To create, you must first destroy. That is the implication behind the French (but in reality European) New Right’s Manifesto for a European Renaissance, authored by Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier thirteen years ago and recently republished in book form by Arktos Media.
And what is it that needs to be destroyed? It is not specifically Marxism, cultural or otherwise, nor even the ethnically based movements that grew out of it, though these would be casualties. It is, in fact, the prior ideology of liberalism, against which Marxism—and also the response to Marxism: fascism, or National Socialism—constituted a response. Liberalism is the enemy: it is the originating formulation of the evil of modernity, and the main agent of the accelerating destruction of European cultures over the past three hundred or so years.
The Manifesto traces the roots of modernity to Christianity. The movement, defined by individualisation, massification, desacralisation, rationalism, and universalism, is seen as ‘a secularisation of the ideas and perspectives borrowed from Christian metaphysics which spread into secular life following a rejection of any transcendent dimension’. Individualisation stems from the idea of individual salvation; egalitarianism from the idea that salvation is equally available to all of mankind; progressivism from the idea that the world has an absolute beginning and a necessary end; and universalism from the sense of ‘a manifest revealed truth which, valid for all men, summons them to conversion’. This means that Christianity, now ‘reduced to an opinion among others’, has ‘unwittingly become victim of the movement it started’. Indeed, ‘in the history of the West, Christianity has become the religion of the way out of religion’.
According to the authors,
The various concurrent and often contradictory philosophical schools of modernity agree on one issue: that there is a unique and universalisable solution for all social, moral and political problems. Humanity is understood to be the sum of rational individuals who, through self-interest, moral conviction, fellowship or even fear are called upon to realise their unity in history. In this perspective, the diversity of the world becomes an obstacle, and all that differentiates men is thought to be incidental or contingent, outmoded or even dangerous. To the extent that modernity is not only a body of ideas, but also a mode of action, it attempts by every available means to uproot individuals from their individual communities, to subject them to a universal mode of association. In practice, the most efficient means for doing this has been the marketplace.
Modernity, however, is dead. It has by now nothing left to say, and survives as a zombie, condemned endlessly to re-iterate, recycle, refine, and even parody itself. Post-modernity is not really a movement after modernity, but is rather modernity on life-support. At a recent event, where I spoke about various models of collapse (an article is due soon to appear in The Occidental Quarterly on this same topic), New Right theorist Alexandr Dugin applied the term ‘delayed collapse’ to post-modernity. And this is apt, for in the arts we can recognise the post-modern movement as a capitulation, as an admission of defeat, by modern creatives. Are they not reduced to pastiche, collage, self-parody, scepticism, irony, and ‘language games’?
They say that money is the root of all evil. Certainly, in ancient and mediaeval times money lacked the all-consuming pre-eminence it acquired during the modern era, during which money became the measure of all things, and in which market value is often the main determinant of whether something is done or made—or not. Does it not follow, then, since economism is a by-product of modernity and modernity a by-product of liberalism—indeed, they are all one and the same— that liberalism is the root of all evil?
European Renaissance
Having identified the source of the problem, the Manifesto proceeds to offer a systematic view of man and the world, contrasting the New Right’s view with the modern one. De Benoist and Champetier set the New Right’s organic man against modernity’s abstract man; contextual man against universal man; the society of kith and kin against the society of individuals; politics as an art against politics as business transactions; the economy in the service of man against man in the service of the economy; particularised morality against universalised morality; technology in the service of man against man in the service of technology; plurality against universality; and the integration of the transcendent and the material against their segregation into entirely separate realms.
Put another way, for the New Right man is, or should be conceived as, an organic being, which integrates the biological with the social, intellectual, and spiritual; who exists in a specific social, geographical, familial, and historical context, which determines his morality and wherefrom he derives, or within which he constructs, his identity; who also exists in a world where man, morality, and thought occur in a plurality of forms; and who is part of a universe where the material and the transcendent comprise a continuum, in which man and the material acquires meaning through the transcendent.
This contrasts with the modern conception of man as an abstraction, which is the same everywhere and begins life as a blank slate, totally malleable, and who exists in a contractual society that is nothing more than a collection of economically motivated individuals pursuing their rational self-interests and universal moral convictions, in a purely material world that is to grow ever more advanced techonologically and ever more efficient economically, and where history will end once a state of liberal democracy, social and economic equality, universal education, and secularisation have been achieved.
Having outlined a comprehensive worldview, the third part of the Manifesto offers policy positions on a variety of contemporary topics. Most of the headings are self-explanatory:
- Against indifferentiation and uprooting; for clear and strong identities;
- Against racism; for the right to difference;
- Against immigration; for cooperation;
- Against sexism; for the recognition of gender;
- Against the New Class; for autonomy from the bottom up;
- Against Jacobinism; for a federal Europe;
- Against depoliticisation; for the strengthening of democracy;
- Against productivism; for new forms of labour;
- Against the ruthless pursuit of current economic policies; for an economy at the service of the people;
- Against gigantism; for local communities;
- Against megalopolis; for cities on a human scale;
- Against unbridled technology; for integrated ecology;
- For independent thought and a return to the discussion of ideas.
In various ways these positions coincide with mine, though I do not ever speak about the ‘right’ to anything (such as the ‘right’ to difference, listed above), since the notion of ‘rights’ is a liberal one—hence the culture of entitlement that pervades our modern Western societies—and I prefer, instead, to speak of the assertion and recognition of prerogatives. What the Manifesto articulates as a ‘right’ to difference expresses, in reality, the need to discredit equality as an absolute moral good and emphasise, in its place, the moral goodness of difference—of being different, distinct, unique, and / or member of one of a plurality of lineages or categories, based on clear and strong identities.
In the area of race relations, the New Right sees racism as the result of liberalism: in recognising that individuals construct their own identities from their membership of a group or community, which coheres around the recognition of its own distinctness or uniqueness, the liberal model of giant open societies, immigration, cosmopolitanism, and universal metropoles populated by equivalent and interchangeable humans constitutes an attack on both the individual and the community, which then react defensively by developing racism. Hence, anti-racism causes racism. The reason is simple: quality and equality are diametrically opposed and, on the whole, mutually exclusive. Quality, both in the sense of superior quality and of distinguishing qualities, is where we find value. What is superior in quality has greater value than what is average. What has many or very strong distinguishing qualities tends also to be rare, and what is rare has greater value than what is common. But to equalise one has to destroy quality and distinguishing qualities, to shave off anything that stands out, in order to keep only that which is common to all. Thus, the pursuit of human equality represents the destruction of human value, through mental erasure (‘race doesn’t exist’), active policy (progressive taxation), or both. This is what is so obnoxious about the liberal worldview. Is it a surprise that non-parasitical folk react negatively, when faced with the consequences liberal policy?
Rather than assume that all humans are equivalent and interchangeable, and that they are blank slates that can be inscribed with whatever social engineers deem technically and economically efficient, the New Right prescribes recognising human difference, or diversity; and it prescribes the prerogative of individuals and groups to construct their own distinct identities. In this model, what makes sense is not immigration, but collaboration between distinct, autonomous communities, according to their specialisation. Diversity, as conceived by egalitarians, has failed because the latter’s commitment to equality means they cannot recognise that there cannot be diversity (and therefore meaningful cultural exchange or enrichment) without distinctness and autonomy. An egalitarian who preaches diversity lives in fundamental contradiction.
The same principles apply to gender: feminism, as is understood nowadays, is a devaluation of women, exactly the opposite of what it purports to be.
The issue of feminism is linked, inevitably, to the modern obsession with production. In the liberal worldview, everything is material, so the only way to increase value is through production and ever increasing productivity. This materialism means that we end up with a world where ‘nothing has value, but everything has a price’. In other words, a world that grows progressively more meaningless the more production destroys value through massification, standardisation, and the maximisation of profits. It is no coincidence that we are surrounded by advertisement everywhere and that shops are overflowing with shiny, worthless, poorly made junk items that break within hours of purchase. A society that focuses on productivity, and therefore on economic growth, where its performance is decided on the basis of gross domestic product, where the goodness of a policy is decided on the basis on its effect on economic growth, is a society whose understanding of value is one-dimensional, which conflates value and market value, thereby ignoring other all other sources of valuation. In such a society, aesthetic value, spiritual value, intellectual value, either do not exist or are debased through strict subordination to market value. Quality of life also suffers, because time and energy is directed at maximising productivity and economic growth. It follows, then, that any post-liberal model would have to recognise the many forms of value, and would, therefore, not operate purely as a business.
There is much more in this Manifesto, but I would rather the reader explore it on his own than have it pre-digested for him here, since this is a very succinct text and there is no point in my reproducing it in its entirety. The general idea, the overall shape of the New Right’s vision, can doubtlessly be grasped from the above.
American Renaissance
The New Right’s Manifesto poses an interesting problem for American readers, because it is by no means irrelevant to the American situation. In has, in fact, everything to do with it, and the values associated with it, because the United States is a spawn of ‘Enlightment’ liberalism—the ideas of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Montesquieu, and so on. Founding Fathers Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were all leading figures of the American ‘Enlightenment’. (I put the term in quotation marks because the term ‘Enlightenment’ is pure propaganda, since it effectively says: ‘you are benighted—you’re not enlightened—if you don’t believe in these ideas’.) It would appear, then, given the intellectual origins of Americanism, that a rebirth of European man in the North American continent would necessitate the prior destruction of the United States—at least as we conceive it today.
By destruction I do not mean a thermonuclear Armageddon, as depicted in the 1987 novel, Swansong, by Robert McCammon; the 1984 British film Threads; the 1983 American television film The Day After, or the 1961 Japanese film The Last War—though Cormac McCarthy’s The Road illustrates quite eloquently that a thermonuclear Armageddon would likely do the trick. Neither do I mean the kind of scenario explored in The Turner Diaries or later elaborations on that theme: without a prior revolution in the way Americans think at the most fundamental level, jumping straight to armed insurrection would only push the problem aside, but not kill it, and the result would be either the ascent of reactionary liberals (turning the clock back to a previous stage), or ongoing conflict between liberals and anti-liberals, in which case the situation remains defined by liberalism, which is never really transcended. By destruction I mean philosophical, ideological, and legal eradication, right down to first principles. That is to say, Americans reinvent themselves as something other, something that returns them and reintegrates them with the European civilisation wherefrom they came, becoming once more an extension of it, rather than the uprooted, or amputated, hypertrophic outgrowth of a passing vogue in European thought. In this scenario ‘American’ becomes merely a demonym, divested of its ideological implications.
To most this will likely be nearly inconceivable, particularly given that many patriotic, reactionary, and ultra-conservative Americans keep alive a cult of the Founding Fathers and a sort of Constitutional fundamentalism: other than the Comanches, the Apaches, the Iroquois, and the various other traditional nations predating the European colonial project, there was hardly ever a country in that part of the world that was legally and philosophically formulated upon different principles. In this sense the United States is fundamentally different from the nations of Western Europe, which have long histories prior to liberalism. Yet, there was once something other in what later became the United States—in the early colonial days, in the frontier, and in the Old West, beyond the reach of abstract philosophy—; and this illiberal otherness survived into modern times, albeit marginalised or sublimated into fiction (H. P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard), poetry (Ezra Pound, though he is a modernist), and, in a certain way, comic books and graphic novels, a topic that Jonathan Bowden touched upon at various times. Admittedly, a non-liberal reformulation of the American identity appears nearly impossible from where we stand today, and the tradition that would serve as its resources is indeed comparatively small, especially given the monstrous intellectual and legal edifice that has been erected since the late 1700s—but the resources do exist, and their remoteness and obscurity may in time prove an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
Given that the American nationality is the result of a European settler colonial project as well as a particular strand of European thought, and that, ultimately, because of this, the only ‘American’ is an European American, it seems ironic, does it not, that Americans will not save themselves from complete erasure down the line unless they recast themselves, think, and learn to act in ways that would today be considered ‘un-American’.
Finally . . .
