children they raise are biologically theirs. One can’t help feeling the tension in the scene with the miscegenated baby. We expect at least that Justin would feel anger and betrayal, perhaps get a divorce and somehow find a way to get this experience behind him.
The official posters highlight the happily cuckholded Justin.
But he does nothing. And later she humiliates him in front of her African lover, berating him for using a pesticide. The African lover gives sage advice to the husband—to accept her moral vision — a moral vision that extends even to insects. White men must understand that they would do well to heed the advice of a wise African.
For Justin, to get upset about his wife’s behavior would oppose his own idealism. After all, he was immediately attracted to her moral fervor from the beginning. He loves her independence and her moral intensity.
But Justin isn’t the only one whose behavior flies in the face of nature. All things equal, we are designed to mate with people like ourselves because doing so means that spouses will be more compatible and more closely related to their children. Of course, there are other factors in the mating game. No one is surprised when someone marries a wealthy person of a different race. But that’s not what’s going on here. Tess is attracted to her African lover because he is everything she and her husband are not. Her attraction to her Black lover is part of her love of all things African and rejection of all things English.
It is attraction to a non-White moral and aesthetic ideal. Whites are at the root of all evil. The White-owned drug companies are testing a new anti-tuberculosis drug despite harmful side effects on Africans. There is collusion with White British diplomats who know full well what’s going on and do nothing in their daily lives to end the suffering they see all around them.
She sees nothing but beauty in Africans. When she dies, she wants to be buried so that her remains are in contact with the African soil, not encased in a concrete tomb. We see her embracing African children, seeing them as supremely beautiful. She gives birth in an African hospital rather than a “proper clinic,” as a White character describes it. She must experience what the Africans experience.
Tessa amidst Africans, holding an infant
Tessa wears her African moral and aesthetic ideal as a badge. It is the beginning and end of her identity. She wears her badge despite the miserable living conditions of the Africans—the garbage strewn everywhere, the open sewers—all presumably the fault of Western greed and corruption. I doubt one could talk with her for five minutes without finding her returning to the themes of her obsession. Nothing else matters. One would think that when her baby was born she would think of little else, but her thoughts are on her campaign to uncover corruption by the drug company. She has no compunctions about offering sex and then potentially ruining the career of a (White) diplomat in order to obtain information that would help end what the drug companies are doing to the Africans.
So a theme is moral idealism and its ability to supercede our most basic evolutionarily adaptive tendencies—an academic interest of mine (e.g., here). Tessa and Justin are exemplars of White moral and aesthetic idealism, the commitment of so many of us to moral and aesthetic visions (one might even say, imperatives) fundamentally at odds with some of the deeper layers of our evolved psychology.
This moral idealism can be seen in what Christopher Donovan calls the “Amy Biehl Syndrome” after Amy Biehl, the American anti-Apartheid activist who was murdered by a mob of South Africans. We see it in Rachel Corrie, the American pro-Palestinian activist who was brutally murdered by Israeli bulldozer. It is a tendency quite common among Whites, noticeable particularly in the Puritan strain of American culture. It’s pervasive among Whites in the academic world.
This altruism on behalf of the other is often accompanied by punishment of one’s own people—the phenomenon of altruistic punishment. They will move heaven and earth to destroy their own people on behalf of a moral ideal. In the current cultural environment, people like Tessa would be expected to favor the entire program of the multicultural left as a moral imperative—no sacrifice would be too great.
What to do? One could remind such a person of the moral implications of inflicting the White populations of the West with multiculturalism — especially when support for multiculturalism and support for their own demographic and political eclipse have never been majority views among Whites. What is needed is to pay more attention to the morality of infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the White majority. Everyone has rights and everyone has interests. The interests and rights of Whites as a majority are no less morally legitimate than anyone else’s rights. Whites must jettison the ideal of moral universalism and ask what is good for the future of Whites.
But such a line of argument will have little impact on people so deeply committed to moral universalism. Moral universalists have a long track record of having little concern for those close to home while they turn their eyes far afield. As David Morris notes,
This perverse attitude grew from the Victorian middle class influenced by evangelical Christianity, which believed it had a duty to ‘save’ unchristian natives. It became a preference over the British working class which endures today. Characteristic of this is Mrs Jellyby in Dickens’s Bleak House, whose eyes ‘had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off, as if they could see nothing nearer than Africa’. Like the elites she neglected those around her, including notoriously her own children.
Moral idealism runs deep among Whites—indeed, my view is that it is part of our evolutionary psychology (see here, p. 19ff). In any case, appeals to the morality of particularism would not cure the aesthetic deformation that is at the heart of the problem. Such people’s gut feelings see nothing but beauty, psychological and physical, in even the most backward Third Worlder. They are implicitly anti-White. (Actually, it would be interesting to have her take an Implicit Attitudes Test. Findings indicate around 75-80% of Whites take longer to associate adjectives like ‘intelligent’ and other positive attributes to Black than to Whites. [Reviewed here.] I suspect Tessa would be in the minority of Whites for whom this is not the case.)
A certain amount of contemporary moral and aesthetic idealism among Whites must be attributed to the media deluge of recent decades. Such tendencies may indeed be part of the biology of individualism, but they are surely exacerbated by non-stop images such as contained in The Constant Gardener—doubtlessly accounting for the deluge of positive movie reviews. Adopting non-White children and sponsoring poor and oppressed immigrants to the West is nothing if not fashionable. Again, the power of the media to intensify or minimize our natural tendencies. Wearing badges identifying one as an upholder of contemporary moral conventions is an excellent way to win the respect and adulation of others.
After the revolution, the media will be controlled to depict characters like Tessa as deranged, naïve individuals who inevitably bring destruction to themselves and their people. Dystopic, even dangerous futures, such as depicted in Alex Kurtagic’s Mister, would be discussed as the inevitable consequence of such attitudes—predictable because such sentiments are vanishingly rare among non-Whites who would then have political power over Whites. As repeated endlessly here, it is the ultimate folly for an ethnic group to voluntarily cede power to other ethnic groups, especially when these non-White groups hold historical grudges against Whites. Moral and aesthetic universalism would be seen as valuable traits in the small, homogeneous White societies they evolved in because they break down the primitive ties of extended kinship and stifling collectivism that form the basis of social behavior in the rest of the world. However, they are dangerous in the modern world when they result in altruism toward people not only very unlike us, but unlike us in ways that ensure a very dangerous road ahead when Whites become minorities in the societies they created.
Everything we know about psychology shows that our rational faculties can suppress our evolved tendencies. Moral and aesthetic universalism are no different as biological tendencies among Whites that need to be controlled in order to produce adaptive behavior—no different, say, from controlling ethnocentrism or our evolved mating psychology. (A great deal of psychological research [see above, p. 1022] shows that White people do in fact engage in effortful control of ethnocentrism, usually to protect their reputation in politically correct environments like universities.)
These biological tendencies can be controlled. And the fact that such traits are hardly universal among Whites will make it all the easier. But first we have to obtain a media presence where we can clearly and articulately make the argument for moral and aesthetic particularism as a rational necessity in the modern world.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Whites are slowly waking to reality due to the changing demographics and loss of political power. But they are much slower to grasp the machinations of Jewish media to shape public opinion which have been in the works since the 1960′s (100 Rifles, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, The Defiant Ones, etc). (See also Norman Lear, Aaron Spelling).
The term ‘ethnocentrism’ is still a term unfamilar to whites. Only due to Jewish hyper-ethnocentricity have whites started to grasp the idea. Jews have had a 2,000 year head start and are using all their experience against the white majority.
But obtaining a media presence would be a major challenge. The Jews would block any attempt for Gentiles to have a public outlet to voice their concerns. At present they are even working feverishly to ban such dialogue, even on the internet, with ever increasing ‘hate crime’ legislation.
Hopefully in the future as whites become more aware of their increasingly dire situation will concrete change begin to somehow take place to alter the full-court Jewish press to keep white altruism in check.
**NOTE ABOUT THE MOVIE PLOT**
I hate to differ with Dr. MacDonald, but Rachel Weisz’s character in this movie did not have a sexual relationship with the black doctor. It was a plot device from her husband’s perspective of his insecurity as they became further apart, but it was revealed by her friend to him after her death that (1) she had only a working relationship with the black doctor, and (2) the black doctor was gay, and had a male partner outside of his marriage.
She had her husband’s baby in the hospital, and it was stillborn. Because she had milk, and the other woman died of the insecticide effects, she was nursing the dead woman’s baby.
We must not forget the endless retelling of the Anne Frank story to young children too young to protect themselves. The lectures on this horrid story relentlessly stressed that any decent person would have stood up for all Jews in Nazi Germany. Rachel Corrie does not seem to get the same respect. We see how the Israelis honored her courage.
Ah, the miracle girl Anne Frank. Miraculous only in the fact that portions of her “diary” were composed in ball point pen, a device that wasn’t commercially available (and then initially only in the U.S.) until 7 months after her death. Like so many other “miracles” of the Holocaust™ easily dismissed with facts in hand. Rachel Corrie will unfortunately never get the honors and accolades her courage deserves, the Zionist controlled media will see to that.
I am intrigued by the idea that some of the maladaptive moralism of Whites is driven by status seeking. In most cases you can sense the striving of the Whites involved to separate themselves from the majority of Whites around them and gain, through massive self-sacrifice (and sacrifice of their kin) some higher level of prestige.
Could this be maladaptive status seeking via a “moral vision”? In other words, a way of elevating themselves above their “competition” (other Whites) that has gone awry? In almost ever case I have ever seen these White liberals want it to be KNOWN that they are turning their backs on Whites and Western Civilization. It is a point of pride with them (despite all the hang wringing guilt).
I think there is something to the idea of “competitive altruism” whereby Whites try to achieve status by adopting Black babies, etc. That’s why I included Sandra Bullock. But it seems more than that. People like Tessa (and there are such people) pursue their moral vision even though they are vilified for it. About the only White person who approves of her conduct is her husband. Pretty much everyone else thinks she is crazy or someone who must be opposed at all costs.
David Morris said:
“This perverse attitude grew from the Victorian middle class influenced by evangelical Christianity, which believed it had a duty to ‘save’ unchristian natives. It became a preference over the British working class which endures today.”
In fact, we just had that sermon in church today. According to our pastor, we need to, among other things, enhance the third world’s perception of us (Christians.)
The problem is this: How much more has Christianity already done for non-Christian cultures (in terms of outside economic aid/relief/charity from affluent countries) than Islam, Judaism, or other religions have done for cultures outside of their own? Answer: much more. And what, exactly, has that accomplished? A universal love for Christianity throughout the world? More than Buddhism? More than Hinduism? No.
If Jesus fed the 5000, he probably could’ve fed the whole world, but didn’t. Why not? Apparently, that wasn’t the point. And yet here are Christians two thousand years later still trying to feed and physically save the third world. When OUR divorce rate is close to 60%. When 28% of OUR children (white —71% black) are born outside of marriage. These crusaders believe their version of the bible and nothing else…not their eyes, not their ears, not their God-given intelligence or intuition.
Fervent Bible worshipping Christians (as opposed to sane God worshipping Christians) sometimes also latch on to these words of Jesus: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”
Jesus, the Destroyer – destroyer of families…of communities…of cultures. All in the name of Jesus. Nothing is sacred, only God. Your family no longer matters, you’ve got a new family now – the family of God, which recognizes no territorial, ethnic or racial boundaries. Your cultural and racial heritage are meaningless, if not worthless. It’s this Jesus who has been taken out of social context for the last couple centuries or so.
Actually, Jesus came (in part) to destroy the hypocritical jewish power structure of two thousand years ago. THAT was the culture he came to destroy, and in doing so would set brother against brother, etc. Those are the people Jesus was talking to, not Christian based majorities two thousand years later (flawed as they may be.) As I said in a recent post, it was noted a few years ago that Korea send more Christian missionaries to the US than the US sends to Korea. A good sign that the West needs to take care of the West.
long ago when the europeans knelt down and worshiped a jewish gawd, that was the end of them. Christianity was the start of euro mans downfall, now that euros are largely abandoning that false religion, they are taking up a new one….the direct worship of the jews themselves…and the colored slaves who serve the jews. The only solution is to awaken our own inner god, and worship ourselves once again. supremacy works for the jews.
It’s an interesting exercise to self-analyse as a white person. I can feel the pull of moral universalism strongly within my own psychology (and see it plainly as a family trait) and have no doubt that it has an evolved biological basis, especially among Northern European populations. This is why, I guess, socialism and multiculuralism has taken such a firm grip in the Scandinavia. Despite this, I can see that cultural messages are still critical in that they can positively or negatively reinforce this innate tendency. I notice that when I go on a ‘media diet’ where I watch little or no television I gradually feel more ethnocentric and culturally conservative. It’s a strange thing but I’ve definately noticed it. Then if I go back to watch the standard Hollywood fare I feel much more offended by the multiculturalism and white-bashing than I normally do – but after a while it somehow seems less offensive. The crucial role of culture explains, I guess, why Jews have historically seized control of it whenever and whereever they can – and then held onto this control with an iron grip.
Hmm, I don’t know Doc. You seem to have watched an entirely different movie than the one described at wiki or imdb, or the one described here:
http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/constantgardener.html
The synopsis given at the link says the baby was born dead, and that it later is revealed that the negro doctor she was allegedly having an affair with was a homosexual. Also, it’s Ralph Fiennes, not John Fiennes.
Whether this movie is a good example or not, I agree with your general theme, however. White men are consistently depicted as weak and ineffectual, easily cuckolded by their women, who are particularly liable to consort with negroes when available. Britney Spears’ music video “Toxic”, which I mentioned and linked to a couple of threads back, is a good example of this. All the White men in the video are depicted as weak, and the only romantic moment that she seems to sincerely enjoy, even to the point of a kind of metaphoric orgasm, is with the handsome negro on the motorcycle. He drives her to a skyscraper containing a penthouse apartment, which she breaks into and then kills the elite White man who lives there. Quite the role model for young White girls, isn’t she? The subliminal messages are highly subversive, all the more so for not being explicitly stated.
The baby is Black and it’s made very clear that they are having an affair. Wikipedia is quite clear that the homosexual is another White doctor named Bluhm who is suspected of an affair with Tessa and being involved in her murder but neither is true. Unsurprisingly, he is having a homosexual affair with a Black man–perhaps a male version of Tessa, but we don’t actually see much of him.
The baby at the hospital is not Tessa’s. Tessa’s baby dies at the hospital and Tessa is nursing the baby of a black woman who is dying in the bed a few paces down, Wanza. The woman is dying at the hands of the white Dr. Lorbeer, who was pumping her with Dypraxa. Tessa and Arnold Bluhm are not having an affair, he is gay! And Arnold Bluhm is the black doctor.
“Could this be maladaptive status seeking via a ‘moral vision?’ … a way of elevating themselves above their ‘competition’ (other Whites) that has gone awry? ”
Maybe a kind of “Heaven on Earth” (since traditional notions of a heaven in the sky are no longer in vogue.)
The thing is, given the evil nature of whites/Europeans, this attraction to and embracing of non-whiteness that white liberals so adore can only “denegrate” and “corrupt” said non-whiteness. In other words, if they really loved Africa, they’d stay the hell away from it.
Rachel Weisz is a Jewess. She’s not “White”. Based on the pics chosen from the film – she’s looking more Jewish all the time. As is the repulsive Helena Bonham Carter. She’s a Rothschild.
She is indeed Jewish. Perhaps I should have mentioned that, but she didn’t write the screenplay and so far as I could tell, she was not portrayed as Jewish. Kevin M
i am very ethnocentric and have been since childhood when i was raised to have great and deep pride in my danish heritage. A note on the constant gardener.. rachel weisz is not white as difined by jews. they do not see themselves as white. rachel is a jewess and does not define herself as white but as a jewess. whites being people of germanic heritage.
JIm says “In other words, if they really loved Africa, they’d stay the hell away from it.”
Yes, this seems like the big contradiction that they never confront. If Whites are so evil, why do they seek to pollute Africans with our genes and culture? Which probably means they have no authentic desire to help Africans on their own terms. They see sacrificing Whites as a way of gaining prestige with no real concern for who the sacrifice is supposed to help. Rather like the woman described in Bleak House.
Idealism has been a threat, perhaps the threat to European man for a very long time. It’s like a prepetual ripe fruit constantly falling into the lap of Jewish supremacy. They merely exploit it.
Sure, people can say that Tessa and her husband and the black man for that matter were all created for the propaganda purposes and nothing more. But the fact is what Tessa really represents is woman under the fury of sex and the fury of spirit. Both of these were important themes in William Faulkner’s work. In fact, a book central to an understanding of his work, The Fable, has as it’s very theme the threat of Idealism. And what is Idealism a threat to? Reality, of course.
And what is our reality? Our Reality is War. Not war is the military sense. But war in the sense that our struggle to manipulate the environment for our purposes is never ending. Our reality is that there is an irresolvable tension between us and the world that no idealism is ever going to eliminate.
This, it seems to me, should be the center of our focus. Meaning, anyone interested in European culture and it’s people, which of course include North Americans. Yes, it is very important to outline and name our basic problems, threats, and offenders. But we also need to see the pull of idealism in ourselves, which would include the more idealistic elements of WN, and how it can blind us to what we have done and are doing to our children.
We should be just as concerned, if not more, about understanding how we’ve abused our children, about family systems, and the historical period known as Romanticism, which gave birth to everything worth fighting and dying, from modern science, to the notion of the continually creative artist, to Darwin, and the principles of imperfection, change and growth, and so much more.
The Enlightenment, which marked what I think Hegel called the “diremption” of Western man, in to Right or Left, was and remains, too rationalistic and way too sentimental. Meaning, both emotionally, intellectually and morally, it is bankrupt. Who today would commit themselves to denying it? Just look all around you!
In fact, the Enlightenment has adopted key Romantic terms like “diversity” and fed them through the sentimental meat-grinder, with some rather disagreeable consequences. It’s like a form of psuedo-intellectual black magic. Just take the most advanced concepts and sprinkle them with lots of sentimentality and viola, you’ve got the PC cancer that is eating so much of the West alive today.
Time to just say No!
And we can!