We must come to a question that will doubtless be in the minds of some, given Kevin MacDonald’s recognition of a number of Jewish intellectual movements’ having been instrumental in the disprivileging, deconstruction, even the attempted and largely successful destruction of traditional European and White American identities during the twentieth century, and given also the fact that the aforementioned movements have all represented an exacerbation of liberalism and a pushing of it to its most extreme logical conclusions. The New Right Manifesto says nothing about this topic specifically, but the tools to tackle the issue are provided nevertheless. And it boils down to this: we can and ought to respect the desire of Jews to define themselves as they wish, and to remain a distinct people, but, similarly, it remains our prerogative also to define ourselves as we wish, and to remain a distinct people, which means any attempt by outside agents to prevent this must be resisted.
The solution offered in the Manifesto is much more radical than simply educating folk about the nature of these movements and their role in ethnic competition between Jews and European-descended peoples, or recommending the instituting of exclusionary policies, or suggesting the mirroring of Jewish strategies, for these movements were all enabled by liberalism and they and any future analogue would become impossible, indeed unthinkable, once the ideas that form the basis of liberalism fall into discredit.
Conclusion
We have, thus, is a very clever and comprehensive manifesto, replete with profitable insights that are well worth pondering, certainly in Europe, almost certainly in North America, and probably also in other far-flung outposts of European civilisation.
Facing the Future as a Minority
I don’t think you’re right to lump Montesquieu in with liberalism, at least without a lot of qualification. Does this French new right manifesto really do that? Montesquieu represents an older natural law tradition that recognises the ‘spirits’ of various peoples as determining their laws, hence the ‘spirit of laws’.
Great article – apart from the manifesto’s error of laying the blame for the Enlightenment and it’s ideas at the door of Christianity. Saying that Christianity started a movement that is essentially ‘a secularisation of the ideas and perspectives borrowed from Christian metaphysics which spread into secular life following a rejection of any transcendent dimension’ is a non-sequitur. It’s like saying the existence of truth is to blame for the distortion thereof.
This book say things about Christianity’s being the mother of liberalism that I have been formulating (or trying to formulate) on my own for several years.
I will probably buy it. Has anyone read it?
“In the Kali Yuga, the Thundertoad shall belch forth hideous ichors, and many shall be non-plussed by his unconventionable appearance.”
Thanks for this, intellectuals. Against racism and sexism, for stuff that leftists claim is racism and sexism.
Meanwhile, anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Also, why exactly are large cities to be opposed? The only problem with large cities in America is that they get taken blacks and hispanics who come to consume their resources. Think about that. Why don’t blacks and hispanics go on EBT and Section 8 in the cities instead of moving to the country where houses are cheap, the air is clear, and they can grow food to supplement their welfare income? Because (duh) the cities have infrastructure to feed off of. Cities are actually very good at sustaining life.
Other than recognizing that most of modern opinion springs from the individualized poisoned well of liberalism (including most comments on this website – check out “critical theory”), it is kind of hard to get excited about this article. Not only are we to overthrow a massive rotting complex (which is currently arming itself to fight back), but we are supposed to jump towards a whole new-old line of European thought.
I am a nobody who has spent a total of ten days in the continent from which my ancestors come. The rest of my days have been spent all over this “nation” of ours. It is much more likely that We will cling to our Bible and guns than put together an new Old West line of thought, redefining ourselves, de nouveau.
Nope, I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in America, The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. We’ve become pretty comfortable being neither, and taking pot-shots from our Barcaloungers and Golf Carts en route to Burger King.
OMG, never read anything so hopeful and creative in the restoration of European Culture and minds. After decades of degradations, the debasement of European Culture and people, and yes distruction, as far as my life is concerned, it is a hopeful, and I can foresee a difficult path, but nevertheless a workable one for those who are willing to put their pride and egos (here in the US as well as in Europe) aside for our childrens, and futures sake. Magnificent, I just ordered the book, and thank you for the review. It was like a breath of fresh air, and definitely a stir to want to know more.
Alex’s writing has inspired me to put the European New Right’s manifesto on my reading list although I expect to be disappointed by it. From Alex’s critique of the book they seem to have failed to recognize that the first prize in conquering a culture is to capture its religion and it’s God. Once a people’s pathway to it’s God has been captured the rest is easy, hence even the dimwits can trace(s) the roots of modernity to Christianity. And such elementary misquotes as money is the root of all evil. doesn’t exactly inspire one to believe anything they say on the subject of the Church and Christianity.
There are of course subtle differences between the continental Europeans and the Anglo-Saxons but enough that one can still read in the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times that the Anglo-Saxon economies move at a different rhythm to the rest of the world. Fischer of Albion’s Seed fame would quibble with the statement Given that the American nationality is the result of a European settler colonial project
One final critique of Alex’s otherwise excellent offering is that everybody seems to think that Alexander the Great was a devout follower of Jesus Christ. Alexander set out to meld the cultures of East and West and in the process had 10,000 of his Macedonians marry Indian women. Blaming the Church for what is a White thing is merely shooting oneself in the foot even before the race has started.
This is a great article by Kurtagic showing the contrast between ‘modern’ liberal thought and where we need to go.
Did anybody else see this, regarding the motivations for the 2012 Olymjpic Games???
There is a widespread agenda here.
THIS quote speaks VOLUMES. Why is this guy not being strung up by the ankles for promoting genocide?????
“We have heard of this near-genocidal ideology before. Well known socialist Andrew Marr of the BBC stated the following in a Guardian article about breeding out the indigenous people of Britain:
“What then can be done? (Apart, of course, from widespread and vigorous miscegenation, which is the best answer, but perhaps tricky to arrange as public policy.) …this means more than education in other religions it means a form of political education… the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress… stamp hard on certain ‘natural’ beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off… a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too.”
I find this terrifying and deeply sinister. One does not need be a xenophobic bigot to have the temerity to notice this sort of anti-white racism. Indeed, I would suggest the true racism here, the genuine racism, is coming from the hard-left as personified by the likes of Danny Boyle and Andrew Marr.”
London’s Marxist Multicultural Olympics
http://britishfreedom.org/londons-marxist-multicultural-olympics-2/
@Adi Schlebusch:
But Christianity is in fact a large part of the problem. I see “liberalism” as the bastard son of Christianity, especially after the French Revolution. I’ve collected a series of articles on it. Pay special attention to the second article in my list “The Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem.”
I eagerly await watching our European cousins attempt to restore the world to pre-modernity. By all means, lead the way. Just as soon as you have a achieved perfection here on earth I will consider destroying everything my forefathers have worked, fought and died for in the past three centuries because we have taken a bad turn in the last fifty years. The plan certainly makes as much sense as blaming Christianity for liberalism. Oh, for the record, blacks who were brought here as a result of slavery are as American as anyone else – a good deal more than some. My quarrel with them is not that they have equality before the law, but that they have been privileged beyond merit by the law.
@Sandy:
I agree with what you said about Alexander the “Great”. See these articles by William Pierce’s about how white suicide—miscegenation and mongrelization—started long before the Jews took over.
In fact, the mess started even before the Macedonian Alexander, since the ancient Greeks (and then the Romans seriously aggravated the problem).
William Pierce’s Who We Are (excerpts linked above) is a fascinating history about the white people that must be read by every nationalist together with Arthur Kemp’s The Complete History of the White Race.
Intellectuals of the New Right always talk about what needs to be done and never of how it’s going to be done. How do you spark a revolution in thought without media influence, political power, or money? What’s your strategy? I would recommend focusing on Europe instead of America. Europe still has a chance; America doesn’t.
“we can and ought to respect the desire of Jews to define themselves as they wish, and to remain a distinct people,”
Why? After what they’ve done to us? This race has cost us millions of lives and the near-total destruction of our civilization. They need to be brought under the whip-hand again and we need to ensure that they never again achieve any kind of power.
@Adi Schlebusch:
Just as the civil rights movement sprang from the ideals of America, and cannot be separated from it (indeed, it is pointed to by many as upholding the ideals of America), in the same way, Liberalism sprang from Christianity; perhaps a depleted and spent Christianity, but Christianity nonetheless.
“In the Kali Yuga, the Thundertoad shall belch forth hideous ichors, and many shall flee therefrom.”
@Chechar:
Thank you Chechar for the link, I will be reading it.
@fender:
Absolutely. You just asked the right question, which shows why a deranged sense of decency (both Christian and Secular Christian—see “The Red Giant”, one of the articles within the list I linked above) has been killing us.
To my mind, Umwertung aller Werte would mean reverting our moral grammar to Roman times with lots of crucifixions lining the Appian Way from Rome to Capua and starting to think like Himmler thought. As I’ve said many times, after the dollar crashes the white future belongs to the bloodthirsty, not to the Alt Righters.
This is something so obvious that I wonder how many übermenschen who have left Christian meta-ethics behind are reading this thread? I must insist those who have not to start reading the excerpts of Pierce’s book on the history of whites, also linked above.
I see a lot of opinions who blame christian religion for the downfall of white race. That liberalism has roots in christainity, marxism in liberalism etc. and that causes the decadence of european nations. And that marxism and liberalism doctrines are very little variation of christainity. But which are this differences? First and the biggest (the others doesen’t really matters) is that: neither liberalism nor marxism (or multiculturalism) don’t have Jesus Christ.
Paul the Apostol said “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”. Christianity without Christ is poison (or liberalism). But with Christ christainity differs from liberalism as spiritual from material.
Jesus Christ Son of God. I invite the skeptics to accept that for a moment. Then the next question is” can we do something (like revitalizing our nations for example) without Christ? Personal I think not, but this is a problem that everyone should ask. The problem of Europe is not economical, nor cultural or moral is spiritual. Which will be the faith wich will guide us? This is the most important question from where we can begin our rebirth. The wrong answer means failrue.
PS. Alain de Benoist the promoter of the Manifesto is an neopagan who sees in paganism an answer. Ancient greeks(a brilliant people) were pagans, they decayed, ended gays and mixed with coloureds( and in those times there was not liberalism or christianity). Romans the same (and what warriors were they!). Persians were subdued by arabs and mongrealized. Indeed pagan roots are very healthy!
European nations as long as confessed Christ were invincible and in the end victorious. Our decadence became visible with age of reason and french revolution. I wonder why?
The tools to tackle the Jewish issue are in a book that doesn’t mention mention Jews?
Maybe you should explain that a little more.
Without having read all the ENR literature for myself, I can only make a tentative judgment on this point. But, as far as I ascertain from reading various reviews, articles, etc, around the community and the interwebs, there does not appear to be a single ENRightist who isn’t a Jew-loving philo-semite to the core.
The problem with this perspective ought to be evident to anyone who reads TOO.
I appreciate the effort to create this manifesto, and I appreciate that it is filled with complex ideas and thoughts by very intelligent people. Perusing the article, I was able to get, I think, a general grasp of the main ideas, although for a layman like myself, there are a number of large, difficult-to-digest words. I think the point of this manifesto is to start the ball rolling on a new philosophy, a new way of thinking. It will be up to policy makers, legislators and other elites to enact policies based on these ideas. I tend to agree with most of the goals in the manifesto.
However, the idea of throwing away the past, the history, institutions, culture and even religion of a people to start a new, in my mind is absolutely impossible. I think that this suggestion ignores the fact that people are people, it ignores human psychology, and our powerful need for roots, traditions and spirituality. You may as well tell us to tear down our house, burn our car and destroy all our photographs, clothing and all material possessions we value. I would as soon do that then discard my religion and love of the founders, et al. (And what is supposed to replace them?) To ask such a thing is to ask far too much. In my view, a better idea is to rebuild, clean and restore our culture and institutions by selectively taking the best parts to create a more perfect version of what once was.
“Many patriotic, reactionary, and ultra-conservative Americans keep alive a cult of the Founding Fathers and a sort of Constitutional fundamentalism”.
I would modify this to say that just about all ultra-conservative Americans greatly revere the founders. In fact, denigrate them at your own risk, as we have firearms and are perfectly capable of going redneck when provoked. The idea that Americans would abandon that rich and glorious past is so inconceivable, I cannot understand why a thinking person would suggest it. I also disagree with conflating “Liberalism” with the founders. Their breed of Liberalism was something completely different from today’s variety.
Philosophical treatises have a tendency to get very “ivory tower”, and miss out on practicality and “what works”. They forget that humans are just people, with their various needs, sentimentality, limitations, eccentricities and people-ness. I think a successful philosophy should take this into account, and thus have more “do-able” ideas.
So, we have a good start here, but I think its back to the drawing board to refine this manifesto. I look forward to the revamped version.
@Andrew:
Hear, hear! Thank you. America has been a wonderful experiment in just how far human freedom can be extended. We are also a pragmatic people. We need only look around us to see that this system is not working, not just for whites, it is not working for the vast majority of blacks either. The last thing we need is to destroy everything, disavow our heritage, religion, and forefathers and rebuild the world anew. Been there, done that. I am not saying that life will ever be perfect, but a return to the Constitution, genuine equality before the law and limited government would make things a whole lot better.
I declare (to be Southern about it) some of these articles are brilliant and over my head. I, however, feel privileged to be able read these great articles.
Obviously, we need a higher plane of thinking than what we have now. Surely, America was never meant to be a waste of human history. I refuse to believe it.
Perhaps, we were meant to be a leader among white nations. Otherwise, why are the Jews working so hard to fill the United States with non-Whites?
Every white nation has its own unique nationalism. America, too. That’s real diversity. Perhaps, America should have taken the position of “protector.” Being so huge we could have defended our smaller ancestral nations from alien encroachment. Which is probably laughable since such a thought never seemed to have entered anybody’s head. Evidently, the Jews thought about it. They have us out protecting their interests.
We should have gone to the defense of Germany. We should have gone to the defense of Rhodesia. We should have gone to the defense of South Africa. Never, ever, should we have allowed the flower of European youth to be slain for the Jews or Israel. I am all for Jews having the prerogative of self determination – but way, way, very far away from us. They are too dangerous to have around and we are going to have to give a great deal of thought about how to get rid of them.
I was struck by a remark a friend of mine made one time. She was a divorced mother of a 18 month old toddler and had gone back home to live with her mother. One evening we were going out with some friends and I ran in to let her know we had arrived to pick her up. The toddler was sitting in the floor playing with a toy, but the little boy was ill with a heavy head cold. (He was so cute!) She grabbed up her handbag, raced by the child without noticing him. Her mother followed us to the door and wanted to know how her daughter could go with her child so ill and without so much as a hug or a glance. The daughter was aggravated and a little embarrassed. She shrugged and mumbled “how can I do something if I don’t think about it?”
Is that our problem? How can we do something if we don’t think about it? Jews seemed to have noticed and took it on themselves to do our thinking for us.
Just want to thank Prof. MacDonald for the latest video link on You Tube. I think that the title may be given in sarcasm, but it is a relief to hear a message that I’ve long believed by instinct. In university, all I ever heard was the pro-miscegenation “social gospel.” It is also a sign of changing winds that Ray Stevens, whose song “Everybody Is Beautiful” suggested–to my mind when I was a child– the liberal view of race-relations (i.e., integration and intermarriage are natural and good and one should not resist or oppose them), has at least taken a stand for some of our traditional values on the Political Cesspool program. (I do not claim here that Stevens shares our belief that miscegenation should be discouraged.)
Jewish communism-socialism has been the greatest challenge to Christianity since Jesus Christ. No other millitant anti-Christian movement even comes close.
These European manifestos, remind me of George Washington Plunkitt on those experts & speakers on blockades on elevated railroads in politics.
@Chechar:
I enjoy the non-fiction writing of Pierce much more, those links have some interesting material. The role that racial hygiene, or lack of it, has played in the rise of fall of civilizations is hardly understood by anyone and almost never discussed.
While I do think culture matters, I would encourage those who think that culture/religion/philosophy are the number one issues to put a greater emphasis on race.
Culture is almost always an expression of a people, not the other way around. You can’t just keep your culture and be oblivious to the racial changes going on. It may offend some to say this, but a rough guide is: race comes first, then culture.
The biggest thing holding the movement back is the lack of spirituality. Who cares about race, lineage, or ancestry if your soul ends at death? Hitler offered something like a people-centered spirituality and Communism did the same. What do we have? A fall-back to Stone Henge? We need a priest; an idea; something to pull us together with real feelings of eternity and purpose. Can I reject logic and accept a race-based Christianity – I doubt it. I fight for my family only at the moment.
I wonder what you in the USA think of Jane Jacobs’s Death and Life of Great American Cities? (1960s). Was it just an evasion of the effects of third worlders in big cities? [Comment suggested by peppermint's remark]
@Jason Speaks:
I don’t think it is an either/or choice. Race and culture are inexplicably intertwined. Culture is the creation and adaptation of a people’s heredity, experience, and choices. That does not mean that black people (especially mixed race) cannot benefit and have a better life by adopting our culture. Perhaps they will not be as comfortable as we, but their life will be better. The vital thing about Western Civilization and Christianity is that they are ours.
Generally, when we have made serious mistakes it is because of what is best in us. We are daring and adventuresome, willing to give new things and ideas a chance. This has brought us countless advantages, and often benefited the entire world. We went too far, dazzled by our own abilities. The answer is not to chuck the whole thing, but to judge what we have wrought. Judge it by our own standards. You don’t have to be a believer to see thee wisdom in ” by their fruits ye shall know them.” Liberalism fails on both its own and Christian values.
@Alice Teller:
Alice Teller wrote:
“Oh, for the record, blacks who were brought here as a result of slavery are as American as anyone else – a good deal more than some. My quarrel with them is not that they have equality before the law,….”
Alice, does that mean that:
1. You feel that blacks should be permitted to remain inside White living space here in the USA or anywhere else?
and,
2. You feel that since blacks have ‘equality before the law’, they should be legally permitted to have sexual relations with Whites and produce racially mixed offspring?
There is a gross misunderstanding of the term “liberalism”. It is not the source of modern problems. On the contrary, if true liberalism existed, we wouldn’t be afraid of politcal correctness.
Liberalism, or classical liberalism anyways as envisioned by John Locke and others during the Age of Enlightenment, is simply freedom from tyranny. A slightly more elaborate explain taken from Wikipidia is “…private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy…” Who could oppose such basic human rights?
However, what happened in the 20th century is that the term “liberalism” was hijacked. For example, it was used to generate “tolerance” for any behaviour however harmful. It was a Trojan Horse for Cultural Marxism which clearly is tyrannical in nature contrary to the actual meaning of liberalism.
Don’t debase liberalism. It’s a good thing if applied in the way originally intended.
@mark:
My own belief is that we will return to freedom and local government. This will result in areas for whites only, black only and mixed. People are free to live where they please, within those restriction, and marry whomever they please. We will be free to hold them to the natural consequences of those choices. Those women who knowingly choose to bear mixed children at the price of loss all of white privileges for all her descendents, are women we can afford to lose.
@Reality Check:
Quite right, I stand corrected. Part of our problem is that so many of our words have been corrupted that they are nearly meaningless. Conservative suffers from the same problem, who would want to conserve what we have now?
I’m so there! This is the movement that can actually save the world!
@Alice Teller:
And I will be free to enjoy the Day of the Rope.
@Chechar:
I don’t know what that means.
The day the Injun Rope Trick finally works.
The biggest thing holding the movement back is the lack of spirituality
Actually it is joo monopoly control of money and information, and that fact that most still don’t know about these monopolies.
@Reality Check: “Life, liberty and property” (what the Physiocrats wanted, and in conformity to Lockean concepts of ownership), actually emerged as “liberté, égalité, fraternité”. No surprise that things have turned out as they have with that charter as the starting point.
@Alice Teller:
@Chechar:
He is referring to the side of Pierce I don’t care for – the Turner Diaries and the dream of a bloody race war, along with gruesome retribution for race-traitors. The blood and guts stuff.
It’s not that I care what happens to Anti-Whites; I don’t. Well that’s not true, I relish their comeuppance as much as anyone. It’s just that it isn’t going to happen, if it ever does, for many generations to come, long after we are dead. Blacks and Mestizos aren’t going to “rise up” and start killing Whites in a sustained manner (like in Haiti long ago) until they are about 90% of the population. So dreaming of it tends to be a waste of time.
@Jason Speaks:
I guess it is a guy thing?
Those programme articles are gibberish. What is “productivism”? Is its cure “unproductivism” (And “new forms of labour”?)
@Jason Speaks:
But you forget that after the dollar crashes things will get pretty hellish in all major NorthAm cities…
@Chechar:
Blacks and Mestizos just aren’t capable of sustained warfare against Whites. A hint of resistance from Whites and they scatter. So no opportunity for a cleansing race war ever presents itself.
New Orleans writ large may happen someday, but not until Whites are down to about 10% of the American population.
Nobody in their right mind believes that Christianity is to blame for the leftist destruction of the USA. It’s the Jews stupid.
Jason,
Funny, the literal example of your statement is embodied in a video on Moonbattery (I think it was) where an old lady with a gun ran a group of robbing “yoofs” out of her jewelry store as she fired at them with her gun. And the yoofs were ARMED! It’s the best laugh I’ve had in ages. You should see the yoofs scurry out the door as she fires on them. HILARIOUS!!!!!
The Manifesto traces the roots of modernity to Christianity. The movement, defined by individualisation, massification, desacralisation, rationalism, and universalism, is seen as ‘a secularisation of the ideas and perspectives borrowed from Christian metaphysics which spread into secular life following a rejection of any transcendent dimension’
What a crock of sh-t blaming the evils of liberalism on true Christianity. Liberalism sprang from secularism and both are “Jewish” in origin. The early American Governments were based on LAW that had existed since biblical times. While all the Jewish controlled texts say the American Revolution was based upon the Enlightenment, this is BS too! Enlightenment thought did creep into the Americas and was part of the discourse but the Revolution was based upon LAW! In all law, property and sovereignty are always the central issue. American’s declared all individuals (men) Sovereign and made them rightly the source of all Sovereign rights. The Sovereign “we the people” created a Government to serve the Sovereign “we the people” both as individuals and as collectives. American Sovereignty is based on the TRUTH that the Sovereign in America (we the people) are ONLY subject to only one- the Sovereign of Sovereigns (Jesus Christ) least that Sovereign collective or individual damages another Sovereign’s life, liberty or property. They took the top down rule of the petty monarchs of Europe and turned the tables on them constructing a bottom-up authority structure inside a Republic instead of the top down systems that dominated Europe and the RCC.
While this piece makes some good points one wonders if this manifesto is not just some more junk propaganda from the petty Jew tyrants that still rule Europe and now America- a place where all the regular people are slaves in one form or another.
Social Contracts are BS! It is the language of tyrants. It gives monarchs or one group power to impose on other groups or individuals arbitrary rules where there was no formal agreement.
The solution is the LAW. It is Christian/Common/Constitutional law which allows for changes to the existing order by way of the LAW. This is how we kill the banks, the fictitious legal codes, wannabe dictators, illegal immigrants and dual citizen “Jews”, IE: liberalism, in one simple move. Of course, in the short term this will have to be enforced and this is where the good guys in the Military, the last bastion of white American power come in.
@Jason Speaks:
But I had in mind a civil war of white liberals vs. white revolutionaries after the crash.
@Reality Check:
You said
There is a gross misunderstanding of the term “liberalism”. It is not the source of modern problems. On the contrary, if true liberalism existed, we wouldn’t be afraid of politcal correctness.
Liberalism, or classical liberalism anyways as envisioned by John Locke and others during the Age of Enlightenment, is simply freedom from tyranny. A slightly more elaborate explain taken from Wikipidia is “…private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
Comment:
Correct.
I am touched by Heather Blues story, and how true. Andrew also had great thoughts and insights.
It made me realize two things. The relationship or divorce of the US and Europe with its declaration of Independence as a separate Nation from European England (political) and the other is the religious separation, as the US was founded on people who wanted to have their own ways of worship after the 16th century and Martin Luther’s separation from the Catholic Church. (Spiritual/religious)
Christianity here in the US took on a new culture, denominations, some new ways of theological thinking, individualized, health and wealth and so on. But Christianity was not founded in the US; it was founded on Jewish thought and then tailored for the Gentile (us), and lived in Europe for 1400 or so years before ever coming to the US, the same is true for the US; it was founded on European thought. Just as you truly want to understand Christianity and its origins you must learn something about Judaism, the same is true for the Country of the US, especially if we find ourselves in a state of decline as a nation, and just after two hundred years, you want to know where we went wrong.