Good news is, it’s exactly this sentimentality that will be the undoing of the hostile elite. From this perspective they truly are, as one professor of the tribe once told me, “the smartest and dumbest people at the same time.”
“In fact, the Enlightenment has adopted key Romantic terms like “diversity” and fed them through the sentimental meat-grinder, with some rather disagreeable consequences. ”
You mean “the Establishment”?? The Enlightenment, as a historic movement encompassed the Romantic period.
“It appears as though my comment did not appear so I will repeat it here:
John Fiennes as Justin Quayle…Tessa, played by Rachel Weisz”
When you get to a gentile let us know…
A lot of Whites spurn the idea that they are being organizationally and institutionally marginalized and demonized in what amounts to a racist campaign because they don‘t like to think of themselves as victims, or even capable of being victimized, but I have no such qualms, because I see what is going on today as a slow motion repeat of Marxist Jewry’s methodical demonization of White Christians to the point of attempted extermination and successful mass murder eventually carried by supremacist Jewry and its Communist partners. Supremacist Jewry is up to its old tricks again, only this time in addition to government, it is also employing mass cultural and socio-economic leverage as well, and working at a slower-motion pace.
As I see it, Christian universalism is a nearly insignificant component of this process of demonization. At worst, perhaps some malfunctioning, berserk Frankenstein version of liberal Christianity that in no way resembles authentic, Jewish antithesis Christianity is playing some role…kind of a left-wing version of Christian-Zionism.
But the traditional Christianity that is the touchstone of Western civilization? No way.
Excellent article, Dr. MacDonald.
This attitude you are describing is pervasive (far more) amongst women relative to men. Women’s caring instinct gone crazy–or another version of the “crazy cat collecting lady.”
I’ve heard it said that “xenophobia” is more common among men than women for evolutionary reasons. Basically, if a tribe is taken over by another tribe, it is the males that are most likely to be killed. The women may be saved – at least if they are of reproductive age. This leads to women being more willing to embrace “the other”, as they say. This seems to make sense. Males usually have more patriotic fervor.
However, I suspect many women would be horrified if what they were embracing was the destruction of their own extended families. I can only hope the Tea Party movement is slow awakening of the implicit Whiteness that MacDonald has written about.
But yes, it is the NWLs (Nice White Ladies) we have to fear the most.
Woman was made to love her little babies. Then love her grandchildren.
If she has no children to love she is going to love some other helpless creature. Plants, animals, the earth, but what is more pathetically helpless than an African in Africa?
These types of movies are prima facie examples of allegorical cultural subversion by the enemies within. They are an especially despicable part of the anti-White racial assault upon the West, because they present Whites as being egregiously despicable and degenerate. Cultural Bolshevism at its vilest.
Jeff Maylor: “I’ve heard it said that “xenophobia” is more common among men than women for evolutionary reasons. Basically, if a tribe is taken over by another tribe, it is the males that are most likely to be killed. The women may be saved – at least if they are of reproductive age. This leads to women being more willing to embrace “the other”, as they say. This seems to make sense. Males usually have more patriotic fervor. ”
I think that’s roughly correct. I’d add a couple of other things though. First, there’s a positive disincentive for racism to persist in females, because in such a conquered-tribe scenario as you describe, where the males are killed and the females are taken captive, any unwillingness of surviving females to embrace their male captors may impede their survival chances. Of course, one must also note that extremely racist women would kill themselves rather than be captured, thus taking themselves out of the evolutionary competition. Magda Goebbels, who in the Führerbunker killed herself and her children in the last days of WWII, is a good example. She left no descendants.
Also, from an evolutionary perspective, what does she care, anyway? The offspring of her captors will still share her genetics in substantially the same proportion as they would have before. Any sort of reluctance to betray her race or even hold a grudge would only be a negative in her new environment. For millions of years, women have lived through defeats and then given birth to the children of those who butchered their own fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons. We may not like to think about it, but from an evolutionary perspective, it is literally all the same to them.
Another factor is that historically, men have been the ones most responsible for constructing their race’s culture, not women. As a consequence, cultures most reflect the racial genetics of the men; they have specific strengths and weaknesses that reflect the men of the race that built them. Racism arises then because culture has such importance in determining the reproductive chances of its members, and where that culture is threatened, men have a vested interest in uniting together to mount a defense of it. Women, not so much.
Der weiße Engel,
Also, from an evolutionary perspective, what does she care, anyway? The offspring of her captors will still share her genetics in substantially the same proportion as they would have before.
Not if here captors had enough genetic distance from her; then her children would be much less related to her.
Now I admit that most wars in history have been between groups with relatively little real genetic distance between them, but this certainly hasn’t always been the case.
Not by a long shot.
Let’s use a historical example.
If a 17th Century Black woman was enslaved and taken to Virginia and impregnated by a White as opposed to a Black, it would’ve resulted in her children being in many cases less related to her than a random full-blooded Black.
In other words, FAR from roughly being as related to her child as she would’ve been without being captured, she’d see all her family level relatedness to the child wiped out.
She’s still be better off from an evolutionary perspective than any Black males who were killed by Whites, but not nearly as well off as you imply.
She’d actually have taken a massive and involuntary fitness hit.
I think that’s roughly correct. I’d add a couple of other things though. First, there’s a positive disincentive for racism to persist in females, because in such a conquered-tribe scenario as you describe, where the males are killed and the females are taken captive, any unwillingness of surviving females to embrace their male captors may impede their survival chances.
What percentage of females in history have been captured by enemy tribes?
Probably not enough for it to have the kind of general effect on female psychology you seem to think it did.
Why wouldn’t the effect, such as it exists, have been more context dependant?
It is true that the average man on the losing side in a war has lost more than the average woman on the losing side in a war.
This is partly because men are more likely to die in a losing campaign, and partly because war sometimes serves as a form of sexual competition between men.
Thus we’d expect the even greater salience of group conflict to male genetic fitness to make men more ethnocentric than women, on average.
Perhaps this helps explain why more Feminist societies are so weak in their expression of basic correlates of ethnocentrism.
But in spite of this, the women on the losing side of a conflict are also harmed greatly.
The genes of men more related to them are replaced with the genes of men less related to them, reducing their genetic fitness.
Well, I must be a Magda Goebbels because I am an extremely proud White woman and would rather die than submit to a non-White rape or sexual encounter. I see the point you are trying to make and I do agree with it to some extent, however please realize that there ARE White women out there that are deeply conscious of their race and would rather die than betray it. We are not all vacillating, morally bankrupt creatures with no racial identity or pride.
I personally could not feel any love for or kinship with a non-White child if I was to have one, I have a pure White daughter and she is gorgeous. I look into her blue eyes and see an extension of myself, something that would be impossible if I had reproduced with a non-White. The White gene is recessive and those Whites who mate and reproduce with non-Whites end up with children that will feel no kinship with, or allegiance to, the White side because the other side is dominant. One only has to remember high-school biology and Mendel Squares to see this. Racial identity is, IMO, of the utmost importance and should be preserved at all costs, and the only way to do so is to marry and reproduce with your own kind. My mother taught me this from a very early age, and I will teach my child(ren) the same. I often feel like I am fighting a losing battle, especially when I see the pervasive miscgenation in our society. I see so many Whites with non-Whites that I actually fear for our race and our future, but all I can do is teach my child what my mother taught me, that the White race is superior and that she must never, EVER defile herself by consorting with a non-White. If enough of us do this then we might have a chance…but with the Jew propaganda machine running at full blast, I am afraid that the future for our race is bleak. However, I am heartened to see other like-minded people, so perhaps all is not lost. White men may lose power, but I am not like the other rats, I will die in defense of, and beside my race and consider it an honor and a privilege to do so.
I have seen what “multiculturalism” has done to my state and my home, and I weep for the loss of the state that has been home to my ancestors since before it was even a state. I feel nothing but contempt and disgust for miscgenators and race traitors, but the transformation of my state, the (IMO) jewel of the United States, into a polyglot filth hole filled with diseased, smelly, hostile foreigners makes me even more determined to stand up and fight for what is right, just like my Confederate ancestors did. And I will die for those beliefs if need be. I hope and pray that other Whites wake up and do the same, or we will be utterly destroyed, and the world will go down in flames. The United States is on the fast track to becoming South Africa Jr, and I would rather die fighting than live cowering on my knees, under the yoke of the inferior, because I know what would be in store for a blonde, blue-eyed woman such as myself.
Oh, I remember someone on the comments here saying something about starting a White group in Alexandria or Falls Church VA in the fall….any more info on that? Despite being born and raised here, the only like-minded person I know is my mother. It gets awfully lonely, you know…and I want my daughter to be around others who can reinforce my beliefs and be a good influence on her so that she can see our ideals and beliefs on display. Sorry for the loooong comment (my first on here!) but I get so excited when I see other like-minded people that I just kinda….explode! Y’all keep it up please, our future depends on banding together and preserving our culture and ideals.
Der weiße Engel that makes sense and it is true that in a conquered tribe scenario, the cooperative women could at least pass on half their genes. This may mean women tend to adjust themselves to whomever has power – and if they sense White males are losing they may look around (fickle!).
Now one caveat to all that is what Frank Salter describes as “genetic distance” (I think that is the term he uses). Basically, he makes the point that if a Scandinavian and an African have a child, the Scandinavian mother actually has more in genetic common with any other random Scandinavian than her own child! That is the distance between her and her own child has become very large due to mating with the African.
Of course, throughout history the conquering tribe was actually quite close genetically (say Angles and Saxons). It was usually tribes within a race, not different races. Anyway, I’ve always thought it a powerful argument to point out that a White person’s half Mexican child may not be as related to them as any random White person they see on the streets.
For those that are interested here is the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Interests-Family-Humanity-Migration/dp/0820460648
Here is the wikipedia reference (of course take wiki with a grain of salt. Note that big wigs like EO Wilson and Robin Fox have endorsed this book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Genetic_Interests
Whoops, this is a link to a version of Frank Salter’s book that is still available:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1412805961/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0820460648&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0JT9QS6JYSQEPD871HEW
Jeff Maylor. Yes, I would concur. In evolutionary terms, a Scandinavian woman has a genotype that is closer to a Chinese than that of any African. Black Africans (the Negro) are genetically speaking, out on a limb with the rest of the world. That is not the same as asserting they are inferior … just that they are genetically more removed from Europeans than any other racial group. Therefore, to breed with them is absolute folly. One should remember just how recent anti-miscegenation laws in America actually are. It would appear our own recent ancestors had far greater wisdom than we have been timidly demonstrating these past 50 years.
I haven’t seen the film because I don’t like films without Happy End. But I’ve read the book which I found quite fascinating. And if it is true that in the film Tessa’s baby was spawned by her black lover, then it’s a dirty Hollywood invention. Because in the book her black friend is a homosexual, their relation is strictly research, Arap Moi’s Kenyans are a bunch of abominable Third World crooks, and the whole story is indeed about the Pharma giants who test a serum with deadly effects. There is one scene that sticks to my memory, namely an outlying UN support camp where a new arrival is asked not to leave the precincts after sunset. When she asks: Animals? the answer is: HUMAN animals!
Yesterday I’ve seen Mel Gibson’s EDGE OF DARKNESS and, the violence apart, found not only a perfect up-to-date thriller, but also deeply moving. Something the Spielberg’s of this world will never be able to produce, since there is one thing do not have and never will: a humane Christian heart.
@mcolhaze: I saw the movie myself and the movie makes it clear the baby was either born dead or died shortly after birth. The audience never actually sees the baby. Part of the reason is to prolong the uncertainty about the baby’s paternity so as not to spoil the plot. The plot reveals quite late that the supposed African lover is homosexual and it is because he is gay that his murderers torture and kill him.
Sorry, THEY do not have…
“After the revolution, the media will be controlled to depict characters like Tessa as deranged, naïve individuals who inevitably bring destruction to themselves and their people.”
Revolution? Tell me more! What revolution?
Jesus commanded his disciples “to make disciples of all nations”, not “to make one nation of all disciples”. In his very command, he recognized national divisions of peoples and races. Trying to make all believers into one nation (as opposed to one church) would seem to be going over and above what Jesus was requiring. In addition, the New Testament also warns about being “unequally yoked”, warning a believer not to be yoked in marriage to an unbeliever. Why don’t Christian pastors recognize that in like manner yoking a people immature in the faith and a new object of evangelization to a people more mature in the faith (through, e.g., unrestricted immigration) can have negative moral consequences for those people more mature in the faith?
Further, in a “Man for All Seasons” the point is made that St. Thomas More felt he had an affirmative duty to avoid martyrdom as long as he did not compromise his faith in so doing. This duty to avoid martyrdom was a consequence of his understanding of his Christian faith, not an insight outside of his faith. It was prudence in action. Thinking along these lines it would seem that Christian pastors have a duty to advocate positions concerning immigration, etc. that do not unduly jeopardize the safety of their own kind by ignoring, e.g., the heightened criminality of immigrant groups and inter-race competition. In fact, to ignore such concerns as inter-race competition and criminality would make Pastors the exact opposite of what they are supposed to be – shepherds of their flocks. Applying this reasoning it would seem the prudent course for a pastor contemplating, e.g., evangelization of a particularly warlike clan that the evangelization of the warlike clan occur where that clan is currently situated, rather than importing the warlike clan among one’s own kind where the clan can do avoidable violence to members of the Pastor’s own kind.
Most pastors nowadays only care about thier cushy gigs. They rarely visit their flock anymore, outside of the pretty building.
Dr. MacDonald,
I think you’re making far, far more of this than actually exists here. I don’t believe there’s any “psychological syndrome” going on here. Not “Amy Biehl Syndrome”, not “Rachel Corrie Syndrome”. (In fact, those syndromes don’t really exist.)
Nor is there any “moral holy war” going on here. Truth be told there’s no moral anything going on here, not in the case of Amy Biehl, not in the case of Rachel Corrie, not in the case of this movie character “Tessa”. These sorts of people do what they do for one reason and one reason only: to draw attention to themselves and show off. Yes, some of them get killed in the process, such as Biehl and Corrie, but that’s not moral martyrdom, not even martyrdom while crusading for a flawed morality. Because their actions had nothing to do with any morality, flawed or not flawed, they were simply seeking attention.
“They will move heaven and earth to destroy their own people on behalf of a moral ideal.”
I’ve never seen any leftist, “anti-racist”, or anybody else for that matter, go that far, unless they had a serious psychopathic mental disorder. Truth be told, when the going gets tough, even the most hardline “anti-racists”, etc., all fold. I’ve seen it happen. And that’s why they largely don’t exist beyond the West, where they’re given red carpet treatment by societal elites here. If they don’t receive the red carpet treatment that they get in the West, they simply don’t bother.
In other words, there really is no deep syndrome within white Europids which causes them to hate themselves, or to go on moral crusades against themselves. It is *all* about gaining status and attention under the current societal schema, and avoiding punishment and/or suspicion by bowing down to those who are truly in power.
“They will move heaven and earth to destroy their own people on behalf of a moral ideal.”
> I’ve never seen any leftist, “anti-racist”, or anybody else for that matter, go that far, unless they had a serious psychopathic mental disorder.
Dustin, I just got out of the hospital because of what a white FEMALE “anti-racist” did to me. They are incredibly violent people. Once I recover a bit more, I’ll hope to come back here and tell you what happened to me. My conversation with her barely touched on the topic of race; we were discussing why certain nations were better than others. I was trying to point out that diversity is not strength, but chaos and confusion. I hope to write more in a few days.
One can imagine a remake of “It’s a Wonderful Life” with one of these morally self-indulgent heroines (dupes) cast in the role of George Bailey. She is shown what her life would have been if she exercised prudence and stepped out of the way of the bulldozer or avoided a menacing crowd and returned to her own kind to raise a loving family AND continue evangelizing for whatever cause she was interested in. Heck, she might grow in wisdom and learn how foolish she was to jeopardize her life for some cultural marxist scam camouflaged as a moral movement.
Sounds awful, a far cry from Tinker, Tailor.
as a few other commenters have suggested, you’ve got the movie all wrong. the black baby was the baby of the dying mother she was worried about in the hospital. her baby was white, was justin’s, but died. the black doctor who they INSINUATE she is having an affair with is really a homosexual, and must hide this fact or be killed. they are simply working together to unearth the truth about big pharma testing new drugs on unwitting african lives (read: murdering innocent africans).
the reason justin seems “cuckolded” is because he confronts her expecting an affair, but is wrong about the whole thing and feels ashamed for not wholly trusting his wife. this is where all the tension comes from. she is sad he didn’t trust her as well.
all in all, the movie is NOTHING like what you’ve described and it really a fantastic, very , very well done adaptation of an also fantastic book.
i’d suggest you watch the movie again and not let your own prejudices get in the way of seeing things clearly.
First of all, concerning the CONSTANT GARDENER, there was no love affair between the married woman and the African guide. Get it straight. Another fact remains that white people can be blamed for much, but even they are slaves. They have been enslaved by Zionism. Virtually every crime they have committed has been not by ordinary Christian whites, but by Zionist whites. The whites get blamed for a lot, but maybe those accusers had better start being more careful whom they really mean. Even the long suppressed Semitic people know what it is like to suffer at the hands of Zionist Jews.
@Ian: How come there was a black baby? How come she kept touching him, travel with him, etc.? I am willing to accept being wrong about this, but the movie certainly goes out of its way to depict a very close relationship between them and that is all that is necessary for the article. Her relationship with him, whatever it was, is part of her idealization of all things African. Kevin M
In response to the author of this post I have to say unequivocally having READ the BOOK, the baby was Justin’s and was born stillborn. That is mentioned clearly several times in the book and the baby was another’s that she was nursing. There was no affair and no white Doctor Bluhm.
My take is different. I saw the movie as being about a trendy young know it all who needs a sugar daddy to pay the bills while she goes out and plays humanitarian. I think we all know one of these bimbos. This movie is vile as well as the anti white under lying message. But alas the tool to our destruction is evident in our relationships with women like these.
Weisz? Sounds hebrew.