Sometime ago we played the blame-game on this blog, but I think some realize we must connect somewhere with our European roots and brothers, and find a way of thinking that leads us out of this destructive path, and that we can’t behave like Jews who hate us, and us them in return, for what they are doing to our culture or people. In a way it is taking the higher moral ground. Jews only see revenge and long standing hatred. Some of the conditions we’ve created for ourselves and with “our systems of thought”, what we did and did not do and perhaps should have done. Nevertheless we need to take responsibility for the way things are now and learn from past mistakes.
The extreme separation of the US with Europe is political, as well as a religious divide. Christianity will always look to Jews/Judaism for understanding of their Religion, and it will always be used, or manipulated by Jews to their advantage. It is foolish to think otherwise, just as I am not the first man or the first woman, but live in a continuum.
I do not think authentic Europeans, and authentic US Citizens of European background with intellect, standards and an appreciation of their European Heritage care to destroy each other. I know many who stay in touch here with third and fourth generations of ancestry in Europe and I found it inspiring. Others have divorced completely from their European roots and can’t remember how they got here, or why they are living in the conditions they are in now and frankly from what I’ve seen could care less.
The New Right, as I’ve just briefly been introduced to in this review, is reaching out across the divide and Continents, possibly to build bridges and find solutions to problems, which we kbow have become universal and affecting all white people who have a strong inborn, organic, genetic, cultural, national and natural feeling to their own people, and wish to live in togetherness therein. I can relate. Those Americans, who have no ties to the European culture or lost it, are of a different breed altogether. Your family, friends, church and community is for your survival and you are happy with the culture you’ve created for yourself. I do not think that this article speaks to these people. It speaks to another breed of people altogether of which they are not a part. We are all Americans, whether you’ve been here 200 or 50, ten or one year, but we are all different people. No one is more or less American under the law. At the core we want to live with our own kin-folks, just as Jews do, blacks do, as they have all black or Jewish schools, and so forth, and not be discriminated against as whites, for having the same needs as other races, or become overrun by them. The greatest threat to whites are all those who don’t give a damn, they are the traitors, the destroyers, collaborators in the destruction of all man and human kind. Spirituality is the meaning you give to life, and some have none. I look forward to reading the book.
@Sindbad:
You said:
European nations as long as confessed Christ were invincible and in the end victorious. Our decadence became visible with age of reason and french revolution. I wonder why?
Answer:
Because the “age of reason” is disguised modern liberalism or secular Jewish thought- called by many the Enlightenment (think of Paine). What separated us from them is we used LAW and infused the Revolution with acknowledging the truth that the source of our individual and corporate unalienable and inalienable rights were Christ- he as our head. From the moment the King declared America free from under his rule (at the beginning of the Revolution) America was completely free of any contracts it had individually or corporately. This is why the English thought King George had lost his mind. In an instant, all of America was free and completely Sovereign and stateless and this is when the Revolution really began. They will not teach you this in the Bolshevik public fool books.
As Europe became more de-Christianized Europe fell. This is also why we rose as they fell. Now that we are following Europe’s lead, we are going down the sh-tter too which confuses the situation to many of the unlearned in History.
Simply put, to the degree that we reject Christ- he rejects us and if we fully reject him, then we are worth nothing more than to be trampled upon.
@TyronRobertParsons:
Words, sacred texts and religions are functions of race.
Race comes first.
Race comes first.
Whether the US is a “corporation” or this or that religious intrigue was going on behind the scenes is secondary and always will be.
Race comes first.
There are no example of totally White societies permanently fading from the world unless there was race-mixing which destroyed them.
Race comes first.
@Jason Speaks:
Christ comes first who is one of our Kinfolk (race). Hence belief in Christ is also belief in his promises to our race as he also extends his hands to other races because at the end of the day- after death and in a resurrected body- race is not an issue THEN since our new bodies are likened to the Angels bodies, but great than their bodies. Both marriage and procreation become non issues too because no one is married in the new bodies and neither is their male and female as we understand it on this earth.
The universal law (Christ’s words) is infused within our races law that trumps all law. This law is written on our racial kin’s hearts and no other people’s hearts on this planet. Other peoples can comply with our law but this is not natural to them, only us. This law is Constitutional/Common/Natural/Christian law in its outward expression. What we agree upon on earth so it is done in heaven when done in Christ’s name hence your idea of religion is not the same as what I am attempting to relay to you.
The order is Creator/Savior- then man- then the lower creatures.
Since no freeman has greater inherent rights than another- all those born in America have Sovereign birthrights traced directly back to the law of liberty promised to our race(s) from Jacob/Israel by Christ. The stranger (other races) that we allow to live among us we are to be impartial toward when it comes to these basic unalienable rights. In other words, the law applies equally to all people so if we have anti miscegenation laws; it means punishment is equally met out to our own kin as we would hand it out to the stranger living among us.
Does race come first when we deal in this earthly realm? Yes and no because Christ is our kin, King and head. The spirit trumps the physical but if the spiritual is brought down below the physical what then? Jews rule as we see is the case right now. We can be equal with Christ but he is the chief among us since he is the law source of our race. This balance we seek between the Spiritual and Physical law will be manifest when Christ comes back. Until then the only thing we can do is stand within the jurisdiction of the law that trumps the present fiction system. This trumping factor is even admitted in the Judaic legal UCC codes. If people continue to try to win within the present Judaic system- they will eventually see it was all in vain.
Right now Jason you have so many unlawful contracts tying you into their slavery you wouldn’t believe me if I told you. If you actually study the LAW (not legal codes) you will come to understand this and then you might realize that the only way to win is through the law of liberty with Christ as your head.
@TyronRobertParsons:
The “Age of Reason” or Enlightenment was not a Jewish movement at all. Jews were still living in their ghettos at that time and had no influence on European culture. Besides, many philosophers of the Enlightenment were “anti-Semitic”.
Need I quote Voltaire on the Jews? And no, Thomas Paine was no Jew. I read with great pleasure his Age of Reason in which he criticizes Christianity and the Bible.
Nations raise and fall not because they accept Christ or not. Otherwise 90% of world history would be unexplainable. Many “pagan” civilizations were highly successful. And how “Christian” is China, clearly the next ( and probably only) superpower?
All your ideas are warped by a narrow minded sectarian world view.
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/leftism_as_a_code_word_part_1_the_white_left
@Andrew: “The idea that Americans would abandon that rich and glorious past is so inconceivable, I cannot understand why a thinking person would suggest it.”
It’s very conceivable; the founding fathers themselves did the same thing when they broke from the British crown. They looked all the way back to Rome and Greece, which was far further for them than what Kurtagic suggests. And this break is one regarding political philosophy. There would still be much remaining that we could hold on to, such as remembering the sacrifice of our forefathers in our wars.
@Heather Blue:
FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH:
I have just read your piece and perhaps it’s incomplete, but it appears to me that you wrote it, you thought it up and it’s your thinking and yes it tells me YOU just don’t get it!
Now let me draw your attention to the new video posted on this site and tell what is wrong with it?
If you can suss out what is wrong with it, then you are worthy to join the ranks of the true men and women of this planet who can see, as opposed to those who are told what to see and give voice to that.
I am not anti white, but white people who do not think and think they are profound thinkers are a dangerous bunch!
Your first reaction is going to be a negative one, to that which i have said to you, which means you will look over what you have written and that made me, a black man choose you to respond to.
You are going to need to view the posted video a few times, i suspect, in order to get it.
Comes September, i will be attending University, so i am spending my time engaging in those who recognise there is a problem, but have no cluse how to solve it.
I no longer spend time educating blacks, because it is my view that any blacks who promote Garveyism, or some Pan African point of view, ARE ALL JEW STOOGES, OF MI5, FBI, CIA ilk!
Furthermore and as i have said before, there are laws that wouild have anyone advocating, or soliciting verbally the murder of anyone sent to prison for a very long time.
So why is it, white Nationalist profound thinkers and scholars do NOT inform the ignorant in their ranks to ignore the Jew puppets from the “New Black Panther Party”, when their stooges advocate and solicit the murder of “white babies” and NEVER get locked up?
Didn’t Hal Turner say something to that effect about Cynthia McKinney?
Did he go to Prison, did anyone of you WN’s recognise a Jew troll, or was he busy rubbing your backs and burping you?
Get real and grow up!
I apologies, if my rant appears a bit bristly, but i am shaking my head this very second.
I am of the mind that all issues can be resolved. so long as we have men who are brave enough, good in heart, respecting of Yesua and the Creator God, that their steps shall be guided and their health protected as they speak truth to power to the mass.
One cannot expect to convince all, or expect all who you think you are educating get it, as many outside of your view will rally, unbenown to yourself, should you fall into a bit of ego in your quest.
Yesua spoke to confused and defy the lying Talmudic Pharisee, not to demonstrate how learned he was. He spoke knowing that what his said would last the necesssary time that it takes hold.
The yet to be conceived, who his word was for, has been conceived and the battle has been raging. Such is the heat of the battle, many lay claim to him and others quote those who didbn’t even know him.
Ordo Ab Chao is a Judaic trick, thus destroying any historical truth, or historical lie, is akin to the Taliban blowing up a stone carving of the Buddha and in doing so, does that erase Buddhism from the heart, or does it ensure that learning of things past is a thing of the past.
We of the human family make errors in our quest to evolve and define the true meaning of evolution. If we destroy all that we have done, good and bad, then we are sure to be lead down the path, painted anew, to continue making the same mistakes.
All we need is the freedom to continue historical review and exposure of that which has truly taken place and lead man to the edge of this precipice. We also need to hold to account all those who have lead us there and that job my friend is NOT COLOUR CODED.
Neither is it the preserve of the intellectual classes, who will speak about what you need, but use academic language and confuse you with what they know you are not familiar with.
We are all subject to a little flattery, but in this day and age, flattery is dangerous and those who apply it aplenty are highly questionable, in my view.
Anyone who believes it is race first, has not overcome the lesson taught to them by the Jew.lololol
Think what you like, but know this, you are of no use to any movement for truth, let alone your prescious WN’s.
Heimiwood gave you race first and you took it hook line and sinker, only to find you popcorn bloated gut enslaved and dumbed down.
Was there a point you guys having a first and second amendment?
You didn’t even leave the cinema when an actor Ronald Reagan took office!
Did he get shot before he would not endorse the Jew holohoax, or after?
Noble Lord
What alot of pretentious twaddle.
@Adi Schlebusch: It is sadly ironic. People think that Christianity holds a liberalist worldview because liberalism has infested and perverted mainstream Christianity. Modern mainstream Christianity does no longer serve JHWH and His Son, Jesus. It is in fact a humanist religion where ‘man’ (or should I say woman!?) is the focal point. Fortunately the true Bible still exists through God’s providence, where we can find the real Godly worldview upon which to rebuild our family and ethnic structures (viz Acts 17:26,27 – KJV)
@Thundertoad: I think it is unfair to say Liberalism sprang from Christianity. If that was the case, why did liberalism need a revolution to overthrow Christianity? I would say it is more true to say that modern humanistic ‘christianity’ sprang from liberalism.
@Sindbad: You’ve got it right. But it is also true that modern mainstream Christianity is contaminated with liberalism to the extent that it became a humanist religion. Only a return to true religion (Calvinism) will ensure Godly nations.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Age of reason…can man rely on himself, on his reason or he rely on God? And if we rely on God which is the way to God? Ask yourself these questions.
Regard the highly succesfull pagan civilization where are now? Dust in the wind and ancient ruins were mules take a piss. What are aryans who settled east in Central Asia and Karakorum and in south in Middle East beyond syrian desert? Forgotten shadows of the past.
Nations rises, fall and lastly dissapear. But their is not a single christian nation, which remained christian and dissapeard. In 2000 years.
@Jann Schlebusch:
Very true. Religion became worldy today and in many cases tends to venerate man, the secular world and the ephemeral time not God, the spiritual and the eternity. We forget the authentic christianity, the right way, the Ortodox Church
@Alice Teller: “Oh, for the record, blacks who were brought here as a result of slavery are as American as anyone else – a good deal more than some. My quarrel with them is not that they have equality before the law, but that they have been privileged beyond merit by the law.”
There are times when you convey the most sensible of ideas succinctly, Ms. Teller.
The quote of yours I have highlighted above is one of them.
Brilliant phrase – “privileged beyond merit by the law”.
@Jann Schlebusch: In the same way that the civil rights movement was a revolution that overthrew the existing order of that time in America, so was Liberalism a revolution that overthrew Christianity.
But in the former case, the civil rights revolution came from the founding principles of America (“All men are created equal”); liberalism came from the founding principles of Christianity .
A religion that postulates that all men and women can approach God equally, must strive, in the secular realm, to make this equality a reality.
A religion that postulates that God became a servant of the very lowest persons must strive to raise up those persons to the level of all.
@arthurdecco:
“privileged beyond merit by the law”
The official name of that is Affirmative Action.
The reasons why it exists is that :
1) The fiction of racial equality is the official doctrine.
2) The fact of racial inequality doesn ‘t go away.
3) To make fact coincide with fiction artificial measures must be taken.
4) Though these measures were said only to be temporary to “bridge the gap” they will stay as long as different races exist.
5) Thus absurd injustice is institutionalized, all in the name of “justice”.
@Sindbad:
( spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes corrected by me ).
Most of North Africa and the Middle East once was Christian. It is Muslim now.
There once was a big Christian Armenian Empire in Turkey. Armenia is now a small country. The Christian Byzantine Empire has disappeared altogether and the Aya Sofia in Constantinople ( now : Istanbul ) became a mosque ( now a museum ).
Religions did not spread to countries they spread to continents or regions of the world. In such regions kingdoms continuously rise and fall. This is true for the Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Christian regions of the world. There are no countries that became “immortal” by collectively adopting a particular religion, just as there are no persons who became “immortal” by personally adopting a particular religion. All are under the same law of transiency.
But you built an escape clause into your argument by saying that “not a single Christian nation,which remained Christian, disappeared”.
In this way you can always say about a Christian nation that did disappear : “But they were not really Christian!”
This is the logical fallacy called No True Scotsman Fallacy.
See : http://www.logicalfallacies.info/no-true-scotsman/.
@Thundertoad:
You said:
But in the former case, the civil rights revolution came from the founding principles of America (“All men are created equal”); liberalism came from the founding principles of Christianity .
Answer:
UNTRUE! “All men are created equal” means- UNDER THE LAW. The law was to impartial to all men, regardless of race or status. This does NOT mean (although Judaic liberalism changed its meaning through brainwashing) all men are inherently physically or spiritually equal. All men ARE NOT equal and neither are the races or the nations. All men and all races and all nations should be treated equal under the law of liberty and all races and all men (people today) within America should be extended (if not inherent) the same rights and liberties afforded those who it comes natural to. This is the law of liberty- this is the law of Christ.
@Thundertoad:
You said:
But in the former case, the civil rights revolution came from the founding principles of America (“All men are created equal”); liberalism came from the founding principles of Christianity .
Answer:
UNTRUE! “All men are created equal” means- UNDER THE LAW. The law was to be impartial to all men, regardless of race or status. This does NOT mean (although Judaic liberalism changed its meaning through brainwashing) all men are inherently physically or spiritually equal and nor does it mean that there can not be immigration restrictions, gender, race, religion restrictions within the Government that is be SERVANT to “we the people” Christian-Europeans/whites. All men ARE NOT equal and neither are the races or the nations. All men and all races and all nations should be treated equal under the law of liberty and all races and all men (people today) within America should be extended (if not inherent) the same rights and liberties afforded those who it comes natural to. This is the law of liberty- this is the law of Christ.
@Thundertoad:
Also look to the The Christian Byzantine Empire for example. Othodox Christianity was it’s religion and it had restrictions on “Jews” in education, publishing, serving in Gov, military and owning Christians as slaves. They lasted for over 1000 years so if one wants a healthy nation- this is the best example history has to provide toward longevity, properity, happiness, security and peace. All America has to do is reinstate it’s republic and adopt these examples with a new money system.
@TyronRobertParsons:
“All men are CREATED equal” does indeed mean equality of physical and mental characteristics, since these were thought to be “created” at birth. If the Founding Fathers would have meant “equal under the law” then they would have used those words.
Of course with “all men” the Founding Fathers only meant white men, not white women, let alone non-white men or women. Otherwise they would not have possessed black slaves nor would they have planned the dispossession of the Indians ( “savages”).
So there was both misjudgement and hypocrisy involved. Sorry, but the Founding Fathers were not perfect ( neither was Jesus, but that is another story ).
We have lost one of our most valued contributors. Michael Page.
He posted under several names here.
Gentlemen, please adjust your flies to half mast to honor this great patriot who so bravely shot disarmed Sikhs because he thought that they were Muslims and the cause of in his immortal words, ‘our sick society.’
@Marcy Fleming:
Thank you Marcy, it is good of you to take the trouble to confirm that Jews, even half-Jews, who claim to be Catholic school educated, run true to form. You initially came here claiming to be open, fair minded, angry at Jews yourself, and so on. While not all agreed with you, or your place here, most treated you with courtesy and respect.
Please, tell us more? When did he post here, what screen names did he use? Was he greeted with cheers or jeers? None of that counts to you, just venom and gutter taunts.
Perhaps this man was driven insane by being tracked by the $PLC for a decade. Cause and effect in life can be tricky.
@Marcy Fleming:
Can you give us any proof of this, since you attribute his actions and immortal words as a contributor to this site. Under what names did he post and how do you know?
@TyronRobertParsons:
Just to be clear, when I say “race comes first”, I am not really talking about personal belief systems. Of course, other things may come before race in a person’s personal view, such as family. What I mean when I say “race comes first”, is that it is the most fundamental factor that determines the long term outcome of a society.
Joe Webb: “Ideas mean close to nothing to pragmatic Americans.”
Have you gotten out and talked to these “pragmatic Americans” recently? Their heads are full of Marxist slop and sludge.
I’m Gen X myself, and just in my lifetime I’ve seen a dramatic change in the ideas floating around in the typical American brainpan. It’s true that it is a rare American indeed who can meaningfully articulate the ideas that he holds, their origins, or even where he himself picked them up. He doesn’t know these things, and he doesn’t care. And yet he believes.
One does not have to read Marx, or even know who Marx is, in order to believe in an idea that has essentially Marxist roots. Today, scores of millions of whites hold ideas that originated with the Frankfurt School, even though they have never read a scholarly publication or even heard of that particular school of thought. Ideas spread in all sorts of ways, and in every venue.
Point is that Americans are very much affected, one might say infected, with ideas…ideas put forth by our enemies. It’s especially charming when you’re talking to a grass roots conservative who is spouting some notion that has its origins in the Frankfurt School, dreamed up by a Jewish professor that hated white conservatives with a passion. The fact is that the poor benighted rube simply doesn’t know any better, and he happily spouts the very ideas designed to destroy him. God must have an odd sense of humor.
Point is, ideas influence everyone and everything, even those who profess to be non-intellectual. It was precisely the conceding of the ivory tower to the anti-white Left that doomed us, leaving us with the philosophically crippled and hapless white population that we see today. They don’t know up from down anymore.
Bottom line is that we either get our ideas out there, at least to a healthy minority of our folk, or we’re toast. If we succeed, we have a world to gain, most importantly a land of our own.
“It was precisely the conceding of the ivory tower to the anti-white Left that doomed us”
Thank you very much for specifying, “anti-White Left”, Trainspotter.
And Best Wishes in our pursuit of land(s) of our own: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/euro_dna_nation
Sincerely Yours, The White Left
@European:
Me thinks Marcy fulla s**t.
BREAKING: Witness Says 4 Shooters at Sikh Temple … – YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HOGQg3eSzoNew1 day ago – 2 min – Uploaded by xBLACKxOPSxSECRETSx
Thank you TheSONSOFLIBERTYMC for uploading. Original Video: http://youtu. be/9ecdSKi9_fs. Subscribe
Oops, maybe I should not have use that word!
[comment waiting moderation].
Here:
BREAKING: Witness Says 4 Shooters at Sikh Temple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HOGQg3eSzoNew
1 day ago – 2 min –
Uploaded by xBLACKxOPSxSECRETSx
Thank you TheSONSOFLIBERTYMC for uploading.
@European:
That was malicious slander against TOO. If MF had such proof, she/he would have included it in the comment.
FYI
According to the 1860 census the 20% of slave owners were black (1/5th) as 1% northern white and 3% southern whites were slave owners and ALL OF THEM had those SAME sovereign rights in the first place.
@Jason Speaks:
understood Jason and thank you for you being more clear.
@Marcy Fleming:
You wrote:
“We have lost one of our most valued contributors. Michael Page. He posted under several names here.”
What difference does it make whether he posted here or not?
The Sikhs are invaders into White living space. They have no business here or in any other White land.
The insurgency continues unabated. At some point in the future there will be scores, and then hundreds of initiatives everyday by White patriots. They will be acting alone or in groups of two or three to dislodge enemy forces from the Whitelands.
@Marcy Fleming:
If you blame WN for this crime and try to associate TOO with it, keep in mind that this misguided man must have been influenced by the intense propaganda of Islamophobia in the Jews media.
TOO is not associated with skinheads or acts of violence.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Sorry man for all the angry rebuttles and otherwise. I do mean it.
@TyronRobertParsons:
You have managed to make in one short sentence not only one spelling mistake ( rebuttles > rebuttals ) and one grammatical mistake ( “and otherwise” is an adverbial phrase, while “angry rebuttals” is an object of “sorry for”, you can’t combine both in this way ) , but also succeeded in conveying no clear meaning. For whose rebuttals are you sorry, and what do you really mean?
@Lew:
What is your problem? Slander for asking a question? Perhaps Greg Johnson is right, some of you are realy degenerate and a sick bunch.
@European:
Either you need to give up drinking or accept that after forty years in this country you still cannot read, write or comprehend English. Lew was agreeing with you. He simply pointed out that Marcy was not acting in good faith. Take your endless venom and insults somewhere else.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Was in a rush late last night and tried to shoot off a fast message because my conscience was getting to me and I desired to relieve it. My keyboard sometimes sticks and I sometimes forget to check what I wrote before I post.
Sorry about the bad language and name calling in the past. I let my anger about your trolling here get to me. It is not very becoming. I am not sorry about the content of my arguments or my opposition to what you are doing here.
@European
I meant Marcy’s comment claiming without proof as you point out that the shooter posted here was slander against TOO. I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean your comment was slander. I apologize for that.
The Jews have succeeded in turning a vibrant Christian nation where a society worked together for the betterment of mankind into a nation where the only things of great importance is the size of one’s dick or bank account. God will have the last word.
@mark:
Let us make a small list of Mark’s terms with their real meaning :
“invaders” – non-White immigrants
“enemy forces” – non-White citizens
“insurgency” – murder attacks on non-White citizens
“White patriots” – White murderers of non-Whites
And he hopes for hundreds of such “initiatives” as this attack on the Sikhs every day!
Mr. Mark-the-Terrorist, these non-White immigrants came to the white lands for the same reason as the Whites came : in search of a better life. Nothing wrong with that. Only, they do not fit racially and culturally into our societies and therefore should never have been allowed to immigrate. But you can’t blame them for coming if the law allows that. The immigration laws have to be changed, not the immigrants be murdered. Stop advocating terrorism on this forum!
Folks-
Concerning the phrase “all men are created equal”, this is what Henry Bradford Gow had to say; correctly I might add.
What is “equality”? What did the Founding Fathers mean by the phrase “all men are created equal”?