Like Herr Colhaze, I’ve read the book, and like Professor MacDonald, I’ve seen the flicker. For what it’s worth, my recollections of the one and the other conform with theirs. May I add that, while The Constant Gardener is by no means my favorite among the many Le Carré novels I’ve read, it is overall quite beautifully written, as lamentable as much of its psychology and many of its presuppositions may be.
I can also confirm HA’s guess that the book is “a far cry from Tinker, Tailor,” certainly so far as the genre question is concerned. In common with most of Le Carré’s novels, however, its characters compose a vipers’ tangle. Few if any have clean hands, and no one, even saintly Tessa, is free of ulterior motives. Of course, since the author kills her off before the proper action of the novel has even begun, her own ulterior motives must needs be gleaned from the talk of the remaining vipers and fools. Structurally speaking, this is a brilliant stroke, in that it absolves the author from the charge of building a realistic novel around the moral equivalent of a sylph or some similar creature born of the literature of fantasy and opium dreams. Still, alert and attentive readers are free to fault Le Carré for the implicit cowardliness of evading his own moral and structural principles through the deus ex machina of a plot twist. Yet from the cocoon of such cowardliness has many a fascinating and even powerful book emerged.
There is, of course, little point in dwelling upon the motives of the moviemakers. Neither subtlety nor justice nor conflicts involving moral underpinnings, structural devices, and formal principles concern them in the least. For them, it’s quite enough to piss on white post-Christian Europeans, whether they are Big Government or Big Pharma types or lesser mortals like thou and me, and make a pretty penny whilst doing so.
I don’t think it is wrong to stand up and fight for what you believe in. Because none of us act on perfect knowledge mistakes will be made, but this doesn’t make acting wrong.
Rachel Corrie made no mistakes. She was not murdered by those she was trying to help. She was fighting in Palestine for all of us not just the Palestinians. She understood the situation and had the heart of a lion.
I think Rachel Corrie, Kathy Kelly and other White (women) activists on behalf of Palestinian or Iraqi causes are unintended consequences of cultural Marxism. Media, governmental, and academic portrayals of Arabs could hardly be further from sympathetic. See the book/documentary “Reel Bad Arabs”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel_Bad_Arabs
Cultural Marxism is reflected in policy, as Arabs face the stick of the American military, while Blacks and Africans (men) are enticed with the carrot of peaceful communion with Western culture (White women).
While I am practicing the pseudoscience of psychiatry without a license, permit me to add that I am convinced—on the basis of no evidence whatsoever except my own experience of the Tribe’s clout in the literary and publishing worlds—that Le Carré was badly burned by the charges of anti-Semitism that fell upon him like a ton of bricks when The Little Drummer Girl was published (1983, if memory serves). I am certain that he thought that book embodied an evenhanded portrayal of the Realpolitikers among both Israelis and Palestinians. Once denounced, he was quick to grasp that only damn fools and anti-Semites™ failed to see that where Israel or Jewish interests were involved, the very notion of evenhandedness was thoughtcrime.
In the intervening twenty-seven years the range of proscribed topics and attitudes has broadened incalculably. Little wonder, then, that Le Carré’s novels have grown ever subtler, ever more peevish, ever less openly supportive of anything that could come back to bite him in the ass. The only clue that he is not so entirely blind as he seems to what’s going on with Tessa, Tessa’s masters, and similar dupes and enemies of traditional Western principles is a single line of dialogue (p. 24) where a world-weary, seen-it-all hotelier named Wolfgang tells British diplomatic officials about Arnold Bluhm, Tessa’s spiritus rector, leading a party of “fat cats in the aid game. World food, world health, world expense accounts. Bastards spent a mountain of money, wanted receipts for twice the amount.”
Granted, one line doesn’t weigh heavy in the balance of a 500-page novel, but it’s still worth noting that this one sure as hell didn’t get included in the film script!
Pierre de Crayon
As far as I remember, LeCarré wasn’t accused in any way for anti-semitism because of the LITTLE DRUMMER GIRL. Rather the opposite. TIME, of all papers, run a two page laudatio about it. And if you look at it closely, Mossad chaps like Kurtz seem like human beings with all the reason on their side, as opposed to the Palestinian terrorist who thinks the only way out is to create a bit of fuss in Europe itself. What upsets this scenario is again only one line, namely when Gadi Becker wonders if Israel is on the way of becoming a nasty littled Spartan state. Prophetic words indeed.
And thanks for calling me HERR Colhaze. Very sweet, I love it.
Herr Colhaze: I had quite forgot the Time cover or else never saw it back then. What I do vividly recall were two televised news conferences, where one scribbling hack after another, in words slightly altered from instance to instance, in effect asked the same question: “Is it true, as reports say, that your new book is an attack on Israel?” I gave him enormous credit for giving a different long answer to each questioner, despite the fact that all the answers were reducible either to “no” or to “not to my knowledge.”
What strikes me in retrospect about these scenes is that Le Carré seemed to exude sangfroid from every pore, whereas the coarseness and the sneering hostility of the press corps would have rattled me badly—before it angered me uncontrollably, that is. (Fat chance, of course, that I would ever have been in a similar situation.) Say what you like about a British public school education, an Oxbridge degree, and several years in Her Majesty’s security services; they sure as shootin’ prepare you to deal with the two-legged swine of the Fourth Estate!
Sangfroid notwithstanding, the plain fact is that his subsequent books have trod ever so carefully through this minefield—except, that is, when they go miles and miles out of their way to avoid it. Since Le Carré is neither a prophet nor a historian by trade, I don’t blame him for attempting to sidestep disaster. How could I in good conscience? Like most of the other commenters here, I use a nom d’Internet to post. If I’m ever well enough to work again, I’d like to be allowed to by our rulers.
There is going to be a film made of a very similar real life case based Some reviews of the book here Emma’s War by Deborah Scroggins.
There’s ample material out there for a series of WN movies to be produced AFTER we take over … I look forward to seeing The Turner Diaries, Hunter, The Virus etc. on the big screen (just as much as I look forward to seeing copies of The Constant Gardener lying in the gutter amongst other zio-trash out of sacked video- and bookshops).
And everything since Le Carre’s Cold War spy novels is just pandering to the demands of his kosher mafiosi publishers and paying his bills… and you don’t pay your bills by writing novels about Heroic White Christians clearing Cannibals out of the Congo or Einsatzgruppen clearing the Eastern Front of evil zio-bolsheviks…. and anyway Rachel among Africans would in reality have caught some horrible disease and died within months if not weeks of arrival.
That’s the absolutely brutal truth of it. Until we realize we are under attack as a race, by an extremely cunning and utterly ruthless opponent who has already killed countless millions of our people, until we come right out and NAME THE JEW, we don’t stand a chance. We HAVE been defeated for over 100 years. Look at the last World war. Victory meant enslaving half of Europe for generations and the deaths of millions of people of OUR BLOOD. Look at the financial turmoil in the World today, all of it is no accident and is designed to destroy our people and bring about the NWO. If we could expose the barbarous Zionists role in 911 to the man on the street, that they murdered 3,000 people in broad daylight and because of their ownership of the World Media they have been covering it up for nine years we would make headway. But even that is not as important as coming to a position where we actually and openly NAME the Jew.
Great article, K-MAC!
Hostage brides go back thousands of years among Euros. A chief sends a daughter to be the wife of another chief and there is peace in the valley because in due course the ruling chiefs are all related!
But these tribes were related too. The custom goes on among UNRELATED tribes because, dammit, when Euros get a habit, they just NEVER let go. Silly buggers.
So now we make ourselves hostage wives and hubbies because in strange places, our individualism allows us to believe we’re making Peace on Flippin’ Earth when we make foreigners less foreign by marriage. This is not theoretical in my case: No less than FIVE military guys married Filipina girls in the 60s and 70s when I was in. Proximity did it all, there were huge US bases in that country. Still, these were good guys. Again, back home the potential White Wives were embracing feminism and lesbianism. Man, Euros are GOOD at making a hash of things!
In a roundabout sort of way, did Hitler come close to the right idea? Has plan seems to have included making a Euro blood religion at some point down the road. Certainly Euros take their gods seriously and a change in that direction could be a game-changer. Even Christianity has some fine xenophobia built right in. As times get grimmer, party gals like Rachel W. will lose their luster. For some of us they never had much to begin with.
I agree with Lawrence, “Excellent article, Dr. MacDonald.” Thanks for the hard work you put into this article.
Re: Pierre’s comments, realpolitik is interesting: Le Carre was the darling of the Jewish critics when he was (arguably) assigning “moral equivalency” between the Soviets and the West, not so when he applied it to Israel-Palestine.
It also occurs to me that the constant theme here is the emasculation of the British ruling class: both George Smiley and Oliver Lacon were openly cuckolded. Momentarily at dinner in Smiley’s People, insufferable Lacon actually considers turning the powers of his office against his young punk rival, but even then he just doesn’t have it in him. “Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way” says Pink Floyd.
Just so. The Israel-firsters cut him loose for good when The Russia House hit the streets. Do you remember a neocon rag immodestly called Insight, the plaything of a bunch of adolescents from the Washington Times who wanted their own sandbox? I recall the rag’s review of Russia House, which was written by a guy called Terry Teachout. The review described the book’s central underlying presumption—utter disillusion with the Cold War—as a betrayal of everything George Smiley stood for and in virtually so many words declared Le Carré a traitor to the West. (I assume he meant West Jerusalem.)
You’d think a critic would be embarrassed to write something that dumb, wouldn’t you? It’s kind of like telling everyone that your senior prom date stood you up for a guy who was taller and smarter and had better breath.
Dr MacDonald, I realize that the Tess character is not Jewish. The book, however, based on the commentary of other posters on this thread, indicates that the storyline, and thus the intent, of the orgininal book has been wholly subverted.
Quel surpise.
Rachel Weisz is a Jewess, but she is not playing the part of a Jewess. Jews are responsible for so many for the disastrous social policies Whites are blamed for, by Jews. The casting of a Jewish actress, in this subverted and subversive film is flawlessly, bitterly perfect.
We need to relentlessly cite this fact. I know that you are well-known (if not notorious ; } ) for doing this; I simply think that we should never flag in “giving credit where credit is due”
She represents modernity’s obsession with the sanctimonious “self”. Detached from all earthly laws, the self hovers above the universe seeking godhood.
White women are hardly worth the effort or a moments concern to intelligent men. In reality, they are raving hypocrites of the worst stripe. For years they have whined, complained, and now use race as bait, as if they are superior partners. White women are manipulator’s and are gaming men of all races. It’s like a hobby to them. They don’t care about anyone but themselves and I personally believe they are generally incapable of love. Lust and thinking with their hormones they score an B+. Men that are desperate to bed a white woman and become her man-servant, placing her on an undeserved pedestal get their just desserts sooner or later. If nothing else guys like me laughing at them as they walk by looking for the ‘race reaction’ to their not so unique choice of partner. Go for it, girls, have a ball. Some men are too stupid to see through your shallow view of the world.
Wow. Way to go.That charming rhetoric will draw in White women, in a flash! (I thought that the whole point of all of this is to make sure the White Race exists. If White men don’t mate with White women – no White babies. But I am a stupid evil White female. What do I know?)
Now – go and do the Bardamu Thang, and tell White men to hook up with Asian females cause Slants are so feminine and mysterious.. Go ahead. I’l stop back.
P.S. – White men. You once ruled the world. All the power ws in your hands. Jewish porn pervaded White society befor Jewish feminism did. YOU ran away from your families, and your role in society, to chase mindless and ruinous self indulgence. before women tried to become subsitutes for YOU. Remember this, when you blame White women for all that’s wrong with your world.
@Ciaran: Its more complicated than “men gave into porn”. In the late nineteenth century public education was instituted in Western Europe, notably in Germany by Bismarck. Public education was seen as a front in Bismarck’s kulturkampf, trying to make citizens more malleable and reduce the influence of religious institutions and tradition (particularly the RC church). One of the goals was to make the masses view the sexes as interchangeable instead of complementary. To go back to Jesus, white elites (who were not Jews at this time) instead of following the Lord’s command to serve by fostering things like family formation set about to undermine this bedrock of a wholesome culture. Porn was just a later front in the elite’s war against the common man.
You know what influenced Obama’s mother to travel to the Third World? Black Orpheus. A 1950s art house film set in Brazil. I guess she watched it in college and caught Jungle Fever. Lol. What an idiot.
Like Rachel Weisz, Sandra Bullock is a jew. Just about all, if not all movie, tv, actors and actresses, producers, directors, and anyone connected to the entertainment industry except for maybe the low-paid grunts, stage hands, extras etc. I don’t know about Ralph Fiennes but it wouldn’t surprise me as these “stars” are selected because they’re jews. Stardom is not a random “talent” lottery.
Any goyim that rises too high can be destroyed if they step out of line–like Mel Gibson. Notice how Marlon Brando’s big comeback role was as a mafia Jew boss disguised as sephardi (Italian) Corleone.
I think people like Bullock are told/ordered by their jew bosses to adopt black babies to serve as an example for the rest of us to emulate. If she refused she would find herself blacklisted from good roles. Notice that she recently won an oscar for her starring role in the movie Blind Side about a big black football player adopted by a white middle class Judeo-Christian family. Then notice that almost immediately after winning the most prestigeous acting award Bullock and her husband broke up just prior to the news she had adopted a black baby. I wonder if that’s not the real reason she and Jesse James broke up, ie. he didn’t want a black baby because he recognized it as manipulative anti-white propaganda.
Increasingly, judeo-christian churches have programs that promote whites adopting non-white babies just as many churches now are “adopting” non-white refugee families into white communities.
Bullock’s not an actual Jew. Althought she’s de facto, cause she is a Hollywood actress. Fiennes is Uber White. Fiennes is a Norman name. His ancestry goes waaaaaaaay back.
I agree with the rest of your post, though.
The pictures of Tessa among the natives and Ms. Bullock remind me of two things – first, one of the characters in Dante’s Inferno who had “a rage to outshine” his political opponents. Tessa’s face certainly does shine out in that crowd. How better for a woman to one-up her socially conscious peers in a status-seeking game then by “going native”. The image is nonetheless self-defeating because it places her in the center – showing that it was never about helping the unfortunate but rather to be seen helping the most outlandish specimens of humanity possible. The greater the distance between the woman and the natives the better. The second thing that came to mind is Jesus’ instruction that those who do good to be seen doing good have already had their reward.
Dave: How annoying you are! Had your comments been empty-headed, vacuous, and adolescent instead of focused and thought-provoking, I wouldn’t have had to spend fifteen minutes rooting through one of my Infernos because I couldn’t recall the name Oderisi of Umbria. On second thought, since I can’t think of a better way to spend fifteen minutes, thank you very much for annoying me.
Your other comments were on their face far more welcome, not least because they didn’t compel me to look anything up. How odd it is that soi-disant comparative religion scholars, a ridiculous number of whom are Jewish, have for a century or more harped on the idea that Jesus qua teacher was a representative product, albeit an epigone, of the pharisaic schools of thought regnant during his earthly life. The fact that the frightening Gospel passage your last sentence refers to, along with literally dozens of other Gospel passages, fixes an unbridgeable gulf between Christ and the Pharisees doesn’t faze such tenured phonies in the least. Indeed, it is almost bitterly amusing to note that, as has been exhaustively documented by Professor MacDonald, this kind of brazen insistence on a patent falsehood—the big lie, if you will—amounts virtually to an enduring historical characteristic of the Tribe.
Kevin MacDonald,
Yes, the more I think about it there is more to it than competitive altruism. I suppose there are a substantial number of Whites that actually believe in this moral vision described in this movie. And that is horrifying.
Thinking of this moral and aesthetic ideal on its own terms, does it require rough equality of the races to be valid? In other words, would those that hold it continue to champion it even if they accepted IQ and behavioral differences among the races? I mean IQ and behavioral differences that were rooted in biology and couldn’t be changed by culture.
Reginald: “The genes of men more related to them are replaced with the genes of men less related to them, reducing their genetic fitness.”
Not necessarily, because genetic fitness is relative to the environment; in this case, in the new society, her willingness to miscegenate probably would actually increase her fitness and the reproductive chances of her offspring. Obama and his life history is a good case-in-point. I suspect this sort of genetic strategizing is what is really behind a lot of the increased miscegenation that’s everywhere these days. Women can feel that the culture is changing and a new genetic type will inherit. There’s a certain kind of opportunistic White woman who is exquisitely sensitive to these shifting societal currents and, like Obama’s mother, is inclined to be one of the first she-rats off what is perceived to be a sinking ship. They calculate – probably below the level of conscious thought – that there’s a lot for them to gain genetically by miscegenating, so they decide to be in the first wave of genetic emigrés from the White race, aiming for high status in the new society. It’s a little surprising perhaps, but it appears that sometimes, by many conventional measures – again like Obama’s mother – these women can turn out to be very good mothers. I recall seeing one such example here in my town, a White woman who had squeezed out a mulatto monstrosity. You should have seen the look of tenderness she had on her face as she watched her three-year-old criminal-to-be wreaking minor havoc in public. From the way she was beaming at the little burrhead, you’d have thought he was the baby Jesus! Using only the printed word, it’s hard for me to convey to you what seemed to me to be the profound depth of her affection. The most compact way I can put it is just to say that I have never in my entire life seen any White woman regard her White offspring with such pie-eyed love.
Jeff Maylor: “Now one caveat to all that is what Frank Salter describes as “genetic distance” (I think that is the term he uses). Basically, he makes the point that if a Scandinavian and an African have a child, the Scandinavian mother actually has more in genetic common with any other random Scandinavian than her own child! That is the distance between her and her own child has become very large due to mating with the African.”
That sounds interesting, but it’s hard to see how it can be so. If what Rushton says at the link you provided is true, then Salter has said that the average coefficient of within-race kinship is 25%, the same distance as half-siblings, or a grandparent and grandchild. That would mean that the kinship of mother and child would amount to an average of no more than 62.5%, assuming a within-race mating, and no less than 50%, even assuming a mating with a full-blooded negro who had 0% kinship (if such could be found). She would therefore still be far more likely to have more genetically in common with her own child than a random stranger of own race.
“She would therefore still be far more likely to have more genetically in common with her own child than a random stranger of own race.”
After thinking about this more thoroughly, apparently what Salter means is that the mother of the mixed-race child has closer kinship to her own child than a random stranger of her own race, but still remains more genetically similar to the random stranger of her own race; i.e., that if the relative genetic distances were graphed, the mulatto would be halfway in distance between the father and the mother, each of which would group with their own race. This seems paradoxical, but is technically correct.
It also leads to a very strange conclusion. If we do a thought experiment and imagine the mother produced a mixed-race son with whom she then inbred, the resulting offspring would possess 75% of her own genetics, and yet she still would likely be closer in genetic distance to a random stranger of her own race than her own incestuously-produced child/grandchild. If the experiment were repeated, depending upon how tightly the first generation parent races clustered and how far apart they were, this might even be true of a third generation child, which would have close to 90% of her own genetics. That a woman could be closer, in terms of genetic distance, to a random same-race stranger than to her own child, who is almost 90% genetically her own, seems very bizarre.
@ Der weiße Engel
You raise some fascinating points in your 2nd (large) paragraph. I have personally witnessed and mentally registered the phenomenon you describe. Having contemplated your comment paragraph, I do believe it has considerable intellectual validity, and we should take this on-board as one of the “defining rules” that is being exploited by our race enemies.
But as for your response to Jeff Maylor, I am not so sure. You will of course know that a female can only pass on her Mitochondrial DNA to her offspring (both daughters and sons). She is biologically incapable of passing on the Y chromosome. Therefore, your example African male would contaminate the Scandinavian gene pool by inserting alien Y-chromosome DNA, which as I pointed out earlier in my response to Mr. Maylor, is evolutionarily far removed from the European Gene Pool. If sons were the result of their ‘fashionably miscegenatistic’ union, then his Y-DNA would soon be spread further such that it would stand out from the native DNA gene pool. The native Scandinavian woman’s DNA will not be passed on to future generations if no daughter is issued.
In raw genetic terms, she would have race kinship with her children conceived with her African trophy, but Mitochondrial DNA does NOT determine race. Only Y-DNA can do that because of its greater proclivity to mutate, and because men (as we know) are active, and not passive agents. This also helps explain (in simple terms) why women are secondary in the gender hierarchy, and why feminism is a deadly weapon.
Our distant ancestors, with weapons at the ready, and race-kinship taken for granted, knew all of this quite instinctively. They could see the results of careless outbreeding and would kill in order to prevent it. Outbreeding was only tolerated between clan, tribal, or kingdom elites as the ultimate price to pay for peace through the cementation of alliances. This is why Byzantine Emporers occasionally offered their daughters in marriage even to the troublesome Khazar Khagans (false Jews).
Anglo Saxon: “You will of course know that a female can only pass on her Mitochondrial DNA to her offspring (both daughters and sons). … The native Scandinavian woman’s DNA will not be passed on to future generations if no daughter is issued.”
My friend, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I believe you could profit from a review of the process of meiosis. A sperm or ovum each contain only half the parent’s nuclear complement of chromosomes. Via these haploid germ cells, each parent contributes 23 of the 46 chromosomes present in the nuclear DNA of a normal offspring. Only two of these 46, one from each parent, are sex chromosomes. Any offspring of a woman thus has by definition 50% of her nuclear DNA, and this is true for both sons and daughters. Of course, she also contributes her mitchondrial or maternal DNA, but that’s a separate issue.
Opposites do sometimes attract. Shakespeare wrote a little story about that – Romeo and Juliet. This film bored and irritated me – such sophomoric junk. Nothing really significant in my opinion.
Der weiße Engel … thank you for your response … you are indeed correct. I was aware of Nuclear DNA but was seeking to make a different point vis-a-vis haplogroups.
Remember that Nuclear DNA do not mutate. Only the sex genes mutate. The female Mitochondrial, and the male Y-Chromosome. It is these mutations that have determined and driven (over several thousand years) human evolution, and thus, by definition, racial differences.
Shared aggregates of these mutated sex genes constitute Haplogroups whose emergence and movement have already been used to map the migrations of ancient (and not so ancient) man. It is this characteristic I was attempting to (inadequately) point to in my previous response to your good-self.
It is the Scandinavian male’s Y-DNA that most differentiates Scandinavia from those who are native to Africa. The impregnation of the native Scandinavian woman by a native African would ‘contaminate’ that Y-DNA pool. Continued immigration and tolerance of mixed-race copulation (subsidized by taxes taken from ‘white’ men) would facilitate a genetic takeover of the territory … a slow-motion version of a war scenario where Africa had actually invaded Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. The end result for both scenarios would be identical.
White women are indeed the weak link. They obey Authority, no matter who constitutes it or what it stands for. Above all, they “follow the herd”: more than men, they live in terror of becoming unpopular & unsuccessful by being seen to refuse to toe the going line like they know every Respectable Person must.
As with fashion, so with politics/culture.
The creation of White mass media is the main key to reversing the situation: entertainment depicting strong White men fighting for what they hold dear (rather than the grotesque Hollywitz fantasies featuring cartoonish Tuff Grrl/non-White “stud” combos kicking Racist Sexist Homophobic Whitey’s pale ass); news focused on the concerns of Whites, rather than those of Soledad O’Brien.
Of course, Hymie is standing in the way of that. He’s got to be booted out, by hook or by crook.
Holy Sh*t !! That look on the face of the Bullock adopted child is an absolute scream….lol !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He’s like…sheeeeeeeit, I’s got this all wrapped up! Unbelievable. Priceless.
Also, you guys should not forget the Israeli agent character. He’s is avuncular, well connected, knowledgeable, and plays the saving grace…right? This is all from memory when I saw it in the theater, but doesn’t he give the guy a gun for protection right near the end? These types of Israeli/Jewish characters are very common in films now.
As well, it is absolutely significant that Weisz is a Jew. This is all part of the carnival funhouse-of-mirrors that is the kosher attack strategy. Cute more or less aryan-looking blondes (think jewess Kudrow in Romy and Michelle’s HIgh School Wedding…Romy has to announce in the script that the other is a jew) are jewish characters and slam dunk jewesses are cast as whites (think Amy Brenneman in HEAT, with her weak southern accent, etc). We’re all the same anyway, right?
The hypothesis that Engel proposed is plausible.
It’s definitely not IDEAL to lose all of one’s closest genetic relatives. However, the entire point is that if this should happen what kind of genetic adaptation will occur? In many species, including primates, the children of defeated males are usually killed. f females want to pass on their genes they’ll have to mate with whatever males are available, even ones that have invaded and killed their loved ones.
Perhaps one should mention that the author of the novel, John Le Carre, is a former(?) MI6 agent. His quite dull novels (ok, I have only read one, which was a major disappointment) regulary get rave review here in Germany. I suppose that writing espionage novels which spin important subjets according to the current line of the establishment is a job of many supposedly former secret agents (Eric Ambler, Ian Fleming Graham Greene and Frederick Forthsythe come to mind when only thinking of the British ones). So it is not suprising that the novel spreads the meme of the greedy cooperations, who are wrongly characterized as “White” (all are in Jewish control of course), that exploid the noble Africans.
I have recently bought the DVD. I expected a anti-white film and wanted to examine the propaganda which often contains some things which are only slightly veiled so one can further research it in uncontaminated sources. But I found the film quite disgusting (the Rächel Weisz charakter was really an awful bitch) so I stopped watching it after 40 minutes (I wil continue it when I have the nerve). If I rembember corretly there is an interesting line in it. A British secret-service-agent called the Mossad as allknowing and that he and his colleagues are amateurs in comparison.
On a lighter note. Rachel Weisz is quite attractive (many Jewesses are quite attractive, the WN propaganda that all Jews are ugly is simply wrong, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible that so many Jewesses work as sex-agents (Mata Hari et al.) and mistresses. But her smile gives her Jewishness away. If the gossip is right she left her Über-Jewish finance recently and hooked up with a blond, blue-eyed colleague.
Rachel Weisz is very beautiful. There are some stunningly attractive Jews. Scarlett Johansson (sic) to mind. Cary Grant was a Mamzer. Burt Lancaster ands Paul Newman – Jews.
A majority of Jews are rather strange-looking – as are a large segment of all racial groups. I do find that many Jews begin to look “Jew-ier” as they age, though.
celebrity models should be left out of the equation, because its their jobs to adopt those expresionless dolls. through repetition through media programming, whites are induced to associate money with interracial. so the ambitious idiots will just fade away. brown asses are great slaves.
This Tessa character is redolent of the kind of people master hate monger Tim Wise would consider as useful to his cause.
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=9516
Well done piece, professor.
“After the revolution, the media will be controlled to depict characters like Tessa as deranged, naïve individuals who inevitably bring destruction to themselves and their people.”
A regrettable prognostication that reduces the argument and the article to crystal ball gazing.
Some essentials might be worth mentioning. First: there is absolutely nothing wrong in helping poor Third World people and to develop a spot of Christian compassion for their predicament while doing so. Second: there is everything wrong in inviting them to live with us and to expect them to understand, let alone copy, our way of life.
@ Ciaran
November 23, 2010 – 1:40 pm
“Rachel Weisz is very beautiful.”
“…stunningly attractive Jews”
Good Lord! I mean really now.
For example, TORI SPELLING and Melissa Rivers, yes I do see it now.
BTW Bullock in her pre-rhinoplasty photos and her sister also, LOOK very Ashkenazic.
In the flick “Constantine” she is really very beautiful. Her smile is a bit weird (so the photo above is not very flattering). Now, she is over 40, so she is not as beautiful as she used to be. But for her age she is still quite attractive.
Alfred – Bollock may or may not be a Jew – but Jews don’t name her as one of their own. Wiki almost always cites Jewish identity. She doesn’t seem to have converted to advance her career, either. There would be no reason what-so-ever for her to hide a Jewish heritage, these days. I think she is of Irish descent. I could be wrong. We could write her and ask. if we really need to know…
Rachel Weisz was drop dead gorgeous in the Mummy flicks. Lauren Bacall was a knock out. Natalie Portman has lovely bone structure. They do not all look like Tamara Jacoby. Most – but not all.
Jeff Maylor: “I’ve heard it said that “xenophobia” is more common among men than women for evolutionary reasons. Basically, if a tribe is taken over by another tribe, it is the males that are most likely to be killed. The women may be saved – at least if they are of reproductive age. This leads to women being more willing to embrace “the other”, as they say. This seems to make sense. Males usually have more patriotic fervor.”
Jeff and Der weiße Engel’s discussion is fascinating, and this idea seems logical in a broad sense, but I don’t know about the implications for white women/negro men of today. I wonder if there isn’t something else going on in the more immediate. A few things to keep in mind:
-Most white women still mate with white men. Why? Because in the US, the vast majority of white babies are born to married couples, whereas the vast majority of black fathers aren’t married to the mother (black or white). Having a dad around makes evolutionary sense, too. When you see a white mom with her half-black kid out in public there’s rarely a black dad with them. This would be a real disincentive to any white woman who wants to propagate in a serious way.
(I’ve heard it said that most black moms don’t want black dads around, anyhow. The welfare state, along with genetics, has created a few generations of immature and/or socially retarded buffoons that are not appealing in a procreative sense.) And this “fatherless black” syndrome is something that’s increasing, not decreasing, which brings the appeal of the negro race down as a whole (genetically speaking.)
-These white mothers of half-blacks, as alarming as they truly are, are conspicuous by their previous absence. We, as white advocates, are more sensitive to their presence.
-The Constant Gardener aside, it’s been my perception that most white moms who produce half-black children don’t do it to immerse themselves in black culture (for the reasons stated above.) Very few of them move to black neighborhoods. They want the good life like everyone else. There is, however, a good deal of immaturity among these young white women, as well. They often pass their child off to embarrassed, but dutiful, grandparents.
I wonder if the minor, yet alarming, trend of white women mating with non-whites (esp. blacks) isn’t just an extension of the growing (and maybe subconscious) trend of self-destructive behavior among people in affluent, and largely white, countries over the last half century.
Juvenile-delinquency, drugs, obesity, violent crime/murder, the preoccupation with death/darkness in artistic pursuits, casual sex in an AIDS environment, school shootings and of course, ever increasing suicide rates. Even the disfigurement craze of tattoos and piercing or the porn industry.
The root causes of this general tendency are inexplicable (at least by me), but if there’s an increasing impulse to destroy/devalue one’s self, than why not one’s offspring – either directly (abortion) or genetically (miscegenation)? Of course, this is all just speculation on my part, but when someone like Madonna has sex with black men, the unspoken message I get isn’t “I care deeply about black people,” it’s more “I don’t care about myself” (regardless of how she might rationalize it) as wells as “I care even less about how well you think of me.”
I’m not trying to ignore the liberal or media driven agendas to destroy white influence at all. It exists. And the attitudes presented in the movie certainly exist – at disturbing levels. I just wonder if white/black mating isn’t frequently more a function of self-destructiveness than genetic self-interest or altruistic genetic self-sacrifice.
I meant to include this statement by Der weibe Engel in reference to my post above. It’s part of what I was responding to.
“I suspect this sort of genetic strategizing is what is really behind a lot of the increased miscegenation that’s everywhere these days. Women can feel that the culture is changing and a new genetic type will inherit. “
Some White women have a thing for blacks ( just like some have a thing for other women) but many go with blacks as a result of lack of interest from white men, they feel valued by black men. A lot of white men could do with lowering their (unrealistic) requirements for a white mate.
Der weiße Engel, I can’t remember where I got that particular idea that a parent might be more related to other co-ethnics than her own child if the situation was right – I hope I haven’t overstated it.
So all I can say for sure is that a parent who has a child with another race will be less related to that child than if she had had a child within her own ethnic group. The dynamics of it seem to get interesting depending on whether you are the population receiving new genes or whether you are the invading population.
By the way, Kevin MacDonald has already written an excellent review of the book for those interested:
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/SalterRevNatObs.htm
And this is from Frank Salter himself. It goes into more technical detail for those interested:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/egi
I watched “The Constant Gardener” two nights ago; and, like you, was startled by the sight of Tessa nursing a black baby. But it was established by the conversation that Tessa had lost her baby and was helping out the terminally-ill African mother in the next bed by nursing her baby for her (as mother’s milk does not dry up just because of a stillbirth). This was further borne out by the fact that the sick girl’s relatives took the baby home with them! There was no real indication that Tessa had an affair with the African doctor; in fact, it was insisted later on that he was gay! Tessa did offer herself to the diplomat in exchange for information, but even that was never clearly shown to have taken place. Just want to set the record straight as far as the movie is concerned; I haven’t read the book.
“Some White women have a thing for blacks…”
Some do.
I think it’s safe to say that white women, for all practical purposes, are universally appealing to african men. The converse, however, is definitely not true. This often remains unspoken, however, due to political correctness and social propriety among white women.
Yes, there are more white women dating blacks than white men, but women are much more likely to have self-esteem issues than men, and that’s a big part of the problem. I’m in no way implying that media brainwashing with a “diversity” agenda hasn’t also done it’s share of damage.
“…they feel valued by black men.”
Well, I’m not sure how being called “ho” or having little to no chance for a proposal of marriage could make one feel valued, but modern white men do leave a lot to be desired, namely in the commitment to marriage department. Even though they’re much more likely to get married than blacks, divorce rates imply a lack of mutual respect in most white marriages. Promiscuity is the greatest problem.
Careers for women and feminism, of course, are also to blame.
It’s safe to say European people are the most maladjusted of all the world’s people and are hopelessly snow blind to their own shortcomings. Victimized by a cult of personality misnomer-ed white supremacy – coupled with a deep seated refusal to admit its own evil.
No one has picked up on Dr. MacD’s comments about ‘aberrant Puritans,’ so I will.
First off, in Christianity (whether protestant, roman catholic, or Orthodox) there are theological points of view that are considered heretical, or ‘outside the pale’ of orthodox (Gr. ‘right belief’) theology.
Nowhere in the Puritan theology was the concept of universalism held. NOWHERE. This is/was an aberration, a denial of the overarching CHOOSING of YHWH God of One People, One Race, One ‘tribe’ if you will, to be ‘His People.’ Puritan theology was the Anglican variant of Calvin’s doctrine of Divine Sovreignty, or the concept of Predestination. The entire O.T. is suffused with that, and the N.T. begins with the angel telling the Virgin Mary that the baby (Jesus) will ‘save HIS PEOPLE from THEIR sins.’ [Matt. 1:21] Not all men, nor even all ‘so-called’ believers, but only HIS People. Who those people were, Europe long felt and believed that THEY, as the CHURCH, WERE that people, and that the people called the [sic] ‘Jews’ were not; St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, even up to and including Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Anglican Divines, held to that POV. As late as last century, ignoring all ‘third world [sic] ‘evangelism,’ Hilaire Belloc, the great PRE-Vatican II apologist, noted: “EUROPE is the Faith; the FAITH, Europe.”
Truly, Christianity is, and can only be, the WHITE MAN’S religion. End of story.
Theological universalism came about because of a resurgence of reading Jewish works of anti-trinitarian dogma in the 16th century, and from there, it devolved into Unitarianism. A God who ‘loves everyone, and has a wonderful plan for their lives,’ is a very far cry from ‘You ONLY have I chosen of all the families of the earth…’ [Amos 3:2] IT also makes FOREVER a ‘xenos’ those who are NOT of Europe’s race, of “Abra’ms seed, and David’s line’ as the old hymn notes.
So, universalism, as a ‘Jewish evolutionary strategy’ is merely the lying dogma that the removal of those who ‘say they are jews and are not,’ [Rev. 2:8,9] from their former place and position as the ‘Chosen People’, has not happened.
BUT IT HAS.
And even today, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals alike are now saying that this doctrine of ‘supercession’ (the transfer of conditional privilege- cf. Chas. Provan’s The Church is Israel now’) is a HERESY, even though it was taught as TRUTH for 2000 years. So, who’s right? Modern RC’s with their sex clergy abuses, or the saints of the eras preceding Vatican II?
So, it all comes back to that one people, for whom Christ said, ‘Ye are of your father the devil, for the deeds he does, ye WILL do.’ [John 8:44]
Once you know that, all the houses of cards start to fall. ‘Free at last, Free at last, thank God Almighty, I am free at last.’….. in more ways, than one.