Any inquiry into the meaning of equality must include an examination of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration begins with an appeal to “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and maintains that the proposition “all men are created equal” is a self-evident truth. Furthermore, all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
What the Founding Fathers meant by equality is this: All men share a common human nature. The assertion that all men are created equal means that all persons are the same in some respect; it does not mean that all men are identical, or equally talented, wise, prudent, intelligent, or virtuous; rather, it means that all persons possess the inherent capacity to reason.
If they did not mean this then what Franklin and Washington said about the “Jews” makes no sense.
George Washington
“They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in… It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.”
- Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.
In agreement, 224 years ago, Benjamin Franklin prophesied in a “CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION,” at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the dairy of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.
“I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal.
For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other people not of their race.
If you do not exclude them from these United States, in their Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives our substance and jeopardized our liberty.
If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves.
Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American’s, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.” -
@mark:
So what is it with you? Are you devoid of good sense or good will? We are in desperate shape, our very survival depends on gaining allies and helping our own people to see that there are alternate ways of organizing ourselves which do not involve a descent into either evil or barbaric savagery. I get it that you are young, I get the anger and lust for change, but applauding killing innocent people at worship can only hurt us. Whose side are you on?
@Lew:
Your comment was completely clear. European comes here with a Judaic sized chip on her shoulder. Anything other than complete groveling to her grievances, real or imagined, inevitably result in her slurs and insults. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that anyone, no matter what their motives, can comment here. Mere presence does not indicate that they are on the our side.
@TyronRobertParsons:
Nobody has to be sorry for his opinions. I must confess I have sometimes been too nasty to you in my criticism of your ideas. I only hope you will be more realistic in your judgement of things. Faith should be balanced by reason.
Best wishes.
Folks;
One small correction; Gow said the word “inalienable” citing the Declaration of Independence. The organic Declaration actually states “unalienable”. There is a HUGE difference between the two words. Inalienable means rights that can be transferred, sold, contracted away etc. Unalienable rights are rights that can never be transferred, sold or contracted away. This Declaration is our enacting clause in law and to which all lawful laws must have. NO judaic UCC legal codes have enacting clauses (60 million of them and counting) hence all of them are unlawful on their face.
Just so you know
@Franklin Ryckaert:
I read the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” and this was not what I had in my mind.
True, when I wrote the post, I put that statement thinking at the possible counterexample: North Africa and Byzantium.
1) North Africa: was superficial christinized and especialy upper classes of latin-greek extraction. But in the 300 years prior to tha arab conquest very little of the rural population (the bulk) became christian. After the muslim invasion many christian fled in Italy, France and Byzantium. The only exception was Egypt which even now retain aprox 10 mil christians, 10-15% of population. But the statement applies here: before the arab invasion north africa was berber. There faith was broken and now berbers are a underprivilaged minority in their lost countries.
2) Byzantin Empire: was a christian empire (but not really a nation because it was a mix of ethnicities-which was probably one of the biggest mistakes). Conquered by the turks, the greek populations remained christian. Centuries later the greeks kept their nation. Compare their situation with that of berber nation. In the case of armenians even after great adversities they have a nation in a homogen state. If you are interesed in the causes of Byzantin downfall I suggest a documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH-E9uH1nYs&feature=related
It is not the most intelectual documentary but the points are nevertheless real (and actual).
3) Midle East was never christinized not even superficial like North Africa. Some populations christinized and remained so after 2000 years of persecution and wars: assyrians (which preserved almost intact their antic origins) lebanese (30%-40% thei lost their country because of palestinian muslim refugees), syrians 10-15 % christians, and even jordanians 5-10%. Others (the most) were never touched by the christian message. Interesting, but the mix of different ethnicities which was middle east in 600 AD became a homogenous nation 500 years later after arab conguest. The indigen populations lost almost completly their antic ethnic identities with the exception that I mentioned above (assyrians, lebanese and probable alawites).
4) Certanly in Europe kingdom and empires rise and fall. But nations survived quite well after their fall as empires. This the reverse from the antiquity or the nonchristian world where usually nations didn’t survive their kingdom fall.
PS English is not my native language so I cannot be so eloquent as I wish or correct as I should.
@Sindbad:
“…nations survived quite well after their fall as empires…”
If you mean with “nations” ethnic groups, then I can agree. Ethnic groups can even survive without ever having had their own state, such as the Kurds or the Basques. I contest however that the survival or disappearance of ethnic groups or nations depends on the profession of a “true religion”. If that “true religion” would be Christianity, then the survival of the Jews, who collectively rejected Christianity, would be inexplicable. I think survival of groups can be explained by normal historical reasons, though the idea of having the “true faith” might work as a self fulfilling prophecy for survival.
( this might have worked that way for the Jews. They believed that “God” had destined them for survival and thus they strove to make that come true. Then they saw their survival as a “proof” of their chosenness ).
I do not see Christianity conferring any exceptional status to ethnic groups in terms of survival. Every group thinks of their own religion as the “true faith” that gives them a special status. It is the age old ethnocentric illusion.
Kurtagic sets up a rather undeserved contrast between post modernity and de Benoist’s now 13 year old manifesto.
It would be nice, if articles such as this could take account of some of the critiques of the problematical manifesto and the ENR in general. These include Samuel Francis’s critiques in The Real Right Part 1:
New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe , which I discussed in The Conservative Revolution Then and Now: Junger and the European New Right. The ENR’s obstensible purpose in clarifying what the alternative right should be about is certainly laudable, but in practice it seems it merely contains its own version of the
Kurtagic ascribes to postmodernism. Such isn’t surprising, since the ENR, as Samuel Francis noted, ascribes to postmodernism itself. I don’t understand how Kurtagic contrasts the ENR and its manifesto so definitively with postmodernism – really indeed how he contrasts it at all.
@Lew:
Thank you for clarifying your statement, I realy thought you meant I was slandering. Sometimes in reading and my literal translations I don’t get the pun. Much appreciated and I apologize for the mis – reading/unnderstanding. It happens sometimes.
But it gave Alice Teller the opportunity for another slam at me. Poor Alice. And no I have not been here fourty years, just off and on because I can’t stand people like you. Neither Lew or I were talking to you. We were talking to each other and we cleared it up. But you perhaps should read Greg Johnsons articles over.
@Alice Teller:
You wrote:
“….our very survival depends on gaining allies and helping our own people to see that there are alternate ways of organizing ourselves which do not involve a descent into either evil or barbaric savagery.”
Our survival, like every other creature’s survival, depends on our willingness to fight to defend our territory and expel invaders.
Alice Teller wrote in another post above:
“My own belief is that we will return to freedom and local government. This will result in areas for whites only, black only and mixed.”
But your goal, Alice, as you posted above a couple of days ago, and as I’ve pasted above, will result in the eventual genocide of Whites because you want to leave non-whites in close proximity to Whites, free to outbreed Whites and at some point further down the line, a thousand years, two thousand years, to kill and miscegenate with Whites.
And what about the Jews, Alice, just leave them breathing somewhere so that they can regroup later and continue wreaking havoc in White society?
Whether the enemy combatants are “innocent” or not is really irrelevant—here or in any war.
Alice, your goal and mine are not the same. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.
@European:
By people like me you mean Americans who will not grovel before the immigrant, no matter how ignorant or rude, who never stops insulting us. Your own knowledge of your poor English never seems to stop you from lashing out at us. There is no danger of running out of opportunities to slam you, the trick is to have the discipline to limit it only to your most vile assaults.
@mark:
You are right, I had given you the benefit of the doubt. I will not make that mistake again. I will simply and openly repudiate your childish desires for revenge. If, heaven forbid, the day comes when we must resort to armed conflict it will not be led by bitter boys who have sore feelings because some white woman chose to grant her favors elsewhere. You self-indulgence hurts us all.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Referring to the Sikh invaders, the wimpy White male Franklin Ryckaert said:
“these non-White immigrants came to the white lands for the same reason as the Whites came : in search of a better life. Nothing wrong with that. Only, they do not fit racially and culturally into our societies and therefore should never have been allowed to immigrate. But you can’t blame them for coming if the law allows that. The immigration laws have to be changed, not the immigrants be murdered.”
The Sikh “immigrants” chose to come to America. They knew that they were entering a racially and culturally alien land. Yes, we can blame them because they knew, or should have known, that such movements historically cause ethnic savagery yet they chose to come anyway. They no doubt were relying on the anti-discrimination laws that have been enacted in the USA as a tool by the enemy to dilute the Whitelands to keep Whites under control. They were mistaken.
Your problem is that you are applying the same principle to non-whites as to Whites when you say:
“these non-White immigrants came to the white lands for the same reason as the Whites came : in search of a better life. Nothing wrong with that.”
Yes, there is something wrong with that. It’s okay for Whites to do it because our survival is more important than theirs. It’s not okay for non-whites to do it because they are invading our territory and threaten our existence.
Stop promoting pacifism on this forum!
@Alice Teller:
That was kind of a lame, weird response, Alice.
We’ll take it that the eventual genocide of Whites over time is okay with you.
Folks;
For those who are wondering about what I was speaking about (The old Articles and uS Republic) Governments being re-inhabited; here is a link to an intervew with the President of the Republic for the united States Government. I was involved with them through the Maine Republic (Free State) until Maine left to join the Articles re-inhabitation, serving papers in the Hague.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2ysd8sXc4I&feature=youtube_gdata_player
@mark:
No, it means that temper tantrums and violent outbursts in the midst of a people not yet united are foolish and counter-productive. There is more than one way to fight and yours is a sure loser.
@mark: Hi Mark,
I understand your concern but I think your dismissal of Alice’s approach is too hasty. The reason whites are being replaced is not because non-whites are more competitive, but simply because the anti-white government has a huge thumb on the scale in favor of non-whites.
Suppose we could resurrect racial pride among whites? That is an immediate boost in the white birth rate. This would reduce miscegenation and create more political resistance to immigration.
Now suppose we could get rid of affirmative action. This is entirely achievable because it is a hassle for businesses and they have power. That would also help boost white birth rates.
Now suppose we could impose birth control, which when you think about it is only fair, for welfare and unemployment insurance recipients. This is also achievable because the fact is the country is broke and soon there will be no money left. That would decimate the black and mestizo populations in a few generations. The remaining ones would be functional enough to build their own liveable communities and much less inclined to impose on us.
Now suppose we could get freedom of association in housing. The powers that be might be persuaded this is appropriate as non-white numbers grow and they themselves are put upon. This would reinforce white tribalism and promote a sense of security and well-being among whites that would further promote white births. Asians would probably keep to themselves. Their birth rates are low anyway.
I’m just saying that I don’t think its an all or nothing. Whites will thrive if given the right circumstances. I’m not necessarily saying that armed struggle to secure living space is not or will never be necessary. I’m just saying that in the coming decades I believe there are specific policy goals that whites could advocate that would allow us to outbreed the rather than vice versa. If we could get the demographics going in our favor instead of against us, that would be a huge step forward. Remember. whites were a tiny minority when Jamestown was founded.
@JustaWhiteMom: Also, there is the matter of crime and punishment. Ruthless incarceration of criminals would also reduce black and mestizo birthrates while giving whites some breathing room to raise white children in safety.
Another thing about Asians. As the country goes downhill, I think they will stop coming, and some will repatriate.
I wrote over on Alt Right that the predicament we find ourselves in today in the Modern West, what this article identifies as ‘post-modernity’ is a perfect storm of these factors: Xtianity, Enlightenment principles, Frankfurt School, Technology.
Xtianity: Most the quotes in the NT attributed to ‘Jesus’ sound like they come straight from a Marxist Playbook. It is a manual for pacifism and egalitarianism. Xtianity is mired in the blood, torture and subjugation of Europeans and is based on a complete fabrication, instilled by Rome. As such, it should be relegated to the dustbin of history. Xtianity is now flourishing in Asian countries and South America. It has become a religion of non-Whites and promotes the inclusion, nay the invasion, by these people into White countries.
Enlightenment: The Enlightenment put forward, among other things, the central idea of individuality and the primacy of the individual and his will. On its own, this idea is not subversive if it is applied only to Northern Europeans. We alone have the philosophical maturity to grasp and take responsibility for such an idea. In the hands of non-whites or those of mixed blood, the emotions overcome reason, and such a doctrine will deteriorate into collectivist savagery.