@Fr. John: “Truly, Christianity is, and can only be the WHITE MAN’S religion. End of story.” Really now. Although one can argue about how evangelization should be done – should we bring the unevangelized here, or seek them in their present locale, Jesus said that ALL NATIONS should be evangelized. Further, one of the earliest to respond to the good news was the Ethiopian eunuch recounted in Acts 8:26 and following. Shepherds are enjoined to protect those under their care AND to evangelize all nations and, yes, that includes Africans. As a matter of historical fact, the Ethiopian Coptic Church is one of the oldest sects in Christianity. I don’t see fighting for the interests of one’s own race against those who would seek to disenfranchise it (or, in their wildest dreams blot it out from all memory) AND evangelizing all nations as being mutually exclusive.
Fr. John: “Truly, Christianity is, and can only be, the WHITE MAN’S religion. End of story. … So, it all comes back to that one people, for whom Christ said, ‘Ye are of your father the devil, for the deeds he does, ye WILL do.’ [John 8:44]”
I don’t see any way to reconcile the first sentence with the last when you consider the fact that both the founder of the religion, and all of the original Apostles, were Jews; i.e., non-White. Further, if John 8:44 truly is meant to apply to all Jews (or as you say, “that one people”), then the Apostles and even Christ himself were also “of the devil.”
It should be noted that Saul’s “conversion” if one can call it that follows IMMEDIATELY after the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch’s openness to the Gospel in Acts. How about that for contrasting the relative openness of peoples to the good news?
Der weiße Engel
Jesus was not a “Jew.” He and his apostles were Judeans/Israelites. The Israelites of the OT were the white aryan race. Jesus sent his apostles to teach the dispersed Israelites who became the white European CHRISTIAN nations.
Christian Identity is the biblical belief the white European Christians are the true Israelites. “Jews” have deceived the whole world into believing they are the Israelites of the OT and that Jesus was a jew.
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com
http://www.christogenea.com
Jewish women are considered beautiful only to the extent they look like white aryans either through intermarriage or cosmetic surgery. The same with blacks. Blacks like Halle Barry (voted most beautiful woman a while back) and mestizo Jenifer Lopez are considered beautiful to the extent they look white.
me: “Jesus was not a “Jew.” He and his apostles were Judeans/Israelites. The Israelites of the OT were the white aryan race. Jesus sent his apostles to teach the dispersed Israelites who became the white European CHRISTIAN nations.”
The term “Judaean” doesn’t occur in the Bible in any translation I’ve found. In the Bible, a Jew can be either referred to as Ἰουδαῖος or Ἰσραηλίτης, but these terms are NEVER placed in opposition. They are used as synonyms.
Compare Romans 11:1, in which the Apostle Paul describes himself as an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, i.e., NOT one of the lost tribes, or in other words, a Jew.
In fact, Paul’s entire narrative in Romans 10 and 11 makes no sense unless the terms are synonymous. Further, as a people, the Jews are throughout the Bible contrasted with Gentiles, NOT Israelites. See, for example, Galatians 3:28:
In John 4:22, Jesus even describes himself as a Jew (i.e., a Ἰουδαῖος, NOT an Ἰσραηλίτης):
[corrected html]
me: “Jesus was not a “Jew.” He and his apostles were Judeans/Israelites. The Israelites of the OT were the white aryan race. Jesus sent his apostles to teach the dispersed Israelites who became the white European CHRISTIAN nations.”
The term “Judaean” doesn’t occur in the Bible in any translation I’ve found. In the Bible, a Jew can be either referred to as Ἰουδαῖος or Ἰσραηλίτης, but these terms are NEVER placed in opposition. They are used as synonyms.
Compare Romans 11:1, in which the Apostle Paul describes himself as an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, i.e., NOT one of the lost tribes, or in other words, a Jew.
In fact, Paul’s entire narrative in Romans 10 and 11 makes no sense unless the terms are synonymous. Further, as a people, the Jews are throughout the Bible contrasted with Gentiles, NOT Israelites. See, for example, Galatians 3:28:
In John 4:22, Jesus even describes himself as a Jew (i.e., a Ἰουδαῖος, NOT an Ἰσραηλίτης):
That Jesus is a self-described Jew, supposedly of the tribe of Judah (again, NOT one of the lost tribes), is important, because it is only in this context that the race-mixing project of Christianity can be appreciated. This project is described in Ephesians 2:15, among many other places:
You would think that trying to claim Jesus was not a Jew should have the effect of making gibberish of large sections of the Bible, even for the gibberish-habituated “minds” of Christian fanatics. But of course, it doesn’t, because they really have no minds, only faith.
Fiction versus non-fiction. A couple years ago in Canada, (B.C.) I ran into a Brit who worked for the U.N. I asked him what he actually did. He said he runs humanitarian projects in Africa. Without mentioning any of our stuff I asked him what he thought of AFricans. Without a pause, he said, “O they are very stupid” whereupon I asked him if he thought an average IQ of 70 would apply. He said, “sounds about right.” He had been doing this work for 25 years.
Of course, he was Experienced, Male, and intelligent.
The novel Disgrace, by J.M. Cootzee (which I wrote about on TOO) has another White female subverted by her femaleness and ideology to luv the natives. This portrait is probably more accurate than that of Tessa, though I have not read The Constant Gardener. Skip the melodrama and get a portrait of long-duration slow corruption and surrender to self-and-race-hatred of Whiteness. Joe
It amazes me how often I encounter young White women who are literally obsessed with the Holocaust. It can’t be an accident that we were given an “Anne Frank” rather than Andy Frank. The problem with these young White women is that they are in their prime years of fertility, but instead of having children they are going to college while at the same time being encouraged by the society around them to become politically active. Ultimately this leads to their embracing of some non-White cause since this emotional context is presented to them in the form of their Marxist anti-White college courses. By the time the White woman has left college it is too late, she’s been set for life working for the benefit of other races.
Burt Lancaster Jewish! Hard to believe since I grew up with cousin “X” Lancaster in Chicago.
“Lancaster was born in New York City, at his parents’ home at 209 East 106th Street, between Second and Third Avenues—today the site of Benjamin Franklin Plaza. Lancaster was the son of Elizabeth (née Roberts) and James Henry Lancaster, who was a postman.[2] Both of his parents were Protestants of working-class Irish origin, with Lancaster’s grandparents having been immigrants to the U.S. from Belfast and descendants of English immigrants to Ireland.[2] Lancaster’s family believed themselves to be related to Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts; their surname originates from 11th century French immigrants to England with the surname “de Lancastre”.[2] Lancaster grew up in East Harlem and spent much of his time on the streets, where he developed great interest and skill in gymnastics while attending the DeWitt Clinton High School.[2] Before he graduated from DeWitt Clinton, where he was a basketball star, his mother died of a cerebral hemorrhage. Lancaster was accepted into New York University with an athletics scholarship, but subsequently dropped out to focus on his first career choice.”
I look Lancaster up. I’m not certain why I thought he was a Jew. I may hve confused his background with that of Kirk Douglas. Lancaster was Uber Liberal, and his accent sounded Noo Yak Joo.
I’m still deligfhted to discover that he was not one of the Tribe. A refreshing surprise! I adored Cary Grant (still do! ) and was aghast when I researched his lineage. My inital reaction was “Oh no! Not Cary Grant, too!”.
I adore “Arsenic and Old Lace” and always will.
“Jesus was not a “Jew.” He and his apostles were Judeans/Israelites. The Israelites of the OT were the white aryan race.”
If this is true, then why didn’t they speak an Indo-European language? Why did the “white aryans” of the Old Testament act like stereotypical Jews, i.e. Joseph?
Joe Webb said:
“ …I asked him what he thought of africans. ‘O they are very stupid’ whereupon I asked him if he thought an average IQ of 70 would apply. He said, ‘sounds about right.’ He had been doing this work for 25 years.”
What an interesting conversation. As I understand it, the term “retarded” applies to people with an IQ of 69 or less. I’ve often wondered if the psychiatric community didn’t place the upper limit of “retarded” just below the average IQ of continental africa out of some warped sense of political correctness. (Or fudge the data for africans to place them just above the classification.)
I don’t see how Puritans can be equated with Evangelicals. Quite the opposite: Puritans (which exist only as a flavor these days, as with the dying breed of “Low Church” Episcopalians), are exclusive by nature. Evangelicalism is separate ecclesiastically and culturally from New England.
If anything, New Englanders (and I think this is really what you meant to say) are concerned with basic equity in law and custom. This attitude is only possible because of their inherent exclusivity. However, it is not asking much for one law to apply to all. The answer to the question of “racial suicide” is not to create silly laws in the first place.
There must be personal and community judgment. Assigning blame for stupidity to religious fervor is to miss the point. If you want better, more self-interested White people, THEN BREED THEM.
Puritanism is what attracted most everyone to America in the first place, so far as the immigrant waves were concerned at least. It can’t be that bad and it certainly has nothing to do with zealousness which, by even cursory application, Purtianism seeks to avert.
Fr. John: “Truly, Christianity is, and can only be, the WHITE MAN’S religion. End of story.”
I sympathize strongly with this viewpoint.
However, as others here have pointed out, Christianity in principle spans all races. Christianity alone does not imply that Whites are the true, or the best, Christians; it takes a bit of history to do that, by showing that Whites kept and propagated the Christian faith when others did not.
However, you’re correct that Whites are within their rights to exclude any other race from their midst in order to preserve their identity, provided they extend the same courtesy to other races. It’s simply the Golden Rule applied to the racial level of human identity.
Let’s all try to remember that the real point of dispute, the one that should concern us, is the key issue of whether or not Christianity mandates diversity, multiculturalism, and miscegenation. This point is easily resolved using logic alone, and logic says “no, it does not”.
It’s best not to let ourselves be distracted from this central realization.
@Philly Puritan: Your point about “THEN BREED THEM” is, of course, true. However, the elite in the west have been hostile to the lessers of their own kind for years and seem not to want too many of them. In fact, some among the elite want to replace their own kind with a more malleable and less intelligent underclass. While I despise those of the elite who think this way and others who never forget old grudges I understand them. The people I don’t understand are those who are race conscious AND libertarian in matters of sex, usually translated into less-than-replacement levels of reproduction. You cannot maintain territorial hegemony (never mind cultural hegemony) without fecundity. A race that trifles with the first commandment in Genesis (and I’m not talking about the first of the ten commandments here) does so at its own peril.
Dave: “Your point about “THEN BREED THEM” is, of course, true. However, the elite in the west have been hostile to the lessers of their own kind for years and seem not to want too many of them. In fact, some among the elite want to replace their own kind with a more malleable and less intelligent underclass.”
Yes. This is because they are not really “elite” in terms of intelligence and ethical integrity. They are in fact inferior by those criteria, and are therefore threatened by any truly elite individual (speaking just from personal experience, I’ve met a few of the self-styled elite, and quickly identified most of them as intellectual inferiors). Their “elite” status is socio-economic in nature and was won, bluntly speaking, by lying, cheating, and stealing.
Now, how “elite” is that?
“The people I don’t understand are those who are race conscious AND libertarian in matters of sex, usually translated into less-than-replacement levels of reproduction.”
If you do not understand that the world is terribly threatened by overpopulation, then of course, you have no idea regarding the elite mindset. The socioeconomic elite have this one dead right. Obviously, the only humane way to deal with overpopulation is to reduce breeding levels.
“You cannot maintain territorial hegemony (never mind cultural hegemony) without fecundity.”
Yes, you can, by maintaining territorial integrity (closed borders) and technological superiority. Remember, when it comes to the meaning of human existence, quality is more important than quantity. A race is allowed, and in fact required, to maintain its numbers at provably sustainable levels provided that it applies enough selective breeding to maximize its fitness and protect its own future.
“A race that trifles with the first commandment in Genesis (and I’m not talking about the first of the ten commandments here) does so at its own peril.”
…up to a certain limit. Beyond that point, a race which overpopulates its territory is violating the logical structure, and defying the physical finitude, of the God-given world, and will, by the natural laws which automatically govern that world, be targeted for population crash and possible extinction.
Jesus said the poor will always be with you. In addition, members of the race who contributed least to overpopulation and are in a position to afford to reproduce at a greater rate are now embarking on a new fool’s errand to solve a “problem” that even their greatest “exertion” (acceptance of total race annihilation) will only have an inconsequential effect in “solving”. The west neither contributed in any meaningful way to the problem of overpopulation nor can do anything humane to solve it. Who are any of us to say who should be given a license to reproduce? I prefer to think that reproduction is about creating as many members of the heavenly choir as possible, not about creating only so many as can comfortably enjoy this short sojourn on earth.
The actual plot is not the same thing as the intended take home message. Kevin MacDonald is correct, a sexual relationship with the African doctor is clearly being hinted at look at this still . The cover of director Fernando Meirelles previous work City of God (2002)
@Someday: I agree. There were times when she touched him tenderly. The viewer is led to believe, and the husband suspects it. She certainly would have no qualms about having such a relationship given her obvious love of all things African. I feel a bit duped by the film, but it didn’t help that my sound system is not first rate so I couldn’t make out some of the dialog. Kevin M
Professor M: I don’t think you go far enough. I thought when I saw the film that the lousy sound and the jiggling, never-still-for-a-moment camera effects on the location footage were part of the point. You know, to impart what dumb white kids who listen to hip-hop filth call “authenticity.”
“I prefer to think that reproduction is about creating as many members of the heavenly choir as possible, not about creating only so many as can comfortably enjoy this short sojourn on earth.”
Then you are irrational (textbook definition).
@Eurodele: I am only suggesting that we should do what is asked of us by the Almighty, and not create any man-made laws that would interfere with honoring his commandments. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for turning the commandments in the Torah upside down in their oral tradition, and this fascination with “sustainability” as an excuse not to be fruitful and to multiply seems very pharisaic to me. In addition, Europeans are overly-concerned with the population growth of other races. Have these races asked you for your guidance? It is noted that Europeans are not reproducing even at a replacement rate, so why are you even concerned with sustainability? I don’t recall hearing of mass starvation in Paris or Berlin recently. In view of Europe’s need to import hostile immigrants into your midst for the selfish purpose of keeping the welfare state going I have a different view from you on who is irrational.
I’m sure everyone here is familar with the term mestizo, or mulatto, for that matter. They refer to the racial mixes of white men and Indian women, or African women.
All this cross- pollination predated politically correct America with all those mindless women co-habitating with all the other races. Sorry guys, you beat us to the punch.
Porn? Sexual revolution? If I remember correctly, white men didn’t, until very recently, seem to object to either of the above.
One way to appeal to white women is to be polite, kind, warm and ingratiating rather than insulting us. Just a thought.
Diana: “All this cross- pollination predated politically correct America with all those mindless women co-habitating with all the other races. Sorry guys, you beat us to the punch.”
The thing is, men may sire an almost unlimited number of children, but women can give birth to only a few. This inherent sexual inequality means that it has much more serious consequences for her race when a woman indulges in miscegenation than when a man does. For this you can blame nature, not patriarchal oppression.
It’s also no accident that the most racist societies keep very tight control of their women. A breakdown in male control over women will always be seen to have occurred before race-mixing can become a problem that threatens the life of a race. The correlation is so strong that it suggests causality.
Diana: “Porn? Sexual revolution? If I remember correctly, white men didn’t, until very recently, seem to object to either of the above.”
The sexual revolution would have been inconceivable, and would not have taken place at all, unless the technology of birth control had developed to the point that women could have sex but reliably avoid getting pregnant. Only scientific birth control makes sexual freedom possible. It also, indirectly, subverts male control of women, weakens the bonds of the family, and encourages feminism to take root.
The spread of pornography is likewise a technology-based change to the culture. It simply couldn’t happen, and wouldn’t have happened, in a more primitive technological context.
The men of past centuries who bred with native women did so because of the lack of White women in the lands they conquered. Today’s female race traitors have no such excuse.
Dave: “I am only suggesting that we should do what is asked of us by the Almighty, and not create any man-made laws that would interfere with honoring his commandments.”
“Honoring His commandments” as interpreted by whom? (They do, after all, require interpretation, as language itself is otherwise meaningless even on the syntactic level.) As interpreted by rational people, or irrational people who think that God was attempting to supersede the laws of nature?
Dave: “Jesus criticized the Pharisees for turning the commandments in the Torah upside down in their oral tradition, and this fascination with “sustainability” as an excuse not to be fruitful and to multiply seems very pharisaic to me.”
Who cares about your opinion of what constitutes pharisaism? You’re either rational, or you’re not. If you think that “be fruitful and multiply” is a context-independent absolutism meant to supersede the laws and limits of nature, then you’re clearly irrational, and nothing you say can be trusted.
Dave: “In addition, Europeans are overly-concerned with the population growth of other races. Have these races asked you for your guidance?”
No. Accordingly, the only guidance I offer them is this: “Either stop breeding me and mine out of house and home (literally), or there will be trouble. Now go find another less parasitic setting for your reproductive incontinence.”
Dave: “It is noted that Europeans are not reproducing even at a replacement rate, so why are you even concerned with sustainability? I don’t recall hearing of mass starvation in Paris or Berlin recently.”
Because if you’re going to encourage them to breed at or beyond replacement, then you need to make sure that the ones who actually do the breeding are not displacing vastly superior specimens in the racial gene pool by sucking exponentially on available resources. If that happens, then fitness declines, and the racial genome is finally no longer worth protecting.
That’s a simple matter of biology and mathematics.
Dave: “In view of Europe’s need to import hostile immigrants into your midst for the selfish purpose of keeping the welfare state going I have a different view from you on who is irrational.”
I don’t even know what that means…and I thoroughy doubt that you do either.
@Eurodele:
Your discussion regarding interpretation of his commandments seems like hair-splitting to me. It is pretty obvious whether you are fruitful and multiply or you don’t. Just look at your family tree.
And regarding your eugenics statements, although pride in one’s race is a good thing, making it an idol violates the first of the ten commandments. Germany was chastised severely recently for making an idol of race. In fact, German racial idolatry has given healthy racial pride a bad name.
Regarding your last paragraph, welfare states are mostly Ponzi schemes, with later generations financing the retirement of earlier generations. When the earlier generations reproduce at even less than a replacement rate, the collapse of the Ponzi pyramid occurs even sooner than it would under normal circumstances. Not surprisingly, I saw in European debates the justification for immigration that the immigrants would make up the manpower shortage and keep the Ponzi welfare state afloat. That is what I meant, and that is why I called it a selfish motivation, because these scams always crash before those at the end of the line get paid. I’m sure you can find such reports if you spend a little time googling. Regarding Ponzi schemes, you’ve heard of Bernie Madoff, right?
First, Dave, I don’t need your advice regarding God’s commandments. You obviously think that they should be construed in an unsustainable fashion, and are thus trying to make an idiot of God Himself (by implying that His instructions to mankind were issued without regard for His design of the world) … or perhaps you don’t even realize that this is what you’re doing.
In any case, we obviously can’t trust your advice on that topic.
Regarding pyramid schemes like Judaism – support for which comprises the main body of pharisaic discourse – they tend to run up against hard mathematical and physical limits. In case there was any confusion, I was talking about the limits, not the scams.
@Eurodele: Since you’ve been taking shots at me, I will allow myself to take one shot at you. My guess is that you are a woman, and that you view the primary advance of feminism is that European women get even more goodies now than their grandmothers did while doing far less (like making more than 1.5 babies). Assuming I am right, until women like you are persuaded to have more babies our cause is doomed (unless, of course, you are comfortable with nuking the more benighted portions of the globe to even things up).
@Eurodele: I assume I don’t need to remind you that feminism was cooked up by the Frankfurt school to destroy western (i.e., white christian) civilization. How do you put up with the cognitive dissonance that you are dancing to the tune of your supposed enemies when you are so adamant about not having more than 1.5 children?
Dave: “Since you’ve been taking shots at me, I will allow myself to take one shot at you. My guess is that you are a woman, …”
Then I have a guess of my own: I guess I’d better stop reading right there and pass this one along to my wife.
“How do you put up with the cognitive dissonance that you are dancing to the tune of your supposed enemies when you are so adamant about not having more than 1.5 children?”
I don’t recall mentioning that figure, Dave.
If it were up to me, White people with desirable heritable characteristics (e.g., good health, good reflexes and athleticism, very high IQ, …) would be breeding above that level. White people with too many undesirable heritable characteristics wouldn’t be breeding at all – if they wanted children and were fit to raise them, they’d be adopting children bred from fitter specimens.
That’s just the Christian Golden Rule applied to future generations (we should want them to possess all the fitness we’d like to have for ourselves).
@Eurodele: Thank God these decisions aren’t left up to us. Keep in mind 1 Corinthians 1: 27 “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong”
Dave, It’s nice to see you quote from the Apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, as only his God-inspired words directly apply to us today. His new gospel of salvation by God’s grace through our faith in Christ and what he has done on our behalf by his death & resurrection replaced Israel’s currently set-aside gospel of faith that was required to be demonstrated by works (like keeping commandments).
I don’t think Paul would take it upon himself to contradict the Lord in certain items, or to say that we do not have to make an effort to follow the commandments that still apply to Christians however imperfectly we do so. Matthew 5:17 – 20, Romans 3:31. I am always fearful for those who downplay works. Although we do not merit salvation through works, they are evidence of our growth in faith and our cooperation in the Almighty’s plan of salvation for us. See Matthew 25 : 31 – 46 about the consequences of meeting and ignoring the needs of the least among us and James 2: 14 – 26.
You sure can whip up a strom, Kevin MacDonald (Do you know MacDonald means ‘son of Dan’, which means judge)? You’re a very good judge.
Deborah Collins, if the rescinding of YHVH’s laws haven’t hurt you yet, then YHVH has no covenant with you. If that covenant IS with you, YHVH will let his laws for a well functioning and prosperous and healthy society be repealed, just for YOU!
How is that for a hug and a lollipop?
Ray, You’re right, God is not looking to covenant with anyone today and has set his covenant with Israel aside while he adds individuals who believe in his Son (and his accomplishments on our behalf) into the very body of that Son, Jesus Christ. Since believers are now living in the Son of God, we don’t keep a covenant, we instead have a father/adult son relationship w/God. The reason law-keeping is not required for us is that we are in the Son who has kept them perfectly and enjoys a perfect relationship with God of which we are now partakers through him. The law still exists, including the natural law of reaping what you sow in this world, but we walk in his spirit, not in the flesh, in his sight. When we’re caught up at the close of this grace age, God will return to dealing w/his covenant people, Israel, and Gentiles through them.
The key word in my post regarding the keeping of commandments is “required.” Israel’s gospel made it clear that faith in God (and in his Messiah as per the gospel of the kingdom), if not proved by obedience (works), was “dead” (worthless). Presumptuous disobedience (sin) caused being cut off from the covenant people (as were Ananias & Sapphira in Acts 5). Paul was uniquely given the message that “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19): disobedience (sin) is no longer the issue. Simply believe what God claims about his Son is true and be saved.
At the risk of getting even further off topic with the Biblical stuff…..I watched an interesting episode of Naked Archaeology today about the early struggle among Jesus’ brother James, Peter & Paul for the control of the church in its formative years. They said that James’ version was a jewish-centered religion for the “Gentiles” that required adherence to most jew laws except circumcision. More controversially, they said that both Paul & Peter were spies (for Rome & the rabbis respectively) whose job it was to sabotage the new religion in ways that either diminished its jew-centeredness (Paul’s universalism) or helped ensure it (Peter’s job).
Either way, it makes for interesting speculation, since we now know that there was a lot of struggle in those years among the apostles and other early churchmen for control.
N.B., That’s an interesting take on it & I always give credit to any who realize that there was a dichotomy between Peter (& James) & Paul. Both were servants of God but for two different programs. Peter would have headed up the “little flock” scheduled to go through the tribulation that was the next scheduled event on Israel’s prophetic calendar & for which Jesus had heavily prepared them. But w/the unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (which Jesus had warned would not be forgiven that generation) that was committed by Israel’s leaders in stoning Stephen (Acts 7), God interrupted Israel’s prophetic schedule (although he could have poured out his wrath), and instead offered the world mercy & grace directly (not thru Israel as in the past) by converting Paul & giving him a radical new message of reconciliation.
The sudden unprophesied mystery revelation to Paul was difficult for Israel’s kingdom believers to accept but they eventually did, altho resistance from “Judaizers” frequently arose (Galatians). The early “church fathers” ignorantly clung to the 12 apostles’ law gospel, perhaps seeing its usefulness in controlling their followers. Thus began nearly 2,000 years of Christendom mixing together and confusing elements of both the law gospel & grace gospel that often results in their hearers not being saved at all.
I fail to see how people pushing radically different religious programs can all be “servants of God.” This whole little-known (among garden-variety Christians) history of the fundamental doctrinal conflict in the early church indicates to me that it’s all so much hot air.
Dear Der weiße Engel and N.B. Forrest,
Patriarchy? Who mentioned patriarchy? I didn’t. Your logic seems a little faulty to me. The very fact that men can breed so many more offspring, means that it is he who accounts for so many mixed race offspring, not she.
In any case, looking around me I see very few black male-white female couples despite the incessant propaganda. What I do see are endless numbers of broken familes, divorces, illegitimate children. The sexual revolution encouraged sexual irresponsibility on the part of both sexes. It actually enabled women to indulge themselves as men had been able to do previously without consequences.
Actually the northern Europeans who came to the new land brought their women with them as the Spanish did not, so cross breeding was as much a choice then as now.
We could breed like the Chinese and have millions of starving peasant farmers. The Jews, on the other hand, have acquired tremendous weatlh and power without large numbers.
How about mutual respect rather than control as a basis of the relationship between the sexes?
“Actually the northern Europeans who came to the new land brought their women with them as the Spanish did not, so cross breeding was as much a choice then as now.”
You’re talking about slave owners, who were of course a small minority of the population. They were as drunk on power and the sex on demand with their negresses as they were greedy & shortsighted (like today’s wetback-importing, outscourcing money-worshipers).
There is a category of Northern European men who didn’t have White women readily at hand: explorers, trappers & prospectors who went west. They at least had some semblance of an excuse for bedding down with squaws.
“We could breed like the Chinese and have millions of starving peasant farmers. The Jews, on the other hand, have acquired tremendous weatlh and power without large numbers.”
I agree with the over population Chinese thing, but having an existence like Jews isn’t worth anything with out a nation and community of our own, or atleast being 95% of the nation.
@Diana: Although individuals are responsible for their actions (e.g., initiating a divorce so one can fornicate in exotic locales with dark strangers, eat good food and pray ?!@$@?! while doing the first two) don’t lose sight of the fact that the elite instituted things like intrusive social care, no fault divorce, sole custody where there is no abuse on the part of the non-custodial parent, section 8 housing, aid for unwed mothers, VAWA where many fathers are evicted from their home where there is no threat of violence. These were instituted to incentivize family destruction. Although some may view these innovations as “good” I don’t believe it for a minute – I believe these innovations are just more examples of the elite stiffing the common man. The sexual emancipation of women cannot occur without significant state intrusion and state financial support for women. The fact that the state incentivizes family destruction, and that well-educated elites make their living off of the resulting human misery shows just how wicked the system and the elites have become. The elites have been setting enmity between the sexes for over a hundred years just so they can have a more malleable citizen class and have yet to exhibit any shame, never mind repentance for their actions. In short, if the legal and social service systems didn’t incentivize family destruction, there would be far less of it. The elites should be seeking to serve their social inferiors, not to enslave them. The elites know that a committed couple who are raising a family have overcome their individual selfishness and invested in the future. Such couples en masse will resist overreaching by the state that jeopardizes the future of their children and hence are viewed as obstacles that must be removed.
Der weiße Engel
Hi and thanks for your reply. I apologize for not responding sooner.
Every time the word jew/jewish is mentioned in the bible it’s a mistranslation. There was no such word before the 18th century. It is a bastardization of the word Judah/Judean.
I’m not a bible expert and don’t know ancient Greek or Hebrew.
South and adjacent to the kingdom of Judea lived the Esau/Edomites (also known as Idumeans.) Jews of today are descendents of these Edomites. The Edomites infiltrated and subverted the tribe of Judah. They eventually took over and pretended to be Judahites/Judeans.
The edomite jews were doing the same things back then they do today. Infiltrate to subvert and take over Israelite/Christian culture and government. The Edomites eventually betrayed the Israelites and Judeans into the hands of Assyrians and Babylonians. When the Israelites and Judeans were taken away as captives the edomite jews moved in and totally took over Israel and Judea. The only place not taken captive was Jerusalem because that’s where the Edomite jews lived and were in control.
Modern interpretations and translations of the bible are deceptions.
That’s why I referred to the Christian Identity websites of Pastors Wm. Finck and Eli James. They can explain much better than I can.
If you are of white Christian European heritage it’s vital you understand your history and not buy wholesale “jewish” lies and deceptions because the white Israelites and Edomites were ancient enemies and still are. Read a series of articles called “The Emnity” at http://www.ango-saxonisrael.com and listen the dual seedline/serpent seedline radio series at http://www.christogenea.org and now available at http://www.groundcrewradio.org and prepare to have most of everything you’ve learned turned upside down.
N.B., If the word of God teaches it – and if you allow his word to be your final authority – then it’s not hot air. Try reading the New Testament according to the divine way it’s laid out: Matthew-John-Israel’s Kingdom Gospel (Law); Acts-Testing and setting aside of Israel; Romans-Philemon-Paul’s mystery revelation and gospel to form body of Christ saved by grace; Hebrews-Revelation-resumption and completion of Israel’s Law program (tribulation, second coming in glory, and establishment of the millennial kingdom). The fact that the tribulation (Israel’s final chastisement according to Leviticus 26) did not arrive on schedule (Daniel 9) is proof that this intervening age is an unprophesied interruption of Biblical prophecy.
Diana: “Patriarchy? Who mentioned patriarchy? I didn’t. Your logic seems a little faulty to me.”
Sorry if my meaning wasn’t clear to you, Sunshine. What I’m saying is that your complaints appear to be the typical feminist complaints, all rooted in sexual egalitarianism. Those who accept sexual egalitarianism always blame external factors, such as patriarchal oppression, for any inequality that exists. Just as you are doing here, they are forever trying to apply exactly the same standards to women as they do to men.
Diana: “The very fact that men can breed so many more offspring, means that it is he who accounts for so many mixed race offspring, not she.”
No, it doesn’t, no more than the fact that a man “can”, in some theoretical sense, repopulate the world with each ejaculation, implies that he does.
Diana: “In any case, looking around me I see very few black male-white female couples despite the incessant propaganda.”
Rates of interracial marriage between blacks and other racial groups remained flat from 1880 to 1970, but between 1970 and 2000, negro males exhibit an almost six-fold increase in intermarriage with Whites. Currently, almost 6 percent of negro males’ marriages are with whites.
Beyond that though, we are talking about race-mixing generally – with negroes, Jews, Asians, latrinos, etc., married or not. And it need not be couples, let alone married couples, so the actual situation is vastly, vastly worse than a six-fold increase since 1970. Casual hookups are the trend, and it is quite evident to most that so is miscegenation.
Diana: “What I do see are endless numbers of broken familes, divorces, illegitimate children. The sexual revolution encouraged sexual irresponsibility on the part of both sexes. It actually enabled women to indulge themselves as men had been able to do previously without consequences.”
Yes, and the important thing to understand is that this empowerment of women was without evolutionary precedent. A culture is like a living organism, and White culture had no defense against that technologically-based development. The symptoms you are complaining about have manifested themselves as a result. The declining birth rate, now below replacement level in most White lands, is also a direct result of the use of scientific birth control technology. The White race is dying mainly as a side effect of technological “progress”, just like a forest dying from acid rain, or a coral reef dying as a result of an oil spill.
Diana: “Actually the northern Europeans who came to the new land brought their women with them as the Spanish did not, so cross breeding was as much a choice then as now.
We could breed like the Chinese and have millions of starving peasant farmers. The Jews, on the other hand, have acquired tremendous weatlh and power without large numbers.”
An essential element of Jewish power is control of their women. You can’t admire the one without the other.
Diana: “How about mutual respect rather than control as a basis of the relationship between the sexes?”
Can you think of an historical example of a culture in which respect between the sexes formed the basis for the preservation of race? In the crucible of evolutionary struggle, egalitarian “respect” seems to be an inadequate means to ensure racial survival, as our current situation is demonstrating.
@Diana: Just so you have a complete picture gentile statesmen, foolish churchmen and cultural marxists have been sowing sexual disharmony between the sexes for over a hundred years at this point. Bismarck ( a foolish statesmen) was discussed above. Following the first world war two bolshevik republics were established – one in Russia and the other in Hungary. Gyorgy Lukacs instituted a radical program of sexual education among the Hungarian youth in the Hungarian bolshevik republic. Its curriculum would sound very familiar to anyone knowledgeable about what has been foisted on the youth in this country over the last thirty years. As indicated previously, the Frankfurt school cooked up feminism, seeking to weaken the bonds between men and women. A little later at the 1930 Lambeth conference, English Anglicans buckled and for the first time in Christendom permitted contraception. The RC church view on contraception is that it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act, allowing members of both sexes to treat a partner (even a marital partner) as an object. So when this der weisse guy says that contraception itself was the downfall of the west he’s leaving out about 95% of the picture. He’s leaving out Bismarck’s kulturkampf; the Frankfurt school “luminaries” who chose white gentile women as their dupes in the fight against white christian western civilization and foolish churchmen who buckled to a little pressure and let the wolf into the sheepfold. Women were given a “moral” justification for using birth control by statesmen, cultural enemies and their pastors. Without this “moral” justification I don’t think contraception and abortion would as widespread as it is.
Dave: “Without this “moral” justification I don’t think contraception and abortion would as widespread as it is.”
Which of course obtusely misses the point that if scientific birth control techniques didn’t exist, the question of moral justification would never arise. All of the movements mentioned occurred in reaction to this technological development. They didn’t and can’t precede it. Good luck promoting feminism, for example, without scientific birth control technology to back it up. Without that, the sexual liberation of women becomes impossible.
@Der: Your reasoning is based on a belief that ancient civilizations did not have birth control technology which is factually wrong. Ancient pagan civilizations did have birth control technology. In some cases it functioned similarly to our birth control technology, i.e., to interfere with fertilization. In other cases it was blatant infanticide. Newborns were examined for fitness, and if found lacking, were cast onto a pile outside the city gates. Some would be “rescued” from this predicament by pimps or slave traders, but most would die of exposure. Our birth control practices function remarkably similarly, except infanticide has transmogrified into abortion. Christianity viewed these pagan practices as sinful and they were suppressed for hundreds of years. It was the moral imperative to resist such practices that kept them at bay, and as soon as the moral imperative slackened, they came back into practice.
Of course people always had ways of dealing with the facts of biology, and that included infanticide in some cultures, along with other relatively ineffective measures. However, that again misses the point, which is that the sexual liberation of women can ONLY take place in a culture in which a full term pregnancy is not a likely outcome of a woman having intercourse. That’s an entirely modern development. Sexual liberation of women had to await the development of scientific birth control techniques, which taken together, are always 100% effective.
@Der: You still don’t have your facts straight. Modern birth control methods are not 100% effective. The number of abortions, which are effectively infanticide of a premature infant, are so great one can only conclude that birth control, despite its claims, is grossly ineffectual. One of the great advances of Christianity was the treatment of orphans. Not only did early Christianity significantly reduce infanticide, it also set up a system to deal with the results of sex out of wedlock. Byzantium, an innovator in dealing with many troublesome social issues, took seriously the charge of Christian charity in this regard, and set up an elaborate system of orphanages and foster parenting to deal with children born out of wedlock. In comparison, our system is retrograde and a return to barbarism despite its scientific and egalitarian window dressing. You should let the argument play out before you call some one obtuse or claim that someone is missing the point, because if you fail people might conclude that you are dissembling and seeking to rely on ad hominem attacks to bolster your otherwise weak arguments.