The Enlightenment also severed the kith and kin ties and contributed to the subversive pursuit of pleasure so pronounced in Anglo-Saxon peoples. However, like I said, on its own, it is not a subversive doctrine. It becomes that way when more emotional and irrational peoples incorporate it.
The Frankfurt School: Obviously. Not much has to be written about this because it already has been done. However, I will add that before the ‘Frankfurt School’ ever existed, Judaics were constantly flaying their European host societies with subversion. The Frankfurt School just solidified the goals into a coherent methodology.
Technology: This one is the real kicker and what has enabled the West’s destruction more than anything else. It allowed for the spread of numbers 2 and 3, especially when controlled almost exclusively by number 3. It allowed for the weak, ineffectual and third world to proliferate and for the mass education of those better suited to the plow and field. Currently, technology only makes it adherents more stupid and brain-dead, unable to form coherent thoughts or ideas and addicted to useless garbage and fluff.
What Kurtagic is discussing in the article is already happening. Many whites know what is going on and in Europe they already have nationalist parties. Most Europeans have dropped Xtianity, which is all well and good, and with economic collapse, they will most likely drop 2 and 3 as well. Greece is already rounding up immigrants and throwing them out.
@JustaWhiteMom:
Thanks, perhaps it takes another Mom to recognize when we are clear out of patience and down to our last nerve. I am grateful that you stepped in and made the sensible, patient argument. Well said! We sometimes forget that we are white folks.
@ArturoPendriago:
You said
Xtianity: Most the quotes in the NT attributed to ‘Jesus’ sound like they come straight from a Marxist Playbook. It is a manual for pacifism and egalitarianism. Xtianity is mired in the blood, torture and subjugation of Europeans and is based on a complete fabrication, instilled by Rome
Answer:
There is a difference between the Word of God and how the RCC interpretes many sections. The Pope (who is a Corporate Sole) sits inside the Vatican Corporation/”Government” and calls himself the Vicor of God- in other words he is saying he is God on earth hence he has the sole authority to interpret Christ’s words but Christ is clear. Christ himself is the sole interpretor and that word- and that law is written on the hearts of his physical people; the house of Israel and the house of Judah (European/White Christians of faith in Christ). The Pope (since the first one of them later declared this long long ago- became ANTI CHRIST as this is even admitted by the previous Pope who was the last one to refuse to declare this.
What all this means is that YOU do not have the authority to missquote Christ’s words- STOP doing so! Stop blaming the actions of the RCC headed by the Anti Christ whose in bed with the other anti Christs (“Jews”) on Christ Jesus and his true people and his true way (White/European Christians who embody the true Christian “Religion”).
@Alice Teller:
You wrote:
“No, it means that temper tantrums and violent outbursts in the midst of a people not yet united are foolish and counter-productive. There is more than one way to fight and yours is a sure loser.”
Well, you are against any kind of physical resistance under any circumstances.
The colonists were far from united when the Revolutionary War was fought.
Would you call the Pentagon and the Department of Defense and tell them to stop their childish, violent outbursts? Tell them violence is never the answer.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Because we start from different premises the perspective of the same historical events is different.
This was the documentary about Byzantium:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92CaTTJk7nQ&feature=plcp
@mark:
Stop, read, and think. Try to get back in touch with reality and your own people. I never said violence is never the answer, although I do dread the day when we must resort to it. Right now our most important task is to consolidate our hold on the things which are still under our control and then strengthen our position. That requires breaking the hold in which so many of our people are held today. That is, first and foremost, a matter of calling people back to our own roots and pride, challenging the defamation of our most cherished values, demanding the right to stand up and say 2+2+4. We must fight for truth, justice and the American way, none of which are functioning properly today because the people in charge have perverted them. Our basic values and traditions are fine, the problem is the distorted and twisted relics produced by talmudic torture of the good. This is in some respects a public relations job, and friends like you and fender and European, may have very good intentions, but you are hurting the cause. It is all too easy to write us off as a bunch of fringe lunatics when we live down to the stereotype.
@Alice Teller:
Arrrrrggggghhhh 2+2=4. Sorry.
I don’t think many people whose first language is English failed to see the muddling of the definitions of inalienable, unalienable, and by implication alienable, but for the benefit of those whose English is less secure, here are the facts, as may be confirmed by resort to the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.
Unalienable rights are rights that can never be transferred, sold, or contracted away. Inalienable rights are also rights that can never be transferred, sold, or contracted away. Unalienable entered the language a few decades before inalienable, and it was the more frequently used form of the word till some point in the nineteenth century. Its survival in use is almost entirely attributable to its appearance in the Declaration of Independence. It would otherwise be deemed an obsolete term and would never be used save in quoting from historical documents.
Rights that can be transferred, sold, or contracted away are only ever called alienable rights. Here, as is usually the case, the very form of the word telegraphs its meaning.
In fact, English has very, very few pairs of words that seem to be opposites but aren’t. Flammable and inflammable are one such rare pair, but even here, the latter term is used figurative roughly 80 percent of the time, the former almost never. Most things exhibiting the tendency to burst into actual flames are usually described as flammable, only rarely as inflammable. Whereas even the most hotheaded TOO commenters—that is, those given to forceful assertion of certain of their un/inalienable rights, notably the right to speak without undue hindrance—are unlikely to be called anything other than inflammable, since all the flames they throw singe the spirit rather than the clothes.
@JustaWhiteMom:
Hi JustaWhiteMom,
Thanks for your post.
There are a lot of “supposes” in you post.
You wrote:
“I’m just saying that in the coming decades I believe there are specific policy goals that whites could advocate that would allow us to outbreed the rather than vice versa.”
Whites could advocate them all they want, like they are doing now, but no such policies would be allowed to become law. Any such policies would infringe on the “rights” of non-whites and would therefore not even be admissible into the discussion.
If we try to resurrect White pride, as you have suggested, it would be immediately labeled as “N*z*sm” as it is right now.
If you tried to get rid of Affirmative Action (AA) as you have suggested, the non-whites would tear the country apart and the media would be behind them all the way.
If you tried to impose birth control on the non-white population, as you have suggested, the cries and screams of genocide would be heard all around the world, probably from some the posters here like Franklin Ryckaert.
What looks more likely is that Whites will soon be outnumbered (as reported in the media) and will have no political options at all. In my opinion it is irresponsible not to start preparing for those conditions now.
It is my feeling that any policies that were voted on and in which Whites prevailed would be declared “unconstitutional” and nullified. It’s not even possible at this time to vote any White-friendly policies. In the future it will become less so.
@Pierre de Craon: … figuratively …
@Pierre de Craon:
This all depends on the definition of such words and this is why Webster created Webster’s law dictionary in order to destroy any attempt by petty tyrants to change the meaning of words as a vehicle to unlawfully transfer rights away from the Sovereign “we the people” of American-individually and collectively.
I will not dispute your definition from Oxford I only wish to point out this- YOU ARE FREE as long as you do not infringe upon the liberties and rights enshrined and which are self evident within the Declaration (enacting clause) the Constitutions (body of the law with Common/Christian/Natural law for all courts) and the Bill of Rights (but not limited to).
All these bogus and completely unlawful contracts (birth certs/ss#/voter registration etc etc) are NULL AND VOID on their face, if not only because of what is mentioned above but also because the FIRST RULE of contract law is that BOTH parties must be fully aware and informed of the contents of that contract and NONE of us were when these adhesion contracts were signed either by you or your parents. Did anyone agree to become a slave to the elite “Jews” and their cohorts? Did anyone agree to change their birth citizenship within the Republic to a 14th Amendment “citizen” with no rights and only privileges? I CERTAINLY DID NOT nor did my parents and even if one did, it’s STILL a bogus and unlawful contract because your GOD/JESUS (inherent) given rights as FREE MEN AND WOMEN are UNALIENABLE- as you say by Oxford definition- inalienable.
@mark: I agree wholeheartedly that we must prepare for the worst. I still thing political solutions may be possible and we should not abandon politics altogether. The question is going to be whether the Jew continues to run the media. If so, then you are right political correctness will nip my proposed reforms in the bud. If not, all of these reforms could easily be sold as race-neutral, reasonable and good for the country while also being in the best interests of whites.
I also think that violent outbursts like Page’s can be used to advance the very reforms I suggest. Here is what I have posted on some sites in response to the shooting:
“The only surprising thing is that white male terrorism is so uncommon. At first, affirmative action was sold as compensation for historic discrimination against blacks and women. Now it is justified on the basis of “diversity.” The bizarre result is that white men whose ancestors have been Americans for generations must take a back seat to non-white immigrants. This is an outrage.
Immigrants almost always vote for Democrats, while white men usually vote for the Republicans. Therefore, mass immigration has effectively disenfranchised tens of millions of white men by neutralizing their vote. Yet they are told immigration is necessary because low-skilled immigrants do jobs Americans won’t do. On the other hand, white men must pay exorbitant taxes to support a welfare state because there just isn’t enough “opportunity” to go around.
When outsourcing started, white men were told to train for the tech careers that would replace factory jobs. Now white men are forced to compete with Asian indentured servants under the H1B program.
The media blatantly incites hatred against white men by blaming them for other groups’ failures. GZ isn’t even white, but the Trayvon shooting was used to incite pogroms against white men all the same.
Frankly, the US does not deserve the loyalty of white men. The media suppress any discussion of the legitimate interests and concerns of white men. White nationalism-separatism will grow as white men logically conclude they have no future in this country and little left to lose. I have two white sons whom I will encourage to emigrate when they are old enough to understand.
Notice how I use the violence to advance my views without actually justifying it. This is how we should play this I think. The Jew cannot continue to air the grievances of non-whites while suppressing the legitimate concerns of whites without whitey picking up on this eventually. It is only a question of whether eventually will come soon enough. I believe it will. Mobilized whites, even as a minority, could dominate the political agenda just as Jews have done, and eventually turn the tide in our favor.
@JustaWhiteMom:
That’s a great post you’ve been making on the other sites you spoke of. Keep it up!
@Alice Teller:
Your RAGE against white European Immigrants makes me laugh. I always wondered what white trash was. I think I am getting the picture now. Stupid me, thanks, you are a fine teacher here, and I’ll make sure my fellow Europeans Countrymen will be informed, as I will send them your way for a lesson or two.
@European:
Wrong again, on all counts. You mistake my personal disdain for you for a generalized rage against all Europeans.
OK, so the posts of J*e W*bb are removed and any response I make to him is removed. And if I use his full name the post is moderated and removed. YET, all the other crazy posts are allowed on here?
I can’t even spell out J*e W*bb’s name without it being put into moderation. Good lord.
Why does TOO allow massive posts by such a long list of trouble makers, yet ban even the mention of J*e W*bb’s name? This is petty and silly.
@Jason Speaks:
I have wound up in moderation so often it is silly. I have elected to believe that they ignore all posts from the idiots but take the time to read ours. Hang in there Jason. As you once said to me don’t let them drive you away.
@Alice Teller:
Thank you. It has become clear is that there are a lot of opportunists around the “White movement”. They are willing and eager to “provide leadership”, when no one has asked them for it. In fact, it is far too early for that.
We hear mistaken approaches that assume the majority of Whites are eager to join a pro-White movement tomorrow, and all we need to do is plan our boycotts and mass demonstrations. That is absolutely not true. Too many of the self-appointed leaders and plan-makers want to skip over the steps of actually changing people’s minds.
Some of it comes from guys who are really young, in their 20s, who will always believe epochal social change is easily achievable.
@Jason Speaks:
Cheer up. Lord knows, I have been reduced to near shrewish rants on more than one occasion. It must be addressed, there is simply too much at stake. On there other hand, there are more and more sensible mainstream people posting here and I am hopeful that they will join us and help us move forward. I think that the only thing limiting JustaWhiteMom is the time constraints placed on any full time Mom. Trust me, children grow fast. and she has the makings of a real force. This is going to take time, patience, and endurance. There is a change in the air. People have about reached their limits. They are looking for answers and permission and above all the right words and arguments to use. We can do this.