Dave: “You still don’t have your facts straight. Modern birth control methods are not 100% effective …”
Look, try to keep up. So-called therapeutic abortion is a birth control technique, whether you like it or not. It is more scientific than infanticide, and so it’s part of the modern array of techniques that I have referred to as “scientific birth control”. Whenever they are applied, these scientific methods are always, taken together, 100% effective. If you can’t understand that, then I’m sorry to say that you are, indeed, obtuse. (That is the polite word for it anyway.)
As for Christianity and its impact on pagan culture in limiting infanticide and setting up orphanages, no doubt there were a lot of dysgenic effects from that as well. Whether the net result of such measures was positive or negative for the White race is an interesting question. I’m inclined to think it was mostly negative, if not entirely so.
@Der: You’re not keeping up. You tried to give the impression that in some way we moderns are practicing a more humane way of limiting fertility than the ancients by implying that contraceptive techniques were allowing all sexually active women to escape pregnancy when they desire to do so. Contraceptive techniques are not so successful. The fact of the matter is that many women despite your claims of scientific progress, end up pregnant and have to undergo a barbarous act to relieve them of their predicament. There is little difference in barbarism between exposing a full term infant to the elements or ripping a non-full term infant piece by piece from a mother’s womb. The fact that the medical profession in this regard has been subverted by sophists who use euphemisms to cover up the harm they are doing doesn’t change the fact of what abortion is. An abortion is the unnatural ending of a pregnancy that, if not interfered with, would result in a live baby in most instances.
And you also imply that in some way that we have progressed so that babies are delivered in some significant way differently from ancient practices. Many birthing tools used by modern doctors were known to the ancients. e.g., forceps. The new uses some of these old tools have been put to in abortion procedures would probably shock the ancients.
And I take it from your last paragraph that in your infinite wisdom you know that babies that were saved from infanticide by Byzantine practices were, in some way, defective because you claim that the practice may have been dysgenic. Was it the mere fact that Byzantium had too many Byzantines as a result of their practices that was dysgenic, or was it dysgenic for some other reason?
Dave: “You tried to give the impression … And you also imply … ”
I said what I said, and don’t see any way to derive your interpretations.
Dave: “An abortion is the unnatural ending of a pregnancy that, if not interfered with, would result in a live baby
in most instances.”
Yes, as I keep trying to tell you, it’s a scientific birth control technique, and that’s what birth control
techniques do. They prevent the birth of a live baby. They … control … birth. Get it?
Sheesh.
me: “The edomite jews were doing the same things back then they do today. Infiltrate to subvert and take over Israelite/Christian culture and government. The Edomites eventually betrayed the Israelites and Judeans into the hands of Assyrians and Babylonians. When the Israelites and Judeans were taken away as captives the edomite jews moved in and totally took over Israel and Judea. The only place not taken captive was Jerusalem because that’s where the Edomite jews lived and were in control.”
All I can say is the distinction you are making doesn’t appear to be important to Jesus, who refers to himself as a Jew using exactly the same word as the Bible uses when it speaks of the Jews who wanted to kill him. For example, cf. John 7:1:
and John 4:22:
If that doesn’t convince you, probably nothing will.
Note that the two quoted passages are mutually consistent only if John 4:22 is interpreted either as a statement that (a) Jesus was born to a Jewish mother, or (b) as follows:
“… salvation is [taken from the Christ-killing Jews referred to in John 7:1, and reposed with] the Jews [who recognize Jesus as their Messiah as required by prophecy, and who thus continue to qualify as Jews].”
In other words, a redefinition is implied which hinges on the acceptance of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Those who failed to accept Jesus continued to call themselves “Jews”, but salvation was only for those who accepted Jesus, as opposed to “murdered Jesus”.
The distinction between these two kinds of “Jew” is central to the New Testament. Identifying which one is meant in any particular passage is context-sensitive, but usually quite apparent.
There is no greater scourge on this planet than the White Anti-White, because they work tirelessly towards this:
Asia for the Asians
Africa for the Africans.
White countries for everybody.
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and “assimilating” with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for Anti-White
Why all this discussion about what Jesus really meant or what God really intended? There is zero evidence for the existence of God. Period. And no support for the existence of a Supernatural realm. Wouldn’t some theological (i.e. useless) forum be the best place to hash out what 2,000 year old mythological figures “really” meant?
“Wouldn’t some theological (i.e. useless) forum be the best place to hash out what 2,000 year old mythological figures ‘really’ meant?”
You’d probably best be quiet on this topic, Jeff. This comment alone shows that you’re underqualified to discuss it.
Of course, the topic is relevant because White cohesion requires a philosophically and historically coherent White identity, which in turn requires an ideological foundation with a necessary metaphysical dimension.
I’ve already explained this in terms of the continuity of utility functions, and don’t have the time to do so again on your behalf.
If this is unacceptable to you, then I suggest that you move along to a site for dedicated atheists (e.g., Internet Infidels, TheBrights.net, Panda’s Thumb, Pharyngula, … ).
Breaking news!! Eva Longoria to adopt black haitian baby.
Along with the standard bikini butt photo of Jennifer Aniston I found this relevant item at dailymail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1333755/Eva-Longoria-plans-adopt-child-despite-divorcing-Tony-Parker.html
In spite of her ongoing divorce from mulatto basketball star Tony Parker, Eva Longoria is determined to go ahead with plans to adopt a haitian baby.
Hope he makes her middle age hell when she suddenly discovers she’s got big violent thug with the IQ of a snail on her hands.
Eurodele, White identity doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity anymore – and it never really did. And Christianity is becoming less White all the time. This is the 21st century and the kind of narrative that might bind Whites together is not the same as one from 2,000 years ago. In fact, the last time a narrative did come close to binding Whites together it was a Darwinian one.
And stop using silly phraseology to make backward theories sound more respectable. As far as who this site is intended for, well obviously there are true believers in angels and demons here (sigh). Actual grown men that believe in supernatural creatures! It’s pitiful. And then there are those that hold to some silly form of discredited Continental philosophy, especially Romanticism, that no one takes seriously, since it is really just religion secularized.
Anyway, if you believers in ghosts could just get the Christians to top agitating for more Third World immigration and hiding illegal aliens, just that would be an improvement over the massive damage Christianity has done to Whites over the last 2 centuries.
Then, too, in considering the question of whether Jesus was a White man one must look at his behavior, which was so stereotypically Jewish supremacist in a couple of passages cited in the Bible that it could have come from rabbis Yosef or Schneerson. First let’s examine Mark 7:24-30, where Jesus compares non-Jews to dogs and makes a non-Jewish woman grovel and agree that she is a dog before he will consent to heal her daughter:
In essence, Jesus’ attitude here doesn’t differ at all from rabbi Yosef’s recent statement that non-Jews are subhumans, created only to serve Jews. Or compare it with rabbi Schneerson’s statement, as quoted in KMD’s recent blog post re Yosef.
In two thousand years, it’s clear that Jewish racial supremacists haven’t changed at all.
But this is just a warm up. Now let’s look at Luke 19:12-26, wherein this so-called “Prince of Peace”, with stereotypical Jewish bloodthirstiness, urges his followers to bring his enemies before him so that he can enjoy seeing them slain. Also note the characteristic Jewish obsession with usury, even to the point of enjoying the cruel sadism of taking every last bit of money from those who have nothing. Jesus obviously approves of usury in a big way; a very Jewish way, he is no stranger to greed. In this parable, it is understood by the Apostles that he is speaking of himself.
Again we should make the comparison to the words of rabbi Yosef. Working is for non-Jews, but Jews, especially the greatest Jew of all, should live off interest. Others will work, and Jews will sit like effendis and eat. These are words and deeds and mindsets that are incomprehensible if Jesus was a White man, and they only become entirely explainable when it is realized that Jesus was a Jew, with the inborn arrogance and parasitic greed so typical of that alien race.
Jeff Maylor: “In fact, the last time a narrative did come close to binding Whites together it was a Darwinian one.”
Do you have something seriously against using your head, Jeff?
Recast as “social Darwinism”, Darwinian theory bound the wealthy together in a monolithic upper class by providing them with a pseudo-biological rationalization for their own wealth, privilege, and dominance over others of their own race in their own nations. Then, having convinced them of their own genetic superiority to the White lower classes, it mandated their servility to even richer people, Jewish bankers, who were the avowed enemies of their race (after all, rich = superior, poor = inferior and expendable).
In other words, it precipitated the modern sell-out of the White elite to the Jewish elite.
JM: “As far as who this site is intended for, well obviously there are true believers in angels and demons here (sigh). Actual grown men that believe in supernatural creatures! It’s pitiful.”
Not as pitiful by half as those whose minds are closed to any reality higher than the light in their eyes, the din in their ears, and the smells in their nostrils. After all, one cannot disprove the existence of angels and demons. One can, however, disprove the ontological sufficiency of materialism.
JM: “Anyway, if you believers in ghosts could just get the Christians to top agitating for more Third World immigration and hiding illegal aliens, just that would be an improvement over the massive damage Christianity has done to Whites over the last 2 centuries.”
I’m afraid you’re a bit confused again. The “Christian agitating” of which you speak amounts to manipulation and rabble-rousing by Jews, e.g., as when the Jews gave John Hagee his own private jet and got him to betray his flock, his religion, and his race.
For nearly two thousand years, Christians had no use for massive (legal or illegal) immigration, and most still don’t. Their problem is that thus far, they haven’t been able to stop their social-Darwinist overlords from banding together with Jew bankers and cramming it down their throats anyway.
***
“In this parable, it is understood by the Apostles that he is speaking of himself.”
Utter nonsense. A parable is an analogy, not a full identity.
Here, the message was obviously this: “We all know the evils of materialism, the sins of these so-called ‘Jews’. But these scum are nothing if not self-serving, and when there is a higher cause to serve, a lesson regarding efficiency can occasionally be taken from their self-serving behavior. Here is that lesson.”
You have to learn read scripture. It can’t be properly done from an atheistic vantage.
@Der: You are dissembling again you sophist. If these texts weren’t new to you, you would know that there are several instances where Jesus commends non-Jews as having a faith superior to his contemporary Jews. The woman of Tyre was one of these instances. Her story is recounted in two places Mark 7 : 25 – 30 and Matthew 15 : 21 – 28. I’m not sure you knew that it was recounted in two places. In the Matthew account, the story ends with Jesus saying “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” If you did not know about the parallel Mark/Matthew accounts, it proves that this is new to you. If you did know, then you are dissembling because you are misrepresenting the take-away message of the story. Another instance is the centurion story in Matthew 8, where the centurion asks that his servant be healed. The Centurion believes that Jesus is so powerful that he can heal at a distance. The Centurion also understood that a Jew could not enter the abode of a heathen. Jesus commends him thus: “When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, ‘Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” He’s not talking of the gentiles when he says “the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside . . .”
And if you had heard the parable of the talents from the pulpit you would know the take-away message is that any talent that the Almighty gives one needs to be used to glorify the Almighty. The financial aspect is used to give a concrete example. This account should be read in parallel with the parable of the sower in Matthew 13, where Jesus talks about the sower’s seed. Some of the seed fell on the path, some in the weeds and some on fertile ground.
The parable of the sower is followed close upon by the parable of the wheat and the tares at Matthew 13:24 :
“Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’
There is a common theme in these passages, and it has nothing in common with ethnocentrism as you claimed.
Eurodele, all you ever do is deal in abusive conversation. Which given a religious and conspiratorial mindset is what you will always be forced to descend to, because when you reject objective reality and the scientific method, you are left with nothing to argue over, except for your hunches and emotions versus those of your opponents. So the debate quickly becomes personal. There are no external observable facts to refer to in your worldview, just your supernatural visions versus somebody else’s.
You seem to accept to a Leftist critique of Darwinism. So let me be clear on that point: Do you believe in Darwinism? Do you believe in evolution?
And as far Christians, you cannot be serious when you say many clergymen haven’t been on the forefront of fighting for illegal aliens? It isn’t just Jewish influence, although that is a factor. But we have all known Christians that are aggressively altruistic and want to sacrifice America and the West for the sake of the Third World. I don’t know why you would refuse to acknowledge such people exist. All I am saying is, why not confront those Christians who undermine our national security – like those Catholic bishops that are always promoting traitorous positions.
@ Jeff Maylor
You’d better take a look in the mirror. In the post to which I was responding, you (directly or indirectly) called me “pitiful” once and “silly” twice, and even accused me of believing in ghosts. Yet you have the gall to bitch when I observe that you seldom use your head? You should be grateful that somebody didn’t bite it off for you.
Moving along then … beyond the level of pure data, empirical science always involves some degree of speculation and never permits certainty. So when one desires the benefits of certainty, one should always rely on logic wherever possible, citing empirical facts only as input for logical processing or for deductive instantiation. You can disagree with my logic if you like, but you’ll almost certainly be wrong if you do, and no amount of empirical science is likely to change that.
Of course I believe in evolution. Does that mean that I believe in social Darwinism? Hardly. In fact, instead of believing that the cream of society floats to the top, I believe that in an alarming number of instances, it is the garbage, the pathological scum at the bottom of the psycho-genetic barrel, which uninhibitedly claws and scrabbles its way to the top. It’s a big problem, and much of the reason that Whites have been sold down the river.
Lastly, I never said that “many clergymen haven’t been on the forefront of fighting for illegal aliens”. However, of the clergymen I know personally, most would be happy if not a single additional immigrant ever arrived on our shores. (We don’t have many Jews or philosemites around here, but once you get out of the cities, you might be surprised at how few there really are.)
@Jeff Maylor: You are using “evolution” as the measuring stick – anyone who does not believe in evolution is beyond the pale. You should know that Stephen Gould, one of its foremost proponents, was a cultural marxist who distorted facts when he thought it served the dialectic. When no proof of intermediate forms was found in the fossil record, he proposed a theory called punctuated equilibrium, whereby giant “evolutionary” leaps were made between generations. A fin became a limb so to speak in the space of a generation. He did this without fully understanding the number of mutations that would be necessary for a fin to become a limb, and how fantastically small the probability that such a great number of mutations would occur in a single species exemplar to support the transformation. He proposed this theory solely for sophistical reasons. He knew there were gaps, so he proposed a “theory” that explained away the gaps. “Speciation” occurs in a geological instant so it will never be reflected in the geologic record. How convenient! Note that his reasoning violated the scientific method because he postulated a positive theory based on zero evidence.
His fellow believers in evolution nonetheless rejected his ideas because they were so statistically implausible. But that leaves one with gradualism. Gradualism by its operation only creates initial imperfect versions of the final perfect version. How would a woodpecker develop through gradualism? In order to penetrate a tree to find grubs, a woodpecker requires all of the mechanisms that enable it to feed in the manner it does. No strong beak, no long tongue, no eyelid closing coincident with the pounding and the bird starves.
Further, DNA processes operative in reproduction have proofreading and error correcting processes that seek to prevent mutation, and therefore further speciation. The DNA processes ensure that when a sparrow mates with a sparrow you get a sparrow, not a new species of bird. Yet these processes that seek to maintain a species in stasis are postulated as the engine that drives speciation. How can the process do both at the same time?
Evolution was once likened as being as statistically probable as a hurricane coursing through a junkyard and leaving a fully operative 747 in its wake. When asked to choose between a creation theory and evolution, postulating that evolution was as unlikely as the 747 coming into existence as a result of a hurricane, one of these “scientists” said he still preferred evolution. That speaks for itself.
Well Eurodele, I think Darwinism should be separated from Social Darwinism. I wasn’t really talking about Social Darwinism. If you look at that period in the late 19th century and early 20th century, there was quite a bit of discussion among Western White countries about the importance of race and how some races might be either more evolved or differently evolved from other groups. Certainly, German and British thinkers discussed it. So, it wasn’t just the Social Darwinists that represented the Darwinian view, although the Left likes to portray it that way.
As I understand it, there was quite a bit of discussion about Teutonic freedom and self-government as being a cultural and genetic heritage shared by the Germans, English and others in Europe. So, I think people can be persuaded by ideas like this.
Now, when I say Darwinian, I don’t mean sadistic and cutthroat – again that is a Leftist caricature. Darwin himself discussed how groups with more morale and group spirit could defeat less cohesive groups.
Finally, the whole critique of Social Darwinism is overdone. SD was a mishmash of ideas anyway, but the basic hostility to it came from Marxists who hated anything that seemed to give cover to capitalism.
Oh and as to the method of using logic as you describe, I would say it is far too “rationalistic” as they say. Trying to argue too far from “first principles” always gets us in trouble. Some of the most incorrect theories of the Middle Ages came from this method, when a more thorough observation of facts would have set them right. The decision of people like Galileo to actually LOOK at reality, instead of play logic games with their nerdy friends, made a tremendous difference. The whole collapse of rational thinking in the 20th century came about because logic and data were set against each other. Bad approach.
You say “when one desires the benefits of certainty, one should always rely on logic wherever possible, citing empirical facts only as input for logical processing or for deductive instantiation”. That I would disagree with. Facts are our friends, we needn’t fear them.
Dave, Stephen Gould was a despicable person, we can agree on that. He was a Marxist who used his power at Harvard to suppress opinions he didn’t agree with. He was also very opposed to the implications of Darwinism on issues like race.
But as far as the rest of your statement, the best response is to suggest you read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, if you haven’t already (and no, I am not friendly to Dawkin’s politics). He deals with the whole 747 analogy you bring up. That is not a very strong argument which you will see for yourself. Actually, if you just look online and you are intellectually honest, that whole 747 argument will fall apart for you.
The short answer is that evolution and natural selection are not the same thing as “accident”. What drives the creation of alligators and humans is not design, but natural selection. Natural selection is not random. Every species creates far more children than can ever survive, and it is those offspring with the best fit for their environment that survive – it isn’t just chance in other words. Those organisms that slowly develop some competitive advantage survive and prosper at the expense of the others. In any litter of of puppies, there is variation, and in the wild, those creatures with the best traits survive and reproduce and the others die off. This is why 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.
So we aren’t talking about a 747 or a fruit fly being created over night. The earth is over 4 billion years old, so there has been an unimaginable amount of time for creatures to evolve.
As far as the mutations in the genes go, it isn’t hard to understand that DNA does a very good job at transcribing itself but errors do occur. In addition, there are environmental factors that cause mutations, including radiation.
Dave, how is it possible you know so much about the technical errors of Stephen Gould, yet appear so unaware that the 747 argument has already been dealt with?
@Jeff Maylor: Your reasoning is indicative that you are not open to alternative hypotheses. For instance, you draw attention to natural selection as eliminating accident. However, how do you get from the primordial soup to an environment of replicating organisms that are competing for limited resources? Natural selection doesn’t start occurring until that environment is in place. Evolution CAN’T occur until that environment is in place. Before that the only thing happening is accident! How many “accidents” does it require before the simplest self-replicating organism comes into being? Given how complicated the simplest self-replicating organism is, provide me with a credible theory on how the first self-replicating living organism came into being. A credible answer isn’t that’s the easy part – no theory is required.
Dave, trust me, I am open to alternative hypotheses. But they can’t just be spun out of nothing. Now, why do you say natural selection doesn’t operate from the very beginning? Prior to organisms like bacteria there would have been something much simpler involved, probably amino acids of some kind, that began to form in the early conditions on earth. Eventually they began to replicate. Now I don’t know what the actual mechanics involved were nor do any scientists – but they continue to research it and make progress. Laboratory experiments have replicated aspects of this. None of that is particularly hard to grasp or believe in. So why the resistance?
Gaps in the knowledge about evolution do not constitute prove of a creator god. And even if some kind of god existed, his existence can’t contradict what we know about evolution.
What I see in arguments like yours is a tendency to think that if you disprove evolution (or more accurately, find some missing gaps that are not yet explained), you have proven the existence of God. That doesn’t compute. There used to be a phrase for this called the “god of the gaps”, meaning that faith in God can be buttressed by looking in those gaps of knowledge that science has not yet filled in. And you see, those gaps keep getting smaller and smaller. We are now talking about a gap in knowledge about 4 billion years ago. Seems like your god would make himself a wee bit better known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Jeff Maylor: “Finally, the whole critique of Social Darwinism is overdone. SD was a mishmash of ideas anyway, but the basic hostility to it came from Marxists who hated anything that seemed to give cover to capitalism.”
More likely, the basic hostility came from people judged to be inferior by its light, i.e., the working people of whom social Darwinism was a license for abuse. The Marxists, ever the opportunistic manipulators of mass psychology, merely attempted to focus this popular resentment in an advantageous direction.
JM: “Oh and as to the method of using logic as you describe, I would say it is far too “rationalistic” as they say. Trying to argue too far from “first principles” always gets us in trouble.”
First principles are just axioms or postulates, and the most general and reliable ones of all are the tautological axioms of logic. By comparison, those of empirical science are often weak and unreliable.
JM: “Some of the most incorrect theories of the Middle Ages came from this method, when a more thorough observation of facts would have set them right. The decision of people like Galileo to actually LOOK at reality, instead of play logic games with their nerdy friends, made a tremendous difference. The whole collapse of rational thinking in the 20th century came about because logic and data were set against each other. Bad approach.”
Spoken like someone who just took an introductory course on the philosophy of science and now thinks that he has the entire field in a Scorpion Death Lock. Spare us the platitudes.
JM: “Facts are our friends, we needn’t fear them.”
Pardon me, but how did you manage to equate “facts are to be used as input for logical deduction” with “facts are to be feared”?
On second thought, maybe you’d better not answer that.
@Jeff Maylor: I never read Dawkins because when I saw him on TV I concluded he was a huckster who the elite had anointed to demoralize (literally) the hoi polloi and make them more amenable to control. Instead, I spent my time researching the internet. However, you prompted me to look into his refutation. Basically, as I understand it, Dawkins argues that until creationists can prove that God exists, he need not provide any other explanation for design-like aspects of creation than those already forwarded regardless of how improbable existing theories are. That is merely a facile deflection of an argument and not proof. And, right there in Dawkin’s chapter is this statement: “In fact, as I shall show in this chapter, Darwinian natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable riddle of where the information comes from.” No, Darwinian natural selection is an incomplete answer since the Darwinian process needs to be booted up and running before you even get speciation. He also needs to answer how self-replicating organisms came into being. Of course, given the complexity of even the simplest living organism, that such an organism came into being through chance may be even more statistically improbable than darwinian evolution. Let’s see, statistical probability of two random uncorrelated events occurring is the product of their individual probabilities. Wow, the probability is really getting small.
Dave, just to be clear, Dawkins can be a real jerk and politically I am sure he is a Left winger. Some of the hardcore evolutionist like to show off their liberal credentials because at one time being for Darwin was equated with being for Hitler on many university campuses, as I’m sure MacDonald can attest to. The Darwinian viewpoint actually undercuts most of the Left’s arguments, especially the view that they can use social controls and culture to turn Man into whatever creature they want.
Evolutionists aren’t basing their arguments on anything to do with what religious people think one way or the other. It’s built up the way any scientific theory is. As far as the beginnings of life, it isn’t that a self replicating organism as complex as a bacteria sprung from nothing. That would be impossible. It would have sprung from something like very simple chains of amino acids that were able to duplicate themselves in some medium. Non-living things like crystals grow in an orderly manner and of course chains of amino acids form freely in the right conditions.
It isn’t that hard to imagine a string of amino acids (totally non-living) swirling around in a sea of the right elements copying themselves, in some manner. Eventually, some versions would grow longer and if one out of a billion (out of the trillions and trillions) happened to have the ability to “eat” the others in some manner, well you’d have a further development on the road to life. After many millions of more years, maybe you get something like a proto-virus, which is still technically non-living but getting closer to something like life.
Eurodele, you railed against relying on the senses before and I guess you are just a mystic at heart. Mystics become intoxicated with the delusion they can divine the nature of the universe without even bothering to glance at. And a mystic doesn’t have to believe in ghosts and magic to be a mystic, he can believe in various forms of Continental philosophy, but it amounts to the same thing. That is why, despite the use of technical verbiage from the field of philosophy, you end up believing in UFOs, conspiracy theories and God. (oh sorry, not sure if you are a UFOlogist officially).
How could anyone look at the tremendous progress of science and technology over the last 200 years and think relying on empirical data is sketchy? Do you have any idea how much time masters of pure logic like Newton and Galileo spent making very careful observations of material existence? How neck deep they were in evidence of the senses? Again, that is why they advanced knowledge for mankind, while the old spooky monks who shunned being seduced by their eyes, had totally wrong but often internally logically consistent ideas about how the universe worked.
Logic plus evidence. And lots of both.
And by the way, to whomever moderates, why will one of my comments suddenly be delayed for moderation for no apparent reason?
@Jeff Maylor: In other words, you have faith that scientists, if given enough time, will fill in all the gaps and explain existence to a fare-thee-well. I read about the two theories of abiogenesis, RNA first and metabolism first. There is a huge gap in understanding of the processes involved, yet the PC gatekeepers demand that one swear allegiance to evolution notwithstanding this and other huge gaps in their theories. No matter how you slice it, dice it, or divy it up, the PC gatekeepers are asking for a faith declaration – nothing more and nothing less. “We believe in one God, evolution, the maker of all creatures (we think) and his only son, natural selection, by whom all species came into existence . . .”
Dave, evolution is not a PC issue. I know that over the last decade or so the Left loves to pretend they embrace evolution and have those Darwin fish on their cars, but that’s just a pose to irritate Christians. They will use it temporarily and then dispose of it, just like they once championed free speech, and then turned around and implemented speech codes.
Almost all the implications of evolutionary psychology are quite right wing. And the political implications are right wing as well. Remember,t he Soviet Union officially banned Darwinism. Don’t let Leftists claim the mantle of science when they don’t even understand it. You sound more like you are interested in slinging spitballs at Dawkins then apprehending the truth. Dawkins isn’t that important.
I think you are more persuaded by evolution than you let on.
And yes, Dave, there are huge gaps in science – That’s the way it is when we are born knowing the universe and it’s secrets. So which method do you follow? The man who honestly tells you he finds no evidence for a god but has some good theories based on logic and evidence that need to be worked out …. or the mystic man dressed like a wizard that claims to have absolute knowledge of the truth that comes from his imaginary friend?
Dave, my sentence should read “That’s the way it is when we are NOT born knowing the universe and it’s secrets”. You are turning the virtue of science – that it doesn’t claim to have automatic absolute knowledge of the truth from the beginning but must rely on a fallible method, that includes trial and error – into a vice.
Also, you are making an authoritarian caricature out of it by claiming it demands a declaration of faith. It doesn’t give you a few simple sentences as evidence (like the Bible). It gives you an ocean of evidence and reams of material to pore through.
But you are already persuaded by evolution, that’s why you struggle against it so much.
Not at all persuaded by evolution. I view the Almighty as an artist, but an efficient artist. He uses something analogous to a computer program to cause all creatures to come into existence. The form of a creature exists in the Almighty’s mind before it is reduced to coding. Since he is satisfied with each species, He has created mechanisms that maintain them in stasis as they repeat over and over again through reproduction.
Even if evolution is proven as a scientific fact this possibility won’t disprove that a personal God ordained evolution. As scientific materialists fill in the blanks of evolutionary theory ask them to prove to a fare-thee-well that evolution was not ordained by a personal God as his special mechanism of species creation. Hint: Just like theists can’t prove the existence of God in a satisfactory manner to all skeptics, scientific materialists will not be able to disprove that evolution was ordained by a personal God.
Jeff Maylor: “Eurodele, you railed against relying on the senses before and I guess you are just a mystic at heart. Mystics become intoxicated with the delusion they can divine the nature of the universe without even bothering to glance at.”
Oh, now I get it.
This whole thing is a video game. In the game, there’s a character called “The Mystic”. The Mystic is a dunderhead who thinks that he can fruitfully engage in scholastic exercises focused on, say, the number of angels that can shake their booties on a pinhead, e.g., Morris Dees.
The Mystic is an essential part of the game, but hasn’t yet been claimed by any player. Therefore, I’m elected, and am now obliged to endure your endless sophomoric pontifications on the nature of logic and science.
Am I right, or am I right?
JM: “So which method do you follow? The man who honestly tells you he finds no evidence for a god but has some good theories based on logic and evidence that need to be worked out …. or the mystic man dressed like a wizard that claims to have absolute knowledge of the truth that comes from his imaginary friend.”
Whoever wrote this game isn’t exactly a genius, but he sure is predictable. For example, take a look at what The Mystic is wearing: the same old wizard robe, accessorized by the same old sash and wand.
How about shades, flip-flops, and cargo shorts for a change?
Dare to be daring!
JM: “You are turning the virtue of science – that it doesn’t claim to have automatic absolute knowledge of the truth from the beginning but must rely on a fallible method, that includes trial and error – into a vice.”
Scientific uncertainty is only a vice when used for deception or pressed into service for some idiotic social or political agenda or faux-metaphysical ideology to which it cannot be properly applied at all … atheism, for example.
JM: “Also, you are making an authoritarian caricature out of it by claiming it demands a declaration of faith. It doesn’t give you a few simple sentences as evidence (like the Bible). It gives you an ocean of evidence and reams of material to pore through.”
Where certainty cannot be had for love or money, scientists frequently rely on intuition and even on sheer desire. While not all of them fall into the trap of adopting their desires and intuitions as articles of faith, many do … especially in modern academia.
So let’s be clear on something. Anyone who uses “science”, as opposed to raw data plus pure logic, to make any sort of metaphysical case – e.g., “God does not exist”, “There is no evidence for God”, or “Science is the ultimate authority regarding the nature of reality”, metaphysical assertions one and all – is relying on faith alone, and can be intellectually stomped out of existence as easily as a wayward bug.
Now, there’s a well-confirmed scientific fact for you.
Back to the topic, has anyone had a close friendship with the type of person that falls prey to the moral idealism that MacDonald describes? I wonder if there is some common denominator in their personalities.
There was a family that lived across the street from us when I was very young, that really went for all manner of “do gooder” causes. They embraced racial integration, peace movements, and basically any idealistic “fad” that came around.
They were nice people, but they were also superficial once you got to know them. They had a tendency to act “properly” down to the core, as if they didn’t allow themselves to have their own authentic reactions to things. There was certainly some flaunting of their moral attitudes for others to see. And there was also what seemed to be a sincere moral striving. These were not the more aggressive Leftists you run into – they were basically Nice White People. They went to church and didn’t drink much.
They were not always happy with the messy reality of what they advocated actually hitting them in the face – more blacks in the neighborhood, for example. It was more of an indirect annoyance that they never gave voice to, but if you knew them well enough you could see it.
I wonder if these people fail to trust their own instincts and impressions and feel the need to conform to whatever the reigning “moral authorities” tell them to believe in.
Generally agree however i don’t think most SWPLs are motivated by love of the other. I think in most cases it’s the abstract ideal they’ve digested and in many it’s more a hatred of their own people for some reason – often parental. In my experience the behaviour of the Tessa character fits that second type much more. The other kind of SWPL who also likes to go be a missionary or doctor in Africa generally still prefers to have white children.
I think the percentage of self-hating SWPLs has grown massively over the years thanks to the psychological abuse from the media and education but they’re still outnumbered by the abstract idealists.
” Whites must jettison the ideal of moral universalism and ask what is good for the future of Whites.”
This may be ideal but if we’re not made that way then we’re not made that way. The only option then would be a moral universalism built on principles that secure survival e.g Diversity Kills. Moral universalism doesn’t have to be moral in today’s sense. It just needs to be a set of principles publicly staking a claim to be the foundational idea of the group on the basis of maximizing the group commonweal. The multicult does this just it’s a lie.
At the very least the moral double standards of the multicult can be used to undermine it.
I think we need to replace the multicult moral universalism with a survivalist one which includes constraints based on biological science.
Wandrin, that makes sense to me. I think the growing evidence that biology impacts behavior is to our long term benefit. Basically, all the of the good science in that area at the beginning of the 20th century was put on hold for generations while we went through the “culture only” model promoted by Boaz and others, as MacDonald has described. And by the way, many other high profile thinkers reject the “blank slate” view of humanity as well, from Steven Pinker to EO Wilson to James Watson. There is a growing cross section of scientists, some of them Jewish by the way, that are openly discussing the importance of genetics to behavior.
If we can inform enough intelligent, independent minded people that there is a real scientific basis for ethnic differences in IQ and behavior, half the battle will be won.
In that sense, maybe we can embrace a kind of modified moral idealism informed by biological science – we treat individuals and groups according to their behavioral tendencies and capacities.
I don’t know if anyone has discussed this recently, but the elite in this country function somewhat like the Ottoman Turk empire’s Jannisaries. The elite pick the brightest in the country and indoctrinate them. As a result, the brightest lose their natural allegiance to their own kind and become SWPLs. SWPLs are effectively elite bootlickers but don’t see themselves that way because they only compare themselves to the less-bright of their own kind. Those who become SWPLs, if they had stayed with their own kind, would have become leaders in their own communities of origin. They might become a bulwark against elite predations.
There is some evidence that the elite is underchoosing bright white gentile men at this point, as some of the elite just can’t stand to see one of these rise to the top, especially if they maintain their group allegiance. Once can only hope they continue this because they are strengthening their adversaries, not weakening them.
“In that sense, maybe we can embrace a kind of modified moral idealism informed by biological science – we treat individuals and groups according to their behavioral tendencies and capacities.”
This strkes me as one possible route as it goes with the grain of white behaviour.
“but the elite in this country function somewhat like the Ottoman Turk empire’s Jannisaries. The elite pick the brightest in the country and indoctrinate them”
Interesting thought.
Dave: “The elite pick the brightest in the country and indoctrinate them.”
Correction: the socioeconomic elite pick the most ambitious students – mostly docile little brown-nosers and carrot-on-a-stick chasers – who have already proven themselves most susceptible to academic indoctrination, and then indoctrinate them some more. They are chosen as much for their toadying potential as for their intellectual talents.
The very brightest students are typically not as susceptible to indoctrination, as it is too often counterfactual in nature. They are written off instead, resulting in a stratospheric breakdown of the wealth-intelligence correlation demonstrated in “The Bell Curve”.
Dave: “As a result, the brightest lose their natural allegiance to their own kind and become SWPLs.”
No, they simply become marginalized. In the end, they are far less likely to go “SWPL” than their more NWO-amenable intellectual inferiors. As a simple matter of statistics, their rarity guaranties that their inferiors always overwhelm them in the power structure, swamping their greater ability with the lifting power of sheer unadulterated ass-suction.
Dave: “SWPLs are effectively elite bootlickers but don’t see themselves that way because they only compare themselves to the less-bright of their own kind.”
…while succumbing to the narcissistic delusion that “less bright” covers everyone else but them, when in fact, they are so far below the mental level of the historical geniuses they studied in school that they might as well belong to a lower species of animal.
Dave: “Those who become SWPLs, if they had stayed with their own kind, would have become leaders in their own communities of origin.”
Perhaps, but not due to any real intellectual superiority of their own.
Dave: “They might become a bulwark against elite predations.”
…as they madly scramble to make local elites of themselves.
Failing that, their personalities ensure that given the opportunity, they would belatedly sell out to the elite just as eagerly as they did in order to secure their Rhodes scholarships and CFR memberships.
@Eurodele: Your corrections make sense to me. I guess the elite want bootlickers just smart enough to advance the elite agenda, but not confident enough to rock the boat.
I guess the elite learned from the example of the Janissaries because the Janissaries eventually challenged their overlords for control of the Empire and thus became a very destabilizing influence.
Whites will not do anything to save themselves. The Zionist Jews have exploited two weaknesses of the White race: The majority of whites obey the law and White empathy. The Jews pass laws that lead to the destruction of White civilization and White guilt. These weaknesses have lead to the destruction of our race. It is still not too late for Whites to do something, but Whites will do nothing. Like sheep, we stand waiting for the knife to slit our throats. We are in desperate need of a White leader with “Balls”. We need to place the problem in public view of all Whites and make Whites aware that the Jews want us all dead.
I read this article the other day, coincedently the movie “The Constant Gardener” was shown on tv soon after so I decided to watch it.
I’m sorry to say Mr. Macdonald but you were wrong about the baby in the hospital, the baby she is breastfeeding is not her baby, her own baby was stillborn, it is not hard to see why you missed that fact though. They mention it only briefly, Tessa is more concerned with the death of the african girl than she is her own son…