@Alice Teller:
I believe you are right. I have long thought we needed more women around this movement, and it looks like we are finally get some – and very high quality women at that.
I truly believe simply posting sane, rational, healthy pro-White messages and arguments can h ave more impact than most believe. People feel isolated. And when they look around for direction, they often find someone providing the same old answers in White Nationalism that have failed for 60 years.
I believe you are right, all that is starting to change.
@Jason Speaks: I think social historians will look back at the Chik-fil-a incident as a turning point. Ordinary people went out of their way on a specific day to say “enough”. We are tired of this stuff. That is the way social change happens. The entire system is falling around us and none of the elites have anything like a sensible answer. But we are all supposed to get hysterical because some little group of deviants decide to charge heresy! It seems that even we have our limits. Smart people everywhere know we need dramatic change. Nothing on earth is clearer than the fact that we need new management. It is our job to present an intelligent, sensible option. I have always been inspired by the wisdom in the Chinese character for Crisis – it is the combination of danger and opportunity.
@Alice Teller:
“This is in some respects a public relations job, and friends like you and fender and European, may have very good intentions, but you are hurting the cause.”
I wasn’t aware there was a cause here. This isn’t an organization, this is a news/discussion site. The last thing I’d ever do in today’s world is join some kind of WN organization. Even so, I’m not sure what it is about my posts that’s objectionable to Whites.
Oh, and who let Marcy out of the kibbutz?
@Alice Teller:
I believe JustAWhiteMom is an attorney.
@Robin: You’re both right. I practiced full time for over ten years but I’m home full time for now.
@fender:
Well, we are on different paths then. I wholeheartedly believe that for various reason, not least the internet, that it is possible to dramatically change the tone in this country. If we don’t take advantage of this opening we will long regret it. It is a task in which ordinary people can engage, each of us in our own circles, if we are willing to come together as adults and agree on common ground and then encourage each other by providing the kind of sound arguments which others can use.
Instead, all too often this comments section is used to vent anger and frustration, comment on which of us is most at fault for the mess we are in, and your favorite, telling us that all is lost and we should abandon all hope. Even if you were completely right, I would prefer to rouse us to the effort to go under with some dignity. We must remember who we are,
not whine about whose fault it is that we are in this mess.
Folks:
Ok, National Geographic has some propaganda. True at its core, but for those who understand what I have been trying to tell you, you will understand it is now being spread and developed. Why? Because the lie is mimicking as the truth- many truths, such as who we are in truth- where the throne of David is, but they utterly fail from this point out. Satan masks himself in light and if that light be darkness, how dark is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFlYqVk88o0
Consider this!
@Jason Speaks: What has Joe W. done or said that’s so darn terrible? I think I must be missing a lot lately.
‘What the Founding Fathers meant by equality is this: All men share a common human nature. The assertion that all men are created equal means that all persons are the same in some respect; it does not mean that all men are identical, or equally talented, wise, prudent, intelligent, or virtuous; rather, it means that all persons possess the inherent capacity to reason. ”
Parson Roberts, why in the hell didn’t they sau that, if that is what they meant?
And why weren’t they more explicit about the Jews? Some obscure references in some obscure person’s diary?
That’s all we have?
“In the Kali Yuga, the Thundertoad will vomit forth hideous ichors upon the god of the Jews, and many will beat their breasts, and grovel in the dirt.”
@Pierre de Craon:
I don’t know what Joe W. did, except he got into some personal arguments with some of the authors on this site. I find I miss his bluntness even when I disagreed with it.
@Jason Speaks: Yes, just as you say, he and Matt Parrott fought bitterly. I was disturbed by some of the remarks he directed at Matt, but he’s a man with a valuable perspective, and he could be disagreed with without rancor—assuming that that was one’s intention!
@Pierre de Craon:
It’s particularly baffling when you consider the posts that are allowed.
By the way, on another topic, sometimes it fully hits me just how horrible most of the “white nationalist” leadership has been over the last 60 years. I believe the Turner Diaries and the whole subculture that it spawned may have set our cause back two generations. When I look at Rockwell decked out in the uniform of an enemy nation, or see blood and guts fantasies, it is as if the whole thing was a CIA operation intended to discredit any legitimate interest in white issues.
Those who are legitimate in the community should unequivocally disassociate themselves from those characters.
And then I surf over to countercurrents to see what pro-Hitler material Greg Johnson has put up today and I am rewarded with yet another Hitler loving video.
@Jason Speaks:
Very perceptive.
All those books and more only served to detract from the WN movement and instead attracted a scummy violent sub-culture of losers, drug addicts and other riff raff that would scare off any normal working class White interested in WN or even being proud of being a White of European descent. I wouldn’t put it past the FBI or CIA to have penned most of the books or bankrolled the authors.
I also agree that the movement should totally disassociate from the current crop of leaders involved in it. They are poisoned fruit and stupid to boot. They made the movement unacceptable for normal working class Whites who are fed up with minority set asides, etc.
This goes doubly for those in the Neo-Nazi movement. Get those buggers out and here as well as those who push for violent action, they are either Feds or SPLC goons trying to shut down the professor.
Bottom line: Unless the WN movement cleans house, it is going nowhere. This includes TOO, you don’t run articles praising some ex-ANP goon turned self-published author or those remotely associated with Nazism, you don’t tolerate posts from lunatics praising Hitler or Mein Kampf. Get rid of these people, because in the real world this junk is really, really offensive and most people don’t want to read it.
If you want to read a another more intelligent view of our predicament go check out Fredoneverything.net Fred Reed is actually a good writer, funny and utterly un-PC and a realist. His stuff is actually acceptable to conservative middle-class Whites who didn’t drink the PC kool-aid.
@Thundertoad:
Obviously, you lack the ability or desire to be able to comprehend what is completely self evident in the body of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is a law document and if one actually READS IT, they will see that word “equality” is meant as RIGHTS; equally endowed by their creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS- if one keeps reading.
One must actually STUDY history and UNDERSTAND how things were back then to put everything in context.
Can you honestly say that you believe that if someone were to pose to ANYONE of the founding fathers the question “Does equality mean that all people are born with equal attributes” that even ONE of the founders would have answered in the affirmative? If you believe they would then you have studied ZILCH and have absolutely NO understanding of the founders and their writings.
The fact that there were PLENTLY of free black with the exact same rights as white folks (most of them being slave owners themselves) should show you that in the application of this equality it was rights under the law (bill of rights) that was being addressed and not some commie equality notion so prevalent today meaning all races, genders, religions, belief systems, cultures etc are all equal.
Simply put, the word equal in “all men were created equal” was a SELF EVIDENT DEFINITION WITHIN THE PHRASE to the people at the time and frankly, I think the founders could not conceive that any future generation could be so STUPID to take the word out of context in light of how it was written in its law language.
@Thundertoad:
You said
And why weren’t they more explicit about the Jews? Some obscure references in some obscure person’s diary?
That’s all we have?
Answer:
It is not obscure and they were very explicit. Immigration during that time was strictly exclusive to northern European Christian peoples and the people during this time were very anti “Jewish”.
There are references (can’ find them now) that cite a British General saying that they planned on flooding America with the “Jews” after the Revolution. I surmise this is why Washington and Franklin were so keen on having them excluded from America for all time. Obviously this ban forever did not make its way into the law but rather took shape in America favoring only Northern European Christian stock concerning its immigration practices.
One must also understand that the “Jews” have taken considerable effort to try and erase any damaging history of them from our archives as they continue to do today
@Pessimist:
Does Reed address the Jewish question, oppose Jews and/or identify Jews as the principal enemy of the White race and WNism?
@Lew:
Fred “Fred on everything” Reed refuses to acknowledge that Jews are any problem. On the contrary he praises their “intelligence” and condemns “anti-Semitism. Besides, he’s married to a Mexican woman. Some WN!
But for the rest, his writing is “funny”.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
Thank you. Pessimist is either 1) uninformed or 2) a troll. When a person says WNism won’t go anywhere until it cleans up its act and then promptly recommends a Jew-friendly writer as an alternative, those are the only two possibilites. I lean toward troll since this is TOO. TOO readers can’t plead ignorance. The admins here really need to do something about the concern trolling.
@Franklin Ryckaert: @Lew:
Just don’t forget the role that White Liberals play in the destruction of White societies (by White Liberal, I don’t really mean a big government person, you know what I mean). I think the evidence is fairly strong that White Liberals can destroy White societies, in time, but at a much slower pace, without Jews. There was once a White India, a White Egypt, a White Persia … you get the idea. They all turned brown over the centuries. White Liberals slaughtered over 600,000 Whites in the Civil War. We’ve all known White Liberals that embraced “the Other” with a passion bordering on the orgasmic. I am a few White Liberals at work who are passionately Anti-White. And I don’t think they are purely victims of Jewish propaganda.
Haven’t you seen White Liberals take an authentically Anti-White stance, that reeked of moral superiority?
@Franklin Ryckaert: @Lew:
We need an editing function! Anyway, I am always halfway between those who think Jews are the total explanation for our demise, and those who ignore the role of Jews.
It is very easy and natural to see the ‘solution’ through the prism of the stage we are personally at.
I am getting to the stage of recognition that things are that bad, that it has to be that I must come out in my real name and add myself to those who have.
But first I need to be ready for the financial and emotional maelstrom. The thought seriously makes me quake in my shoes. But what else is real? This isn’t a game or joke, this is the time just before the end of our whole race. You either stand up or you don’t, but don’t pretend and lie to yourself that you are standing up when you are hiding behind a veneer.
@Lew: Opinions differ, obviously, but I don’t think there’s much danger of TOO commenters and readers succumbing to incurable wishy-washiness. The outrages our Tribal masters heap upon us daily serve to keep my sympathy for them well under control. I’m sure I’m not alone in this.
On the other hand, the danger to all and sundry from those whose rabble-rousing constantly spills over into calls for bloodshed cannot be ignored. Our benevolent government surely has far more than one or two people who monitor this site daily—not to mention contribute to it—and I sincerely doubt that either your true identity or mine is as unknown to them as each is to the other of us. These parasites have little else to live for than to make your life and mine hell on earth. Simply because they haven’t already done so is no guarantee that they won’t act tomorrow or next week.
Think, too, of such things as reports on periodic raids on so-called KKK cells and the like. Whenever any real information emerges on these actions, it invariably turns out that 80 percent of those rounded up were police informers, stooges of AIPAC or the SPLC, and federal agents from any of several alphabet-soup agencies. This is no coincidence. The octopus has many tentacles, and thanks to the wonders of modern genetic medicine, their number seems to extend well beyond eight.
On a less comical note, think of the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City, which was, without a shadow of a doubt, an ATF and/or FBI operation gone murderously wrong. Or perhaps gone murderously right. Unlike 9/11, Britain’s 7/7, and heaven knows how many other misnamed terrorist incidents, the evidence for OK City as the kosher government’s mass murder of its gentile subjects lies so thick on the ground as to be worth little debate, even on TOO’s threads!
There is no need, no call, for us to become the liars and sneaks that our enemies are. But prudent assessments of opportunities for everything from minor local initiatives to radical and far-reaching changes can, I think, do our people less harm (thus more good) in the long run than an insistence that commenters demonstrate their bona fides to our cause, however defined, by energetic mimicking of the behavior of frat boys during pledge week.
@Pierre de Craon:
Thanks for putting that so very well. Everyone please reread Pierre’s comment above.
@Jason Speaks:
You, too, may find this interesting. It examines Liberalism as a religion.
http://orthosphere.org/2012/08/02/liberalism-is-a-religion/
Whites have to stop pretending they don’t have a race, and that they have caused all of the ills of humanity. As long as they buy into this, we cannot survive. There haven’t been any great civilizations who bought into negatives about themselves.
@TyronRobertParsons:
“There are references (can’ find them now) that cite a British General saying that they planned on flooding America with the “Jews” after the Revolution.”
Can’t find em now? Parson Robert, that is inexcusable.
“In the Kali Yuga, the Thundertoad will belch forth hideous ichors, and fling brutal concrete at the pretensions of the scholars.”